The result of the debate was no longer a redirect. As this page is currently an article, it should now be nominated for deletion at WP:AFD, not here. WjBscribe 12:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Created yesterday and has been subject to edit warring ever since as certain editors think that sex between adults and children is neither pedophilia nor child sexual abuse and it is clearly one or the other. The editor who created wanted child sexual abuse redirected to this page and then created a special and highly controversial section in human sexual behaviour whose aim is to pretend that sex between children and adults is a positive thing.. IMO this redirect has been created in order to push a point, hence breaks our POV policy, SqueakBox 19:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This redirect was created in order for Wikipedia to have a section on adult-child sex, which it didn't have. I created the section with the first information that I found using Google. Adult-child sex is sex between children and adults. Pedophilia is the sexual attraction of adults to children. Child sexual abuse is either a legal term or a psychological term. The current article on child sexual abuse is exclusively about the legal term. I believe the article on child abuse deals with the psychological term. The article on pederasty already has information about adult-child sex, but the article is not about it, nor can it be. One of the reasons why that is is that pederasty is necessarily between two males. a.z. 20:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article on pederasty deals with men and adolescent men, not necessarily children in the true sense. It's not considered abnormal or a mental disorder for a person to be sexually/romantically attracted to a 16-year-old, 17-year-old, or an 18-year-old. But with including Adult-child, as in youth mostly younger than age 16, I can see why there's more so of an uneasiness about including that within the Human sexual behavior article. Flyer22 21:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article about pederasty doesn't say much about ages. All I could find was:
      1. A Kodiak mother will select her handsomest and most promising boy, and dress and rear him as a girl, teaching him only domestic duties, keeping him at women's work, associating him with women and girls, in order to render his effeminacy complete. Arriving at the age of ten or fifteen years, he is married to some wealthy man who regards such a companion as a great acquisition.
      2. Twenty-three years earlier, Democratic Congressman Gerry Studds admitted having had an affair with a seventeen-year-old.
      3. As late as the mid-1800s, Albanian young men between 16 and 24 seduced boys from about 12 to 17. a.z. 21:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but the definition of pederasty (generally) deals with the sexual relationship between older men and adolescent men. In the Wikipedia article, it may note on younger ages than that in a few instances, but it's not truly about a sexual attraction to actual children or sexual encounters with actual children, such as is defined as a mental disorder (pedophilia), though that article may address pedophilic instances. I haven't read it all the way through yet. It's still quite different than an article or section titled Adult-child sex, about adults being sexual with youths of such ages as age 8. Flyer22 00:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe that to create a gender-neutral parallel to the pedastry article would require the word "sex" to be excluded from the title. Such an article would focus on sociological, historical, and cultural things, and would be about adult-adolescent relationships rather than sex. However, I feel that some might be covered in pedophilia. Pedophilia is clearly not the same thing as an adult-adolescent relationship because pedophilia is about what goes on in an adult's mind, whereas a relationship is something that happens outside of one's mind. Let this be clear, there are three things: pedophilia (a mental condition), child sexual abuse (sex), and adult-adolescent relationships (a superset of CSA), the third of which is covered partly in a gender-exclusive way in pedastry. My current opinion is greatly confused right now, however. I believe an article should be created about adult-adolescent relationships should be created not exclusively focusing on sex. The part exclusively focusing on sex can be expanded in child sexual abuse if historical, social, and cultural things are to be added. Moreover, there is already an article about that at Ephebophilia. The legal (and common) term for adult-child sex, however, is clearly child sexual abuse, and therefore, I believe that the made-up term adult-child sex must be renamed child sexual abuse, if it is to stay in that human sexual behavior article.--A 21:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The fundamental question, as I see it, is this: Does the term adult-child sex mean the same thing as child sexual abuse? I think that both sides (for different reasons) can agree that the two terms are not equivalent. Because of that, I can't see this as a valid redirect. I have a couple of modest proposals:
  1. Write an article about adult-child sex in the sense of its being a master term that encompasses both positions, giving only due weight to each: The (very) widely accepted view, endorsed by most experts, that sex between an adult and a child (meaning a prepubescent person) always constitutes abuse; And, the view held by a (small) minority, inclusive of a very small number of experts, that such sex is not always a matter of child abuse. Whether this is possible, given the amount of heat the topic generates, is a matter of more than a little doubt.
  2. Create the page as a disambiguation to the related topics, like Child sexual abuse, Human sexual behavior#Child sexual abuse, Pedophilia, Pederasty, Ephebophilia, etc. Because this topic appears to be distinct from the others, a disambiguation would be a fairly imperfect solution, but it would avoid creating another collection of article content to dispute over.

