Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination)

• Comment - I'm sorry but are you seriously basing your argument on the sayings of a site spawned by Perverted-Justice? As likely everyone who's been involved with PAW articles already knows, PJ has been saying negative and shady stuff like this for quite a while, jumping on anyone not quick enough to lynch editors that dare not practice their anti-pedophile vigilante methods. It would indeed help your own case to base arguments on substantiated evidence and article quality, instead of linking to attack sites. ~ Homologeo (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - POV fork. Tiptoety ^talk 05:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Adds nothing that is not already present in the 3 main articles it draws from. If there is something special about this topic framed in this way, then it has not been properly communicated in this article; I don't think that this is the case, so I think this article should go. Antelan ^talk 05:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While the behaviour of SqueakBox and Pol64 and a couple of like-minded people has been downright disgraceful in the last few days and the nomination is in bad faith, my personal opinion is that on content grounds they're largely correct that the original topic is a better source and some of the content/scope of this one risks bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. Orderinchaos 05:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV fork per above. Eusebeus (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP see below - BTW, as this was a very clearly Bad Faith nomination, a Crusade against the article and well-referenced topic, and this question has been Asked-and-Answered already, not once but twice. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: Page is vastly improved, expanded, formatted, and even referenced since the AfD began (again). Of course, the same justification for keep exists...
  WP:Reliable Sources, and WP:Verifiability are all met, and met well, as evidenced by the 50+ references and 40,406 bytes article size. The structure of the article also was overhauled to hopefully allow for more and better expansion as well as help push a NPOV (section on abuse, section on non-abuse, section on history, section on modern, etc...). VigilancePrime (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The reasoning behind the change in VigilancePrime's vote was, for some weird reason, removed from this page. However, if anyone wishes to read it, please direct your attention to this diff. ~ Homologeo (talk) 07:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete POV fork of the obvious kind.
  talk) 08:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC) _{Full disclosure: Saw this on AN/I.}[reply
  ]
• Delete all POV forks.
  ☎ 10:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep A PoV fork is by definition the same content with a different spin. This is substantially different content to child sexual abuse that looks at various contexts in an anthropological and sociological light, were the content merged, it would be unmerged soon after, and given that it is a notable topic, studied and researched, there is no valid criterion for deletion.
• In addition, I am largely against second and further nominations without substantial reason. Wearing down a page's defenders is not how content ought to be dictated, especially in controversial areas 69.210.45.157 (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No POV forks is a very strong argument, but I don't think this is a POV fork. There is overlap, certainly, as there has been a lot published about the question weather or not all Child-adult sex is child sexual abuse. (or adult-minor sex, or any of those forms). The fact that there is academic discussion "do all cases of 'a' involve 'b'?" means that 'a' is not the same thing as 'b'. In this case, do all cases of adult child sex involve child sexual abuse. My personal opinion on the matter (that is, it should be regarded child sexual abuse in all cases I can think off) is not quite relevant to the discussion on the question of deletion. The scopes of the two articles do differ, and therefor this is not a POV fork. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the entirety of what a POV fork is, see

WP:SOAP. Most POV forks needn't/usually don't contain entirely the same subject matter as the main article, but what is contained in them is decided by what propounds a point of view, with selective parts of the main subject or tangents of it covered without the correct context of the majority view/other views in the main article. Merkinsmum 12:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

And how does "Adult-child sex" prevent the correct context from being used, or how does it avoid a neutral point of view (which is at the definition of a POV fork)? And how is it a soapbox? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep at all costs. I can't exactly call myself a fan or practitioner, but this has been done throughout history and in many present cultures. The first time I heard of CSA was in the seventies/early eighties, so unless this is a magical discovery, why all the delete votes? And what is biased about the current version? Were all these people born after the eighties, when discussion and research of this became tabu? Karla Lindstrom 13:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well-put. If this topic is only covered as child sexual abuse, then no information about how adult-child sex fit into Western or non-Western cultures prior to the advent of the child sexual abuse paradigm would be topical. No information about how non-Western societies, in the modern era, view the subject differently than Western ones. To do so says that we, as a project, not only believe that adult-child sex is abusive to the child, but that we specifically require that everyone reading or editing here never look at it from historical, anthropological, sociological, or any other view aside from the moral issue. --SSBohio 14:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I collapsed some sections of extended discussion because for some reason a few editors think its necessary to respond to every delete vote with the same arguments, slightly rewritten and a little bit longer than last time. Consider the possibility that people just disagree with you.

Note that it are not only those who argue to keep the article that have been doing this. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avruch, I understand how well-intended your edits were; What I had trouble with was the edits' instructing editors not to edit in those sections. Also, the first collapsed section (AFAIK) is the only section in which RRay or I have discussed whether I could characterize my !vote as Speedy Keep. I don't see where we've been repeating it elsewhere. However, I've considered the possibility that you disagree with me about that, and that's ok. --SSBohio 16:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section Break 2

