Talk:Neil Goldschmidt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

	Oregon Portal This page is part of WikiProject Oregon, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to the U.S. state of Oregon. To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
PSU stuff & Applegate Trail are the current Collaborations of the week.
GA	This page is rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article is rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Oregon may be able to help!
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

This article was a Collaboration of the Week for WikiProject Oregon from February 5-February 16, 2008.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neil Goldschmidt article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Neil Goldschmidt has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
April 7, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

Archives

Talk:Neil Goldschmidt/Archive

Contents 1 after leaving elected office... 2 another question since I'm new here... 3 source 4 dead link 5 COTW 6 Proposed change 7 Comments copied from my user talk page 8 Another source to mine for info 9 GAN on hold 10 Divorce of Margie Goldschmidt 11 Possible image 12 Sexual relations or sexual abuse 13 Request for Comment 13.1 Some of the issues raised 14 Page protection 15 Behavior issues

[edit] after leaving elected office...

can we change this???

"The increased scrutiny on Goldschmidt's career, including reporters' difficulties accessing records from his time as Governor,[22] ultimately led to the revelation of a decades-old affair with an underage girl, ending Goldschmidt's extensive career at the center of Oregon politics and policymaking."

Can we change it to something other than "affair"??? "Affiar" sounds like he was just fooling around on his wife. What occurred was more troublesome. In particular since the girl was a minor, and the payoffs and such.

71.111.129.39 12:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you suggest? Katr67 21:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the group wants to go with, and you guys are better english speakers than me, but I'll take a stab at it..... How about... "The increased scrutiny on Goldschmidt's career, including reporters' difficulties accessing records from his time as Governor,[22] ultimately led to the revelation of sex crimes against a 14 year old girl, which occurred decades before. This ended Goldschmidt's extensive career at the center of Oregon politics and policymaking." I ask for comments. thanks!!! 71.111.129.39 01:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any particular problem with your rewrite. I do share the concern that either David or AM brought up before, that there is a limit to how many times it can be repeated that it was a crime, without insulting the reader's intelligence. But my first thought is, this doesn't cross that line. In fact, it may make the sentence marginally more comprehensible; the gravity of the offense explains why it ended a career. And the word "crime" is not already used in that section. -Pete 01:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that sounds like a reasonable change, especially because just a couple paragraphs later the article mentions how WW took Goldschmidt to task for characterizing the incident as an affair. Katr67 03:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we'll leave the discussion open for another day, and if nobody else has any suggestions, I'll change it tomorrow. Thanks guys! 71.111.129.39 15:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Katr, excellent job tracking down the statute. Just a side note, I remember that there was a significant difference between the 1970s statute and present law. Don't remember what the difference was, but something to keep in mind. -Pete 05:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. The current statute is on-line, I was too lazy to cite it, and I skimmed ORS 181 for sex offender registration stuff, and that appears to be true, but still needs to be cited. For those who have access to Oregon Laws (per that lengthy discussion on your page a while back), we can dig up the changes to the law (see the footnotes of the law I cited in my edit summary). We can use the citation style we also used at Bull Mountain, Oregon or whatever that was. Gotta run. Katr67 16:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I just changed that sentence again, to "illegal sexual relationship." "Sex crime" is pretty vague, I think it might as well be more specific. And anything "illegal" is a crime by definition. Hope this is acceptable. -Pete (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: moved #Sexual relations or sexual abuse section to bottom of talk page, as it's a current discussion. -Pete (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] another question since I'm new here...

Why no picture? I'm sure hundereds of pictures of Neil Goldschmidt exist, and I'm certain many were taken by people who have no copyright issues with having them reposted here. I've noticed the lack of a picture with other articles too. Is there some reason for no pictures which goes beyond copyright issues? 71.111.129.39 15:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's 100% about copyright issues. If you can find a free-use picture, feel free to add it, but read WP:COPYVIO and the rest of the copyright series first. Katr67 16:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] source

Found this source on the Oregonian article: most comprehensive article I've seen on the scandal. Rosen, Jill. The Story Behind the Story. American Journalism Review. Retrieved on 2006-11-22.

-Pete (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dead link

this link...

Goldschmidt, Neil. "Statement by Neil Goldschmidt", The Oregonian, May 7, 2004. Retrieved on 2007-07-03.

doesn't seem to work for me. A password is required. not good. see WP:EL Accessibility. Does anyone have a working (no password) link for this??? I couldn't find one.

thanks!!! 71.111.175.59 (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the link in question is to the Newsbank service, which unfortunately seems to only be reliably available if you have a Multnomah County Library account and are logged in. (It's free, but only if you're logged in.) The Oregonian does not maintain a web site that has even a preview or option to buy available. (See User:Peteforsyth/O-vanish for more details.) You're probably right about the guideline; if you want to remove the web link, I'll not revert. Leave the citation though, it's still valid with or without a link. -Pete (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's important to remember that the newspaper article itself is the source. The URL is simply a convenience link to an online copy of the source. Even if the link dies, the source is still valid. --SSBohio 20:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] COTW

Very excited to see this as the Collaboration of the Week. I think improving this article will, among other things, require a trip to the library, to fill in some of the blanks on Goldschmidt's time as City Commissioner and Mayor of Portland, and as Sec. of Transportation. I'll see if I can swing by and look up some microfilm. -Pete (talk) 08:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Detail: children. The KGW bio says that Goldschmidt and Snowden have four children; the infobox here says he has two, from his first marriage. How to reconcile? Seems he could have anywhere from 2 to 6 kids, depending how this adds up...I don't know the answer. -Pete (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Aboutmovies, can you double-check the dates you just added? Seems strange (but not impossible, I guess) that he got both his Bachelor's and his Juris Doctor in the same year. Also, what do you think about the article quality? Seems like it's easily B-class to me at this point. I'd like to put it up for Peer Review, and try to get it to Good Article status sometime soon. I don't think it's there yet, but it might take a fresh pair of eyes to point out what's holding it back -- what do you think? Also, thakns for tracking down the bio -- looks like a helpful source, esp. since it predates all the scandal stuff. -Pete (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the date. As to quality, it is now B class. To get to GA, the lead needs work, and I was hoping to expand the "Early life" section with who his parents are (remove it from the infobox as the "relations" spot is more for people with blue links) and his first marriage/kids. Plus high school info too. Otherwise we are missing 20 years of his life. Plus then work in the new family info as well.

The other big problem is the "Sex abuse" section. It is really bloated and a separate article should be spun off that repeats some of this, but would also cover the related items that should be removed from here: WW coverage info, Guisto, Kulengowski, etc. so that it is more manageable and less WP:UNDUE, and much more focused on what Neil did. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Good thoughts, esp. the spinoff article. Too bad we didn't get a little more COTW action, but I think we've done a pretty good job, if I do say so myself! If we're agreed it's B class, sounds like a summary for Portal:Oregon is in order…I'd be happy to work something up unless you're already on it, and it would probably go hand-in-hand with developing a better lead. -Pete (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. Usually we just copy the lead for the portal, so I'd improve it here and then add it there. You may have to expand it some once there, but only a little bit. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I rewrote the lead. Four paragraphs, covers all major aspects of his career, and some detail for each. Please let me know what you think. On reflection, I'm not sure I agree that "early life" needs expansion; it wouldn't hurt, but I've never heard anything to suggest that his career before election to City Council had any notable aspects. I'd be more interested to see improvements in the later parts of his life. -Pete (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I made a few changes to remove value judgments that GA review would likely disfavor, as well as trying to shrink the imprint slightly here and there. Plus I changed the first sentence for one paragraph from Goldschmidt just so 2 paragraphs in a row did not start with his name. As the the "Early life" it could use some expansion because single paragraph sections are disfavored for GA/FA. I think it comes from the WP:MOS, but I'm not sure where, or its a general "well written" prose issue. And remember, though his early life may not have been notable, notability only limits what articles can be written and not the content. So that he went to high school X may not be notable as a stand alone article, it is part of who he is and helps to provide the context and tell his story. That story being Neil Goldscmhidt, and not Gov/Sec/Mayor/Scandal person Goldschmidt. Its often the little tidbits like this that can prevent an article from making to FA, since the notable stuff is usually easy to research and source, but for the in depth coverage required by FA the background info is needed. As to the rest of the article, it does still need some work, with off the top of my head there seems to be a lot of conclusions, and not more bare facts. For instance instead of saying he oversaw a massive expansion to the prison system, put "While governor he worked to increase the prison system from 3,900 beds to 7,000 beds at a cost of $160 million." But it is definitely better than the three source version when I first edited it in 2006. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed change

