Content deleted Content added
RichardWeiss (talk | contribs) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (223 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{aan}}
==Page numbers?==
The following sources lack page numbers (I assume they are books and thus page numbers needed):
* Developing Mind, Daniel Siegel, Guilford Press, 1999
* Perry, Bruce (2007). The Boy Who Was Raised As a Dog. {{ISBN
==Clarification?==
Line 83 ⟶ 76:
:::::You what? I think you are missing the point, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 17:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::This is an article about child sexual abuse, which is ''''ILLEGAL.'''' It is not meant to present some fringe group's POV. Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopedia whose purpose is to present information in a NPOV. [[user:JonesRD|<
:::::::(ec)Making out that child sexual abuse is really positive, and making that as prominent as possible, is a violation of NPOV and hence I am tagging the article for this reason, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 17:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 115 ⟶ 108:
'''There is no consensus to intergrate''' the section at this point. Please seek consensus first. Thanks. [[User:Voice of Britain|V.☢.B]] 21:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
*I saw repetition of statements and citations in the effects and positive effects sections. In addition, the effects section already contained both 'sides' of this controversy, so I [[
:What repetition are you talking about? Perhaps you are right, but I'd to know which one you are talking about. At any rate, no consensus at this point to merge the sections, lets talk it through first. [[User:Voice of Britain|V.☢.B]] 22:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 135 ⟶ 128:
::::::::So we have mainstream science vs mainstream opinion. I guess we can include both if that is to your liking, feel free to write your own section about that. Mainstream research will stay though, anything else is a cover up of facts. [[User:Voice of Britain|V.☢.B]] 22:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
:::I had never seen this entry before yesterday. I endeavored to improve it. Nothing was "lost" but the anecdote by the 12-year-old, which had been given [[
::::Instead of removing information, why not add some negative anecdote if you feel there is a undue weight issue? One of each would bring good weight to the article. The problem with undue weight issue is that I beleive we should use science as the basis for this and others seem to think we should use public opinion. The error of public opinion is ofcourse that the theory of evolution would be a "fringe idea" in that perspective. Let science and fact be the basis, or we can just let conservapedia take over it all. [[User:Voice of Britain|V.☢.B]] 22:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 145 ⟶ 138:
:You what? I have no issues in the theory of evolution but I am certain you cannot source that pedophilia anywhere in the world has the mainstream acceptance of creationism in America. Your comment is a bit off to be honest. Can you source that pro pedophilia is in any way mainstream? as your claim re Rind bering mainstream is not proven. If you can please do, if not please can we begin to create an NPOV article re this subject, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 23:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
::::I'm not sure that annecdotes belong in an encyclopeida article...anyone know if there is any Wikip. statements on this? [[user:DPeterson|<
:::::Well, its a quote from an interview with a boy from a peer reviewed study. So it fills the criteria for inclusion '''very easily''. [[User:Voice of Britain|V.☢.B]] 22:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 174 ⟶ 167:
::::::The article is not short by any standard. Let laws be in articles about laws, its pure logic. [[User:Voice of Britain|V.☢.B]] 18:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I strongly oppose breaking out this section. Information and a chart about laws does belong here...see, for example, the article [[Adoption]], which does this quite well. [[user:DPeterson|<
::::::::This is not a main issue since it doesn't concern damage control but rather a sense of aestethics. Can someone please spend some time on the section if it is to remain, it is in awful shape at this point. btw, I '''Strongly agree to breaking out'''[[User:Voice of Britain|V.☢.B]] 18:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 180 ⟶ 173:
::::::::The adoption article points to other main articles in their sub section, and I think this is wise. We should apply the same approach here. Feel free to write about the legal status in a summary and then point to the main article. This is a compromise which should make all partys happy. [[User:Voice of Britain|V.☢.B]] 18:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
'''I'd like it split'''. The content concerned goes beyond mere age of consent and beyond the generalised topic of CSA, in to a series of minor complications. The volume will only increases, and already seems to be straining at the reasonable capacity of this article. [[User:Bow Ty|<b><
==Quality of editing==
Line 205 ⟶ 198:
::::You know, the stuff you use to back up your claims. Its quite popular these days. [[User:Voice of Britain|V.☢.B]] 18:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::Please avoid [[Personal Attacks]] and do [[Assume good faith]] and avoid making arguments about editors. The discussion should remain focused on content and material. The comments directd toward [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] are not called for or relevant to a content dispute. [[user:DPeterson|<
