Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep. This was a frustrating AfD to try to close, not only because of the name-calling and arguing about the difference between the perfect and past tenses. Given that "merge" and "delete" both had a number of proponents, it was striking that very little attention was paid to the question that would distinguish between them: whether the article contains useful, NPOV information that is not found elsewhere. Since those arguing for deletion did not make a claim that it does not, but object primarily to the title, I don't see how their arguments justify deleting the content. Can be renamed or merged at editorial discretion, but the consensus, insofar as there is any, is that the content is worth saving. Chick Bowen 03:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Adult-child sex

 * – Public reactions to child sexual abuse in the United States(View AfD) (View log)

POV fork, we already have an article that covers this topic perfectly and it is called child sexual abuse, there is nothing to this article not covered there and looks like POV pushing by those who believe there is such a thing as adult-child sex which is not child sexual abuse whereas the reality is we do not need 2 identical articles on the subject of child sexual abuse. if there is new and useful material here it can be merged into child sex abuse, SqueakBox 18:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the first few sentences notes this article is "commonly known as child sexual abuse". Please delete at your eariliest convenience.  -- Blind  Eagle  talk ~ contribs  18:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * People involved in this discussion might be interested to know that the editors of this page are currently involved in a content dispute (see here). I strongly suggestion deletion. However, given the dispute, deletion won't solve the larger problem -- I can see some merit in a protected redirect to "child sexual abuse", otherwise salting. - Che Nuevara 20:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've made significant edits to this article. For the record, I am not involved in editing pro-pedophile activism nor am I involved in the mediation case concerning that article.  Now, if you want to talk about POV forking, have a look at pro-pedophile activism and anti-pedophile activism.  Each one exists to some extent to defend a POV with regard to the other.  --Ssbohio 22:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It was originally a redirect and subject to this discussion, SqueakBox 21:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. A scholarly article which generalises from pederasty seems to be what's wanted and the title seems a good start, being NPOV in tone. Colonel Warden 22:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Because adult-child sex is "commonly known as child sexual abuse" does not deny its being uncommonly known another way. There is a clear difference between denying the existence of a view and agreeing that it exists but refuting it.  The term child sexual abuse is a term that inherently denies that there is any other perspective on the issue.  That even one person believes that adult-child sex isn't abuse is simply not a germane topic for that article.  The term adult-child sex allows for the existence of the minority view that not all adult-child sex is abusive.  pro-pedophile activists exist, but their views are completely out of place in an article on child sexual abuse.  To be sure, I agree that adult-child sex is child abuse, but to deny that there is an opposition populated by people like Jean-Paul Sartre and Michel Foucault is simply counterfactual.   The term adult-child sex, because it focuses on the objective act, allows both views to come in contact with one another, where child sexual abuse does not.   This article makes clear which is the majority view and which is the view of a small minority, but it would be dangerous to pretend that that minority doesn't exist.  Giving due weight to the views on a topic (rather than denying their existence) is what we're supposed to do. --Ssbohio 22:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You are arguing it is a POV fork, which is a deletionist argument, SqueakBox 23:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's hardly sporting to tell me what I'm arguing for, is it? Actually, I'm arguing that covering the topic only from the perspective of child sexual abuse denies that any other perspective exists.  That is, inherently, a prevention of any effort to incorporate any other view into the article, itself a denial of NPOV.  An NPOV on the topic of adult-child sex would include the existence of an alternative view, if for no other reason than to illuminate it so that the reader can compare it to the mainstream view (and, presumably, find the pro-pedophile argument wanting).  Prohibiting its mention by keeping it entirely under the heading of child sexual abuse doesn't give the reader the opportunity to even know that there is a minority perspective on the issue.  --Ssbohio 00:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is incorrect to suggest that Wikipedia denies there is an opposition to the abuse interpretation of adult-child relations. Notably there is Pro-pedophile activism.  Other articles include Age disparity in sexual relationships, age of consent reform, Ephebophilia, Nepiophilia, nymphet, lolita (term), genital play, and many more. Even within child sexual abuse the minority POV is expressed.  -Jmh123 03:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Creating segmented articles where we discuss this aspect or that aspect of the general topic doesn't serve the same informative purpose as having a single article (perhaps in summary style) that presents the information in an integrated manner. I've never suggested that Wikipedia denies there is an opposition to the abuse interpretation of adult-child relations.  What I've suggested is that if we keep "pro" arguments over in this article and "con" arguments over in that article, then we're doing a disservice to the reader.  Adult-child sex should be a part of all the articles you mention, but the entirety of the subject doesn't fit into any of those articles.  --Ssbohio 13:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge any verifiable sourced content to Child sexuality. Speciate 23:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep See the original rationale. A.Z. 23:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * People who say it's a POV fork didn't consider that, even if today suddenly a proof appeared and unanimity emerged that it's impossible to exist consensual adult-child sex, there still would have been many people who thought it to be possible, and their opinions are notable. I had posted the following post here before, then removed it because I didn't think it was important: "The topic is notable and no other article deals with it. Although my personal opinion is that adult-child sex should not automatically be labeled child sexual abuse, I have no intention of hiding the fact that the scientific consensus is different from that, and I certainly have no intention of hiding any arguments that psychologists use to back up their opinion. The arguments don't convince me anyway. I also have no intention of hiding that 81% of Canadians think that pedophilia is immoral, nor any other verifiable facts about the matter. This is not intended as a POV article. Nevertheless, I won't accept that the article say, as it used to say some versions ago, that "A very small number of pro-pedophile activists disagree." "Very small number" is not encyclopedic. It's also unverifiable that all people who disagree with the consensus are pro-pedophile activists." Since other people who voted saying "POV fork" didn't offer a rationale, I'll respond to SqueakBox's explanation ("POV pushing by those who believe there is such a thing as adult-child sex which is not child sexual abuse whereas the reality is we do not need 2 identical articles on the subject of child sexual abuse"): this article is not about child sexual abuse. There is no verifiable proof that it is impossible for children and adults to have consensual sex, and there's also no verifiable proof that it is possible. That's the only reason why this article doesn't say "consensual adult-child sex doesn't exist" nor "consensual adult-child sex exists". If there were such a proof, then this article would still have to exist, to show that there's an eccentric theory according to which something impossible is possible. In this case, the article about "adult-child sex" would say "it has been proved that there can be no such thing as consensual sex between children and adults". The article about child sexual abuse does not say that one of the views is correct, nor could it. Yes, there are studies showing the effects of child sexual abuse, but there are no studies showing the impossibility of sex without abuse. If we delete this article, then we will have to write somewhere, possibly on the article called child sexual abuse, that there are people who believe that all adult-child sex is child sexual abuse, and that there are people who believe otherwise (such as 10% of Canadians, Sartre, et al.). Wikipedia readers will ask "Really? So how many people have either view? What are their arguments to back up their claim? Which studies have happened about this?", and the article will have to discuss this matter anyway, only that it will have a wrong title. A.Z. 02:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Again, your abortion comparison is way off base. You said so yourself: "I didn't say it was an ongoing massive public debate like there is on abortion." Any "debate" about sexual contact involving an adult and a child is in no way comparable to debate on abortion. To suggest otherwise is inflammatory and misleading. There is constant public discussion of the morality and ramifications of abortion and abortion laws. Politicians talk about it on the stump every single day. Where is the debate on having sex with children? I'm not talking about 19-year-olds who get locked up for hooking up with 16-year-olds. That's a gray area. And it's amply covered in under AoC. Your assertion that "the fact is that there's no proof that there's no such possibility, and this article would need to exist with the same title anyway" is truly puzzling. Since when is lack of verifiability a satisfactory requirement for inclusion? It is, of course, not. - Che Nuevara 19:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge to Child sexuality per Speciate. Due weight is easier to maintain in a neutral context, which is the reason for discouraging POV forks. It is far too likely that the view of the small minority will come to carry undue weight in an article which is explicitly designed to carry that minority view (per Ssbohio).  -Jmh123 00:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your statement about what I argued doesn't accurately represent the point I was trying to make. Adult-child sex is a neutral description of the activity in question, such that the majority and (tiny) minority views can each be given due weight.  