This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pedophilia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Per the Wikipedia:Child protection policy, editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships, or who identify themselves as paedophiles, will be indefinitely blocked.
Hendrick 99, regarding thisWP:Spinout that I reverted, and this page I redirected, WP:Spinout articles should ideally only be created when necessary. Read what WP:Spinout states, especially what it states about there being no need for haste. I don't see how a WP:Spinout article is necessary in this case. There is no WP:SIZE issue. And while the In Western cultures section looks big from the table of contents, it actually is not big; look at it. The subheadings, which I reduced after reverting your split, make it look big. Yes, the article should have more material in the In non-Western cultures section; the solution is to add more to that section, not unnecessarily create a WP:Spinout article focusing specifically on child sexuality/child sexual behavior in Western cultures to "balance things out" in the parent article. Like the WP:POVFORK section of WP:Content fork states, "[...] POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a 'POV fork' of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion." Flyer22 (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, going on research aspects, there is likely significantly more to state about child sexuality in Western cultures than child sexuality in non-Western cultures; this is similar with regard to adolescent or adult sexuality in Western cultures compared to adolescent or adult sexuality in non-Western cultures. Flyer22 (talk) 07:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
"Child sexuality is concerned".. probably should mean "this article is dealing with"
"...the biological, psychological and social influences upon the sexual development of children, and the range of sensational, emotional and consequent sexual activities that may occur before or during puberty"
-for me it would seem more logical to focus on the second part first and foremost (sensational, emotional and consequent sexual activities that may occur before or during puberty) and structure the article accordingly. Which means moving Freud, followed by "theories and research" to the top of the article and moving all the "cultural" stuff further down.
Regarding the "this article is dealing with" part, we typically should not employ WP:Self reference. Regarding the "the biological, psychological and social influences," no matter where we place that content in the lead, it should, per WP:Lead, be in the lead since the lower part of the article addresses those aspects. I don't see why you wouldn't want "biological" noted upfront, given the role it plays in sexuality. The Freud section is a part of the History section, and fits fine there. And the Theories and research section is a part of the In Western cultures section, for obvious reasons. So what type of layout are you proposing regarding those two aspects? If it's to move the Freud bit out of the History section, I ask why. And if it's also to move the Theories and research section out of the In Western cultures section, I ask why. How would that be a better setup? Flyer22 (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
The formulation "Child sexuality is concerned with..." is very unlucky at best - it is missing separation of object and subject. So what is this article about? Or what is Child sexuality about? So at the very least something like The term Child sexuality is used to denote needs to enter the scene. -- Richiez (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm open to you rewording the WP:Lead sentence. For reasons noted at the WP:Refers essay, I'd rather avoid beginning with "is a term for" wording, though. This article is not about the term; we can, however, specify what the term might denote after we open with a good WP:Lead sentence. And it's fine to have a Definitions section if needed. Flyer22 (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
It could be worked around like eg "Development of sexuality is integral part of the development and maturation of children. A range of sensational, emotional and consequent sexual activities that may occur before or during puberty, but before full sexual maturity is established. The development of child sexuality is influenced by social and cultural aspects. The concept of child sexuality also played an important role in the classical psychoanalysis." Richiez (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm okay with that wording; and like WP:BOLDTITLE notes, we can forgo bolding the title when appropriate. This seems like an okay case to forgo bolding the title. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Done that, also changed "during puberty" into "during early puberty" (I think there are enough other articles concerning adolescent sexuality) and added the bit about cultural perception. Do not have any opinion on boldtitle or how heavily it should be wikilinked. Richiez (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Noting here that Brenobolded the title. Breno, since you did that and are bolding other titles (I looked at your contributions), make sure that you are aware of what WP:BOLDTITLE states about bolding the title not always being needed. Flyer22 (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)