| Revision as of 05:49, 1 May 2022 editMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:10, 18 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| :::] (Jan. '08) | :::] (Jan. '08) | ||
| :::] (Jan. '08) | :::] (Jan. '08) | ||
| :::] (Feb. '08) --''']]''' 00:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | :::] (Feb. '08) --''']]''' 00:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :*Question: should VigilancePrime's ] be included in this MFD? --] | ] 13:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | :*Question: should VigilancePrime's ] be included in this MFD? --] | ] 13:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::Additional relevant link: ] --] (]) 17:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | :::Additional relevant link: ] --] (]) 17:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| :# ''Content is already discussed in several existing articles'': again, this only suggests that the work that went into this well-referenced draft page could benefit those existing articles. | :# ''Content is already discussed in several existing articles'': again, this only suggests that the work that went into this well-referenced draft page could benefit those existing articles. | ||
| :Hopefully this MfD doesn't turn into more bitter wiki-drama. ] (]) 23:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | :Hopefully this MfD doesn't turn into more bitter wiki-drama. ] (]) 23:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' Subpage cannot be used to harbor a deleted article. A subpage ''can'' be used to draft a new article, but for only so long, and then it must be moved to mainspace. Since this article title is protected from recreation , it cannot be posted in mainspace. Since it cannot be harbored on a user subpage, it has to go somewhere, and that somewhere is nowhere - deletion city. If the user wants to preserve it, save it to some other site or to a Word document. On a sidebar, Bikasuishin's arguments seem circular, extremely off-topic and, as it is, moot. --''']]''' 00:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' Subpage cannot be used to harbor a deleted article. A subpage ''can'' be used to draft a new article, but for only so long, and then it must be moved to mainspace. Since this article title is protected from recreation , it cannot be posted in mainspace. Since it cannot be harbored on a user subpage, it has to go somewhere, and that somewhere is nowhere - deletion city. If the user wants to preserve it, save it to some other site or to a Word document. On a sidebar, Bikasuishin's arguments seem circular, extremely off-topic and, as it is, moot. --''']]''' 00:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' per Guy and 12 Noon. As a side note, the user page version was created in Nov. '07 after the first Afd in Oct. '07, not "long before the mainspace one was nominated for deletion". -- ] 01:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' per Guy and 12 Noon. As a side note, the user page version was created in Nov. '07 after the first Afd in Oct. '07, not "long before the mainspace one was nominated for deletion". -- ] 01:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| **And the first AfD closed as '''Keep'''. Are we not allowed to have copies of kept articles either? --]'']'' 19:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | **And the first AfD closed as '''Keep'''. Are we not allowed to have copies of kept articles either? --]'']'' 19:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
| *'''Delete''' Its material that covers a topic in a manner that has been rejected for inclusion. Its been salted. Therefore it cannot be foreseeable that at the present time it will be an encyclopedic topic. So it can't be a work inprogress if it can't become an article. And the other stuff the stuff 12 Noon said. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 02:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' Its material that covers a topic in a manner that has been rejected for inclusion. Its been salted. Therefore it cannot be foreseeable that at the present time it will be an encyclopedic topic. So it can't be a work inprogress if it can't become an article. And the other stuff the stuff 12 Noon said. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 02:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' - From reading through the discussion at the relevant AfD, it seems that the reason for the deletion was not because the title was non-neutral but because the content constituted a POV fork. Regardless of title--as an aside, salting of this particular title in mainspace does not prevent the article from being created under a different name--the community has spoken and rejected the content of this article. Barring a complete rewrite, any creation in mainspace would thus result in a ] deletion, which means that this page is not viable as a potential mainspace article and should thus be deleted per ]. --]-]] 02:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' - From reading through the discussion at the relevant AfD, it seems that the reason for the deletion was not because the title was non-neutral but because the content constituted a POV fork. Regardless of title--as an aside, salting of this particular title in mainspace does not prevent the article from being created under a different name--the community has spoken and rejected the content of this article. Barring a complete rewrite, any creation in mainspace would thus result in a ] deletion, which means that this page is not viable as a potential mainspace article and should thus be deleted per ]. --]-]] 02:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' Same animal as the POV fork that was deleted before. NPOV is needed in the userspace too, we are not a web host. ] 05:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' Same animal as the POV fork that was deleted before. NPOV is needed in the userspace too, we are not a web host. ] 05:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Strong Keep''' - per Bikasuishin. To others, deleted pages are userfied all the time. The term itself has been used in mainstream news such as Washington Post and USA Today. The POV fork assertion was never solidified and only argued after the initial arguments were easily refuted. Userspace is generally free for any purpose so long as it does not harbor a personal attack and this page is clearly an encyclopedic-based effort. The content is only in part covered in other articles as the original (with finding of keep) AfD noted about the original article. The original article was deleted in accordance with ], in case nobody had noticed. The article in the userspace is a complete rewrite (and one of a few different versions available under different userspaces). There is no real reason to delete this userpage and there is plenty of reason to leave it be, if for no other reason, per ]. What's the big threat to "you all" (those pressing so hard to delete with great prejudice) from userspace drafts and userfied information? There still has not been put forth a solid, policy-based reason to delete. Can anyone provide one? ] (]) 05:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | * '''Strong Keep''' - per Bikasuishin. To others, deleted pages are userfied all the time. The term itself has been used in mainstream news such as Washington Post and USA Today. The POV fork assertion was never solidified and only argued after the initial arguments were easily refuted. Userspace is generally free for any purpose so long as it does not harbor a personal attack and this page is clearly an encyclopedic-based effort. The content is only in part covered in other articles as the original (with finding of keep) AfD noted about the original article. The original article was deleted in accordance with ], in case nobody had noticed. The article in the userspace is a complete rewrite (and one of a few different versions available under different userspaces). There is no real reason to delete this userpage and there is plenty of reason to leave it be, if for no other reason, per ]. What's the big threat to "you all" (those pressing so hard to delete with great prejudice) from userspace drafts and userfied information? There still has not been put forth a solid, policy-based reason to delete. Can anyone provide one? ] (]) 05:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| **There is no threat per se (incidentally, I believe the grammatically correct term is "]" :P), but the fact is that the merits of this article should be--and have been--discussed at the appropriate venues, specifically ] and ]. Simply put, MfD is not a last-last chance to save deleted content; the discussion here should center around whether or not the userfied article adheres to ] and related policies and guidelines, not rehash the arguments put forth in favor of and against the original deletion. This, in turn, is the starting point for the rational, policy-based arguments for deletion presented above. --]-]] 06:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | **There is no threat per se (incidentally, I believe the grammatically correct term is "]" :P), but the fact is that the merits of this article should be--and have been--discussed at the appropriate venues, specifically ] and ]. Simply put, MfD is not a last-last chance to save deleted content; the discussion here should center around whether or not the userfied article adheres to ] and related policies and guidelines, not rehash the arguments put forth in favor of and against the original deletion. This, in turn, is the starting point for the rational, policy-based arguments for deletion presented above. --]-]] 06:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Keep''' - I don't see anything wrong with keeping it in userspace for now, and considering the deep edit history behind the article, it could prove useful. Userspace pages aren't held to the same standards as mainspace articles, and the case for deleting the article for mainspace I think was rather tenuous in the first place (as per Bikasuishin's points). — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 06:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | * '''Keep''' - I don't see anything wrong with keeping it in userspace for now, and considering the deep edit history behind the article, it could prove useful. Userspace pages aren't held to the same standards as mainspace articles, and the case for deleting the article for mainspace I think was rather tenuous in the first place (as per Bikasuishin's points). — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 06:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Strong keep.''' This is by no means the article of the same title that was deleted under similarly illegitimate circumstances. See for a more detailed account of the relating scandalous crusade against several admins and for the particular reasons why the widely controversial, basically illegitimate decision (being illegitimate due to illegitimate AfD as directly defined by Misplaced Pages policy that each new AfD needs new nomination rationale, as one of many other reasons) on the main article would not even be applicable even IF the userpage would be identical (which it's definitely ''not''!) and even IF the mainspace decision would be legitimate and entirely uncontroversial (which it's definitely '''not''' either), my post on the DRV for ''Adult-child sex'' . True, the userpage was put up ''after'' the first AfD, however that AfD closed with a strong '''keep''' from closing admin due to consensus and affirmed by another admin in DRV, and it was ''before'' the next bludgeoning of process by ''another'', identical nomination rationale AfD with same voting statistics and even more arguments for ''keep'' was opened just a few weeks later. It would be great if '''MBisanz''' wouldn't stubbornly and untruthfully call content "(metaphorically) salted and deemed unencyclopedic" if 130 people, established editors and admins alike, adamantly wanted (and want) it to stay. I see though that ] has now even be self-righteously protected which I regard pretty offensive to the established 10 dozen members of Misplaced Pages vehemently disagreeing with these illegitimate decisions violating any known consensus policy and guideline on Misplaced Pages as well as all decisions made in all precedence polls, AfDs, and admin decisions based upon the same (or even worse) conditions and rationales; at the very least it's arrogant ignorance towards their sophisticated, abundant reasonings and official, verbosely well-substantiated admin decisions (where the other party was found entirely incapable of even just debating or refuting anything as '''SSB''' pointed out at the provided link, all we got every single frickin' time were colorful one-liner no-brainers and personal, unsubstantiated, and unreferenced opinions), or this protection resembles pretty much the name-calling these 10 dozen established members "Pro-pedophile activists" all over again. Any alleged "POV" and "POV fork" issues are just as moot points for userspace as hammered out in detail at link. --] (]) 08:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | * '''Strong keep.''' This is by no means the article of the same title that was deleted under similarly illegitimate circumstances. See for a more detailed account of the relating scandalous crusade against several admins and for the particular reasons why the widely controversial, basically illegitimate decision (being illegitimate due to illegitimate AfD as directly defined by Misplaced Pages policy that each new AfD needs new nomination rationale, as one of many other reasons) on the main article would not even be applicable even IF the userpage would be identical (which it's definitely ''not''!) and even IF the mainspace decision would be legitimate and entirely uncontroversial (which it's definitely '''not''' either), my post on the DRV for ''Adult-child sex'' . True, the userpage was put up ''after'' the first AfD, however that AfD closed with a strong '''keep''' from closing admin due to consensus and affirmed by another admin in DRV, and it was ''before'' the next bludgeoning of process by ''another'', identical nomination rationale AfD with same voting statistics and even more arguments for ''keep'' was opened just a few weeks later. It would be great if '''MBisanz''' wouldn't stubbornly and untruthfully call content "(metaphorically) salted and deemed unencyclopedic" if 130 people, established editors and admins alike, adamantly wanted (and want) it to stay. I see though that ] has now even be self-righteously protected which I regard pretty offensive to the established 10 dozen members of Misplaced Pages vehemently disagreeing with these illegitimate decisions violating any known consensus policy and guideline on Misplaced Pages as well as all decisions made in all precedence polls, AfDs, and admin decisions based upon the same (or even worse) conditions and rationales; at the very least it's arrogant ignorance towards their sophisticated, abundant reasonings and official, verbosely well-substantiated admin decisions (where the other party was found entirely incapable of even just debating or refuting anything as '''SSB''' pointed out at the provided link, all we got every single frickin' time were colorful one-liner no-brainers and personal, unsubstantiated, and unreferenced opinions), or this protection resembles pretty much the name-calling these 10 dozen established members "Pro-pedophile activists" all over again. Any alleged "POV" and "POV fork" issues are just as moot points for userspace as hammered out in detail at link. --] (]) 08:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
| :::'''Comment.''' '''Keilana''''s closure was illegitimate because the whole AfD was illegitimate from the beginning. Even if there are years between two AfDs, new AfDs ''must'' have a new nomination rationale with new reasons by policy, otherwise they're invalid. This second AfD took only a few weeks and it had an identical nomination rationale as the first, therefore it was illegitimate from the beginning and should have been rejected as invalid at first appearance. But obviously people didn't care about due process and following official policy. '''Keilana''''s closure was furthermore not only highly controversial, it also conflicted with the precedence case of the first AfD where the same reasons for ''delete'' and even less reasons for ''keep'' resulted in a definitive '''keep'''. True, ''consensus can change'', but it didn't, not in this case, at least not towards deletion. If it changed into any direction, this was an even stronger case of ''keep'' than the first, even if disregarding the fact that this second AfD was illegitimate from the beginning. --] (]) 04:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC) | :::'''Comment.''' '''Keilana''''s closure was illegitimate because the whole AfD was illegitimate from the beginning. Even if there are years between two AfDs, new AfDs ''must'' have a new nomination rationale with new reasons by policy, otherwise they're invalid. This second AfD took only a few weeks and it had an identical nomination rationale as the first, therefore it was illegitimate from the beginning and should have been rejected as invalid at first appearance. But obviously people didn't care about due process and following official policy. '''Keilana''''s closure was furthermore not only highly controversial, it also conflicted with the precedence case of the first AfD where the same reasons for ''delete'' and even less reasons for ''keep'' resulted in a definitive '''keep'''. True, ''consensus can change'', but it didn't, not in this case, at least not towards deletion. If it changed into any direction, this was an even stronger case of ''keep'' than the first, even if disregarding the fact that this second AfD was illegitimate from the beginning. --] (]) 04:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::How exactly is "adult-child sex" inherently biased? A title which presumes a mainstream view is ''centrist''; a title which presumes no view at all is ''neutral''. "Adult-child sex" is purely descriptive, not normative. Descriptive language that deals with facts can of course be partial, but "adult-child sex" has no factual implications -- or non-factual ones, for that matter. I'm really failing to see how lack of predisposition in any direction can make a term biased. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 06:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | :::How exactly is "adult-child sex" inherently biased? A title which presumes a mainstream view is ''centrist''; a title which presumes no view at all is ''neutral''. "Adult-child sex" is purely descriptive, not normative. Descriptive language that deals with facts can of course be partial, but "adult-child sex" has no factual implications -- or non-factual ones, for that matter. I'm really failing to see how lack of predisposition in any direction can make a term biased. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 06:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::: The term is biased because the more usual term for this is ] or perhaps ], and we have articles on both, neother of which goes to such lengths to pretend that the practice is anything other than abhorrent in the eyes of the peoples of modern democracies. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | :::: The term is biased because the more usual term for this is ] or perhaps ], and we have articles on both, neother of which goes to such lengths to pretend that the practice is anything other than abhorrent in the eyes of the peoples of modern democracies. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