:::::::Likewise. [[User:Voice of Britain|V.☢.B]] 18:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 211 ⟶ 204:
::::::::Huh? DPetersen is doing nothing of the sort and certainly has not created a section intended to discuss any of the editors here, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 18:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
In response to the amended title, it is sometimes very poor, I must say. For example changing the title of a section to 'allegedly positive or consensual'. Really, we should be taking the survey participant's word for it, as we do with negative cases. Although theories of covert psychological manipulation, self-justification, and on the other side, retrospective moral re-interpretation of events do exist, the variable popularity of these should not be used to justify weasling around what is after all the said word of those involved. [[User:Bow Ty|<b><
:IMO the whole section should be removed as an extreme minority viewpoint failing notability, and if not then follow Will's idea of merging it, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 18:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
::You fail to understand that the section is not a 'viewpoint'. The section refers to what Rind and others have established to be a large proportion of the incidents being described by the title of our article. That some shriek, disagree and attack the researchers is irrelevant, as their conclusions have been reached via the use of non clinical, non legal samples, and backed up by peer review. As long as some once 'abused' adults who celebrate or show indifference to their experiences exist, so should this section. [[User:Bow Ty|<b><
:::I'm more interested with talk page formatting than this discussion, but while I'm here I'm going to point out that it is isn't very good to proclaim someone else's "failure" to understand something, nor is it good to characterize their mute text as "shrieking". Please everyone keep your eye on the dove at the top of the page (and help me with the archive box at the top if you know how to fix the formatting.) Peace... [[User:Joie de Vivre|Joie de Vivre]] 19:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
::::Why shouldn't I point out where someone fails to understand what I see as a fundamental ethic in editing an article without subjective bias? The term is in wide use, as a pointer to misconceptions. And no, I did not characterise anyone's opinions as 'shrieking'. My point relates to the unpopularity that SqueakBox was claiming to merit consideration. [[User:Bow Ty|<b><
:::::Oooook then. It's not that you shouldn't point it out, it's that you shouldn't attack people and be rude. You did certainly use the word "shriek", saying "that some (people) shriek... is irrelevant", it's not hard to figure out what you meant. Good luck and please calm down. [[User:Joie de Vivre|Joie de Vivre]] 19:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 225 ⟶ 218:
::::::Pardon our frustration, having to deal with this stuff on a daily basis consumes alot of energy which had been better spent on the article instead. I just wish people would stick to the areas where they have knowledge so we could avoid the endless disputes which are based on ones sides unfounded beleifs vs another sides facts. [[User:Voice of Britain|V.☢.B]] 19:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Lets just make this clear - at no point did I accuse SqueakBox of 'shrieking'. Pointing out nonexistent infractions and telling others to calm down when all they did is use one misunderstood term of common usage and one reference to social hysteria, is far more likely to lead to conflict. [[User:Bow Ty|<b><
::::::::[[WP:CIVIL]] 20:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 231 ⟶ 224:
:::::::V?B, I can understand that editing can be frustrating if the same issues come up again and again. However, [[WP:NPA]] does not say "Comment on content, not the contributor... except if you are sick of discussing the same thing over over and over again." If you find yourself annoyed from repetitious discussion, it's still every editor's responsibility to remain civil. If a given editor cannot do that for whatever reason, it is their responsibility to step back. [[User:Joie de Vivre|Joie de Vivre]] 20:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I agree with Joie de Vivre here. Please keep comments on content not editors. The conduct of VoB and V?B is not conducive or helpful here and does not adhere to [[Assume good faith]] or Avoiding Personal attacks. Let's stay focued on content. [[user:DPeterson|<
==Positive cases part 2==
Line 256 ⟶ 249:
:::I just showed that the source used was published by the journal from the largest organisation for psychologists worldwide. This source also completely proved you wrong. This also means that you consider APA to publish pro pedophilia views which is highly remarkable and very dubious opinion. Now tell us, what source do you cite that beats Psychological Bulletin? [[User:Voice of Britain|V.☢.B]] 00:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
