Wikipedia talk:Taboo

Policy or essay?
Is this intended to be a policy or an essay? As a policy, it has an uncountable number of pitfalls - not the least of which is differences in cultural mores and the need for a global perspective. What is considered taboo varies enormously between cultures, so what makes the list? Only Western taboo subjects?

On the other hand, its clear that there should be a codification of the unwritten policy that pro-pedophilia advocates, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, etc. are to an extent "blocked on identification." At the moment pedophiles are blocked following a still not widely known ArbCom decision, and the others are inevitably blocked following a contentious discussion on an admin noticeboard. It makes sense to clarify those situations with a consensus-driven policy. Avruch  T 19:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The other thing is that perhaps WP:TABOO should be a redirect to something like "Controversial subjects" - "Taboo topics" - "Editors with taboo views" etc. Avruch  T 19:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we need something specifically for sexual taboo, because of the difficulty people find approaching it. You don't find a similar difficulty with Fascism, or Palestine, or Northern Ireland or Iraq.  The 'fallacy of definition' problem is also one that is more localised to sexual taboo, I think.  Peter Damian (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also 'romanticising' tends not to be found in other controversial topics. Peter Damian (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As an essay, a great start. As policy, it does have a number of pitfalls. A couple that come to mind are the cultural mores diffferentiations mentioned by Avruch, and Historical Contexts as well. There have been numerous cultures in which is is or was not uncommon to see a 14 or 15 year old brides (or younger) married to older men. Is it pedophilia or cultural? We have cultures now where multiple wives is legal and acceptable. Is that 'polygamy' (connotations, not denotations)? Ancient greeks had all sorts of cultural norms which we now frown upon, like wives AND younger male lovers. Is it pedophilia, pederasty, or culture? We have POV pushers for pro-pedophilia who make both arguments; one, that it was culture then so it's culture now, or that pedophilia had a long and respectable heritage. This shows that even IF we try to put into play a policy or guideline about such stuff, we may be arming the disgusting minorities with more leverage. Any such policy really needs to emphasize that Wikipedia recognizes that certain groups, while loud and highly active, are none the less minority and/or fringer outliers and their views will never be popularized on WP. Another problem, occurring to me as I wrote the previous bit, is that we risk running into the SPOV/NPOV zones too. How long till we see the Pro-molester group pushing into the psychiatry/psychology aspects of their sickness, using genetic theory and such as validation here. Either we push TABOO up alongside FRINGE and buttress each other carefully, or we leave chinks in both. How much can FRINGE cover what you want TABOO to cover/ (there are a few strands coming out of this, instead of one cohesive critique/rebuttal, but I'm leaving it as is. The more subtopics we explore now ,the better.) ThuranX (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the comments - now it is time to turn in . See you tomorrow.  Peter Damian (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For an example of the misuse of the pederasty category, check out the recent activity at Gerry StuddsDavid in DC (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Peter, a good start, I guess it is necessary to highlight why pedophilia has issues over and above other theories of fringe. My thoughts would be:


 * Contentious area - serial pedophiles are often educated and articulate, and are well versed in subtle and manipulative means (eg grooming) to justify and minimise actions and intentions.


 * Many people are not aware of subtler psychological issues involved in relationships where there is a poer differential, and also mechanics of child sexual abuse. e.g. issues of children 'asking for uit' or 'luring adults' for sex. In abusive situations, children will often internalise or blame themselves for actions perpetrated by adults. Victim blaming is common by outsiders and perpetrators. All these are pretty standard and require some familiarity/level of psychological knowledge to understand. Laypeople are often not familiar with these. Popular media is also good at perpetuating myth of children and adolescents as capable and articulate people and as less vulnerable than they really are.


 * Child abuse is a huge problem, and responsible for a high degree of morbiidtiy in psychiatric, social and forensic settings.


 * Especially important as this site is edited and frequented by minors.


 * Those who have been abused amy be vulnerable to losing their temper and/or becoming higlhy distressed and upset when confronting those who are seeking to minimise/ameliorate issues in these type of articles. Many people who have suffered childhood trauma may suffer from affect dysregulation.. (this could be a really long discussion).


