Talk:Sexual grooming/Archive 1

Guidelines for potential groomers
Out of interest, does this article read to anyone else as a how-to for potential paedophiles? Less tips on how to make the family not suspect oneself would probably not detract from the factual part of the material.
 * Such information could also be used to help detect a potential child groomer or help educate law enforcement. There is a guideline however called undue weight that could be applied to help balance coverage of topics. - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Even so, I think the article could be a little more vague. Like the OP said, this is pretty much like a guide.70.119.108.129 (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Teachthemtoswim (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC) I think it should be more like a guide, with definitive steps often taken: The child groomers in the world know what to do; there are plenty of places for them to learn if they don't. What is missing is that parents don't know the steps to take, so they don't know what steps to look out for.

If you tell parents be careful who you let into your child's life, then what exactly must they be careful of? Clouds? Strange man in a grey overcoat up a tree with binoculars? If you tell them a child groomer is likely to come off as extremely pleasant to you and you spouse; seems to give your child gifts/small presents at random times (i.e. not a birthday or Christmas); spends a lot of time with your child; seeks alone time with your child in such a way that it seems as if he's doing you a favour (etc. etc.). If you tell parents these steps, and any others, then they can be properly equipped to notice such behaviour in other people. Don't tell a mother to be careful that her child doesn't drown; tell and show her what drowning looks like (reflex "patting" of water; head bobbing slightly above then slightly below the water level; inability to make a noise).

The bad guys already have a guide, it's the parents that don't know what steps happen. Prepare the parents so that they can know what to look for.

Perhaps some Gavin de Becker "Gift of Fear"/"Protecting the Gift" reference or information (such as his PINs - pre-incidint indicators for people who would do you harm). Teachthemtoswim (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Other Countries
While the recent addition to the article is very interesting, it deals with child pornography and is OT for Child Grooming. I'm removing it.--Lepeu1999 15:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

SO Act 2003
The Sexual Offences Act 2003, section 15[1] for the UK except Scotland (and the proposed Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill) make it an offence for an adult, after having met or communicated with a child on at least two earlier occasions, to meet, or travel to meet, the child with the intention of sexually abusing him or her on that occasion or later.

I'm curious: how do they prove intention? David.Monniaux 06:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It may have been expressed in the previous communication.--Patrick 14:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Updates and NPOV
Just to point out the obvious as others have, but this article is UK-centric and is baffling to many English speakers where grooming has an entirely different meaning. Grooming is an old English word referring to child-rearing. The word does not have a negative connotation to most English speakers and can be found with positive connotation throughout English literature. Unfortunately, many people in the UK don't realize that a word there means something completely different elsewhere (or in this case, even in their own literature). Please address this confusion with at least a disclaimer. The etymology of the word shows the pedophile connotation is fairly modern and regional. This is akin to editing wikipedia to define "fag" as a cigarette and "willy" as a penis, meanings most of the English speaking population would equally be baffled by. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.232.96 (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The article seemed severely biased to one side of the situation. The term "child grooming" is not descriptive of the act that has taken place later, nor the intentions of the "groomer". Therefore, I felt it proper to add in the counter balance to this to state reasonably that other forms of "grooming" are socially acceptable, and indeed beneficial. I will add examples if required, however no examples are given to say such is not acceptable either - this can be inferred, but so can the good situations where "grooming" occurs. I removed the last paragraph too, as that would be more appropriate under a heading such as "Child predators" or such, and was really outside the definition of "grooming". --LuxOfTKGL 08:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the above. Your rational appears to be nothing more then an attempt to be disingenuous with respect to the entire concept. Given your public profile, I question whether or not you have an agenda here.  'Child Grooming' in the context of this article refers to the manipulation of child in question for purposes to the benefit of the 'groomer' and to the detriment of the child. Your edits do not clarify the matter, they simply serve to muddy the waters. -- Someone sometime

I'm not sure who named the above and below posts 'Someone sometime', but they were left by me. --Lepeu1999 14:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 *  'Child Grooming' in the context of this article  - but this article has no context outside of its own definition. To say all child grooming is sexual is to create an imbalanced article that does not truly define what child grooming means. It would not be giving all sides of the story as it were - and therefore would be giving a point of view. The article as it stands currently describes in detail everything that you would probably want it to describe but also clarifies (as opposed to muddying) the term into what it actually means. Without this extra detail, it would be equivalent to the pedophilia article stating "all pedophiles are child molesters" - --LuxOfTKGL 17:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, I disagree, you're being a sophist. & while I would agree that not all child molesters are pedophiles (if you take a strict interpretation of the word as 'lovers of children - many molesters hate children),  under the laws of all states in the US, all pedophiles who act on their inclinations ARE child molesters.  There is no such thing as legal sexual contact with a child (defined as being younger then the age of consent). -- Someone sometime


 * And you are missing the point. Not all pedophiles have sex with children - therefore not all pedophiles are child molesters. Maybe you have not had the cultural experience to hear the word grooming in any positive contexts, but I assure you, it has definition validity outside the scope of child molestation, and giving any other view is to give an inaccurate rendering of the term. --LuxOfTKGL 07:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * And you miss MY point as I specifically referred to pedophiles who ACT on their inclination. I've heard the word grooming used in positive contexts and have used it myself, but - as is pointed out below me, this PARTICULAR context refers to grooming a child to gain his or her trust for sexual purposes and your inserting other contexts simply muddies the waters. -- Someone Sometime

Yes, I'm afraid that I, too, must take issue with this article. I feel that its tone, perspective, and very definitions are biased, or at very least misleading. Grooming is not synonymous with befriending, otherwise it would simply be called befriending. Grooming, as I understand it to be, is the act of coercing an individual (usually a child) into accepting certain forms of behaviour (usually sexual) as correct, to the end of enticing that individual into engaging in the aforementioned behaviour. Now, I do not deny that befriending comes into play, as deliberately-forged emotional bonds are a powerful tool of coercion, but it is merely a facet or tool of grooming, and not the directed focus. The directed focus is coercion to a specific end, and is thus as morally questionable as any other form of coercion, such as religious indoctrination or psychological conditioning. It is my suggestion that this article be rewritten with a more accurate and neutral perspective. Adam S. Clark 13:06 CST, 22 July 2005


 * Once again I have made some edits to this article. I have attempted to remain NPOV and present both sides, but the revert to the earlier version of this article removed any NPOV.  I begin with the 'common' usage of the word and then modify the disclaimer to be a seperate paragraph - making it easier to read and adding white space.  I have removed the 'befriending' definition as it is misleading and inaccurate - as was pointed out by at least one other user.  I also removed the reference to 'adult seduction' as I believe the reference confused the issue.  Likewise I have removed the reference to 'parents grooming their children to love them' as it is inaccurate and misleading.  The remainder of the article is more the sufficient to point out that while the common useage of the term is to describe 'sexual grooming' possibly leading to illicit activites, the act itself is neutral and the intent needs to be considered before passing judgement.


 * I hope this is a compromise that all parties can live with. Apparantly it wasn't as someone, without bothering to leave comments on the discussion page, added paragraphs of unrelated material. I am removing them.


 * 1) comments on children allegedly seducing adults has nothing to do with this topic
 * 2) references to the similarity to the adult act of seduction are out of place due to reasons cited in my prior entries
 * 3) commentary on whether or not sexual activity is harmful to children has nothing to do with the subject.
 * 4) Cite sources. "some experts" and "it has been noted" are examples of sloppy scholarship and mask opinion as fact.


 * I am also placing the POV tag back on this (someone removed it) because someone keeps making these changes w/o commenting in the discussion section. If you feel the need to modify the article, please explain why in the discussion notes. The major change in question was apparantly done by 24ip - who, interestingly enough, marked his or her edit as 'minor'.--Lepeu1999 20:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Clarity
The presentation of the article seems kind of awkward. Maybe it would be better to have the commonly accepted definition of "Child Grooming" under one heading, followed by other interpretations of the term under a seperate heading. This would make the article more concice and easier to read.

Pedophilia
In what way is this not an aspect of pedophilia? -Willmcw 02:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Grooming a child is befriending a child by building a strong, trusting bond, though the term is most often used negatively to refer to an act of lowering a perceivedly inhibitory attitude of a child regarding sexual behavior with an adult.
 * From what I gather, this article is about befriending a child and child sexual abuse (or attempted child sexual abuse). Neither of these are inherent aspects of pedophilia. By classing this in Category:Pedophilia, we are identifying this article as being about pedophilia -- and it is not, it's about child sexual abuse. 24ip | lolol 02:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It is not necessarily about sexually abusing children, but if it is then it is definitely an aspect of pedophilia. If there is a sexual attraction to children which is acted upon, even if no sex is involved, then it is pedophilic. We should not scrub all pedophilic activities from the pedophilia category. -Willmcw 05:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "an aspect of pedophilia"... This is not true. As the term is currently defined, it is true of those who would abuse children, not pedophiles. By claiming this, you are claiming that all pedophiles are child abusers. --Rookiee 18:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I can understand people tend to start being very closed-minded when anything smells like something really wrong, but think a little. As I understand this term, it is at the very least something every good parent would want to do with his child... The way you're making it sound with your defensive spirit is that every good parent is a pedophile and sexual criminal.

What really bothers me here is that everything is viewed so sexually. While it can be said that often this form of bonding abused for sexual abuse, it can't be the theme of the article if it, in original meaning, has nothing to do with sex whatsoever. Does grooming a child mean having sexual intercourse with a child? No it doesn't. Putting the article like you did, you might as well put an article about bubblegum a bit like this:

"Bubblegum is a synthetic compound that pedophiles often like to give to little children to earn their affection, so they can be more easily lured somewhere where they can be coersed to preforming sexual acts."

