Talk:Child sexual abuse/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

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)

I am deleting the offending section. Discussion can continue here, but already two editors want it out. If you (Drogheda) continue to revert, you may face sanctions per wiki policyDPeterson^talk 18:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place for Pro-pedophile activist beliefs, they should if appropriate go into that article but not this one so I support the deletion, SqueakBox 18:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll just request that the page be protected again. -Jmh123 18:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Step 1, Stop deleting relevant and material that has peer reviewed sources. Step 2, Repeat step 1. Drogheda 18:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well that isnt a solution. if you re-add the material then based on this page and the material you are re-adding I would revert it myself and so given the consensus is to keep the material deleted I recommend we do nothing other than continue discussing here if appropriate, SqueakBox 18:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just requested page protection. -Jmh123 18:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Page protection is ok for now...but I think an RfC or something else ought to be filed on this disruptive editor, maybe an incident report? In fact, I think I will do just that if it continues. User:Drogheda this is notice that I will be filing an incident report on your disruptive behavior if it continues. SamDavidson 19:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

God damn...just when I thought it was over. *sigh* butterscotch... Viper2k6 19:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we....

take the This topic contains controversial issues box and move it to the top of the talk page....cause apparently people aren't too familiar with the idea of posting changes on the discussion page first. I don't have a problem with introducing controversial concepts with regard to terminology and presumed psychological harm, but at least discuss it first so we don't get into this whole clusterf--k over pro-pedophile agenda ... I watch enough politics as it is. Viper2k6 19:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The individuals who are doing this know exactly what they're doing, and are not interested in policies or procedures. We just have to work around them as best we can. There are ways to get your new section added, even with page protection, so try to keep focussed on that. It's very annoying, I agree. -Jmh123 19:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jmh123 here. They know precisely what they are doing...witness the large number of banned users who return in other guises. However, to put the box on this talk page and the article page (both places) can't hurt. DPeterson^talk 20:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

All clear for now. The new user has been indefinitely blocked. I don't think putting the box on the article page is a good idea--wouldn't make any difference anyway. Let's just get back to improving the entry. -Jmh123 01:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me. You are right that it would not make a difference. I was trying to be accomodating and hold a small olive branch out....working to improve this will be better now. DPeterson^talk 01:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Intro

I switched the order of paragraphs 3 and 4. It seems to flow better; now the definition of pedophilia immediately precedes the colloquial use of the term pedophile. However, if there are objections, let me know and I will switch them back. Good work on staying on top of the newest batch of vandals, everybody! Cheers, ZeroZ 09:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed it back due to a revert, you may reorder the paragraphs again as far as I am concerned. Thomas Wiederman 16:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of a revert is to return an entry to its state before a particular edit has been made. Once subsequent good edits have occurred, a reversion is no longer advisable. In other words, it is not good practice to ask someone to redo good changes because you have reverted back to before their change. -Jmh123 21:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please. RalphLender^talk 21:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Pedophilia

Pedophilia is not a disorder in any objective sense (nor is any other orientation), all we can claim is that it is classified as such by some people. Thomas Wiederman 11:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. By definition it IS a disorder per the DSM and ICD-9. DPeterson^talk 13:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That is some people, and there are plenty who disagree. The way it is written now signals that there is an innate propertie in pedophilia, which is far from the case as far as science goes. Thomas Wiederman 19:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The APA's opinions do not dictate reality, so we should not present them as such. We would for example not label gender variance a disorder, or try to claim that homosexuality was a disorder during the period it was listed as one. Dyskolos 21:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains that it is a disorder per the DSM-IV and so the statement is true, and verifiable. DPeterson^talk 00:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The statement that the DSM lists it as a disorder is "true, and verifiable," so why do you object to deleting that information? What policy elevates the opinions of the (controversial) DSM above Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? Dyskolos 00:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Pedophilia is a paraphilia. Any other definition is NAMBLA nonsense. Good day.

I would suggest that the currently bold POV statement that "Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder. A person who fits.. etc.." is misleading. It should be changed to "Pedophilia is described as a paraphilia by standard diagnostic manuals, including the DSM IV and ICD-10.". This would be more consistent with the NPOV policy, because when it comes to controversial fields such as this (psychology), it is mostly a matter of prevailing opinion rather than "facts". Opinions change with time and social norms. The same has happened to "diagnoses" such as "homosexuality", "hysteria", "nostalgia", "drapetomania", etc. If the DSM one day decides that homicide is a "mental disorder", would the Wikipedia editors introduce statements such as "Murderous intentions is a psychiatric disorder. A person who fits.. etc.." in the homicide article? We could just as well state that "Pedophilia is a sin and is due to a demonic possession..", since this is the main position of Christian insitutions with more than 1.5 billion adherents (and thus obviously the "majority" opinion, ie. homosexuality = sin vs. homosexuality = disorder prior to 1973 - the same is true for all the other sexual attractions). I think Wikipedia ought to remain more objective in these matters, no matter what we personally may feel about the subject. 193.217.55.223 14:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Rind etc

"Controversial" looks like it has been added to slander the article. "More current" is also in the same vein, since they study different things this is not appropriate. Thomas Wiederman 11:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It is controversial and the other studies are more current, check the pub dates. DPeterson^talk 13:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Rind carries a lot of weight in the entry. It is cited repeatedly. Rind is a controversial study--controversial enough that there's a Wikipedia entry about the controversy. It's a case where NPOV requires, as a balance to all the weight that it's been given, that the reader be aware that it's a controversial study, and that subsequent research has not supported Rind's conclusions on this issue. -Jmh123 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Rind could be replaced by studies with similar findings, but why? It's the most notable to date. Dyskolos 17:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As said earlier, it is many things, why state one particular when there is already a link to more information? Subsequent research has not either supported nor the oposite as most research do not poke into the question of consent which is very important in the Rind study. Actually, the only study that does has been in clear favour of the Rind study. At the end of the day, we should not add value-terms when we can avoid it. Thomas Wiederman 19:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Why state it? For the reasons Jmh123 eloquently delineates. It is not a "value" term. The controversial nature of the study is factual. DPeterson^talk 20:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, there is no indication that the study you want to add is a study that has controlled for confounding variables, which is the topic of that paragraph. -Jmh123 21:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with using other peoples work (copying from The Leadership Council) is that you lose the understanding of the material, which is clearly the case here. It is true that the topic of the paragraph is on confounding variables, but once you pitch the Rind study against the 3 others you have a problem. This is because they study quite different things and try to explain different things. I will clarify the problem in the article. Thomas Wiederman 07:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This isn't an original comparison. Richard McNally, already cited on this page, has before contrasted Rind with Kendler and Nelson. But the other unrelated study should be removed. Dyskolos 17:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If you will take a moment to read the tags on the article and talk page, you really should put your proposed "clarifications" here to build consensus first. DPeterson^talk 12:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there something you do not understand? Just let me know and I will explain it to you. Thomas Wiederman 12:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The topic of that paragraph is the need to control for confounding variables such as abuse and poor family environment. The variable of consent is a completely different topic. I think we need to delete Rind, as I've been arguing for weeks. -Jmh123 14:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Problem fixed in my last version, the consent issue was clarified without medling with the main topic in the paragraph. Deleting Rind is not needed nor wanted. Thomas Wiederman 15:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop reverting until there is some agreement on your proposed changes...so far I see no agreement or support for what you keep doing. RalphLender^talk 13:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's clarify this once and for all

Wikipedia does not use a pre-approval system where one needs to get consensus for every edit before adding it. If this where the case then wikipedia would never have hit it big in the first place. The same applies for this article. Now there seem to be a small crowd who oppose any edit for the sake of just doing so, nomatter how wrong it might be. This must stop. Thomas Wiederman 15:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The tag at the top of the page directs you to follow this process given the contentious nature of the subject matter. Please follow this recommended process so that consensus and ageement can be built rather than merely reverting to a version no one agrees with. RalphLender^talk 15:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually read the process?

• Before making any such substantial changes, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue.

- Has been done.

• During any such changes, please be careful to cite reputable sources supporting them, and when submitting your edit, please include an accurate and concise description in the "Edit summary" field-box.

- Has been done.

• After making any such changes, please also carefully describe the reason(s) for any such changes on the discussion-page.

- Has been done. Thomas Wiederman 16:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

In addition to keeping a cool head, the tags don't specifically state, but do imply working to build agreement...since you do not have agreement on your proposed changes, I am merely suggesting that a way to build agreement in a cooperative manner would be to discuss changes here and try to reach agreement on changes, recognizing that if your view is not the consensus view it won't get reflected in the article. RalphLender^talk 16:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that some people have ganged up in selfmade "pre-approval" teams and this is not in the wikipedia spirit at all. Thomas Wiederman 07:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The topic of this entry is child sexual abuse. The point is made in the entry that not all child-adult sexual experiences are devastating or damaging. You and others are trying too hard to turn the article into an article about a different topic altogether. In this instance, you are inserting an off-topic phrase--controlling for consent--into a paragraph about controlling for poor family environment and physical abuse (to see if there is damage cause by abuse when these are not the case). You have also misnamed a section "positive" that contains both positive and negative comments. -Jmh123 07:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that abuse includes ALL experiences in the current use of the word. This means that we have about 50% of all experiences that are close to non-harmful and often consensual. We can make two articles if you like and only keep literature regarding "real" abuse in this one, and move consensual and non-harmful experiences to the other. Thomas Wiederman 07:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles already exist that concern consensual and non-harmful experiences. Take a look around. Use the search function. -Jmh123 07:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Then the choice is ours if we wanto keep the borad defintions we have now or not. Thomas Wiederman 07:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick note regarding the lead section

Please remember to keep the lead section as short and as concise as possible. I moved the "Pedophile" definition to its own section, but the bullet points that are still there should eventually be condensed into prose form. --slakr 01:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

My preference would be to retain the terminology in the Intro section. I've read through the Lead Section guidelines that Slakr cites. It suggests that the Intro consist of 3-4 paragraphs; four paragraphs is the length of the Intro in the consensus version. The guideline requires that an intro “provide an overview” and “establish context,” and I do think our consensus version does a better job of this.

But, if we need to keep it short, I propose that we split off the following material into a Terminology section. This section will immediately follow the Intro and appear *below* the index. Note that no changes have been made to the test itself. This change leaves the definition of the umbrella term by itself as the intro.

===PROPOSED TITLE: Terminology===

The legal term child sexual offender refers to a sex offender who has been convicted for one or more child sexual abuse offenses.[7] The term therefore describes a person who has committed child sexual abuse, without regard to the perpetrator’s motivation.[8]

Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder. A person who fits its diagnostic criteria experiences intense, recurring, sexually arousing fantasies or urges toward a child, or engages in sexual activities with a child for period of at least six months.[9] Its diagnosis also requires that the fantasies or urges cause clinically significant distress,[10] or impairment in social, occupational, and other areas of functioning.[11] In addition, this condition must persist for least six months;[12] the person must be at least sixteen years of age, and at least five years older than the target of the fantasies, urges, or conduct.[13] For individuals in late adolescence with pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judgment must be used. A person who is diagnosed with pedophilia is a pedophile.

The term "pedophile" is used colloquially to refer to child sexual offenders. However, not all child sexual offenders meet the diagnostic criteria of pedophilia,[14] and not all pedophiles act on their fantasies or urges to engage in sexual activity with children. Law enforcement and legal professionals have begun to use the term predatory pedophile,[15] a phrase coined by children's attorney Andrew Vachss to refer specifically to pedophiles who engage in sexual activity with minors.[16] The term emphasizes that child sexual abuse consists of conduct chosen by the perpetrator.[17]

Please discuss this proposal here. -ZeroZ 08:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. I think what's needed is to add this sentence to the end of the lead/Intro: "The term "pedophile" is used colloquially to refer to child sexual offenders" and then follow through immediately with the terminology section. -Jmh123 14:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Same problems as before, it is not a psychiatric disorder in any objective sense, it is just classified as such by DSM and ICD. Thomas Wiederman 15:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Partial cleanup

Hiya. I went ahead and did a partial cleanup on this article to make it a little prettier, more neutral, and less cluttered. Please feel free to alter any of the things I changed, revert them, or whatever. Please know that all of my edits are in the best of faith and as neutral as I can make them. I'm not an expert here, so I'm not well-versed in the articles/research cited. There's a mini-rundown:

• I did a bunch of edits in order to separate out the changes more easily in case there's any dispute.

• Concise-ifying. Is that a word? :P Anyway, I made some bizarre structures like "Minors' inability to consent" into "Age of consent." Essentially, the aim is to make the article overall less wordy by avoiding prepositional phrases and such.

• I clarified the "legal" wording of sections to make them less confusing (eg, in the outside US section, I made it sound less like the treaty outright prevented abuse (which, sadly, is impossible) and more like what was intended-- the treaty forces those that sign it to enact laws against abuse-related stuff). Also de-guilted some sentences (e.g., added "alleged" to "offender" when referring to prosecution of alleged offenders).

• There were a couple of weasel words that I tagged with {{weasel-inline}}. Please consider revising in order to better make the sentences more complete-- I'm not familiar with the research.

• Reformatting. Hopefully I didn't miss the mark on this one, but it seemed (and, well, still seems) like the medical/research sections are big paragraph blobs. I tried to add a couple subheaders and move the offender stuff out of the medical section, but if that's unacceptable, by all means, undo it. Ideally, though, if you do so, replace it with something even better and more easy to read.

• Wikifying. I added some internal links here and there to their respective topics. Also, I added boldness to mentions of the article's title (per manual of style).

If you have any issues, questions, comments, or concerns, please discuss them in a civil manner. Cheers. :) --slakr 02:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Eek! There was confusion on what the weasel words tagging involved. For example, I added weasel tags to the following:

• "Many states include in their...." There was no mention of which states, or at least, a number of states, that included it, and I wasn't sure about the cite. "Many" could refer to 10, 20, 40, or 50 states, so it should be changed to more accurately reflect the number it is trying to assert. Btw, I removed the "so-called" text for WP:NPOV considerations, as it gives a discrediting tone to the text that follows it. Consider also removing the air quotes.
• "During the last three decades many state legislatures have increased prison terms...." Again, how many are we talking about? There are probably quite a few, but which ones? How many? How few? How much have they increased? These are considerations to take into account when avoiding weasel words.

These aren't too terribly serious, but in my opinion should probably be reworded to be more accurate to what they're trying to say, with the accompanying cite to go with it (if their present cites aren't sufficient). I thought a good example came later in the article when there was a listing of the states enacting exceptions to the incest laws. That's more of what we should be writing in order to avoid weasel words. --slakr 03:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your clean-up. I added a couple of citations to support the statement about death from child sexual abuse, and some information from one study to clarify. It seemed that more clarification might be needed, as many do not realize that, beyond the widely publicized cases of kidnap, sexual assault, and murder by strangers, children do die of sexual abuse. The second study I cited found 6 probable and 6 certain cases in one decade in North Carolina. Death can also occur as a result of suffocation or head trauma (as a result of forced fellatio or simply the larger body mass of the adult), which is why I was not as specific about causes as your edited version, but that's enough for tonight. -Jmh123 04:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Changes by Slakr and Monotonehell

Slakr and Monotonehell made several changes without seeking consensus. I object to some; to others I have none. However, I reverted all so that these changes could be debated by the editors. Jmh123’s added references to the Medical section have been retained.

My objection and counter-proposal concerning Slakr's proposed Introduction are contained in the section above entitled Quick note regarding the lead section. The rest of Slakr’s proposals I summarize below. Please comment after each of the proposals, for ease of reading. -ZeroZ 08:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Within Effects of CSA, addition of subsection: Abuse by females beginning with sentence: "It has been suggested that young children..."

• Within Effects of CSA, addition of subsection: Self-perception of abuse, beginning with sentence "Several studies have indicated that some children..."

• Move Epidemiology subsection out from Medical section, into its own section.

• Move Offenders subsection out from Medical section, into its own section.

I am presently neutral with respect to the abovelisted proposals. My objections to Slakr’s changes concern the changes in the Legal section. Most of the edits have altered the meaning of the sentences, and do not reflect the source material. As an example, the following is contained in the consensus version:

In the majority of states with incest laws, a perpetrator of intrafamilial child sexual abuse may be prosecuted for incest instead of child sexual abuse offenses. A related perpetrator, if convicted under the state's incest law, will receive a significantly lower penalty for committing the same acts that constitute criminal child sexual abuse in that state.

The bolded sentence above was changed to: The relative, if convicted, may receive a significantly lower penalty for committing the same acts that constitute criminal child sexual abuse in that state.

This changed statement is not correct, and creates uncertainty where none exists with respect to the laws cited. Conviction for sexual acts with a child in any given state for incest will result in a significantly lower penalty than if tried for the same acts using the criminal sexual abuse laws in that same state. That is the significance of the articles cited in that section. Slakr notes that s/he is not up on the research. While I understand the desire to avoid what s/he refers to as legalese, I find that the changes Slakr made in the Legal section result in less clear information.

Slakr noted several sentences in the Legal section where citations were needed; these have been added.

• Monotonehell reformatted the article to place the International law section after the Intro and before the US law section. This has the result of implying that definitions of child sexual abuse and the terminology concerning child sexual offenders, pedophilia, and predatory pedophiles apply across all nations; they do not. They do apply in the United States.

In my opinion, there is no way for this article to be both specific as to child sex abuse law in the US and diffuse enough to encompass the variety of legal regimes across nations. The brief subsections on non-US law subsections should continue to be included in this article. But rather than attempting to internationalize this article, I propose that main articles on the specific child sexual abuse laws of other countries should be developed and linked to this article, if there are editors who wish to take this project on. -ZeroZ 08:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

My reorganisation was to avoid the the "US" verses "The rest of the World" style of headings. Heading should have equal weight for each country. I also put the sections into alphabetical order. Changing the order of those sections should not have changed the meaning of any of that information as all the sections under "In the United States" are specific to the U.S. and all in "Outside the United States" are not. I was not attempting to Internationalize the entire article, but I was attempting to being steering it away from an exclusively U.S. discussion. Obviously if there is "no way for this article to be both specific as to child sex abuse law in the US and diffuse enough to encompass the variety of legal regimes across nations" then it should be renamed to reflect its content. However I don't subscribe to that opinion. Any article can be rewritten to achieve that, the first step is t set up a framework that is friendly to the process. --Monotonehell 08:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

My main complaint was simply the "United States" on one side and "Rest of the World" on the other. I've just removed this dichotomy without reordering the sections. I believe it still holds its integrity. --Monotonehell 08:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. -ZeroZ 10:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I saw that you were disquieted by my edit to that sentence with regard to the legal aspects. I should note that my main intention in rewording that sentence is to reflect reality as opposed to some ideal reality as imposed by those reading the law. That is, a person may (or, I suppose another replacement might be might, but whatever *shrug*) receive a heavier sentence. That is, it doesn't necessarily mean that will happen, as sentencing is completely within the realm of the judge, with exceptions for mandatory sentencing (which you would have to cite). Additionally, using "perpetrator" is a heavy word that implies guilt, hence, it adds POV issues to any sentence it's used in. If you do not approve of my use of "relative," which I felt was most accurate to a sentence regarding incest, consider replacing it with "suspect," another term without legal POV issues. Remember, the news media gets successfully sued over things like this (eg, calling someone a murderer before they're deemed guilty), so one of my main goals here is to get rid of that POV tag at the top of the page. :P --slakr 20:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not disquieted; I simply disagree. The article certainly should reflect reality, but I believe your proposed edits bring us farther away from it. It is a general principle in common law countries that judges or juries determine sentencing. However, there is no reason to recapitulate general principles of law when they are irrelevant to a particular point made in comparing the available sentences for two specific crimes, namely incest and child sexual abuse offenses. One might as well state that "a perpetrator convicted of voluntary manslaughter may receive a longer sentence than one convicted of second-degree murder, because sentencing is left up to the judge." While such a claim is (depending on the state) technically possible, it does not reflect the reality of sentencing. The sources cited emphasize that wide differences between the length of sentences as executed for these two specific crimes remain a reality in nearly all the states.

With respect to your second point, concerns about bias present no reason to change the term "perpetrator" to "suspect", or to use the word "alleged". The term "perpetrator" refers to a person who has performed certain offenses, but who has not necessarily been convicted yet. In contrast, the term "suspect" refers to a person who may or may not have performed the offenses in question. This article is about child abuse, its victims, and the persons who perform child abuse offenses; it is not about persons suspected of child abuse. If this article referred to "suspects" rather than "perpetrators", most of the statements made in the article would actually become biased in a way that they are not right now. Last, this article makes no claims about any specific person, so there is no reason to refer to any one as having been "alleged" to have performed offenses. I am not sure why you think Wikipedia could be sued on the basis of this article for "deeming someone guilty". -ZeroZ 15:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving legal section

Why not just move all legal material to a separate article and link to it? It feels out of place now. Thomas Wiederman 08:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to the earlier discussion of this question under heading The importance of information about child sexual abuse laws. -ZeroZ 08:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The section is nicely done as is. SamDavidson 22:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Section: Minors' inability to consent

The following part is presented as a solid logical argument: Between adults, most sexual activity does not constitute a criminal offense, unless one of the adults does not consent to the activity. In contrast, minors are unable to give consent under the law. Indeed, the term "minor" refers to a person who has not yet reached majority, the age at which one may give consent in any legal matter (for example, a minor cannot make a valid contract). Consequently, an adult who engages in sexual activity with a minor commits child sexual abuse. But obviously one cannot compare entering a legal contract with entering into sexual activity. There's a term at rhetoric for this logical mistake that escapes me. Can we replace this with a more reasoned section? Perhaps focusing on mental/emotional capacity rather than a logical fallacy? --Monotonehell 08:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You may be conflating the concept of willingness, which is a fluid conversational definition of "consent," with the extremely precise legal definition of consent. In law, minors are defined as those unable to consent in any legal matter. Legal matters include not only contracts (such as an agreement to make a contract), but also property (such as an agreement to sell land), and torts. An example of a tort is battery, which is any touching to which one does not legally consent (such as an agreement to undergo medical treatment, or an agreement to have sex). Minors cannot give valid consent to sexual activity, any more than they can validly consent to medical treatment. The lack of consent constitutes a tort (battery), and the laws of the US criminalize the specific battery of sex without legal consent (as rape, or sexual assault, or any of the other offenses listed in the Intro). This is why any sexual activity performed with a minor constitutes child sexual abuse as defined in the Intro. The title of the subsection emphasizes minors' legal status; their lack of capability to consent to sex is contextualized as part of their general lack of legal capability. This is the reason that the subsection itself is located under Legal responses, rather than being part of the Medical section. I am happy to further clarify the article along these lines if we reach consensus to do so. -ZeroZ 10:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Clearing up the consent/simple consent issue would probably solve the problems. I agree that this section is poor and should be removed or rewritten. Thomas Wiederman 09:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

ZeroZ: No I'm not, you obviously understand the concept enough to understand my point, so I must not have explained it clearly, sorry. My problem is with trying to illustrate the concept of inability to give consent legally with the inability to be held to contract as a minor. It's completely possible to enter into and execute a contract with and as a minor, it's just not legally binding to the minor if they decide to wig out. However, no matter how much actual consent a minor gives it's completely illegal in most jurisdictions to engage in sexual activity with them. That's the point I'm at odds with. (I've underlined the passage for added clarity) Third afterthought: Your example of consent to medical procedures is better. In fact most of your explanation above would be preferable to what exists already.

Thomas W: I think it's a very important point to be made, so shouldn't be removed. But definitely needs to be examined and rewritten. --Monotonehell 14:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Fourth thought (I'm very scatological tonight lol): I've adapted ZeroZ's explanation above and I believe with a little more work it would provide a better section that we currently have. Although it needs a reference or two more:

--- Minors' inability to consent under law

There is a distinction between the concept of willingness, which is a coloquial definition of "consent," with the legal definition of consent. In law, minors are defined as those unable to consent in a legal matter. Legal matters include things such as contracts and torts. An example of a tort is battery, which is any touching to which one does not legally consent. Minors cannot give valid consent to sexual activity, any more than they can validly consent to medical treatment. The lack of consent constitutes a tort (battery), and the laws of many jurisdictions regard the specific battery of sex without legal consent (as rape, or sexual assault, or any of the other offenses listed above). This is why any sexual activity performed with a minor constitutes child sexual abuse as defined in these jurisdictions.

Some jurisdictions include in their penal codes a "Romeo and Juliet" or "close in age" exception for cases where sexual activity occurs between a young adult and a minor whose ages are within a few years of each other. This exception typically bars charging the young adult with a sex offense, if the young adult did not use force or coercion on the minor and the minor is a teenager.

--- Ne? --Monotonehell 14:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that just doesn't work for me stylistically. Too wordy, and in trying too hard to be simple, is actually harder for me to follow than the current wording in the text. -Jmh123 14:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the current wording is better. RalphLender^talk 16:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes Monotonehell made to this section. -ZeroZ 11:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why you have reverted a non-substantial edit. --Monotonehell 12:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Please specify which of your changes are you referring to as non-substantial. Thanks. -ZeroZ 14:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The one you just said that you reverted. --Monotonehell 16:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes by Dyskolos

Dyskolos added the following[1] to the Medical section, immediately after the definition from the American Psychological Association.[2] I reverted the change and have placed the material here for consensus.

Studies of the effects of child sexual abuse often define it as including invitations or requests to do anything sexual, sexual kissing or hugging, touching or fondling of the genitals, indecent exposure, and attempted or completed sexual intercourse. (ref-Martin, J., Anderson, J., Romans, S., et al (1993). "Asking about child sexual abuse: methodological implications of a two-stage survey," Child Abuse and Neglect, 17, 383-392.)

Is this material not redundant, given the clear information in the Intro? Please comment here. -ZeroZ 11:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Request

Does anyone have knowledge pertaining to childhood sexual abuse prevention or child advocacy groups. This would be a nice addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.250.255 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 19 July 2007

CSA is undoubtedly a multimillion grossing industry, based upon finding, making, taking advantage of and sometimes helping real and imagined victims. Some have resorted to prevention programs, again - as a way of making money -

http://www.childluresprevention.com/

http://www.clantonadvertiser.com/articles/2007/04/28/news/c-news.txt

The second is pure comedy, but I suppose that we may need something to lighten up a dull article ●Farenhorst 17:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

disallowed hyper links

There appears to be a disallowed hyperlink on this page. i am unsure which one it is apparently this triggered it www.s . I was attempting to move this symbol ) from the intro as i believe it is vandalism to look like a smile. e.g. .) This cannot be allowed but since i have had a disallowed hyperlink problem and i am unaware of which link it is i am leaving this note for someone else to change it in case it is a prob with my computer rather than this page. Delighted eyes 14:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Censorship

I would appreciate that a certain editor refrain from working hand in hand with a known vandal to remove sourced information about peer reviewed and APA endorsed study work that reflects a non - victimological stream of thought in the CSA debate. Much of this information is balanced off with criticism and even comments from staunch victimologists such as Finkelhor.

Please do not censor Wikipedia. Thankyou. ●Farenhorst 22:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Before the edit war begins...

It is sourced material. A few questions I have that may help in integrating it into the article are...

If the experiences are positively received, is it then "abuse"? If not, it should be organized in the article differently. If so, how would it legitimately be a positive experience? (The definition of abuse would seem to be a detrimental experience, eh?)

Should a sub-heading be created that addresses this "positive" effect? That could help prevent the confusion and POV assertions going forward.

Do we need to protect this page? (I'm kidding; that's a rhetorical question.)  :-)

VigilancePrime 22:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. This kind of material is deeply controversial and so far from mainstream as to have notability problems and may not be scientifically valid. Many abused children see their experience in a positive light at the time in order to cope eith the horror but later on is a different mater. This article si totally dispyuted p[recisely because of the addition of this kind of material and the trivialisation of CSA. Some people want to die (we call it suici9dal) but that doesnt make murder in any way a positive experience. I also think there may be an argument that abuse is by nature negative and therefore we shoudl stick tot he negative, SqueakBox 23:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your point-of-view, but there is legitimate research and anecdotal references of childhood sexuality reaping benefits. Even if this is a tiny minority, it deserves recognition. I'm not saying that it deserves encouragement by any means, but there are documented cases of childhood sexuality having positive effects. I believe that this information should have its own section within this article and be very carefully phrased and excruciatingly well-referenced. That's the only way to be fair to the information and fair to the article's topic. VigilancePrime 23:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think notability is a big issue here, a compromise might be just a couple of sentences, also a direct criticism of this particular reasearch would be helpful, SqueakBox 23:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No amount of controversy can make it magically "not scientifically valid", and neither can it make it not notable. Quite to the contrary, the massive amount of controversy surrounding this stance argues that it is quite notable. Were it not, nobody would would would pay any attention to it. And your assertion that "[m]any abused children see their experience in a positive light ... but later on is a different mater" is already handled by the paragraph. To quote:

There is contrasting evidence that some children who initially report positive feelings will sometimes go on to reassess their abuse in a negative light.

and also:

Russell (1986) speculated that the perception of a sexually abusive event as 'positive' could stem from a mechanism for coping with traumatic experiences.

Research indicating that it need not universally cause damage does not trivialize the cases where it does any more than research indicating that not all car crashes are fatal trivializes the cases where they are. Saying, essentially, that suicide is to murder as sexual activity desired by children is to that which is not is obviously faulty. Rather, a more apt analogy would be comparing it to the difference between assisted suicide (which, notably, is legal or sought to be so in places) and suicide. Finally, this term "abuse" is used because it is also used in the law, not because it is always necessarily abusive or otherwise negative.

I'll also answer your other post above so as not to have more threads than are necessary going at once. Chopping the paragraph down to such a ridiculous extent, especially when its subject matter is quite notable, is simply, well, ridiculous, and it's certainly not a compromise when you seem to be the only one so vehemently against it. There's also mentions of evidence against this within the paragraph itself (a couple of which I've already quoted), and the rest of the article basically goes against it, so it's not like this single paragraph horribly unbalances the article. Personally, I think that it should be put back into the article, perhaps in its own section, but certainly not removed or cut down. Stically 00:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't remove sourced material until you have consensus to do so! It's as simple as that.