| ===== break 2 ===== | ===== break 2 ===== | ||
| *'''Delete''' per all the previous discussions on this user subpage. If an AFD discussion ended with a delete result, then this page should not be preserved in userspace indefinitely; that is in effect subverting the deletion discussion and its consensus. Aside from the title being non-neutral, consensus was that the ''content'' constituted a blatant ], and it should be deleted as one as it was before. Keeping this around could bring the project as a whole into disrepute. Other articles on related issues exist and there is no reason to keep this around; there is no way it could possibly be improved to be acceptable. --]] 06:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' per all the previous discussions on this user subpage. If an AFD discussion ended with a delete result, then this page should not be preserved in userspace indefinitely; that is in effect subverting the deletion discussion and its consensus. Aside from the title being non-neutral, consensus was that the ''content'' constituted a blatant ], and it should be deleted as one as it was before. Keeping this around could bring the project as a whole into disrepute. Other articles on related issues exist and there is no reason to keep this around; there is no way it could possibly be improved to be acceptable. --]] 06:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete all listed copies''' and speedy delete any others that turn up. User space version of a POV-fork page that was deleted per policy and consensus. As long as the page exists, it will be a magnet for conflict and disruption, as it has been continually since it was first created. There's no benefit to a page that the community has soundly rejected with extensive and repeated discussions. --] (]) 08:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | *'''Delete all listed copies''' and speedy delete any others that turn up. User space version of a POV-fork page that was deleted per policy and consensus. As long as the page exists, it will be a magnet for conflict and disruption, as it has been continually since it was first created. There's no benefit to a page that the community has soundly rejected with extensive and repeated discussions. --] (]) 08:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Strong Keep''' It's in userspace. What's the problem? And you said ''The term appears to be used only by pro-pedophile activists'' in one swooping breath of POV after accusing the user of POV. '''-''' < |
*'''Strong Keep''' It's in userspace. What's the problem? And you said ''The term appears to be used only by pro-pedophile activists'' in one swooping breath of POV after accusing the user of POV. '''-''' <span style="font-size:large; color:red;">✰</span><strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">]</strong><span style="font-size:large; color:red;">✰</span> <sup><small>]</small></sup> 09:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| **The problem is that the mainspace article this was userfied from is a protected title - consensus is that this article is not acceptable in mainspace. There was a strong AFD consensus to delete the original article, and as a result if it's not going to be improved (it can't be improved), it must be deleted; deleted articles can't be kept in mainspace forever. --]] 09:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | **The problem is that the mainspace article this was userfied from is a protected title - consensus is that this article is not acceptable in mainspace. There was a strong AFD consensus to delete the original article, and as a result if it's not going to be improved (it can't be improved), it must be deleted; deleted articles can't be kept in mainspace forever. --]] 09:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::: Yes. You can fix lack of notability, you can't fix an inappropriate subject. That is the problem here: rewriting can't fix the problem for whihc it was deleted, as the problem was the title as well as the content. We already have articles on the ''subject'', just under titles that some people don't like. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | ::: Yes. You can fix lack of notability, you can't fix an inappropriate subject. That is the problem here: rewriting can't fix the problem for whihc it was deleted, as the problem was the title as well as the content. We already have articles on the ''subject'', just under titles that some people don't like. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::Now, now, I doubt the closing admins would claim that there ever was a ''strong consensus'' in any of the discussions regarding the now deleted mainspace article. I can respect Keilana's decision to close as delete, which she later explained by such rules as ], but she acknowledges herself that it was far from uncontroversial. ] (]) 10:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | :::Now, now, I doubt the closing admins would claim that there ever was a ''strong consensus'' in any of the discussions regarding the now deleted mainspace article. I can respect Keilana's decision to close as delete, which she later explained by such rules as ], but she acknowledges herself that it was far from uncontroversial. ] (]) 10:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Line 135: | Line 135: | ||
| *'''Delete all'''. These user pages do not have a legitimate purpose, the title having been properly deleted via AfD. There's been plenty of time to copy any special sources that the users want for future reference. ]] ] 18:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | *'''Delete all'''. These user pages do not have a legitimate purpose, the title having been properly deleted via AfD. There's been plenty of time to copy any special sources that the users want for future reference. ]] ] 18:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment''': These are ineligible for Speedy deletion because ] cannot be applied to user subpages harboring recreated articles; thus the speedy deletion was overturned in the last DRV on that technicality and brought here. I do not know if this is possible or requires some ArbCom statement, but I would suggest, if this MfD results in the deletion of the pages in question, that going forward '''G4 be allowed to apply to such pages''' falling under '''this topic only''', as an exception. I am not saying these pages cannot be recreated as an article (which would still be eligible for AfD), but only that they should not be recreated under the auspices of a user subpage, thus making a mockery of the XfD process. --''']]''' 18:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | *'''Comment''': These are ineligible for Speedy deletion because ] cannot be applied to user subpages harboring recreated articles; thus the speedy deletion was overturned in the last DRV on that technicality and brought here. I do not know if this is possible or requires some ArbCom statement, but I would suggest, if this MfD results in the deletion of the pages in question, that going forward '''G4 be allowed to apply to such pages''' falling under '''this topic only''', as an exception. I am not saying these pages cannot be recreated as an article (which would still be eligible for AfD), but only that they should not be recreated under the auspices of a user subpage, thus making a mockery of the XfD process. --''']]''' 18:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::'''Good idea!''' but not nearly stringent enough. People will only come and bring their ], ], ] POV to existing articles as well, while ignoring the well-established consensus that this encyclopedia adheres to ]'s NPOV. I suggest that we make it a bannable offence to edit articles on '''this topic only''' in a fashion that looks ] to any respectable wikipedian. ] (]) 19:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | ::'''Good idea!''' but not nearly stringent enough. People will only come and bring their ], ], ] POV to existing articles as well, while ignoring the well-established consensus that this encyclopedia adheres to ]'s NPOV. I suggest that we make it a bannable offence to edit articles on '''this topic only''' in a fashion that looks ] to any respectable wikipedian. ] (]) 19:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::*You forgot to call me Hitler. --''']]''' 01:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC) | :::*You forgot to call me Hitler. --''']]''' 01:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete'''. Enough is enough. This is a blatant end-run around AfD and needs to be shut down. ] (]) 19:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | *'''Delete'''. Enough is enough. This is a blatant end-run around AfD and needs to be shut down. ] (]) 19:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :: I don't think a legalistic interpretation of ] is helpful; it is possible for any user, with a bit of imagination, to evade G4 more or less indefinitely and thus abuse Misplaced Pages as a soapbox or free web host, but in the end if a subject is unencyclopaedic there's not much point wasting time on it in userspace. This subject was decided after much debate to be inappropriate, there being other articles which adequately cover the subject. It's not possible, as far as I can see, to fix the problem that got the article deleted, in a way that a userspace version would be amenable to moving back to mainspace. And that is the sole permissible purpose of userspace forks like this. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | :: I don't think a legalistic interpretation of ] is helpful; it is possible for any user, with a bit of imagination, to evade G4 more or less indefinitely and thus abuse Misplaced Pages as a soapbox or free web host, but in the end if a subject is unencyclopaedic there's not much point wasting time on it in userspace. This subject was decided after much debate to be inappropriate, there being other articles which adequately cover the subject. It's not possible, as far as I can see, to fix the problem that got the article deleted, in a way that a userspace version would be amenable to moving back to mainspace. And that is the sole permissible purpose of userspace forks like this. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Line 156: | Line 156: | ||
| :::::], it seems than many editors are not even reading the discussion before casting their vote, and certainly seem opposed to responding to reasoning why these drafts are not POV-forks of the article on pedophilia or pederasty. This is the only explanation I can think of for editors time and again stating that these drafts, along with the deleted ACS article, can be incorporated into ] and ]. I've seen no attempt whatsoever to address the concerns editors such as you and I have brought up in regards to the incompatibility of ACS with either of these topics. Not sure what else anyone in our position could do, considering that the other side simply refuses to conduct two-way dialogue on this issue. I'm getting personally tired of explaining the same thing over and over to different editors, and not having anyone in the other camp even acknowledge or respond to it. I wonder if it's really that hard to actually read other editors' posts before voting, familiarize oneself with the subject matter, and to dignify others' commentary with a direct response. ~ ] (]) 21:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | :::::], it seems than many editors are not even reading the discussion before casting their vote, and certainly seem opposed to responding to reasoning why these drafts are not POV-forks of the article on pedophilia or pederasty. This is the only explanation I can think of for editors time and again stating that these drafts, along with the deleted ACS article, can be incorporated into ] and ]. I've seen no attempt whatsoever to address the concerns editors such as you and I have brought up in regards to the incompatibility of ACS with either of these topics. Not sure what else anyone in our position could do, considering that the other side simply refuses to conduct two-way dialogue on this issue. I'm getting personally tired of explaining the same thing over and over to different editors, and not having anyone in the other camp even acknowledge or respond to it. I wonder if it's really that hard to actually read other editors' posts before voting, familiarize oneself with the subject matter, and to dignify others' commentary with a direct response. ~ ] (]) 21:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::::: (ec) This is a good point, however see a good answer to do this below by ]: ''"is the term 'child sexual abuse' somehow an anachronism that will not permit our discussion of the position of children as sexual objects in certain defunct societies?"'' The fact is that today, adults who engage in such a practice are considered pedophiles, whether their respective societies condone their actions or not. Whether or not an attraction to children should be considered deviant, the fact is, it is indeed seen that way today, and most any reliable source will uphold that: Any adult who has sex with a child, now or ever, is/was a pedophile; and any child who ever had sex with an adult was being abused. So the place to talk about the history of adults having sex with children ''would'' be in the pedophilia or child sex abuse articles. Unless, perhaps, if you can produce reliable sources, either that mention adult-child sex without making any mention of pedophilia, or that conclude there is indeed a clear distinction between the two. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''21:02, 5 Feb 2008 (UTC)''</small> | ::::: (ec) This is a good point, however see a good answer to do this below by ]: ''"is the term 'child sexual abuse' somehow an anachronism that will not permit our discussion of the position of children as sexual objects in certain defunct societies?"'' The fact is that today, adults who engage in such a practice are considered pedophiles, whether their respective societies condone their actions or not. Whether or not an attraction to children should be considered deviant, the fact is, it is indeed seen that way today, and most any reliable source will uphold that: Any adult who has sex with a child, now or ever, is/was a pedophile; and any child who ever had sex with an adult was being abused. So the place to talk about the history of adults having sex with children ''would'' be in the pedophilia or child sex abuse articles. Unless, perhaps, if you can produce reliable sources, either that mention adult-child sex without making any mention of pedophilia, or that conclude there is indeed a clear distinction between the two. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''21:02, 5 Feb 2008 (UTC)''</small> | ||
| ::::::'''Comment.''' '''Equazcion''', claiming that "everybody engaging in sexual activity with a minor is/was pedophile", that's Oprah-POV, not science-NPOV or academic NPOV, as we've been many times over and over and over before. Scientists and scientific studies empirically evidencing about 1-3, maybe 5 percents of known cases of AoC vioation due to paedophilia were pointed to in a two-digit amount. That's right, according to science-NPOV, paedophilia is the least likely reason for AoC offences of all currently known. Too many people here and in the previous discussions confuse Oprah-POV for science NPOV, and they're not even listening when they're being told so. They're not even listening when they're being told they're effectually lying about previous discussions and the AfDs, a fact which makes it very likely they didn't even read them. As '''SSB''' said, quote: their "votes" are no signal, they're just uninformed, clueless noise, as we can also see in, among other things, their merging suggestions. --] (]) 04:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC) | ::::::'''Comment.''' '''Equazcion''', claiming that "everybody engaging in sexual activity with a minor is/was pedophile", that's Oprah-POV, not science-NPOV or academic NPOV, as we've been many times over and over and over before. Scientists and scientific studies empirically evidencing about 1-3, maybe 5 percents of known cases of AoC vioation due to paedophilia were pointed to in a two-digit amount. That's right, according to science-NPOV, paedophilia is the least likely reason for AoC offences of all currently known. Too many people here and in the previous discussions confuse Oprah-POV for science NPOV, and they're not even listening when they're being told so. They're not even listening when they're being told they're effectually lying about previous discussions and the AfDs, a fact which makes it very likely they didn't even read them. As '''SSB''' said, quote: their "votes" are no signal, they're just uninformed, clueless noise, as we can also see in, among other things, their merging suggestions. --] (]) 04:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::: Firstly, I'm not claiming to have read the previous AfDs. Secondly, I'm not sure what your definition of the word pedophile is, but it has nothing to do with age of consent laws. When we talk about adults having sex with children, we're not simply referring to a technical age-of-consent violation (as in "I thought she was 18"). We're talking about something much more clearcut; an age difference for which most jurisdictions have stricter rules. An adult who has sex with a child -- meaning an ''actual'' adult who has sex with an ''actual'' child -- is an adult who has a sexual attraction to children, aka a pedophile. You want to write an article on the frequent occurrence of ''marginal age-of-consent violations'', that's another story. But '''adult'''-'''child''' sex is pedophilia by definition, unless, as I said, you can come up with reliable sources that say otherwise. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''10:23, 7 Feb 2008 (UTC)''</small> | ::::::: Firstly, I'm not claiming to have read the previous AfDs. Secondly, I'm not sure what your definition of the word pedophile is, but it has nothing to do with age of consent laws. When we talk about adults having sex with children, we're not simply referring to a technical age-of-consent violation (as in "I thought she was 18"). We're talking about something much more clearcut; an age difference for which most jurisdictions have stricter rules. An adult who has sex with a child -- meaning an ''actual'' adult who has sex with an ''actual'' child -- is an adult who has a sexual attraction to children, aka a pedophile. You want to write an article on the frequent occurrence of ''marginal age-of-consent violations'', that's another story. But '''adult'''-'''child''' sex is pedophilia by definition, unless, as I said, you can come up with reliable sources that say otherwise. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''10:23, 7 Feb 2008 (UTC)''</small> | ||