Do you see that on the Bubblegum defenition? No you don't and guess what this isn't site here isn't describing Child grooming either. Wikipedia has some rules regarding how personal feelings on things should be expressed and last time I checked it says don't take it out on the article and don't take it out on the authors.

What can I say, I'd really like to see the real meaning here.--DustWolf 19:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "Child grooming" does not refer to brushing a kid's hair. It means going out of your way to form a bond with a child in order to gain trust for a future sexual encounter. That's just the definition. If you want to start a section on hair brushing then then should be separate. -Willmcw 21:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Where did he say anything about brushing a kid's hair? 24ip | lolol 02:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * See below. -Willmcw 00:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "It means going out of your way to form a bond with a child in order to gain trust for a future sexual encounter." — Perhaps that is how it's perceived by some, but not all. The term is inherently biased. The bias lies within the interpretation of the action. If adult/minor sex was seen as positive, it would not be considered abusive. See? Take religion, for example. People teach kids at a VERY early age to be of a certain faith; something which consists of major moral, legal, and social implications. Is this considered "grooming" by society? It depends on the person. It's all arbitrary. Since some societies past and present do encourage more liberal sexual freedoms with children, those do not even consider uttering the phrase "child grooming".


 * My personal take? Any type of forced coercion is wrong (whether it be sexual in nature, religious, or otherwise). However, ultimately, since example is how humans develop socially (by copying behavior), then certain forms of modelling and molding are inevitable. If that's "grooming" then we're all guilty, whether you be pedophile or puritan. Ya think pederasty has nothing to do with religion? May I refer you to Ganymede. I'll be talking about this on my next show. --Rookiee 19:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Moral character
No, it is not. It is a felonious cultivation of children for sexual pruposes. Please show a supporting reference for the "character" point of view. -Willmcw 21:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Child grooming is the practice of instilling foundation of moral character within a child.


 * As seen on The Free Dictionary, the definition of grooming is NOT listed as a sexual predatory tool used by those evil, evil pedo people. It describes the general practice of raising a child. That is where the truth lies. --Rookiee 23:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * More references:
 * "The classrooms are spacious, well lit and decorated with attractive murals consistent with providing the correct ambience for proper child grooming."
 * (Same)
 * "Because he is the heir, Rui's father was always very strict with him as a child, grooming him for his future position."
 * "spending time with your child, grooming him, instilling morals, values etc are more important"
 * "Child Grooming Education Tuition Centre"
 * "If you are diplomatic he may be inspired to discuss his child grooming plans in advance."


 * Furthermore, I should also add, that the term as used these days to refer to the very felonious act you're speaking of arose from the general use of the word. To "groom" someone means to raise them up to be a certain way. While I agree that this term generally refers to children as objects to be "molded", it IS a very old term which is why the connotation which arose from it. Ever watch Marry Poppins? Winifred Banks asks her husband his opinion of Marry after the interview, whether or not she can "mold our young breed."; that's grooming. --Rookiee 23:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "Child grooming" is also a felony. We should probaby plsit the two topics into separate articles. The topics that you are referrig to might be better handled under a title like Child rearing. Meantime, please do not remove information about the criminal meaning of the term. -Willmcw 00:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Could you please tell me which jurisdiction you're in, and what country? Which felony is "child grooming" specifically? "Felonious" does not necessarily mean "breaking the law". It also means to simply be wicked or evil. Showing pornography to a minor is illegal, having sex with a minor under the age of consent is illegal, but there is no statute in the US that I'm aware of that says "grooming" is illegal. That's a UK term, to be sure of. And thank God, the UK doesn't reign over the US anymore. --Rookiee 15:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I just had a realization and a suggestion. Since Child grooming can either mean "rearing" or "abuse", then I move the entry on "child grooming" as it refers to the unscrupulous act of brainwashing a kid into sex be simply forwarded to the "child sex abuse" page as a sub-entry, and the other meaning for "rearing" forwarded to the appropriate page as well. The disambiguation page for "grooming" should be able to handle this well enough.


 * Why? Why do we need an article about the other aspect of child grooming? What would it say? The Child sexual abuse article rather long already, so I don't see an advantage to making it longer. -Willmcw 19:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh my God... it's long? Well, gee, I wonder why? Because you reverted my changes taking "Offender" (which is an identification term and logically should be given its own entry under category:Criminology) and giving it its own article. I was in the middle of making the changes when all my work was undone. Once "offenders" is out of there and placed into its own entry (defining a perpetrator of an illegal activity) it'll be nice and short. The category is wrong under "abuse". It's a term used for legal analysts and criminal psychologists to decribe a clinical pathology. The child sexual abuse article should point people to the article on (child) sex offenders. The new article should also talk about the consequences sex offenders face after their release, such as sex offender registries and limits of freedom, liberty and employment as well. Child sex offender deserves its own entry to detail all this.


 * As far as the "other" aspect of child grooming, I attest that the current definition being given for the word is the other aspect. The true term is "grooming". Within that article, it states: "For the predatory tactic used by pedophiles...". I contest that. I'm a pedophile, and I've never done that to anyone. That statement is biased and ignorant. It should read "For the predatory tactic used by child abusers" at the very least, then point to child sexual abuse and given a paragraph at the most. --Rookiee 02:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This article is not about you, and your personal experiences would qualify as original research. Regarding Grooming, that article ssmes fine as it is. Child grooming is not done by non-pedophiles, so the reference to this article is appropriate. -Willmcw 04:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "Child grooming is not done by non-pedophiles..."
 * Proof, please? It's a question of logic. Not every child abuser is a pedophile. Not every pedophile is a child abuser. Is every heterosexual a rapist? Is every homosexual into sodomy? Of course not. It's stereotyping. It's ignorant. You don't have to be sexually attracted to a child to abuse them. There are many more types of "grooming" than merely sexual. I've already proved this with modern sources currently online. The article is biased.


 * Another example: Someone who raises their children to become sexual prostitutes for crack money... is that person a pedophile? No, he/she is a crack addict. There are many examples of where grooming can be done by non-pedophiles. Positive form of grooming? No, but the person is not a pedophile, and neither are the people having sex with the kids (using the true sense of the word). There's no love involved; only lust. THAT is abuse. --Rookiee 15:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Not everyone who sexually abuses a child is a pedophile. But child grooming is a much more involved, premeditated effort than simply molesting a kid. It means actively cultivating a relationship for the ultimate purpose of sex. Who but a pedophile would do so? -Willmcw 00:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "But child grooming is a much more involved" — Aaaannnd you would know this, how? ;) The way you're making it sound, either you've done it, or you've had it done to you. Either way is original research. --Rookiee 15:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The article as it exists at this moment refers to both aspects of Child Grooming - that it is a neutral act & can be positive but is most often referenced in context of child sexual abuse. That seems like a very fair compromise. Removing any reference to the negative connotation of the phrase is wrong as the negative context is the most popular usage of this phrase. --Lepeu1999 14:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

AfD
This article is a bunch of fluff that either is or should just be covered elsewhere. I am contemplating nominating it for deletion. It'll likely survive, but it needs to seriously go through the grinder to get some focus. You can groom anyone for many different reasons, why not articles on Grooming someone for money, Grooming someone for a Job, Grooming old ladies to steal their SSI checks...etc., articles connected with every noun and every verb combination there is.
 * (I think you're right. Joey Q. McCartney 19:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC))

The "Sexual grooming in the UK Sexual Offences Act" doesn't seem relevant at all. Two contacts isn't what I'd call grooming. Is the term used in the document? If not, this section needs to go. --DanielCD 22:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Why not. This article is about the crime of child grooming, and so a citation of the law on the matter seems highly appropriate. As for "fluff", what is fluffy here? The article has several references. "Child grooming" is not a made-up term. -Will Beback 19:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The following statements from the article have no references:
 * "Child grooming is a somewhat euphemistic term for the development of a relationship with a child by an adult for the purpose of engaging in sexual activities with the child. The "groomer" is sometimes refered to as a "chickenhawk"."
 * "In addition to acts which by themselves are legal, sexual grooming may include acts such as showing pornography to the child, perhaps even child pornography. The pornography may be used to arouse the child, as an example of what the adult desires or to give the child the impression that the depicted acts are normal or common."
 * "One form of grooming is "Internet grooming" or "online grooming", that is, nurturing an Internet friendship, usually by means of online chat, which may later result in "real life" contact. In 2003 MSN Chat was restricted to better protect children from what they called "inappropriate communication".
 * "...A similar bill is pending in Scotland: the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill."
 * "Thus, a crime may be committed without a meeting actually taking place and without the child being involved in the meeting (for example, if a police officer has taken over the contact and pretends to be that child)."
 * That last sentence explains and interprets the statute. Such a sentence should be sourced. Joey Q. McCartney 23:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess there doesn't have to be a rush to include references, and I assume everything in the article is true, but I do question whether many of the statements I list above can currently be verified without original research. Joey Q. McCartney 04:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Attached is a reference re the use of pornography in child sexual grooming. The cite is from a UNESCO article and as such (I think) qualifies as scholarly enough for our purposes.  www.unesco.org/webworld/child_screen/conf_index_2.html --Lepeu1999 18:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't feel like investing mush time in this article, but a quick Google search brought up a large number of solid-looking references available on this topic. However some of the specific items may not be verifiable even so. I did add "chickenhawk" to the search and that brought up nothing. -Will Beback 19:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Pornography, abnormal or not?
Because of "The pornography may be used to arouse the child, as an example of what the adult desires or to give the child the impression that the depicted acts are normal or common" I added that the sex acts in pornography usually is abnormal, to clarify. Someone considered that POV and deleted. So how is it? Either "the pornography..." should be changed or the article ought to state that sex in pornography is abnormal. 81.216.236.207 22:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Read in context, the implication is that the acts are 'normal or common' for the child to engage in them. I for one had no problem understanding what was being said there.  I don't see it needs to be altered. --Lepeu1999 19:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * To be clear, did you mean that the current version doesn't need to be altered? Or that the version with edits by 81.216.236.207 doesn't need to be altered? Zebruh 21:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I refer to the phrasing as it exists at this time. --Lepeu1999 20:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree.Zebruh 22:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Again
Again, some fairly extensive changes to this article with no comment in the discussion page. I made some minor edits for clarity. --Lepeu1999 16:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with most of your edit. However, "child grooming" can (but does not always) mean grooming for a future activity or role. I'm not saying the article has to talk about any other kind of grooming. I'm just saying the statement as it was, was technically inaccurate. You asked for more explanation than was in my last edit summary, so there it is. I personally think changing the title is even more sensible; it could say something like "grooming a child for a future activity or role." Joey Q. McCartney 01:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And in case I'm not being clear, the "other" meaning I'm talking about is appearance/hygiene grooming. Again, I'm not saying that appearance/hygiene grooming needs to be discussed at all in this article. I'm just saying the sentence "child grooming means grooming for a future activity or role" is technically inaccurate. Joey Q. McCartney 01:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand what you were trying to do, but for some reason the phrase 'can mean' feels weak to me when used in that spot - no offense is intended. Trying something a little bit different. If you don't like, feel free to revert. --Lepeu1999 14:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Currently, the article defines child grooming as preparing a child for a future role, but the only examples given are sexual. It seems that intellectual stimulation, sports programs, etc would fit the definition in this article, yet are not discussed here.  The article either needs to be broadened to include preperation for all sorts of future roles, or it needs to be moved to a single purpose title, such as "grooming children for sexual roles". Johntex\talk 01:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * John, that was tried. If you look at the history, at one point the article was titled something like 'Child Grooming; Sexual' but people keep changing it out for what ever reason or agenda.  It appears that there may be some users - mostly anonymous users - that are determined to see that any reference to the sexual/abuse aspect of the term Child Grooming either gets buried or deleted entirely.  I make no accusations at all as to who.  The intent of the article - at least from what the historical revisions suggest - is to present an article on the act of grooming a child for sex.  I don't think McCartney's edit was intended to bury that, but to address that the term can have other meanings to prevent confusion --Lepeu1999 14:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Until Joey Q. McCartney's edits the article focused on the sexual aspect. I'm not sure what the point is of having an article on the other aspects, which all fit under education. It makes more sense to keep the article on one topic, in my opinion. -Will Beback 04:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

