Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:09, 20 April 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.

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,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)

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 "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 Misplaced Pages, "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)

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 /_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 Misplaced Pages. --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)

1. Pedophilia 2
2. PRD - Okami 1992
3. ^ Dallam, Stephanie J. (2001). "Science or Propaganda? An Examination of Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman". Journal of Child Sexual Abuse. Vol 9, No. 3/4, pp. 109-134. Haworth Press. {{cite journal}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
4. ^ Leo, John (11/14/04). "What Kinsey wrought". US News & World Report. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
5. ^ Laws, D. Richard (2008). Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment. Guilford Press. pp. p3. ISBN 1593856059. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
6. ^ Spiegel, Josef (2003). Sexual Abuse of Males: The Sam Model of Theory and Practice. Routledge. pp. p5, p9. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |contributors= ignored (help)
7. ^ "Endorsement of adult-child sex on rise" by the Washington Times assistant national editor Robert Stacy McCain
8. Paul Okami, the Nudists, the Naturists, NAMBLA and the Pedophiles and the Children
9. Levine, Judith (2003). Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex. Thunder's Mouth Press. ISBN 1560255161.
10. Karen S. Peterson (04/16/2002). "Experts debate impact, gray areas of adult-child sex". usatoday. Retrieved 2007-12-28. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
11. de Young, Mary (1989). "The World According to NAMBLA: Accounting for Deviance". Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare. 16 (1): 111–26. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

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