| ::::::::'''Comment.''' Paedophilia is not an act just as homosexuality is not either, if you're looking for acts to associate with those former two labels, it's same-sex activities for the one, and either CSA or ACS for the other depending on your personal POV. It's a quite similar simple difference as that between ''drinking'' and ''thirst''. With most other behavioral patterns, psychologists, sociologists, and ethologists are generally able to distinguish between a.) a personal impulse, b.) social learning influencing, among many other things, personal identity, and thus being an essential part of one's motivational process, and c.) the behavior resulting from a combination of a.) and b.). But when it comes to sexuality, suddenly many psychologists, sociologists, and ethologists find themselves entirely failing to maintain those proper standards any longer for no other reasons than ethnocentric values. And when I said AoC violation, I definitely didn't mean 18, I mean people engaging in sexual activity with pre-adolescents and pre-pubescents. Only 1-3, maybe 5 percent of people found to engage in such activity are regularly found to be paedophile, and we're not even talking about self-identification directly, we're talking about large characteristic mental and behavioral differences between the different types of offenders, and only one category of such offenders is actually paedophile, the other two being surrogate aka situational offenders, or sadists. Don't call upon denial because it just happens that self-identification in most cases corresponds with these typical mental and behavioral patterns, and not only from the POV of the offenders themselves but also confirmed by professional psychological examination and assessment and outside sources, including their social surroundings, such as family, friends, acquaintances, co-workers, and, not least of all, the children involved, if any. For now it appears within roughly half a century of international professional research into paedophilia that paedophile offenders in general do not lie about whether they have acted upon their desire if they are accused of having violated local AoC laws, and they appear even more honest about their acts and whether they are paedophile if their offending is already known as a fact. All that in spite of social learning requiring people in Western industrialized nations to most aggressively disassociate themselves from paedophilia as a desire, paedophiles as individuals and/or a social group of people, and sexual activity between adults and pre-adolescents or pre-pubescents. Those are just some of the mental patterns that set them apart from the other 95-99% of non-paedophile violators against local AoC laws ''and'' people having engaged in sexual activity with pre-adolescents or pre-pubescents, and there are many more mental and behavioral differences as we've been over already a lot of times before as well, however this MfD is neither the time nor the place. --] (]) 13:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC) | ::::::::'''Comment.''' Paedophilia is not an act just as homosexuality is not either, if you're looking for acts to associate with those former two labels, it's same-sex activities for the one, and either CSA or ACS for the other depending on your personal POV. It's a quite similar simple difference as that between ''drinking'' and ''thirst''. With most other behavioral patterns, psychologists, sociologists, and ethologists are generally able to distinguish between a.) a personal impulse, b.) social learning influencing, among many other things, personal identity, and thus being an essential part of one's motivational process, and c.) the behavior resulting from a combination of a.) and b.). But when it comes to sexuality, suddenly many psychologists, sociologists, and ethologists find themselves entirely failing to maintain those proper standards any longer for no other reasons than ethnocentric values. And when I said AoC violation, I definitely didn't mean 18, I mean people engaging in sexual activity with pre-adolescents and pre-pubescents. Only 1-3, maybe 5 percent of people found to engage in such activity are regularly found to be paedophile, and we're not even talking about self-identification directly, we're talking about large characteristic mental and behavioral differences between the different types of offenders, and only one category of such offenders is actually paedophile, the other two being surrogate aka situational offenders, or sadists. Don't call upon denial because it just happens that self-identification in most cases corresponds with these typical mental and behavioral patterns, and not only from the POV of the offenders themselves but also confirmed by professional psychological examination and assessment and outside sources, including their social surroundings, such as family, friends, acquaintances, co-workers, and, not least of all, the children involved, if any. For now it appears within roughly half a century of international professional research into paedophilia that paedophile offenders in general do not lie about whether they have acted upon their desire if they are accused of having violated local AoC laws, and they appear even more honest about their acts and whether they are paedophile if their offending is already known as a fact. All that in spite of social learning requiring people in Western industrialized nations to most aggressively disassociate themselves from paedophilia as a desire, paedophiles as individuals and/or a social group of people, and sexual activity between adults and pre-adolescents or pre-pubescents. Those are just some of the mental patterns that set them apart from the other 95-99% of non-paedophile violators against local AoC laws ''and'' people having engaged in sexual activity with pre-adolescents or pre-pubescents, and there are many more mental and behavioral differences as we've been over already a lot of times before as well, however this MfD is neither the time nor the place. --] (]) 13:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::: Just because you claim "psychologists, sociologists, and ethologists" are being "ethnocentric" doesn't mean it's true. They're the ones writing the ], and you saying you don't trust them doesn't mean anything in the context of this encyclopedia. Furthermore the adults found to be engaging in sex with children don't need to be "''regularly'' found to be pedophile .... mental and behavioral differences other types of offenders...". You're making up your own definition and criteria for calling someone a pedophile. In order to be a pedophile, you don't need to self-identify or have a mental disorder with regularly-occurring symptoms. The definition of pedophile is an adult who has a sexual attraction to pre-pubescents. That's it. And your opinions about western civilization being in denial... well, that's just irrelevant. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''10:47, 8 Feb 2008 (UTC)''</small> | ::::::::: Just because you claim "psychologists, sociologists, and ethologists" are being "ethnocentric" doesn't mean it's true. They're the ones writing the ], and you saying you don't trust them doesn't mean anything in the context of this encyclopedia. Furthermore the adults found to be engaging in sex with children don't need to be "''regularly'' found to be pedophile .... mental and behavioral differences other types of offenders...". You're making up your own definition and criteria for calling someone a pedophile. In order to be a pedophile, you don't need to self-identify or have a mental disorder with regularly-occurring symptoms. The definition of pedophile is an adult who has a sexual attraction to pre-pubescents. That's it. And your opinions about western civilization being in denial... well, that's just irrelevant. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''10:47, 8 Feb 2008 (UTC)''</small> | ||
| *'''Delete''' every copy of this POV fork. ] (]) 19:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' every copy of this POV fork. ] (]) 19:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Line 190: | Line 190: | ||
| *'''Strong delete,''' almost to the point of CSD G4. This has been debated to death, the article is ''fundamentally unsuitable.'' Therefore, no reincarnations can exist. ]<small>]</small> 20:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | *'''Strong delete,''' almost to the point of CSD G4. This has been debated to death, the article is ''fundamentally unsuitable.'' Therefore, no reincarnations can exist. ]<small>]</small> 20:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete all''' - Recreation of deleted material in userspace should be -- and generally is -- reserved for situations where an effort is being made to fundamentally change the article so that it can be more acceptable and won't get deleted again for the same reasons. This shouldn't be a tool to simply "keep alive" that which someone feels was wrongfully removed. Deletion decisions should be respected. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''20:38, 5 Feb 2008 (UTC)''</small> | *'''Delete all''' - Recreation of deleted material in userspace should be -- and generally is -- reserved for situations where an effort is being made to fundamentally change the article so that it can be more acceptable and won't get deleted again for the same reasons. This shouldn't be a tool to simply "keep alive" that which someone feels was wrongfully removed. Deletion decisions should be respected. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''20:38, 5 Feb 2008 (UTC)''</small> | ||
| :*Please compare the drafts to the deleted article. Once you've done that, you'll see that there is indeed "an effort ... being made to fundamentally change the article." Userspace is not being used as "a tool to simply 'keep alive'" anything. ~ ] (]) 21:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | :*Please compare the drafts to the deleted article. Once you've done that, you'll see that there is indeed "an effort ... being made to fundamentally change the article." Userspace is not being used as "a tool to simply 'keep alive'" anything. ~ ] (]) 21:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::*You missed the part that said "... so that it won't get deleted again for the same reasons." The article was deleted because the term itself was a POV fork. Is an effort being made to change the article title? <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''21:09, 5 Feb 2008 (UTC)''</small> | ::*You missed the part that said "... so that it won't get deleted again for the same reasons." The article was deleted because the term itself was a POV fork. Is an effort being made to change the article title? <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''21:09, 5 Feb 2008 (UTC)''</small> | ||
| :::*As was implied elsewhere on this page, I personally have nothing against changing the title of the article, especially if that's the crux of the controversy for many editors. Determining what would be the appropriate title is another issue, which I'm confident can be resolved once it's upon us. ~ ] (]) 00:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC) | :::*As was implied elsewhere on this page, I personally have nothing against changing the title of the article, especially if that's the crux of the controversy for many editors. Determining what would be the appropriate title is another issue, which I'm confident can be resolved once it's upon us. ~ ] (]) 00:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::::* I'm not as confident. The title of the article is its crux. Any other title would just be a synonym, or else the article would have to be about something entirely different. I may have oversimplified this in my last response, but the title isn't exactly the problem. This is going to be an article about adult-child sex, a POV fork, no matter how you retitle or change it -- unless of course you change it so much that it's about a different subject entirely. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''04:32, 6 Feb 2008 (UTC)''</small> | ::::* I'm not as confident. The title of the article is its crux. Any other title would just be a synonym, or else the article would have to be about something entirely different. I may have oversimplified this in my last response, but the title isn't exactly the problem. This is going to be an article about adult-child sex, a POV fork, no matter how you retitle or change it -- unless of course you change it so much that it's about a different subject entirely. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''04:32, 6 Feb 2008 (UTC)''</small> | ||
| *'''Delete'''. I don't see any justification for maintaining material that could be incorporated into ] or some similar article, and if it can't be incorporated, there's no reason to keep it around. -] (]) 21:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | *'''Delete'''. I don't see any justification for maintaining material that could be incorporated into ] or some similar article, and if it can't be incorporated, there's no reason to keep it around. -] (]) 21:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Strong delete''' <s>and investigate restoration of material, who did it and why, this looks more a case for admin intervention that for community consensus.</s> Thanks, ] 00:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC) | *'''Strong delete''' <s>and investigate restoration of material, who did it and why, this looks more a case for admin intervention that for community consensus.</s> Thanks, ] 00:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Line 201: | Line 201: | ||
| **Thanks for that, Homologeo, I'll just stick with the strong delete though am amazed at so many copies. Mike D78 had sopme copies too, I guess that is whom Tlato got his idea from. Thanks, ] 00:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC) | **Thanks for that, Homologeo, I'll just stick with the strong delete though am amazed at so many copies. Mike D78 had sopme copies too, I guess that is whom Tlato got his idea from. Thanks, ] 00:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :*A look at the will show this information. The restoration seems perfectly appropriate though; as ] says, G4 "does not apply to content that has been moved to user space." — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 01:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC) | :*A look at the will show this information. The restoration seems perfectly appropriate though; as ] says, G4 "does not apply to content that has been moved to user space." — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 01:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' Just seems to be a ], the community agreed to delete the article from which it forks, so no need to keep it. (Note that the page is different to the one that was up for deletion and was eventually deleted, but the text of both was open to those considering the last article through revisions) IMO this has been done to death over various fora in past weeks and needs to be brought to a close. ] 05:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' Just seems to be a ], the community agreed to delete the article from which it forks, so no need to keep it. (Note that the page is different to the one that was up for deletion and was eventually deleted, but the text of both was open to those considering the last article through revisions) IMO this has been done to death over various fora in past weeks and needs to be brought to a close. ] 05:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep'''. According to nominator main-space article was deleted for title, not content. Therefore there seems nothing against editors working on that content in their user-spaces, potentially to improve other articles or create an article with a more consensus gathering title. ''] ]'', 14:22 ] ] (GMT). | *'''Keep'''. According to nominator main-space article was deleted for title, not content. Therefore there seems nothing against editors working on that content in their user-spaces, potentially to improve other articles or create an article with a more consensus gathering title. ''] ]'', 14:22 ] ] (GMT). | ||
Latest revision as of 14:10, 18 February 2023
This MfD is currently undergoing a Deletion Review, which can be found here... ~ Homologeo (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The deletion review has concluded. The deletion was upheld by Rlevse. --SSBohio 03:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete mainly per arguments put forward by Calton and Coredesat. ~ Riana ⁂ 21:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex
An attempt to rescue an article that was deleted not because of the content but because the title - the term itself - is unacceptably POV. The term appears to be used only by pro-pedophile activists, and the content is already discussed in several existing articles under less problematic titles. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relevant links:
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (Oct. '07)
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination) (Jan. '08)
- Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Adult-child_sex (Jan. '08)
- Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 28 #User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex (closed) (Feb. '08) --12 Noon 00:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Question: should VigilancePrime's fork of a fork be included in this MFD? --Calton | Talk 13:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Additional relevant link: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:VigilancePrime/ACS --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Addendum:
- The one I found, above, I stumbled over. After reading the comments here, I decided to go looking. Hey, even more forks:
- User:Aditya Kabir/Sandbox 4
- User:Homologeo/Adult-child sex 1
- User:Homologeo/Adult-child sex 2
- User:Homologeo/Adult-child sex 3
- User:VigilancePrime/Sandbox#ACS_00
- --Calton | Talk 01:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relevant links:
- Thank you for diligently pointing out all the pages that are similar in purpose to the one that is being discussed within this MfD. However, why were all these other drafts deleted without any warning or discussion, especially if they're seen as comparable to the draft currently under discussion? I would like to courteously request that they be restored, at least until proper Misplaced Pages proceedings can be followed to determine if they should stay within or be deleted from the project's userspace. ~ Homologeo (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- If it would make things easier for the community, I have nothing against discussing and voting on all these drafts at once. But, before this can happen, all pages should be restored for the time being, involved editors notified of what's happening here, and proceedings either started anew or prolonged so that users previously unaware of this MfD, but who are directly involved with the creation or editing of the drafts, have a fair amount of time to cast their votes and respond to concerns raised. ~ Homologeo (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Let's see:
- An attempt to rescue : this work page was there long before the mainspace one was nominated for deletion, so it certainly can't be a wrongful re-creation attempt. Moreover, if the mainspace article really was a content fork, as was claimed repeatedly during the AfD, then then work that went into this draft may benefit other, existing articles. Deleting this piece of work seems to go against the DRV closing admin's call for editors to contribute their efforts to existing articles.
- The was deleted because...: it is not completely clear why the mainspace article was deleted, but "title is POV" is not reason I remember being mentioned often. Anyway, if the title, not the content, is somehow inappropriate, then there may be a case for moving the article, certainly not deleting it.
- Title is unacceptably POV: I just don't understand the moral panic over this. "Adult-child sex" is not a viewpoint, it's not the statement of an opinion, it's the objective description of a kind of human interaction; one that is strongly frowned upon in most contemporary Western societies, obviously, but that shouldn't prevent us from describing it in a dispassionate manner. We have an article on Female genital cutting, not Barbaric mutilation of women by senseless fanatics, and as much as I may agree with that latter characterization, I'm quite happy the current title.
- Term is used only by pro-pedophile activists: not only is this patently wrong (as a Google search will show in a matter of seconds), it also seems to be a thinly-veiled attack on your fellow editors.
- Content is already discussed in several existing articles: again, this only suggests that the work that went into this well-referenced draft page could benefit those existing articles.
- Hopefully this MfD doesn't turn into more bitter wiki-drama. Bikasuishin (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Subpage cannot be used to harbor a deleted article. A subpage can be used to draft a new article, but for only so long, and then it must be moved to mainspace. Since this article title is protected from recreation , it cannot be posted in mainspace. Since it cannot be harbored on a user subpage, it has to go somewhere, and that somewhere is nowhere - deletion city. If the user wants to preserve it, save it to some other site or to a Word document. On a sidebar, Bikasuishin's arguments seem circular, extremely off-topic and, as it is, moot. --12 Noon 00:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Guy and 12 Noon. As a side note, the user page version was created in Nov. '07 after the first Afd in Oct. '07, not "long before the mainspace one was nominated for deletion". -- Donald Albury 01:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- And the first AfD closed as Keep. Are we not allowed to have copies of kept articles either? --SSBohio 19:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I was pointing out the inaccuracy of an earlier statement. I also wonder why someone would start a page in user space with the same title as an existing article. -- Donald Albury 01:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- And the first AfD closed as Keep. Are we not allowed to have copies of kept articles either? --SSBohio 19:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Its material that covers a topic in a manner that has been rejected for inclusion. Its been salted. Therefore it cannot be foreseeable that at the present time it will be an encyclopedic topic. So it can't be a work inprogress if it can't become an article. And the other stuff the stuff 12 Noon said. MBisanz 02:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - From reading through the discussion at the relevant AfD, it seems that the reason for the deletion was not because the title was non-neutral but because the content constituted a POV fork. Regardless of title--as an aside, salting of this particular title in mainspace does not prevent the article from being created under a different name--the community has spoken and rejected the content of this article. Barring a complete rewrite, any creation in mainspace would thus result in a G4 deletion, which means that this page is not viable as a potential mainspace article and should thus be deleted per WP:UP. --jonny-mt 02:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Same animal as the POV fork that was deleted before. NPOV is needed in the userspace too, we are not a web host. (1 == 2) 05:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - per Bikasuishin. To others, deleted pages are userfied all the time. The term itself has been used in mainstream news such as Washington Post and USA Today. The POV fork assertion was never solidified and only argued after the initial arguments were easily refuted. Userspace is generally free for any purpose so long as it does not harbor a personal attack and this page is clearly an encyclopedic-based effort. The content is only in part covered in other articles as the original (with finding of keep) AfD noted about the original article. The original article was deleted in accordance with WP:STEAM, in case nobody had noticed. The article in the userspace is a complete rewrite (and one of a few different versions available under different userspaces). There is no real reason to delete this userpage and there is plenty of reason to leave it be, if for no other reason, per WP:EM. What's the big threat to "you all" (those pressing so hard to delete with great prejudice) from userspace drafts and userfied information? There still has not been put forth a solid, policy-based reason to delete. Can anyone provide one? VigilancePrime (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- There is no threat per se (incidentally, I believe the grammatically correct term is "y'all" :P), but the fact is that the merits of this article should be--and have been--discussed at the appropriate venues, specifically WP:AFD and WP:DRV. Simply put, MfD is not a last-last chance to save deleted content; the discussion here should center around whether or not the userfied article adheres to WP:UP and related policies and guidelines, not rehash the arguments put forth in favor of and against the original deletion. This, in turn, is the starting point for the rational, policy-based arguments for deletion presented above. --jonny-mt 06:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - I don't see anything wrong with keeping it in userspace for now, and considering the deep edit history behind the article, it could prove useful. Userspace pages aren't held to the same standards as mainspace articles, and the case for deleting the article for mainspace I think was rather tenuous in the first place (as per Bikasuishin's points). — xDanielx /C\ 06:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep. This is by no means the article of the same title that was deleted under similarly illegitimate circumstances. See for a more detailed account of the relating scandalous crusade against several admins and for the particular reasons why the widely controversial, basically illegitimate decision (being illegitimate due to illegitimate AfD as directly defined by Misplaced Pages policy that each new AfD needs new nomination rationale, as one of many other reasons) on the main article would not even be applicable even IF the userpage would be identical (which it's definitely not!) and even IF the mainspace decision would be legitimate and entirely uncontroversial (which it's definitely not either), my post on the DRV for Adult-child sex here. True, the userpage was put up after the first AfD, however that AfD closed with a strong keep from closing admin due to consensus and affirmed by another admin in DRV, and it was before the next bludgeoning of process by another, identical nomination rationale AfD with same voting statistics and even more arguments for keep was opened just a few weeks later. It would be great if MBisanz wouldn't stubbornly and untruthfully call content "(metaphorically) salted and deemed unencyclopedic" if 130 people, established editors and admins alike, adamantly wanted (and want) it to stay. I see though that Adult-child sex has now even be self-righteously protected which I regard pretty offensive to the established 10 dozen members of Misplaced Pages vehemently disagreeing with these illegitimate decisions violating any known consensus policy and guideline on Misplaced Pages as well as all decisions made in all precedence polls, AfDs, and admin decisions based upon the same (or even worse) conditions and rationales; at the very least it's arrogant ignorance towards their sophisticated, abundant reasonings and official, verbosely well-substantiated admin decisions (where the other party was found entirely incapable of even just debating or refuting anything as SSB pointed out at the provided link, all we got every single frickin' time were colorful one-liner no-brainers and personal, unsubstantiated, and unreferenced opinions), or this protection resembles pretty much the name-calling these 10 dozen established members "Pro-pedophile activists" all over again. Any alleged "POV" and "POV fork" issues are just as moot points for userspace as hammered out in detail at link. --TlatoSMD (talk) 08:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
break 1
- Delete. Yeah, deleted pages are userfied all the time -- but that's only if there's some potential for saving them in the first place. Certainly user pages are NOT a semi-permanent home for the not-ready-for-primetime, nor even a temporary refuge for that which shouldn't be hanging around in the first place. That's not even touching the title, whose very existence makes this a no-go. The overheated conspiracy-theory stuff just above certainly helps make this an easy decision. --Calton | Talk 13:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete the term is and always will be a POV fork. Viridae 13:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am getting tired of this whole stupid POINT. "The term appears to be used only by pro-pedophile activists" is an indication of IDONTLIKEIT. There are a huge number of reliable sources cited the use of this term that can be seen in this deleted talk page. Strong keep per my rationales last time and per DGG's comment in the DRV discussion "there was no consensus that this material could not be turned into an article, just a rather disputed consensus that the present article was was not acceptable. This should be allowed to remain a reasonable time so it can be worked on". @pple complain 13:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- You need to read WP:POINT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This topic has already been deleted, and if anyone is disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point, which is unlikely, it would probably be those who are so insistent on trying to "rescue" an article under a title which is POV on a topic which is already cvered in numerous other articles (all of which are also subject to occasional problems of similar POV-pushing). Guy (Help!) 14:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. There was not even a consensus in favor of the unsubstantiated opinion that the term ACS itself would be inherently POV instead of CSA, so it would be great if you'd stop insisting there was. As SSB pointed out, the most sophisticated reply to requests as to give reasonings why the term ACS could be considered POV was screaming "PEDOPHILE!!!!!" at everything that walked. There were plenty of academic sources (at a three-digit amount!) and sophisticated rationales brought up as to why the term CSA ought to be considered POV, and all those colorful, no-brain one-liners saying otherwise were verbosely and profoundly debunked again and again and again and again. The question ought rather be, why save the existing CSA main space article rather than to attack this private userpage, so apply there. Experienced admins such as User:John, User:Grue, User:DGG, User:Tango, User:Coren, User:@pple, and others, called the closing admin Keilana's entire ability to proper judgment and fulfill her duties as an admin into question for her unwarranted personal decision to delete the mainspace article for which she was even incapable to provide any rationale for. Please call them all pedophiles as well so we can have you perma-banned as quick as possible. The whole AfD where that decision was made about the mainspace article ACS was illegitimate to begin with, and it's even more wrong to apply in a self-righteous crusading fashion that illegitimate, arbitrary decision upon a private userpage not resembling the mainspace article. It's fascinating to watch this numinous, irrational, pre-scientific panic to burn anything at the stake that which does not fit one's pathetic ethnocentric values. --TlatoSMD (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please Tlato, let's keep a cool head over this. I'm no more pleased than you are to see a number of perfectly reasonable editors side with the witch-hunters when it comes to these touchy issues, and I understand why accusations of POV-pushing directed at your hard, deeply-researched work would upset you, but even if you feel personally offended by some remarks here, retorting will only antagonize people further. Also, while I don't think you were serious regarding the current CSA article (which covers a topic whose notability is obvious, if only because of its use as a legal qualification), comments like these are unlikely to help either. The mainspace ACS article was deleted, and the deletion was endorsed at DRV. It doesn't mean that it cannot be recreated at a later date, as consensus changes (I'm not sure what the rationale was for salting it either, by the way), but let's focus for now on this particular deletion discussion. Bikasuishin (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Believe me, I'd love to limit this to my private userpage, but obviously other people can't stop pointing to Keilana's personal decision in order to excuse harassingly, disruptively, and in violation with a number of established Misplaced Pages policies messing with my private userspace that has few if any to do with what Keilana made her controversial decision on. As for the RFD, Mackensen simply parroted vague, unsubstantiated opinions where no consensus whatsoever existed over. And this is just the short version. What I meant to say about the existing CSA article is that the most obvious decision in response to "POV fork" accusations would have been to incorporate CSA into an ACS article of a length ten or a hundred times as large as the existing CSA article wouldn't it be for overall length. --TlatoSMD (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please Tlato, let's keep a cool head over this. I'm no more pleased than you are to see a number of perfectly reasonable editors side with the witch-hunters when it comes to these touchy issues, and I understand why accusations of POV-pushing directed at your hard, deeply-researched work would upset you, but even if you feel personally offended by some remarks here, retorting will only antagonize people further. Also, while I don't think you were serious regarding the current CSA article (which covers a topic whose notability is obvious, if only because of its use as a legal qualification), comments like these are unlikely to help either. The mainspace ACS article was deleted, and the deletion was endorsed at DRV. It doesn't mean that it cannot be recreated at a later date, as consensus changes (I'm not sure what the rationale was for salting it either, by the way), but let's focus for now on this particular deletion discussion. Bikasuishin (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. There was not even a consensus in favor of the unsubstantiated opinion that the term ACS itself would be inherently POV instead of CSA, so it would be great if you'd stop insisting there was. As SSB pointed out, the most sophisticated reply to requests as to give reasonings why the term ACS could be considered POV was screaming "PEDOPHILE!!!!!" at everything that walked. There were plenty of academic sources (at a three-digit amount!) and sophisticated rationales brought up as to why the term CSA ought to be considered POV, and all those colorful, no-brain one-liners saying otherwise were verbosely and profoundly debunked again and again and again and again. The question ought rather be, why save the existing CSA main space article rather than to attack this private userpage, so apply there. Experienced admins such as User:John, User:Grue, User:DGG, User:Tango, User:Coren, User:@pple, and others, called the closing admin Keilana's entire ability to proper judgment and fulfill her duties as an admin into question for her unwarranted personal decision to delete the mainspace article for which she was even incapable to provide any rationale for. Please call them all pedophiles as well so we can have you perma-banned as quick as possible. The whole AfD where that decision was made about the mainspace article ACS was illegitimate to begin with, and it's even more wrong to apply in a self-righteous crusading fashion that illegitimate, arbitrary decision upon a private userpage not resembling the mainspace article. It's fascinating to watch this numinous, irrational, pre-scientific panic to burn anything at the stake that which does not fit one's pathetic ethnocentric values. --TlatoSMD (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- You need to read WP:POINT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This topic has already been deleted, and if anyone is disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point, which is unlikely, it would probably be those who are so insistent on trying to "rescue" an article under a title which is POV on a topic which is already cvered in numerous other articles (all of which are also subject to occasional problems of similar POV-pushing). Guy (Help!) 14:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong delete as per my comments at AFD. This is a blatant POV attempt to overrule a strong consensus decision. MikeHobday (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Delete, per nom the title is POV and the subject is clearly POV and Content Fork copy of a deleted article which was endorsed for deletion under DRV. this subpage's previous deletion was only overturned on a technicality. This is a point-y copy of that article. Dreadstar † 19:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- This needs to be speedied ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Are we going to do this again, over and over? I guarantee there will be a DRV if this is deleted, and someone will (again) find against consensus and overturn it. 21:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The term adult-child sex is pro-pedophilia, and we already have articles on topics such as pedophilia and child sexual abuse. So we don't, and will never, need this POV fork. It's time to nuke the last remnants of the deleted adult-child sex article. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. See what I mean Bikasuishin? No arguments, no reasoning, no refutations, and blatant, patent lies in contrast to any established consensus, referring to Keilana's arbitrary, invalid, controversial decision. --TlatoSMD (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- What lies? Why are you so defensive on this issue? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I'm going to take issue with this. First of all, the term itself is inherently biased. There's nothing we can do about that, save not having an article on it. Second, I concur that my decision was quite controversial, but it was not invalid, especially considering the fact that it was endorsed by a highly respected admin at DRV. Keilana| 01:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Keilana's closure was illegitimate because the whole AfD was illegitimate from the beginning. Even if there are years between two AfDs, new AfDs must have a new nomination rationale with new reasons by policy, otherwise they're invalid. This second AfD took only a few weeks and it had an identical nomination rationale as the first, therefore it was illegitimate from the beginning and should have been rejected as invalid at first appearance. But obviously people didn't care about due process and following official policy. Keilana's closure was furthermore not only highly controversial, it also conflicted with the precedence case of the first AfD where the same reasons for delete and even less reasons for keep resulted in a definitive keep. True, consensus can change, but it didn't, not in this case, at least not towards deletion. If it changed into any direction, this was an even stronger case of keep than the first, even if disregarding the fact that this second AfD was illegitimate from the beginning. --TlatoSMD (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- How exactly is "adult-child sex" inherently biased? A title which presumes a mainstream view is centrist; a title which presumes no view at all is neutral. "Adult-child sex" is purely descriptive, not normative. Descriptive language that deals with facts can of course be partial, but "adult-child sex" has no factual implications -- or non-factual ones, for that matter. I'm really failing to see how lack of predisposition in any direction can make a term biased. — xDanielx /C\ 06:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- The term is biased because the more usual term for this is pedophilia or perhaps pederasty, and we have articles on both, neother of which goes to such lengths to pretend that the practice is anything other than abhorrent in the eyes of the peoples of modern democracies. Guy (Help!) 09:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Guy, what you've asserted is that pedophilia and pederasty are the more usual term which is generally correct. What you were asked was how the term adult-child sex was inherently biased. Not comparatively, inherently. Not unusual, biased. I've yet to see anyone successfully defend the assertion of bias in any of these discussions. --SSBohio 20:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- You seem to be confused. Neither pedophilia nor pederasty are usual terms to refer to adult-child sex. The former is an attraction, and according to psychatrists, a paraphilia, not a "practice". The latter is no longer in common use, I believe. It refers to a particular type of adult-adolescent male homosexual intercourse, and thus has little to do with adult-child sex, depending on one's definition for a child. I find it a bit regrettable that people who seem to feel strongly about those issues and go around spouting "POV-fork" allegations here and there should be unclear about such basic terminology. Bikasuishin (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well put, Bikasuishin. I agree with your point completely. ~ Homologeo (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
break 2
- Delete per all the previous discussions on this user subpage. If an AFD discussion ended with a delete result, then this page should not be preserved in userspace indefinitely; that is in effect subverting the deletion discussion and its consensus. Aside from the title being non-neutral, consensus was that the content constituted a blatant POV fork, and it should be deleted as one as it was before. Keeping this around could bring the project as a whole into disrepute. Other articles on related issues exist and there is no reason to keep this around; there is no way it could possibly be improved to be acceptable. --Coredesat 06:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all listed copies and speedy delete any others that turn up. User space version of a POV-fork page that was deleted per policy and consensus. As long as the page exists, it will be a magnet for conflict and disruption, as it has been continually since it was first created. There's no benefit to a page that the community has soundly rejected with extensive and repeated discussions. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep It's in userspace. What's the problem? And you said The term appears to be used only by pro-pedophile activists in one swooping breath of POV after accusing the user of POV. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 09:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is that the mainspace article this was userfied from is a protected title - consensus is that this article is not acceptable in mainspace. There was a strong AFD consensus to delete the original article, and as a result if it's not going to be improved (it can't be improved), it must be deleted; deleted articles can't be kept in mainspace forever. --Coredesat 09:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. You can fix lack of notability, you can't fix an inappropriate subject. That is the problem here: rewriting can't fix the problem for whihc it was deleted, as the problem was the title as well as the content. We already have articles on the subject, just under titles that some people don't like. Guy (Help!) 09:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Now, now, I doubt the closing admins would claim that there ever was a strong consensus in any of the discussions regarding the now deleted mainspace article. I can respect Keilana's decision to close as delete, which she later explained by such rules as WP:IAR, but she acknowledges herself that it was far from uncontroversial. Bikasuishin (talk) 10:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - No harm in having a draft such as this within userspace, especially considering that a good number of Wikipedians participating in both the AfD and the ensuing deletion review saw a point in keeping the "Adult-child sex" article. Besides, this draft is not a copy of the deleted article, but rather a separate work that attempts to discuss the topic in question according to Misplaced Pages standards, and presents information that can and should be incorporated into articles on similar or related topics in the future. Lastly, this draft is a work-in-progress that could potentially serve to show what a Misplaced Pages article on ACS should look like. ~ Homologeo (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. It was agreed by a strong community consensus, despite some vigorous appeals, that this content was fundamentally both unsuitable and unnecessary. There is no point in having it in userspace, as it will never be encyclopedia-worthy. Neıl ☎ 10:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- So, is it appropriate to assume that you can foresee the future? I don't think any of us can predict Misplaced Pages consensus for times to come. Besides, if an article is legitimately improved, and maybe even the name of it changed (seeing as some editors really disapprove of the title "Adult-child sex"), there's no reason to assume that "it will never be encyclopedia-worthy." ~ Homologeo (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- You mean changing the name of the article to Pederasty, the correct, scientific name? We already have an article on that. That's the whole point. This article was/is/always will be a POV fork of that topic, with a benevolent slant upon it towards adults having sex with children. We don't have multiple articles on the exact same topic. Neıl ☎ 10:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please read the article you personally wikified above, and you'll see that pederasty is a much narrower topic that adult-child sex. Thus, not sure how the latter can ever be considered a POV fork of the former, when the opposite is much more likely to be true. ~ Homologeo (talk) 11:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, then, how about Ephebophilia? --jonny-mt 12:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Once again, please familiarize yourself with the article that you're referring to. As can easily be seen from the article on ephebophilia, adult-child sex cannot be considered a POV fork of this topic because the former only deals with an attraction, mental disorder, or paraphilia, and not sexual behavior. Furthermore, ACS covers a much broader topic than even the sexual activities that some ephebophiles would want to engage in, seeing as they're exclusively or primarily interested in adolescents, and not all children. ~ Homologeo (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - salted mainspace page, POV fork, will never be an article. Ergo, delete. (see also Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mrmattkatt) Will 10:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Users are allowed to recreate deleted articles in their user space in order to try to prove that they can be acceptable for article space. That does not apply here, because the deletion debates have concluded that the title and/or subject are not appropriate. There is no reason to preserve this article in user space. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy per nom & User:Will. Also: tiny minority POV already here, main article here. Avb 12:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - also speedy other copies of this article. Addhoc (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - if some folks want to develop an article for future consideration somewhere down the road (far, far down the road, from the way the consensus - remember that thing that WIkipedia's built on? - has gone thus far), then someone save the content off-Wiki and work on it there until such time as it's acceptable for inclusion here. It's been bluntly decided numerous times that this is a POV fork, so it's really inappropriate to have it hanging around like this. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Would you care to reference where "it's been bluntly decided numerous times that this is a POV fork?" I would very much like to see this. ~ Homologeo (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- AFD, deletion review, top of the page, you know, that stuff. Plus thousands of innocent bytes slaughtered on various noticeboards. Take it off-wiki, for crying out loud, work on it there, and in the future seek a DRV again to gauge consensus for this particular material. The continuing battle over this is, quite honestly, ridiculous. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I can't believe this needs to be repeated again - please look at the drafts prior to making false allegations. A good portion of the text within the drafts was not present within the deleted article, and thus is unique to these userspace pages. Simply reverberating that this is "recreation of deleted material" will not make your wrongful presumption more true. If some editors are not happy with these pages being within userspace, they're free to go through proper channels to address their concerns. Speedying is definitely inappropriate in a situation like this. Up to this point, it's individuals such as yourself who have insisted on violating Misplaced Pages policy, and not editors diligently at work to create a quality article, albeit on a controversial topic. ~ Homologeo (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- This MfD is unnecessary, the articles were correctly speedy deleted as recreations of material the community decided to delete in other discussions. These include the original AfD, and the previous MfD. Addhoc (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Where's the previous MfD? --PeaceNT (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, the previous MfD was cut short because the creator requested deletion. Regardless, this has been discussed enough times already. Addhoc (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- The user dropped his campaign to keep the page only because it was clear it would result in deletion, next in line of several similar AfD/MfD/DRV combinations that all resulted in deletions.... It was clearly not because he decided he didn't want the page. He re-created that page later and as of now there are two separate instances of that user's ACS page, both included in the list of related pages that Calton added in the addendum to the nomination. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- "This has been discussed enough times already" - userspace drafts that are separate and different from the deleted ACS article, really? Please show us where. ~ Homologeo (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
break 3
- Delete all: The practice of "userfying" an article after its deletion has a narrow scope. It is generally allowed for situations where an article is deleted as crystal ballery or lacking sources to indicate notability or other such situatiosn where a future version of the article may, infact, be appropriate for Misplaced Pages, even if the current one is not. On the other hand, this article has NO place at Misplaced Pages in ANY version. Misplaced Pages has articles on Pedophilia and Pederasty and does NOT need a third article on this subject. The preservation of this already deleted article does NOT serve any function for the future growth of the encyclopedia, and instead only serves as an "end-around" against a pretty clear consensus to delete the original article. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all. These user pages do not have a legitimate purpose, the title having been properly deleted via AfD. There's been plenty of time to copy any special sources that the users want for future reference. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: These are ineligible for Speedy deletion because G4 cannot be applied to user subpages harboring recreated articles; thus the speedy deletion was overturned in the last DRV on that technicality and brought here. I do not know if this is possible or requires some ArbCom statement, but I would suggest, if this MfD results in the deletion of the pages in question, that going forward G4 be allowed to apply to such pages falling under this topic only, as an exception. I am not saying these pages cannot be recreated as an article (which would still be eligible for AfD), but only that they should not be recreated under the auspices of a user subpage, thus making a mockery of the XfD process. --12 Noon 18:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Good idea! but not nearly stringent enough. People will only come and bring their disgusting, fringe, scholarly-supported POV to existing articles as well, while ignoring the well-established consensus that this encyclopedia adheres to Oprah's NPOV. I suggest that we make it a bannable offence to edit articles on this topic only in a fashion that looks fishy to any respectable wikipedian. Bikasuishin (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- You forgot to call me Hitler. --12 Noon 01:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Good idea! but not nearly stringent enough. People will only come and bring their disgusting, fringe, scholarly-supported POV to existing articles as well, while ignoring the well-established consensus that this encyclopedia adheres to Oprah's NPOV. I suggest that we make it a bannable offence to edit articles on this topic only in a fashion that looks fishy to any respectable wikipedian. Bikasuishin (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Enough is enough. This is a blatant end-run around AfD and needs to be shut down. Ronnotel (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think a legalistic interpretation of WP:CSD#G4 is helpful; it is possible for any user, with a bit of imagination, to evade G4 more or less indefinitely and thus abuse Misplaced Pages as a soapbox or free web host, but in the end if a subject is unencyclopaedic there's not much point wasting time on it in userspace. This subject was decided after much debate to be inappropriate, there being other articles which adequately cover the subject. It's not possible, as far as I can see, to fix the problem that got the article deleted, in a way that a userspace version would be amenable to moving back to mainspace. And that is the sole permissible purpose of userspace forks like this. Guy (Help!) 19:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Phenomenally Strong Keep -- Not that it will do any good, as moral panics seem immune to logic. A mob, as Franklin said, has many heads, but no brain.
- I'm particularly disappointed at those here who are materially misrepresenting previous discussions and materially misrepresenting these userspace workpages as recreations of a deleted article, even though they either existed before the deletion or were copied from those that did.