After leaving the comments above, I realized that many of the comments by others were correct. The focus of this article had been moved from its origional intent for whatever reason. Reviewing the history of this article, it is about sexual grooming. Without getting into discussions of morality or legality the focus of this article should remain as it was intended. I have rearrainged the text to support this. You will note I have tried to make the number of textual changes as few as possible. I have deleted some of the 'convince the child' stuff after 'showing pornography' as it removed clarity and brevety. The child is shown pornography in the context of this article to convince him or her of one thing - that sexual activity between an adult and child is normal and/or acceptable. Again - I am NOT looking for a moral, legal or ethical debate on this here in the talk page.

If someone feels there is a need for an article on the benign aspects of Child Grooming in context with 'normal' child rearing then by all means write it - but it doesn't belong here.--Lepeu1999 15:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

don't move. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 08:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Child grooming → Pedophilial grooming … Rationale: Child grooming doesn't reflect the true nature of this act. Children get groomed for all sorts of things: rites of passages (like bar mitzvahs), religious activities (confirmation), social orders (royalty) and social activities (Cotillion), just to name a few. Addition of the word pedophilial would imply the sexual nature of the grooming, as well as the fact that it is for a child. To my knowledge there is no standard term for this sexual practice, although I am positive child grooming isn't it. At the PeeJ website, they just say grooming. … Please share your opinion at Talk:Child grooming. --Esprit15d 18:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~


 * Support - people (including children) can be groomed for many things. If this article is to be limited to grooming of a sexual nature, then the title should be more focused to reflect the content of the article. Johntex\talk 19:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, since it's sexual. --DrBat 00:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Child Grooming is the common usage term. Do a google search on Pedophilial grooming and nothing comes up.  Do a search on Child Grooming and you get hundreds of on-topic hits.--Lepeu1999 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose: our title should be in English. Besides, the so-called sexual grooming of children isn't necessarily pedophilic - it's usually familial. (Or maybe just mythic?) JayW 19:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This user has said "Please remember that pedophilia (i.e. the sexual attraction to a child) is not the same as child molestation or exploition. Failing to recognize any difference between the two is belittling and harmful." --DrBat 00:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Although I'm flattered that you saw fit to point out my good reason, I'm not sure why you decided to do it here. You can always compliment me on my talk page ^_^ JayW 01:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Um yeah DrBat what is your point there, exactly??? Herostratus 03:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just that he seems to be supportive of pedophilia. --DrBat 18:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not that I'm 'supportive' of pedophilia per se, but that I'm opposed to prejudice, idiocy and hate. JayW 19:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, because believing that having sex with children is wrong means you're a prejudiced, hateful idiot. --DrBat 01:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, but equating fantasy and act definitely does! Pedophilia is a sexual orientation focused on children; child molestation is sex with a child. Demanding pedophiles to rape children isn't nice, for any party. JayW 01:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Curious, exactly what isn't in English in the proposed title? "Pedophilic" is still English. - Superwad 08:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose - as per Lepeu1999 - Superwad 00:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Lepeu1999 and JayW. Herostratus 03:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per support for pedophilia. Skinnyweed 19:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - never heard the word "pedophilial" before. Besides, I would spell it pædophilial with the æ (it's only in America that they use the e). And I am firmly committed to making Wikipedia an INTERNATIONAL place, with internationally neutral words wherever possible as per this policy. EuroSong talk 21:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Title
Perhaps a title such as grooming (child sexual abuse) would be more appropriate? Is the word "grooming" used in any other specifically sexual contexts, or only in relation to child abuse? 217.155.20.163 23:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the purpose of such a move? "Child grooming" is the term often used for this subject.. Variations are used, like "grooming children" but the meaning is the same. ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 01:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is really...
Weird. It just sounds off. 86.137.28.211 22:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That critique isn't helpful. If you have a more specific complaint we may be able to address it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I propose we merge it with child sexual abuse as its just a fork, and a badly linked one at that, this article makes clear theya re the same thing, SqueakBox 23:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Child grooming may lead to child sexual abuse, but it is a crime of its own. Child sexual abuse is quite long already, so I don't think merging would be advisable. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, for example the "Examples of child grooming section" which I note is mostly unsourced. Things like "Taking the child on outings, away from protective adults." sounds like something a pedophile would say (protective?). 86.137.28.211 11:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The sources at the end of the list. Parents and other concerned adults would normally seek to protect children from the attention of pedophiles. That doesn't seem odd. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's the source for that item:
 * Grooming may take many forms. It may occur through:
 * Enticing the child away from protective adults (e.g. taking the child on outings without other adults and children)
 * "Ending Offending Together"
 * So the "protective adults" part is a direct quote. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do you want to repeat someone else's rubbish prose? The article reads like it was written by a high schooler. 86.137.28.211 23:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the concept of Wikipedia isn't clear: we verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. We don't create new research on our own. I don't see why the source qualifies as "rubbish prose". There's no grammatical or logical error in the phrase "protective adults". Is that the only complaint? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually child sexual abuse is a num,ber of different crimes, one of which (in some places) is child grooming. The CSA article being too long is a poor argument, creating endless sub-articles alwways weakens wikipedia and this just seems like an unnnecessary one when grooming clearly is a form of CSA, SqueakBox 15:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We have several articles on topics that are forms of CSA or related to it: Roman Catholic sex abuse cases, Scouting sex abuse cases, Incest, Covert incest, Prostitution of children, Child pornography. While we could merge all of those into one huge article, I don't that would serve readers well. The debate between fewer, larger articles and more, smaller articles is a philosophical difference. I'm not even sure that Child sexual abuse would be the best target for a merge. Child grooming is an explicitly pedophilic activity, one that a child may not even be aware of or be harmed by. Trying to lure a child on the internet is not abuse in and of itself. It is a pedophile activity though. If we really want a merge I'd suggest that Pedophile might be a better target. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Child Grooming is a specific technique almost universially used in CSA, it is a large enough topic and consept that it deserves its own space on wikipedia, and should only be summerized and linked in CSA as one methods used by preditors. There is a lot more information that should eventually but put under this topic than there currently exists, so trying to fit it under CSA would eventually never work, and it would eventually become its own space again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhall0608 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding pedophile priests, many of them have in fact been accused of child grooming, something which could perhaps be noted in the article. ADM (talk) 07:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

YouTube
I support the YouTube channel known as YoungTubersUnited. I am NOT YouTube's galipoka, but I chose that name for myself here. Encyclopedia Dramatica labels supporters of YoungTubersUnited as pedophiles. I figure those kids are too smart to be groomed.

