Talk:Child sexual abuse

Confusion on the definition of "child sexual abuse"

The beginning of the article states:
Child sexual abuse is an umbrella term describing criminal and civil offenses in which an adult engages in sexual activity with a minor or exploits a minor for the purpose of sexual gratification.

Then, under the "Medical responses..." section, CSA is redefined with:
The American Psychological Association defines child sexual abuse as contact between a child and an adult or other person significantly older or in a position of power or control over the child, where the child is being used for sexual stimulation of the adult or another person.

These two definitions are significantly different, and the entire article consists of references to numerous studies, many of which have different operational definitions of CSA. Such inconsistencies discredit much of the article, leaving considerable room for misrepresentation of cited figures, thus making this an important issue to address. --Gotaro 01:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fundamentally, the two definitions address different contexts. The APA are specifically defining the term as it relates to psychology, where the definition in the lede is more general in scope & intent. --Ssbohio 00:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We could try to work out higher standards for inclusion of sources in this particular article. By wiki standard the current article is fine, but by any other standard its horrendous. I suggest a section where each cited study (in discussion) also provides cites from the article showing their exact definitions, samples, method and results. This makes scrutiny and comparison between studies much easier for everyone (since far from all sources are easily accessible and many have been included just to win an argument rather than for the good of the article.) Völund Smed 07:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to note in the introduction that it is unclear how child sexual abuse is defined. The German penal code defines child sexual abuse as sexual acts with or by a child below 14 years of age (§ 176 StGB), no matter if any harm is done or the initiative is the child's own, no matter who is stimulated or gratified to what degree. The Citizendium:Child sexual abuse defines "Child sexual abuse occurs when an adult or older child forces or coerces a child into sexual activity." and Citizendium:Child abuse says "Child abuse, literally, is the act of intentionally harming a child, or the results of that act." The Citizendium has no definition for adult sexual abuse. It could even be seen as a fighting word as it is used to demonize sexuality, I would prefer clearer words such as child sexual coercion and inflicting child harm. Roman Czyborra 09:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

Etymologically, there appears to be more than one way to view the term. Child sexual abuse can be analyzed as rooted in sexual abuse but differentiated by involving a child, rooted in the term child abuse but differentiated in that it's sexual in nature, or rooted in child sexuality but differentiated in that it's abusive. Each one logically yields a part of the meaning of the term. Perhaps in arriving at a consensus definition, we should look at the components of each root and how they are modified to form this term. I feel it would move the discussion away from the term's impact and intent and focus on the term itself. --Ssbohio 00:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

See Talk:Adult-child sex#Merge for the initial discussion. It sems peop[le are happy to merge adult-child sex with this article but there is a strong disagreement as to whether the merged article shoul;d be called child sexual abuse or adult-child sex, SqueakBox 04:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Referring to "Child Sexual Abuse" as "Pedophilia"

I do not think it is appropriate for the article to state (within the section "Perspectives") that child sexual abuse is "often referred to as pedophilia." It is important to point out that this is the colloquial use of the term "pedophilia" and not the appropriate scholarly or medical one. I recommend that the word "colloquially" be reinserted into this phrase, so that the final product would be: "often colloquially referred to as pedophilia." This is especially important because there are many misconceptions about what pedophilia actually is. Besides, since a wikilink is provided for the Wikipedia article on pedophilia, it would make sense to adhere to what is stated in that article - that this use of the term is colloquial and not scholarly or medical. ~ Homologeo 03:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the word colloquially because it was used in reference to "adult-child sex"... There is nothing about "adult-child sex" being referred to as pedophilia that is colloquial. Unless by child, we also mean 17-year-olds, or situational offenders when we say adult. What I mean, of course, is that colloquial means incorrect/informal, as you know. It's not incorrect to call "adult-child sex" pedophilia...unless that "child" is a 17-year-old or such an adolescent (or we're talking about a situational offender), as the pedophilia article points out that sometimes a person is incorrectly (colloquially) called a pedophile. The section Perspectives is focusing on actual children, not mid-to-late adolescents. I don't object to pointing out that child sexual abuse is the colloquial use of the term "pedophilia"... But stating or implying that "adult-child sex" is colloquially called pedophilia? Yes, I object to that. Also, the way that part was worded, it stated that child sexual abuse is colloquially referred to as pedophilia. If anything, that should be worded the other way around, since it is pedophilia that is colloquially referred to as child sexual abuse. Flyer22 05:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