User:Rz0720adfu recently changed the lead. I reverted, as I think it took us away from the fairly balanced lead we've developed through much discussion. However, one element of his/her edit that seems worthwhile is adding "and coverup" to the sex scandal item. The 30-year coverup was indeed a major part of the scandal, and should maybe be added to the lead. -Pete (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments copied from my user talk page

Martha had this to say, on my talk page:

I did look over the article, then got interested in the story and got led astray. It's good to see a listing of things he did, but to the uninitiated it's not always easy for me to guess which things are considered "positive" vs. "negative". I have trouble with one place:

"A rising anti-tax movement gained momentum in that time, passing Measure 5; the state's prison system nearly doubled during his term. He also worked to reform the State Accident Insurance Fund (SAIF), a state-chartered worker's compensation insurance company; these reforms, and his subsequent work as a paid consultant for SAIF, would draw criticism in later years."

Specifically, it's not clear to me which things "these reforms" are referring to - just the things in that sentence? or things from the preceding sentence? (Expansion of the state's prison system, too, leaves me wondering why this is (or is it??) a "good thing" - I mean....it implies the need for an expanded prison system (does that imply a rise in crime?) - maybe you get my drift. I think that needs a little cleaning up, and perhaps also a look at the rest of the page from the viewpoint of - how to say this? - it's possible to be so objective that it's not at all clear what you mean by what you say. Overall, it sounds to me as if the guy really did do a lot of good things, but probably some bad ones, and one really rotten sexual thing that sort of blew him out of the water. (Maybe I didn't use that expression right? Certainly blew him off the playing field!) If that's the case, then it seems to me like a very good article.

-Pete (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another source to mine for info

This article talks about what is/isn't revealed in historical files: Wong, Peter. "Goldschmidt’s records provide private insight", Statesman Journal, June 8, 2004. Retrieved on 2008-03-14. 

[edit] GAN on hold

Hey Pete...a long article, so I might not get through all of it on in one go. Here goes...!

• Y Done (moved to Commons; WP version may be deleted when AM approves or after a few days -Pete (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)) Ensure all free images are on Commons
• Y Done "He continued to work across party lines reduce regulation and to repair the state's infrastructure" - missing a word after "lines"?
• Y Done "they divorced in 1990" - sounds like the children divorced...can you reword
• Y Done "a reporter for Willamette Week, for thirty years he was" - newspapers and the like go in italics
• Y Done "During his mayoral campaign, he also questioned" - if you're putting this after the quote, the "also" isn't needed. So remove that, or move this to before the quoting when you're listing other stuff he did
• Y Done "was considered the state's leading power broker on transportation issues" - this needs a ref
• Y Done Ref 8 needs an accessdate, a format=PDF, etc.
• Y Done Wlink dates in refs
• "Goldschmidt's time in Washington, DC informed his own understanding of politics, as well" - this is saying the same thing as the last sentence, isn't it?

• No, it's saying the opposite: first, he used his political acumen to critique the party; second, his time in DC furthered the development of his political acumen. I'll admit the phrasing could use a little work though, and would welcome a little help! -Pete (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Aaah, I see! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Y Done First paragraph of Governor of Oregon could use some use of "he" rather than "Goldschmidt" all the time
• Y Done Also, some of the short paragraphs in that section could be merged
  • Y Done Same in next few sections
• Y Done (several were like this) Ref 18 has author's name as "first, last" while all others are "last, first"
• Y Done "at the time, he cited marital difficulties." - ref?
• Y Done "He stayed active in Portland as well," - previous sentence mentioned Portland, so "as well" isn't needed
• Y Done "The Willamette Week article, written by Nigel Jaquiss, was awarded the 2005 Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting" - one sentence paragraph...
• "However, on 14 May," - what year are we talking?