*One article in a peer-reviewed journal does not represent the unanimous view of the association that published that journal. It is not a statement of the policy of the American Psychological Association on this issue. It is one article, and there are other articles cited in this entry, also published in peer-reviewed journals, that contradict that article. A review of the literature will not reveal that the preponderance of the research suggests that child sexual abuse is harmless. Child sexual abuse is a crime. That is a fact. It is not the job of Wikipedia to sway public opinion towards minority views regarding controverial issues. One should not expect Wikipedia to cater to those who feel unjustly treated by social norms or the legal system, or to give [[
:The article states no opinion about pro pedophilia or changing any laws. What the **** are you raving about? [[User:Voice of Britain|V.☢.B]] 01:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
:: I have to agree with Jmh123 on this one. I won't repeat those cogent statements. [[user:DPeterson|<
::::Me too, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 01:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 302 ⟶ 295:
:It has become blatantly obvious that some people here have no interest whatsoever in creating a NPOV article, and censoring facts seem to not be beyond them. Anyone with a sane mind should take this fight here and now, we are facing ignorance of the worst kind and as our ancestors we should fight for the freedom of information. [[User:Voice of Britain|V.☢.B]] 02:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
::Sorry, I have protected the page for an hour. It will give you all time to discuss the issues here. From your friendly neighborhood uninterested in the topic 3rd party.--[[User:Kungfuadam|<
:::There is nothing to discuss, we either follow facts or we don't. It comes down to that, how do we speed things along? [[User:Voice of Britain|V.☢.B]] 02:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
::::No sociology Wikipedia article includes all available research. It's simply an impossible task. Even when there is a good faith effort to have NPOV, minority opinions and obscure papers are rarely included in any encyclopedic sociology article. Despite appearances, Wikipedia is not unabridged. The question is not "should we include all the facts," the question is, how significant does a fact have to be before it is worthy of inclusion. This is a matter for legitimate debate. So, let's debate. [[User:Dfpc|Dfpc]] 02:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 316 ⟶ 309:
== Edit warring ==
Come on people, come to some consensus, and stop edit warring... (i.e., the edit war that is going on 20 May)--[[User:Kungfuadam|<
:They ignore and delete fact. What we do? Please tell me. [[User:Voice of Britain|V.☢.B]] 02:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 328 ⟶ 321:
::Please, everyone read Wikipedia's policy on revert wars- [[WP:3RR]]. Even if a position is blatantly wrong, the answer is not a revert war. The proper way to handle disputes is on the talk page.--[[User:Kungfuadam|<
::Please stop the [[Personal attacks]] and watch your language...I can appreciate your frustation being a minority view that is not fully accepted, but please, let's focus on the issus, not personalities. [[user:DPeterson|<
:::funny that you directed that to me and not squeakbox, who just freaking implied anyone who disagrees or with him (anyone mildly familiar with the literature) is a child sexual abuser. hmm. definitely not an attack there. [[User:Kinda0|Kinda0]] 02:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 338 ⟶ 331:
::::::No, DPeterson, you have acted as a hero sofar. [[User:Voice of Britain|V.☢.B]] 02:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::KindaO. I am sorry, my comments got put in place in the wrong seqeucne and were directed to Voice of Britain's use of "shitload" etc...not to your comments or thoughts. I appologize if I was unclear and offended you. [[user:DPeterson|<
== Calling for an expert ==
Line 346 ⟶ 339:
:Go ahead, whatever happens I want to get a result. It is pointless to waste my time arguing with ignorant people, I'd rather win or lose everything fast so I can get something useful done instead of this madness. [[User:Voice of Britain|V.☢.B]] 02:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
::The article is about the sexual abuse of children. Relevant experts would be in Psychology, Child Welfare, and Social Work. [[user:DPeterson|<
:::Psychotherapy helps too. Exoperts arent lacking here, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 02:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 374 ⟶ 367:
::Squeakbox said ''Child sexual abuse is illeagal and most human being s really hate child sexual abuse which is why we punish perpetatrors harshly. This needs to be reflected in this set of articles....'' In many parts of the West up until the 1970s, the same thing was said of homosexuals. It still is in some countries. My point is that illegality and social unacceptance do not necessarily match what they should in a perfect world. Now, should Wikipedia try to match the world as it is, or should it try to match the world as the editors of this article think the world should be? If it is the latter, how do we handle differences of opinion? To put it another way, if this were 1950, and this was an article about homosexuality, should we strive for an article that accurately reflected the 1950 opinion of homosexuality, or should we give "undue weight" to minority-opinion valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence, evidence that is widely accepted 57 years later? This is not an easy question and has no right answer. Perhaps other controversial topics have dealt with this very issue and we can follow Wiki-precedent. [[User:Dfpc|Dfpc]] 03:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