having read both arguments I agree with Flyer, SqueakBox 05:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've checked six dictionaries and glossaries that were readily available (5 online, 1 off), and I'm not finding a definition of colloquial as incorrect. Colloquial simply denotes vernacular speech, rather than formal speech. In a formal setting, I would not refer to a child sexual abuser as a pedophile unless I knew he were one. Informally, the terms are closely linked to the point of conflation. --Ssbohio 21:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I would definitely say that the word colloquial can mean incorrect, and usually does — that's what I meant by stating incorrect/informal, with the slash in it. It's not just informal (though informal can mean incorrect). For instance, as I stated above, sometimes a man who has had sex with or is sexually attracted to a 16-year-old is wrongly called a pedophile, such as Mark Foley. It actually aggravated me a great deal to see the media referring to him as a pedophile. I'm not a fan of Mark Foley, but it was their colloquially calling him a pedophile that was incorrect. And it was humorous to hear Judge Judy, when talking about Mark Foley to Larry King, say that an adult who has had sex with or is sexually attracted to a 17-year-old is also a pedophile. I mean, really, Judge Judy? So all those men, both average and celebrities, who found Britney Spears sexually attractive when she was age 17 are pedophiles? And we can tell a 17-year-old apart from an 18-year-old by just looking at them? Colloquially using the word pedophile to refer to any adult who has or has had sex with someone under age 18 is definitely incorrect. Basically, as an example, that is what I meant/mean by the word colloquially meaning incorrect (that it does mean incorrect often). Flyer22 02:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate use of the term pedophile is rampant in the media and popular culture. I agree with you and share your frustration at seeing the customers of a then-17-year-old Justin Berry's website being called pedophiles. However, I'm finding nothing that supports defining the term colloquial to mean incorrect. It mainly means that something is common or vernacular usage, rather than formal usage. Judge Judy might informally call Mark Foley a pedophile, but an officer of the court in his case would not. It's a colloquialism to call Foley a pedophile, even though he doesn't meet the specific definition of the term. --Ssbohio 04:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I completely understand what you mean about that, Ssbohio. I wasn't suggesting that you would find the term colloquial to be truly defined as meaning incorrect. Like a quote from jstor.org states at the bottom of a page, "Any quiz that confuses acceptable colloquial English with incorrect English is a nuisance from an educational point of view."[1]. But what I am talking about is colloquial matters more so as incorrect. I mean, even the article here on colloquialism states, "Words that have a formal meaning may also have a colloquial meaning that, while technically incorrect, is recognizable due to common usage." And that's what I mean. Sure, saying "Get real" which is a colloquialism for "I don't believe you" or "You can't be serious" is correct. But the word "isn't" is often colloquially referred to as "ain't", and we all know ain't is not correct. However, both words (isn't and ain't) mean the same thing in this case, even though one isn't actually a word, and I get what you mean there. But the word pedophile does not mean the same thing as a man having sex with or being sexually attracted to a 17-year-old, of course. Thus what else would we call a person being colloquially referred to as a pedophile? If a person is colloquially called a pedophile, it means they are not truly a pedophile, or else there would be nothing colloquial about it. I wasn't suggesting that the real definition of colloquial means incorrect, only that a colloquial meaning is often technically incorrect as well. Flyer22 07:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Both of you bring up strong points, however, the reason why I wasn't comfortable with having the statement that child sexual abuse is ""often referred to as pedophilia" is that there is no account within this sentence or section for the fact that it is indeed a colloquial and incorrect use of the term "pedophilia." It seems important to clarify this point, because some people may not know the technical (both scholarly and medical) definition of pedophilia, and the omission of this information would only perpetuate the reader's possible ignorance of the correct definition and reinforce his or her possible practice of mislabeling pedophilia in real life discourse. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should strive to inform its users of the correct terminology and definitions currently in use around the world. While there is nothing wrong with pointing out the colloquial and incorrect ways people have of referring to child sexual abuse, these have to be identified for what they are. Furthermore, as editors of this article, we should strive to minimize the possibility of the reader misreading or misinterpreting the text provided here. ~ Homologeo 22:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Great post, Homologeo. Would you mind finding some other way to re-word that part? I mean, with the "term" adult-child sex in that part, I'm still (of course) not comfortable with stating that child sexual abuse is colloquially referred to as pedophilia, considering that as I sated before, that section (with adult-child sex mentioned there) is basically saying that "adult-child sex" is also colloquially referred to as pedophilia as well. I don't see "adult-child sex" being referred to as pedophilia as colloquial. With child sexual abuse, it may include adolescents due to a judge using that term to refer to a man who has committed statutory rape, but the adult-child sex article (which is what that part is in this article) focuses more on technical children than a 17-year-old. If it meant adults having sex with adolescents of those ages as well, then I'd see the need to state that adult-child sex is colloquially referred to as pedophilia. But not as it is. Flyer22 03:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there another word that relays the meaning of "colloquially" in the sense of "layman" and "common" usage that is not necessarily in accordance with scholarly use? Currently, I can only think of "colloquially" adequately relaying this meaning, and do not fully follow the reasoning behind avoiding the use of this term in this particular context. However, if someone could think of another word that relays the meaning this sentence calls for, then I have nothing against using that term. Still, currently, I'm not sure what other word would fit this purpose. ~ Homologeo 23:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind you using the word colloquially in getting across the point that you mention on this matter. It's the way that that part was worded that I had the bigger problem with. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind re-wording it some other way, while still using the word colloquially (or colloquial), of course. Flyer22 03:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

