| Revision as of 05:45, 15 April 2008 editPetraSchelm (talk | contribs)2,129 edits →Child sexuality issue: re definition of pedophile← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:38, 24 October 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,296,704 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. (Category:WikiProject banners without banner shells)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (232 intermediate revisions by 62 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| {| class="messagebox standard-talk" | |||
| {{WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch}} | |||
| |- | |||
| ⚫ | }} | ||
| |] | |||
| {{Todo}} | |||
| | style="text-align: center" |This miscellaneous page was nominated for ''''']''''' on 7 Feb 2006. The result of the discussion was '''No consensus to delete'''. An archived record of this discussion can be found ]. | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 75K | |||
| |counter = 5 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |||
| |algo = old(10d) | |||
| ⚫ | |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | |||
| {{archive box|auto=yes|]}} | |||
| ==Talk page archives== | |||
| == Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 19:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| ==Ham & Eggs== | |||
| New subpage, ]. This contains a list of users who have made substantial contributions to project articles and have been indef blocked. This is to facilitate sockpuppet checks. The list is not complete. ] (]) 00:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I would be willing to add a few more that I know of, if you incorporate the purpose of garnering evidence for and against the blocks as a reason for listing these editors. ] 07:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==List of books featuring pedophilia== | |||
| Is there some reason that the recently-created article ], which substantially overlaps the former | |||
| "Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse in Fiction (Boys)" article, is not listed on the Pedophilia Article Watch project page? ] (]) 21:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Child sexuality issue== | |||
| I'm considering nominating ] for deletion as a ] of ]. The article describes "non-normative" peer contacts as sexual abuse, but the concept of "normative" sexual behavior is entirely relative, and unlike ], it has no legal definition. See ] | |||
| Alternatively, it could be moved to ] or whatnot and the content changed to reflect this more narrow but neutrally-determinable category. | |||
| Comments? ] (]) 01:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :That topic does not appear to be a POV fork of ]. It might be possible to merge it into ], but merging would balloon an already large article, and the topic appears to be notable enough for a separate page. Here are a few references from a quick search: | |||
| :*, Child Abuse & Neglect, Volume 24, Issue 12, December 2000, Pages 1591-1600: | |||
| :::''"Conclusions: Children victimized by other children manifested elevated levels of emotional and behavioral problems and were not significantly different from those who had been sexually abused by adults."'' | |||
| :*: | |||
| :::''"Conclusions: The findings suggest that child peer sexual abuse may be associated with adverse outcomes."'' | |||
| :*: | |||
| :::''"A substantial proportion of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by adolescents and even younger children.... Important findings that emerged from this investigation are that victims of both adult and juvenile perpetrators suffer an array of negative, psychological and behavioral sequelae. "'' | |||
| :* Weiner, Irving B. et al, ''Handbook of Psychology'', p437, John Wiley and Sons 2003: | |||
| :::''"Factors that suggest national incidence figures represent an understimate of child sexual abuse victims include the exclusion of child-on-child sexual abuse data, as well as victims' and professionals' underreporting."'' | |||
| :* Ellis, Rodney A. et al, ''Essentials of Child Welfare'', p49, John Wiley and Sons 2003: | |||
| :::''"Child-on-child sexual abuse has become relatively common in child welfare cases. It may occur within the family or by another child outside the family... Disturbingly, it also happens to children in foster care."'' | |||
| :That seems like enough to support a ] topic page. --] (]) 02:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: While it may be in the same realm of Child sexuality, CoCS clearly has purview outside the CS article. But, if we're going to ], it should be deleted outright just as ] was, even though it had unique content. Since most of it '''is''' overlap, and could be covered peripherally in the CS or CSA article, "our" past "decisions" and "consensus" would demand it. <!--SIG--><small style="font:10px Arial;display:inline;border:#690000 1px solid;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">]]]]''07:20 (UTC) 2 Mar '08''</small><!--/SIG--> | |||
| ::: I would contend, however, that the term itself is firmly established in research AND clinical practice, and therefore the title should remain as is. Like many other psychological subjects, it may or may not be well known to the general public. This is sometimes advantageous to avoid "labeling" issues as pointed out by AnotherSolipsist earlier. However, I feel it may have greater value to stand on its own as a subject. I will be the first to admit it's got some kinks that need working out, but I feel it can be done effectively. There are two extremes that we want to avoid, which will be elaborated on the talk page. ] (]) 14:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I think this has been sorted out now. As long as no one objects, can we archive this thread or whatever is the procedure? ] (]) 17:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Just leave it, it'll be archived in good time. ] (]) 18:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Definiton of pedophilia in terminology section== | |||
| The problem with this "working definition" is that it is complete original research. | |||
| "Paedophilia is the attraction to pre-pubescent and peripubescent children which is experienced as being so important that it dominates the person's inner sexual or romantic life." | |||
| Both the OED and the DSM define pedophilia to ''' include acting out.''' That it is hypothetically '' possible'' for someone to be a pedophile and not sexually abuse children does not '''completely redefine pedophilia to exclude offenders.''' The definition of pedophilia includes offenders and nonoffenders. There is no special word for pedophiles who do not sexually abuse children (and pedophile is certainly not it). The OR working definition above has created a great deal of confusion, I think, as there are now editors not only claiming that pedophilia does not include offenders, but that pedophilia ''specifically means'' not offending. (And that the category nonoffending pedophiles is very large; comprises most pedophiles. There is absolutely no research stating that there is a large group of nonoffending pedophiles somewhere. The fact that there is no term to refer to such a group speaks for itself.) I believe that the working definition needs to reflect the mainstream definitions used in the real world. -] (]) 05:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 21:38, 24 October 2024
 | This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
|
Watchlist
|
 Archives |
| 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
Talk page archive of obsoleted subpage "Terminology" - circa 2006 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Good article reassessment for Jacobson v. United States
Jacobson v. United States has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Category: