Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 October 7

October 7

Adult-child sex → Human sexual behavior#Child sexual abuse

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 conmtroversioal 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.

List of banned users → Wikipedia:List of banned users

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.

Redirects to old Requests for arbitration

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]