Having read the literature on CSA and how it is interpreted in the psy community, I would have to say that this position is represented fairly within the current article. It is also important to note that studies which do not use legal or clinical samples (Rind, Sandfort, Bender & Blau, etc) are very important, since they are probably far more efficient at representing the real nature of what may be classified but rarely identified, prosecuted and treated as CSA. ●Farenhorst 02:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Where is the policy that states "don't remove sourced material until you have consensus to do so" cos I have never seen it. WEither point it out to me or stop making up policy yourself (how many edits have you made) and then trying to impose it on others, SqueakBox 21:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe how ridiculous this is. Wikipedia is not the place for pro-pedophilia propoganda. The user who is complaining about censorship also admits on his/her userpage to grooming young boys to have relationships with! We don't need to start being politically correct toward child abusers. Don't let the NAMBLA crowd influence articles like this. --YellowTapedR 05:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Nor is it a place for homophobia, please keep that in mind. Happy Camper II 17:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

How was what I said homophobic? Child sexual abuse has nothing to do with heterosexuality or homosexuality. --YellowTapedR 18:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You slandered a admitted homosexual man, that is by any standard a homophobic attitude. By trying to connect a homosexual with NAMBLA you surely crossed the line. Happy Camper II 20:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't know whether he was a man or a woman; that's why I said "his/her" in my posting. So, clearly, I didn't know he was a homosexual, and I honestly don't care now that I do know. The thing I was referring to was him saying, "The benefit of an intergenerational relationship is that with a person such as myself, it can start off with boy-mentoring and then develop as he becomes more sexually appealing."

I also didn't say he belonged to NAMBLA, but he clearly is a pedophilia activist. Regardless, it's impossible to slander -- the correct term would be libel in this case -- an anonymous wikipedia user. The larger point I was trying to make is that pedophilia activists shouldn't be controlling this page. --YellowTapedR 20:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Now you are trying to link homosexuals with pedophilia activism! Do you think that just because someone is homosexual, they are also pedophiles? Can you support surt an absurd claim? Happy Camper II 21:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You have to be kidding. Of course being homosexual doesn't make you a pedophile. The quote I provided and the nature of the user's edits support the claim about the user; it has nothing to do with him being gay. It's only relevant because the user is putting POV material into sensitive articles. --YellowTapedR 21:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you 2 please explain what you are talking about? YellowTaper certainly hasnt edited the article recently and I can get no clues from the top part of the thread, SqueakBox 22:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You are clearly saying that his homosexual orientation is related to adding pro pedophile material (your accusation--devoid of proof we might add). So how does homosexuality relate to this? Are gay people an open target here? Happy Camper II 05:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

All right, enough. I don't think I could have been more clear before. I'll try to make it even clearer: 1) I didn't know he was gay 2) I didn't even know whether he was a man or woman and 3)I never said anything suggesting that homosexuality is related to pedophilia. I guess your strategy is to just shoot down people's arguments by accusing them of homophobia. Nice.

The user, by the way, has been blocked indefinitely for being a sock puppet. I'm pretty sure you're a sock puppet, too, given your edit history. --YellowTapedR 06:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You keep stacking it, first accusing people of being pedophiles, running the arends of NAMBLA, linking homosexuality with pedophilia and then accusing people of being sock puppets. Keep it comming... Happy Camper II 07:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a monster, apparently. Have a good one. --YellowTapedR 07:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(Happy Camper II has since been blocked indefinitely for being a sock puppet. Coming soon: Happy Camper III.)--YellowTapedR 15:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Confusion on the definition of "child sexual abuse"

The beginning of the article states:
Child sexual abuse is an umbrella term describing criminal and civil offenses in which an adult engages in sexual activity with a minor or exploits a minor for the purpose of sexual gratification.

Then, under the "Medical responses..." section, CSA is redefined with:
The American Psychological Association defines child sexual abuse as contact between a child and an adult or other person significantly older or in a position of power or control over the child, where the child is being used for sexual stimulation of the adult or another person.

These two definitions are significantly different, and the entire article consists of references to numerous studies, many of which have different operational definitions of CSA. Such inconsistencies discredit much of the article, leaving considerable room for misrepresentation of cited figures, thus making this an important issue to address. --Gotaro 01:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fundamentally, the two definitions address different contexts. The APA are specifically defining the term as it relates to psychology, where the definition in the lede is more general in scope & intent. --Ssbohio 00:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We could try to work out higher standards for inclusion of sources in this particular article. By wiki standard the current article is fine, but by any other standard its horrendous. I suggest a section where each cited study (in discussion) also provides cites from the article showing their exact definitions, samples, method and results. This makes scrutiny and comparison between studies much easier for everyone (since far from all sources are easily accessible and many have been included just to win an argument rather than for the good of the article.) Völund Smed 07:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to note in the introduction that it is unclear how child sexual abuse is defined. The German penal code defines child sexual abuse as sexual acts with or by a child below 14 years of age (§ 176 StGB), no matter if any harm is done or the initiative is the child's own, no matter who is stimulated or gratified to what degree. The Citizendium:Child sexual abuse defines "Child sexual abuse occurs when an adult or older child forces or coerces a child into sexual activity." and Citizendium:Child abuse says "Child abuse, literally, is the act of intentionally harming a child, or the results of that act." The Citizendium has no definition for adult sexual abuse. It could even be seen as a fighting word as it is used to demonize sexuality, I would prefer clearer words such as child sexual coercion and inflicting child harm. Roman Czyborra 09:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

Etymologically, there appears to be more than one way to view the term. Child sexual abuse can be analyzed as rooted in sexual abuse but differentiated by involving a child, rooted in the term child abuse but differentiated in that it's sexual in nature, or rooted in child sexuality but differentiated in that it's abusive. Each one logically yields a part of the meaning of the term. Perhaps in arriving at a consensus definition, we should look at the components of each root and how they are modified to form this term. I feel it would move the discussion away from the term's impact and intent and focus on the term itself. --Ssbohio 00:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

See Talk:Adult-child sex#Merge for the initial discussion. It sems peop[le are happy to merge adult-child sex with this article but there is a strong disagreement as to whether the merged article shoul;d be called child sexual abuse or adult-child sex, SqueakBox 04:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Referring to "Child Sexual Abuse" as "Pedophilia"

I do not think it is appropriate for the article to state (within the section "Perspectives") that child sexual abuse is "often referred to as pedophilia." It is important to point out that this is the colloquial use of the term "pedophilia" and not the appropriate scholarly or medical one. I recommend that the word "colloquially" be reinserted into this phrase, so that the final product would be: "often colloquially referred to as pedophilia." This is especially important because there are many misconceptions about what pedophilia actually is. Besides, since a wikilink is provided for the Wikipedia article on pedophilia, it would make sense to adhere to what is stated in that article - that this use of the term is colloquial and not scholarly or medical. ~ Homologeo 03:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the word colloquially because it was used in reference to "adult-child sex"... There is nothing about "adult-child sex" being referred to as pedophilia that is colloquial. Unless by child, we also mean 17-year-olds, or situational offenders when we say adult. What I mean, of course, is that colloquial means incorrect/informal, as you know. It's not incorrect to call "adult-child sex" pedophilia...unless that "child" is a 17-year-old or such an adolescent (or we're talking about a situational offender), as the pedophilia article points out that sometimes a person is incorrectly (colloquially) called a pedophile. The section Perspectives is focusing on actual children, not mid-to-late adolescents. I don't object to pointing out that child sexual abuse is the colloquial use of the term "pedophilia"... But stating or implying that "adult-child sex" is colloquially called pedophilia? Yes, I object to that. Also, the way that part was worded, it stated that child sexual abuse is colloquially referred to as pedophilia. If anything, that should be worded the other way around, since it is pedophilia that is colloquially referred to as child sexual abuse. Flyer22 05:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

having read both arguments I agree with Flyer, SqueakBox 05:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've checked six dictionaries and glossaries that were readily available (5 online, 1 off), and I'm not finding a definition of colloquial as incorrect. Colloquial simply denotes vernacular speech, rather than formal speech. In a formal setting, I would not refer to a child sexual abuser as a pedophile unless I knew he were one. Informally, the terms are closely linked to the point of conflation. --Ssbohio 21:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I would definitely say that the word colloquial can mean incorrect, and usually does — that's what I meant by stating incorrect/informal, with the slash in it. It's not just informal (though informal can mean incorrect). For instance, as I stated above, sometimes a man who has had sex with or is sexually attracted to a 16-year-old is wrongly called a pedophile, such as Mark Foley. It actually aggravated me a great deal to see the media referring to him as a pedophile. I'm not a fan of Mark Foley, but it was their colloquially calling him a pedophile that was incorrect. And it was humorous to hear Judge Judy, when talking about Mark Foley to Larry King, say that an adult who has had sex with or is sexually attracted to a 17-year-old is also a pedophile. I mean, really, Judge Judy? So all those men, both average and celebrities, who found Britney Spears sexually attractive when she was age 17 are pedophiles? And we can tell a 17-year-old apart from an 18-year-old by just looking at them? Colloquially using the word pedophile to refer to any adult who has or has had sex with someone under age 18 is definitely incorrect. Basically, as an example, that is what I meant/mean by the word colloquially meaning incorrect (that it does mean incorrect often). Flyer22 02:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate use of the term pedophile is rampant in the media and popular culture. I agree with you and share your frustration at seeing the customers of a then-17-year-old Justin Berry's website being called pedophiles. However, I'm finding nothing that supports defining the term colloquial to mean incorrect. It mainly means that something is common or vernacular usage, rather than formal usage. Judge Judy might informally call Mark Foley a pedophile, but an officer of the court in his case would not. It's a colloquialism to call Foley a pedophile, even though he doesn't meet the specific definition of the term. --Ssbohio 04:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I completely understand what you mean about that, Ssbohio. I wasn't suggesting that you would find the term colloquial to be truly defined as meaning incorrect. Like a quote from jstor.org states at the bottom of a page, "Any quiz that confuses acceptable colloquial English with incorrect English is a nuisance from an educational point of view."[3]. But what I am talking about is colloquial matters more so as incorrect. I mean, even the article here on colloquialism states, "Words that have a formal meaning may also have a colloquial meaning that, while technically incorrect, is recognizable due to common usage." And that's what I mean. Sure, saying "Get real" which is a colloquialism for "I don't believe you" or "You can't be serious" is correct. But the word "isn't" is often colloquially referred to as "ain't", and we all know ain't is not correct. However, both words (isn't and ain't) mean the same thing in this case, even though one isn't actually a word, and I get what you mean there. But the word pedophile does not mean the same thing as a man having sex with or being sexually attracted to a 17-year-old, of course. Thus what else would we call a person being colloquially referred to as a pedophile? If a person is colloquially called a pedophile, it means they are not truly a pedophile, or else there would be nothing colloquial about it. I wasn't suggesting that the real definition of colloquial means incorrect, only that a colloquial meaning is often technically incorrect as well. Flyer22 07:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Both of you bring up strong points, however, the reason why I wasn't comfortable with having the statement that child sexual abuse is ""often referred to as pedophilia" is that there is no account within this sentence or section for the fact that it is indeed a colloquial and incorrect use of the term "pedophilia." It seems important to clarify this point, because some people may not know the technical (both scholarly and medical) definition of pedophilia, and the omission of this information would only perpetuate the reader's possible ignorance of the correct definition and reinforce his or her possible practice of mislabeling pedophilia in real life discourse. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should strive to inform its users of the correct terminology and definitions currently in use around the world. While there is nothing wrong with pointing out the colloquial and incorrect ways people have of referring to child sexual abuse, these have to be identified for what they are. Furthermore, as editors of this article, we should strive to minimize the possibility of the reader misreading or misinterpreting the text provided here. ~ Homologeo 22:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Great post, Homologeo. Would you mind finding some other way to re-word that part? I mean, with the "term" adult-child sex in that part, I'm still (of course) not comfortable with stating that child sexual abuse is colloquially referred to as pedophilia, considering that as I sated before, that section (with adult-child sex mentioned there) is basically saying that "adult-child sex" is also colloquially referred to as pedophilia as well. I don't see "adult-child sex" being referred to as pedophilia as colloquial. With child sexual abuse, it may include adolescents due to a judge using that term to refer to a man who has committed statutory rape, but the adult-child sex article (which is what that part is in this article) focuses more on technical children than a 17-year-old. If it meant adults having sex with adolescents of those ages as well, then I'd see the need to state that adult-child sex is colloquially referred to as pedophilia. But not as it is. Flyer22 03:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there another word that relays the meaning of "colloquially" in the sense of "layman" and "common" usage that is not necessarily in accordance with scholarly use? Currently, I can only think of "colloquially" adequately relaying this meaning, and do not fully follow the reasoning behind avoiding the use of this term in this particular context. However, if someone could think of another word that relays the meaning this sentence calls for, then I have nothing against using that term. Still, currently, I'm not sure what other word would fit this purpose. ~ Homologeo 23:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind you using the word colloquially in getting across the point that you mention on this matter. It's the way that that part was worded that I had the bigger problem with. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind re-wording it some other way, while still using the word colloquially (or colloquial), of course. Flyer22 03:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

child-on-child - splinter article

Because this article discusses sexual relations between an adult and a child, I was planning a separate article for child-on-child sexual abuse. I know there is an article on child sexuality, but that is more about a human's psychological maturation, whereas this deals with kids assaulting other kids. This seems to be a very little known but very ugly occurance, and I have to deal with it so often in my work, but few people seems to have heard of it. I don't want to put my foot in my mouth (foot in my keyboard?) though, so is there an article already that covers this? Legitimus (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that there is. I saw you preparing to write an article about this. I'm sure people are aware of minor-on-child sexual abuse, such as a 16-year-old sexually abusing an actual child...a 10-year-old, etc. Is that what your article is going to cover, or just include? If it's more about adolescents sexually abusing children, then I would prefer the article be titled adolescent-on-child sexual abuse, or teen-on-child sexual abuse (if using the word "teen" isn't seen as too pop culture of a term). If your article is more so about actual children, for example...10-year-olds sexually abusing younger children and such, then I can see why more people are unfamiliar with that. People of those ages are not called pedophiles, of course, and it isn't really in the news often, or at all in some parts. If you are covering the topic of children sexually abusing children, as well as adolescents sexually abusing children, then I'd prefer the article be titled minor-on-minor sexual abuse, but either way "this article of yours" will prove to be interesting. Flyer22 (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"Child-on-child" is the term used in medical arenas (for example [4]), and yes it most frequently means both victim and perpetrator are prepubescent (like 12 and under or so), though sometimes I hear it used to refer to young adolescents perps (about 12-15) on very young victims. And yes I understand, they are not pedophiles, indeed they likely don't even realize what they are doing. It's not even certain if it's a crime, per se. What struck me as interesting is that the damage to the victim is almost the same as with adult perps. I realize this is a touchy subject, so I am trying to step lightly. I just need a few more references. Legitimus (talk) 04:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know that the use in medical arenas is Child-on-child, but like you say, it usually means prepubescent youth. Thus...I felt that if you were addressing adolescents sexually abusing children, it might be best to title it as one of the above I suggested. But since it usually means prepubescent, I suppose I don't see anything wrong with having the title be Child-on-child or if you include a few adolescent-on-child cases within this article. Oh, and I know that you're aware that actual children sexually abusing children wouldn't be called pedophiles, and you are right, of course, that this topic is very interesting...and touchy too. Even with its touchiness, however, I actually cannot wait until you create this article. I feel that it will serve as a good educational read. It's normal for a child to be harmed mentally by an adolescent sexually abusing them as though the person is an adult, but a child, especially close in age to the child sexually abusing them, being mentally harmed in the same way by the sexual abuse carried out by that child, as though sexually abused by an adult, is something to gain knowledge in. You definitely have my blessing to create this article. Flyer22 (talk) 05:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is up, but has been flagged for deletion! Blast! The grounds is that it is either should be part of this article or that it not notable (despite lots of academic references). But this article starts out by specifying adult with minor, so that doesn't make sense. Legitimus (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Having experienced sexual abuse by two children on or about my own age at that time (6-8 y/o), I can attest to the fact this is a real problem, and may be considered a bit taboo. I'm no expert, but, it seems as if this is more common than many may think. Any kind of coercion and/or forcing others to do sexual acts should be characterized as abuse, and this is no exception. Children may not even realize they're doing it, yes, but there's a definite control/domination aspect to this form of sexual abuse, just like any other, even in young children. Many folks may not realize that, yes, pre-pubescent children can have psychological problems, as well as exhibit bad behaviors which are normally associated with older children. Children are sometimes abusers, and child-on-child sexual abuse is no exception. It goes way beyond natural curiosities children have about theirs, and others', bodies, and mirrors adult-on-child sexual abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moparboy (talk • contribs) 17:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I support treating this very real topic, which unquestionably occurs, merely to do so in this article. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

new paragraph in epidemiology section

I have recently added a paragragh to this section with reliable sources. Please feel free to comment if needed.

