Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SeattleJoe (talk | contribs) at 17:54, 27 March 2008 (→Humanizing the Incest Article: -- my errors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

re Rind et al. controversy

Sorry I didn't get back to you on this in a timely manner. I did leave a brief not on AnotherSolipsists talk page. It looks like all the most recent edits are yours, so I assume that it's under control now? Excellent work on the article BTW. Herostratus (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Child porn image

Are you sure it is off topic? Its my feeling that images improve articles and that an article of possible child nudity would constitute alleged child pornography and therefore belong in this article. I know it's potentially contentious but I had good intentions.Cholga 06:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I did not mean to imply any question about your intentions. And I agree with you that images improve articles, but that photo is of a nudist bicycle ride - it's not pornographic, or even sexual - it's just nudity, so it's off-topic for the child porn article. I don't think we have references stating that simple nudity equals child porn. Maybe the best way to add an image to that article would be to add a graph of prevalence of child porn over time, or a graph of court cases or some other relevant data. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Not that picture again. Removed, trollery. I don't mean that Cholga is necessarily trolling, just that this pic and this article have been involved in trollery. Herostratus (talk) 04:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

To add a thought: child pornography is illegal in most jurisdictions. Adding a sample to the article might be a criminal offense. Seriously. SeattleJoe (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at this

I was following some links around and whatnot and happened across this article: Nudity and children. This article is atrocious! From idiocic (read: unencyclopedic) lines such as "If you are required to take PE, you will receive a poor grade if you do not participate" to the naked baby image that was gratuitously placed in the "further reading" section (I removed it), the article makes me want to vomit all over an AfD.

So why am I writing to you? Because I thought perhaps you'd be interested to take a look at it and do some cleaning-up of it. I's in the same (very) general vein as CSA, ACS, AoC, and all the other PAW articles of which you are so fond, and it needs the attention of someone like you who can do some major fixing. That and I thought you may be interested in fixing it and the rather paraphilic manner in which it is imaged. (Or, if AfD is more apt, let me know and I'll come "vote" to delete with you!) Otherwise, I hate to bother you and hope you have/are having a great day/weekend! • VigilancePrime • • • 07:49 (UTC) 2 Mar '08 Note: the article Nudity in the home is in the same boat too (and I removed the same image from the same spot there)... both of these look like they have a "let's-put-every-naked-child-photo-possible-in-here-to-see-if-we-can-get-away-with-it" look/feel to them too.

Thanks for your invitation to clean up those articles (though I don't accept your idea that I'm "fond" of the PAW articles). I might make a few changes to the nudity articles, but I don't have time to work on them extensively right now. I agree with you there are too many photos and some off-topic info. Probably the two articles should be merged. As far as an AfD, I would probably support deletion, but since the article is part of the nudity portal and has already survived an AfD, that might meet with significant opposition. I've added the PAW project tags to the articles. I suggest that you bring this up on the PAW talk page so more editors can help with improvements. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "fond" isn't the right word; what I was getting at is that PAW articles are in your area of editing interest? That's wordy, but I'm sure much better said. No offense intended in that. I'm "fond" of the Capybara article, as in I find editing that article very interesting.

Anyway, The entire nudity portal is awful. The "Not wearing underwear" link in the portal footer template links to a subsection of an article. I feel like getting all Jack-on-ACS on that article! Just delete it outright and maybe start over!!!

I didn't notice that it had already been AfD-ed once (I didn't spend much time there). Merging them would probably be the best solution. As for me bringing it up to the PAW group, I don't talk to the PAW page/group in general... I've had enough accusations and attacks for simply posting around those pages and with that group. I brought it to your attention because I felt that you would be the best (and most closely-aligned in perspective on this matter) person to look at it.

Anyway, I might pop back over there today if I feel like wandering around and if I do, I'll see what I can do in the way of cleaning it up a bit. Thanks for your thoughts/help and best wishes! • VigilancePrime • • • 20:17 (UTC) 2 Mar '08

OK, no offense taken, just wanted to be clear on that. I've done some edits on those pages, that's all I have time for now. Hopefully they won't be undone. The topics are vague and need a lot more work. There's almost no science or reliable sources on those pages at all. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Had to happen

Just an FYI, this user insists on reinserting these plainly inappropriate photos. I would consider this low-level vandalism. Your thoughts and involvement in the matter would be appreciated (even if you disagree with me). • VigilancePrime • • • 00:08 (UTC) 3 Mar '08

I don't think it's vandalism, it's a content dispute. I disagree with WebHamster about the photos, but from what I've seen so far, without knowing much about him, he seems to be a good-faith editor. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know... he gave a vandal template notice to an IP who made an accurate but unnecessary chenge. I removed it and explained the difference (it was a English vs. English -type of difference that caused a redirect). That doesn't seem like Good Faith. And his immediate "you're pushing POV" instead of actual rational discussion doesn't incline me to think of AGF either. But regardless, I'm willing to discuss, and I even have adjusted the article some in a way that ultimately bolsters his desire to retain most/all of the images. I appreciate your insight, Jack; Thanks. • VigilancePrime • • • 00:52 (UTC) 3 Mar '08

New RFC

Dear Jack A Roe,

I've taken your suggestion and re-did the RFC on the Alice Bailey page. I've written to each of the players about this change, asking them to add comments if none are there already, and archived the old RFC discussion for a permanent record. I hope everyone agrees with this change and that it contributes to increased harmony on the page.