child-on-child - splinter article

Because this article discusses sexual relations between an adult and a child, I was planning a separate article for child-on-child sexual abuse. I know there is an article on child sexuality, but that is more about a human's psychological maturation, whereas this deals with kids assaulting other kids. This seems to be a very little known but very ugly occurance, and I have to deal with it so often in my work, but few people seems to have heard of it. I don't want to put my foot in my mouth (foot in my keyboard?) though, so is there an article already that covers this? Legitimus (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that there is. I saw you preparing to write an article about this. I'm sure people are aware of minor-on-child sexual abuse, such as a 16-year-old sexually abusing an actual child...a 10-year-old, etc. Is that what your article is going to cover, or just include? If it's more about adolescents sexually abusing children, then I would prefer the article be titled adolescent-on-child sexual abuse, or teen-on-child sexual abuse (if using the word "teen" isn't seen as too pop culture of a term). If your article is more so about actual children, for example...10-year-olds sexually abusing younger children and such, then I can see why more people are unfamiliar with that. People of those ages are not called pedophiles, of course, and it isn't really in the news often, or at all in some parts. If you are covering the topic of children sexually abusing children, as well as adolescents sexually abusing children, then I'd prefer the article be titled minor-on-minor sexual abuse, but either way "this article of yours" will prove to be interesting. Flyer22 (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"Child-on-child" is the term used in medical arenas (for example [2]), and yes it most frequently means both victim and perpetrator are prepubescent (like 12 and under or so), though sometimes I hear it used to refer to young adolescents perps (about 12-15) on very young victims. And yes I understand, they are not pedophiles, indeed they likely don't even realize what they are doing. It's not even certain if it's a crime, per se. What struck me as interesting is that the damage to the victim is almost the same as with adult perps. I realize this is a touchy subject, so I am trying to step lightly. I just need a few more references. Legitimus (talk) 04:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know that the use in medical arenas is Child-on-child, but like you say, it usually means prepubescent youth. Thus...I felt that if you were addressing adolescents sexually abusing children, it might be best to title it as one of the above I suggested. But since it usually means prepubescent, I suppose I don't see anything wrong with having the title be Child-on-child or if you include a few adolescent-on-child cases within this article. Oh, and I know that you're aware that actual children sexually abusing children wouldn't be called pedophiles, and you are right, of course, that this topic is very interesting...and touchy too. Even with its touchiness, however, I actually cannot wait until you create this article. I feel that it will serve as a good educational read. It's normal for a child to be harmed mentally by an adolescent sexually abusing them as though the person is an adult, but a child, especially close in age to the child sexually abusing them, being mentally harmed in the same way by the sexual abuse carried out by that child, as though sexually abused by an adult, is something to gain knowledge in. You definitely have my blessing to create this article. Flyer22 (talk) 05:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is up, but has been flagged for deletion! Blast! The grounds is that it is either should be part of this article or that it not notable (despite lots of academic references). But this article starts out by specifying adult with minor, so that doesn't make sense. Legitimus (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

new paragraph in epidemiology section

I have recently added a paragragh to this section with reliable sources. Please feel free to comment if needed.