:Black
:::We should follow the facts, the majority of the population in the world do not beleive in evolution, should we follow their opinion or facts? [[User:Voice of Britain|V.☢.B]] 03:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
::::Absolute rubbish though wikipedia does give ample space to creationism which is far more mainstream than either pedophilia or wanting to kill people (whioch some people glorify, eg [[Mara Salvatrucha]]. So we should indeed follow consensus and not glorify murder, child abuse or other horrific crimes, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 03:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::There is a difference between glorifying something and not vilifying it. VoB wants scientific evidence to be presented. Assuming the evidence is valid, it should be presented unless there are [[WP:UNDUE]] considerations. Whether [[WP:UNDUE]] is triggered is the very question we are debating today. [[User:Dfpc|Dfpc]] 04:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
::::VoB, I think you hit the nail on the head. However, with Wikipedia, the answer may very well be that we follow popular opinion. A few minutes ago I asked what the Wiki-precedent is. [[User:Dfpc|Dfpc]] 04:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
This is why mediation is pointless, I beleive in facts, he doesn't. These positions can never unite. 03:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
:Of course I believe in facts. The fact is our socities put child abusers away for along time and are repulsed by them, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 03:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
::It's hard not to insult you when you act this stupid, but I will refrain from it this time. [[User:Voice of Britain|V.☢.B]] 03:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
::then add that! it is not contradictory to the facts already included in the article. maybe we need a section about perception of child sexual abuse.[[User:Kinda0|Kinda0]] 03:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
:Good idea, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 04:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
==Mediation==
Line 389 ⟶ 394:
:::::I am very flexible, but there is no point in mediation if SqueakBox is included. [[User:Voice of Britain|V.☢.B]] 03:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
::::VoB, you said ''I will never back down from facts or logic, so the situation is impossible.'' If the consensus is that small-minority scientific evidence should be ignored based on [[WP:UNDUE]] provided that the vast majority of scientific evidence contradicts the small-minority evidence, would you go along with deleting the small-minority evidence? Let me give an example: There are several scientific theories on the best way to treat a child with [[Attachment disorder|attachment disorder]]. Some of these theories are very fringe. However, that doesn't mean the science behind them is invalid. It may mean that the results are a statistical fluke that won't hold up under repeated experiments. Or it may be that their experiment hasn't been repeated enough to convince the rest of the scientific community. In an article on the subject, should Wikipedia give any space to these fringe scientific studies, and if so, how much? Remember [[WP:UNDUE]]. As it happens, there is an article dedicated to [[Attachment Therapy|one of those fringe treatments]] and it is locked due to a content dispute. [[User:Dfpc|Dfpc]] 04:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Dont be silly. Me being banned for promoting the paedophile POV I am promoting isnt going to happen becuase all I am promoting is the utterly mainstream belief that its wrong to abuse children. And I dont wish to ban the opposition merely to work with them. Please reconsider as mediation is an excellent way of resolving disputes and arbcom would likely happen behind closed doors so it wouldnt be a platform for you or anyone, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 03:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 395 ⟶ 403:
:Check my contribs and go figure. But please reconsider, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 03:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
::Mediation usually (always?) must be attempted before arbitration. I'd suggest just moving to filing a Mediation request and giving it a try. Either all involved will agree, and that can move forward, or there will be some who will refuse, and then the next step in dispute resolution will occur. If all agree to Mediation and it produces an agreeable result, ''''great.'''' If it fails, then the next step in the dispute resolution process can be taken. In any event, moving to filing a request for Mediation may be the best next step to take. [[user:DPeterson|<span style="color:red;">DPeterson</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:DPeterson|talk]]</sup> 14:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
:We need to wait till VoB is unbanned and I will make the request next Saturday, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 16:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
::Agree, we must wait. It's the fair thing to do. [[User:Dfpc|Dfpc]] 18:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
== Voice of Britain blocked for 1 week ==
Voice of Britain is blocked for a week, see [[User talk:Voice of Britain]] and [[User talk:H]].