• Keep I don't agree this is a POV fork. Seems reasonable as an article in its own right. --John (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with extreme prejudice. Wikipedia doesn't need a pro-pedophilia POV fork. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why would I and 13 other users have voted for this, if it were in anyway biased towards a pedophilia (or any highly outspoken) agenda? Could you point to what exactly you see as pro-pedophile when the article is named and written to provide a non theoretical base for a subject once adressed only by a theory, that of CSA? Have you never read publications such as the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality, which take a similar, cool, nonhysterical and nonmedicalised perspective when dealing with all subjects sexual? GrooV (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know why you (and others) voted for this despite its pro-pedophilia stance, but I can think of two possible explanations: 1) you are pro-pedophilia, and 2) you don't think that the article is pro-pedophilia. I'm going to assume that the latter is the correct explanation. The bottom line is this: adult-child sex is a sneaky way to paint child sexual abuse and pedophilia in a more positive light. And no, I have not read the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality and I don't intend to, because I already know what pedophilia is. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I sincerely hope you are not trying to equate homosexuality with paedophilia in your above remark. :| Orderinchaos 06:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No worries. Just making sure (there was about three ways to read your previous sentence). Orderinchaos 16:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I admit that merging into Age disparity in sexual relationships is the most sensible merge suggestion so far, however it would be odd to make up one section that'd be longer than the rest of the article as all 3 incomplete drafts have a size around 40-50 kB. Furthermore, I'd like to repeat what I've said elsewhere, which is that I have said from day 1 of my involvement that babies and toddlers ought not be muddled up with pre-pubescents and pre-adolescents, and none of them should be muddled up with adolescents. Adult-child sex started out as relating to pre-pubescents and pre-adolescents, not to babies, toddlers, or adolescents, as you can see in the further advanced drafts, so there is no need to call upon unwarranted "muddling" any age lines. Third, I'd like to announce that the nicks of a number of people who have posted here are listed as "identified pedophiles" here, obviously because the people maintaining that list didn't like their posts and edits made here or elsewhere on Wikipedia. As they are even listing this very AfD on their site under Updates, everybody posting here has the chance of finding his nick, sometimes even his personal street address and photos on that site, branded as an "identified pedophile" if those people don't like their posts. I'm worried this might be affecting the outcome, and also the behavior of people here. --TlatoSMD (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I have now also been informed that the site I, as did others way up here, linked to contains spyware. --TlatoSMD (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no spyware on those pages, that website runs the same software as Wikipedia - it even has the MediaWiki.org link on the bottom of the page. It's nothing but html, css and javascript. No way could that page install spyware on your computer when you simply view the text. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What effect would one presume this kind of organised networking has on the final outcome of a vote such as this? GrooV (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think any evidence of organised networking offsite and online would need to be brought here, certainly no evidence at wikiexposure of that going on but it may be happening in boy and girl chat forums. Thanks,

SqueakBox 19:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I also cannot see any direct evidence of parachuting, but from my limited experience of the forums concerned, Boy Chat and Girl Chat are both open Pedophile forums (any encouragement would be noticed and reported) whilst Wikisposure is allied to some sort of private linear style messageboard.

What amuses me about the wikisposure page is that it claims that the article under discussion was created by Boy Chat, which is a well known messageboard for pedophiles, and not an organisation. The guy who created the article (User:A.Z.) is a ninteen-year-old gay Brazilian male with a long history of non-pedophile-related participation at Wikipedia. GrooV (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Paedophilia is unrelated to most cases of adult-child sex (see Child sexual abuse#Pedophilia). Child sexual abuse is a legal and social contruct, and much of anthropological, zoological, and academic material that Adult-child sex should cover would not befit the Child sexual abuse article. AnotherSolipsist (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm commenting not to argue with the above !vote, but only to indicate that this statement is incorrect: "Paedophilia is unrelated to most cases of adult-child sex (see Child sexual abuse#Pedophilia)." That is not what the linked article states, and it's not what the science shows. Substituting the word "some" for the word "most" would make the statement more accurate, though vague. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Odd you didn't take me up on it when I first stated so above. For those scientific empiric peer-reviewed studies that actually make a difference between an attraction and a behavior, and that actually acknowledge there can be different motivations for what is legally labeled as CSA, regularly find only 1-3, maxbe 5% of cases are due to paedophilia, see for instance Freund & Costell 1971; Quinsey, Steinman, Bergesen & Holmes 1975; Howells 1981; Abel, Mittleman & Becker 1985; Knight et al. 1985; Wolter 1985; Brongersma 1990; Freund 1991; Freund & Watson 1991; McConaghy 1993; Lautmann 1994; Hall, Hirschman & Oliver 1995; Ward et al. 1995; Hoffmann 1996; Seikowski 1999. Don't Abel 2001 me on this, for her popular STOP CHILD ABUSE NOW! book is a largely fictional work, and Abel defines "paedophilia" as a behavior, so lo and behold, she finds that a behavior is the most likely cause for a behavior! As for "denial", those studies are hardly going by self-identification but rather by distinct mental and behavioral patterns, even though self-identification and reports on their own behavior in the case of paedophilia has the strongest correlation of accuracy and factuality with their mental and behavioral patterns as is back-checked by means of independent outside sources (including but not limited to family, friends, acquaintances, co-workers and employers, not least of all the involved children, if any). --TlatoSMD (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it has been mentioned many times that this is a POV fork of something, but I don't see of what. The nomination doesn't mention it, and the way SqueakBox is labeling people pro-pedophile doesn't add any credibility to his claims either.  Grue  20:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually decided not to edit some days, because I have gone through this in real life before and do not want to face it again. Really, this is my main objection to the way that this article has been managed. The ad hominem has to stop before someone is "sniffed out" by Wikisposure and gets a brick through their window. GrooV (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per AnotherSolipsist. There is history and interpretation of this category of interpersonal relations which is at least as old as civilization. Whether one has a facile 'like' or dislike' of the subject-matter, any proposal to erase it, or to subsume it under the conceptually different, limited, and recent, social construct of "CSA" is, at best anti-intellectual, and at worst transparently Orwellian. Strichmann (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol, see [9] (Category:Pederasty -something going on with my wikilinks) - we have [10](Category:Pederasty in ancient Greece),

Pederasty in the Renaissance etc and so on. There's no shortage or suppression of paedophilia articles and about the history of it - probably there are other categories and subcategories too. Look at them all- hardly Orwellian suppression. But this article consists of cherry-picked ideas designed to forward an implied POV. Several sites have said that wiki is paedo-enabling and some were even banned because they were trying to use Wikipedia to pull kids on here.Merkinsmum 23:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I realize that this is conceptually difficult to grasp – but you aren't the first, so no need to feel embarrassed. Pedophilia is a label assigned in order to categorize. It says nothing about the two-way interpersonal relationships involved. 'Adult-child sex', on the other hand, constitutes a form of relationship between two individuals. Treating the two concepts as identical would be the equivalent of treating 'the state of being an athlete' and 'the carrying out of a game of tennis' as identical/interchangeable terms.

