Talk:Female child molesters

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Murph 9000 (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Nobody is researching anything and meanwhile the article has effectively been deleted without consensus. I have restored an old evrsion and have checked against the alleged copyvios and appears clean. The investigation can continue on. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of the text has been rwewritten, which is what should have happened in the 1st place. two sections need rewriting and restoring, just to guarantee there are no copyvios in the current version, it has all been rewritten by me to avoid copyvios, somethign I ahve experience of, will restore the 2 sections when I have time. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , thank you for trying to do something about this, which is of course well overdue. However, I'm afraid what you've done doesn't resolve the problem: you write "this old evrsionis not form my investigation a copyvio", but I don't think your investigation was exhaustive enough. Did you look at the sources I provided with ? – because there was copyvio from both in the last version you edited here. I've reverted to the status quo ante.
 * The copyvio goes back to the first version, there's no "good" version to revert to (or I'd have done that). So I see these possibilities:
 * Someone – Richard? – rewrites the page, from scratch, without copying over any compromised text, at the rewrite subpage
 * We stub the page in the hope that someone will want to rewrite it later
 * We redirect it to Child sexual abuse, where it's already partially covered in the section on demographics.
 * Which would be best? Richard,, any thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I currently don't have the time to rewrite this article. Maybe Legitimus does. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I took an old version and re-edited it, the old version may have contained copyvios but having rewritten it, it certainly will not have done so when I finished as every sentence was written by me. I oppose any attempts to get rid of the article. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Is anyone contesting Richard's latest version still contains copyvios? --Neil N  talk to me 17:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not so, I'm afraid, . The foundational copyright violation from this book has not been addressed in any way, and nor – as far as I can see – has the copying from this source. I've asked for full protection of the page until this is sorted out. If you want to rewrite the page, please do so here; then, provided that is free of copyvio, it can be moved to replace the current version. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No,, I'm sure of it (or I'd not have asked for protection); he might still want to contest it, though? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not fully protecting the page as that would inhibit fixing the issues. I trust editors will not remove the notice again until issues have been resolved. I have two suggestions: 1) Restore a version free from copyvios 2) Take Richard's version and remove anything you feel violates copyright. It would be helpful to be pointed to the last version free of copyvios for revdel purposes. --Neil N  talk to me 18:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough, . There is no version free of copyvios – that's what we mean by "foundational". And I'm sorry if it seems uncooperative, but I'm not going to be pushed into checking the whole text and history of the article by the inappropriate behaviour of another editor – this is just one of many pages listed at WP:CP, where there is, as usual, a considerable backlog. Not that it matters, but I don't really see that protection of a page needs to inhibit fixing the issues: the page is protected, but the designated rewrite page is not, so anyone can work on it. It always needs an admin to move the rewrite into place, anyway.
 * , do you intend to work on a clean rewrite? If so, please do so on the appropriate page, and make sure you do not copy over any tainted text from the earlier version (because that would, once again, render your work unuseable). If you don't plan to rewrite it I'll probably redirect it to Child sexual abuse and ask for revdeletion of the entire history. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the more comprehensive explanation, . Very helpful on how to move forward. And I'm sorry about making you repeat yourself. I missed one of your posts above, --Neil N  talk to me 19:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm slightly late to this latest iteration of discussion. This is just my personal understanding of it, and I'll defer to the CP regulars.  If there are copyvios in there from the start (and I'm trusting Justlettersandnumbers on this, also having no reason to doubt it), the problem becomes attribution for the currently non-infringing content.  If the final determination of the copyvio investigation is that all previous revisions need to be deleted (the worst case scenario), the non-infringing text becomes unlicensed due to inability to comply with the attribution requirement of CC BY-SA.  It would need to be re-licensed by every Wikipedian who holds copyright in their legitimate contributions to the article (and those would need to be clearly separated from the copyvio content), or some other exceptional step taken to preserve public attribution.  I'll be happy to be corrected on that, as far as the normal WP position on it, but that's my opinion of the problem.   Murph 9000  (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was a bit slow here. I have confirmed copyvios existed right at the start. Hoping that someone writes a non-infringing version at the temp page so the process can move forward. --Neil N  talk to me 20:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