Epidemiology Child sexual abuse occurs frequently in Western society. [112] Prevalence figures range between 10% in the UK [113] or up to 62% for females and 16% for males in the United States. [114] [115] According to data from the Administration on Children and Families, of the US Department of Health and Human Services, in 2005 there were an estimated 3.6 million investigations by Child Protective Services in the USA; and of those, 899,000 were substantiated. Of the substantiated abuse reports, 9.3% of the cases showed 83,600 children were determined to have been sexually abused.[116][117]Abuse truth (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

In regard to the tag recently added to the section :

This article or section appears to contradict itself. Please help fix this problem.

I would agree. But IMO the problem was there before the paragraph was added. Looking at the second paragraph in the section:

"Based on a literature review of 23 studies, Goldman & Padayachi found that the prevalence of child sexual abuse varied between 7-62% for girls and 4-30% for boys. [118] A meta-analytic study by Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman found that reported prevalence of abuse for males ranged from 3% to 37%, and for females from 8% to 71% with mean rates of 17% and 28% respectively. [66] Berl Kutchinsky argues that most prevalence rates are overexaggerated and claim that the real prevalence of child sexual abuse may be as low as 1-2%. [119] A study on incest in Finland between fathers and daughters found prevalence rates of 0.2% for biological fathers and 0.5% for step-fathers. [120] Others argue that prevalence rates are much higher, and that many cases of child abuse are never reported. One study found that professionals failed to report approximately 40% of the child sexual abuse cases they encountered [121] A study by Lawson & Chaffin indicated that many children who were sexually abused were "identified solely by a physical complaint that was later diagnosed as a venereal disease...Only 43% of the children who were diagnosed with venereal disease made a verbal disclosure of sexual abuse during the initial interview." [122]"

one sees a large disparity between studies. The problem may not be with the section itself, but with the field of CSA epidemiology in general, since the section appears to be reflective of the field.Abuse truth (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Child sexual abuse occurs frequently in Western society.
2. Berl Kutchinsky argues that most prevalence rates are overexaggerated and claim that the real prevalence of child sexual abuse may be as low as 1-2%.

Unless you assert that 1-2% is still "frequent", we need to attribute the first statement as an opinion. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well the critical bit is whether 1-2% is frequent. Sure sounds it to me but we should seek out some reliable sources for this one. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be OK if each of the sentences in the first paragraph were explictly attributed, as are the ones in the second paragraph. That way, the contradiction is between the reliable sources, which is perfectly allowable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Nordisk Sexologi source verification

It's difficult to find. I think one of the articles on the web which references it might be used as a source as to what it contains. However, it appears to have been a journal published with primary langages other than English from 1983-1997 with ISSN 9903816529 (although our ISSN search can't find it) and/or ISSN 0108-271x, followed by the English language journal Scandinavian journal of sexology (1998-2001), ISSN 1398-2966.

The journals seem to have been published by the Nordic Association for Clinical Sexology

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Some history of the organization can be found http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/nacs.htm (temporarily unavailable, google cache here). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that work. I too tried to find the text of the source and wasn't able to. I did find some books/papers that referenced it, but they didn't include exactly the specific statement that's in the article. There might be a source somewhere that quotes that part of the paper, I guess we need to keep looking. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Help

I added a few referenes on treatment and controversies and it seems to have jumbled everything. I am going to revert back to a previous edition and dump my references to stop the jumble but could some-one look at what I did and get the references in? Jcautilli2003 (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to undo and thesection marked "EFFECTS" is still jumbled. Jcautilli2003 (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I fixed it Jcautilli2003 (talk) 05:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Per your request, I have reverted the page to prior to your first edit.

Before you resume editing this page, please note, this is a controversial topic and there is a lot of activity and discussion about this page in progress. The edits you made were too extensive and too fast, for this particular page, even if not for the reference mistake that caused the formatting error.

Please slow down and read this talk page before making big changes to this topic. Each change will be reviewed by interested editors. When you add references, please include direct links when possible, with page numbers if to print publications. Also, most or all of the references you added were to the online journals, and you did not link to the journal issues, you linked only to the home page of the journals. That means there is no way to verify the text you are citing.