As for the “paedo-enabling” claim, as you eloquently put it, it is patently clear why websites might be suggesting that...in order to influence the outcome of discussions such as this, to accord with their agenda. No doubt it you were to mention any of those websites names, that would become obvious.Strichmann (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because Google Scholar says there are 294 scientific articles mentioning the term. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. another editor mentioned this search in reply to my !vote below. I replied there; the gist is that when the word "abuse" is omitted from the Goggle Scholar search for the article title term, the result goes down to only 38 pages. And the Google Scholar search for "child sexual abuse" brings in 35,600 pages. Search URLs and context are in my reply below. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete POV fork. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why, when the abuse article would naturally and logically represent the conceptual forkage from the ACS activity itself? Where do you see the POV break from the CSA article? Is it in the title? If so, why? Is it in the material? If so why? There is no doubt that the ACS move brings things further towards a position of favouring the ACS practise itself. But thankfully, this is inherent to establishing a neutral teritory such as this article.
  • Maybe the article would be better described as a NPOV fork? GrooV (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to your logic it would but if one thinks you are wrong iand that the article should be CSA to describe ACS as a fork would be entirely logical. Thanks,

SqueakBox 00:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep There's no reason why this article can't be organized in a way that includes sections on many different topics related to this subject. CSA is obviously just one part of ACS. Ospinad (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I do not understand the problem here. Adult-child sex is the bare description of the act. Sex between adults and children. Whether this is abuse or not (and I fervently believe it is, but my personal views on the subject are irrelevant - maybe you should take a leaf out of my book on this one, SqueakBox) is an entirely seperate issue and depends on the culture we are talking about. Right here and now, it is considered abuse. Fair enough, but it wasn't always so. If anything, CSA is a POV fork of ACS, because it's just one way of looking at the issue. It may be the right way, but Wikipedia is not meant to judge whether it is or not. That's the whole POINT of NPOV. "Adult-child sex" as a term is not an inherently POV term. "Child sexual abuse" is, because 'abuse' is a subjective term depending on what is considered abuse at the time.
  pray 03:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Take a leaf out of your book? How so? My only interest is our

SqueakBox 04:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

No, it isn't. It is a tireless crusade against anything remotely resembling pedophilia, which, granted, is a noble cause, however, it has nothing to do with neutrality, or building an encyclopedia. You have repeatedly accused good-faith editors who were working towards such a neutrality as being "pro-pedophile activists", acted against consensus and are arguably doing anything BUT act in the interests of the neutrality policy. A review of your edits and comments here make this clear.

pray —Preceding comment was added at 05:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Obviously a POV fork. Wikipedia already has an article on Pedophilia --RucasHost (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not a POV fork of other articles. But I would recommend to make a separate article about this kind of sexual behaviot among animals, which is described in scientific literature and even helps survival of certain mammalian species, although I do not have a reference handy.Biophys (talk) 05:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Based on the external link Herostratus posted and other comments, I believe some participants have felt coercive pressure and withdrawn their statements.^{[11] [12]}. --SSBohio 06:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And some have been so digusted by that and other tactics of the cabal that they have ceased editing the article out of concern for their safety and fear of being branded pro-pedophile.[13] Pairadox (talk) 07:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that I have received a death threat off site but online concerning my edits to these pedophile articles so if this is happening it is happening on all sides. Thanks,

SqueakBox 15:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment To put this into context, the "death threat" against Squeak literally was the opinion that he "needs fixing". --TlatoSMD (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• VOTE CHANGE:DELETE - If Squeaky will allow me to change my vote to the vote he is crusading for, and hyper-zealous admins will allow me to say why I am doing so, I would like to Change My Vote from Strong Keep to Strong Delete. The reason: This issue will never be settled. I stand by my earlier factual comments (and all the links that I provided to prove the point). This article will be deleted, it's just a matter of time, and the personal attacks, intimidation, and harrassment are not worth it. Therefore, Strong Delete per
  WP:STEAM. (Really, it's the only way to end this war. SSB and Pair are correct about it, above.) VigilancePrime (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I would ask the closing admin to carefully consider the reason for this !vote when weighing its import and effect. --SSBohio 00:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The reasoning behind the change in VigilancePrime's vote was, for some weird reason, removed from this page. However, if anyone wishes to read it, please direct your attention to this diff.

• Keep. Article is well sourced currently, the topic is a notable one and there is no concensus for deletion. We should try to work through the differences of opinion on this topic. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section Break 3

• Delete. per
  POV fork of child sexual abuse and pedophilia
  .

The title itself is the core issue. As long as the article exists, it will be a magnet for trouble and confusion, because it mixes together separate topics: (1) adults sexually using pre-pubetry children for sex (for example toddlers and very young schoolchildren), and (2) sex between adults and post-puberty adolescents. Joining these different topics under the name "Adult-child sex" obscures the two meanings and implies they are the same, which they are not.

Every mainstream psychology association, child protection organization, governments around the world, and the vast majority of researchers and clinicians agree that all sexual interactions of adults and children is "child sexual abuse", with thousands of references supporting. The fringe term "adult-child sex" appears in only a few sources, and the webpages that quote them, giving the impression of more support for the term than actually exists. Wikipedia should not have an article with the title "adult-child sex" because it's misleading

not verifiable. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

This is of course a complete misrepresentation of facts. The vast majority of researchers and clinicians agree the opposite: that adult-child sex is not inherently abusive (in the linguistically correct sense of the term). Before the ACS article was distorted by vested interests, the talk page listed in excess of 100 academic sources confirming that point. There were no scholarly sources listed in support of your misrepresentation, with the vague exception of Finkelhor (who in fact does not support your claim, but concedes that he argues against all adult-child sexual relationships not because they are inherently abusive but based on his (necessarily subjective) personal morality). If there are "thousands of references" supporting your claim in so far as "the majority of researchers and clinicians" are concerned, why were none of them ever presented (despite the request of editors)?