  Any thoughts? Am I on track? How can we move past the back & forth arguments toward a palatable consensus? I've been on the outskirts of the discussions surrounding this subject matter since 2005. It's tough to move ahead because of the passions this issue calls forth. But, because we're an encyclopedia, I feel we have to try. --Ssbohio 02:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not quite believe you are on-track. I believe that an article titled Adult-child relationships should be created with all of the material pertaining to adult-child sex moved there, but with the article not focusing on adult-child sex. As I see it, adult-child sex is a narrow focus, not an ambiguous one nor is it synonymous to any other phrase. The phrase "child sexual abuse" pertains only to the legal and clinical angles. Adult-child sex does not pertain to pedophilia, pederasty, ephebophilia, or anything of the like. Therefore, I am in favor of Adult-child relationships being created.--A 02:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure if I know what to state on this subject anymore. I mean, most people would consider adult-child sex to mean the same thing as child sexual abuse. Flyer22 02:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was commenting on the content here, not the subject matter. I view "child sexual abuse" to be a legal and clinical term. However, I do think that whatever content is here can be added to child sexual abuse. I was commenting on the parallel to pederasty, by the way, that an article not focusing on sex can be created, since there is no such article.--A 03:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that "adult-child sex" refers to the idea (theory, hypothesis, I don't know) that it is possible for children and adults to have consensual sexual relationships. It is not the same as child-sexual abuse, which is either a legal or medical term. Many people believe that there is no such thing as "adult-child sex", and this is probably the mainstream view, and this should be pointed out. Many people think that all sexual interaction between children and adults would have to be labeled psychologically abusive. All views should be included in the article. All arguments, references, etc, both pro and against the idea. I think Wikipedia doesn't yet have any place where the arguments and facts concerning whether it is possible or not for a child to consent to have sex are discussed. I think the information that this article would contain is crucial for people to have an informed opinion on sex between children and adults. I would like to read that article.
          I'm not against an article about adult-child relationships. This article could include relationships of children with parents, with relatives, and could focus on the way that adults treat and see children. I think there is enough material available to have an article on that as well. I'm not sure whether adult-child sex should be a section of relationships between adults and children or an article of its own. a.z. 03:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It just goes to show how differently two people can view the same words. I saw the phrase "adult-child sex" and perceived it is a factual description of a topic worthy of coverage here. I did not see it as an apologia for pedophilia. Whether we see the label child sexual abuse as 100% applicable or not, the underlying activity can be described as "adult-child sex." That's my reason for supporting retention, preferably as an article. --Ssbohio 02:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Ssbohio suggested above that we

  Write an article about adult-child sex in the sense of its being a master term that encompasses both positions, giving only due weight to each: The (very) widely accepted view, endorsed by most experts, that sex between an adult and a child (meaning a prepubescent person) always constitutes abuse; And, the view held by a (small) minority, inclusive of a very small number of experts, that such sex is not always a matter of child abuse. Whether this is possible, given the amount of heat the topic generates, is a matter of more than a little doubt.

  According to my definition above, it is not a master term that encompasses both positions. It is just one position. When one clicks on the "due weight" link provided above, the example is that the article on the planet Earth should not give too much importance to the flat Earth theory. In this case that we are discussing, I feel the article on adult-child sex would not be like the article on Earth, it would be like the article on the minority view, like the flat Earth article. Obviously, the article on the flat Earth theory does state that "The idea now has vanishingly few proponents." However, I just realized that this contradicts my post above, which says that "All views should be included in the article." I think a valid question is: if "adult-child sex" were an article on one view, the minority view that there is the possibility of consensual sex between children and adults, then what should be the name of the article that would deal with the majority view (the article on round Earth), namely that view according to which all sexual interactions between children and adults are abusive? a.z. 03:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there already an article on the minority view, that is: Pro-pedophile activism? Pro-pedophile activism is about proponents of and theories about adult-child sexual relations; how would an article on adult-child sexual relations differ? Would an article on flat earth activism and an article about flat earth theories be substantively different? -Jmh123 07:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • That's essentially my point: We have an article on child sexual abuse. We have an article on Pro-pedophile activism. Both have a seemingly inherent point of view on the issue. Combining encyclopedic content on adult-child sex from all perspectives (legal, sociological, psychological, religious, etc.) into one article would provide the reader with a clearer, more comprehensive presentation, one lacking the fragmentation found in the current presentation. It's not good to divide a topic into POV forks; To my mind, it's better to present appropriately-weighted points of view in a single article. --Ssbohio 02:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a likely search term, and creates more heat than light. The way, the truth, and the light 01:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unneeded and highly inflammatory. Ronnotel 02:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. There are existing articles that this can be incorporated. Such as the Pro-pedophilia activism. I believe A.Z. is trying very hard to POV in this area. As A.Z.'s edits are only to these types of articles. To create another one, is redundant, and unwanted. Jeeny ^(talk) 03:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to child sexual abuse. "Abuse" may be a negative term, but that's what we call it adult-child sex (even if your all for it). If the users involved insist on breaking WP:POINT, then just delete it. The link's broken anyway. Rocket000 04:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question remains: What is to be done with heterodox perspectives on the subject, particularly those which don't support the tight coupling between the terms "adult-child sex" and "child sexual abuse?" The pedophile view is held by a very small minority, but there are also non-American and non-Western perspectives to be considered on the topic, not all of which fit into the abuse/not abuse dichotomy. --Ssbohio 02:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - agree with nom that this seems to be a piece of cutlery for some purpose (that's not entirely clear to me). --Rocksanddirt 17:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep or create article For the reasons I've given, keep the title, but preferably convert the redirect to an article or disambiguation page. I don't like the fact that adult-child sex exists. However, as long as it does, we must show neither fear nor favor in covering topics of encyclopedic nature. --Ssbohio 02:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been created. It needs a lot of work. I copied what people had written on human sexual behavior, but now the scope of the article seems unclear. A.Z. 04:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that, since it's an article now, not a redirect, anyone wishing to delete it should nominate it on Articles for Deletion. It's a referenced article on a notable topic, though, so there's no reason to do that. A.Z. 05:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as either a disruptive cross-namespace-redirect or an extremely unlikely search term for Ban (law). Mr.Z-man 20:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that there will never be an article named this, but I still think we should keep our article space and our Wikipedia space completely separate, with the exception of redirects in the WP: 'subspace', like WP:RFD. Where do we draw the line? There will never be an article called Articles for deletion, so why not have a redirect there? In fact, why not have the page there? I can completely see why this was created, and, ironically, even discovered it when I forgot to add the Wikipedia: prefix, but I don't think we should have redirects like this. J Milburn 19:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clear speedy as it disrupts the main space for wikipedia business, Im going to db it, SqueakBox 19:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 12:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