• All this stuff took place very rapidly in 2004. Rather than just adding the year to this one date, I'm trying to think of a good way to make the generally tight timeframe clearer. -Pete (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• I added an introductory sentence to the section, stating that a rapid series of events in May 2004 is the subject of the section. Does this adequately address your concern? -Pete (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's much better. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Y Done "Because of complaints from local media over access..." - this paragraph is unsourced

Leave a note on my talk page when done. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Passed; good work! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Divorce of Margie Goldschmidt

There is no mention of the very public event that is widely documented where Margie Goldschmidt divorced Neil Goldschmidt at the end of his first term and subsequently married Bernie Giusto who had been serving as a state police body guard to the then Governor. This fact needs appropriate citation, but it was a very notable event that should be documented in the article. 71.193.198.58 (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Katr67 (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I found a few articles, and added a sentence to the article. I think the notion that Giusto and Goldschmidt were married is in error, though -- the source I found said they dated openly following the divorce, but does not mention them getting married. (It's a pretty thorough article, so I doubt this is mere omission.) -Pete (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No - It is a very well established fact that they were married, I am certain of it. I will go and investigate and add a citation. Thanks for your help. I am somewhat of a beginner here. So, I will try to contribute, not just ask others. 71.193.198.58 (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible image

This is a possible image of Neil Goldschmidt. It is Creative Commons licensed. The image itself isn't coming up for me, but the description seems to indicate it's the right thing. Perhaps someone would like to check it out? --SSBohio 13:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a photo of the official governor's portrait of Goldschmidt that is in the capitol. I would imagine that would fall under fair use. It's actually a kind of triptych, so if we wanted to use it for the lead image it should be cropped. Katr67 (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. It's by our own Jmchuff. Katr67 (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Katr, you oughtta know that fair use ain't no good for living persons! We really should get a better photo for this article, though. I've been thinking about sending out a mass email to 50 or 100 public figures linking to the stuff on our blog, to encourage them to send portraits in...maybe should add the Gov to the list? -Pete (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the photo is CC. What it comes down to is the status of the portrait itself, since the photo is a derivative work or a faithful reproduction. I previously researched governors of California, and their official portraits are generally in the public domain. I'll try to check on Oregon. --SSBohio 18:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, portrait, as in painting. Does that make a difference? So apparently the copyright of a photographic reproduction of a two-dimentional artwork lies with the artist, not the photographer. I don't know if the Oregon portraits are in the public domain. But can use of the photograph be justified under fair use? Even thought this is a BLP article? Katr67 (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, yes and no. No as just a picture of him (presumed replaceable as he is still alive). Yes if you were actually providing commentary on the painting. On a side point, the picture isn't that great of quality and it would be difficult to get a decent cropped part of just one of his heads. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point AM, I didn't really think that through. SSohio, any research would be most welcome! We're doing our best to learn about the State's various policies on copyright. Also feel free to share any findings at User:Peteforsyth/leg, the more centralized place where we're keeping track...I really should get on moving that out into project space. -Pete (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual relations or sexual abuse

Goldschmit had sexual relations with a person legally incapable of consenting to having sexual relations. To say he had an "illegal sexual relationship" with this 14-year-old makes them syntactically equal participants. To my mind, he didn't have a sexual relationship with her, he sexually abused her.

This is a case of child sexual abuse. I added a link to the article, and it was removed, with the edit summary directing me to check the talk page. I found nothing here that demonstrates why this isn't a case of child sexual abuse. If there is good reason not to call it so, please let me know. Otherwise, I'll restore the link later this week. --SSBohio 19:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one who reverted it, but I have a problem with the term child. That is a value judgment. At what age someone considers someone a child or adolescent, or young adult will vary by person. Child defined by my dictionary says someone below the age of puberty, yours may vary. But most people have gone through puberty by age 14. And your third sentence tends to demonstrate the reason for sticking to saying 14 and girl, as those are less POV: "To my mind" shows that it is an opinion. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that your response is at odds with the definitions of the terms:

• child sexual abuse is defined by multiple sources as occurring whenever an adult engages in sexual activity with a minor or exploits a minor for the purpose of sexual gratification.^[1][2]
• Child has multiple definitions in every dictionary I've checked. In law, a child is one who has not yet reached the age of consent, but has passed the age of reason. Under Oregon law, that would include this 14-year-old.
• The phrase to my mind doesn't necessarily specify an opinion, as you assert, much less a point of view. I ask that you exercise caution in implying or stating otherwise about me, since I work very hard to edit in accordance with NPOV. To my mind indicates that, using my mental faculties, my knowledge, experience, and reason -- collectively, my mind -- I reached a conclusion supported by the facts as I perceived them.

