Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:20, 14 February 2008

	Pedophilia Article Watch (defunct)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Pedophilia Article WatchWikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchTemplate:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchPedophilia Article Watch

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Child sexual abuse article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 15 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Mid‑importance 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.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Child sexual abuse article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 15 days

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

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. Prevalence figures range between 10% in the UK or up to 62% for females and 16% for males in the United States. 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.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. 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. 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%. 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. 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 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." "

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 Parameter error in {{issn}}: Invalid ISSN. (although our ISSN search can't find it) and/or ISSN 0108-271x Parameter error in {{issn}}: Invalid ISSN., 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 Misplaced Pages guideline at this link: Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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[REDACTED] 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,[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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)

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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[REDACTED] 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/Wikipedia:EL

"Misplaced Pages articles should include links to Web pages outside Misplaced Pages 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/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: Misplaced Pages 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[REDACTED] policy or guideline states that ELs can't be connected to advocacy. Also, please cite that[REDACTED] 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,Template:Cite article 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,Template:Cite article sexually transmitted diseases,Template:Cite article about the incest loophole,Template:Cite article CSA’s epidemiology and risk factors,Template:Cite article child abuse networks,Template:Cite article 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 - Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

1. Karolinska Institute library catalog entry
2. library catalog entry
3. Kinsey Institute on Danish sexology
4. Wyatt, W. J. (2007). A Behavior Analytic Look at Contemporary Issues in the Assessment of Child Sexual Abuse.The Behavior Analyst Today, 8(2),145-162
5. Duffy, C., Keenan, M. and Dillenburger, K. (2006). Diagnosing Child Sex Abuse: A Research Challenge. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 2(2), 150-160.
6. Oellerich, T. (2007). Rethinking the Routine Provision of Psychotherapy to Children/Adolescents Labeled “Sexually Abused”. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 3.(1),123-136
7. Joseph S. Baschnagel, Scott F. Coffey, and Carla J. Rash (2006): The Treatment of Co-Occurring PTSD and Substance Use Disorders Using Trauma-Focused Exposure Therapy - International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 2.(4), 498-507
8. Afsoon Eftekhari, Lisa R. Stines and Lori A. Zoellner (2005): Do You Need To Talk About It? Prolonged Exposure for the Treatment of Chronic PTSD. The Behavior Analyst Today, 7.(1), 70-84
9. Dillenburger, K. and Fargas, M. (2006). Post-trauma: Is evidence-based practice a fantasy? International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 2(1), 94-103
10. Walser, R.D. & Westrup, D. (2006). Supervising Trainees in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Treatment of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 2(1), 12-18"

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class law articles
• Mid-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics