Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:44, 15 April 2008

This miscellaneous page was nominated for deletion on 7 Feb 2006. The result of the discussion was No consensus to delete. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Talk page archives

• Talk Page - Archive 1 - January 24 2006 to February 28
• Talk Page - Archive 2 - Febuary 29 2006 to April 25 2007
• Talk Page - Archive 3 - April 26 2007 to February 9 2008

Ham & Eggs

New subpage, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/Ham & Eggs. This contains a list of users who have made substantial contributions to project articles and have been indef blocked. This is to facilitate sockpuppet checks. The list is not complete. Herostratus (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I would be willing to add a few more that I know of, if you incorporate the purpose of garnering evidence for and against the blocks as a reason for listing these editors. digitalemotion 07:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

List of books featuring pedophilia

Is there some reason that the recently-created article List of books featuring pedophilia, which substantially overlaps the former "Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse in Fiction (Boys)" article, is not listed on the Pedophilia Article Watch project page? SocJan (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Child sexuality issue

I'm considering nominating Child-on-child sexual abuse for deletion as a POV fork of Child sexuality. The article describes "non-normative" peer contacts as sexual abuse, but the concept of "normative" sexual behavior is entirely relative, and unlike child sexual abuse, it has no legal definition. See Talk:Child-on-child_sexual_abuse#Supporting my contentions

Alternatively, it could be moved to coercive child peer sexual behavior or whatnot and the content changed to reflect this more narrow but neutrally-determinable category.

Comments? --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

That topic does not appear to be a POV fork of Child sexuality. It might be possible to merge it into child sexual abuse, but merging would balloon an already large article, and the topic appears to be notable enough for a separate page. Here are a few references from a quick search:

• Child on child sexual abuse: psychological perspectives, Child Abuse & Neglect, Volume 24, Issue 12, December 2000, Pages 1591-1600:

"Conclusions: Children victimized by other children manifested elevated levels of emotional and behavioral problems and were not significantly different from those who had been sexually abused by adults."

• Child peer sexual abuse: Preliminary data on outcomes and disclosure experiences:

"Conclusions: The findings suggest that child peer sexual abuse may be associated with adverse outcomes."

• Child-on-child sexual abuse: An investigation of behavioral and emotional sequelae:

"A substantial proportion of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by adolescents and even younger children.... Important findings that emerged from this investigation are that victims of both adult and juvenile perpetrators suffer an array of negative, psychological and behavioral sequelae. "

• Weiner, Irving B. et al, Handbook of Psychology, p437, John Wiley and Sons 2003:

"Factors that suggest national incidence figures represent an understimate of child sexual abuse victims include the exclusion of child-on-child sexual abuse data, as well as victims' and professionals' underreporting."

• Ellis, Rodney A. et al, Essentials of Child Welfare, p49, John Wiley and Sons 2003:

"Child-on-child sexual abuse has become relatively common in child welfare cases. It may occur within the family or by another child outside the family... Disturbingly, it also happens to children in foster care."

That seems like enough to support a WP:Verifiable topic page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

While it may be in the same realm of Child sexuality, CoCS clearly has purview outside the CS article. But, if we're going to follow precedent, it should be deleted outright just as Adult-child sex was, even though it had unique content. Since most of it is overlap, and could be covered peripherally in the CS or CSA article, "our" past "decisions" and "consensus" would demand it. • VigilancePrime • • • 07:20 (UTC) 2 Mar '08

I would contend, however, that the term itself is firmly established in research AND clinical practice, and therefore the title should remain as is. Like many other psychological subjects, it may or may not be well known to the general public. This is sometimes advantageous to avoid "labeling" issues as pointed out by AnotherSolipsist earlier. However, I feel it may have greater value to stand on its own as a subject. I will be the first to admit it's got some kinks that need working out, but I feel it can be done effectively. There are two extremes that we want to avoid, which will be elaborated on the talk page. Legitimus (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this has been sorted out now. As long as no one objects, can we archive this thread or whatever is the procedure? Legitimus (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Just leave it, it'll be archived in good time. Herostratus (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Definiton of pedophilia in terminology section

The problem with this "working definition" is that it is complete original research.

"Paedophilia is the attraction to pre-pubescent and peripubescent children which is experienced as being so important that it dominates the person's inner sexual or romantic life."

Both the OED and the DSM define pedophilia to include acting out. That it is hypothetically possible for someone to be a pedophile and not sexually abuse children does not completely redefine pedophilia to exclude offenders. The definition of pedophilia includes offenders and nonoffenders. There is no special word for pedophiles who do not sexually abuse children (and pedophile is certainly not it). The OR working definition above has created a great deal of confusion, I think, as there are now editors not only claiming that pedophilia does not include offenders, but that pedophilia specifically means not offending. (And that the category nonoffending pedophiles is very large; comprises most pedophiles. There is absolutely no research stating that there is a large group of nonoffending pedophiles somewhere. The fact that there is no term to refer to such a group speaks for itself.) I believe that the working definition needs to reflect the mainstream definitions used in the real world. -PetraSchelm (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Where have you seen anyone claiming that pedophile and pedophilia specifically refers to non-offenders? I haven't seen anyone saying that. As to the def, I don't know if anyone much actually refers to it, but do you have an alternative to suggest? Herostratus (talk) 07:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice of intent

Sex between adults and children is a crime and is always a form of child sexual abuse. From the Misplaced Pages article on Child Sexual Abuse

The American Psychiatric Association states that "children cannot consent to sexual activity with adults", and strongly condemns any such action: "An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a criminal and immoral act which never can be considered normal or socially acceptable behavior."

Any attempt to advocate for or justify sexual activity between adults and children is not acceptable, and may in and of itself be a criminal act.

Anyone who intends to do so is warned that it will not be tolerated, will be deleted, and, if appropriate, law enforcement authorities will be notified.

Anyone who has posted material advocating or justifying any form of sexual activity between adults and children is warned to cease and desist and to delete any existing material.

If this notice is deleted or altered it will be replaced.

SeattleJoe (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)