Also, and perhaps most importantly, it appears that you are the publisher of the the journals you added as references. If I'm mistaken about that, please correct me. But if that is the situation, please read the Wikipedia guideline at this link: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Thank you. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I was the publisher until 2008. No longer - journals were taken over by the governing board. Spent 10 years on the editoral board of 6 of the 8 journals on the site. Over 50 academics for over 50 Universities around the world, on each board. It was fun while it lasted but exhausting- I have moved on...Now, I am executive director for CURE for Vets as well as hold a few other jobs (trying to get themost milage out of the Ph.D.). Anyhow, this is what I added, please look over and let me know, I don't think it will offend- I tried to write it as nuetral as possible. "Sexual abuse is a real phenonmena and can have devistating effects on children through their lives. Often the report fo sexual abuse occurs in custody cases. While many times sexual abuse has occurred, it is important for evaluators to be cautious. In addition, several therapies should be avioded because they appear to produce false memories and/or cause decompensation of the surivivor In addition, while several exposure based treatments from the behavior therapy tradition (also see functional analyic psychotherapy some have suggested that true evidenced based interventions for post traumetic strss disorder may be fantasy. Thus it is important for the therapist to be receiving supervision User:Jcautilli2003 - 06:22, 13 January 2008

Thanks for clarifying. I also left you a message on your talk page. It looks like the technical problem was that one of your references did not have the closing tag - it was missing the </ref>, so that made everything after that become part of the footnote.

Regarding the information you added, I don't have time to look at it in detail tonight, but anything that discusses "false memories" is a controversial topic and needs to be handled carefully. There are a variety of articles addressing that topic. Also, this CSA page, so far anyway, addresses the effects and legal aspects of the problem. Therapies are not currently part of this page. I don't know how others will see this, but to me it seems therapy topics are outside the scope of this page and if they were added, the page would become huge and even more controversial than it is already.

There are many pages about forms of therapy; that's where your information would be more appropriate, in my opinion. Also, when you use those references, it would be much better if you provide the URL of the article you are referencing. It appears from my review of those websites that the articles are there, but they're hard to find. Thanks.... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

non-reliable sources

I removed a reference from the article because it was a link to a personal website project of someone who self-identifies as a pedophile. The website quotes many references, some of them from studies; and some of those original studies may be usable. However, when sources are not quoted in full, there can be out-of-context cherry-picking by the author of the website, therefore those quoted sources are unreliable. To use the studies, the originals must be located so they can be verified with full context. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The statement on Wikipedia is: "[..] This often contradicts data from studies investigating the psychology of contact sex offenders, which shows that most contact child sex offenders are not primarily or exclusively attracted to children." Therefore, I provided a reference which quotes a study stating such. The quote is clear and could not be taken out of context. Barry Jameson (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The text footnotes one study, not multiple studies. Therefore this phrase "This often contradicts data from studies" is overly general; the wikitext needs to reflect that it was one study, and avoid WP:WEASEL WORDS like "often contradicts", when that is not what the one study stated. Also, the study was quoted only in part, in a self-identified pro-pedophila website, without complete context. To use a study, we need a way to verify its full context, or, we need quotes about the study that are themselves stated in a reliable source. The text might be correct, or it might be wrong, but the version you quoted above does not accurately reflect the reference and needs to be improved. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am confused by the reason for editing. Is it because the editor has some kind of gut reaction to paedophiles, or because of the more rational reasons he followed up with? GrooV (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm having trouble understanding your question. Would you clarify which of the edits or comments you are asking about? Thanks... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You appeared to remove a reference because the site on which it was hosted was controlled by a pedophile. Is this your justification? Is this not rather subjective? GrooV (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not why I removed the reference. If the site had included the full text of the study, then it would not matter if controlled by a person who states that he is a pedophile (as long as the original publication of the original material could be verified, as with any source). The reason I removed it is that he did not quote the full study, he only included excerpts. That's what I meant by "cherry-picking". Without the full text of the study, there is no way to know if he chose only those excerpts that would support his beliefs. It's possible that the same study included other statements contrary to what he included, but because he has a stated bias, we don't know if he purposfeully omitted those statements or not. That's what makes the source unreliable. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

off-topic in the intro

I removed this sentence here from the intro, for discussion:

• When an adult seeks or engages in sexual activity with a child, public sentiment often describes those actions as a manifestation of pedophilia although the formal definition of pedophilia is a psychological diagnosis, not a description of behavior; not all perpetrators of child sexual abuse are pedophiles and not all pedophiles are perpetrators of child sexual abuse.