The article is not designed to carry the minority view, it's designed to be neutral. --Ssbohio 02:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that this isn't your expectation of the article; I believe the current version is already problematic in a variety of ways, thus I am skeptical that it can be NPOV as you argue. Its design, with "pro" and "con" sections, invites endless battles of the sort that are already characteristic of many pedophilia-related pages. -Jmh123 03:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It kind of gets philosophical here. Do we delete articles with difficult content problems, or keep and improve them?  It's a larger question than just this one article.  The pro-con structure is a problem, I'll agree;  In this case, I think it would be better to rewrite the article to organize it along other lines, like sectioning it by the issues raised (child sexual abuse, age of consent, etc.), perhaps even as a summary style article.  --Ssbohio 13:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per Speciate. Though I can understand the wish to have this topic at Child sexual abuse, the points raised by Ssbohio WRT the inability to present minority views at such a title are valid. Keeping it as a stand-alone article does present the danger of POV-forking, though. Grutness...wha?  00:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV fork of Child sexual abuse. Van Tucky  Talk 04:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV fork of Child sexual abuse. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Obvious POV fork. Jtrainor 08:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep . Article child says(uncited) it is human before puberty. But cambridge says "it is non-adult" and oxford says "human till full physical development"(both conensus). While Pedophilia referes 'only' to pre-pubertal child. This article title looks justified, also the phrase is used if not widely. Lara_bran 10:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note:I changed article child definition as said above. Full growth is 18-20 years of age. Lara_bran 10:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Article Ephebophilia, this is for adolescent children, and different from Pedophilia which is 'only' for prepubescent children. Lara_bran 10:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's important also to recognize that denotatively, ephebophilia and pedophilia focus on the attraction on the part of the adult for the adolescent or prepubescent child. The activity of adult-child sex isn't the focus of either topic.  That's why it makes sense to me that we have an article on the central topic that many articles touch tangentially, but none currently deal with as a whole.  --Ssbohio 13:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But this is not an article about the phenomenon of adults having sexual contact with children. It's an article about arguments against and for the legality or morality of adults having sexual contact with children. It's clearly POV. There is nothing "central" about this article. - Che Nuevara 17:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If we find information about the phenomenon of adults having sexual contact with children, we will add it to this article. Meanwhile, it focuses on the arguments against and for the possible morality of adults and children having sexual contact, like the article on abortion debate. (I really wish I didn't have to appeal to linking to this article, as I would prefer that people realized by other means that adult-child sex should not be deleted, regardless of whether Wikipedia currently happens to have an article on abortion debate or not.) A.Z. 03:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that the "abortion debate" is an actual debate, and a quite high-profile one with massive influence and consequences. To say that there is a debate about whether adults should be having sexual contact with children is to invoke an awfully liberal definition of the word "debate". The hugely overwhelming percentage of the population conforms to what this article calls the "widely accepted view", and to represent the "dissenting views" as anything other than a small fringe group is to give massively undue weight. The controversy here is marginal at best. Yes, I can see the potential merit in an article about the historical phenomenon. This, however, is not that article, and Wikipedia has a long and proud history of deleting the wrong article with the right title. - Che Nuevara 20:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was an ongoing massive public debate like there is on abortion. If you have a reference saying that the dissenting views are nothing but a small fringe group, then just add that to the article. But I don't think you have. If you have verifiable evidence that there's almost no controversy in the scientific community regarding whether all adult-child sex should be labeled child sexual abuse or not, then you can add that to the article. But I don't think you do. I think there is controversy in the scientific community, otherwise people wouldn't be writing so many papers on the subject. This is not just about two opposing views, by the way: I think the debate has many nuances. I have added information about someone who thinks that the argument that children are harmed by adult-child sex is not a good argument because there's not enough empirical evidence of that. This person nonetheless supports the view that adult-child sex is child sexual abuse, on the basis that children can't give informed consent.