In any event, this discussion is not about the myths surrounding adult-child sexual encounters, but about whether the article is a topic in its own right. The fact that it is an umbrella term for possible interactions between two individuals is self-evident. Concepts such as 'pedophilia', 'pederasty' and 'child sexual abuse' may share some degree of overlap as possible manifestations or constructions of 'adult-child sex', but they are nevertheless separate and distinct.

'Adult-child sex is no more a “POV fork” of 'child sexual abuse' than 'heterosexual sex' would be a POV fork of 'rape'. --Strichmann 09:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Interrupted discussion thread. The above comment posted in reply to my !vote previously had extensive discussion, with replies from myself and several editors. The whole thread was moved to the talk page by another editor, and now the above has been restored here by its original poster, but without the rest of the thread. To avoid moving the long thread back here again, here's the link to where it was moved: Talk page, Discussion 5. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comment was moved, unilaterally, off this discussion page, which would give the distorted appearance to anyone reading this discussion that Jack-A-Roe's arguments to delete were unchallenged. Whatever the motivation may have been for doing so, it could give the appearance of authoritarian censorship. Please do me the courtesy of not moving my comments. Strichmann (talk) 09:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No-one tried to give a distorted impression. The person who moved your comment did it as part of an overall cleanup of the packed page. Your words and all the responses that followed were moved along with five other long discussions that are now all on the talk page. So don't take it personally, no-one tried to undermine your response. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The topic is icky to most sensibilities, but there are plenty of good articles on this site about topics that offend us. This article seems to describe--in a reasonably encyclopedic, NPOV way--something distinct from sexual abuse or pedophilia. Wouldn't make sense to merge. Also calling another editor "pro-pedophile advocate" strikes me as less than civil.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't my descriptionm but that of the admin who indefinitely blocked him so I think it is a fair comment, and far from not being civil it is a description of a POV that has been pushed endlessly on wikipedia. Thanks,
    SqueakBox 18:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Comment. Squeak, not only is there a number of different views on A. Z.'s block verifiable by a number of internal Wikipedia links and debates I don't have handy right now, you also called "pro-pedophile" on any single person that ever dared not subjecting to your uneducated guesses. --TlatoSMD (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further to the above mentioned by TlatoSMD, could it not be true that evan an administrator is uncivil? They may be technically privileged, but apart from that, we're all equal in what we say. Karla Lindstrom 23:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have not even read this article, and don't terribly wish to. (I find the topic uninteresting at best and basically -- in the words of the previous commenter -- "icky.") Therefore I have no opinion about whether the current writing of this article is that WP needs or whether it conforms to our standards. However, I do very strongly feel that some such article is needed -- unless we are to succumb completely to the ethnocentrism of our own period -- and therefore, while the article might conceivably need rewriting -- it should not be deleted. The topic is not necessarily the same as child sexual abuse or pedophilia, although it could be twisted that way by proponents or opponents.
• There were people outside of our period to whom versions of such concepts made sense. For example, in Pheadrus 249a, Plato has Socrates express the opinion that, after death, souls are not able to regain their spirituality readily, "unless it's someone who innocently loved wisdom or loved a boy in wisdom." This is my own translation, but you can look up that page of the original at The Perseus Project. If you click the "Greek" link on their page (and perhaps struggle a bit to get the Greek to render acceptably on your screen), you'll find that the word that Perseus's translator has decorously (and, in my opinion, in shameful dereliction of honesty) translated as "lover" is in fact "παιδεραστήσαντος" (paiderastêsantos) -- the participle of the verb meaning to love a boy erotically. Click the link on the Greek word for parsing and a link to a full dictionary definition.
• Therefore, my thoughts are the following:
  • I personally do not approve of "abusing" children and am prepared to take strong action to prevent it.
  • I personally think that an adult having an erotic experience with an underage person almost inevitably, in almost all cases, constitutes "abuse."
  • I am not personally interested in erotic experiences with children.
  • I do not think that Plato meant to recommend "abusing" children as a spiritually regenerating exercise.
  • I do not imagine that my personal moral sense is infallible or necessarily superior to Plato's.
  • I imagine that Plato was speaking in a way that made sense within his culture (even though that culture may, like ours, have allowed abuses).
  • For all I know, there were other cultures besides Plato's in which some such behavior was permitted or even regarded as good.
• So, I think that intellectual honesty requires us have such an article, distinguishing that phenomenon from "sexual abuse" of children -- written to the usual standards, especially including NPOV, and with obvious cautions strongly expressed. William P. Coleman (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There are several articles that address the above [Greek-history-and-philosophy-related] topics in extensive depth:
  Pederasty in the modern world, Platonic love, and more. The article under nomination for deletion is not needed to cover those topics any further. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC) [re-edited to clarify, because from the discussion below, apparently my reply here was read in a different way than I intended it. Also, when I wrote it there were other comments above the post I replied to, that have since been moved to the talk page. The follow-up discussion below was written before I added this re-edit note, and, in retrospect I find it a digression, and I should not have replied to it at all. I stand by my original statement of my !vote to delete, for the reasons I stated.]--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Jack-A-Roe, if there are parts of the articles you mention that largely deal with adult-child sex, then it would make sense and benefit the project to incorporate, or at least summarize, them within the ACS article. ~ Homologeo (talk) 07:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Not needed? By that logic the article on pederasty isn't needed because it's already covered in more detail in other sub articles like the ones you mentioned, or that the article on the United States is not needed because there's already an article for each of the 50 states. Ospinad (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, that's not what I wrote. States are not POV forks of the USA. My reply was about the specific content the above user described. Maybe he hasn't seen those articles, I don't know. But "adult-child sex" is a POV fork of child sexual abuse, expressing the POV that adults using children for sex is not abuse. That's a classic POV fork. If it were not, there would not be so much emotional argument about the topic. This whole discussion is driven by POV. And there is more than one viewpoint; some people don't find adult-child sex to be abusive to the child. That's a POV, so it can be mentioned in the main article with due weight, but it's a fringe view and doesn't belong in a separate article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. And there's also many other people in this poll who find that it's CSA that's the POV fork, so there's not even a consensus on that. --TlatoSMD (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that is what you wrote. I understand that you have (at least) two different reasons for wanting this article deleted. 1. You think it's a POV fork. 2. You think it's existence is unnecessary because the same material is already covered in other articles. In the post that I was replying to you didn't mention anything about a POV fork. I was responding to your reason #2. You said, "There are several articles that address the above topics in extensive depth." Then you listed a bunch of articles pertaining to pederasty. Then you said that this article is not needed because those topics are already covered in those articles. That says nothing about it being a POV fork. My use of the analogy of the 50 states of America was to compare it too your analogy of the subject of pederasty being spread over multiple articles. An article is "not needed" only when two articles consist of much of the same information. If one article is being used to summarize many different articles then it's not right to say that the article is not needed, even if everything in the summary article is already covered in all of the sub-articles but in more depth. Otherwise the article for pederasty or for the United States wouldn't be needed for that same reason. That was my point. As far as your argument about it being a POV fork, I think you are mistaking what a POV fork is. The belief that "adult-child sex is harmful" and "adult-child sex is not harmful" are both POV beliefs. One is much more popular than the other, of course, but that doesn't make the more common one any less of a POV. Unpopular beliefs are not the only ones that should be labeled POV. To keep an article NPOV doesn't mean that the amount of article space used to describe each belief should correspond to the popularity of those beliefs. You'll see that the article for
  Criticism of Holocaust denial even though Holocaust deniers are in a very small minority. To keep articles NPOV and not give undue weight to unpopular beliefs means that it should be made clear in the article which beliefs are the dominant ones and which ones are not. If 50% of an article is dedicated to a belief that is shared by 1% of the population and the other half to the more popular one then that is not wrong as long as it's made clear which one is which. Ospinad (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment. I agree, Ospinad has just given another reason why Jack's "big numbers" of opportunism shouldn't be seen as too reliable or relevant on any statement. See also
    WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE. --TlatoSMD (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Clouding. Those are not my arguments, those are your interpretations and I see no reason to argue with you about it. This back and forth is of no value at all. I've stated my position for the closing admin and I'll leave it at that, other than to summarize, my reasons for deleting remain:
  WP:V. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Well, that's not a perspective I've ever heard of before now, is all I can say. But maybe I don't mix in the same circles all that often. Merkinsmum 23:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. You don't need to "mix in certain circles" to find statements that the title Adult-child sex is NPOV, all you need to do is being able to read and scroll up and down all over this poll! By Jove, allthroughout this poll I'm feeling like I'm talking to people that have a problem with the fact that I'm able to read and to abundantly source my statements. --TlatoSMD (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Child sexual abuse is harmful is only a