I like YoungTubersUnited because of the content of their videos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galipoka (talk • contribs) 02:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Galipoka 02:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the topic. This is not a forum. Please refrain from spamming the talk page in the future. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Disagree with the notion to merge this article
Child grooming is such a major part of child abuse that I feel that we should, instead of trying to merge this article with another one and then in a sense water down the subject of child grooming we should infact be working to make this exisitng article better 58.165.134.162 (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Intro, abuse vs contact
I think it is important to keep terms consistant in regards to words used to define the focus of this article topic. The introductory sentence says 'to prepare for sexual abuse but the overview then uses the phrase sexual contact. The words do have different meanings. Using them synonymously contains the inference that all contact is abuse, either or both in nature or in intention. This seems like a leap of association made which goes beyond neutrality. If someone wants to introduce that sort of leap, that is best left addressed in articles like child sexual abuse and left there, with consistant terminology referring to that. If it would not imply to a theoretical (if potentially nonexistant) form of non-abusive contact, it isn't right to use them synonymously. Tyciol (talk) 06:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Weird article
I would say that while pretending to be coldly objective, this article dodge 2 aspects of the question :
 * a pedophile may enjoy child grooming in the first place for itself not becauce he coldly put a plan into practice; Does someone flirt when he is 15, because he wants to get married later ?
 * the sexual abuse has a very different significance whether it is with someone the child has befriended with, or from someone he doesn't know or dislike. 87.237.58.6 (talk) 12:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Adult Grooming
Grooming isnt exclusively about children. Similar processes are also applied to adults in some contexts.--Penbat (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting point. "Dating", for example, is an attempt at the establishment of closeness, offering or sharing of gifts, meals etc, often with sexual intent. So how does one distinguish exploitative dating (which I presume could be called 'grooming') from a sincere attempt at closeness? The same distinction needs to be made in relationships with children. As someone above said: "Grooming is not synonymous with befriending, otherwise it would simply be called befriending."

It seems the only reliable differentiator of "grooming" versus "befriending" could only occur *retroactively* ie after it has been shown that the intent of the friendship appeared to have been sexually exploitative. Criminal behavior requires intent. This retroactivity poses serious legal and ethical problems which are not addressed in this article.

I clearly recall grooming laws being severely criticized at their inception as problematic or even unworkable for these kinds of reasons, especially by lawyers. Many of these criticisms now seem to have vanished from the top Google search results so I would appreciate a good reference here. At worst: a grooming prosecution in the absence of actual sexual abuse could be pillorying someone who was merely being genuinely affectionate with the child. The question has to be posed: is it now illegal to befriend a child who is not your offspring and display any kind of affection or intimacy? Certainly it is risky and so there are implications for healthy relationships between adults and children. Many commentators have complained that, in this climate, men are now avoiding any kinds of relationships with children as risky and that children lack role models, emotional connections with males and beneficial relationships as a result, especially when many have no father or absent fathers (eg http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703779704576073752925629440.html#articleTabs%3Dcomments ). For balance, these points require touching on in this article.

Grooming laws for internet communication in the UK have received much criticism as "thought crime" though there are counter arguments to this: http://magnezium.blogspot.com/2007/10/new-sexual-grooming-law.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.68.37.190 (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * well the article is here - Adult_grooming. there is no doubt about its validity but i have no refs at present. Another context is conmen priming victims to be ripped-off. --Penbat (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Child beauty pageant
Shouldn't the disambiguation hatnote also refer to Child beauty pageant? __meco (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Clarification
Does the definition of "child" refer to anyone under age of consent? NorthernThunder (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a serious article
This whole article should be removed, or completely rewritten. It might as well be an article on whichcraft which proceeds to describe the evil activity of witches.

That is not to say poisoning (as in the case of witchcraft) isn't a real possibility, or that exploitation/manipulation efforts (in the case of grooming) isn't a real possibility. Both can, and do, happen.

But this article describes the activities of some entity devoid of humanity, rather than giving a factual scientific presentation of studies, various kinds of relations, controversy surrounding the use of the term, etc..

Inter-age friendships, relationships, dating and sexual acts initiated through the internet is a complex and very diverse subject, which will have a deep impact on future generations who have grown up with the internet, and this article does not even begin to do reality justice. Instead it's a "book to recognize witchcraft".

If "child grooming" is to have its own page on wikipedia, it should be a page where first the term is consisely defined, then a mention of the term's spread and history is given, and then a more detailed presentation of the idea and term usage AS IS is given. Rather than "child grooming"'s universality as "what inter-age-communications is all about" be taken as a truth in its own right, and then the rest of the article be written as a lookout-manual for concerned parents. This is completely unencyclopedic.

129.240.68.124 (talk) 04:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * What is unencyclopedic here is your repeated WP:SOAPBOXING on this issue. If you are having problems with WP:NOTFREESPEECH, set up your own blog and write what you like.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I am a bit scared after reading this article
I know this is not a place to discuss about the topic but just to let you know, I am a bit scared after reading this article. Lets asssume I have a young daughter (three years old) and my behavior meets the criteria for grooming, would that land me in prison? I mean, lets say I try to establish a very special bond with my daughter as all of our relatives stay far away and me and my wife are mostly the only people she meets on a daily basis. Let's further assume that as a three year old she playfully indulges in behavior which an outsider might assume to have a sexual undertone, but I as a parent allow only as an indulgence for her innocence and joy of life. Would my refusal to be purtian or straight-faced about my relation with my daughter put me behind bars? Or worse get me labeled as a sexual predator? Is it possible that my daughter might grow one day and demand why I as an educated adult did not stop these behaviors? Should I call my lawyer? counseller? priest? AAAGGGHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.......... -Wikishagnik 06:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Grooming apparently refers to befriending children who are not your own. Totorotroll (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Victims
Having read several articles on the topic recently, I have added a small paragraph about Victims in the Online part of the article, with a reference to a scientific paper on the subject, including useful statistics for social workers or juvenile probation officers. As some people above, I think the article lacks at the very least a disambiguation to separate older uses of the expression "child grooming" (legitimate educational grooming) and the illegal and unethical one most commonly referred to nowadays: "sexual child grooming". I believe this could easily be done without changing the title of the article (useful as is for referencing), by simply opening with a similar disambiguation as the word "groom" already in the header. Alphast 11:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphast (talk • contribs)

Overview section
The writing quality in said section is terrible, as if it were an infomercial TV spot; the amount of sentences in the large paragraph and especially the ones that start with T make my head spin.

Additionally, in the same section, this bit of text here:

''These are just some of the methods a child groomer might use to gain a child's trust and affection to allow them to do what they want. Hugging and kissing or other physical contact, even when the child does not want it, can happen. To the groomer, this is a way to get close. Or rather could reflect their depraved intentions toward the child.''

Barring the poor grammar, I'm no wiki-er, but the wording of this doesn't seem to fit an encyclopedia. I could be wrong here.

Generally, the section should be rewritten or something. If someone that can actually write could make it read better and were more descript, it would probably help the article as it is a summary. AkaneAI (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

How is named exactly same activity with adult person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.187.51.32 (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

ORIGINAL RESEARCH - tags etc MERGE
This article was tagged 3 years ago for insufficient references. I've added some more inline requests for references, as well as identifying a couple that I found are now dead. In terms of describing its subject, the article consists largely of personal statements/summaries and therefore of Original Research. In addition, a substantial part of the article concerns what is being done about child grooming, rather than on what child grooming is and perhaps even more importantly what it is NOT. Currently the article describes child grooming as any activity that is carried out with a child that can be said with hindsight to have lead to child abuse. If no more can be said than that then I would propose the article be merged with child abuse as not only is the definition too vague and general to be anything other than unhelpful, but it also fuels the sort of hysterical response to the problem of abuse that results in the contamination of the natural family intimacy critical for child development. In my opinion what is required in the article is referenced information detailing in what way child grooming differs from child care. For example, showing pornography to minors may appear to be an activity that self-evidently would not be considered a part of normal parenting. However the definition of what is/is not pornography in this would be needed to avoid sex education becoming a possible source of criminal accusation. LookingGlass (talk) 08:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

NPOV Overview Section
The Overview section has some neutrality issues, especially with the following line, "Or rather could reflect their depraved intentions toward the child." Surely "depraved" fails to describe the matter at hand and is more of an attempt to prescribe a course of action against child grooming. The sentence also fails to be encyclopedic simply based on its fragmented nature and poor grammatic structure. I don't know how to change it or what to change it to, but I felt it should be brought to general attention.