- Most of the "arguments" (using that term reservedly) for deletion were no more than links to WP:POVFORK. If you can't say how or why it's a POV fork, then you're adding noise to the discussion, not signal.
- A few pot-stirrers have attempted to make this about pedophiles. The article wasn't about pedophilia. The userpages aren't about pedophilia.
- The existing child sexual abuse article excludes (by definition) any of the subject matter that deals with adult-child sex in times and cultures where the abuse paradigm doesn't exist. If we can't talk about this in terms of biology, sociology, or anthropology, but only as abuse, then we're failing as an encyclopedia.
- "Ewww! Gross!" is not a rationale for deletion, no matter how the illogical chest-thumping might be prettied up.
- So, we can either stop pretending that this subject only exists within the frame of reference we want for it, or we can abandon the idea of being an encyclopedia.
- To deny that anything existed before is to deny reason itself. We're saying: let's not understand this topic; Let's just listen to the high priests and not do any critical thinking. This moral crusade disgusts me beyond belief.
- No matter how many times I'vve asked, no one has pointed to any evidence to bback up their opinions. Herostratus, Will Beback, Avruch, Sir Fozzie, Guy, Phil Sandifer, Keilana, and anyone else I've missed who bears the flaming sword or righteousness -- do your worst: Hide my words, delete them entirely, cut off discussion, misrepresent facts, destroy anything outside your narrow orthodoxy. Do whatever it takes to defend the wiki against the awful truth: something exists that we all don't like. Misplaced Pages -- the encyclopedia of topics we like. It's shameful. --SSBohio 19:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- What would be the problem with putting the needed information in a "History" section of the Pedophilia article? 19:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- The biggest problem I see is that it wouldn't have much of anything to do with pedophilia, so the topic wouldn't belong there. Pedophilia is a paraphilia; in any discussion of cultures where there is no taboo against adult-child sex, any attempt to tag the activity with such a label is to impose an ethnocentric view. Rape, incest, adult-child sex, cannibalism, all are (or have been) practiced by different cultural groups at various times, including today. What fringe advocates like pedophiles think in the modern West is utterly beside the point. --SSBohio 20:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- SSB, it seems than many editors are not even reading the discussion before casting their vote, and certainly seem opposed to responding to reasoning why these drafts are not POV-forks of the article on pedophilia or pederasty. This is the only explanation I can think of for editors time and again stating that these drafts, along with the deleted ACS article, can be incorporated into Pedophilia and Pederasty. I've seen no attempt whatsoever to address the concerns editors such as you and I have brought up in regards to the incompatibility of ACS with either of these topics. Not sure what else anyone in our position could do, considering that the other side simply refuses to conduct two-way dialogue on this issue. I'm getting personally tired of explaining the same thing over and over to different editors, and not having anyone in the other camp even acknowledge or respond to it. I wonder if it's really that hard to actually read other editors' posts before voting, familiarize oneself with the subject matter, and to dignify others' commentary with a direct response. ~ Homologeo (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) This is a good point, however see a good answer to do this below by User:Relata refero: "is the term 'child sexual abuse' somehow an anachronism that will not permit our discussion of the position of children as sexual objects in certain defunct societies?" The fact is that today, adults who engage in such a practice are considered pedophiles, whether their respective societies condone their actions or not. Whether or not an attraction to children should be considered deviant, the fact is, it is indeed seen that way today, and most any reliable source will uphold that: Any adult who has sex with a child, now or ever, is/was a pedophile; and any child who ever had sex with an adult was being abused. So the place to talk about the history of adults having sex with children would be in the pedophilia or child sex abuse articles. Unless, perhaps, if you can produce reliable sources, either that mention adult-child sex without making any mention of pedophilia, or that conclude there is indeed a clear distinction between the two. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:02, 5 Feb 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Equazcion, claiming that "everybody engaging in sexual activity with a minor is/was pedophile", that's Oprah-POV, not science-NPOV or academic NPOV, as we've been many times over and over and over before. Scientists and scientific studies empirically evidencing about 1-3, maybe 5 percents of known cases of AoC vioation due to paedophilia were pointed to in a two-digit amount. That's right, according to science-NPOV, paedophilia is the least likely reason for AoC offences of all currently known. Too many people here and in the previous discussions confuse Oprah-POV for science NPOV, and they're not even listening when they're being told so. They're not even listening when they're being told they're effectually lying about previous discussions and the AfDs, a fact which makes it very likely they didn't even read them. As SSB said, quote: their "votes" are no signal, they're just uninformed, clueless noise, as we can also see in, among other things, their merging suggestions. --TlatoSMD (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Firstly, I'm not claiming to have read the previous AfDs. Secondly, I'm not sure what your definition of the word pedophile is, but it has nothing to do with age of consent laws. When we talk about adults having sex with children, we're not simply referring to a technical age-of-consent violation (as in "I thought she was 18"). We're talking about something much more clearcut; an age difference for which most jurisdictions have stricter rules. An adult who has sex with a child -- meaning an actual adult who has sex with an actual child -- is an adult who has a sexual attraction to children, aka a pedophile. You want to write an article on the frequent occurrence of marginal age-of-consent violations, that's another story. But adult-child sex is pedophilia by definition, unless, as I said, you can come up with reliable sources that say otherwise. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:23, 7 Feb 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Paedophilia is not an act just as homosexuality is not either, if you're looking for acts to associate with those former two labels, it's same-sex activities for the one, and either CSA or ACS for the other depending on your personal POV. It's a quite similar simple difference as that between drinking and thirst. With most other behavioral patterns, psychologists, sociologists, and ethologists are generally able to distinguish between a.) a personal impulse, b.) social learning influencing, among many other things, personal identity, and thus being an essential part of one's motivational process, and c.) the behavior resulting from a combination of a.) and b.). But when it comes to sexuality, suddenly many psychologists, sociologists, and ethologists find themselves entirely failing to maintain those proper standards any longer for no other reasons than ethnocentric values. And when I said AoC violation, I definitely didn't mean 18, I mean people engaging in sexual activity with pre-adolescents and pre-pubescents. Only 1-3, maybe 5 percent of people found to engage in such activity are regularly found to be paedophile, and we're not even talking about self-identification directly, we're talking about large characteristic mental and behavioral differences between the different types of offenders, and only one category of such offenders is actually paedophile, the other two being surrogate aka situational offenders, or sadists. Don't call upon denial because it just happens that self-identification in most cases corresponds with these typical mental and behavioral patterns, and not only from the POV of the offenders themselves but also confirmed by professional psychological examination and assessment and outside sources, including their social surroundings, such as family, friends, acquaintances, co-workers, and, not least of all, the children involved, if any. For now it appears within roughly half a century of international professional research into paedophilia that paedophile offenders in general do not lie about whether they have acted upon their desire if they are accused of having violated local AoC laws, and they appear even more honest about their acts and whether they are paedophile if their offending is already known as a fact. All that in spite of social learning requiring people in Western industrialized nations to most aggressively disassociate themselves from paedophilia as a desire, paedophiles as individuals and/or a social group of people, and sexual activity between adults and pre-adolescents or pre-pubescents. Those are just some of the mental patterns that set them apart from the other 95-99% of non-paedophile violators against local AoC laws and people having engaged in sexual activity with pre-adolescents or pre-pubescents, and there are many more mental and behavioral differences as we've been over already a lot of times before as well, however this MfD is neither the time nor the place. --TlatoSMD (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Just because you claim "psychologists, sociologists, and ethologists" are being "ethnocentric" doesn't mean it's true. They're the ones writing the reliable sources, and you saying you don't trust them doesn't mean anything in the context of this encyclopedia. Furthermore the adults found to be engaging in sex with children don't need to be "regularly found to be pedophile .... mental and behavioral differences other types of offenders...". You're making up your own definition and criteria for calling someone a pedophile. In order to be a pedophile, you don't need to self-identify or have a mental disorder with regularly-occurring symptoms. The definition of pedophile is an adult who has a sexual attraction to pre-pubescents. That's it. And your opinions about western civilization being in denial... well, that's just irrelevant. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:47, 8 Feb 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Paedophilia is not an act just as homosexuality is not either, if you're looking for acts to associate with those former two labels, it's same-sex activities for the one, and either CSA or ACS for the other depending on your personal POV. It's a quite similar simple difference as that between drinking and thirst. With most other behavioral patterns, psychologists, sociologists, and ethologists are generally able to distinguish between a.) a personal impulse, b.) social learning influencing, among many other things, personal identity, and thus being an essential part of one's motivational process, and c.) the behavior resulting from a combination of a.) and b.). But when it comes to sexuality, suddenly many psychologists, sociologists, and ethologists find themselves entirely failing to maintain those proper standards any longer for no other reasons than ethnocentric values. And when I said AoC violation, I definitely didn't mean 18, I mean people engaging in sexual activity with pre-adolescents and pre-pubescents. Only 1-3, maybe 5 percent of people found to engage in such activity are regularly found to be paedophile, and we're not even talking about self-identification directly, we're talking about large characteristic mental and behavioral differences between the different types of offenders, and only one category of such offenders is actually paedophile, the other two being surrogate aka situational offenders, or sadists. Don't call upon denial because it just happens that self-identification in most cases corresponds with these typical mental and behavioral patterns, and not only from the POV of the offenders themselves but also confirmed by professional psychological examination and assessment and outside sources, including their social surroundings, such as family, friends, acquaintances, co-workers, and, not least of all, the children involved, if any. For now it appears within roughly half a century of international professional research into paedophilia that paedophile offenders in general do not lie about whether they have acted upon their desire if they are accused of having violated local AoC laws, and they appear even more honest about their acts and whether they are paedophile if their offending is already known as a fact. All that in spite of social learning requiring people in Western industrialized nations to most aggressively disassociate themselves from paedophilia as a desire, paedophiles as individuals and/or a social group of people, and sexual activity between adults and pre-adolescents or pre-pubescents. Those are just some of the mental patterns that set them apart from the other 95-99% of non-paedophile violators against local AoC laws and people having engaged in sexual activity with pre-adolescents or pre-pubescents, and there are many more mental and behavioral differences as we've been over already a lot of times before as well, however this MfD is neither the time nor the place. --TlatoSMD (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Firstly, I'm not claiming to have read the previous AfDs. Secondly, I'm not sure what your definition of the word pedophile is, but it has nothing to do with age of consent laws. When we talk about adults having sex with children, we're not simply referring to a technical age-of-consent violation (as in "I thought she was 18"). We're talking about something much more clearcut; an age difference for which most jurisdictions have stricter rules. An adult who has sex with a child -- meaning an actual adult who has sex with an actual child -- is an adult who has a sexual attraction to children, aka a pedophile. You want to write an article on the frequent occurrence of marginal age-of-consent violations, that's another story. But adult-child sex is pedophilia by definition, unless, as I said, you can come up with reliable sources that say otherwise. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:23, 7 Feb 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Equazcion, claiming that "everybody engaging in sexual activity with a minor is/was pedophile", that's Oprah-POV, not science-NPOV or academic NPOV, as we've been many times over and over and over before. Scientists and scientific studies empirically evidencing about 1-3, maybe 5 percents of known cases of AoC vioation due to paedophilia were pointed to in a two-digit amount. That's right, according to science-NPOV, paedophilia is the least likely reason for AoC offences of all currently known. Too many people here and in the previous discussions confuse Oprah-POV for science NPOV, and they're not even listening when they're being told so. They're not even listening when they're being told they're effectually lying about previous discussions and the AfDs, a fact which makes it very likely they didn't even read them. As SSB said, quote: their "votes" are no signal, they're just uninformed, clueless noise, as we can also see in, among other things, their merging suggestions. --TlatoSMD (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) This is a good point, however see a good answer to do this below by User:Relata refero: "is the term 'child sexual abuse' somehow an anachronism that will not permit our discussion of the position of children as sexual objects in certain defunct societies?" The fact is that today, adults who engage in such a practice are considered pedophiles, whether their respective societies condone their actions or not. Whether or not an attraction to children should be considered deviant, the fact is, it is indeed seen that way today, and most any reliable source will uphold that: Any adult who has sex with a child, now or ever, is/was a pedophile; and any child who ever had sex with an adult was being abused. So the place to talk about the history of adults having sex with children would be in the pedophilia or child sex abuse articles. Unless, perhaps, if you can produce reliable sources, either that mention adult-child sex without making any mention of pedophilia, or that conclude there is indeed a clear distinction between the two. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:02, 5 Feb 2008 (UTC)
- Delete every copy of this POV fork. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per the dozen-plus well-reasoned arguments above. FCYTravis (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I thought the G4 reasoning to speedy delete this page was spurious. However, based on Tlato's statement above I don't see that he intends anything other than a recreation of a POV fork with this draft. The draft itself has even more serious problems than the deleted article. Per the Adult-child sex DRV, editors are remanded to the existing articles on the topic. I opposed the immediate G4 deletion because I would rather assume good faith that Tlato and the others would abide by that decision but it is apparent now that they will not. Therefore, this draft needs to be deleted to enforce that decision. Mangojuice 19:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete; it's a recreation of a POV fork, and won't become anything more than that. Even in userspace, this shouldn't be encouraged. Ral315 (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ral, my first interaction with you was 17 November 2005. It involved jumping to a conclusion. This seems to be similar. These are not recreations of any deleted material. These are also not articles. They are keepable per WP:USER. They are not deletable per WP:CSD#G4, by the plain language of G4 & the plain meaning of recreation. Considering the climate here, it's debatable whether a user is wise to keep it, but it's within policy. --SSBohio 20:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
break 4
- Delete. I have not followed any of this discussion, so I bring a completely fresh and open mind to this particular debate, and am not affected by previous AfD battles. It appears to me that the references provided in the draft, as well as those I could dredge up, clearly indicate that this term is growing in acceptance a phrase in academia, though not in policy or public discussion. The most obvious and clear statement is the USA Today article, with the crucial sentence "But some serious researchers and academics want to review the term "child sexual abuse," preferring a more neutral term such as "adult-child sex."" OK. What that line says is "here's another phrase some people prefer because its more neutral." Which is the literal definition of a POV-fork. Next: is the term "child sexual abuse" somehow an anachronism that will not permit our discussion of the position of children as sexual objects in certain defunct societies? Nonsense. The term classical mechanics, coined though it was less than a hundred years ago, does not impact our ability to discuss within that group of articles the experiments of Galileo and the Greeks, who would have been surprised to discover that observation of the sun and gravity were relevant to the study of machines. Within the article, academic surveys of sexual interaction between children and adults at different periods can be called whatever current, mainstream sources on that particular period choose to call it, but there's no need to change the title of an article in the erroneous belief that the content is unavoidably affected. As such, there's absolutely no point to having a draft of this article in userspace, and it should be deleted. Relata refero (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relata, thank you so much. Your thoughtful consideration of these issues makes me hopeful for the future. In short, we agree broadly, but I see a couple of differences:
- It's not that one term or the other is a POV fork; Each is a notable topic -- In the same way that we don't have to tell people that Hitler was bad, we can discuss the activity of adult-child sex without having to consider it strictly as abuse.