POV in the same sense that smoking is harmful is a POV. In both cases, it is a statement of POV, and in both cases it's a POV that enjoys a tremendous degree of support. Neither article is a POV fork, and even though the child sexual abuse article has a POV in its title, it's not a POV fork either. On this point, Tlato & I part company. --SSBohio 00:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment. I agree I've been carried a bit overboard with the heated tone of this poll, so in order to clarify I'd like to echo somebody else here (William P. Coleman?) who said that the statement "All ACS is CSA" is just as much a POV as the opposing statement "No kind of ACS whatsoever is harmful". Without subscribing to either of those, I only intended to remind people that within this poll and elsewhere, we don't even seem to find anything remotely resembling a consensus on the first of the two statements. --TlatoSMD (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many extended comments have been moved from this page to the talk page. Please, if you are going to discuss in extended comments the subject of the article (rather than the subject of its deletion) direct yourself to the talk page here or of the article itself.

Lastly, you're unreasonable to complain that my comments are too long. It keeps being emphasized that this is not a vote -- so I'd think that thoughtful comment and argument were desired over brief statements of opinion. William P. Coleman (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is value in being concise, but I wasn't 'complaining' that your comments specifically were too long. What is unclear about limiting the deletion page to !votes for or against deletion, and moving the other argumentation to the talk page? As I said on the talk page - if you haven't read the article, how are you qualified to determine whether it should exist? You're basically arguing that the title of the article should remain. Thats nonsense. Read it, return.

talk 00:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not arguing for the title. My reasons are in my comments. William P. Coleman (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section Break 4