-Nicklink483 (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The adjective "depraved" is peacocking (or reverse peacocking) and therefore innappropriate. I've deleted it.  However I have left the tag as there is a lot of peacocking in the section and I don't have time to clean it up at the moment. Basically the whole section need a complete rewrite.  LookingGlass (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced material
Do not restore unsourced and challenged material without a reliable source, thsi info could just be made up, this is why verifiability is so important. Two editors have now challenged this amterial and so if you want it in the article it nmeeds to be sourced♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your deletion and request that you clarify here the logic of your edits over the last period and especially these recent edits of yours:
 * I tagged two statements as requiring sources/better sources.
 * You provided one reference and deleted both my tags.
 * I replaced my tags, explaining that your reference was unsatisfactory.
 * You deleted your reference, my tags, and the text.
 * Your explanation: "..as of now I am not willing to tolerate this unsourced material in this article and strongly suggest you do not restore without a reliable source", is unacceptable.  Wiki protocol is that deletion may only be carried out under specific (and extreme) conditions (see:Deletion policy), these do NOT include that the text is unreferenced, NOR that the material is "unacceptable" in the opinion of another wiki editor.  Secondly it was you who provided the poor source (imo), The original inline citation was simply unspecific. (see: Identifying reliable sources).
 * Finally, IF I am that second editor you are referring to, I have not "challenged" the material. I am also unaware of the challenge you have made to it.  IMO the material in question is NPOV and verifiable however it would benefit from decent inline citations.  Please do NOT delete again (either my tags or the content).  LookingGlass (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My logic is that these unsourced statements should be removed. That is all. And if I challenge unsourced statements that in my mind are better not to include as they may not be true it then falls on you to reliably source or leave these statements out of the article. Not sure how you can claim this isnt wikipedia works. Of course the other alternative is a reliable source. I have not challenged your removal of the ref though it isnt in French as you claimed nor would it have mattered were it, French is easily verifiable and we do not reject foreign language sources cos you cant read them♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to stop re-adding unsourced material, which policy allows for the deletion of when not reliably sourced, or you could actually just reliably source the information which I clearly HAVE challenged regardless of whether you have to not (though it certainly looks like you did). My patience is running out with your refusal to either source or accept the info cant go in the article. I see I am not the only person to think this, trying to justify unsourced material that has been challenged is a bit like flogging a dead horse on any wikipedia article, let alone a sensitive article (due to content) like this. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This seems to have reached an impasse. We disagree over whether material can simply be deleted for no other reason that that it is currently unreferenced. This should be a simple matter to resolve. I have asked another editor for input in the hope that this might unpick the issue. LookingGlass (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If it is not referenced, it gets removed, have you not heard of WP:V? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Darkness Shines, there is no impasse here, we just follow the policies such as WP:V and WP:RS, the material ahs been challenged and therefore can only be re-added with a reliable reference. it really is that simple, please get a better understanding of how our policies work in this area, LookingGlass♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Some of the citations in this article need to be updated. Nkchicago (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Relation of pedophilia and child grooming
I removed a claim "Child grooming is a branch of paedophilia" from the introductory part. Now there is that child grooming is an aspect of paedophilia. I am not sure what is exactly mean by that, I think it's misleading. Pedophilia is a lasting sexual condition that causes a person with it to feel erotic attraction towards prepubescent children. However, the person with pedophilia doesn't have to groom children and I don't think child grooming is not specific to pedophiles - it is known that many of child sexual abuse offenders aren't pedophiles. Lunruj (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So how would you describe the relationship between the two? Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This and this are the edits in question. As someone with extensive knowledge on the topic of pedophilia and edits the Pedophilia article, calling it an aspect of pedophilia is not a bad thing; it is certainly something we address in the Pedophilia article, though not in those words. It would be better to change "aspect of pedophilia" to "often characteristic of pedophilia." Perhaps Legitimus, who also understands pedophilia a great deal and edits the Pedophilia article, has something to state on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That's probably a better way to put it. Dougweller (talk) 07:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a matter of phrasing it right. While it is true that many CSA offenders are not pedophiles, grooming behavior is much more characteristic of pedophilic offenders.  Should we word it that way?Legitimus (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Calling child grooming a branch of pedophilia doesn't make sense in the meaning of pedophilia as "Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger." You would have to take the legal meaning, but such use is typically not based on legal definitions. So I don't think we should use it this way here. Calling it an aspect of pedophilia makes is seems that it's what a big majority of pedophiles do. We don't even know very well how many of pedophiles molest children, so I don't think we can claim a majority of pedophiles groom children. So maybe we should say it's typical for sex offences against children or maybe specifically sex offences against children committed by pedophilic offenders? In any case I think it should be supported by citation. Lunruj (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The wording "often characteristic of pedophilia" is not stating "a majority of pedophiles groom children." Many WP:Reliable sources, whether or not some of them are using the term pedophilia loosely or not, cite child grooming as something that pedophiles do; not all pedophiles, but it is listed as a common action of people diagnosed with pedophilia. And keep in mind that pedophilia is also diagnosed by actions, not just the sexual attraction. My suggestion of "often characteristic of pedophilia" is similar to your suggestion of "[typical for] sex offences against children committed by pedophilic offenders." Whatever wording we use to relay this content, it should definitely be noted in this article (in the lead and expanded on lower in the article). Flyer22 (talk) 08:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Something unresolved
Hi all, I have been following this article for close to a year. I have read all that has been said above but I have a nagging doubt. Is this kind of grooming, where the culprit (for the lack of a better word) maintains a long term relationship with the victim, more of an European (and American) phenomenon? As per my understanding, in other countries pedophilia is mostly a crime of opportunity. Secondly, are their women pedophiles? and if so, do they engage in grooming? --Wikishagnik (talk) 07:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikishagnik, pedophilia (what goes on in the mind) is not the same thing as child sexual abuse (the action). One of the things that you can take from that is that a person can commit child sexual abuse, including child grooming, and not be a pedophile. As for female pedophiles, it is statistically very low. Child sexual abuse perpetrators are also far more commonly documented among men than among women. Psychologist/sexologist James Cantor can add on to that. For example, at the Paraphilia article, we (the both of us) pointed out (with WP:Reliable sources) that paraphilias are rarely documented in females (girls or women). Flyer22 (talk) 07:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK Flyer22, The answer above is either confusing, at best or completely wrong. Not sure which. Firstly the article pedophilia states ...and researchers assume available estimates underrepresent the true number of female pedophiles... so I guess there are respectable number of female pedophiles out there, But more importantly why are you confusing sexual abuse and child grooming? Why would someone commit both sexual abuse and child grooming if they were not a pedophile? I specifically asked the question about grooming being a European or American phenomenon because in other parts of the world simple authority / intimidation and / or blackmail is enough to get a child to participate. I wanted to know if grooming exists only in societies with advanced law enforcement, public awareness etc? --Wikishagnik (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikishagnik, nothing I stated above in this section is wrong; WP:Reliable sources, including the ones displayed in the aforementioned section at the Paraphilia talk page, show that. As for "researchers assum[ing] available estimates underrepresent the true number of female pedophiles," that is true, but the vast majority of researchers who study pedophilia are certain that if the estimates of male and female pedophiles were completely accurate, male pedophiles would still make up the significant majority of pedophiles. These topics are some of the topics that I have a lot of knowledgeable on, which is why I work on the Pedophilia and Child sexual abuse articles, and have these articles, including the Child grooming article, on my WP:Watchlist (well, for that reason and to, per the WP:Child protect policy, be on the lookout for pro-pedophile and/or pro-child sexual abuse editors). Again, psychologist/sexologist James Cantor will confirm the same thing on these matters if he cares to weigh in on it in this section. As for child grooming, it is an aspect of child sexual abuse; I am not confusing anything on that matter. Like the lead of the Child grooming article currently states, "Child grooming comprises actions deliberately undertaken with the aim of befriending and establishing an emotional connection with a child, to lower the child's inhibitions in order to sexually abuse the child." Child sexual abuse does not simply include sexually touching a child. And as for "Why would someone commit both sexual abuse and child grooming if they were not a pedophile?", read the Prevalence and child molestation section of the Pedophilia article and other literature on the topic. As for child grooming simply being a European or American phenomenon, no, it is not; the prostitution of children is often an aspect of child grooming, and that happens worldwide. The Child grooming article simply needs expansion on the non-European aspect of child grooming. Flyer22 (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to have hurt your feelings and that was not my intent. Yes, I have been proven wrong, not by what has been written above, frankly, I have not finished reading the whole article, but more by real life. Yesterday, someone I know personaly informed me of a suspected incident of impropper touching following what seems to be a long period of grooming involving petting, gifting of sweets and intimacy. As I am not from the US or Europe, I guess I have learnt the grooming can (and maybe does) happen in other parts of the world. I will stop editing any part of this article as this incident has placed me close to the subject and may hamper my objectivity (WP:NPOV). I wish all the best to future editors and if you see any future comments from me, feel free to delete them. --Wikishagnik (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You didn't hurt my feelings. And I don't think you need to excuse yourself from, or limit yourself from, this article. I certainly won't delete any of your comments, anywhere on Wikipedia, unless allowed by the WP:Talk guideline. Flyer22 (talk) 09:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is junk
It is seriously flabby with no academic underpinning. Grooming is done by psychological manipulation, reinforcement and operant conditioning - these are solid robust psychological concepts. Grooming applies to all sorts of abusive contexts so the abuser can entrap the abused, certainly not only for children. For example, it is explained better in the context of domestic violence here: Power_and_control_in_abusive_relationships.--Penbat (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. This article reads like a 'how-to' manual. I will edit accordingly.
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 03:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , I inserted your link, it was an excellent suggestion for improving this article. Do you have any more?
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 13:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your intervention. The other point worth making is that grooming is not necessarily just for children, it can be to establish trust in any abuser seeking to exploit, manipulate, abuse a vulnerable person. Arguably the article should be just called "grooming" as the processes are basically the same for children and non-children. I have tried to start an "adult grooming" article but cant find decent supporting cites User:Penbat/adult grooming --Penbat (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I reverted Bfpage's changes again, per what I stated in that edit summary. Then I reverted myself on two parts. And, Penbat, that you "cant find decent supporting cites" is because this topic is almost always discussed within the context of children/teenagers. So no name change is needed in the case of this article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * , I am having trouble following the reversion/editing history described in your edit summaries. Why were some of my edits reverted, then re-reverted? Which ones were kept reverted and why and which ones were re-reverted and why?  And what edit summary were you referring to when you describe my changes 'again'? Best Regards,
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 00:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I reverted you because the content you removed can be sourced/reworded; there is no need to remove all of that. I restored the two edits because one was an updated Template:Refimprove and the other was the aforementioned Penbat link.