 * Anyway, even if no one thought that there is the possibility of non-abusive adult-child sex, the fact is that there's no proof that there's no such possibility, and this article would need to exist with this same title anyway, although it would have only the arguments backing up the view that adult-child sex is child sexual abuse. In such a situation, if we deleted the article adult-child sex, it would be weird to add to the article called child sexual abuse that "All people think that all adult-child sex is child sexual abuse. This article has some of their arguments". This would be like saying on the article baby murder (in a world in which everyone agreed that abortion is baby murder), "All people think that all voluntary abortions are baby murders. This article has some of their arguments". A.Z. 05:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There are people who argue that non-abusive adult-child sex is impossible, and this is a notable opinion. Since it is verifiable that there is such an opinion, and it is unverfiable that this opinion is the correct one, the article about this opinion would need to make it clear that it is just an opinion, and one way of doing this would be creating an article on adult-child sex saying that trying to have adult-child sex is seen a form of abuse by those people. It's like creating an article called abortion, which says that the practice of abortion is considered to be murder by many people. My point when I said this was merely that, regardless of the number of people who believe a certain view is right, Wikipedia cannot say nor imply that this view is right unless this is verifiable. A.Z. 00:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont think it is onesided, there will be consensus from both sides, but consensus from child is considered immature. Another fact about laws is that it is extremely hard to control, unless rigorous laws, this kind of acts especially if parents wont guard. This would be a nice summary article about all those articles. I seriously dont understand how its POV, all i fear is OR, that we maybe floating some new phrase. Add to that deletion is not solution for POV. Lara_bran 03:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Obvious POV article. Chris Buckey 17:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment re POV There seems to be a significant pile-on of !votes due to perceived POV issues. First, what POV issues are in the article?  Simply saying POV doesn't actually identify any specific problem with the article.  Second, since the term adult-child sex is a neutral description of the act, wouldn't POV problems be resolved by editing the article rather than deleting it? --Ssbohio 15:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I can explain my problem with the current article with anything other than an analogy, so let me try that. Suppose I'm editing an article about an actor, and a review says something very flattering about that actor.  If a fan comes and inserts that quotation, normally that edit would be removed, although one might include a statement that the actor received a good review from X publication, with a link, but an award acknowledging the quality of the performance would be more appropriate content.  This situation is comparable to the use of a quotation in the article under debate here, the quotation about little girls "blooming" and "happy" under the ministrations of a pedophile.  It's an opinion, not fact, but it's rhetorically powerful.  Or see Welland's recent additions to Pro-pedophile activism, again quotations with an emotional punch from a controversial article in support of pedophilia.  The rhetorical power of this kind of writing is great, but Wikipedia isn't about who can come up with the most powerful and persuasive rhetoric, or who can argue with the most passion about a topic.  It should be about NPOV.  The fact is that most little girls do NOT bloom and thrive from sexual experiences with an adult male, and while Foucault and Sartre may be brilliant philosophers, they are not experts on the topic of adult-child sex.  The structure of this article under debate, with a pro and a con section, makes directly addressing that quotation quite difficult.  Con statements "belong" in the other section--and yet, such a quotation shouldn't go uncountered.  An impassioned quotation from some abused child or parent of such a child, or a grizzly account of a post-coital murder would be rhetorically effective as a response, but would no doubt be rejected as POV.
 * Which leads to your second question, wouldn't editing resolve the problem: It could be resolved this way if editing such an article weren't a constant battleground. Personally, I can't be involved in that level of conflict every day.  I tried, but it was too much. The fact is that there are some editors who have an in-depth knowledge of any and all material supporting what I'll call for simplicity's sake a pro-pedophile POV, and others with strong feelings supporting that POV.  There are also some individuals who edit these articles with highly effective rhetorical skills.  Editing will not solve the problem, if it is ineffective.
 * If it were a significant topic not covered elsewhere, we'd have to deal with these difficulties, but (and I simply disagree with the comment below) this topic is well-covered in other articles, as I have already stated above. -Jmh123 19:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There’s a lot of substance to what you’ve said, so let me take your main points individually:
 * 1) I see your point regarding the “blooming” and “happy” quote. I actually added that with the view that such an idea is so patently unrealistic as to fail all by itself, with no help needed; just as some quotes from Mein Kampf are so beyond the pale as to need no explanation.