• Keep article seems well written and well sourced. Agree on icky though. Hobit (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Now, I don't know about the content of this particular article, but the argument that the article is a POV-fork doesn't seem to me to be quite right. Redirecting this article to
  talk) 02:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep' I'm going to support SA for the reasons he specifies, along with those ow WP Coleman. different aspects of a broad subject are not POV forks. The overall subject, is broad, a matter of frequent and bitter discussion, and certainly controversial. I don't think there is a single person here who truly has a personally neutral and objective view about the practices discussed, and I wouldn't be prepared to advocate that one ought to have such a personal view of them. In the absence of that rare personality who can nonetheless write in a scientific spirit, I think collective editing can deal with this sort of topic. The solution to POV pushing is greater involvement, though I say this with the recognition that I am not going to get involved much in this group of articles myself. DGG (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (or maybe merge) While this may have started out of a POV fork, it's perfectly NPOV now. The only problem I can see with it is that at least some of it is duplicate content, so maybe it should be merged and redirected, but the arguments to delete are based on the article's history not the article as it stands today. --Tango (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; I agree that "icky" is about the best way to qualify the article contents— but last I checked, the pleasantness of an article's topic is not a factor in deciding to keep it or not. The subject is indeed encyclopedic and quite distinct from child sexual abuse and pedophilia (who discuss specific aspects of sexual contact between adults and non-adults). Should we delete Sport because we have Olympic Games? — Coren ^(talk) 16:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as POV fork, especially in current state which is not NPOV. No reason why child sexual abuse article cannot consider historial aspects of that abuse. MikeHobday (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• But that's the point - adult-child sex has not been considered "child sexual abuse" throughout history. In fact, the view that sexual relations between an adult and a child are inherently abusive is a very modern perspective. To state otherwise, is to skew the truth and to deny what was true in the past. Thus, discussing adult-child sex in an article that focuses exclusively on the contemporary take on child sexual abuse is quite inappropriate. ~ Homologeo (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not at all. Given that adult-child sex is inherently abusive (and we can hardly write encyclopedia articles from anything other than today's perspective), the fact that it was once considered otherwise might well be a suitable point under the heading of History of thought on child sexual abuse, but does not merit a separate article making that claim as if it were true. MikeHobday (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• By only discussing the topic in an article entitled
  etic perspective. Child sexual abuse is an emic view: it only tells us what the topic signifies within the frame of reference of how we look at it now. When we discuss adult-child sex, we bring an etic perspective to the phenomenon: until (roughly) the Victorian era, even our own culture didn't have the concept of children as anything other than small adults, criminally responsible for their own actions and capable of work.
  None of this even addresses perspectives outside the West. In some societies, betrothals and marriages take place even among toddlers, and consummated marriages between adults and children as young as 9 or 10 are culturally normal in others.
  Does that make any of this non-abusive? Of course not! But, even so, the etic perspective can't be met by only framing what modern Western people think of a topic. That doesn't make the act less abusive; It makes our understanding of it that much greater. --SSBohio 21:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• You are agreeing that the act is abusive. Hence there is no POV problem in it beign poart of an article with such a name. You say there are other perspectives (say, historical or from other cultures). So the article could include sections describing/discussing such perspectives. But that does not, in any way, negate the case for deleting this article and including appropriate text within the child sexual abuse article. MikeHobday (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the following reasons ~ Homologeo (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC):[reply]