 * Pederasty is a term bordering on archaic that is not used in DSM IV, nor in legal settings. The OED roughly equates it with pedophilia, though notes that it involves sex/sodomy. the second part of the word in ancient greek refers more ot erotic love than the phil- part of pedophilia. The construction of 'pederasty' as an amalgamation of older/younger realtionships and straddling adolescence and young adulthood of the younger partner does strike me as a way of attempting to legitimise a portion of illegal and abusive relationships. However I have not read scholarly material on the subject, only psychiatric, and I have not worked extensively in forensic psychiatry. I can try and find sourcing for the above statements. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Pedophiles seek out situations which give them access to minors - eg. teaching, priesthood, visiting third world countries for sex tourism, and the internet. There is evidence this has already happened on wikipedia.

There will be more when I can think of it.

All this could be referenced I guess. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Serious misunderstanding of NPOV in draft
From the draft: ''3. Separate versions of an article created to represent different views on a subject violate the Wikipedia core policy requiring a neutral point of view. Such articles are often called POV forks, described at WP:NPOV#POV forks. Wikipedia must have one, neutral point of view on a subject - and each core subject should have a single article. Articles on peripheral subjects should not deviate from the point of view established in the core article.''

There seems to have arisen among some editors the idea that there is a single point of view that is called NPOV. We see this in this paragraph, the supposed NPOV POV is specifically referred to as a POV "established in the article."

There is no single NPOV POV. Every point of view is limited; however, when all significant POVs are fairly represented in an article, something arises that is called NPOV, but it never becomes a fixed thing, to be defended against all new or old POVs.

NPOV is better understood as not being a point of view at all, but a relationship with points of view; it is attached to none, but sees them all, neutrally. When we can see a subject from two points of view simultaneously, what we get, literally, is depth perception.

So with the example being used, pedophilia, the word has, really, two different common definitions: a pattern of attraction, or an action or pattern of behavior. The former is morally neutral, hence the position that pedophilia isn't reprehensible; the latter, the behavior, which represents a popular understanding of the term, is widely condemned. The article seems to blend and confuse these and to imply that one point of view is NPOV and that there should be one article. But there are really two topics here, and when the same word is used for two topics, we may use disambiguation. This essay would seem to imply that there must be one article, Pedophilia, which takes only one position, or else the two articles would be POV forks. Yet, neutrally, there are two different meanings to the word, as the essay notes, in fact. Those meanings are not POVs, we can state, neutrally, that both meanings exist.

By attempting to force all into a single article, and then to avoid confusion by insisting on a single POV as "NPOV," the essay, if it becomes a guideline, would simply intensify conflict.

There is a notable position that active pedophilia, now defined as sex between adults and children, is legitimate and even laudable. That, again, is a fact. If Wikipedia insists upon NPOV, this position must be neutrally represented, somewhere. Where? I'm not cutting the Gordian knot, that's up to editors working on the topic. Subarticles, though, can be a part of the solution, allowing a subtopic to be thoroughly explored to satisfy WP:V while not violating WP:UNDUE. To continue with the example, an article on Pedophilia (popular conception], would have a section, perhaps, on advocacy of this kind of sexual activity, it might be a sentence only, with reference to the subarticle.

The subarticle would be, itself, NPOV, all articles must. WP:FORK refers to the phenomenon that groups of editors OWN subarticles, considering them their [[WP:Walled garden|]. The solution to that, though, isn't Merge, often, it is balancing or paring back, as appropriate, the subarticle.

The basic error that this essay repeats and promotes is one that can result in edit warring and the blocking of editors who were, in good faith, attempting to defend "NPOV" against "POV-pushers." Or, alternatively, to create NPOV where they perceived POV. The danger arises when some particular POV has become confused with NPOV. That is, this POV is the "correct" POV. And then someone with a different POV must be "incorrect," and attempting to see that an article reflects that other POV (so that it is balanced) is "POV-pushing." But people tend to push a POV most strongly when they see it as important, and as missing or rejected by the article. In other words, they perceive a POV imbalance. If we assume good faith, we must assume that this is their perception, not that they see the article as balanced, and they are trying to wreck that and turn the article into a propaganda piece.

And then, we must carefully attend to this perception, and my experience has been (long experience, not limited by Wikipedia's youth) that it is possible to find inclusive language that remains NPOV, is more complete than what existed before, and which leaves conclusions to the reader. In other words, the net impact of this "POV pushing" is that the article improves. Some editors will assert that this is "confusing." Indeed. Reality is confusing, and that's a good thing, for if it were not, everyone would see everything from a single point of view. No depth perception, nothing to learn. (I've seen editors edit war to remove sourced fact with exactly this argument, "too much detail, confusing." The truth was that the details impeached claims that had previously been made by these editors, and that they apparently wished to have stand, unchallenged, as an implication that readers "should" make. With simple patience and insistence on NPOV, avoidance of POV synthesis, etc., the example I have in mind settled. So far.)

