AfDs & DRVs for this article and related pages:
- Adult-child sex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This being a very obvious search term, notwithstanding the persistent impasse with regards to whether this subject should be redirected to child sexual abuse or to pedophilia (I am not proposing to allow for this article in its own right), leaving this address as a void is no happy solution which I think could be improved upon if it became a disambiguation page simply. It could read for instance. "The following Misplaced Pages articles deal with the topic of adult-child sex:" meco (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion -- As "Adult-child sex" is a euphemistic neologism coined by pro-pedophile activists, Misplaced Pages's use of this term, in a disambiguation page for child sexual abuse and pedophilia, would give undue weight to the fringe views of such activists. The only acceptable article on this topic, consistent with our neutral point of view policy, would be a discussion of the term itself, its etymology, usage, etc, provided that there were sufficient reliable sources to support it. The deleted article, of course, attempted no such linguistic analysis, but merely discussed child sexual abuse in a manner favorable to pro-pedophile activists, in violation of WP:NPOV. John254 18:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Obviously there's no need to present arguments against the deleted article as I'm not proposing it be undeleted as such. However, having merely taken a glance at previous deletion discussions, I am soundly convinced that your initial assertion is blatantly false, as anthropologists and ethnologists in the past unambiguously have documented that sexual relations between human adults and their offspring (as children in an age-referencing sense) has been prevalent, even accepted, in many cultures completely distinct from today's so-called "child-love" or pedophelia advocacy movement. __meco (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- If there are scientific sources documenting historic information of when and where this was accepted (unrelated to the recent pro-pedophelia movement) I think a viable article can be written. Can you point to such sources or perhaps even provide a draft article?- Mgm| 10:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Clarification This review hinges on the fact that the redlinked article space is protected from creation. __meco (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Create and lock a disambiguation page that is as neutral as possible given WP:UNDUE. With 300+ results in a Google Scholar search, including usages that predate the Web, having the term come up red at Misplaced Pages risks becoming "Misplaced Pages is censored" POV in and of itself. I recommend that administrators who are active as editors in sexuality, child-abuse, or censorship articles, xfds, and deletion-reviews defer to disinterested, neutral administrators when it comes to what should be on the dab page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Why don't we just create a redirect to child sexual abuse and leave it protected? Protonk (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Unfortunately, a single redirect, just as a salted missing article, will introduce a POV. In a perfect world, we could do a dab page with big honking 72-point bold font to child sexual abuse with a normal-size link to pedophilia and a tiny 5-point link to Pro-pedophile activism. That would follow the spirit of WP:UNDUE, WP:CENSOR, and WP:NPOV. Actually, I may have those font sizes wrong, but in any case, they should reflect how the word is actually used. Maybe, if it's mostly used by pro-pedophile activists, pro-pedophile activism should be the prominent link. In any case, we can't do multiple-sized fonts, so the best we can do is probably a dab page with a short introductory text explaining why the page is locked, with 2 or 3 links, with the most popular use first. Does anyone actually know the most common usages of the term off-wiki? Whatever it is, that should guide the use here. But definitely lock it down. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Create protected redirect to Child sexual abuse, as reflecting general contemporary opinion and laws. There is an infobox in that article with links to associated topics. Problem solved. Sandstein 09:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC) — Addition: Possibly with a hatnote like: "Adult-child sex, a term used in pro-pedophile activism, redirects here", but that is an editorial matter to be resolved by the editors of that article. Sandstein 09:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment in response to Sandstein and others who favor any redirect: This issue is difficult because Misplaced Pages is supposed to reflect the off-Wiki world when it comes to POV: Nazis are bad, mom is good, etc. However, based on comments above and Google Scholar searches, I gather the literal words "adult-child sex," when used in print are used by pro-pedophile activists or in criticisms of pro-pedophile activism which quote those activists. This would normally mean it should redirect to Pro-pedophile activism if that were the only usage. Likewise, the English-world concept of adult-child sex, i.e. what most people in English-speaking countries would think of if you asked them to define the phrase, is much closer to Child sexual abuse, meaning the term should redirect there. If Misplaced Pages redirects to one or the other, it is saying "how the term is being used is more important than what people think when they hear it" or vice-versa. Either way, it's a loss for Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately, leaving the link read says "the term is not encyclopedic" which isn't exactly correct either. Some type of disambiguation is in order. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. I don't think the encyclopedia's interests is served by having the deleted article restored. I wouldn't be opposed to a protected redirect, as Protonk suggests. And if someone came up with a neutral article on the subject with citations to reliable sources (which I doubt will happen, but anyhow) then that could be used there. Stifle (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I honestly don't see how redirecting this to Child sexual abuse reflects anything but the mainstream POV. If needed, write a short 1 paragraph summary of pro-pedophilia activism and redirect it to that paragraph in the child sexual abuse article. Contorting ourselves into some position where we feel we need to dab this for NPOV is incorrect. NPOV requires presentation and discussion of views in proportion to their significance and distance from the fringe. It doesn't demand that we not redirect adult-child sex to its mainstream analogue because it would suggest to readers that adult child sex wasn't child sexual abuse. Protonk (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - So far, we're looking at reviewing the AfD2 close (which already was done), determining whether to create a redirect, and looking at creating a dab page. Also, there are a variety of deletion discussions posted with the DRV request, but DRV is at its best when reviewing one deletion action in view of the DRV request. I think we should try to focus this discussion. The page was protected at 06:45, 27 January 2008 by Kylu. The reason given was Per WP:DRV closing admin. The DRV closing admin was Mackensen. The 04:03, 28 January 2008 DRV close did not specify to protect the article. The DRV endorsed AfD2, reasoning that process objections are sufficient to prevent maintaining an adult-child sex POV fork in the article namespace. This 15:04, 29 December 2008 DRV request is for permission to create a disambiguation page. The first question that needs to be answered is what is the reasoning behind the protection. Did Kylu protect the "Adult-child sex" article name space for any and all purposes or was it only in furtherance of enforcing the DRV decision? Kylu and/or Mackensen might be able to answer that. I'll invite them to this discussion, but if you find a diff to answer that question, please post in this thread. The second question is whether a disambiguation page at Adult-child sex would amount to "an adult-child sex POV fork in the article namespace" that violates the process objections brought out in AfD2. It may help to have a user space draft to answer that. -- Suntag ☼ 01:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think the question of page protection is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I take no stance on the creation of a different article, a disambiguation page or the status quo; I have not been involved in the discussions on the relevant talk pages and my role at DRV was that of a completely uninvolved administrator closing a contentious debate. Mackensen (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Disambiguate - So far, the "mainstream" suggestions above seem to be saying that the average Joe on the street's response is to think pedophilia/child sexual abuse. That may be true; it seems common sense. But, if there are also mainstream scholarly references which use the term for classical pederasty, as well as aspects of the pro-pedophilia movement which use the term, it becomes more complex. I'd say the only way to sort it out (aside from leaving an ugly redlink) is a disambiguation page. We can fight out which order the links are on the new disambig's talk page. ;) — The Hand That Feeds You: 03:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. This DRV requested a disambiguation page, but on thinking about the matter further, I could not approve a disambiguation page without first seeing a draft to compare it against the standard provided in the DRV close. The redlink seems to rub people the wrong way and I think approval for a redirect is a better direction than that initially requested. The DRV close stated "the definite minority position which this term occupies vis-a-vis other terms," which seems like it classifies the "undue weight to the fringe views of such activists" position as a definite minority position. In any event, creating a redirect does not go against the DRV close. Also, creating a redirect does not go against the protection and does not go against any Redirects for discussion. There is present interest in this topic, even though the DRV was closed almost a year ago, Thus, I think it reasonable to allow a protected redirect to be created. It is important to keep in mind that it merely is an allowed action by DRV. It does not mean that it is a keep consensus from DRV. Determining whether there is consensus that a single redirect will introduce a POV or whether consensus would support the DRV allowed action is something that takes place in a RfD deletion discussion, not a deletion review discussion. In sum, I would not object to allowing a protected redirect to child sexual abuse per Protonk, Sandstein, and Stifle. -- Suntag ☼ 04:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Redirect to Pro-pedophile activism#Terminology and include a definition there; it could be good as a redirect, but I'm a bit cautious about the redirect to CSA. Sceptre 18:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Clarification. One or two voters above speculate about scholarly use of this term to indicate classical pederasty. I've run searches in JStor and L'Année Philologique and found no such uses, nor do the standard works on the subject employ the term, even in passing. Chick Bowen 18:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment in reply to CB: Thanks for looking stuff up in databases that most of us don't have access to. When used in what little literature I did look at, the term is used 3 ways: 1) as a literal term with face value, used by people without an agenda, 2) as a literal term, but used by people with a "there's nothing wrong with it" POV instead of terms they see as baggage-laden such as child sexual abuse, 3) in quotations or discussions of those in group 2, usually by people with the extremely dominant "sex with children is wrong" POV and usually intended to disparage those in group 2. I don't recall any usage relating to Greek or other classical pedastry, other than perhaps by those in group 2. Note that my search was a very small sample of Google Scholar search results, so I'm not saying the term is not used for pedastry, only that I didn't see it used that way. #2 seemed to be the most common, with #3 coming in second. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that's right--the term may be used about classical pederasty but not in scholarly sources. To me that means we don't have to cover that usage: i.e., it falls under the category of fringe scholarship, and it's a very minor fringe. I'm not commenting on other usages, but I would not want to see that one included in, for example, a potential disambiguation page. Whether (as Ipatrol says just below), there's enough for a disambig page without any reference to the ancient world, is a separate question. Chick Bowen 01:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion - I feel like I've written that in this same place on this same subject before - oh wait, I have, multiple times. There is no reason to restore this article, in any form. Its a magnet for pedophilia POV warriors, and almost every one of the main proponents of its restoration in the last few go 'rounds is now banned. Avruch 01:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
|