Thanks for the suggestion. Renee (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

p.s. did you notice that your name appears in red when you check the history for posts? This is because nothing appears on your user page. It's also a signal to some people of a newbie. All you need to do is post something, even a period, and it'll turn blue. Renee (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note... The refactored RFC looks much better, seems like you're making some progress with it. I'm fine with my user name being red for a while. Good luck with the article, I'll check in now and then. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

repressed memory in pseudoscience category

A recent edit was made to the RM page. It added this page to the pseudoscience category. This appears to be incorrect :

http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Pseudoscience "Pseudoscience is a pretended or spurious science; a collection of related beliefs about the world mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method or as having the status that scientific truths now have. — The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition) This category comprises highly notable topics that are generally considered pseudoscientific by the scientific community (such as Astrology) and topics that, while perhaps notable, have very few followers and are obviously pseudoscientific (such as the modern belief in a Flat Earth)."

The data on the page shows the above to be untrue and this category to be incorrect. Any ideas are welcome. abuse t (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree (for whatever it's worth) and undid that change • VigilancePrime • • • 03:46 (UTC) 12 Mar '08

Thank you for the edit. abuse t (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

After that, I made a series of other edits. Most are CE type of stuff and a few that change sentences around. I also re-added cats (like Freud - duh!). I would like you two to take a look and make sure that they look okay. And that trivia section has really got to go...! :-) • VigilancePrime • • • 04:13 (UTC) 12 Mar '08

Looks good. And thanks for getting rid of that off-track category. It's a controversial topic even among scientists, but that doesn't make it pseudoscience. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help and even happier that you like the overall changes. • VigilancePrime • • • 14:31 (UTC) 12 Mar '08

Agreed. All the edits look good. Thanks for your help with this. abuse t (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Jack and I sometimes disagree on the best edits or edit methods on articles, and that's why I kept asking if it was okay. I thought so, but wanted all of us to be happy, especially since it's a page I just walked into, so I didn't want to step on anyone's toes. (Yes, actually trying not to be toe-stepping... the difference in having been a WikiDragon and now being a WikiCapybara. Like many others, I used to become very... zealous. I'm working on being more laid-back. I still banter a bit, but that's harmless and doesn't (usually) push the civility limits like I used to push.

Anyway, I'm glad to help. I watchlisted the page too and may return later to make some more adjustments. I'm just happy to be "a really useful" wikipedian and please that we all can be working together well. • VigilancePrime • • • 01:48 (UTC) 13 Mar '08

Hi everyone. Good call. A wrong or controversial or problematic hypothesis isn't pseudoscience. I admire you guys for working on these emotional issues! I'm working on a biography page related to this, but I am hoping to avoid this minefield for as long as possible, perhaps forever, inshallah ... I am conflict averse! Especially on the internet. (PS thanks for the edits, Jack. I totally haven't got the style down yet, or even the nuts and bolts of editing. There is one substantive change I disagree with, but I'll let you know why and see what you have to say before I change it. It's not a big deal.) SeattleJoe (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

List of books portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents

Jack: Thanks for your comment and suggestion. Please review the extensive discussions on the Talk page. I agree that the proposed, more inclusive, title, which allows a broader net to be cast, does indeed have the disadvantage that WIkipedia users will have to do some work of their own (selecting works belonging to whichever subset of work they are looking for from the broader list that will be on that page). But the more inclusive title will have the great, offsetting, advantage of reducing considerably the debates by Misplaced Pages editors over whether particular books do or do not properly belong on the list, debates that raged under previous titles.

Everyone who has been involved in this discussion over the last 18 months agrees that the proposed new title is not perfect. But in light of the debates chronicled above it looks to many of us to be the best choice. 'Hope you will agree after reviewing the history here. Thanks again for your interest. Reaching a consensus on that title is long, long, overdue. Wide participation at this point is very valuable. SocJan (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've withdrawn my suggestion. After reviewing the history, I don't think I can help with the decision on that topic. Best Wishes... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Major Changes to the Dissociative Identity Disorder page

It appears that an editor very recently has made major changes to this article, including formatting changes and the possible deletion of reliable sources. Any ideas would be appreciated. ResearchEditor (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dissociative_identity_disorder&diff=198215673&oldid=198145773

The editor seemed to expand the page based on the bit count, and reorganized rather than deleted (unless I'm missing some sources). Same number of references appears to be used, but I do notice some external links are missing. WLU (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat disturbing...

Jack, I was hoping for your opinion on a link that was added to an article tonight. It led me to another link on the same "news" site, and my main question for you is if this is a 'for-real' news site or not. Just looking at it, the site seems legit, but the two news stories (especially the second) seem just so far out there as to be unbelievable. I can't seem to find anything that makes it obvious either way. IF they are legit news, I think they'd make great references in a few of the articles on which we have collaborated or are involved. If they are not legit, I want to know so as to remove it from the page on which it was added. Thanks in advance for your help in this. (note: I did mention that these are somewhat disturbing to read, right? Fair warning.)

