User talk:Ddr321/sandbox

Sibling sexual abuse includes penetration, touching, and other behaviors with sexual connotation that not necessarily require touching. To differentiate sexual abuse from sexual curiosity or playing innocent games there needs to be coercion, secrecy and domination over one sibling. Prevalence rates are also difficult to calculate for several reasons: victims do not realize that they are suffering abuse until they reach maturity and have a better understanding of the role they played during the encounters, they are afraid of reporting, and there is no consensus on a definition of sibling sexual abuse. Ryan writes how, "Child protection has focused on adult-child [sexual] relationships, yet we know that more than 40% of all juvenile-perpetrated child sexual abuse is perpetrated in sibling relationships."

Caffaro & Conn-Caffaro (1998; 2005) define sibling sexual abuse as sexual behavior between siblings for which the victim is not developmentally prepared, which is not transitory, and which does not reflect age-appropriate curiosity. It may or may not involve physical touching, coercion, or force. Bank and Kahn found that most sibling incest fell into one of two categories: "nurturance-oriented incest" and "power-oriented incest". The former is characterized by expressions of affection and love, while the latter is characterized by force and domination.

Rudd and Herzberger report that brothers who committed incest were more likely to use force than fathers who commit incest (64% vs. 53%). Similarly, Cyr and colleagues found that about 70% of sibling incest involved sexual penetration, substantially higher than other forms of incest. Bass and colleagues write that "sibling incest occurs at a frequency that rivals and may even exceed other forms of incest," yet only 11% of studies into child sex abuse examined sibling perpetrators. Rayment and Owen report that "[in comparison of] the offending patterns of sibling offenders with other teenage sex offenders [...] Sibling abusers admitted to more sexual offences, had a longer offending history and a majority engaged in more intrusive sexual behaviour than other adolescent sex offenders. The sibling perpetrator has more access to the victim and exists within a structure of silence and guilt." A survey of eight hundred college students reported by David Finkelhor in Journal of Marriage and Family Counseling found that fifteen percent of females and ten percent of males had been sexually abused by a sibling.


 * Sexual abuse occurs within the realm of immediate family and trusted guardians. Sexual interactions such as inappropriate touching, voyeurism, and exhibitionism can lead the victim into depression and post traumatic stress disorder. Nightmares are common amongst children who have been sexually abused.

Ddr321 (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Ddr321

Article Selection Evaluation
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Everything is relevant, but portions are inaccurate or unsupported by viable sources. Nothing was distracting.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? Some information is incomplete or out of date. There is a lot of information on the queer representation of deities that could be added, as well as the way in which these 'queerer' roles affected how the people lived at the time/expressed their own types of queerness.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? While relatively neutral in terms of the facts presented, there is an emphasis on the heteronormative expressions of the deities.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Viewpoints on masculine and feminine roles are sometimes incorrect (binary) and the diversity in those roles is highly underrepresented.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Some do not work. The sources support the statements, but many are outdated.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? Most of the facts are associated with a reliable reference, but some are either missing (according to the Talk tab) or biased due to the time period in which they were written. More information has come out since the late 1900's and early 2000's that needs to be reflected here.

Now take a look at how others are talking about this article on the talk page. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Accuracy seems to be highly emphasized by the authors and contributors, but little to no emphasis on impact or diversification.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Rated FA Class. Projects: Egyptian Religion, Mythology, Religion

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? There is no emphasis on the queer aspects of how sex and gender within the context of religion/the deities affected everyday lives or the lives of religious figures of varying genders and sexual expressions.