 * On a side note: Don't WP:Ping me to articles that are clearly on my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * And as for "again," you already know that I reverted you before here and tweaked one of your edits here. I brought up this article when confronting you on your talk page about following me to articles. Besides that, it's easy to look in the edit history to see when I reverted you. Flyer22 (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * My apologies for pinging you, I don't know what is on your watchlist and my intent was to be courteous. I work on a lot of articles and don't always remember the comments of other editors in their edit summaries. As for my removal of unsourced content - I remove unsourced content all the time and don't understand why that is a problem. The 'potential' source of a statement is irrelevant or else all content could remain on wikipedia waiting to be sourced.  Is this situation different?  As for following you, you must be mistaken. Best Regards,
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 00:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding pinging me, I don't understand why you wouldn't think this is on my watchlist. As for following me, I was not mistaken; you know this. You know that is also why I started this WP:Med discussion the way that I did. If you don't want me linking to that WP:ANI matter, it would be best that you do not state "I am mistaken" with regard to any of that. I was not speaking of you currently following me, though it seems you still target articles you know that I will be editing...when you know that I would rather not work with you on anything. But as for removing unsourced content, see WP:Preserve; though commonly neglected, it is also policy (not simply a guideline). Flyer22 (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree pentbat, that this article has limited educational value and should be merged with the child sexual abuse article. As another users stated "Children get groomed for all sorts of things: rites of passages (like bar mitzvahs), religious activities (confirmation), social orders (royalty) and social activities (Cotillion), just to name a few" this article is poorly referenced and to be frank, pretty arbitrary and pointless. We do not need a whole article on the normalization of sexuallity to create an environment where predators can more easily prey on children. This can be covered in the main article on child sex abuse. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 02:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Boilingorangejuice, child grooming is a notable topic that deserves its own Wikipedia article. We won't be merging it with the Child sexual abuse article. And, as that Google search link in this paragraph shows, the term child grooming is usually discussed within the context that this Wikipedia article discusses it; you know that. As for the state of the article, WP:AfD is not cleanup and WP:Merging is not a substitute for fixing up this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Flyer22 that is just your opinion. The opinion of other editors will be taken into account to determine the future of this article. Right now it seems your position is in the minority. I vote that this article should be flagged for deletion. I would like to hear from other editors on this issue, I already know your stance flyer22. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Boilingorangejuice, that is not just my opinion; it's the way Wikipedia works. If you are confident that I am wrong, WP:Afd the article and see what happens. WP:Merge it and see what happens. Start a WP:RfC on merging it and see what happens. Ask for a WP:Third opinion and see what happens. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia uses a democratic process for issues like this. Your single vote has been duly noted. Please stop spamming this sub so that other individuals can make their voice heard on the matter. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 09:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Stating how Wikipedia works and does not work for cases like this is not spamming this subsection. Your comments are spamming this subsection. This article won't be deleted or merged (especially as far as your ulterior motives go for wanting it deleted or merged); accept it and move on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Issues with conflating the paraphilia pedophilia with criminal acts
Pedophilia is a legal mental parahilia and and is completely different than ILLEGAL child sex abuse, rape, sexual assault or grooming. Individuals that engage in these behaviors are sex offenders or child sexual abusers. To conflate these terms is a serious breach of wikipedia's NPOV policy. This is a known issue and has already been addressed in the main pedophilia article. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This was already discussed in the section above. There is no WP:NPOV violation by stating that child grooming is characteristic of pedophilia. It is more common for pedophiles to engage in child grooming than it is for non-pedophilic child molesters to do so. So neither this nor this edit suffices, especially the argument that child grooming "is characteristic of sex offenders." The "child sex offenders" wording is far more accurate than "sex offenders." And "pedophiles" is far more accurate than either. I will be changing "is characteristic of sex offenders" to "is characteristic of pedophiles." And do read the WP:NPOV policy; being neutral on Wikipedia does not mean what being neutral means in common discourse. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I changed the wording to "It is behavior that is more characteristic of paedophiles than child sexual abusers in general." I can source that, and I am looking over different sources now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Update: Having looked at a variety of sources on this topic since my previous post, to see how best to present this material, I can safely state that while it is true that some sources, including those discussing the Groth typology, indicate that it is more common for pedophiles to engage in child grooming than it is for non-pedophilic child molesters to do so (unless speaking of the child trafficking types who are simply part of the business and have no true sexual interest in children), and I have read as much over the years in the literature, I'm currently not seeing direct comparisons between the groups on Google Books or on Google Scholar. Instead, I'm seeing things like this 2005 Investigating Child Exploitation and Pornography: The Internet, the Law and Forensic Science source, from Academic Press, page 59, which states, "Preferential molesters prefer sexual activity with children and, according to Lanning (1992), exhibit three general patterns: seductive, introverted, and sadistic. These offenders tend to have more victims and are more likely to meet the criteria for a formal diagnosis of pedophilia. Seduction offenders seduce the child, groom the child, and take advantage of him or her emotionally and sexually." Therefore, I removed my comparison edit. Maybe Legitimus has access to some comparison information for this particular matter. Either way, there are plenty of scholarly sources supporting the fact that child grooming is characteristic of pedophiles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Citations needed badly
This article, specifically the overview, has severe citation issues. If anyone has some good references to use please source them in the overview. Also the tone is way too informal and non-scientific sounding. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 02:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The article is already tagged with Template:Refimprove. We obviously know that it needs more references. There is no need to overtag. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Power and control dynamic for child abuse.
Sorry ive not read this talk page for quite a while. I think it best to start a new thread. I did power and control in abusive relationships covering the power and control dynamic in various abusive contexts but can see nothing relevant to this in child abuse, child sexual abuse or child grooming. This seems like a major oversight. The first section power and control in abusive relationships gives the generic mechanism behind imposing abusive power and control and obviously applies to child grooming.--Penbat (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Penbat, as long as you use reliable scholarly sources to tie the matters to that, I don't see any problem with you adding material on it to these articles. I state "scholarly" because that's better than using news sources or other media sources for the material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Child abuse is at the periphery of my sphere of interest. I have had a cursory look through the research though but nothing I saw stood out of interest. I'm really just flagging this up for others. If it ever gets done I will copy a summary into power and control in abusive relationships. It isn't rocket science, for example, it is well known that children get groomed by being given sweets etc which is a type of positive reinforcement. I am also flagging this issue up in the child abuse, child sexual abuse talk pages.--Penbat (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Child grooming. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/law_order/Asian+rape+allegations/256893

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:Preserve is policy
Spacecowboy420, regarding this, this, this and this, WP:Preserve is policy; it is not simply a guideline. And it states, in part, "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." In other words, the content you are removing, which is easily verifiable, should remain in the article. The WP:Burden is not solely on me. WP:Burden even states, "Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."

While I will source this material, you should not be removing material like this without doing the research yourself: Looking for sources for the material and adding them yourself. In cases like these, only when you are certain that the material does not belong in the article...should you then remove it. Editors have been reprimanded or WP:Sanctioned for removing chunks of material from articles all because the content is unsourced; blanking like that can be WP:Disruptive because it is detrimental to the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed,WP:Preserve is a policy, not a guideline. And it clearly states  flag or remove them if you can't - which I'm pretty sure covers me removing them. Perhaps, it will encourage people to find sources when adding content, rather than adding unsourced crap, and relying on other editors to hunt down sources.


 * WP:VERIFY is also a policy, and it clearly states "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material"


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia is a very important part of the Five pillars, however "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view" is equally important, it states "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong."


 * You're of course correct, the burden of providing citations does state "Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." if you check the diffs from my initial revert, you would notice that the content I was removing, had a citation required tag on it, for the last four months. That suggested  step had already been taken and failed, an interim period of four months had already expired. Given those circumstances, I don't consider content removal a drastic, controversial or harsh step to take.


 * If editors really want that content, they should provide a source. I personally don't see that particular content adding anything major to the article, so given the lack of citations, the removal being reverted without any attempt to add citations, and the fact that it had been "citation required" tagged for four months, to make my removal justified.


 * I'd politely suggest, that instead of us throwing policy links at each other, if you like that content, that you state is easily verifiable, looking for a source yourself, might be a better way to spend your time, rather than debating the issue or expecting someone who doesn't see any point in keeping that content to look for it instead. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Spacecowboy420, nowhere does WP:Preserve encourage you to remove the content you removed. It clearly states that only if the content cannot be sourced or otherwise improved, should you then remove the content. That is not the case here. Like I stated, what you removed is easily verifiable, as witnessed by me easily sourcing the content moments ago. You clearly did not take the time to do what the WP:Preserve or WP:Burden policies encourage you to do. What you did is similar to a person who does not do a WP:Before job before nominating an article for deletion. Both actions are detrimental to Wikipedia. That you "personally don't see [the] particular content adding anything major to the article" is irrelevant, since whether the content is major to the article should be based on what the literature states. These are well-known characteristics of child grooming that you removed, and are therefore major aspects to the topic of child grooming. Also, I remind you that WP:OR does not mean "unsourced" (unless talking about the WP:Synthesis aspect of it); it means exactly what that policy states it means, which is the following: "The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. By 'exists', the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source."


 * In the future, it would be ideal if you adhere to the WP:Preserve and WP:Burden policies better than you did in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * If you wish to deal with this on a wiki-procedure level then - The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material - I didn't add it, or restore it. If you disagree with WP:BURDEN, then I suggest you go to the relevant talk page, and gain consensus for a change in that particular "widely accepted standard"


 * If you wish to deal with this using common sense, rather than cherry picking certain rules to support your argument and ignoring those that don't, then next time you find content that you consider to be important removed, after it has had a citation tag for four months, instead of quoting procedures and debating it on the article talk page, it would be ideal if you just found the citation yourself, rather than wasting time debating it.