, I think your concern is unfounded, even though I fully agree that we have to preserve attribution. Revision deletion under criterion RD1 is our standard practice when copyvio has been removed, because otherwise the infringing material is still accessible from the article history. Attribution is maintained because the names of the editors are preserved in the history (as are the dates, times and sizes of their edits). I can probably dig up some discussion of this if it's important to you. I know that our current explanation of it falls a bit short. I think that may be because parts of it date back to when history deletion (deleting the page and then selectively restoring some revisions) was used; that doesn't maintain attribution, and is now obsolete. But I wasn't around back then, so I may be completely wrong (and not for the first time, either). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If the accepted consensus of the copyright regulars (and hopefully including WMF legal) is that deleted revs are sufficient for attribution, I won't argue with that. I always thought it was a requirement that the individual contributions needed to be on public view (i.e. each copyrightable component needed to be directly attributed to its copyright holder).  It's not hugely important to me, so don't go spending effort on that unless you want or need to.  As I said, I'll be happy to defer to the CP regulars on that issue.   Murph 9000  (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers, Murph9000, NeilN, RichardWeiss: I came upon this discussion in my patrol of Category:Requested RD1 redactions. I think this is a broader discussion we need to have at a bigger forum, maybe at WP:VPP. (The balance of this post may be more didactic than any of you need. I am writing it in this way because I am thinking out loud for that potential post to VPP or elsewhere, where people may be quite unfamiliar with copyright.) As far as I know, all of the copyright regulars, admins and non-admins alike, including myself, where we are not deleting under CSD G12, operate by hiding the page history through revision deletion or requesting the same using copyvio-revdel. We hide the content, but not the names of the editors or their edit summaries. I don't know about others, but I have always thought of it as a non-ideal compromise between two competing copyright harms, each valid, of: 1) not allowing illegal, and potentially legally actionable, copyright infringements to remain publicly accessible (which is what results if you do not hide all the edits in between the addition of the copyvio, and the edit prior to its removal); versus 2) the harm of compromising our copyright licensing scheme – which does result when we do that hiding and there are edits in between that contained sufficiently creative expression to be subject to copyright protection. ("The standard for creativity is extremely low".) The issue is that, following such revision deletion, the owners of the copyrighted content (which is not Wikipedia or Wikimedia but the editors who added the content, personally), are no longer transparently given credit to their additions. Credit to the authors is one of the major promises under Wikipedia's copyright licenses. Do we even care where the edit that was hidden no longer remains in the live article text and cannot be accessed? I think not, as it's effectively no different from an outright deletion. At the next level, where the edit does remain in the article text, or an accessible revision, is it suitable credit (under section 4c. of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported License) if the edit summary sufficiently states what the editor added, such that what specific content remaining in the article text, or in an unhidden revision, can be clearly tied to that editor? Maybe that's suitable credit, maybe not, but that is the rarity. So, even more to the point, is it suitable credit where a copyright-protectable edit that was hidden does remain in the live article text, or an accessible revision, if all we have is a list of authors' names in the edit history and maybe some indication of what types of edit were made through some of the edit summaries, but certainly not for all, and so there's no way to tie what content was added by which user in which edit? I think the answer is pretty clearly "no". I see two chief questions arising from this. Does the community agree that hiding the illegal content takes precedence over retaining transparent attribution to the authors? As I imply, that is my my position on a balancing test (and is the apparent position of all of the copyright regulars who do this, by their actions). Second, what, if anything, do we do about it? Unfortunately, I don't know of any alternative to the current practice, which as far as I am aware is not captured in any policy or guideline page. Even if the answer is nothing, I think we should have a mention of this issue and any consensus about it enshrined somewhere. Also, if this discussion is started at a larger forum, the WMF counsel should certainly be given a heads up. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)