Epidemiology Child sexual abuse occurs frequently in Western society. [112] Prevalence figures range between 10% in the UK [113] or up to 62% for females and 16% for males in the United States. [114] [115] According to data from the Administration on Children and Families, of the US Department of Health and Human Services, in 2005 there were an estimated 3.6 million investigations by Child Protective Services in the USA; and of those, 899,000 were substantiated. Of the substantiated abuse reports, 9.3% of the cases showed 83,600 children were determined to have been sexually abused.[116][117]Abuse truth (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

In regard to the tag recently added to the section :

This article or section appears to contradict itself. Please help fix this problem.

I would agree. But IMO the problem was there before the paragraph was added. Looking at the second paragraph in the section:

"Based on a literature review of 23 studies, Goldman & Padayachi found that the prevalence of child sexual abuse varied between 7-62% for girls and 4-30% for boys. [118] A meta-analytic study by Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman found that reported prevalence of abuse for males ranged from 3% to 37%, and for females from 8% to 71% with mean rates of 17% and 28% respectively. [66] Berl Kutchinsky argues that most prevalence rates are overexaggerated and claim that the real prevalence of child sexual abuse may be as low as 1-2%. [119] A study on incest in Finland between fathers and daughters found prevalence rates of 0.2% for biological fathers and 0.5% for step-fathers. [120] Others argue that prevalence rates are much higher, and that many cases of child abuse are never reported. One study found that professionals failed to report approximately 40% of the child sexual abuse cases they encountered [121] A study by Lawson & Chaffin indicated that many children who were sexually abused were "identified solely by a physical complaint that was later diagnosed as a venereal disease...Only 43% of the children who were diagnosed with venereal disease made a verbal disclosure of sexual abuse during the initial interview." [122]"

one sees a large disparity between studies. The problem may not be with the section itself, but with the field of CSA epidemiology in general, since the section appears to be reflective of the field.Abuse truth (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Child sexual abuse occurs frequently in Western society.
2. Berl Kutchinsky argues that most prevalence rates are overexaggerated and claim that the real prevalence of child sexual abuse may be as low as 1-2%.

Unless you assert that 1-2% is still "frequent", we need to attribute the first statement as an opinion. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well the critical bit is whether 1-2% is frequent. Sure sounds it to me but we should seek out some reliable sources for this one. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be OK if each of the sentences in the first paragraph were explictly attributed, as are the ones in the second paragraph. That way, the contradiction is between the reliable sources, which is perfectly allowable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Nordisk Sexologi source verification

It's difficult to find. I think one of the articles on the web which references it might be used as a source as to what it contains. However, it appears to have been a journal published with primary langages other than English from 1983-1997 with ISSN 9903816529 (although our ISSN search can't find it) and/or ISSN 0108-271x, followed by the English language journal Scandinavian journal of sexology (1998-2001), ISSN 1398-2966.

The journals seem to have been published by the Nordic Association for Clinical Sexology

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Some history of the organization can be found http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/nacs.htm (temporarily unavailable, google cache here). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that work. I too tried to find the text of the source and wasn't able to. I did find some books/papers that referenced it, but they didn't include exactly the specific statement that's in the article. There might be a source somewhere that quotes that part of the paper, I guess we need to keep looking. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Help

I added a few referenes on treatment and controversies and it seems to have jumbled everything. I am going to revert back to a previous edition and dump my references to stop the jumble but could some-one look at what I did and get the references in? Jcautilli2003 (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to undo and thesection marked "EFFECTS" is still jumbled. Jcautilli2003 (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I fixed it Jcautilli2003 (talk) 05:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Per your request, I have reverted the page to prior to your first edit.

Before you resume editing this page, please note, this is a controversial topic and there is a lot of activity and discussion about this page in progress. The edits you made were too extensive and too fast, for this particular page, even if not for the reference mistake that caused the formatting error.

Please slow down and read this talk page before making big changes to this topic. Each change will be reviewed by interested editors. When you add references, please include direct links when possible, with page numbers if to print publications. Also, most or all of the references you added were to the online journals, and you did not link to the journal issues, you linked only to the home page of the journals. That means there is no way to verify the text you are citing.

Also, and perhaps most importantly, it appears that you are the publisher of the the journals you added as references. If I'm mistaken about that, please correct me. But if that is the situation, please read the Wikipedia guideline at this link: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Thank you. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I was the publisher until 2008. No longer - journals were taken over by the governing board. Spent 10 years on the editoral board of 6 of the 8 journals on the site. Over 50 academics for over 50 Universities around the world, on each board. It was fun while it lasted but exhausting- I have moved on...Now, I am executive director for CURE for Vets as well as hold a few other jobs (trying to get themost milage out of the Ph.D.). Anyhow, this is what I added, please look over and let me know, I don't think it will offend- I tried to write it as nuetral as possible. "Sexual abuse is a real phenonmena and can have devistating effects on children through their lives. Often the report fo sexual abuse occurs in custody cases. While many times sexual abuse has occurred, it is important for evaluators to be cautious. In addition, several therapies should be avioded because they appear to produce false memories and/or cause decompensation of the surivivor In addition, while several exposure based treatments from the behavior therapy tradition (also see functional analyic psychotherapy some have suggested that true evidenced based interventions for post traumetic strss disorder may be fantasy. Thus it is important for the therapist to be receiving supervision User:Jcautilli2003 - 06:22, 13 January 2008

Thanks for clarifying. I also left you a message on your talk page. It looks like the technical problem was that one of your references did not have the closing tag - it was missing the </ref>, so that made everything after that become part of the footnote.

Regarding the information you added, I don't have time to look at it in detail tonight, but anything that discusses "false memories" is a controversial topic and needs to be handled carefully. There are a variety of articles addressing that topic. Also, this CSA page, so far anyway, addresses the effects and legal aspects of the problem. Therapies are not currently part of this page. I don't know how others will see this, but to me it seems therapy topics are outside the scope of this page and if they were added, the page would become huge and even more controversial than it is already.

There are many pages about forms of therapy; that's where your information would be more appropriate, in my opinion. Also, when you use those references, it would be much better if you provide the URL of the article you are referencing. It appears from my review of those websites that the articles are there, but they're hard to find. Thanks.... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

non-reliable sources

I removed a reference from the article because it was a link to a personal website project of someone who self-identifies as a pedophile. The website quotes many references, some of them from studies; and some of those original studies may be usable. However, when sources are not quoted in full, there can be out-of-context cherry-picking by the author of the website, therefore those quoted sources are unreliable. To use the studies, the originals must be located so they can be verified with full context. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The statement on Wikipedia is: "[..] This often contradicts data from studies investigating the psychology of contact sex offenders, which shows that most contact child sex offenders are not primarily or exclusively attracted to children." Therefore, I provided a reference which quotes a study stating such. The quote is clear and could not be taken out of context. Barry Jameson (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The text footnotes one study, not multiple studies. Therefore this phrase "This often contradicts data from studies" is overly general; the wikitext needs to reflect that it was one study, and avoid WP:WEASEL WORDS like "often contradicts", when that is not what the one study stated. Also, the study was quoted only in part, in a self-identified pro-pedophila website, without complete context. To use a study, we need a way to verify its full context, or, we need quotes about the study that are themselves stated in a reliable source. The text might be correct, or it might be wrong, but the version you quoted above does not accurately reflect the reference and needs to be improved. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am confused by the reason for editing. Is it because the editor has some kind of gut reaction to paedophiles, or because of the more rational reasons he followed up with? GrooV (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm having trouble understanding your question. Would you clarify which of the edits or comments you are asking about? Thanks... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You appeared to remove a reference because the site on which it was hosted was controlled by a pedophile. Is this your justification? Is this not rather subjective? GrooV (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not why I removed the reference. If the site had included the full text of the study, then it would not matter if controlled by a person who states that he is a pedophile (as long as the original publication of the original material could be verified, as with any source). The reason I removed it is that he did not quote the full study, he only included excerpts. That's what I meant by "cherry-picking". Without the full text of the study, there is no way to know if he chose only those excerpts that would support his beliefs. It's possible that the same study included other statements contrary to what he included, but because he has a stated bias, we don't know if he purposfeully omitted those statements or not. That's what makes the source unreliable. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

off-topic in the intro

I removed this sentence here from the intro, for discussion:

• When an adult seeks or engages in sexual activity with a child, public sentiment often describes those actions as a manifestation of pedophilia although the formal definition of pedophilia is a psychological diagnosis, not a description of behavior; not all perpetrators of child sexual abuse are pedophiles and not all pedophiles are perpetrators of child sexual abuse.

Previously, it read as follows:

• When an adult seeks or engages in sexual activity with a child, public sentiment usually concludes it is a manifestation of pedophilia. This often contradicts data from studies investigating the psychology of contact sex offenders, which shows that most contact child sex offenders are not primarily or exclusively attracted to children.

This earlier version (the second one) could not be used because it mentions "studies", showing "most" child molesters are not pedophiles. That statement is too specific and stated too strongly for the references that so far have been found.

It is not contested that there not all child molesters are pedophiles and not all pedophiles are child molesters; or that there are studies on this issue. However, so far, there are no solid references stating what the proportion of overlap is, so the later version, the first paragraph above is more accurate, as it does not indicate anything about proportion.

But in addition to that, the info is not needed in the intro, because the topic of this article is "child sexual abuse", not "pedophilia". There is a connection, so there is a whole section about pedophilia in the article. The problem with putting it into the intro is that as soon as pedophilia is mentioned in regards to how the word is used by laypersons, then all sorts of "balancing" information gets added to it. and eventually the whole section on pedophilia will need to be moved into that lead, as was starting to happen today. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The text discussed above, and the reference discussed in the next section below have already been restored to the intro at this diff, along with an uncivil accusation of "crusade" thrown in on the edit summary:

• 20:09, 13 January 2008 Fighting for Justice (Talk | contribs) (69,974 bytes) (rv; what type of crusade are you on?)

I'm not reverting at this time, and request discussion about whether that info is best to keep in the intro or not, and also about the reference addressed in the next section at #questionable source. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The psychology and motivations of child sexual abusers is highly relevant to the issue of child sexual abuse. Barry Jameson (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because we wouldn't want this article to be misleading. GrooV (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

questionable source

This is the reference that was used in the sentences discussed above in the section #off-topic in the intro:

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ECE6P/html/pedophilia_2.html

It's possible that some articles on that website might be valid sources, I'm not sure, and the site is used in at least one other place in the article. But this particular page on that website does not look like WP:RS, because it does not state either its author, or its sources. The reference claims that "most sexual offenses against children are committed not by pedophiles, but by non-pedophilic men." The word "most" in this context has not been established by science or law enforcement and is an open question. That overly strong statement to make without any supporting sources brings the neutrality of the source into question. If there were an author listed, and references quoted, that would be different, but there are not. So that source does not seem to me to be usable. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It is written by Prof. Dr. Erwin J. Haeberle 1 of Humboldt University. Mystery solved Barry Jameson (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In light of the above, I have no objection to the source. GrooV (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I had not found the authors name on that website. Now that I see it, I will re-evaluate the source. However, even if it is used, the author's statement is overly broad and he does not cite references, therefore, it's his opinion; yet the wikitext is written as if it were a generally accepted fact. The actual fact is that there are many studies that have tried to determine what proportion of child sex abusers are also pedophiles, and what proportion of pedophiles act out their desires by abusing children, and the various studies do not all agree on those proportions. Some pedophiles abuse children, some do not. Some child molestors are pedohiles, some are not. Beyond that, there are no generally accepted numbers or percentages to indicate the amount of overlap. It's a complex area of ongoing research. Prof. Dr. Erwin J. Haeberle has his opinion about that, but he's just one person. The sentence that refers to his document will need to be made more specific in this regard. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Title

Im not saying it isnt abuse but isnt calling the article child sexual abuse POV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No, its using the common word for this kind of behaviour. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Just because its common in more than one culture doesn't mean that its not breaching the neutral point of view policy, because it clearly is. People calling it abuse is by its very nature POV because most people automatically judge paedophilia as abuse, but some countries do not. I think wikipedia shoud rename this article because it is blatent POV. And we shouldn't go for common acceptance because common acceptance is wrong sometimes, for example Henry VIII was only legally married 4 times but people commonly believe it was 6. The same mistake could be being made with the title of this article

So sex with children is an acceptable thing for people to do in your opinion then? Just curious. It just sounds a bit like this perspective condones what every abuser believes, that the child 'loves it really' and it doesn't do them any harm. Merkinsmum 01:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Not at all and I'm rather insulted by the implication. Of course I feel it's abominable but other people feel differently. To approach such a controversial issue effectively, wikipedia must demonstrate the arguments from both sides of the coin as it were, rather than giving anti-pedophilic sentiments, i.e. using words such as abuse. After all its our job only to report the goings on in the world, not to tell people what to think, and I'm sorry but words like abuse immediately give off a negative feeling. It isnt our place to judge, its for the courts to do that. The article should be renamed sexual relationships between adults and children, be re-written so as to be neutral and provide a "criticisms" section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your response, and that on my talk page. I see where your coming from but this article does include a large section on 'opposing arguments.' Also 'child sexual abuse' is what it is most commonly called, as Squeaxbox said, and per wikipedia naming policies we use what something is most commonly called. It has also been used in numerous published, official (perhaps some legal) contexts which mean it is highly sourced under WP:RS. Merkinsmum 01:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia must call this what it is widely called and documented to be my medical experts and psychologists, and that is Child sexual abuse. That's not POV at all. There may be people who don't believe that a husband forcing his wife to have sex with him should be called rape, but that is what it is called. Flyer22 (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

edit confliict- saying similar thing to what Flyer said- to the IP bloke- Do you think the articles murder domestic violence, rape etc are intrinsically biased due to their titles? Not meaning to be confrontational, just saying, I'm sure all criminals have justifications for their behaviour, also there will be some points of view expressed somewhere in the world by some writers, no doubt, that these actions are ok. If these are notable, such views would be mentioned in the article. But we wouldn't call the articles removal of unwanted persons, household discipline, and surprise sex. Merkinsmum 01:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) In a way, the argument whether child sexual abuse is POV is a bit of a red herring. The title expresses a point of view, but doesn't violate NPOV. The point of view expressed is by far the dominant one in the English-speaking world, and most of the industrialized world for that matter. By that measure alone, it's a notable one. I don't see an NPOV problem with this title, taking everything into account. --SSBohio 02:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I also point out to the starter of this section that Wikipedia has an article called Adult-child sex that looks to address an adult "engaging in sexual activity with a child" as not necessarily abusive...although that article is currently up for deletion. Flyer22 (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Further reading and EL

Regards the extensive list of further reading and external links - both should be kept to a minimum, there is no real rational needed beyond 'removed per WP:EL'. External links should be of the highest quality and the most use to the page - the first option should always be an attempt to use links as in-line citations; only in cases of this being impossible, and the link is highly relevant to the entire page, then should the link be included. A small number of links is ideal, wikipedia is not a linkfarm. Web fora and support groups are not appropriate, neither is a list of organizations centered around this topic from all countries across the globe. If there is a single global link to an agency that also links to national counterparts, this is appropriate; otherwise only perhaps the US agencies, though this is also dubious as wikipedia has a world-wide audience - only if it is somehow relevant to the entire world. Further reading should include reliable sources from generally academic and high quality publishing houses, not self-help books (wikipedia is also not a how to manual). And it is preferrable if possible, that these books be used again as in-line citations rather than further reading. Both these sections are to be filled only when it is not possible to use them in the text, or they are somehow exceptionally relevant. WLU (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of the organizations should be "moved" to DMOZ, and the category listed here, per WP:DIRECTORY. (I'm pretty sure there's an appropriate category there. If not, there should be.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm uneasy with the US-centric orgs that are still there - if you figure out how to get org-specific DMOZ entries, I'd love to hear about it. WLU (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the links as per wp:consensus. I am hoping that a discussion will ensue where a compromise can be reach on which links should be deleted and which should be kept.