Previously, it read as follows:

• When an adult seeks or engages in sexual activity with a child, public sentiment usually concludes it is a manifestation of pedophilia. This often contradicts data from studies investigating the psychology of contact sex offenders, which shows that most contact child sex offenders are not primarily or exclusively attracted to children.

This earlier version (the second one) could not be used because it mentions "studies", showing "most" child molesters are not pedophiles. That statement is too specific and stated too strongly for the references that so far have been found.

It is not contested that there not all child molesters are pedophiles and not all pedophiles are child molesters; or that there are studies on this issue. However, so far, there are no solid references stating what the proportion of overlap is, so the later version, the first paragraph above is more accurate, as it does not indicate anything about proportion.

But in addition to that, the info is not needed in the intro, because the topic of this article is "child sexual abuse", not "pedophilia". There is a connection, so there is a whole section about pedophilia in the article. The problem with putting it into the intro is that as soon as pedophilia is mentioned in regards to how the word is used by laypersons, then all sorts of "balancing" information gets added to it. and eventually the whole section on pedophilia will need to be moved into that lead, as was starting to happen today. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The text discussed above, and the reference discussed in the next section below have already been restored to the intro at this diff, along with an uncivil accusation of "crusade" thrown in on the edit summary:

• 20:09, 13 January 2008 Fighting for Justice (Talk | contribs) (69,974 bytes) (rv; what type of crusade are you on?)

I'm not reverting at this time, and request discussion about whether that info is best to keep in the intro or not, and also about the reference addressed in the next section at #questionable source. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The psychology and motivations of child sexual abusers is highly relevant to the issue of child sexual abuse. Barry Jameson (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because we wouldn't want this article to be misleading. GrooV (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

questionable source

This is the reference that was used in the sentences discussed above in the section #off-topic in the intro:

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ECE6P/html/pedophilia_2.html

It's possible that some articles on that website might be valid sources, I'm not sure, and the site is used in at least one other place in the article. But this particular page on that website does not look like WP:RS, because it does not state either its author, or its sources. The reference claims that "most sexual offenses against children are committed not by pedophiles, but by non-pedophilic men." The word "most" in this context has not been established by science or law enforcement and is an open question. That overly strong statement to make without any supporting sources brings the neutrality of the source into question. If there were an author listed, and references quoted, that would be different, but there are not. So that source does not seem to me to be usable. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It is written by Prof. Dr. Erwin J. Haeberle 1 of Humboldt University. Mystery solved Barry Jameson (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In light of the above, I have no objection to the source. GrooV (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I had not found the authors name on that website. Now that I see it, I will re-evaluate the source. However, even if it is used, the author's statement is overly broad and he does not cite references, therefore, it's his opinion; yet the wikitext is written as if it were a generally accepted fact. The actual fact is that there are many studies that have tried to determine what proportion of child sex abusers are also pedophiles, and what proportion of pedophiles act out their desires by abusing children, and the various studies do not all agree on those proportions. Some pedophiles abuse children, some do not. Some child molestors are pedohiles, some are not. Beyond that, there are no generally accepted numbers or percentages to indicate the amount of overlap. It's a complex area of ongoing research. Prof. Dr. Erwin J. Haeberle has his opinion about that, but he's just one person. The sentence that refers to his document will need to be made more specific in this regard. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Titel

Im not saying it isnt abuse but isnt calling the article child sexual abuse POV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No, its using the common word for this kind of behaviour. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Just because its common in more than one culture doesn't mean that its not breaching the neutral point of view policy, because it clearly is. People calling it abuse is by its very nature POV because most people automatically judge paedophilia as abuse, but some countries do not. I think wikipedia shoud rename this article because it is blatent POV. And we shouldn't go for common acceptance because common acceptance is wrong sometimes, for example Henry VIII was only legally married 4 times but people commonly believe it was 6. The same mistake could be being made with the title of this article

So sex with children is an acceptable thing for people to do in your opinion then? Just curious. It just sounds a bit like this perspective condones what every abuser believes, that the child 'loves it really' and it doesn't do them any harm. Merkinsmum 01:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Not at all and I'm rather insulted by the implication, of course I feel it's abominable but other people feel differently. To approach such a controversial issue effectively, wikipedia must demonstrate the arguments from both sides of the coin as it were, rather than giving anti-pedophilic sentiments. After all its our job only to report the goings on in the world, not to report what people think. The article should be renamed sexual relationships between adults and children, be re-written so as to be neutral and provide a "criticisms" section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)