- If our only mention of this phenomenon in other times and other cultures is under the heading of abuse, then we are, by the nature of the term, imposing our values on other cultures. For example, in the article on pederasty in ancient Greece, the word abuse is never used. We adopt an etic perspective in discussing that culture's practices. Forcing an abuse label onto every instance of this phenomenon is to force our emic perspective onto other peoples and cultures, which is hardly encyclopedic.
- I'd enjoy discussing this in-depth with you on my talk page. --SSBohio 21:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. As for the notion that "the title is a POV-fork", that's wrong because the contemporary, pre-scientific abuse tale, as interpretative and prescriptive as it is, can be easily incorporated under a heading of adult-child sex that is entirely descriptive and therefore neutral in contrast. Relata only repeats the primitive notion I've pointed to before, "If this is what my local judge, Fox News, and this one self-help guide against depression are calling it, so will I!" Again, people making any claim about the term adult-child sex being some "POV fork" have no idea what "POV fork" means, nor do they have an idea about prevalent positions in science, as we have hammered into the ground before over and over and over and over as well. So far, we have a three-digit amount of academic and scientific sources against those noisy ignorants, and if you'd give us a few months, we'd have even 4-digit numbers if that would have any merit in changing some people's ignorant ways. HOW MANY SOURCES DO YOU NEED TO EVER ADMIT THAT YOU'RE WRONG? This is entirely insane!
- We just can't even think of building a neutral encylopedia when faced with this incredible amount of self-righteous ignorance and denial where people think that science doesn't matter or only listen to ethnocentric, chronocentric, anti-intellectual quack pseudo-science patently of very poor standards serving only their own little ethnocentric values. You can't tell me the most recent AfD closure is not a giant fail in building an encyclopedia, and now these clueless ignorants are even paranoidly going after any single person trying to even bring the slightest bit of reason and enlightenment outside of Misplaced Pages mainspace, that's just insane. This is not just about how you interpret some facts, what is being done here and now is pathetic censoring even just reporting on 99% of facts, and the remaining 1% are spinned and re-interpreted for so long until they serve somebody's own self-centered, delusional views that they only don't recognize as self-centered and irrational because they are ethnocentrically endorsed. Science is least of all some vain popularity contest as many people here seem to believe.
- And on top of all that, for all those people here really addictedly craving for aspects and qualities such as "abusive" and "unpleasant", there is certainly no lack of hundreds and thousands of published positive, even enthusiastic short-term and long-term self-reports of "forcelessly abused victims" in scientific research as anybody can see even just having a short glimpse at the draft in question. What we lack is very simple willingness to actually listen and balance instead of constant denial, a denial also apparent in vile pathologizing, medicalizing, and institutionalizing in cases where such only please the factually uninvolved. Misplaced Pages of course doesn't stir up societal unrest and conflicts, it only documents them, and there is plenty of available scientific and lay sources to document such social and academic unrest and conflicts about controversial terms such as CSA or the controversial ethnocentric values prescribed upon sexual activity between adults and pre-adolescents or pre-pubescents. And you can even least of all attribute that social unrest to those people actually involved and which you seem to defensively accuse of being in the grip of some mental defect whenever they outsmart you. Certainly nobody ever said such positive experiences would ever be the majority of anything, however the vast evidence of such positive experiences should make people think and differentiate those things you can't warrantly muddle up with each other rather than just lie and deny, spontaneous spiteful reactions that are only perpetuated by negatively enforcing and conditioning, irrational labels such as CSA.
- Don't tell me this is just an MfD on Misplaced Pages and not some political parliament. Most people giving their colorful delete one-liners here are giving nothing but personal moral and social convictions in order to excuse violating somebody's private userpages hardly ever accessed even by people on Misplaced Pages, so they obviously need to get an idea of the real world out there. Everybody else voting for delete is either lying about previous discussions (every single person claiming there ever was any even just remote consensus to delete is lying, as plain as that, or they don't know what consensus even means which is least of all a majority vote where clueless noise can be passed off and be counted as a vote), or misrepresenting policies meant for totally different situations, or both. People voting for delete here excuse their votes by demonstrating their fundamental ignorance regarding facts outside of Misplaced Pages, or by lying about former discussions here on Misplaced Pages (if they even just cared glancing over them), or both. I don't care what people here think about sexual activity between minors and adults, or whether they think that desire for such would be pathological, as long as they'd stick to honesty, decency, civility, logic, coherence, consensus, established policy, all that stuff which I see tremendously defied, violated, and just plainly spit at again and again and again in all these discussions. If you think even just bringing up some topic would be "indecent", that's great for your little ego but it least of all gives you any right to be most uncivil and flaming. --TlatoSMD (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well! I will presume not all of that was directed at me. Of the parts of it that don't go to editorial motivation, which is irrelevant, I will respond to one, namely that made in the first paragraph, which is too long for me to quote here.
- It is a common error that producing a large number of quotes supporting your position means that you are entitled to say "this is now the consensus view in the literature". What you are doing is providing the numerator of the fraction, without the denominator. If you do wish to make a statement about consensus, you need to find a RS that makes a statement about consensus, otherwise its original research.
- Which is why I looked at the USA Today quote, a reliable source that specifically discussed the consensus over naming in academia. A POV-fork is another article intended to cover the same subject, but from another point of view. Note that I have stated that even if an increasing view in the academy is that Title X is more neutral, creating an article at Title X when we already have Title Y over an article covering the same ground is precisely what a POV-fork is. Relata refero (talk) 07:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Don't tell me this is just an MfD on Misplaced Pages and not some political parliament. Most people giving their colorful delete one-liners here are giving nothing but personal moral and social convictions in order to excuse violating somebody's private userpages hardly ever accessed even by people on Misplaced Pages, so they obviously need to get an idea of the real world out there. Everybody else voting for delete is either lying about previous discussions (every single person claiming there ever was any even just remote consensus to delete is lying, as plain as that, or they don't know what consensus even means which is least of all a majority vote where clueless noise can be passed off and be counted as a vote), or misrepresenting policies meant for totally different situations, or both. People voting for delete here excuse their votes by demonstrating their fundamental ignorance regarding facts outside of Misplaced Pages, or by lying about former discussions here on Misplaced Pages (if they even just cared glancing over them), or both. I don't care what people here think about sexual activity between minors and adults, or whether they think that desire for such would be pathological, as long as they'd stick to honesty, decency, civility, logic, coherence, consensus, established policy, all that stuff which I see tremendously defied, violated, and just plainly spit at again and again and again in all these discussions. If you think even just bringing up some topic would be "indecent", that's great for your little ego but it least of all gives you any right to be most uncivil and flaming. --TlatoSMD (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Wrong. Burden of proof lies on the side of those making a statement, and everybody trying to defend Oprah-POV here did a very, very poor job at trying to source and substantiate their opinions with references. Also, note how many people here have said before that the content could not be moved into any other article because those were simply different subjects, including the very limited, ethnocentric, chronocentric, interpretative, and prescriptive CSA construct which has been said many times before ought to limit itself to contemporary legal aspects. --TlatoSMD (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong delete, almost to the point of CSD G4. This has been debated to death, the article is fundamentally unsuitable. Therefore, no reincarnations can exist. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 20:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all - Recreation of deleted material in userspace should be -- and generally is -- reserved for situations where an effort is being made to fundamentally change the article so that it can be more acceptable and won't get deleted again for the same reasons. This shouldn't be a tool to simply "keep alive" that which someone feels was wrongfully removed. Deletion decisions should be respected. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:38, 5 Feb 2008 (UTC)
- Please compare the drafts to the deleted article. Once you've done that, you'll see that there is indeed "an effort ... being made to fundamentally change the article." Userspace is not being used as "a tool to simply 'keep alive'" anything. ~ Homologeo (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- You missed the part that said "... so that it won't get deleted again for the same reasons." The article was deleted because the term itself was a POV fork. Is an effort being made to change the article title? Equazcion •✗/C • 21:09, 5 Feb 2008 (UTC)
- As was implied elsewhere on this page, I personally have nothing against changing the title of the article, especially if that's the crux of the controversy for many editors. Determining what would be the appropriate title is another issue, which I'm confident can be resolved once it's upon us. ~ Homologeo (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not as confident. The title of the article is its crux. Any other title would just be a synonym, or else the article would have to be about something entirely different. I may have oversimplified this in my last response, but the title isn't exactly the problem. This is going to be an article about adult-child sex, a POV fork, no matter how you retitle or change it -- unless of course you change it so much that it's about a different subject entirely. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:32, 6 Feb 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't see any justification for maintaining material that could be incorporated into pederasty or some similar article, and if it can't be incorporated, there's no reason to keep it around. -Amatulić (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong delete
and investigate restoration of material, who did it and why, this looks more a case for admin intervention that for community consensus.Thanks, SqueakBox 00:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Don't worry, SqueakBox, no conspiracy here. As can easily be seen from the history of each of these drafts, they were commenced before the "Adult-child sex" article was deleted, and several of them were already worked on even before ACS was up for deletion. ~ Homologeo (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Squeak, there were exactly three reasons for so many copies in userspace long before the second AfD: You, Jack, and Pol, because you guys kept deleting abundantly sourced academic material from the mainspace article without any discussion or consensus. That's vandalism, and you couldn't even be stopped by several admins determined to put a stop to what you three guys were doing but unfortunately never putting their blocking warnings into action. --TlatoSMD (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, Homologeo, I'll just stick with the strong delete though am amazed at so many copies. Mike D78 had sopme copies too, I guess that is whom Tlato got his idea from. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- A look at the log will show this information. The restoration seems perfectly appropriate though; as WP:CSD says, G4 "does not apply to content that has been moved to user space." — xDanielx /C\ 01:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Just seems to be a fork, the community agreed to delete the article from which it forks, so no need to keep it. (Note that the page is different to the one that was up for deletion and was eventually deleted, but the text of both was open to those considering the last article through revisions) IMO this has been done to death over various fora in past weeks and needs to be brought to a close. Orderinchaos 05:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. According to nominator main-space article was deleted for title, not content. Therefore there seems nothing against editors working on that content in their user-spaces, potentially to improve other articles or create an article with a more consensus gathering title. Rich Farmbrough, 14:22 6 February 2008 (GMT).
- But how would you feel about an article titled Non-voluntary intercourse that was being pushed as a content fork of Rape? I believe that any article with that title, regardless of content, would be regarded as patently offensive and quickly deleted, right? Ronnotel (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- If that article contains materials backed up by a myriad of third-party sources, I'd definitely consider preserving the content in the userspace and improving it so that these materials would be useful somewhere, in this case, Rape. Being a content-fork doesn't make the information automatically invalid. If anything, that means the content can be included/merged somewhere. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- In which case, the user page content in question would be on a sub page of Talk:Rape. That this is not the case here suggests the true motive is to seek a new consensus to recreate a deleted page at some future point. MikeHobday (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- If the content could legitimately be incorporated into Child sexual abuse, then that would be no problem. But that's exactly the point - this information does not belong in CSA, and even many editors that are against an article on adult-child sex agree that the majority of this info doesn't belong there. How they then argue that this is a POV fork is beyond me. ~ Homologeo (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, and censure nominator for WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA violation. Poisoning the well by accusing anyone who disagrees of being a "pro-pedophile activist" is unacceptable conduct here, and must not be tolerated. --FOo (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- The wording does not accuse anyone here of being pro-paedophile activists, it merely suggests (whether rightly or wrongly) that in the literature/outside world only such activists would use the term. There's no CIVIL/NPA violation unless you're looking for one. Orderinchaos 05:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Guy fully knew what he was doing. A moment's googling would have shown him - as it did me just now, thank you all, the federal government has me searching this on file - that the term is used in several different reliable sources, and a dispute on whether to use this phrase is current in academia. It appears the APSAC handbook itself specifically mentions the problem, where it quotes an article by Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman that I note is also in the bibliography of this article. A search for that article on scholar then demonstrates the scope of the conflict, with literally dozens of papers arguing on the subject of the name in peer-reviewed journals. I certainly think Guy was being lazy and unacceptably snappish. However, that a pattern of behaviour that nothing short of ArbCom is likely to change, so lets not waste our time condemning him. Relata refero (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Or maybe Guy was following the debates at AfD and DRV and taking the tone from there. Maybe "lazy" isn't quite the right word to describe someone doing their best to fit in some work to benefit the project around arranging the funeral of their father. Maybe your choice of words here was, how should I put it, lazy and snappish. Guy (Help!) 10:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- And maybe Guy should not have been doing anything stressful at this time, as countless well-wishers have urged. Maybe Guy's natural snappishness is only enhanced by feeling that he needs to do stuff for the project at a time like this; and maybe Guy really should leave situations to new hands when he feels that the debates around a particular issue have become so contentious that he can't control himself. Whatever the 'tone' at the AfD, that's no excuse for what you wrote up above. If you were nominating a regular AfD and didn't run a couple of google searches, your head would have been bitten off by all comers. Guy, take a break. Relata refero (talk) 11:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, how offensive! Time to calm down, I suggest. MikeHobday (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nominating this for MfD is not a stressful thing at all, actually - it's pretty routine stuff. Advocacy fork, deleted, editors remanded to other existing articles, rearguard stand in user space. All perfectly normal and understandable, and no assumption of ill-faith necessary. Having a strong opinion is fine, we allow that, but within limits of course. And the irony of accusing me of snappishness a comment with that degree of outright rudeness did give me a quiet chuckle - assume bad faith, much? Guy (Help!) 12:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Guy, I assumed the best of faith. I have no doubt that what you did now, and indeed, anything you have ever done, has always been strictly for the good of the project as you see it. I merely pointed out that you are both snappish and not inclined to check your assumptions about others with - say, as in this case - a quick google search. This isn't news to anyone. It shoudn't be news to you, and has nothing to do with good faith. IF you want to change those assumptions, change your behaviour. And it certainly isn't rude to mention it in response to a couple of statements discussing it, and say its a pattern of behaviour. Definitely not by your standards, anyway. (Especially given that you just said I'd assumed bad faith, in the absence of any evidence to back that up.)