• The article, as it stands right now, is significantly different from the stub it was when originally created. Thus, arguing that it should be deleted on the grounds that some users suspect the article's initial creator of being a pro-pedophile activist does not provide sufficient reasoning for deletion. Furthermore, such suspicions have never been corroborated, and the fact that the editor that started this article was banned has no weight when considering the legitimacy of keeping the article in its current state. Besides, there is no official evidence to suggest that the editor was banned because of this article's creation. Finally, an editor's personal qualities should not be used against his or her ability to contribute to Wikipedia, as long as no disruptive editing takes place. ~ Homologeo (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is definitely not a POV fork as some allege. Although this issue has been discussed many times before, the following is a brief overview of why it's inappropriate to merge or redirect "Adult-child sex" (ACS) to either "Child sexual abuse" (CSA) or "Pedophilia." ACS deals with sexual interactions between an adult and a child, both in the present and throughout history, presenting the contemporary widely-accepted view of this phenomenon, opposing modern viewpoints, and what perspectives existed in the past. Merging or redirecting to CSA would not work because that article deals almost exclusively with the contemporary popular medical and legal description of CSA. As such, CSA does not address how various peoples and societies viewed ACS during different time periods. Truth be told, the article on CSA cannot deal with such information, because the term "child sexual abuse" is a distinctly modern development, and ACS was not viewed as inherently abuse in times past. Simply put, ACS covers a broader topic than CSA, and thus should be discussed in an article of its own. Likewise, it is inappropriate to discuss ACS in "Pedophilia," because that article focuses on the contemporary medical definition of a mental disorder or paraphilia. A pedophile is defined as someone who is attracted to prepubescent children, and these is no part of the definition that states this person has to engage in ACS in order to be assigned this label. Besides, a pedophile is attracted to only one type of children (prepubescent), so the article on pedophilia cannot be used to discuss ACS in general terms. Finally, it has been established that pedophiles are, by far, not the only adults that engage in ACS. For these reasons, "Adult-child sex" cannot be merged or redirected to either "Child sexual abuse" or "Pedophilia." ~ Homologeo (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Despite what some editors claim, there has never been consensus to delete, redirect, or merge with another article. It is true that several editors have attempted on a number of occasions to achieve such an end, but their actions were always carried out without any consensus on the matter. The article has been redirected, merged, and almost deleted (through deletion of great chunks of legitimate text) in the past, but this was done contrary to standard Wikipedia procedure. Every time something like this occurred, clear opposition to such changes was seen from many editors, and the article was restored (sometimes by administrators) in some shape or form. ~ Homologeo (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If the quality of this article is in question, there's plenty of room for improvement. As long as editors behave in a civil manner, and concerns about content and structure are dealt with according to standard Wikipedia policies, then there's no reason why this article cannot continue to mature and become an exemplary demonstration of what Wikipedia is all about. Blatantly deleting information, without giving others an opportunity to verify the deletions or to respond to claims of poor sourcing, and then redirecting without consensus is definitely not the way to improve this article. Likewise, renaming the article in order to purge huge chunks of it is also quite unfair to both the article and the editors that put in the time to improve the text. The point should be not to delete, redirect, or merge at all costs, or to prune, rename, and then prune some more, but to roll up one's sleeves and try hard to produce a quality product. This does not mean that concerns about sourcing, NPOV, and due weight of viewpoints should be disregarded. On the contrary, a controversial article such as this requires strict scrutiny. However, this does not mean that deletion should be advocated no matter what. If there are legitimate concerns, they should be listed, appropriate templates put into place, and reasonable time given for involved editors to address whatever problems are noticed within the article. Because of some editors' inability or unwillingness to wait for others to respond to radical alterations in the text and concerns over a variety of issues, the article has suffered numerous undue setbacks, which largely explain why the growth and improvement of this piece have halted. Once again, there are many ways in which this article can be improved. Information from prior versions, such as this, can be reincorporated (with proper editing and sourcing) into the article. What's more, a few editors have been working on their own, and sometimes with the assistance of others, on improving the ACS article on Sandbox pages. Two prominent examples can be seen here and here. Sure, extra referencing may be in order, some block quotes need to be paraphrased, and caution must be taken that NPOV and other policies are observed, but isn't this what editing on Wikipedia is all about? In addition to all this, there is plenty of other information out there on the topic of adult-child sex. Let's work towards making this into an article we can be proud of, instead of trying to bury it for no good reason. Besides, this could be a great success just yet, for if Wikipedians can fairly and neutrally treat such a controversial subject, there's pretty much nothing this project can't handle! ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This article has been through various forms, but its problem remains constant. The current situation is that the Adult-child sex article, despite being sourced, acknowledges the modern majority view as such but spends almost no time at all discussing it. Some of the article deals with a historical perspective or gives background information; that seems okay to me. The rest is a variety of perspectives - sourced ones, yes - designed to highlight as much as possible that might suggest that the "Adult-Child Sex is abusive/wrong/bad" persepctive might be wrong. We have a detailed discussion of
  WP:NPOV#Undue weight. The way I see it, this article started, became, and has remained like this while an argument takes place over whether "Child sexual abuse" or "Adult-child sex" is the more reasonable title -- regardless of which is correct, the two articles do in fact cover the same material but from very different points of view. This is why Adult-child sex is a POV fork and must be deleted. These problems could, in theory be fixed by editing the article, but after 3 AfDs and a huge amount of controversy and discussion, the problems remain, so deletion is really the only way to solve the problem. Mangojuice^talk 05:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I think this comment succinctly points out the reason why this article should be deleted as POV fork. Also, I think unless anyone has something new to say, this argument is pretty much wrapped up. --
  talk) 05:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - The contemporary majority viewpoint is appropriately stated at the very top and is accordingly given more space in the article than anything else. This is what "due weight" within Wikipedia's NPOV policy is all about. If there's a worry that this is not enough information about child sexual abuse, then, by all means, editors are free to propose to expand that section. However, considering that there is an entire separate article on that topic, there doesn't seem to be a point in needlessly duplicating chunks of information. As for your assertion that the text takes a roundabout way of promoting a minority viewpoint, your own reasoning contradicts this claim. You state that it's appropriate to provide historical and background information, but then assert that providing examples of different views on adult-child sex is somehow wrong and disingenuous. The matter of fact is that ACS existed and had viewpoints attached to it long before the coming of the modern era, and perspectives have a tendency to change over time. Pointing out various takes on ACS throughout history is quite fitting for an encyclopedia article on the topic. Likewise, as long as perspectives are attached to their proper sources, there is nothing wrong with briefly stating views that are in opposition to the stance the contemporary majority takes on ACS. Other cultures, outside of the developed countries, as well as scholars in disagreement with mainstream professionals, do indeed have real opinions on matters such as this, and these need to be accounted for. Finally, even if, at some point, the two articles in question need to be merged together - which I maintain would be very inappropriate - CSA should then be merged into ACS, and not the other way around, seeing as the latter incorporates the entire subject matter of the former, and effectively deals with a much broader topic. ~ Homologeo (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NPOV that's where they belong, all in the same article. Not in a POV fork to a misleading title that appears to normalize a fringe theory. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• (resp. to Homologeo) What I was trying to say is that some of the historical stuff is okay. Specifically, the part from "Cultures and History" up to the next header is fine. The rest of that section is very badly balanced and it is NOT a cultural discussion nor a historical one. The subsection on "difficulty of researching" seems quite out of place, with a long quote when a citation would do -- and note how the quote plays into the pro-pedophile viewpoint. The subsection on "across cultures" might be okay, but the single example of Yemen doesn't do a good job illustrating the "minority of countries" described earlier. The "Sexuality in other mammals" section is entirely irrelevant, and really pushes things -- it's as if there aren't enough counterexamples to the majority view in history or human culture, so the author has to bring in other species: the link to the issue in humans is completely omitted, and is obviously not a part of this subject. Similarly, the "Legal issues" section is badly out of whack -- it exclusively discusses the same topic as Age of consent and yet it spends nearly half its time on an obscure petition; contrast this with the coverage in Age of consent itself, in which that petition is never mentioned.
• My point is that this is not a neutral and reasonable look at the topic, it has some parts that are okay, but it is largely a framework in which to present pro-pedophile activist arguments. As for whether CSA should be merged into ACS or vice versa, bickering over the title and which title goes with which topic is NOT the point -- that is how this extremely out-of-balance article has managed to continue to exist all this time. Myself, I think the best title is Age disparity in sexual relationships, and I recognize the deficiency of the Child sexual abuse title/topic, and yet I would rather have this one deleted now than allow it to exist for another several months in this kind of state, which the last several months of inertia indicate will persist if the issue is not settled. Mangojuice^talk 06:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. All of the recent points by Mangojuice, Librarianofages, and Jack have been addressed before, so for now I'll keep it briefly at commenting at what Mangojuice calls "a random out of nowhere quote from a psychiatrist". When Feierman authored that quote, he had 20 years of professional experience working with AoC offenders. The book that quote is from, Pedophilia: Biosocial dimensions, was edited and prefaced by him, published by the professional science publishing house
  Springer-Verlag, while being a collective work by the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality (publisher of Journal of Sex Research and Annual Review of Sex Research; see for their involvement with this book here, under the headline Researching "Touchy" Sex Topics). "Two dozen" internationally renowned members of the professional SSSS contributed to that book: See complete table of content. The fact that book, as many other works by scientists, "plays into the pro-pedophile viewpoint" comes as no surprise as that which is commonly perceived as a "pro-pedophile viewpoint" is pretty much exclusively existing and on-going scientific material and discourse. --TlatoSMD (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• And yet, there is no reason to include the quote verbatim. As a reference, I'm sure it is fine. But the inclusion of the full text of the quote manipulates the balance of the article by giving even more space to an argument to broaden our perspective. Remember, my issue here is not at all with sourcing, but with balance, with
  WP:NPOV. Mangojuice^talk 15:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - I will not deny that the article is not in its best shape, and that some of its sections could be retitled and reworked. However, that's no reason to condemn the entire piece. Besides, the article is not progressing the way it could be, and is in need of improvement, not because of the subject matter or lack of information on it, but because of a consistent effort on the part of several editors to see this article laid to waste. As pointed out in the reasoning provided for my Keep vote above, there's a great deal of information that can still be incorporated into this article. There are prior versions that have text that can be reincorporated, as well as independent projects by individual editors, where they compiled a great deal of literature appropriate for this topic. As for your claim that this is a piece of pro-pedophile advocacy, I still disagree with you on the grounds explained earlier. Furthermore, the flaws in other articles, such as the lack of information on the French petitions in "Age of consent," does not mean that "Adult-child sex" should also be in poor shape and disregard appropriate important information. Next, to address your concern about the mentioning of practices in Yemen, if this example if not enough, that's the more reason to expand the article, not to delete it. Finally, how is discussion of adult-child sex in other mammals irrelevant to an article on exactly that - adult-child sex? Or would you rather split this article into two - "Adult-child sex (among humans)" and "Adult-child sex (among non-human mammals)"? ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, correct, if the article is not deleted, the animal info should be removed. That's not a POV fork, animals don't have "children" and their behavior doesn't belong in an article about human sexuality... the topic you mentioned can be found here: Animal sexual behaviour#Sex between adults and juveniles. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Of course, this has to be the first topic that can be legitimately included in more than one article. (Please don't be offended by the sarcasm.) Besides, who said the ACS article should be limited to human sexuality? ~ Homologeo (talk) 08:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Jack, that issue was done weeks ago, and we settled it by a consensus to rename the article to Adult-juvenile sex, a consensus even Squeak could live with. That particular section in
    Animal sexual behavior could even link to our main article thereby if we'd just get this whole thing done. --TlatoSMD (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• As to improving the article, all I can say is this: this article has such severe inertia issues that I just don't believe my points will be addressed by normal editing. The balance issues have been present in the article from day one and attempts to edit the article, and AfD discussions have not corrected it. When this article was nominated for deletion it was in a different form, that was also far out of balance. When the article was nominated for deletion last time, it was in yet another different form, still with severe balance issues. Mangojuice^talk 15:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. But I think this is a blatant case of an article that literally is in accordance with all Wikipedia policies, but which we'd really like to delete. I would suggest just deleting it under Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules. Trying to come up with contrived explanations for why it really violates the rules is going to do a lot of collateral damage as it sets ver bad precedents for other articles. Ken Arromdee (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about we just ignore the NPOV rule and leave it the way it is? Ospinad (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(that was supposed to be a joke)