 * 2) The pro-con structure is a problem. My intent was to create a quick way to label the pro-pedophile information in the article as such and label the dominant view as well.  I’d rather see separate sections (history, psychology, law, etc.) done in summary style to integrate the information scattered among several articles.
 * 3) I think we agree that the article could be edited into better shape, but we disagree about whether the will exists to do it. All I can say is: trust the Wiki.  There are tools and processes available to prevent edit warring and preserve NPOV.  AfD isn’t the way to resolve a content dispute.  Given the notable topic, let the article live for a few months, then delete it if it becomes the kind of screed that you and others rightly fear.  --Ssbohio 15:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks to me that everything except your last paragraph is basically saying that Wikipedia doesn't work. As for your last paragraph, Ssbohio has already responded to your concerns, but you didn't reply to him. Please, address his concerns. What I think Ssbohio means -and I agree- is that he acknowledges that Wikipedia already has articles on Rind et al, Harmful to Minors, child sexual abuse, French petitions against age of consent laws, pro-pedophile activism, anti-pedophile activism, child sexuality, human sexual behavior, informed consent, pedophilia, Sexual Morality and the Law, etc, but we need to have a summary, an article about a notable topic (i.e., views regarding adult-child sex) which is common to all those mentioned studies, people, events, etc. There's also information that wouldn't be appropriate for any of the existing articles, such as the Canadian poll results regarding adult-child sex. A.Z. 04:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My position is that we have almost all the information that would belong in this article on the Wikipedia already, but parceled out among several articles such that there is no article squarely dealing with the topic in a holistic manner. Saying this article isn't necessary would be like saying that same-sex marriage isn't necessary because it's covered at homosexuality & marriage.  Having the pieces isn't the same as having the puzzle put together. --Ssbohio 15:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment re Child sexuality Merging into child sexuality has the same problems as merging into child sexual abuse: Namely, it covers part (but not all) of the topic. My view is that adult-child sex has much more to do with the sexuality of the adult than the sexuality of the child, as well as potentially involving nonsexual issues common to child abuse.  The whole topic doesn't fit under child sexuality or any other existing article that I can find. --Ssbohio 15:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment on definition of child. I also changed the definition of child in the Child article, except back to meaning a boy or girl who has not reached puberty, which is now cited, and I stated that that is what it primarily means, as well as having added additional information on the term. It was too unclear and not the true definition of a child in the way that Lara_bran changed it to, considering that defining a child as a boy or girl that has not reached full growth can apply to 17 to 21-year-olds; though they are not children, many are still growing at those ages. Flyer22 18:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This definition is of importance here, because if it includes adolescents then it will be 17-21years, but puberty is 10-14years(not sure, our article does not give clue). You kept oxford, in citation which is contradiction. This should be fixed, i think oxford def is correct. Lara_bran 04:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is another way of looking at child definition, that is wrt. child labour laws, which is normally 14 years of age. I dont think "child" has nothing to do with puberty, its all about physical growth. Lara_bran 06:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Puberty is normally about physical growth. But as for Child, a child is not an adolescent in the true sense of what a child is, and certainly is not a 17 to 21-year-old, which is why the other definition was quite unclear, considering that human beings can keep growing until they are age 21. A 21-year-old is not a child. I don't feel that the Oxford definition contradicts anything that isn't already contradicted, since most people state an adult as someone of full growth, and yet an 18 to 21-year-old may still be growing, while they are adults. What a child is in its true definition has to do with puberty, as well as psychology. Every definition I have found in my dictionaries at home mention pre-pubescent, as well as the two citations over Oxford's in the Child article. If a child was defined as "full growth", then people would be calling 20-year-olds children, considering that many 20-year-olds are still growing, and that is quite off to call a 20-year-old a child. I will remove the Oxford citation, but I don't feel that it put the article in any kind of less condition by having remained. Flyer22 06:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If child = boy + girl, again it leaves out puberty thing. Adolescent and prepubescent etc are biological terms and hardly used in common usage. As for physical growth it lasts early for a girl than a boy. Would like a third opinion here. Lara_bran 08:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If Child = boy + girl, it does not leave out the puberty thing, especially when it