By the way, a glance at Pedophilia shows that the editors have incorporated the various definitions into the article, at first glance, successfully. My suggestion of disambiguated articles was not intended to show this as a superior solution, only that it is a possible one. And it is possible that it would be an improvement over the present article; but, remember, this is not creating "POV forks." It is, rather, partitioning one article into several, based on differing definitions, each one of which must be handled in an NPOV fashion. The present article handles this within a single article, disambiguation (or subarticles) would handle it with separate articles, cross-referenced as appropriate. I see that we have subarticles on Pro-pedophile activism and Anti-pedophile activism. Are these POV forks? They shouldn't be, but, as with any article, they could become so if only editors of one POV edit each. The fix isn't to merge, but to balance the subarticles, because, probably, the detail possible in the subarticles would be utterly undue weight in the main article. (Wikipedia uses a weird meaning for "main article" ....)--Abd (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Taking these points in turn


 * Can there be more than one NPOV. No.  Read policy on forks carefully.


 * There might of course be a statement to the effect that one commonly held view is X, but there are significant points of view Y, and so on.


 * There is a notable position that active pedophilia, now defined as sex between adults and children, is legitimate and even laudable. There is a position on this, yes.  But please distinguish between saying neutrally what the position is, and promoting that view in a positive light.


 * The basic error that this essay repeats and promotes is one that can result in edit warring and the blocking of editors who were, in good faith, attempting to defend "NPOV" against "POV-pushers."  I've no idea why you think this. The point of WP:TABOO is to emphasise how strictly policy needs to be enforced, as well as adding some further points which aren't (as I can see) included in policy at all, like care over definitions, and avoidance of fallacy of definition.
 *  glance at Pedophilia shows that the editors have incorporated the various definitions into the article, at first glance, successfully. Fair enough.  There appears to be a problem with Pederasty, though, and also Zoophilia.

[edit] PS you gave the wrong link: it should be Content_forking. Peter Damian (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 *  Can there be more than one NPOV. No.  Read policy on forks carefully. [Bold was supposedly quoting or restating my question or comment.]
 * The question isn't one that I would ask. If you read what I wrote above, you'd see that the question assumes that there is one "NPOV." If we think of POV as involving some position (the physical analogy is a useful one), that being the meaning of "point," i.e., the point or position from which one sees something, no position is "neutral." There isn't "more than one" NPOV, there isn't even one. What we see depends on our position. If I say that the head of the elephant is to the left of the tail, I am viewing the elephant from some position. Someone else could say that, no, the head is to the right of the tail. The fundamental error I was pointing to is the idea that there is a POV that is called "NPOV." I.e., "the neutral point of view." Without understanding that, the rest of the discussion is totally off.