 * Next time, please don't go looking for drama, when there are simple solutions. If you want content restored, surely the easiest way is for you to cite it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Spacecowboy420, I acted in accordance with both WP:Burden and WP:Preserve; both are policies, and one does not outweigh the other. Both make it explicitly clear that appropriate content that belongs in a Wikipedia article should be preserved. If anyone out of the two of us has cherry picked portions of those policies, it's you, by ignoring the very fact that the burden was on you to do your homework and preserve the appropriate content. I don't have to take this matter to the WP:Burden talk page; such matters have already been discussed there plenty (go ahead...check the archives there); it's why that policy is designed in some way to combat the type of blanking you engaged in. It's partly why I told you above: "Editors have been reprimanded or WP:Sanctioned for removing chunks of material from articles all because the content is unsourced; blanking like that can be WP:Disruptive because it is detrimental to the article." You acted wrongly, plain and simple. Like I stated, "In the future, it would be ideal if you adhere to the WP:Preserve and WP:Burden policies better than you did in this case." Pointing out how editors are supposed to be editing this site, and ensuring that no detrimental editing is going on, is not "looking for drama." It's acting appropriately and responsibly. Next time learn to take constructive criticism and use it to improve your editing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * If you think my edits were wrong and subject to sanction, please go ahead and make an ANI report about my conduct. Take care to explain exactly why The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material doesn't actually mean what it says, why when a citation needed tag has been in place as an interim step for four months, it is not appropriate to consider the interim step to have failed, and why, when you kept on saying how very easy it is to find a citation, you wasted time on talk page drama, rather than just citing the content. Neither common sense, nor wikipedia procedures support anything you claim, at best there are policies, that subject to your interpretation, contradict each other. While common sense makes it abundantly clear that the easiest way for you to remedy this situation, would have been for you to simply find the citation, that was your responsibility to find, and you claimed was easy to locate, ending this unnecessary drama without any further need for comment. I find the way that you dealt with this to be borderline disruptive, and would appreciate an end to this crap. The content is restored and cited and not subject to dispute, I see no need for any further comment for either party.  Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Spacecowboy420 (last time pinging you here to this section because I assume you will check back here if you want to read replies), we can keep debating this, but you are wrong, and I therefore stand by everything I stated above. Your assertion that "wikipedia procedures [do not] support anything [I] claim" is clearly false; WP:Preserve directly and fully supports everything I have stated to you on this matter. Cases similar to this have been discussed at the WP:Burden talk page (and elsewhere); I've participated in some of that. And those cases make it very clear that that what is disruptive and detrimental to our Wikipedia articles is editors removing important and easily verifiable content from them and citing the WP:Burden and/or WP:OR policy as justification for that. WhatamIdoing, a writer of a lot of our policies and guidelines, is one of the editors who thinks similarly to me on matters such as these. That you removed important and easily verifiable content in this case is not justifiable, and even less so since you removed it on a faulty interpretation of WP:OR and because you "personally [didn't] see [the] particular content adding anything major to the article." That is disruptive and detrimental, and pointing it out is very much needed (not drama-seeking), especially if it keeps you from doing something as reckless as that in the future. But judging by the way you've responded in this discussion, as though what you did is not a big deal and is harmless, you won't be learning from this mistake. And if that's the case, such behavior will eventually lead you to WP:ANI. You speak of common sense. Common sense means doing your homework in cases like these. Why you would think that all of that key-point material is WP:OR is beyond me, but common sense should have dictated you to do a quick search and see if it was truly WP:OR. In this case, it is not common sense in the least to remove a bunch of unsourced material simply because it's unsourced. When I remove unsourced material, the reasoning is usually about more than the content simply being unsourced...even if my edit summary states "unsourced." If I had not been here to restore the important information you removed, it would have been lost (unless an editor were to have dug it out of the edit history at some point), and you clearly aren't bothered by that in the least, which I view as a problem. And since you couldn't be bothered to source the material yourself, the least you could have done is preserve the text on the talk page, noting why you removed it and that you are storing it on the talk page in case someone is willing to source it. You even could have added a "citation needed" tag; yes, you surely could have updated the "citation needed" tags, as doing so is valid and common. A "citation needed" tag being there for months means nothing, as many significantly experienced Wikipedians know. Many articles go months or years with such a tag, as recently made clear at Wikipedia talk:Citation needed by Soundofmusicals. In my opinion, such tags often help nothing. They are commonly ignored. And in my opinion, this discussion was needed even if you take nothing away from it that will help you improve your editing in the future. Others will see this discussion and they will know exactly what I mean. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Flyer, from these diffs, it looks like you did "restore" the challenged material. PRESERVE isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card for BURDEN.  Purely from a practical perspective, it'd probably be faster for you to spam in a couple of refs than to argue about it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * WhatamIdoing, yeah, I restored it, and I explained why. I also explained why the content shouldn't have been removed in the first place. Edits like those hurt Wikipedia time and time again, and when an editor can validly speak up about it and try to prevent it from happening in the future, that editor should. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Whenever you restore unsourced content that has been WP:CHALLENGED, the BURDEN is on you, no matter what your reason is for restoring it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * WhatamIdoing (last time pinging you here to this section because I assume you will check back here if you want to read replies), and nowhere did I state that the burden was not on me. I stated that the burden was not solely on me; you may disagree with that, but I do not. I did my part by cleaning up Spacecowboy420's mess. He should have done his part by researching what he was removing. Per the WP:Preserve policy, editors should be sure that what they are removing does not belong in the article or cannot be improved. They should preserve appropriate content that absolutely belongs in the Wikipedia article. In the same way that PRESERVE isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card for BURDEN, BURDEN isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card for ignoring PRESERVE; this has been repeatedly displayed in WP:ANI discussions, where the community has been clear that citing WP:Burden is not enough for blanking chunks of material from an article. With as much as I've seen you direct people toward the WP:Preserve policy and note that they should not be removing material that clearly belongs in the article (well, clearly belongs there if the editor takes the time to see that it does before removing it), I know that you already know that. If we want editors to follow the highly ignored WP:Preserve policy, we should be taking the time to explain to them why it is important. Otherwise, that policy should be scrapped. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Flyer. You are ignoring common sense and human nature. You want uncited content restored, just be sensible, restore it and add some citations. The problem and discussion would have been solved far more easily. Follow it up with a message to my talk page telling me that you restored and cited the content, and I would have said thanks, and we could all have had a fucking lovely warm fuzzy feeling about the whole situation.

You are also cherry picking certain rules, with blindly ignoring others (I'm assuming while shielding your eyes and singing "I can't see that, I can't see BURDEN, I can't see that") - I removed and I will continue to remove statements that seem like original research or synthesis. If this means that someone who wants that content included/restored has to spend a little time finding a citation that supports that content, then all the better. Perhaps they will learn that if they want to include/restore content, it's polite and productive for them to find a citation, rather than being a lazy editor, and putting whatever content they want in an article, and relying on more motivated editors to locate a reliable source for them.

"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step"

Is the above in some way ambiguous about what can happen to content with a source? Someone had already slapped a citation tag on the content in question, so it's not as if I removed it without anyone being aware of the problem. You had edited the article both before and after the citation tag was placed on that content, but for some reason you decided to ignore the tag (on content you considered to be so damn important) and you didn't seem to be motivated in finding a citation, despite you later stating "easily sourcing the content moments ago" - but you expect me to do it?