Thanks for admitting it isn't neutral right now. And of course IAR isnt about making the encycl;opedia worse by pushing a point of view. Thanks,

SqueakBox 00:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

There's no admission of any such thing in the above, Squeak. Why invent it? --SSBohio 01:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounded like if we don't ignore NPOV we will have to do something about it, as I stated in my opening comment as nominator. Thanks,

SqueakBox 01:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry for the confusion(?), Squeak, I wasn't asking about your opening comment as nominator. I was asking why you invented an admission that didn't exist in the comment you were responding to. --SSBohio 02:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we misunderstood each other. I am saying that it sounds to me as if Ospinad were saying that we should ignore NPOV, that way we can leave the article be as a POV fork whereas I think we can't leave this POV fork be which is why I have afd'd it and indeed opposed its existence since its inception. Thanks,

SqueakBox 02:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I knew someone wouldn't get the joke. I didn't say that I believed the article was a POV fork. I was responding to the person who wanted to ignore all the rules and just have this article deleted.. If someone who believes this article is a POV fork is willing to ignore all rules to get this article deleted because they can't get it deleted by following the rules, then does that mean we can pick and choose which rules we can ignore? If so then why can't we just ignore the NPOV rule (which you think this article violates, not me) and just leave it the way it is? It was meant to be sarcastic. It doesn't matter anyway, because I know I can count on you to keep nominating this article for AfD until you get your way. Ospinad (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Only pedophiles call it "adult-child sex". No way anyone else calls it that! Why would they? I followed the links to
  Pro-pedophile activism and it says that pedophile organizations use "strategies to promote public acceptance of pedophilia or the legalization of adult-child sex". Don't let that happen here! --Linda (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. As I've
  WP:POVFORK of child sexual abuse
  , and no amount of improvement to the article will change that. Quite simply, 'adult-child sex' is just another name for child sexual abuse, but it is only used by fringe groups, principally pro-paedophile activists, and that still shows through in the article. The mainstream view is that there is no such thing as adult-child sex which is not inherently abusive (or, some argue, that there is no such thing as 'adult-child sex' at all), and that is what NPOV demands we reflect. Attempting to rewrite this article won't make it neutral; the very subject is inherently non-neutral, and it always will be. To quote from what I said before:

"To those who think this article is acceptable: would you support the existence of an article about rape entitled 'Nonconsensual sex'? Or one about murder entitled 'Unlawful ending of human life'? Those are equivalents to this article: they have what at first appear to be 'neutral', descriptive titles, but would in fact be POV forks, since the material they would contain is already covered under better titles at rape and murder. This article is no different, and as such it should be deleted and redirected to child sexual abuse."

There has been plenty of discussion since then, but that point still stands. Delete. Terraxos (talk) 06:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]