Two reasons have been given for the large deletion of content from the page. One is wp:EL.

I believe that an interpretation that allows for the large deletion of ELs from this page is too strict an interpretation of the EL policy.

At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL

"Wikipedia articles should include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia if they are relevant. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews)."

All of the links deleted are relevant to the article and topic.

"What to link - There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link. Is it accessible to the reader? Is it relevant to the content of the article (useful, helpful, informative, factual, etc.)? Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link?"

The links are accessible to readers, relevant (useful, informative) and functional.

"What should be linked....Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."

These sites have meaningful, relevant content.

The second reason given for the large deletion is wp:laundry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LAUNDRY

"The goal of Wikiproject:Laundromat is to scrub laundry lists from articles when they detract from an article's usefulness, and salvage usable content from those laundry lists into readable, encyclopedic text."

"Laundromat is specifically to find "laundry lists"--inappropriate lists of miscellaneous items--, and salvage usable content therein and turn it into well-written text."

Little content was salvaged, nor was there an attempt to salvage most of the content.

I am hoping a compromise can be worked out before any more editing occurs. Abuse truth (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I am proposing a compromise solution. Turn the deleted books, published articles and organizations into references for three sentences.

As per wp:laundry "Laundromat is specifically to find "laundry lists"--inappropriate lists of miscellaneous items--, and salvage usable content therein and turn it into well-written text." The sentences could state something like: Other material has been written on the topic of child abuse. There are a variety of organizations that have websites about child abuse. Abuse truth (talk) 02:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL: This page in a nutshell: Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article.

WP:LINK: Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links or Internet directories

And you don't have consensus on the replacement of the links or reading. In fact, you have opposition from two editors. That's not consensus. If you wish to include the deleted links or books as inline citations, then that is laudable and I have no problem with that (depending on how they are used and how reliable they are). However, the sentence you suggest isn't a good one and think of this - based on that sentence what prevents every single website and organization, or author of a book, from adding their link or book to the end of that sentence? Links should be relevant throughout the world - how will a U.S.-based advocacy site help someone in Ghana or Malaysia? If you want to pull the info from the history and integrate it as inline citations, go ahead, it's there in previous versions. But please don't blanket revert to the old version. Take each source out and integrate it individually. And please don't include quotes. Also note that links should be 'informative', not 'useful', and again on a world-wide scale.

Remember that the page is meant to inform about child sexual abuse, not to help people get over it. This is not an advocacy website, it's an encyclopedia.

Regards the current 'further reading' books, Davis and Lew are both about recovering from child sexual abuse for women and men respectively. I'm on the fence on whether they're appropriate. WLU (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to re-add some of the deleted material in a more encyclopedic fashion. These ELs were not deleted via consensus, so I am hoping a compromise can be arrived at for their inclusion. Abuse truth (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The section you have added it to here, just turned it from a list into a very poorly constructed paragraph; it's now a paragraph version of the former lists. I don't see it adding anything encyclopedic to the page, and I'd say it violates the spirit of WP:NOT's various subsections on directories and indiscriminate information. The question is, why are these links valuable for an encyclopedia? By having a long list of single publications, how is the page helped? The topic is already of large interest, and has a 162 links in it. What purpose does this paragraph have? I've brought this up as well at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Laundromat#Question_for_the_experts. There is still not consensus on the section and its attendant references being included, but I'm willing to discuss further before removing it. If there is no more interest, I would suggest a WP:RFC, or WP:3O if Arthur Rubin doesn't show up again. WLU (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Abuse truth's new section is an obvious example of WP:GAME. AnotherSolipsist (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

AnotherSolipsist, you are of course welcome to concur with WLU's comment that the paragraph does not fit in the article. But by mentioning WP:GAME, you are accusing Abuse truth of bad faith and disruptive editing (that is from the WP:GAME page lead). Please discuss the content of the article and not the editors. If you have an accusation of actual disruption to pursue, there are other venues for that. While this is a contentious topic, so far the discussion has been quite civil, let's keep it that way so it doesn't escalate into an argument. Thank you. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Agreed, I believe this was a good faith attempt to maintain the contents, it's the contents that are inherently problematic in this use. I still think this is a laundry list in disguise, but I don't think it's a deliberate attempt to get around the rules - just one that (in my opinion) misses the point of the policy. WLU (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

some new options to consider

Here are some alternatives for compromise, and some hopefully helpful perspective. This is a more difficult question than the usual laundry list or EL situations because it involves information that might actually be what some people are looking for when they read this article. We know that "wikipedia is not a how-to-guide", but according to various of the quoted guidelines, both external links that are directly related to the topic and further reading sections are acceptable in moderation, ie, WP:EL advises minimizing external links, but also mentions that "Adding external links can be a service to our readers". These are style guidelines, not policy, and that means "While it is not policy, editors are strongly advised to follow it. As the occasional exception may arise, it should be approached with common sense." Exceptions are not forbidden by policy, so it's up to consensus to determine the best approach here.

In light of the above, I suggest a few compromise options:

• A termporary start could be to include some of the external links and further reading, but reduce the number of them to focus on the highest quality and most useful. That way, the resources would be available for readers, but the article would not be unbalanced by a long list of links at the end. Perhaps we could start with around half of them and see how the article looks that way.

Whether we agree on that temporary compromise or not, the list of links and books can be moved to the talk page, for use in the following ideas.

• Some of those links and books seem to expand on info already in the article. They can be used as references to improve existing sections on "Epidemiology and prevalence", "Types of child sexual assault", and the legal issues section - for example, the "incest loophole" is discussed in one of the links, that could become a footnote in the "Intrafamial child sexual abuse" section.

• We could create a new sections in the article for "Treatment of Child Sexual Abuse" and "Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse" with some of the further reading and links used as references, but not as a laundry list, with actual text summarizing the sources, supported properly by footnotes. If these sections became too large, they could be shortened to paragraphs and directed to new separate articles on those topics. There is much to be written on each of those topics, perhaps too much for this article.

Of course, any links or books used as references would need to meet WP:V for quality, and would need to be used per WP:NPOV. It would take some time to check the sources and do the writing, but the result I think would be a better article and a chance at actual consensus rather than polarized positions. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

These are the very suggestions I would make - right now the links and books reference nothing other than that they exist; I don't think this is valid or encyclopedic, nor do I think it adds anything to the page. The only thing that paragraph does is keep a large volume of deleted links and books in the page. Your suggestions aren't a compromise in my mind, they are the appropriate use of the links and sources. The only consideration I think you've missed out on is that any external links should be of maximum use world-wide. This means that state, provincial, and even country-specific links aren't really a good choice. The best choices are international agencies like the WHO or UN, even full US agencies aren't the best choice since they may be much less useful for anyone not living in North America. Even as a Canadian with NAFTA and extradition agreements they may not be that useful to me. WLU (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the section as a laundry list. If the book/report/publication is reliable enough to be mentioned, it should be used as an in-line citation. If it can't, because we are unaware of the contents, it shouldn't be cited. The page is quite long, it does not need padding. WLU (talk) 12:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Literature and Organization Restoration

I in no way meant to "game" by the edits I made. I will AGF and hope that most of these references can be restored in some way. The literature is already on the page, so please feel free to review the list and decide which should be on the page and which shouldn't.

Below I will put the organizations deleted from the page. I am hoping that they can be included as an encyclopedic resource to the page.

1. The SACCS Approach - helping children to recover from Child sex abuse
2. Childhelp
3. Childhelp National Child Abuse Hotline 1-800-4-A-CHILD
4. Childhelp Child Abuse Learning Center
5. Darkness to Light
6. List of State Sexual Assault Coalitions
7. National Sex Offender Public Registry
8. The Awareness Center, Inc. (Jewish Coalition Against Sexual Abuse/Assault)
9. Dancing in the Darkness
10. MaleSurvivor: National Organization against Male Sexual Victimization
11. PROTECT: The National Organization to Protect Children
12. RAINN (Rape, Abuse, Incest, National Network)
13. SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests)
14. VOICES in Action (Victims of Incest Can Emerge Survivors)
15. Help for Adult Victims of Child Abuse UK-based organization.
16. Stop It Now!
17. Stop It Now! UK
18. NZ Sensible Sentencing Trust website, a New Zealand registry of violent and sexual offenders
19. Child Molestation Research & Prevention Institute (CMRPI) Abuse truth (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather than a massive debate, consider that the links should be a) a minimum b) encyclopedic c) geared towards research and information, not advocacy, help or advice, d) reliable e) representative f) world-wide access and relevance g) not a forum h) not a soapbox, advocacy, recruitment or opinion site i) not contain advertising (ideally none, if there is any, the site had better be good) j) mainstream k) not a duplication of a previous link and l) related to the topic of the page. So that seems to eliminate 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19. If you'd like, I can relate letters and numbers. WLU (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I do believe that listing some of them would be encyclopedic. Maybe half of the better ones could be used. SNAP, RAINN, Childhelp, List of State Sexual Assault Coalitions, National Sex Offender Public Registry, New Zealand registry of violent and sexual offenders and Stop It Now! appear to be mainstream and some are more research based. VOICES is defunct and three of the listings are childhelp.org, so this can help us eliminate some also. Abuse truth (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream is only one of the criteria, there's also encyclopedic. The sex offender registries are appropriate for a page about sex offender registries, arguably sex offenders, but not for this page. List of State sexual assault coalitions is a list (which is sometimes OK), but it is not specific to child sexual abuse, and is only a valid link in the United States. For anyone else in the world, it is useless. Rainn has 'national network' in it, meaning it's national and not international. It is also classic advocacy, and not specific to child sexual abuse. Childhelp is also advocacy, as is stop it now. I'd say the SNAP page is too specific for this page (better on the priest sexual abuse page but there is concern over the possible advocacy nature again). SACCS is a treatment facility? Program? making it a cross between spam and an advocacy site, so not appropriate. CMRPI is debatable, what does it add that citing its publications does not? The Awareness Center is a Jewish advocacy, making it an even more narrow topic than child sexual abuse, and I'd say advocacy.

Incidentally, allow me to re-iterate that I didn't think you were trying to game the system but I still think you mis-interpreted the relevant policies and guidelines. WLU (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite which wikipedia policy or guideline states that ELs can't be connected to advocacy. Also, please cite that wikipedia policy or guidelines state that ELs should be international. Abuse truth (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Since the literature list has been deleted, I am putting it here for discussion. Which could be used as references or ELs?

Literature on child sexual abuse

Books and articles written on the topic of CSA include children’s picture books,Jaime Zollars; Shannon Riggs (2007). Not in Room 204. Morton Grove, IL: Albert Whitman & Company. ISBN 0-8075-5764-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) books on the sexual assaults of students,Aba, C. (1992.). Sexual Assaults on Students. London: Harper and Row. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) books on healing of CSA,Stone, Doris Van (1990). 'No Place to Cry: The Hurt and Healing of Sexual Abuse. Moody Publishers. journal articles on people with learning disabilities and CSA,Wishart, G.D. (2003). "The Sexual Abuse of People with Learning Difficulties: Do We Need A Social Model Approach To Vulnerability?". Journal of Adult Protection. 5 (3). books for gay men,James Cassese. Gay Men and Childhood Sexual Trauma: Integrating the Shattered Self. New York: Haworth Press. ISBN 1-56023-137-8. and books about sex for survivors of CSA.Staci Haines. The Survivor's Guide to Sex: How to Have an Empowered Sex Life After Child Sexual Abuse. Minneapolis, MN: Cleis Press. ISBN 1573440795. Articles have also been written about CSA, including ones on facts for families,"Facts for Families". Vol. 9. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Child Sexual Abuse. 2004. legislative policy making,Anrew, Ruby P. (2006). "Child Sexual Abuse and the State: Applying Critical Outsider Methodologies to Legislative Policymaking". UC Davis Law Review. 39 (5). reports to law enforcement,"Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident, and Offender Characteristics". Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2000. sexually transmitted diseases,"Sexually Transmitted Diseases and Child Sexual Abuse". U.S. Dept. of Justice. 2002. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) about the incest loophole,Vachss, A. (Nov. 20, 2005). "The Incest Loophole". New York Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) CSA’s epidemiology and risk factors,Smith, J. (March 2002). "Evaluation, Diagnosis, and Outcomes of Child Sexual Abuse". The Child Advocate. child abuse networks,"PEHI: Beyond the Dutroux Affair ? The reality of protected child abuse and snuff networks". calls for more objective analysisMyers, J. (1990). "The Child Sexual Abuse Literature: A Call for Greater Objectivity". Michigan Law Review. 88 (6): 1709–1733. Retrieved 2008-02-09. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) and a resource list of state sexual assault coalitions.List of State Sexual Assault Coalitions Abuse truth (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a wikiproject - Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Part of it's mandate is to ensure that coverage is globally useful and not limited to a single country, and the relevant section is here. You may also have seen the template {{globalize/USA}}. And it makes good sense; without a world-wide focus, you are going to get the US and UK view on everything - the article on Hezbollah will be all about it's terrorist activities and none of its public works. Everyone with an internet connection can read wikipedia, so why does a Rwandan care about the list of state agencies focusing on child abuse? How is it useful to anyone but an American, despite their readership probably representing a minority? How does it do anything except foster the US's already myopic navel-gazing? The only person for whom a list of state agencies for child abuse is useful for is a U.S. citizen. That's it. And that's stupid, which is why pages, and external link should be relevant to all readers and editors.