With that in mind, I think we should semi-protect the article, re-protect it shortly before VoB's block expires, then resume the debate we started a few hours ago. If VoB promises not to edit-war then re-protecting or semi-protecting may not be necessary. [[User:Dfpc|Dfpc]] 04:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
:Semi-protection is only used in instances of heavy vandalism, which I haven't seen recently on this article. [[Wikipedia:Protection policy#Semi-protection]]. If everyone agrees to stop reverting the admin who protected the article might agree to lift it. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:·]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 07:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
:::I have unprotected the page. Let me stress again, since I was accused on my talk page. I have no opinion or care what revision is on the page. I took action only to stop the edit warring. The version that I protected by no means stated my opinion, I am not supporting either position. I am still your friendly neighborhood uninterested third party.--[[User:Kungfuadam|<span style="color:blue;">Kungfu</span> <span style="color:red;">Adam</span>]] <sup>([[User_talk:Kungfuadam|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]])</sup> 12:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
::::Admins always lock to the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wrong_Version wrong version], [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 16:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
==cortisol==
"However, other more recent studies do find an increase in cortosol levels among victims of child sexual abuse and trauma and damage to various parts of the brain"
please cite the studies that found this. also one of the books you cite is from 1999, four years before mcnally's book. [[User:Kinda0|Kinda0]] 16:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
:The second text is 2007. [[user:DPeterson|<span style="color:red;">DPeterson</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:DPeterson|talk]]</sup> 16:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
::studies please? [[User:Kinda0|Kinda0]] 16:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
:::The text by Dr. Bruce Perry was published in 2007 and includes a variety of verifiable material...I'm not sure what you are asking for? [[user:DPeterson|<span style="color:red;">DPeterson</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:DPeterson|talk]]</sup> 16:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
::::the studies he references to evidence the claim that that sexually abused children tend towards increased cortisol. i would like to include these in the article, preferably with a little information about the subjects/methods as i did with king et al... [[User:Kinda0|kinda]] 16:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::The text presents a lot of studies; some Dr. Perry's work, some that of others. I just thought the basic reference for the one line would suffice here. [[user:DPeterson|<span style="color:red;">DPeterson</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:DPeterson|talk]]</sup> 17:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::at least one study published in a peer-reviewed journal would be nice. is perry's book a primary source? [[User:Kinda0|kinda]] 17:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Dr. Perry's book includes his original work, cites his published studies, and studies of others. I just don't have the time to research a journal article...the book lists a number though. [[user:DPeterson|<span style="color:red;">DPeterson</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:DPeterson|talk]]</sup> 19:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::::can you give me one of the citations? [[User:Kinda0|kinda]] 20:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::I really don't have the time to do that...The book is readily available though. [[user:DPeterson|<span style="color:red;">DPeterson</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:DPeterson|talk]]</sup> 20:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
==Rind?==
The Rind study does a lot of heavy lifting in this entry, and I wondered if it was at all controversial. There is a Wikipedia article specifically on the Rind study, but it also is tagged for NPOV issues. A search of the American Psychologist and the Psychological Bulletin databases indicates that there have been a number of articles, statements, debates and so forth within those pages regarding this study. (I'm not talking about outside controversies--there are those too--but controversies with the professional scientific community.) I wonder why this entry, which relies so heavily on Rind, does not mention that the study is controversial, or present arguments specifically opposing that study. I'm confused by those here who have debated on the basis that the study is science and therefore incontrovertible. The suggestion of such statements is that the science is unopposed. It appears, as is often the case, in science as in other fields, that there is not a single, indisputable point of view on this matter. Unfortunately I don't have access to the full text articles. Here's a link to some of the abstracts that came up in my search: [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Display&itool=abstractplus&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=11726069 abstracts concerning Rind research]. Obviously if psychologists are debating these issues amongst themselves, we will not be able to resolve that debate here. The Rind study was published. It is controversial. It says + Opponents say = NPOV. No? -[[User:Jmh123|Jmh123]] 18:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