The facts I perceived were thus: This politically, socially, and economically powerful adult, at the time roughly triple the age of the 14-year-old girl he had sex with, did not have a "relationship" with her; He could not, since she couldn't consent. By definition, what he did was child sexual abuse. --SSBohio 07:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

How is my definition at odds? I said the dictionary I have says puberty and that the definition may vary, which you affirmed. Oregon does not have a Child sexual abuse statute per se, with the closest thing would be O.R.S. § 163.427, which is Sexual abuse in the first degree, and that is for those under 14 (unless you are also involving bestiality then the victim can be 17 or younger). These laws can and do vary from state to state. For instance the default for the Model Penal Code is 16 (as long as the perpetrator is at least 4 years older). Lastly, just because you back up your opinion with the sources for what formed that opinion does not mean it is not an opinion. My position here is my opinion, but in my opinion I advocate for sticking to the fact that she was 14, and does not delve into if that means she was a child. Generally, we try for specifics (i.e. give the month and not a season), and here we have the specific age. By leaving it to the age, the readers themselves can determine in their own mind if she was a child, and thus if it was child sexual abuse. Opinions on this point will vary, her age does not. In my opinion, leaving it as it was better reflects the Oregon law and addresses the WP:BLP issues. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Your definition is at odds because it cherrypicks the one definition that supports your view of the issue. I have yet to find a dictionary that has only a single definition of child. Is that the case for your dictionary?
• Your assertion that Oregon state law doesn't define child sexual abuse is an irrelevant red herring; My edit to the article didn't concern what state laws Goldschmidt may have violated, it concerned what activity he engaged in, and what terminology describes that activity. "Sexual relationship" is simply innacurate terminology for what he did. "Child sexual abuse" accurately describes the situation.
• Child sexual abuse is a term with its own meaning, distinct from the meanings of its constituent words. Here are some definitions:
  • Q: Who are the Victims of Child Sexual Abuse? A: Children and adolescents … appear to be at approximately equal risk for sexual victimization. -- Understanding Child Sexual Abuse - Victims. American Psychological Association. 2001.
  • Child sexual abuse is the exploitation of a child or adolescent for the sexual gratification of another person. -- Child Abuse And Neglect: An Overview, Barbara L. Bonner, Ph.D., Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center. 2003.
  • Child sexual abuse is the deliberate exposure of minor children to sexual activity. … Child sexual abuse was not clearly described until the late 1970s. -- Child abuse - sexual - definition, Leisha M. Andersen, M.D., Pediatrician, in MedlinePlus, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. 22 January 2007.
• Right now, the only opinions I have is that the meaning of child sexual abuse is that stated by organizations like the U.S. National Institute of Justice, the British National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and the above organizations. I trust that their definition of a term central to their work is an accurate one, particularly since it's been subject to peer review. In other words, my opinion is that verifiability and sourcing criteria have been met.
• You also allege that I am trying to replace specific information with less specific information, when the reverse is the case. Calling what Goldschmidt did "a sexual relationship" is less specific than calling it child sexual abuse. It makes ambiguous the question of victimization.
• NPOV calls on us to present the facts fairly and accurately. By definition, Goldschmidt sexually abused a 14-year-old girl. Until the NIH & the APA change the definition, that would be an accurate description.
• Leaving the language as it was denies that the girl was Goldschmidt's victim. It has overtones of the "she liked it" defense. The victim is also (presumably) a living person, and we are admonished to "do no harm" per Jimbo. She deserves an accurate description of what happened to her, and so does the reader. --SSBohio 20:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I only just noticed this discussion above the other one. I don't have a really strong opinion on this issue -- my concerns are these: (1) that the context be covered in enough detail and with enough accuracy that the impact of what "summary" term is used is minimized (I think we're OK on that front), and (2) that changes to this highly controversial topic be discussed in a way that respects all the earlier discussion (both on this talk page, and in the Oregon media). It looks like you guys are doing a good job of that, too. I reverted before because there was no attempt to discuss, but as long as discussion is occurring, I'm not looking to stand in the way of people improving the article. -Pete (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ssbohio, apparently you are not reading what I am writing. Look back at my first post to you: "but I have a problem with the term child". We have not been talking about abuse, we have been talking about the term child, which you and your buddy want to include a link to child sexual abuse. Now, as to red herrings, no, not quite. This person's illegal actions took place in Oregon, not the UK, not Egypt, so we need to accurately describe what he did in terms of Oregon's culture and laws. We do not import values from elsewhere. As to your "like it" comment, that's something you are reading into it. Did she? Maybe she did, maybe she didn't. As to cherry picking, no. Again, I said it was one of many, which was to demonstrate the various definitions and show that whether or not she was a child is an unsettled question. Her age is not. If I were cherry picking, I would have said "the only definition of child is someone who has not reached puberty". But if you want more definitions, here you go: From Blacks Law Dictionary (2nd Pokcet ed.): 1) a person under the age of majority. 2) at common law, a person who has not reached the age of 14. 3) a boy or girl; a young person. 4) A son or daughter. 5) A baby or fetus.