Regards your statement "Which could be used as references or ELs?" All my points in this regard is that none of them should be external links, particularly not the books (because they are not links). These should be linked as sources to justify text. If they say something worth saying, in a reliable medium, then that should be added to the page with the book/article/website/whatever as a citation. External links is not a section for stuff that really should be on the page, but isn't yet. It's not a holding ground. The talk page can be used for this. I have no problem with the sources being used as sources to justify text. I have said this repeatedly and am somewhat exasperated. I have no problem dumping sources on talk pages if I think it's useful but don't have the time or inclination to add information myself. But I have never dumped a source in the EL section unless I thought it was appropriate as an EL. There is a difference between an external link and a source, they are used for fundamentally different purposes. But lists of all sorts are stupid, not useful to reader, and wide open to be crammed with POV-pushing, unreliable sources because the degree of oversight placed on a list entry is much less than any bit of text put on the page. This is why I do not want an extensive list of links or books. My very first post stated this clearly - "External links should be of the highest quality and the most use to the page - the first option should always be an attempt to use links as in-line citations". WLU (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Pardon my asperity, but what damned use is it to say there exists children's books/books for gay men/articles about learning disabilities and CSA/books about sex for CSA surivors/articles about the incest loophole? Saying only that they exist does not convey the contents of the book, it does not inform the reader, it does not make the page more encyclopedic (it doesn't even define what the incest loophole is, something I'm sure is if interest). Useful is taking those books, and summarizing them within the text as information. WLU (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am against bias on wikipedia. I read the page you cited. However, I am not sure why that should limit ELs that are only based in the US, if no others are available at the time. I do agree that if a world-wide, multicultural EL is available, it should have precedence over a regional one. While I do agree with your comments about ELs above in spirit, I believe however that your interpretation is rather somewhat strict and may actually unintentionally harm wikipedia in terms of it being an information source. I believe that a list of appropriate books and ELs can help provide a reader with alternative sources of information. Readers come to a page with different interests. Though it is probably impossible to provide all readers with their topics of interest, I believe that wikipedia can make an attempt to do this. I agree that "useful is taking those books, and summarizing them within the text as information." Using a source as a reference is probably better than as an EL. But sources may not always be available at the time. I am hopeful that through discussion a middle ground can be found where some of these sources can be included appropriately in an encyclopedic manner. Abuse truth (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Physical damages

Physical damages section is short compared to mental, while mental damages are questionable. Physical damages include

1. Rupture of walls of vagina on intercourse, which may cause death.
2. Lack of vaginal fluid before puberty, when vagina exposed to sexual acts has more risk of picking up infections.

The section needs to be expanded. Voiced axix (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As long as appropriate referencing is provided, please feel free to expand this section. ~ Homologeo (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad ibn Abdullah

Should be he linked from this page?222.225.224.42 (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Is he? Should he be? I don't fully understand your question. ~ Homologeo (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Expertise?

In my voluntary work as a victim counsellor, I have encouraged and helped many children who have been pressured and brainwashed into denying the abusiveness or even the occurence of their sexual traumatisation, to realise their true status as survivors of horriffic Child Sexual Abuse. Rachel Cragg (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to mention that I am perfecting my theory of "moral blinding", in which the Paedophiliac offender causes their victim to rationalise their abuse as fundamentally non-abusive. Only through counsellor-facilitated mental healing, can a child come to understand that what has happened is in fact abnormal and highly exploitational. Only when a child realises that they have been harmed almost irrepairably, can the healing process begin, because if there were nothing to heal, there would necessarily be no healing process. Denying this process undermines the paedophile's horriffic crimes, and should not be allowed in a modern, civilised society. Rachel Cragg (talk) 11:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The first comment is still irrelevant to improving the article, and the second is WP:OR until "you" are published. For the record, I generally agree with you, but child sexual abuse is not identical to "child abuse by a paedophile", making this a little off topic. However, false accusations of child sexual abuse, which can be encouraged by what some people call "counsellor-facilitated mental healing", is not particularly helpful to the "victim", and is harmful to the alleged purpetrator. We must be careful. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There is formal paperwork to support this assertion as well, but yeah it's OR until corroborated. Don't worry, I will try to dig those studies up, so they'll be along later. There is also the issue of "labelling" that some people point out, but of course proper treatment works around this through correct techniques, just as correct non-leading techniques must be used in the interview process to avoid false positives. Legitimus (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

add cats

I have added cats to the article that fit. ResearchEditor (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC) (formerly AT)

There has been some activity in the categories on this and related articles recently, and several were removed from this article. Also the category structures seem to have had some changes lately too, so it's a bit confusing.

I think these two categories are appropriate for this article, even though they overlap Category:Child sexual abuse: Category:Sexual abuse & Category:Sex crimes. According to WP:SUBCAT, some duplication is acceptable when it will be helpful to users browsing a category to find the article they are seeking. Someone browsing "sex crimes" or "sexual abuse" might find this article of use, so it seems that provision applies. I think we should also add Category:Child abuse, though I have not done that edit yet. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that Category:Child sexual abuse should be in Category:Child abuse and Category:Sexual abuse, (and it is is), so that it shouldn't be necessary for the lead article of the category also to be in those categories. Category:Sex crimes is more complicated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've added Category:Child abuse, since we concur on that one. Category:Sex crimes is still on the page too, my impression is that it is useful there, but I agree that one is more complicated. If you want to remove it, I won't revert without further discussion. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I mis-read your comment and now I think my addition was not what you were saying. I don't have time to work on this further for now, so if you want to make changes, go ahead, and we can discuss it later. No worries. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Who commits child sexual abuse?

Perhaps this section already exists, and I missed it, but I think this article does not place enough emphasis on who commits child sexual abuse. Is it usually a parent? Is it usually a relative? Is it usually a teacher? Is it usually a stranger? I think a pie chart would be useful. Is this information in the article? If not, does anyone have this information? 98.217.44.253 (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Typo

My first addition to wikipedia, silly that its this article. but i see a blatant typo that include is said twice in the first paragraph. "include include". i dont know how to change the page or where this should go. so please ... someone who knows... fix it.

Thanks for pointing that out. Looks like somebody fixed it. Since you are new, when you add a topic to a "talk" page (especially a busy one like this), use the "+" at the top to add your post at the bottom of the page as new heading.Legitimus (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"most studies"

None of these sources are RS, and the Okami study on an non-RS site doesn't support the claim.-PetraSchelm (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"however most studies investigating incarcerated sex offenders suggest that the majority of convicted child sex offenders are not primarily or exclusively attracted to children.

I concur those are not reliable source websites. The Okami study might be acceptable, but it would need to be cited to a reliable source in order to be used so it could be reviewed for accurate reflection of its conclusions.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and even the Okami study were referenced properly, it wouldn't support the assertion "most studies." -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have the text of Okami's study, and paedosexualitaet.de is not misrepresenting it. I've restored the statement: a book published by Academic Press, the Magnus Hirschhfeld Archive of Sexology, and a study in the Journal of Sex Research are all clearly reliable sources, even if convenience links to less reliable websites are included. You're free to remove those, if you wish. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is one of SYN and OR--it may be fine to say some "studies of incarcerated sex offenders suggest..." but the sources are not a survey of the literature, and making a statement evaluating the literature based on one or two studies is a synthetic OR statement.-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on his review of the (cited) literature, Okami (correctly) says that most, not merely some, data suggest that. We don't make any original conclusion from this, so I don't see how it violates WP:OR or WP:SYN. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I was sifting through Journal of Sex Research's website, as well as my university archive, but I could not locate this study based on the citation.Legitimus (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

EBSCOhost has it in their Academic Search Complete database. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If Okami says "most", that's still just his opinion. The only way that could be used is with attribution, ie, "Okami stated in his 1992 paper that most studies he had analyzed suggested..."And that would only be acceptable if Okami actually uses the word most. In citing the paper, it would be helpful to include a direct quotation in the citation template in the footnote, since the paper is not available online. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Howells also says most.

A direct quotation : "Indiscriminate interchange of the term pedophile with terms such as child molester, etc., thus prevents the distinction between sexual behavior and sexual preference or orientation to be made. (2)

"This is a particularly important point because most data suggest that only a relatively small portion of the population of incarcerated sexual offenders against minors consists of persons for whom minors (particularly children) represent the exclusive or even primary object of sexual interest or source of arousal (Freund, Watson, & Dickey, 1991; Gebhard et al., 1965; Howells, 1981; Lang et al., 1988; Langevin, 1983; Mc Cormack & Selvaggio, 1989; Marshall, Barbaree, & Butt, 1988; Marshall & Eccles, 1991; Mohr et al., 1964; Quinsey, Chaplin, & Carrigan, 1979; Righton, 1981; Rowan, 1988; Schofield, 1965; Swanson, 1968). If we term all of these persons "pedophiles," what do we term persons with a stated or measurable sexual preference for children?" --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

David Finkelhor, in the Journal of Social Issues Vol 62 No4 pp 685-716, in 2006 states: ""...some classes of child molesters, like incestuous abusers, are much less likely to be incarcerated than others." Also, many pedophiles are married, so would not qualify as having "exclusive" interest in children, yet are still pedophiles. Freund's studies in particular addressed "nonadmittors," not "non-pedophiles," i.e, men who claimed they did not have an exclusive interest in children but whose measurable sexual responses indicated otherwise.-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Finkelhor's statement would seem to indicate that the rate of paedophilia in all child molesters (rather than just those who have been convicted) is even lower than phallometric studies estimate: intrafamilial abusers are drastically less paedophilic than extrafamilial abusers. In the Marshall, Barbaree, & Butt (1988) Okami cites, 0% of the incest offenders showed penile responses to children equal or greater to their responses to adults.

But this is irrelevant to the article. Let's avoid original research.

Freund has studied "non-admitters" exclusively, but not in the study cited by Okami ("Sex Offenses Against Female Children Perpetrated by Men Who Are Not Pedophiles," in the Journal of Sex Research). Strange that you would mention these totally irrelevant studies. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• I cannot find the list of studies which you are attributing to Howell's comment in order to verify. Pls explain on which page. Meanwhile, if the point you are trying to make is that the majority of sex crimes against children are not committed by pedophiles, expert synthesis at the Mayo Clinic clearly contradicts that assertion: "An estimated 88% of child molesters and 95% of molestations (one person, multiple acts) are committed by individuals who now or in the future will also meet criteria for pedophilia. Pedophilic child molesters on average commit 10 times more sexual acts against children than nonpedophilic child molesters." -- http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/pdf%2F8204%2F8204sa.pdf.

• I mentioned Finkelhor because he points out that the sex offenders most likely to be incarcerated are high-volume offenders. High-volume offenders are more likely to be pedophiles, with an average number of victims totalling over 100. This is from the recent research, (2006) explaining the drop in sexual victimization of children since the 90s. (Finkelhor explains the drop is largely due to increased incarceration: "High frequency offenders are more likely to get incarcerated, so potentially small increases in incarceration of high-volume offenders can have large effects on the overall offense rate." p700.) Since high frequency offenders are more likely to be incarcerated, and more likely to be pedophiles, this is why I do not believe the assertion you would like to put in the article is correct. Perhaps it is because Howell is citing quite old research, but I do not think the studies you are claiming Howell cited were all of convicted sex offenders.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  The Mayo Clinic article is referring to an agenda-driven study by Gene Abel. Abel, who has been known to manipulate data misleadingly (see Issues in Clinical Practice With Sex Offenders), self-published his study through Xlibris. I suspect this is because no reputable, peer-reviewed journal would be willing to look past the glaring methodological flaws. This is not a reliable source.

  Okami, not Howells, cites those studies on p.303. They are consistent with recent research (e.g., "Child pornography offenses are a valid diagnostic indicator of pedophilia," 2006) --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• The Mayo Clinic is a reliable source for a synthesis of expert opinion, so if they included Abel's study in their synthesis it is OR for you to claim that you are more expert than they are; that they should not have done so. There is no Cochrane report on this subject. And Finkelhor is a peerless expert in this subject (pretty much the only one who conducts research with enough statistical power.) -PetraSchelm (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  The Mayo Clinic report synthesizes nothing. It mentions the findings of one self-published study, which doesn't contradict the claim that most data indicates paedophiles make up a minority of child molesters. And I don't know why you're even mentioning Finkelhor, because he has not said that most child molesters are paedophilic -- you drew that original conclusion from an entirely different statement of his. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• The Mayo Clinic synthesized the literature in the field experts deemed relevant. That's what an expert synthesis is, and why they are useful for determining the WP:WEIGHT of opinion. (Finkelhor stated that high-volume offenders are more likely to be incarcerated, and distinguished high-volume offenders from incestuous offenders. It is well known since Mittelman that pedophiles have more victims than situational/incestuous offenders, and says so in the Wiki article on pedophilia.)-PetraSchelm (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  Um, no. Look at the references. It's not a review and synthesis of the literature, it's a description of a single self-published study by a known pseudoscientist which contradicts most other research. Thank you for admitting that Finkelhor did not say most child molesters are paedophiles, btw. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• The Mayo Clinic is a synthesis of expert opinion; you are not. Dr. Gene Abel is not a "pseudoscientist," he's an MD who has directed six National Institute of Mental Health research projects and published over 130 medical articles in scientific journals. He's also a Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, a Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, and a recipient of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abuser's 1991 Significant Achievement Award. (And Finkelhor doesn't have to say "most child molestors are pedophiles"--what are you talking about? What he said was high volume offenders--pedophiles--are most likely to be incarcerated, and that incarcerating them brings down the sex offense rate against children far out of proportion to their number, because they commit so many crimes.)-PetraSchelm (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is getting out of hand. Bringing things back to specific edit of discussion...First, as I understand it, the assertion we are debating was the line that stated that most persons criminally convicted of sexual acts with children are not exclusively fixated on children. So...why is this important to state? Whats your point? I'm being genuine here, so don't jump on me.Legitimus (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The line preceding that which was deleted says that "[w]hen an adult seeks or engages in sexual activity with a child, public sentiment usually concludes these actions as a manifestation of pedophilia." Whereas scientific data indicates . . .

Besides, the importance of who commits CSA seems self-evident. The thread two up is complaining that we don't have enough information on it, and now we have none. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the article should reflect Finkelhor and the Mayo clinic expert synthesis: pedophiles commit the majority of sex offenses against children.-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And this conclusion is more reliable than the results of the Okami study how? ~ Homologeo (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should read WP:SYN. (Also, I haven't verified the Okami study yet, and even if it supports the claims, it is out of date--the number of people incarcerated for sex offenses against children more than tripled between 1986 and 2005; the population changed dramatically, hence Finkelhor's recent research is more reliable. Also, one thing to keep in mind is that the number of sex offenders and the number of sex offense's' doesn't have a one to one correspondence. One pedophile=100 victims on average; one incestuous offender=1 victim on average. If you had one pedophile and 20 incestous offenders, it would be misleading to say "most sex offenders are incestuous, not pedophiles," implying that pedophiles are not a significant public health hazard, when the number of sex offenses committed by the one pedophile are greater. If you look at the Mayo Clinic synthesis, it says "10 times more sexual acts against children."-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Finkelhor isn't going to have said that no matter how many times you claim he did, Petra. The rest is WP:OR. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• None of it's OR; and Finkelhor didn't say what? I have quoted him above and cited the paper.-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  Finkelhor did not say that most child molesters are paedophiles. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Finkelhor said high volume offenders (pedophiles, as opposed to incestuous offenders) are more likely to be incarcerated, and that their incarceration is reponsible for the reduction in the rate of sex offenses against children in the last decade, because incarcerating even a small number prevents such a large number of crimes. It's the number of crimes; not the number of offenders. Pedophiles commit more sex offenses against children than nonpedophiles.-PetraSchelm (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  On an individual basis, a paedophilic child molester tends to have more victims than a nonpaedophilic child molester; but to draw from this that "pedophiles commit more sex offenses against children than nonpedophiles" is WP:OR. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• The Mayo Clinic states that pedophiles commit 10x more sex offenses against children than nonpedophiles. That's a direct quote, not OR.-PetraSchelm (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This just doesn't strike me as particularly important. The person asking earlier was asking about the relationship to the victim, not whether said perpetrator is a dedicated pedophile. I also hear echoes of the debate raging about the definition of "pedophile." Do you know why all your sources seem to conflict with each other? Because scientists haven't finished that debate either, and each have their own idea of what it means. Further, the internal specifics of a given perpetrator's mind are very difficult to discern conclusively.

