Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:45, 2 June 2017

Articles for creation Redirect‑class

This redirect was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This redirect was accepted on 23 April 2012 by reviewer FeralOink (talk · contribs).

This article cites T. Gannon (several publications), who appears to be a credible authority in this field. Overall, the references are not particularly diverse. I believe that that is due to the scarcity of information about this subject (and it is a difficult subject). However, the article is written from a neutral point of view.

I would suggest the following, even though it is by no means a requirement: Confirm that the numeric data, pertaining to prevalence rates as mentioned in this article (Female Child Molesters) versus the Child sexual abuse, Demographics section are consistent. If divergent, determine why there is divergence. I did check this myself, and the information appeared to be consistent, but I am not qualified in this specific field. --FeralOink (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

On confirming numeric information

I find the article is focusing on a very US method of statistics and I find a more global approach is probably better for a 'pedia'. So here is another branch of research. 62.31.12.186 (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC) - a guest. ZenMaster @ youtube and google.62.31.12.186 (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Just by chance, I found a terrible awful mistake in one of the numbers and I fix it. Please, numeric data in this article is important. --Lucianobello (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

1. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/oct/04/uk-female-child-sex-offenders

History of research

Just found this article. It seems to need a fair bit of work to organize it and format properly, so I will just leave this info here for the time being. Female child molesters have been part of medical literature as long as there has been literature on CSA and pedophilia, starting with Richard von Krafft-Ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis, albeit still underreported. I will see if I can get a good translation of the text as I forgot the specifics.Legitimus (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Legitimus. I take it you found this article per this edit I made. Yes, that edit was not only meant to provide a link there at the Child sexual abuse article but to make editors who are also knowledgeable on this topic, and those who do a good job looking after such Misplaced Pages articles, aware of this article. Flyer22 (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that's how I found it, and it's going into the watchlist.Legitimus (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://kalimunro.com/wp/articles-info/sexual-emotional-abuse/mother-daughter-sexual-abuse. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Murph9000 (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is researching anything and meanwhile the article has effectively been deleted without consensus. I have restored an old evrsion and have checked against the alleged copyvios and appears clean. The investigation can continue on. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Most of the text has been rwewritten, which is what should have happened in the 1st place. two sections need rewriting and restoring, just to guarantee there are no copyvios in the current version, it has all been rewritten by me to avoid copyvios, somethign I ahve experience of, will restore the 2 sections when I have time. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

RichardWeiss, thank you for trying to do something about this, which is of course well overdue. However, I'm afraid what you've done doesn't resolve the problem: you write "this old evrsionis not form my investigation a copyvio", but I don't think your investigation was exhaustive enough. Did you look at the sources I provided with this edit? – because there was copyvio from both in the last version you edited here. I've reverted to the status quo ante.

The copyvio goes back to the first version, there's no "good" version to revert to (or I'd have done that). So I see these possibilities:

• Someone – Richard? – rewrites the page, from scratch, without copying over any compromised text, at the rewrite subpage
• We stub the page in the hope that someone will want to rewrite it later
• We redirect it to Child sexual abuse, where it's already partially covered in the section on demographics.

Which would be best? Richard, Murph9000, any thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I currently don't have the time to rewrite this article. Maybe Legitimus does. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I took an old version and re-edited it, the old version may have contained copyvios but having rewritten it, it certainly will not have done so when I finished as every sentence was written by me. I oppose any attempts to get rid of the article. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers, Murph9000, and RichardWeiss: Is anyone contesting Richard's latest version still contains copyvios? --NeilN 17:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect-Class AfC pages
• AfC submissions by date/23 April 2012
• Accepted AfC submissions