mentions the puberty thing. Sure, a woman is often times called a girl, but that 20-year-old woman is not a child. The puberty thing is all about what takes a child from childhood into entering adulthood, of course. I disagree that adolescent and pre-pubescent are not common usage terms, and even if they aren't, that has no bearing on what a child truly is. I don't mean to sound egotistical, but I have a great deal of knowledge in the scientific/psychological/sexual field. I am definitely not all about screenwriting and soap operas. Yes, a 10-year-old who goes into puberty is still a child &mdash; psychologically and chronologically, but not biologically. I consider a 10-year-old a child for many reasons, whether they have hit puberty or not. But puberty is a factor in what is a true child (biological sense), an adolescent, and an adult, even though an adult (an 18-year-old) may still be going through puberty. Though an adult can be adolescent, I surely don't believe that that same 20-year-old adult can be considered a child (unless due to some mental problems, and I say "mental problems" as a serious psychological issue, of course). A 20-year-old is not a child, and is not called a child. It makes no sense to have an article on the definition of Child state "full growth", as if adolescents and 21-year-old adults should either be mentioned in that article or considered children as well, especially when the articles adolesence and adulthood point out the differences. If I'm going to consider a 17 to 21-year-old a child, it would be because they are their parents children, not because they are truly children. I have a library at home, with several books of science, biological, and sexual-related topics, definitions (that I already know most of)...and all define a child as pre-pubescent, but also address the fact that the mind plays a big part in what a child is. A 12-year-old who has hit puberty is (usually) still a child, based on the fact of his or her mental growth, which is (usually) far different than that of a 16 or 17-year-old, as 16 to 17-year-olds think more like adults than actual children do, needless to say. So with this, we have a 12-year-old with the biology of a woman, but a mind that can be described as a child's mind. The psychological, chronological, and biological age of a child is noted on in the Child article. And I can always expand that article to further elaborate on these things. But the main thing that needs to be known in the lead of that article is...no, a child is not a person who has not reached full growth, not unless we consider 20-year-olds as children as well. Flyer22 09:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Child is a term that means multiple things: minor, prepubescent, even an adult son or daughter, depending on context. Each definition is right in its context. --Ssbohio 15:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And the article on Child addresses how it "means" mutiple things, though used colloquially for the others. Even my above statements address this, but the true definition of a child is not an adult. The article should first address what a child really is, then address such things as the fact that a person is their parents' child, no matter their age, which it does. Flyer22 16:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hold your nose and Keep because, face it, logically Child sexual abuse would be the POV fork here. "Adult-child sex" is a neutral title; it's not like the article is called Man-boy love. Not all notable POV's (maybe not even a majority?) agree that sex between minors and adults is inherently sexual abuse in all circumstances. Merging this information to Child sexual abuse would be inherently POV. &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 00:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's essentially my point, put more succinctly than I ever could have. Kudos. --Ssbohio 15:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't agree with that. While I can reason that most people don't see a 17-year-old (a minor in some states and countries) with an older legal adult sexually as inherently sexual abuse, I certainly don't believe that anywhere close to the majority believe that "sex between" minors and adults isn't inherently abusive...when that minor is an actual child, such as a 7-year-old. Flyer22 02:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That it’s inherently abusive is, to me & most others, a given. A small, vocal minority dissent from that view.  The existence of this article doesn’t depend on the minority having a valid point, but on the fact that that minority’s words and actions are notable enough to be covered in terms of a distinct subject, adult-child sex, rather than the fragments .  We can watch ‘’To Catch a Predator’’, we can read any number of online & offline sources that detail what the pro-pedophile activists believe and how they operate.  They’ve even been lampooned on Saturday Night Live and South Park.  Like the Flat Earthers, the speciousness of the claim doesn’t diminish its notability.  And for what it’s worth, the age of consent is 21 in some places.  --Ssbohio 15:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I know that the Age Of Consent is 21 in some places, rare places. And I find it absolutely ridiculous that Age Of Consent would be that high. Anyway, my comment concerning that nowhere close to the majority view "sex between" minors and adults as not inherently abusive was more so a reply to what was stated about that. Flyer22 16:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The term adult-child sex was recommended by American scientists who found that a half of adult-child sexual relations were not abusive but consensual and even experienced as beneficial (gay singer Mark Medlock who seduced a 32-year-old in the natatorium when he was 8 is a prominent example) and that it is important to differentiate.  