:Good information. I'd not realized how controversial the Rind material was. I agree that stating it is controversial and then stating what each side says is NPOV and would be consistent with Wikipedia policies and practices regarding controversial subjects. [[user:DPeterson|<span style="color:red;">DPeterson</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:DPeterson|talk]]</sup> 19:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
==weasel words?==
where? ~[[[[user:kinda0|kinda]]]] 00:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
:We have a whole section devoted tot his. In this context positive is a weasel word and is huighly disputed, as you klnow, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 01:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
::the relationships are positive by evaluation of the victims. is this not clear? ~[[[[user:kinda0|kinda]]]] 01:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Allegedly. But that's not the issue. Far more children suffer than dont and yet we are claiming in a weasel way that its all just great. Thus positive is hugely weasel in this case, and indeed the section should be removed, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 01:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
::::please point out where we make such an absurd claim. as far as i can see, we just state that a minority of abused children reflect on their abuse positively. this fact is hardly disputable. ~[[[[user:kinda0|kinda]]]] 01:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::In an utterly POV way by giving it far too much prominence when it is so obscure it shouldnt be here at all as unnotable. When the weasel word title is removed it is quickl;y reverted and until this gets sorted the weasel tagg is required. We are trying to build an encyclopedia and this means neutrality,. These tags are for disputes where neutrality is disputed and this giving fake prominence to the alleged positive impacts of serious criminal offences is weasel. Its the kind of input we would expect from pedophiles and convicted sex offenders not neutral encyclopedia writers, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 01:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::yet again with your idiotic implications. is david finkelhorn a pedophile and convicted sex offender, hmm? i guess every author of the dozens upon dozens of studies that have found a portion of children loook upon their abuse positively is part of some ''VAST PEDOPHILE CONSPIRACY'' that wabts to legalize child sexual abuse. as for weasel words, you still haven't explained how anything on this page violates the guidlines at [[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words]]. if anything, undue weight is the only issue, but i don't think that's the case because i personally feel 10-20% of child sexual abuse victims make up a notable percent. they shouldn't be made 'unpersons' just because they don't comply with your prejudices. ~[[[[user:kinda0|kinda]]]] 02:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::Please read the Wikipedia article on weasel words. In this article and context, positive is a weasel word, as I read the Wiki description of the term weasel. The tag belongs and should stay. [[User:kinda0]] disputes this, and so the tag belongs because there is a dispute regarding the neutrality of the article. Once consensus is reached the tag can be removed. On this I have to say that to try to build a case that illegal activity is postive is a real problem. I suppose I could argue that bank robbery has some very positive effects for the robber, if the robber is not caught, but I think we'd all agree that is a weasel-type statment per the wiki article and general consensus and just plain common sense. [[user:DPeterson|<span style="color:red;">DPeterson</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:DPeterson|talk]]</sup> 02:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::i did, but the positive claims are properly attributed so there should be no conflict. also, i'm not trying to argue anything. i believe 10 to 20% of molestation victims make up a minority significant enough to be included. ~[[[[user:kinda0|kinda]]]] 02:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
We should '''not''' re-interpret the quoted responses of those involved in the studies simply because they support 'fringe beliefs'. NPOV should not be used to play around with emergent facts which are obtained via study and direct quotations from those involved. Needless to say, I support both the section and the use of "positive" [[User:Bow Ty|<b><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="color:#150517;">βѺ ►◄ ṮỸ</span></span></b>]] 13:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
{{talkarchive}}
| |||