Just based on my experience reading criminology literature, most perpetrators have some close relationship (parent, caretaker, mom's boyfriend, etc.) or at least casual acquaintance to their victim (neighbor, coach). It provides access, a position of trust , is easier to hide, and is less likely to get reported. A perfect stranger is going to have a harder time. Generally, mild pathology is going to be more common than severe pathology.Legitimus (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

unreliable source and misinterpreted reference

This paragraph removed from the article for two reasons: (a) other than the last sentence, the source is unreliable - it's a review of Finkelhor's paper with no authorship attribution, that's on a self-published website that establishes no qualifications of the people who run the website and/or write the content, and the website is not a neutral scientific source, it's a support site for adults attracted to minors. If Finkelhor's work is to be cited, it needs to be cited directly, or if through a third party then that third party must be established as a reliable source themselves.

And, (b) the text was used in the subsection on "opposing arguments", within the section on effects of child sexual abuse. But it presents no opposing arguments about the effects, the text is a philosophical argument about why adult-child sex should be prohibited. That's off topic, even if the reference was reliable, which it's not. The one sentence directly cited to Finkelhor at the end of the paragraph does meet RS if it's an accurate quote, but that sentence is certainly not an "opposing argument" regarding effects, it's a discussion of the ethical basis for prohibiting adult-child sex that doesn't directly address any of the substance under discussion in the article. If a philosophy section is added to the article, it could be used there, but not in the "opposing arguments" section. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

off-topic paragraphs moved to talk page

Moved from lead section

I don't see how this is relevant at all to the lead:

Pro-pedophile activists use the phrase "adult-child sex" and related academic defenses to redefine some forms of "child sexual abuse" through value-neutral terminology to normalize and promote the idea that children can consent to sex with adults and are not necessarily harmed by such practice. -PetraSchelm (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this short mention is ok, I guess. The assertion is out there in the scientific world, and it does relate to the topic.

However, I would like to point out that "not necessarily harmed by such practice" always seemed an odd and misleading assertion anyway. While supported by data, that would be missing the point. Playing russian roulette with five bullets is not always harmful either, know what I mean? Stephen Ondersma, PhD points out that we've known about the broad spectrum of reactions to CSA since Freud's time, which can include no reaction, and can include sub-clinical harm (minor and not easily detectable in a research setting). Further, the inclusion of a person with "no reaction" in samples fails to account for other factors: Counseling, family support, and personal resiliency that may have allowed them to cope and therefore not have any ill effects at the time of the sampling. I broke my arm once, but you'd never know it now, and I have no ill effects to date. Legitimus (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, having pro-pedophile activism in the lead implies that pro-pedophile activism is centrally relevant to child sexual abuse. I don't see how it's relevant to the topic at all, let alone so centrally relevant that it should be summarized in the lead.-PetraSchelm (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking on the subject of including PPA in this article overall, I'm divided. On the one hand, it does exist, and is documented. How it relates to CSA is that the movement argues that certain activities are not CSA, whereas most other people would disagree. On the other hand, having too much commentary on PPA is the this article I feel would put off the potential naive reader, and make the article sounds strange. I know I felt very odd reading it a month or two ago for the first time. Legitimus (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Controversy" is already included in the article re CSA and the Rind study. (And PPA is not a "movement," it's a handful of extremely small fringe groups. It doesn't rise to a level of significance that warrants its inclusion here. This article links to pedophilia, which links to pro and anti pedophile activism. Per Jimbo, extreme fringe groups shouldn't be mentioned at all in Wikipedia, "except perhaps in some ancillary article." Note that he said "some ancillary article," not every ancillary article...)-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you. But I know somebody is going to pipe up any second now. Of course it would grand if they didn't. Indeed, this article on Citizendium and Psychology Wiki make not mention of it whatsoever. They don't even have a controversy section, just a brief mention under "effects" about Rind et al. and such.Legitimus (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The mention of the PPA attempt to redefine some forms of sexual relations between adults and children as "adult-child sex" is likely a result of the partial (in truth, extremely minimal) merge of information formerly located in the now-deleted article on that very topic - adult-child sex. Considering that that article had a great deal of sourced information, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be that hard to corroborate contemporary academic and other discussion of whether or not sexual relations between adults and children are inherently harmful, and whether all of them constitute child sexual abuse. However, we would need someone to look into the backup text available only to admins to find the sources used to reference that article. ~ Homologeo (talk) 07:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There's already an opposing arguments section in this article. The idea that child sexual abuse doesn't harm the child (including the adult who the child becomes in maturity) is a fringe theory. In the interests of carefully following WP:NPOV, the article includes an opposing arguments section to acknowledge those very few researchers who have done some controversial and often disputed scientific work in that fringe area; but there is no bona-fide ongoing debate in scientific community about those ideas and it would be inappropriate to emphasize them here with undue weight. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

moved from controversy section

The controversy section following the scientific studies of the effects of child abuse should include only scientific studies (which have been controversial). The sections it follows do not pose pro-con arguments to be rebutted, they are a report of the studies.-PetraSchelm (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Some philosophers, academics, writers, and pro-pedophile activists have disagreed with the majority viewpoint. Author Judith Levine wrote in her controversial 2002 book Harmful to Minors that some scholars challenge the idea that all sexual activity between adults and minors is necessarily harmful. Levine clarified in an interview with USA Today that her statements referred to sex between adults and youths of 12 years and older. The article on this interview reported that a spokesperson for the American Psychological Association stated that "there is no drive among mainstream mental health professionals or social science academics to 'legitimize adult-child sex'", and that a representative of the book's publisher said that "the book does not advocate pedophilia."

Why should the controversy section only include scientific controversy? After all, this article does talk about political and other viewpoints as well. If information is pertinent and properly sourced, it should stay. ~ Homologeo (talk) 07:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

moved from pro-pedophile activism section

Again, I do not see how this is relevant to child sexual abuse. I could see scientific controversy following a report of scientific studies, but the fact that 2,000 or so people belong to pro-pedophile organizations is not relevant. The "summary" is longer than the summary of the pedophile article. Also, this is mostly a repetition of stuff about Rind. -PetraSchelm (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Main article: Pro-pedophile activism

The movement to normalize the idea of "adult-child sex" and separate it from "child sexual abuse" gained public attention in 1948 with Alfred Kinsey's publication of the Kinsey Reports including his interviews with pedophiles, and increased momentum in the late 1990s with the infamous and widely discredited Rind et al. study, that has since been quoted by numerous pedophile advocacy organizations. Researcher Stepanie Dallam's examination of the Rind study, published in the Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, stated, "...a willing encounter with positive reactions would no longer be considered to be sexual abuse; instead, it would simply be labeled adult-child sex. ... After careful examination of the evidence, it is concluded that Rind et al. can best be described as an advocacy article that inappropriately uses science in an attempt to legitimatize its findings."

According to sociologist Mary de Young, pro-pedophile organizations and others seeking to gain social acceptance for pedophilia work to redefine or restrict the usage of the term "child sexual abuse", recommending a child's so-called "willing encounter with positive reactions" be termed "adult-child sex" instead of "abuse" In 1989, de Young reviewed the literature published by pro-pedophile organizations for public dissemination and found that pro-pedophile organizations promoted such adoption of "value-neutral terminology, along with several other strategies to promote goals of public acceptance of pedophilia, including promotion of the idea that children can consent to sex with adults, questioning the assumption of harm, and the declassification of pedophilia as mental illness, and other methods.

Baltimore psychologist Joy Silberg, whose clinical practice specializes in helping child-abuse victims, stated in a Washington Times interview that the "whole academic movement" to legitimize sex with children "is growing" and that "the efforts of people who would like to legitimize relationships between adults and children are actually being successful."

Claire Reeves, president and founder of Mothers Against Sexual Abuse (MASA), told the Washington Times that "intellectual defenses of pedophila are 'a huge concern' because they can function as 'a green light' to would-be child molesters." She stated, "Adults who might have a propensity to hurt a child might say, 'See, it's not harmful, these people are Ph.D.s, they must know.'"

The authors listed here are not just some random pro-pedophile activists, but actual legit experts. So, I'm not clear as to why this is inappropriate for this article. After all, if there's academic debate on whether or not sexual relations between adults and children are inherently harmful, then an overview of the main talking points should be provided. ~ Homologeo (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There is other information in the article to address the topic area you mentioned, "academic debate on whether or not sexual relations between adults and children are inherently harmful". The the above section however discusses a different subject, pro-pedophile activism; that's off-topic and not needed in this article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Pro-pedophile activism already has it's own article anyway.Legitimus (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

moved from age of consent section

This off-topic section "age of consent"] has also been deleted, on the same basis as the above listed sections, as explained at #failed merge from another article.

One paragraph with a summary of statutory rape was moved from the deleted section into the section on international laws. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

failed merge from another article

All of the material list above in this talk page section about "adult-child sex" and "pro-pedophilia activism" was moved into this article a few months ago as a result of an attempted merge from an article titled "Adult-child sex". The redirect was later undone but the added material was not removed. That other article was eventually deleted after a long series of AfD debates. The material that was left here during the failed attempt at redirect and merge is not needed in this article and is appropriately removed as has now been done. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it was me who moved it in a failed merge attempt and whoever reverted adult-child sex was feeling too torpid to fix this article too. I strongly support removing this material which is only here by error and should certainly not be here now the afd ended up with a delete not a merge SqueakBox17:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah so that explains it. Ok, sounds good to me.Legitimus (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that all this information is out-of-place here. Even if some of this text ended up here as a result of a failed merge, there's no reason to simply delete it. There are some parts that should remain, and I have posed a few preliminary comments above to get discussion going on these recent deletions of information. ~ Homologeo (talk) 07:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a matter of WP:WEIGHT. Rind is already mentioned here. A duplication of large parts of the pro-pedophile activism article gives undue weight.-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Mhamic

One research website cites three papers that may shed light on the controversial disparity between rates of positive and neutral reaction in different studies of the topic. It is argued that "reliance on clinical and criminal samples and generalizing their results to larger populations" is a common problem in researching the issue. (reference - http://mhamic.org/problems/summary.htm)

Mhamic is not a reliable source. Selectively citing the literature is a violation of SYN and OR. "Reliance on clinical and criminal samples" is a general limitation regarding the research on pedophilia--what are you saying it sheds light on, and who says so, with reference to this? Also, there is not a "controversial disparity between rates of positive and neutral reaction"--that's overstating it more than a bit.-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Just an attempt to find a possible cause of the controversy. Rind-type papers tend to emphasize the population sample, whilst those he opposes use clinical data, legal anecdotes, etc. In that sense, I am not using MHAMIC to prove any point, but rather offer a possible interpretation. However, it is telling that you jump to the accusation of "selectivity". Lambton ^T/_C 21:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Selectivity is the reason MHAMIC is not a reliable source, that's why I mention it--it's an advocacy website maintained by a layperson who synthesizes and interprets studies to further an agenda in an in-universe way that doesn't reflect the depth or breadth or consensus of the literature. It helps to reinforce a skewed perspective in the way 9/11 truth websites do, homeopathy websites, etc. People seeking confirmation of a fringe view go to those websites and get the mistaken impression "it are fact/science is on my side," when it's not the case at all.-PetraSchelm (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that MHAMIC does not meet WP:RS. If they quote a reliable reference on their site, then rather then citing the MHAMIC link, the source can be cited directly. Any information they present that is not directly attributed to a solid source is just their opinion and doesn't qualify as reliable for Wikipedia. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There are victimology sites (The Leadership Council, Reisman Institute, Government funded etc) that are just as agenda-driven as MHAMic. What they should be used for is to give different perspectives, not absolute measures. FarenhorstO (talk) 03:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No, reliability of sources is not determined by their perspectives. Each source must be vetted on its individual qualifications to determine actual reliability. MHAMic is a self-published website of one or two people's opinions; they are not experts or notable in any way; the site fails WP:RS. In contrast, the Leadership Council is a "nonprofit independent scientific organization composed of respected scientists, clinicians, educators, legal scholars, and public policy analysts." -- their advisory board includes approximately 50 respected scientists who have written approximately 80 books. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"It"

Anybody who uses the term "it" to refer to a large body of conflicting research in their field of study really should take a broader look at the issue. Lambton ^T/_C 03:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Lambton wrote: 23:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC): it obviously calls for it

Lambton wrote: 03:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)" "It"? There is no "it".

I'm confused - which "it" are you referring to? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That used to describe a vast chunk of the literature as opposed to a policy. Lambton ^T/_C 03:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving "It" to talk

I think it's fine for this to stay here while we're discussing it, as it was primariliy a news story, and it has its own article, and the relevance to the subject hasn't been established.-PetraSchelm (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversial Research A few controversial studies have suggested that some adults reporting experiences of childhood or adolescent sexual contact with adults had maintained some at least partially positive feelings about those experiences. Psychologist Bruce Rind argued in a 1998 study known as Rind et al. that not all cases of adult-child sex should be termed "child sexual abuse". This study was condemned by the United States Congress, an event which marked the first time in U.S. history that Congress officially condemned a study published in a major scientific journal. Rind's study was a meta-analysis of 15 studies using college students that found that boys reacted positively in 37% of the cases, while girls reacted positively in 11% of the cases. The methodology of this study has been criticized by Dallam et al. (2002) but has also received support. One study found that most men formerly involved in woman-boy sexual relations evaluate their experience as positive upon reflection. There is contrasting evidence that some children who initially report positive feelings will sometimes go on to reassess their abuse in a negative light. 38% of the 53 men studied by Urquiza (1987) said that they viewed their experience as positive at the time, but only 15% retained this attitude. According to Coffey et al. (1996), this may be due in part to the stigma attached to child sexual abuse. One exploratory questionnaire-based study of 63 men and women who self-identified as maintaining at least a partial positive feeling about sexual abuse during their childhood or adolescence suggested a wide range of possible effects in adult life, rather than a clearly-defined pathology. Of the 63 subjects, 41% recalled feelings of guilt, 35% said they were frightened at the time, and 29% reported feelings of shame. Russell (1986) speculated that the perception of a sexually abusive event as 'positive' could stem from a mechanism for coping with traumatic experiences. Some research papers may shed light on the controversial disparity between rates of positive and neutral reaction in different studies of the topic. In Journal of Sex Research, Kilpatrick (1987) argues that some papers, in using clinical samples, fail to produce results that can be generalised to society as a whole:

"Thirdly, studying only those who are receiving psychiatric care or those who have been identified by the criminal justice system biases the results of the study. When members of these groups are found to suffer from certain psychological problems, it cannot be determined whether these are due to the childhood sexual experience or to some other factor that caused them to be treated or incarcerated. It is not known whether people in the non-clinical population would react similarly. Thus, clinical and offender populations cannot be generalized to other groups of people".