A modern encyclopedia should follow this differentiation.  The supporters of a deletion are lacking insight into this.  Merging into child sexual abuse is not an option as the word abuse is value-laden.  Merging into child sexuality is not an option since child sexuality is mainly directed towards oneself and other children and adults play a lesser role.  Merging into pedophilia is not an option since pedophilia only describes the sexual orientation and not the sexual act.  WP:NPOV problems should be fixed in the article and not worsened through unjustified deletion.  Roman Czyborra 09:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Some facts: 1) The study you reference was not recommended by American scientists as a group, but written by three American scientists and the subject of a great deal of professional dissent. 2) The story of Mark Medlock's "seduction" of an adult at age 8 has garnered no Ghits, so saying it's prominent appears to be a stretch.  3) Every argument about the supposed appropriateness of adult-child sex is irrelevent to the question of whather to keep this article.  We're not here to debate the morality of the activity, but only to debate whether to write an article about it. --Ssbohio 15:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, if not in this form. This article title seems to me to be the most reasonably NPOV target that we are likely to produce for a wide discussion of the material.  This could incorporate and relate to the myriad other, similar pages listed variously above.  There is a lot of historical and cross-cultural material to present.  While the article should make clear that the vastly predominate modern view equates adult-child sex in any form with child sexual abuse, that has not been universally the case.  Pederasty includes some historical perspective regarding male homosexual activity; other forms of this behavior probably have mention in anthropology literature.  Precisely how much of what material is discussed on this page versus the other topics ... I cannot determine.  However, if this is not the approach used for this article, then disregard my keep comment; its current form is little more than a fork of better content elsewhere.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 17:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete An adult having sex with a child is recognized as a crime in almost every jurisdiction in the world (or should be). How can committing a crime against someone be considered anything other than abuse? Obvious POV fork. Ronnotel 21:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment In my country, hardly a medieval society, the age of consent for most purposes is 14. A recent move to change it by the Conservative government was opposed by most mainstream child-protection groups, on the grounds that such sexual relationships are generally harmful, but making them illegal does not serve to prevent them, and actually makes the problems associated with them worse. &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 21:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment sounds like adult-teenage sex or even more so teenage-teenage sex but Ronno is rightt hat no jurisdiction allow sex between adults and pre-pubescent children, and Canada is clearly no exception, SqueakBox 21:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Blind (first post). The article itself says it's just another term for the same thing. I didn't read all the above, but I don't believe anyone thinks the article is POV. The issue isn't how it's written, the issue is: why is there a content fork? WP:POV or WP:POINT are the most likely answers. If the extremely common and excepted labeling of "adult-child sex" as child sexual abuse is being protested here, Wikipedia is not the place. This type of political correctness is not NPOV, as it goes against commonly excepted views. These views may be wrong, but we are not to judge. We merely reflect the world, not try to change it, even if it's for the better, because whose to say what "better" is. Rocket000 22:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is certainly not the place to say that the "extremely commmon labeling" is correct: this would be a judgement as well. You can add all the sources you know with the opinions of people who think this is an "extremely common labeling", or even polls showing that it is (such as the Canadian poll that is already mentioned), but this article is the appropriate place to do it. To which other article would you be able to add the notable results from that poll? They are not about pedophilia (the sexual attraction), nor about child sexual abuse (unless 10% of Canadians don't think that child sexual abuse is immoral): they are about adult-child sex. The opinions that adult-child sex is inherently abusive are also opinions about adult-child sex. A.Z. 04:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * delete - POV is not a reason to delete. Being a fork of another article is.  --Rocksanddirt 22:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Which article? A.Z. 04:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge into Child Sexuality per Speciate. Child Sexual Abuse is a recognized term, and we certainly need an article on that.  