- Nominating this for MfD was fine. What wasn't was the lazy appending of "usually used by pro-paedophile activists", a phrase contradicted by large amounts of evidence available after 30 seconds, without thinking of the fact that that both poisons the well for terms of people coming here to consider this MfD, and indirectly implies something about the kind of person who keeps it in userspace. That's unacceptable, particularly in something which has already gone through such an apparently contentious series of debates. If you couldn't do it properly, then get someone else to do it.
- Anything else on this subject would be better discussed on my talkpage. Relata refero (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Guy, I assumed the best of faith. I have no doubt that what you did now, and indeed, anything you have ever done, has always been strictly for the good of the project as you see it. I merely pointed out that you are both snappish and not inclined to check your assumptions about others with - say, as in this case - a quick google search. This isn't news to anyone. It shoudn't be news to you, and has nothing to do with good faith. IF you want to change those assumptions, change your behaviour. And it certainly isn't rude to mention it in response to a couple of statements discussing it, and say its a pattern of behaviour. Definitely not by your standards, anyway. (Especially given that you just said I'd assumed bad faith, in the absence of any evidence to back that up.)
- Nominating this for MfD is not a stressful thing at all, actually - it's pretty routine stuff. Advocacy fork, deleted, editors remanded to other existing articles, rearguard stand in user space. All perfectly normal and understandable, and no assumption of ill-faith necessary. Having a strong opinion is fine, we allow that, but within limits of course. And the irony of accusing me of snappishness a comment with that degree of outright rudeness did give me a quiet chuckle - assume bad faith, much? Guy (Help!) 12:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, how offensive! Time to calm down, I suggest. MikeHobday (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- And maybe Guy should not have been doing anything stressful at this time, as countless well-wishers have urged. Maybe Guy's natural snappishness is only enhanced by feeling that he needs to do stuff for the project at a time like this; and maybe Guy really should leave situations to new hands when he feels that the debates around a particular issue have become so contentious that he can't control himself. Whatever the 'tone' at the AfD, that's no excuse for what you wrote up above. If you were nominating a regular AfD and didn't run a couple of google searches, your head would have been bitten off by all comers. Guy, take a break. Relata refero (talk) 11:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Or maybe Guy was following the debates at AfD and DRV and taking the tone from there. Maybe "lazy" isn't quite the right word to describe someone doing their best to fit in some work to benefit the project around arranging the funeral of their father. Maybe your choice of words here was, how should I put it, lazy and snappish. Guy (Help!) 10:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Guy fully knew what he was doing. A moment's googling would have shown him - as it did me just now, thank you all, the federal government has me searching this on file - that the term is used in several different reliable sources, and a dispute on whether to use this phrase is current in academia. It appears the APSAC handbook itself specifically mentions the problem, where it quotes an article by Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman that I note is also in the bibliography of this article. A search for that article on scholar then demonstrates the scope of the conflict, with literally dozens of papers arguing on the subject of the name in peer-reviewed journals. I certainly think Guy was being lazy and unacceptably snappish. However, that a pattern of behaviour that nothing short of ArbCom is likely to change, so lets not waste our time condemning him. Relata refero (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- The wording does not accuse anyone here of being pro-paedophile activists, it merely suggests (whether rightly or wrongly) that in the literature/outside world only such activists would use the term. There's no CIVIL/NPA violation unless you're looking for one. Orderinchaos 05:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
break 5
Okay, so I'll try very hard to maintain civility. My user subpage has been deleted without any warning, without telling me it was going to be deleted and without giving me a chance to present my side of the argument. Why? Because I am a "pedophile". Very nice. I am really flattered. Now can I call you by some equally flattering names?
The title "Adult Child sex" represents POV-forking, POV-pushing and all that, while the title "Child sexual abuse" is very NPOV. WOW! Value judgment is neutral and non-judgment is not-neutral. Double wow!!
The page that's up for deletion here and pages that were deleted (at least those tat I have been able check in the past) were all trying to put together historical and biological perspectives on Adult Child sex, which goes way beyond the legal perspective that's presented in all of the related articles. But, all that didn't represent attempts at academics. Those were really attempts to glorify the act of violating little children. What's next? Delete Islam and keep Jihad?
Someone above said, most of the material of the deleted pages have incorporated into other articles. Really? Can you show it was so? Like, for instance where is the biological perspective incorporated?
Besides, even if some of the information is incorporated elsewhere, does that mean that those articles represent neutrality as well? Putting the number of Jews who died in the Holocaust in an article on Holocaust is one thing, putting it into an article on Divine justice is another.
If this kind of attitude runs the Misplaced Pages, we are going end up celebrating a mishmash of evengelist and activist propaganda with a thin veneer of respectability. But, probably that's what we need. What other issues we are promoting here? Anti-abortion? Legalize dope? Bomb Baghdad? Down with the Pope? I am so glad to be in the company of such amazing people. Cheers. Aditya 07:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Child sexual abuse is the most NPOV term as far as wikipedia goes because it represents the majority view of most if not all countries around the world. Adult-child sex is a POV fork because it attempts to represent a minority view as a majority view by cherry picking sources and bringing them together in attempt to make it appear there is more support for the practice than is ussually represented in reliable sources. Viridae 07:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Aside from what Viridae says about cherry-picking sources, which I can't comment on because that would require reading the article with greater closeness than I have, I am in broad agreement. There is a dispute about what term to use, and Child Sexual Abuse is still the victor.
- That being said, everything I've seen in the past half an hour seems to suggest that the dispute itself is notable, and if an article of this title discussed the neologism and the dispute - all conducted in reliable sources - on whether to use it, I'd be forced to vote to keep an article at that title. Relata refero (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete if the issues raised in the AfD are not actively addressed. And I don't think they are. This does not mean that the content shouldn't be incorporated in other articles. -- lucasbfr 08:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per a litany of reasons cited above. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sure. Let's first take a look at the "litany of reasons":
- "An attempt to rescue an article that was deleted not because of the content but because the title - the term itself - is unacceptably POV." - that sounds like heavy use of crystal balls here. The page in discussion has never copied stuff from the deleted article, rather it accumulated a surprisingly rich collection of information laid out in a very non-judgmental tone.
- "The term appears to be used only by pro-pedophile activists, and the content is already discussed in several existing articles under less problematic titles." - the first part is pure slander, the second part is untrue.
- "Subpage cannot be used to harbor a deleted article." - the amount of new information and a completely different organization nullifies the very concept of "harboring", it rather represents a fair attempt to present a phenomenon in non-judgmental way. If the title is a problem, it can always be solved. Destruction is not the only way to solve problems.
- "the user page version was created in Nov. '07 after the first Afd in Oct. '07" - that's really funny. Do we start deleting stuff because they were created on the wrong date?
- "Barring a complete rewrite, any creation in mainspace would thus result in a G4 deletion, which means that this page is not viable as a potential mainspace article and should thus be deleted per WP:UP" - that's exactly what is/was being tried.
- "NPOV is needed in the userspace too" - wrong on two counts: (1) mainspace rules don't apply to userspace; (2) work in progress can't be judged as POV or NPOV, until the work is done.
- "Certainly user pages are NOT a semi-permanent home for the not-ready-for-primetime" and "If an AFD discussion ended with a delete result, then this page should not be preserved in userspace indefinitely" - for your kind information, a lot many articles of excellent quality was worked upon in the userspace first, and not-working-fast-enough can't be termed as "semi-permanent home" or "indefinite preservation" as long work is being progressing, especially if it's in the right direction.
- "the subject is clearly POV and Content Fork copy of a deleted article" and "it's a recreation of a POV fork, and won't become anything more than that" - untrue.
- "Are we going to do this again, over and over?" and "Enough is enough. This is a blatant end-run around AfD and needs to be shut down." - you call that an argument?
- "The term adult-child sex is pro-pedophilia, and we already have articles on topics such as pedophilia and child sexual abuse." - I am sure that the study of Adult child sex can happen outside a church and a court of justice, learning without drooling for the underage.
- "As long as the page exists, it will be a magnet for conflict and disruption" and "Keeping this around could bring the project as a whole into disrepute" - there goes another piece of reading the future.
- "There is no point in having it in userspace, as it will never be encyclopedia-worthy" and "the article is fundamentally unsuitable" and "there is no way it could possibly be improved to be acceptable" - yes, there is a way, and it's called rationale thinking.
- "the deletion debates have concluded that the title and/or subject are not appropriate" - the debate was never about an article that isn't even finished.
- "On the other hand, this article has NO place at Misplaced Pages in ANY version. Misplaced Pages has articles on Pedophilia and Pederasty and does NOT need a third article on this subject" - really? Those articles don't cover what the page in discussion does by long shot.
- "These user pages do not have a legitimate purpose, the title having been properly deleted via AfD" - wrong on two counts: (1) an article was deleted, not a title, and (2) an inappropriate title calls for a move, not a delete of the content.
- "I don't see any justification for maintaining material that could be incorporated into pederasty or some similar article, and if it can't be incorporated, there's no reason to keep it around" - incorporation into one pre-identified article can't be singular reason for working on any page, not just the page in discussion.
- "if the issues raised in the AfD are not actively addressed" - well, they are being addressed, and the current version already is proof enough for that.
- "the term is and always will be a POV fork" and "This is a blatant POV attempt to overrule a strong consensus decision" and "It's been bluntly decided numerous times that this is a POV fork" and "Delete every copy of this POV fork" and "Just seems to be a fork" - I'm speechless.
- And, finally "per the dozen-plus well-reasoned arguments above" and "per a litany of reasons cited above"
- If I failed to mention a few other variations of the same thoughts, I am not sorry. If I failed to recognize a point that's stronger than any of the weak rationales above, I am really sorry. Just point me to it. But, what makes me really sorry is the failure to read the keep arguments. Almost all of the litany has already been nullified. And, still people keep quoting those rationales. *Sigh*!
- And, on top of all that there's a comment above that reasons that one concept is NPOV because it's maintained by a majority and another is not because it's maintained by a minority. Is this real? Are we coming fresh from Giordano Bruno grave, or what? See WP:DEMOCRACY for the policy and WP:SNOWBALL for an elaboration (also WP:STEAM if you are in the mood). It's amazing to find my perfectly reasonable attempt at constructing an acceptable article on a highly debated issue deleted without letting me present an argument. I was never even told that it was up for deletion. What are we thinking? What builds an encyclopedia - painstaking research and careful writing, or endless bickering and mudslinging? Go, destroy as much honest hard work as you want, just don't call them pedophiles. Cheers. Aditya 13:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sure. Let's first take a look at the "litany of reasons":
Speedy delete It's a blatant POV attempt.--NAHID 19:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete this & all recreations per WP:SPEEDY#G4 (recreation of deleted article). нмŵוτнτ 21:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Hang on, this is not a recreation of the article. TlatoSMD could not help the fact that this article was deleted. There is a good chance that the article could survive in the mainspace, as there was never any consensus to delete it, and the delete justifications were highly prejudicial and counterpolicy. GrooV (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- The article was born on 27 Nov, 07, way before the deletion of ACS from the mainspace. GrooV (talk) 05:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Since that's not actually the issue at hand -- at best a minor part of it -- I fail to see the point of that argument. --Calton | Talk 06:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- The article was born on 27 Nov, 07, way before the deletion of ACS from the mainspace. GrooV (talk) 05:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the point of this argument is that the drafts under consideration were created and heavily edited before the deletion of the ACS article, resulting in something different, and in fact more expansive, than the original article. This is easily established with a look at the drafts' histories. The importance of noting this is to demonstrate the major flaw in touting that these pages constitute an attempt to restore or recreate a deleted article. Since this is definitely not the case, it's important to note the evidence that supports this point. ~ Homologeo (talk) 10:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.