• "Kindergarten Children should be Encouraged to Dance Naked ..."
• "German Government Publication Promotes ..."

Side notes: the site seems to be conservatively-biased (which I'm not saying makes it any more or less reliable necessarily) and the user who added the link seems to have been with Misplaced Pages for about a year and edited across a range of articles and article types.

Thoughts appreciated. Take care,

• VigilancePrime • • • 08:07 (UTC) 16 Mar '08

Thanks for the info. Another editor has reverted that link. Also, those publications were discontinued by the German government as soon as the story became widely known. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Child sexual abuse

It restored it to Category:Child abuse and Category:Sexual abuse, where it clearly belongs. If it is to be in Category:Sex crimes, as well, category:Sexual abuse needs to be removed from category:Sex crimes, and all articles from category:Sexual abuse need to be checked for addition to category:Sex crimes, or User:Mattisse will be very upset about the double-categorization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly did not mean to upset anyone. I don't think it's possible to de-duplicate categories so they don't overlap. WP:SUBCAT discusses that point. Since categories are not "trees" there will always be intertwining of the structure. Rather than focusing on the structure of the categories, it seems to me it's better to focus on the needs of the reader, to help them find the information they are seeking, and sometimes that means csubategories may appear in more than one category. I do agree we need to avoid category "loops" as much as possible.

Anyway, sorry if it added confusion. I'll review this further when I have a chance. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I missed the WP:SUBCAT#Topic article rule, so perhaps Child sexual abuse should restored to the categories Category:Child sexual abuse is in, but I do think that the WP:SUBCAT#Secondary categorization rule leans against non-lead articles and categories in Category:Child sexual abuse being in any supercategory. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree that duplication is often unavoidable, but I don't see the need for obvious duplication of nested categories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Humanizing the Incest Article

Thanks for all your advice and encouragement, Jack. I know my message in the incest discussion section was pretty over the top in terms of how one ought to communicate in here, but expressing my feelings that way was part of the point. Not that the article should be written emotionally,but that it is an article that has to focus on the reality that evokes those kind of emotions. What is included in article now is should really just be mentioned for completeness sake, imho.

I'm reading and gathering info about Judith Herman, so citations and impersonal facts won't be a problem. The problem is procrastination!

Thanks again. SeattleJoe (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jack. I was just reading your email, since I found the advice hard to follow! But it didn't occur to me that sex with children wasn't called rape, or that statutory rape didn't apply to children, and so it never occurred to me to check. But if I'd followed your advice and looked for references I wouldn't have gotten blasted from ergosum! But I really, really appreciate anyone who has anything to say, especially if they think I went astray.

As for being intimidated, the problem is just the opposite is true for me. I have to work to avoid accusing everyone who criticizes or disagrees with an incestuous child molester!

I do make a conscientious effort to read the rules and apply them, but I have some real problems with attention that are getting worse as I get older. (I'm pretty skeptical about any ADHD diagnosis. I like to say I have the "moral equivalent of ADHD." I've tried the amphetamines but no cigar.) so I appreciate eveyone who keeps an eye on me. SeattleJoe (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit Summary

This was uncalled-for entirely. Are you accusing me of edit warring for a single edit? If anything even remotely qualifies, it'd be your revert. You wrote (to refresh your memory): "please don't edit-war over a wikiproject tag; the article references Kinsey and Okami, that's plenty good enough reason to include the PAW project tag".

I can see your intent with the Kinsey reference (but that'd be like placing a Homosexuality tag on the page too since he researched that also). I'll leave the tag because, while the connection is highly peripheral at best, it was - in spite of your bordering-on-bad-faith-personal attack above, added back in good faith. Seems to me it was originally added, framing this in the best light possible, in error.

You and your little posse need to realize that not everything you see involving children or involving a naked body is pedophilia or even wrong. This article, Nudity and children, has nothing to do with pedophilia, nothing to do with sex at all, but you seem to see it that way. Why is that?

But again, the good-faith (barely holding on to that assumption with your comments) I accept, even if misguided. Just please don't go off the deep end like that again; it's tiring. • VigilancePrime • • • 14:33 (UTC) 27 Mar '08

First, I did not mean the comment as an insult, and I did not mean to imply that you were already edit warring. In hindsight, I see it could be read that way, so I apologize. I should have phrased it differently. I simply meant it as a pro-active request to avoid getting into a conflict by removing the project tag a second time.

As far as the PAW tag being appropriate for that article - a project tag is nothing like text in an article. There are many project tags on articles only peripherally related, it's a common process and is helpful for editors to orient themselves to working on articles. It's not the same thing as adding an article to a category, and for example, I did not add the article to the pedophilia category.

It's appropriate for that article to be on the PAW watchlist, because - as you know - there have been inappropriate photos added to the article several times. Other inappropriate material might be added later. You're right, the article is not intended to be about pedophilia or child sexual abuse, however it has the potential to go off track so it's helpful to include it in the project. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)