Adult-Child Sex, in colloquial usage, refers to sex between legal adults and legal minors, which can be non-abusive, and information about that would be tainted by association if it were inserted into an article on Child Sexual Abuse.  The description of non-harmful sex in the abuse article will look to some like pedophilia advocacy.  The amount of verifiable sourced information in the Adult-Child Sex article is small, and it can easily be made a section of Child Sexuality. Enrico Dirac 05:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article isn't focusing that much on sex between legal adults and legal minors, but is rather focusing on the topic of "sex between" adults and children who are not usually of legal age. I do, however, see your point about this article being merged into the Child sexuality article instead. Flyer22 05:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge into Child Sexuality- Change due to def prob. phase def is OR, they say sex = all sexual relationships. Lara_bran 18:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The name has been changed now to "sexual relationships between adults and children". The new name is not a neologism and it makes it clear that the article is not about penetrative sex. A.Z. 18:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No it has not been changed it was changed and I reverted back as non-consensual. Please stop acting as if you own the article without seeking consensus, SqueakBox 18:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It obviously has been changed. The edit history records these things, SqueakBox. You changed it back, though. Please stop accusing me of doing things I'm not doing. I think you are trying to manipulate people to think that I am a disruptive person. I don't own any article. I personally don't think the number of accounts that support something matters at all. A.Z. 18:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean it had been changed, has would imply the change is current (I appreciate you are still only learning English), SqueakBox 18:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think it would necessarily imply that the change is current if you said "it has been changed, but I changed it again". A.Z. 18:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your comment definitely implied the change was current but as I said I am happy to accept I misunderstood your English (I know very well what it is like to be the foreigner, language wise), SqueakBox 19:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that my comment implied that the change was current. What I'm saying is that your comment implied that the change never happened. A.Z. 19:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have modified my comment, SqueakBox 19:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is very disturbing to have this apprently civil conversation on this page while on the other talk page you are threatening to block me. A.Z. 19:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * To report you actually, I have no blocking powers as I am not an admin. For me it is important to remain civil and the fact that we can do so here is hopeful to me, SqueakBox 19:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So you know it's a threat. A.Z. 19:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a warning and should be taken as such, SqueakBox 19:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If I could make a suggestion: Since this dialogue doesn't seem to directly bear on the deletion question, perhaps it would be better to move it elsewhere, such as to SqueakBox's or A.Z.'s user talk pages. --Ssbohio 13:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Currently article content is not worth more than section in article, and "no notability ref for phrase" in lead section for separate article, which i feel is OR. When it is properly developed(properly structured), separate article can be spinned out from child sexuality. Lara_bran 06:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The article isn't actually about the phrase, the way I see it, so the phrase's notability as a phrase doesn't come into play. It's there to identify the concept of Adult-child sex, which is is sex between adults and children. The definition is inherent in the title. A speed limit is a limit on speed. A pellet gun is a gun that fires pellets. Water is wet. Some things logically follow by their intrinsic properties and by deduction. On what basis do you claim that this is OR?--Ssbohio 13:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In such case dont write def at all. See Origins_and_architecture_of_the_Taj_Mahal, they dont write def at all(in lead). But if you write def(or def of a phrase) in an article, it should be cited(at least when demanded), otherwise OR. Thanks. Lara_bran 15:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * By your argument above, the article Origins_and_architecture_of_the_Taj_Mahal shouldn't exist at all, since the term Origins and architecture of the Taj Mahal isn't itself notable. Titles don't need to be notable; only their subjects do.  As an aside, shouldn't sources be cited for describing the Taj Mahal as the finest and most sophisticated example of Mughal architecture?
 * To answer you directly: you say that article titles themselves need to be notable & that anything that isn't cited is original research; Both are misunderstandings of the underlying policies.  Some things are inherent and require no citations (see the examples above). --Ssbohio 04:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.