Pedophilia Article Watch (defunct)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Pedophilia Article WatchWikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchTemplate:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchPedophilia Article Watch

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of crime and criminal biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Sexology and sexuality Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Calm talk

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 15 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 3.

Wikipedia articles should always include a few good references to well-structured criticisms of society's definition and handling of controversial subjects or wikipedia succumbs to dogma. The entire article is locked down so it cannot be edited. There's not even a section documenting criticisms of societal responses to CSA by reputable commentators and researchers, hysteria surrounding CSA or criticisms of how CSA is defined. The article could at least overtly refer to wikipedia entries such as Day care sex abuse hysteria and False allegation of child sexual abuse in the actual body of the text instead of leaving this mention to 'See Also'. It's not as if there is no history of social hysteria, grave injustice and moral panic associated with the societal response to CSA or to how it has been defined and prosecuted. I realize that people are absolutely threatened by any references which might be construed as in any way criticizing the CSA status quo and will tend to deny these a voice at all costs, but, a small amount of balance please, not academic dogma! That is also in the interests of victims of CSA, who include the abused and the falsely accused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.68.37.190 (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can edit this article since I have registered a username and established myself. But, I would need a place to start. Can you specify a source to begin with? Preferred are peer-reviewed papers that are written by experts such as sociologists or social psychologists. I can access most journals in full, so even if you only find an abstract, I will see what I can do.

If however this was just a drive-by rant with no intention of follow-up, your comments will be deleted within one week.Legitimus (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I was a bit strident. I think it will take longer than a week to get something together. I don't work in this field so I'm not the best person for the task but I know of at least one peer reviewed journal that has published criticisms of some of the frameworks applied to CSA. I also suspect that some people who do work in the field are loathe to criticize any plank of the CSA raft lest they find their careers suddenly shortened. I can think of one or two controversial commentators or journalists (and one politician even) who were brave (foolish) enough to have raised concerns about some aspect - generally this was in the 1990s. Whether it's an article about quantum mechanics or child sex abuse I would still expect to see some critique of some small aspect of the dominant paradigm - actually I had (perhaps wrongly) assumed something must have been included previously and edited out. A problem in this regard is that any critique of say the terminology used in CSA - even when published in a good journal - might get seized upon by pro-pedophile activists (*death knell sounds*) or labelled as some kind of attempted justification for pedophilia by others and dismissed or discredited either way. For example the main article for Rind et al should perhaps at least be mentioned even though it is widely reviled. There are papers that are less easy to dismiss though attacking say the manner in which the construction of CSA facilitated the day care and ritual abuse panics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.68.37.190 (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the point you are trying to make. CSA falls into several arenas; medical, legal, political, social. And there are bound to be problems with the common model in any of those (some much more than others). This makes addressing such matters in an already lengthy article a tad daunting. Though are you sure you concerns have not been addressed adequately in this article? I know it's long, but Rind et al. is mentioned already for example.Legitimus (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the information provided in this article. the statistics are not current and do not reflect the magnitude of this problem.

69.30.63.18 (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is 26 print-pages long and has 176 different references. Can you be a little more specific?Legitimus (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

_{Marking as answered until poster gets back about the changes. Jnorton7558 (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

I reverted you because some of the info is redundant and superfluous e.g. indecent exposure covers pornography, "physicaly contact with the childs genitals" is covered by physical sexual contact. This part "except in certain non-sexual contexts such as a medical exam" is stating the obvious. The previous lede is too repetitive. Pass a Method talk 13:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]