The presumption of trauma or damage is hypothesized to be able to cause iatrogenic harm to child victims.

Can we first have consensus before removing any sourced material?

From my point of view, the issue is that the section is wrongly named. A more appropriate title would be "conflicting opinions and evidence". The diversity of literature would be increased, with specific mentions of works analysed by Rind, those mentioned in the PPA article, and anthropological accounts that conflict with the CSA model when critically analysed. This would be much like a criticism section, and would be well justified in that CSA "as a universal model for all instances of sex between adults and minors" has been heavily criticised in both the empirical and critical literature. Lambton ^T/_C 12:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Your point about sourced material is well taken. However, remember that harm is most certainly not required for abuse. And none of this research indicates the complete absence of harm, nor even a general lack of harm. Therefore, it is still CSA regardless of this research. Legitimus (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the term "abuse" can be used in this article. However, I would only use the term in an attributonal sense, not passively. This much is required to keep within WP:NPOV.

It is important to mention the POV that would hold positively recalled "abuse" to be abusive on some ethical grounds, as this is the prevalent opinion after all. It is also important to mention the many challenges that have been laid before those who advocate CSA as a universal model of intrinsic harm or moral wrongness. Lambton ^T/_C 13:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The section is morphing as we we type, so I'll have to leave off for now until I can catch up. However, I also should point out that positively recalling "abuse" is thought to be a coping rationalization and even a delusion. An individual is more that capable of having pathology that is undetectable by the measures used in these studies, without being aware of its true cause.Legitimus (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, Lambton, I encourage you to read the recent Arbcom case in which someone from the pro-life side of the abortion debate (a pov with a large number of adherents, unlike PPAs) was banned because Arbcom deemed that she overzealously argued for the overemphasis of peer reviewed studies published by a pro-life psychologist about post abortion syndrome. I believe you are already vulnerable to accusations of tendentious editing. Wikipedia is not the place to even look like you are personally trying to reconfigure the weight of scientific opinion in any subject by selectively citing or pushing studies-- a reliable expert synthesis would have to be published stating that Rind et al has shifted the weight of opinion. Instead, the scientific consensus--based on the overwhelming majority of the research, which finds there is an association between child sexual abuse and negative psychological sequelae-- was not changed at all after Rind. (And again, there is absolutely no requirement that harm be universal in any scientific study of trauma, nor is there evidence of such, nor is that remarkable. You seem to have confused Finkelhor's statements that in addition to the strong association between child sexual abuse and harm, there is also a moral and ethical prohibition as "evidence" that he admits "universalism" is necessary to establish harm, and that is not the case. It's harm plus ethics, not ethics because there is no harm if harm is not "universal." I have only seen the arguments you are making about "universalism" and Finkelhor's statement regarding the ethical prohobition against pedophilia on PPA websites, and they are agenda-driven novel arguments that are fringe and don't make sense except to PPAs.) In summary, "those who advocate CSA as a universal model of intrinsic harm" is a fringe view of the research on child sexual abuse. The research demonstrates a strong association between child sexual abuse and negative sequelae. The mainstream are not "advocates," and they have not "advocated" a "universal model," because no one in science "advocates universal models" regarding disease or psychological distress. That is preposterous. Theo Sandfort, Greg Okami, and Rind do not add up to "many challenges" among the hundreds upon hundreds of studies. Rind and Sandfort have been thoroughly discredited, and really only belong in the pro-pedophile activism article. Okami's research has zero statistical power because it involved a sample size of 43 people, in additon, it found a "continuum," that was largely negative or neutral, not positive.-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Iatrogenic"

These studies say that the stigma of being abused compunds psychological harm, not that the stigma causes harm iatrogenically all by itself where otherwise there would be none.-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The presumption of trauma or damage is hypothesized to be able to cause iatrogenic harm to child victims.

• Besharov, D. J. (1981). The Third International Congress on Child Abuse and Neglect: Congress highlights. Child Abuse & Neglect, 5, 211-215.

I'm not able to locate the full text of this reference, does anyone have it? From other sources I seen that cite it, it seems to state that children can be harmed by the process of reporting sexual abuse. That's not based on presumption of harm, or even about stigma, it's about the process of discussing the problem. This is vague and without the full text, can't be used.

• Browne, A., & Finkelhor, D. (1986). Impact of child sexual abuse: A review of the research. Psychological Bulletin, 99.

The above reference does not support the text. It includes a full paragraph discussing possible harm based on stigmatized responses, but specifically, not based on "presumption of harm"; the paper discusses rejection by family and friends and unwanted institutional interventions such as repeated testimony, or being removed from the home. It's a complex paper and without further analysis, not clear how it can be used, but it definitely can't be used for the above.

• Money, J. (1988). "Commentary: Current status of sex research," Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 1(1), 5-15.

The above is an abstract that does not mention anything related to the sentence in question. Does anyone have access to the full text of this article?

• Holguin, G. & Hansen, D. J. (2002). The "sexually abused child": potential mechanisms of adverse influences of such a label, Aggression and Violent Behavior

That article does not discuss something as simple as harm caused by the presumption of harm. Mainly it discusses possible negative effects, including stigmatization among others, of a child being "labelled" as someone who has been sexually abused. It's a detailed study, that needs study in order to be used accurately in this context.

Summary - The sentence removed from the article should stay deleted, unless it can be more accurately phrased and sourced. For those sources that do address the topic, they need to be more carefully reviewed and summarized in a way that accurately presents their content. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you are distorting the issue and using semantics to step around the issue. You reject sources out of hand, just because you don't have access to them, which is clearly illogical. Lastly, even if it has no sources you want material to be deleted - a position that neglects even the slightest concession to eventualism, on an issue that is core to the objections in this article. I suggest that you take a more balanced look at the accuracy of sources in this article, and we can then move on with the text as a whole as opposed to constantly fighting for and against premature and unjustified deletionism.

Petra: The article is not claiming that some researchers propose a 100% iatrogenic model. Lambton ^T/_C 17:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Lambton, comment on content and not editors. And I have no idea what you mean by "concession to eventualism". WP:V states that if there is no source, the information cannot be included. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are using distraction. I would never use an editor's status to attempt to discredit them on a talk page, and I would only criticise their behaviour when it merits a mention. Distortion and illogical source purging based on ones own access to information merits a mention, as it effects the article severely. There is nothing in WP:V or any linked article that justifies the removal of solid references that an editor does not have access to. The absence of a source would be a completely diferent issue, but you have to respect the fact that offline sources have been put there for a reason, and that this is common, permitted practice on WP. Getting hold of these works may be an additional benefit of investigating the issue with a greater attention to detail, but immediate inavailability is not a justification for removing sourced material without consensus, justification or proper discussion. Lambton ^T/_C 18:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that my actions are "distortion and illogical source purging". I'll meditate on that for a while, and leave you with the last word here pending comments from others. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read some of these articles in paper form. It's been a while so bear with me. None of them would quite fit the description of an iatrogenic effect, which means it was caused by medical treatment. Testifying repeatedly, stigma from society or the family, are not iatrogenic because those are not treatments, though they can be harmful. Indeed, stigma would certainly not be the result of a psychologist's treatment interventions unless he/she is declaring the person's history out in public. I propose an alternative:

"Some evidence indicates that psychological symptoms can be exacerbated by various activities relating to the revelation of abuse, such as having to describe the encounter repeatedly, feeling stigma from society and family, or being taken from one's family of origin.Legitimus (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Neutral terminology

Homologeo, the term sexual abuse is used consistently throughout the controversy section (not just in that sentence) as it should be. We don't call kidnapping by a value neutral euphemism when the abuctee develops Stockholm Syndrome, either.-PetraSchelm (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Then, why have the Controversy section at all? How could the term "sexual abuse" be utilized within a passage dealing with studies documenting possible positive reactions of individuals to the sexual relations in question? As for your observation that "sexual abuse" is used throughout the section, I would contend that a number of these instances needs to be changed to more value-neutral terminology, at least when discussion centers upon the question of whether or not sexual contact between children and adults is inherently harmful. Besides, there is already some NPOV reference to sexual contact between adults and children within this section. ~ Homologeo (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The controversy section notes minor, highly questionable controversial research; the fact that there was this controversy doesn't change commonly accepted terms, which should be used throughout the article. The mainstream view is that this controversial research found that some people had reactions to sexual abuse that they themselves did not consider negative--this does not change society's view of their abuse into "adult child sexual contact."-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

But how can the passage function on its own, or carry any significant non-contradictory meaning, if a study is said to show that some people regard "sexual abuse" in their childhood in a positive light? If a person does not regard something as negative, he or she is unlikely to label it as abuse. This just doesn't make sense. Besides, the terminology you're proposing is contrary to the way some academics would list the results of these very same studies. ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly it--the passage doesn't function "on its own"--it's part of the article. Sexual abuse=sexual abuse.-PetraSchelm (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is not the same thing as "value-neutral terminology". A fringe theory must not be presented with undue weight.

Homologeo wrote: why have the Controversy section at all?" -- he's right, that section should be deleted as off-topic. None of those references support the idea that an adult sexually abusing a biological child might be considered positive. Even the cornerstone pro-pedophile activist mantra of "Rind et al" addresses adolescents, not children. The whole section is a red herring. An adult using a child for sexual gratification is child sexual abuse, not "intergenerational sexual contact". It's not contrary to NPOV to say the the Earth is round and not flat; the flat earth theory can have an article because it's notable, but it doesn't rise to a section in the article about the Earth, other than a passing mention in the historical interest paragraph. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack wrote: "Even the cornerstone pro-pedophile activist mantra of "Rind et al" addresses adolescents, not children." If that is the case, obviously Rind is not "pro-pedophile", as pedophilia=attraction to preadolescents." St. Jimmy (talk) 05:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not write that "Rind et al" is pro-pedophile. I referred to the fact that pro-pedophile activists use the Rind et al paper as one of their tools to support their claims. That they use the paper in a way that is not supported by its content does not change the fact that they use it in that way. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies if you did not pick up on the sarcasm in that sentence. Please consider the full context of my comment before summarizing it in such a rudimentary manner. Of course the Controversy section needs to be here, and, more likely than not, needs to be expanded upon. Besides, the studies discussed do deal with children. Furthermore, child sexual abuse is indeed sometimes a charge leveled against adults engaging in sexual relations with individuals who are not technically "children" according to the biological definition, but who still fall below the age of consent. Thus, seeing as this deletion was not discussed properly, and this was a very drastic change to the article, I'm restoring the section within the article. Hopefully, some real discussion will take place next time. ~ Homologeo (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack makes a very good case for why "controversy" doesn't fit here; and I agree. The earth article doesn't have a "controversy" section explaining the existence of the Flat Earth Society.-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What about "Controversial Research" instead of "Controversy?" I feel that gets the point across better, as again I feel compelled to point out that there has never been any research claiming there is never any harmful effects whatsoever (though PPA likes to spin it that way). Even taken at face value, this research still says it's harmful most of the time (load five and spin that revolver...)Legitimus (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes to the above. And whilst NPOV is not the same as value-neutral terminology, it obviously calls for it, as opposed to "what most people think". Guidelines for weighting should not be used to determine termininology POV. I would also be for removing all unattributed claims of "CSA" and replacing them with neutral terminology that discusses this medical concept in a sociological manner.

Comparing what is a very large minority POV in the scientific and critical analysis of CSA (that not all CSA is reported as (at least intrinsically) harmful) to the flat earth society is not right at all. Lambton ^T/_C 23:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "very large minority POV in the scientific and critical analysis of CSA", it's a fringe theory, subject to the undue weight section of the NPOV policy. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"It"? There is no "it". Truth is, most research goes against universalistic models of harm in CSA (even your cherished Finkelhor), and a large minority of the literature opposes the ideas strongly. Now, a hell of a lot more has been written within the victimological framework, i.e. "How best to avoid this aspect of incest", etc, but of the material directly addressing the issue of CSA and intrinsic harm, the "fringe" to which you refer is more than just a passing controversy as your version (revision?) of the topic would have us believe. Lambton ^T/_C 03:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"most research goes against universalistic models of harm in CSA" - what is your basis for "most research"? Are you referring to Okami, Rind, Bauserman? Are there others?

"a large minority of the literature opposes the ideas strongly." - if, as you wrote, "most research goes against universalistic models of harm in CSA" - then how can "a large minority oppose"? Is the "large minority" the same as "most research"? Sorry, but I don't understand your point. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

For example: Finkelhor does not push the anti-universalism point strongly, as that would defeat his position. Instead, he uses an ethical argument to establish universal lack of consent. Of course there is more than Okami and Rind. For starters, all of the studies analysed by Rind are not magically reduced to one, just because of that article. Lambton ^T/_C 03:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Lambton: You might want to reconsider idiosyncratically calling the mainstream "the victimological framework," and overarguing against consensus for an extreme fringe view, etc. I think people have been banned for that. I saw an Arbcom case on the Wikipedia Signpost about that yesterday. Wikipedia reports on real world debates, it does not carry them out, and this is not the place to "right great wrongs" you see. That means we have an obligation to dspassionately reflect majority scientific opinion, whatever it is, in every subject at all times. (Regarding "intrinsic harm" --it doesn't equal "no harm," and there is no trauma in the psychological or psychiatric literature that has the same de facto result for all people. But we do not argue that war is not associated with PTSD simply because everyone does not respond in the same way at the same time to combat trauma, for example. The scientific literaure supports the association. This is true even in hard science--only a small percentage of people who smoke will get lung cancer--the minority of them. But we acknowledge that the scientific literature has established an association between smoking and lung cancer. That is why the weight of scientific opinion matters, and we do not report every study, and not every study which appears to contradict scientific consensus is a "controversy" worthy of mention--there are always contradicting studies; that's not remarkable unless it shifts the weight of opinion. In the case of Rind et al, the controversy was a news matter, not so much a scientific matter, and it has its own article.)-PetraSchelm (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant subjectification. The weight of opinion is what I am discussing. Anybody editing this article should read about the selection process in the Rind Analysis. It demostrates quite aptly how professional opinion is split on this issue.

There is nothing personal in describing the victimological framework (ask any victimologist of CSA) as something that can only provide enlightenment within the theory of CSA. That is where the bulk of recent work has been done. However, the argument over the validity of CSA itself is far more evenly split, and can be found in non medical literature as well. Lambton ^T/_C 12:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

you seem to have completely missed the point that "universalism" is a made-up requirement demanded by PPAs. What matters is the WP:WEIGHT of scientific opinion. Also, "victimologist" certainly is a weird and biased fringe neologism. Saying that "the victimological framework is something that can only provide enlightnement within the theory of CSA" is like going to the lung cancer article and posting on the talkpage "ZOMG! 90% of people who have ever smoked will not get lung cancer! The Truth is being suppressed by the cancerological framework!" There is no "split" over the "validity" of CSA. -PetraSchelm (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Victimologist is not a neologism. Read. Lambton ^T/_C 00:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

In the way that you're using it--to mean someone who has had "adult-child sex" but is told by "the victimological framework" that they are a "victim," it most certainly is. (The current term in vogue is abuse "survivor" not "victim," anyway.)-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Read again. Where you got the idea that I was referring to a child partner/victim, I do not know. The term is established in the field of psychiatry, and describes a professional working within or subscribing to a victimological framework. Lambton ^T/_C 17:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)