WP:RFA/Emico → Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Emico

WP:RFAR/Antifinnugor → Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Antifinnugor

WP:RFAR/Libertas → Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Libertas

WP:RFAR/Chuck F → Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Chuck F

WP:RFAR/MONGO → Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

WP:RFAR/NC → Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions

WP:RFAR/Rienzo → Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rienzo

WP:RFAR/SV → Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo

WP:RFARBCW → Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb

WP:RFAr/COP → Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Copperchair

WP:RFAr/RFC → Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RFC

WP:RFAr/POTW → Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing

WP:RFAr/ACN → Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration (note: this redirect does not link to a subpage)

WP:RFAR/SVRFA → Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration (note: this redirect does not link to a subpage)

WP:RFAR/TDC → Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration (note: this redirect does not link to a subpage)

Delete - Cross-namespace redirect not justified for an old RFAR page. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; not justifiable to have these unnecessary shortcut redirects as long as they appear to be in the main namespace. Melsaran (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If they are old (more than 3 months), then they really serve no modern purpose, and should be deleted. --w^{L<speak·check>} 17:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no use once the case is closed. I thought I had already deleted all of these, but since I didn't, I guess it's best to get rid of the stragglers. If you want to find a link to an old case, use WP:RFARC. Picaroon (t) 19:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• These are not in mainspace; article mirrors will not copy them. Just because a redirect is less useful doesn't its namespace more mainspace-y. (If that means sense.) Given that, some of these redirects are linked from various archives, not including AM's notification to the creators. There's no reason to make people refer to the deletion log of where the redirect went when they could just be redirected to the page. The redirects are not really useful past the close date, but the only real reason to keep them is for historical context. Gracenotes^T § 20:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. For the sake of maintainability. This is basically the same argument I use for RFA shortcuts. I believe "WP:" shortcuts should generally only be used for general pages of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not individual, temporary sub-pages of discussions. During active discussions, users who wish to monitor discussions after they comment on them can simply watch the arbitration sub-page. Generally, the moment these discussions end the shortcuts cease to be useful; and I can only imagine two types of exceptions: (1) the involved user who would use it as future reference during discussions, or (2) a notable case which the community sometimes refers to (maybe because of controversy?). However, both are resolved with the fact that ARBCOM links are easy to remember (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Username or topic name) and then piped, and the fact that referrals to these past discussions throughout other community discussions decrease to nothing as time passes after the discussion. As for historical context, if these RFD discussions are set at keep, I fear it would create precedent on allowing many shortcuts to many temporary sub-pages (existing and future ARBCOMs as Wikipedia expands), and then alternate redirects to the same discussions based on other capitalizations, titles without diacritics, etc. Deleting them would show editors that temporary shortcuts aren't really needed, and that specific arbcom cases should be piped. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 10:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - If folks are referencing arbcomm cases enough to really need this sort of thing, I think we have a broader problem with what arbcomm thinks of it's decisions and what the community does; and that needs to be worked out first. Otherwise, these are just confusion inducing for those who stumble on them. --Rocksanddirt 17:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.