 * This, then, was confused with the issue of forks. WP:FORK suggests that "POV forks" be avoided. But there is another kind of fork that can be quite legitimate, WP:FORK is explicit about that, and it is in direct contradiction to the claim that "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject are treated in one article." The really preposterous part of this is "all facts." It's impossible, for many subjects, to do that, so, when editors believe that they must all be treated in one article, they, then, war over which ones are sufficiently notable. Even though what was just said was "all facts," not "all notable facts that do not create undue weight. What do we do when there are verifiable facts, per WP:V that would create undue weight? The answer is obvious: we create an article on a subtopic, and bring back only what is most notable about those subtopic facts using summary style. So we can have an article on Flat earth theories, which are notable, without putting them, as more than a bare mention or link, into the article on the Earth. --Abd (talk) 02:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Slippery slope
I think that it is dangerous to make exceptional rules based merely on the fact that a subject is taboo to us here in the West. E.g. if we were to apply points 8 and 9 to homosexuality, then that would create big problems. In most of the world homosexual relations are taboo and illegal. But I don't think we would like to see points 8 and 9 to homosexual relations. This is not really a problem now, but if in the future we get a lot of editors from Africa, the Arab world and Asia, things will change. The tolerant Western attitude will be a minority view and the prevaling majority view is that homosexual relations are "sexually deviant practices". :( Count Iblis (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There are no 'exceptional rules' here. This mostly repeats policy, or makes points (such as care over definitions) that should already be in policy.  The point, which other editors have raised, that what is taboo to us may not be taboo to other cultures is a red herring.  The essay is meant to be about articles where editors would have serious difficulty in admitting a conflict of interest, and therefore must promote their POV by various subtle means, such as fudging definitions and so on.  Point 9 simply emphasises WP:OR.  There is an interesting point that 'reliable sources' by definition includes peer-reviewed sources which are typically only found within Western academic canon.  Thus WP:OR contains an automatic Western bias.  So be it. Peter Damian (talk) 10:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, if you stick to the peer reviewed scientific literature you would find it hard to find anything wrong with things like bestiality, necrophilia etc., except that it can be classified as a psychiatric problem for the person who engages in these acts. Moral values are hard to define scientifically as they are just arbitrary conventions we choose to stick to. Count Iblis (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's like saying that private property is just an "arbitary convention we choose to stick to." Or any other social structure. And the analogy can be extended further. Genetic characteristics are just "arbitrary" arrangements of protein coding that "just happened." Social structures evolved, some over long periods of time, some over short. They aren't absolutes, but neither are they arbitrary, they function in a context, were formed as conditioned by that context, and within that context they aren't arbitrary. Just as genetically determined behavior can be studied, so can socially determined behavior. It is the concept that moral values are absolutes that is "difficult to study" objectively, but that does not imply that they are arbitrary.
 * Now, to the point. Some social rules can be so strong as to affect the utility of the encyclopedia. We are not creating the project in a vacuum; it is to be used by people functioning in societies. I'm not proposing any specific standard, but the "moral values" of society aren't irrelevant, and we cannot, or at least should not, make some a priori, content-free decision about whether or not to consider them in making editorial decisions. --Abd (talk) 01:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As noted below, the point is to keep value judgments OUT of Wikipedia. Nothing wrong with a discussion of the various moral issues raised by moral philosophers and so forth.  But has to be objective: discuss the arguments, discuss the judgments, YES.  Argue, judge, NO. Peter Damian (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Content is what matters
WP:TABOO seems to speak from the perspective that we should not only drown our witches, but burn their bodies & bury the ashes. If Arabs & Israelis can both edit on related topics, if Catholics & Protestants can both edit Northern Ireland, and if fundamentalists and homosexuals can both edit LGBT topics, then the lesson to learn is clear: We should concern ourselves with the edits, not with the editors. I think Jimmy Wales said something like that, as a matter of fact. After all, even though Wikipedia is rather young, editing it is not a form of child sexual abuse. (Yes, it's a weak attempt at humor.)

As an aside, pederasty is a reference to homosexual male adult-adolescent sexual relations; It is not synonymous with pedophilia, which refers to all forms of adult-prepubescent child sexual relations.

I've said it before & I'll say it again: This project's downfall will be those editors utterly convinced that they bear the Flaming Sword of Righteousness in the face of an enemy, regardless of which Truth they support. All editors need to be held to the same standard, and making up a set of rules to combat the pedophile menace makes no more sense than any other time someone has argued that "topic X is a special case" and should be covered according to something other than the five pillars, regardless of the squick factor. We're either writing an encyclopedia or we're writing something else. I'm here to write an encyclopedia. --SSBohio 15:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Misunderstanding here. The point is not to bring value judgments into Wikipedia.  It is to keep them OUT of Wikipedia.  The point is that certain tendentious editors are 'importing' their own values into Wikipedia by use of the techniques outlined here (principally subtle changes of definitions, POV forks and so on).  We are all for neutral point of view, are we not?  Peter Damian (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm
Shouldn't there be something about no imagery? That would surely be a pretty sickening thing to see. I know 'Pedia isn't censored, but there is something called good taste out there, you know. --Kaizer13 (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Been argued about for year, and the consensus is extremely clear that good taste does matter, but only in the sense of avoiding actual material that is not relevant to the subject, and avoiding shock displays. Discretion, basically. The appropriate median was attained by using drawing rather than photographs for sexual acts. People who do not want to see images on sexual subjects can either turn off the display of images locally, or not look at those articles. And similarly for other subjects. DGG (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstandings
There seems to be confusion on both sides about what this article is saying. The point is not to bring value judgments to Wikipedia, but to KEEP THEM OUT. The introduction says:

The point is to have better policies to prevent people imposing their own value judgments (pedophilia is OK, for example) by romanticising, selective citations, romanticising and so on. Is anyone here seriously defending the use of selective citation, for example? Most if not all of this article reflects current policy, but places it in a context that may not have been obvious. Peter Damian (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)