The Egyptians regarded the division between male and female as fundamental to all beings, including deities. Some deities were androgynous, but usually in the context of creation myths, in which they represented the undifferentiated state that existed before the world was created.[85] Atum was primarily male but had a feminine aspect within himself,[86] who was sometimes seen as a goddess, known as Iusaaset or Nebethetepet.[87] Creation began when Atum produced a sexually differentiated pair of deities: Shu and his consort Tefnut.[85] Similarly, Neith was said to possess male traits and sometimes regarded as a creator goddess, but she was mainly seen as female.[86]

Sex and gender were closely tied to creation and thus rebirth.[88] Male gods were often connected with kingship and the active role in conceiving children. Female deities were often relegated to a supporting role, stimulating their male consorts' virility and nurturing their children, although goddesses were given a larger role in procreation late in Egyptian history.[89] Goddesses acted as mythological mothers and wives of kings and thus as prototypes of human queenship.[90] Hathor, who was the mother or consort of Horus and the most important goddess for much of Egyptian history,[91] exemplified this relationship between divinity and the king,[90] although over time she was overshadowed by Isis.[91]

Female deities also had a violent aspect that could be seen either positively, as with the goddesses Wadjet and Nekhbet who protected the king, or negatively.[92] The myth of the Eye of Ra contrasts feminine aggression with sexuality and nurturing, as the goddess rampages in the form of Sekhmet or another dangerous deity until the other gods appease her, at which point she becomes a benign goddess such as Hathor who, in some versions, then becomes the consort of a male god.[93][94]

Ddr321 (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Ddr321

Changes For Egyptian Deities
The Egyptians regarded the division between male and female as fundamental to all beings, including deities. Some deities were androgynous, but usually in the context of creation myths, in which they represented the undifferentiated state that existed before the world was created. Atum was primarily male but had a feminine aspect within himself, who was sometimes seen as a goddess, known as Iusaaset or Nebethetepet. Creation began when Atum produced a sexually differentiated pair of deities: Shu and his consort Tefnut. Similarly, Neith was said to possess male traits and sometimes regarded as a creator goddess, but she was mainly seen as female.

Sex and gender were closely tied to creation and thus rebirth. Male gods were often connected with kingship and the active role in conceiving children. Female deities were often relegated to a supporting role, stimulating their male consorts' virility and nurturing their children, although goddesses were given a larger role in procreation late in Egyptian history. Goddesses acted as mythological mothers and wives of kings and thus as prototypes of human queenship. Hathor, who was the mother or consort of Horus and the most important goddess for much of Egyptian history, exemplified this relationship between divinity and the king, although over time she was overshadowed by Isis. When the sun set in the west, Atum entered the mouth of the sky-goddess Nut, whose body was thought to contain the dust, or “netherworld.” This essentially planted the seed of conception and Atum reborn self within his own mother [Kathlyn M. Cooney, 2010, p. 227]. Men of ancient Egypt, whose bodies naturally contained such regenerative power, but such a physical notion of rebirth was obviously problematic for Egyptian women. The Egyptians were very much aware of these gender problems, and they developed a number of solutions to address them. Ddr321 (talk)Ddr321Ddr321 (talk)

Female deities also had a violent aspect that could be seen either positively, as with the goddesses Wadjet and Nekhbet who protected the king, or negatively. The myth of the Eye of Ra contrasts feminine aggression with sexuality and nurturing, as the goddess rampages in the form of Sekhmet or another dangerous deity until the other gods appease her, at which point she becomes a benign goddess such as Hathor who, in some versions, then becomes the consort of a male god. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddr321 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
Does this article have: I found the changes very easy to understand. Everything that they plan to change seems relevant in context of the wiki page and for our assignment. The structure was clear and concise. The only thing that was not made clear is where in the wiki article these change will be taking place. This bullet point seems more relevant for someone who is creating a new article. However, I do think that what Ddr321 plans to add will make the Egyptian Deities wiki more balanced. I found that Ddr321 did this really well. Everything reads very matter of fact and not at all biased. Upon reviewing their changes I only saw one source. The one source I found did seem reliable but I think the changes would be stronger if more sources were referenced.
 * A lead section that is easy to understand
 * A clear structure
 * Balanced coverage
 * Neutral content
 * Reliable sources.

Sroc073 (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Sroc073