Seriously, how clear can I make this? Don't expect other people to find sources for shit that you want in an article. That rather blunt statement is supported by common sense, consensus and wiki-procedures.Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Once again, common sense, including WP:Common sense, dictates that if you suspect that something is WP:OR, you should do the detective work and see if it's WP:OR. That's how you are supposed to edit Wikipedia articles. You are supposed to understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not incorrectly cite them, and you are then supposed to apply them accordingly. You failed all of that. You incorrectly cited WP:OR, and weren't even sure if the material was WP:OR. You didn't do what the WP:Preserve policy states, which is that you should indeed "find sources for shit that [others] want in an article" when that shit belongs in the article. You can come up with all the excuses and explanations that you want to for how poorly you acted in this case, but it will not change the fact that you acted poorly. Neither will accusations that I am cherry picking parts of our policies and/or am blind to something about them, despite the fact that I have been editing here since 2007...a stark contrast to your tenure. And it will not change the fact that if I see you ignoring the WP:Preserve policy in such a careless way in the future, I will do something about it. If you think that your continuing to "remove statements that seem like original research or synthesis" without doing your homework on whether the material actually is original research (synthesis is a part of the original research policy, by the way) is something that will be tolerated by the community, you should think again. I don't "expect other people to find sources for shit that [I] want in an article." I've been very clear about that in discussions at the WP:Burden talk page, especially this now archived discussion, where I was very clear that I do not like people expecting me to source material for them. In that discussion, I challenged S Marshall's change to the policy. He stated, in part, "There are good reasons why WP:BURDEN isn't an absoluteit's a powerful tool for dealing with unverifiable material, but it's also a useful tool for griefers and bad faith editors because they find it so much easier to challenge a sentence than to source it. One suspicious-minded WP:BURDEN fetishist can create an awful lot of work for subject-matter experts who've taken a lot of trouble to craft neutrally-worded phrases, and there has to be a fair balance between the BURDEN-type on the one hand and the good faith content creator on the other." These days, I better understand where he was coming from. But, while I still don't expect others to source material for me, and don't want to have to source material for others, I also don't expect good Wikipedians to incorrectly cite policies or guidelines and remove material on faulty application of those policies or guidelines, and/or based on silly reasoning such as "[I] personally don't see [the] particular content adding anything major to the article" when the content involves major aspects of the topic. I don't expect good Wikipedians to remove content without doing exactly what the WP:Preserve policy states. And when I see editing that is detrimental to Wikipedia, I am likely to do something about it. In this case, the first step was reverting your asinine removal. The second step was sourcing the material and letting you know what you did wrong. The third step was lecturing you. One can only hope that the fourth step never comes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * As I have previously stated: If you think the way I acted was incorrect, then please either accept it or file a report at ANI.
 * You've been here since 2007. Wow. That.is.fucking.awesome.
 * However, despite you having been here since 2007, you lack what is required to lecture me. I've had policies pointed out and explained by other editors in the past, and I really learned a lot from that information - however, for some strange reason your comments didn't have that effect. Maybe it was the arrogant tone of your comments. Maybe it was my subconscious realizing that all your comments consisted of, were the picking and choosing certain policies, without any actual substance? Maybe the boring comments just sent me to sleep.
 * Either way, I shall bow down to your obvious wiki-superiority (golf clap). Of course, I agree that "One can only hope that the fourth step never comes." because steps one, two and three bored me to tears. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Like I stated, in the future, if I see a pattern like this from you, I will indeed report you at WP:ANI, and, if you think a WP:BOOMERANG will result, you should think again. The rest of your "10:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)" comment is silly for reasons I already made clear in this discussion. And, yes, we both know you are not a WP:Newbie, despite your relatively new Spacecowboy420 account; we've already been over this on your talk page. And since you are no WP:Newbie, you shouldn't be editing like one. Your talk page history and other editing history shows very experienced editors informing you of what you did wrong in any number of edits and you getting defensive or being uncivil, which is clearly yet another problem with how you approach Wikipedia. You need to work on that in addition to how you approach editing material in our Wikipedia articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi all, and thanks to Flyer22 for pinging me. In this edit, the wording can be supported by this source and it should be replaced.  That source is highly reliable and appears on the first page of any search, and I'm amazed that you had this argument instead of finding it and adding it.  The point of both WP:PRESERVE and WP:BURDEN is to make editors find sources and evaluate them.  Hope this helps— S Marshall  T/C 18:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for weighing in, S Marshall. By "you," I take it you mean both me and Spacecowboy420? As noted, I did source the material, but it was important to note to Spacecowboy420 what he did wrong and that such editing should not happen in the future. It was also important to use sources other than the nspcc.org.uk source; for one, not all of what Spacecowboy420 challenged is supported by the nspcc.org.uk source. And it's better to use scholarly book sources for cases like these, especially if they are reviewing the literature. Either that, or review articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Flyer, just leave it alone. I disagree with your claim that I am responsible for adding a source. Your attitude here isn't helping, you really need to learn to accept that despite you stating "I have been editing here since 2007", your opinions here are still the opinions of one single editor, and no more valuable than mine, or an IP editor who is making their first edit. Take note, that even though you quoted WP:PRESERVE, while conveniently ignoring WP:BURDEN a tedious amount of times, neither of the other editors who have commented here, have said anything to support your claims. I know from personal experience that pride is a bitch, but sometimes you need to either accept that you are in the wrong, or at least accept that you're not going to persuade the other party to agree on your point. The current high and mighty attitude of your comments, isn't likely to make anyone agree with you, or feel a desire to reach a compromise. I see less condescending comments from admins who are indef blocking sock puppets. Perhaps if your comments were a little more respectful, then I might want to spend a little more time considering your points, but as it is, I see rude and arrogant comments and I am treating them accordingly. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Spacecowboy420, just leave it alone and act appropriately in the future when it comes to editing content. You were wrong, and are wrong to keep debating this as if it was at all appropriate to remove the content you removed without seeing if it belongs in the article, especially by calling the material WP:OR, and I've been very clear about why. You are also wrong to keep misrepresenting my statements, such as the false claim that I ignored what WP:Burden states when, actually, I've specifically pointed to what WP:Burden states. You stated that "neither of the other editors who have commented here, have said anything to support [my] claims." Neither of those editors have stated or implied that I am wrong. One wondered why I took the time to debate you, even though that editor has done the same thing with others when the matter involved reckless removal of unsourced material. And the other editor, who also seemed to wonder why I took the time to lecture you, and/or why you took the time to debate me, clearly stated the following: "The point of both WP:PRESERVE and WP:BURDEN is to make editors find sources and evaluate them." You did not look for any sources or evaluate any of the existing ones. And, of course, I already quoted this editor clearly being against the type of thing you did. When I see reckless editing, and a refusal to acknowledge that the editing was/is reckless, like you did in this case, I am going to be stern with the editor about what they did wrong. Experience matters, including on Wikipedia. Get some, and learn to accept criticism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * And if you don't want an editor stating "I have been editing here since 2007" or something similar, then don't act like you are more familiar with policy/understand a policy better than the editor who has been thoroughly familiar with that policy for years. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I can see my suggestions regarding you having a little more respect, were totally ignored. When will you understand that you're not in a position to be "stern" to me? The amount of time you have been editing means nothing. Quality of edits and the ability to deal with other editors, means everything. **hint** modify your attitude for better results. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * So first I state that you have an attitude problem. And then you state the same thing to me. Got it. The only thing we agree on in this case is the following: "Quality of edits and the ability to deal with other editors, means everything." Yep, exactly. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * And with that, I assume we are done. I can't imagine anything new being commented on by either of us, and this ceased being of benefit to the article a fucking long time ago. Let's have nice weekends, I certainly won't be going near wikipedia, until I am stuck behind a desk, with time to kill, next Monday.Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I was done with this discussion, but WhatamIdoing took it to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

___

CEOP
I've edited out a piped link that render CEOP as "Police". I think it's a close call and imagine it might be reverted. If so, this section can serve as the D in WP:BRD. In my view, CEOP is a hybrid organization. Organizationally, the National Police Agency hosts CEOP, but it includes people from the private sector and NGOs, and some of its funding comes from non-government sources. I think the link should simply say the Centre's name. Readers can click through for more info on CEOP. David in DC (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Child grooming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718185333/http://prvok.upol.cz/index.php/ke-staeni/doc_download/11-cyber-grooming-danger-of-cyberspace-english to http://prvok.upol.cz/index.php/ke-staeni/doc_download/11-cyber-grooming-danger-of-cyberspace-english

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Some sources need updating
Some of the citations in this article need to be updated. Nkchicago (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nkchicago, what sources and why? If what was true years ago is still true now, the sources don't necessarily need updating. If anything is outdated, then, yeah, the text and sources need to be updated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit Proposal
While Wikipedia itself has not flagged this article to have multiple issues, there are some problems I identified while working on it for the copy editing exercise. One is that the bulk of the material cited in this article is either not reliable (being original research or primary source such as an individual’s blog) or non-existent (she searched for the original source for hours but could not find it anywhere). Despite there being a whole range of reliable books and articles, none are mentioned nor referred to. The group member who copy edited this article did find some that are relatively reliable and added them to the citation list, but suspects that the article could be improved dramatically by thorough reviewing reliable sources and reflecting that information in the article. Another problem with this article is how to ensure its neutrality and balance of view. The talk page of this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Child_grooming) is rather long and often contentious. It appears that certain contributors have very strong opinions about the issue of child grooming for sexual exploitation. A further problem is the language and structure of the article. Even though I did make copy edits on the most glaringly awkward language, I felt that the article should undergo a complete rewriting process and a new structure reflecting new, reliable, and neutral information. Nkchicago (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, Nkchicago. Since your account is the one that copyedited the article, I'm wondering why you are speaking of yourself in the third person. From what I can tell, more than one editor is using the Nkchicago account. If that is the case, keep in mind that you should only be using one account. One account per student. Also review WP:Student editor to see some issues that established editors and student editors can have when trying to work together. Regarding the current state of the article, I agree that it needs a lot of work, but I'm skeptical of a total rewrite. A total rewrite is something I would prefer to see in a WP:Sandbox first for assessment. I'm not sure what is meant by "Despite there being a whole range of reliable books and articles, none are mentioned nor referred to." When it comes to reliable sources, you (or another using the account you are using) must have seen that the "Characteristics" section has a number of reliable book sources. I added all of those. When it comes to my edits to the article, I mainly edited that section by adding sources to it and slightly tweaking it. I haven't edited much of any other part of the article. I haven't edited most parts of the article at all. As for WP:NPOV, that is something else I am worried about since new Wikipedians often think that being neutral on Wikipedia means what being neutral means in common discourse. It does not. Do review the WP:NPOV policy carefully and thoroughly. I'm not sure if you mean being neutral to child groomers or what, but there certainly are no positives to list regarding child groomers. So I'm guessing that you mean something else. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this detailed comment! I did discuss editing this topic with another person, but we each have separate accounts, I am the only person using this account. The url for the UK Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre resource is not current anymore (see https://www.ceop.police.uk/Documents/ceopdocs/ceop_thematic_assessment_executive_summary.pdf). As for the content on the talk page, I was thinking more about the possibility that some users on the talk page might lean towards promoting child grooming for sexual exploitation. Nkchicago (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nkchicago, okay, thanks for explaining. I see that you changed third person instances. In the future, when changing your comment, consider striking through previous text; this is per WP:Talk and is done so that the other poster's comment is not left seeming inaccurate or taken out of context. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

A key distinction with the definition of child grooming needs to made in the article
With "child grooming", at least as it legal concept, a key qualifier as stated in the article is the intended end result must be the "objective of sexual abuse", then that means that it's not child grooming" where the recipient of the attempts to lower one's sexual inhibitions is over the age of consent since there would nor could be no "objective of sexual abuse" given the "objective" would not qualify as sex abuse under relevant laws applicable to the "groomee" and "groomer" (the objective is just legal sex in this case). So when the "victims" section talks about "Sexual grooming of children over the internet" and how it's most prevalent amongst the 13–17 age group, we need to be clear that in many countries due to an age of consent of 16, the relevant age age group is 13-15 not 13-17, and this surveys is representative of American Teenagers not teens in other countries with lower a national age of consent. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It sounds like you are referring to the line in the Victims section? I have investigated the source for this claim and it actually appears to be misquoted.  The 13-17 demographic was stated as victims of actual abuse (that was internet-initiated), not grooming per se.  The source for this stat (Munro 2011) is in turn attributed there to Wolak, Mitchell and Finkelhor, 2003.  On reviewing Wolak itself, it does not use the term "grooming" anywhere and also does not state the 13-17 demographic, casting some suspicion on the reliability of the Munro source.  As this point I think we need a better source and, when found, rework this section accordingly.


 * It be noted that the age of consent issue mentioned above is not necessarily US-centric, but rather is a misconception. The age of consent is 16 in the majority of the US, although when online solicitation occurs across state or national lines, it becomes a federal matter, which confuses the issue.Legitimus (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * A teenager reaching the age of consent does not mean that the teenager was not child groomed before reaching that age...any more than a young child having been child groomed before reaching the teenage years does. Plenty of teenagers have been a victim of child grooming before reaching the age of consent or age of majority. Child grooming does not always end with sexual activity. Some child groomers stop before that point (for whatever reason) or are caught. And as for grooming someone who already meets the age of consent, there is the solicitation aspect that Legimitus mentioned. For a similar example to such solicitation, Jared Fogle found himself in trouble, in part, for traveling to engage in illicit sexual conduct with a 17-year-old girl in New York City. That the age of consent is 17 in New York City did not matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)