As to "relationship" as I have stated before on this page (I think last time this type of thing came up), some 14 years olds are far more mature than 40 years old and can be far more manipulative. 14 can be old enough to try perpetrators as adults in some jurisdictions (or get married). 14 is an age, not a mind set. Was the relationship illegal, yes it was, we know that, there is and was a law. Was it morally wrong, that depends on your morals (mine say it is, but mine also say stoning rape victims to death is also morally wrong but some people disagree in other places). I think its morally wrong to enslave people, but again not everyone has agreed on that concept. You want to call it illegal actions or something to replace "relationship" then fine, but we can't include child nor sexual abuse. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave aside the commentary about my reading and concentrate on the facts at hand:

• I reiterate the criticism of your position that I've previously made.
• As for the definition of child (itself an obfuscation, as it's the definition of child sexual abuse that bears on this discussion):
  • You employed a cherry-picked definition of child that suited your purpose. Your acknowledging other definitions doesn't alter the fact of your choice. Even in your chosen dictionary (Black's), the very first definition is that a child is a person under the age of majority. The person in question was under the age of majority, and therefore a child by the definition of greatest precedence in the dictionary you picked.
• Restricting the discussion to what the law says places an artificial constraint on the discussion. The sexual misuse of a minor is a topic well-studied in fields such as medicine, psychology, and sociology, among others. The question of what Goldschmidt did cannot be fully answered by employing a strict legal construction.
  • Child sexual abuse is a well-defined term for a well-defined form of abuse. Its definition holds broad support among clinicians and researchers. The definitions are clear: One need not be a prepubescent child in order to have suffered child sexual abuse.
  • There's the story of the Texas sharpshooter who first shoots the side of the barn, then paints a bullseye around the bullet holes and pronounces himself a sharpshooter. In the same way, painting this as a strictly legal question enables you to treat your arguments as bullseyes even though the topic is bigger than your premises admit.
• Some 14 year olds may be more mature than some 40 year olds. The standard we set for ourselves is that it is always abusive for a 40something man to have intercourse with a 14-year-old girl. That might have been considered a non-abusive practice in some other time or place, but it isn't here.

This is child sexual abuse, by definition. Those whom we have identified as experts on the subject have issued peer-reviewed findings that when an adult sexually penetrates a 14-year-old, that's child sexual abuse, regardless of apparent consent or lack of force. Res ipsa loquitur -- the act speaks for itself. --SSBohio 19:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

To revert the child sexual abuse description defies how this kind of abuise is seen int eh real world and thus violates POV. If people want to justify child sexual abuse making comments such as "some 14 years olds are far more mature than 40 years old and can be far more manipulative" I strongly suggest this is not the place for it, there are plenty of girl chat sites out their to expound such beliefs. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Squeakbox, first, take a look at the page about the be bold, revert, discuss cycle. My reversion was not a statement that your edit was wrong, but an invitation for you to present a case for it. Second, you overlook the fact that the word "abuse" is already used elsewhere in the article -- including in a section header. Nobody is trying to whitewash the illegal or immoral aspect of this. As I see it, the fundamental problem is this: "affair" and "relationship" have connotations that are too mild to properly describe the issue, and "abuse" (a term which is often used for acts that are violent in nature. Nobody has yet come up with a term that presents an accurate "middle ground" between these terms, that is factually correct without adding inappropriate connotations.

I find myself wondering if we should just be very specific, as in "…had sex with a teenager over a period of three years." That would express exactly what happened, without value judgment. -Pete (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. If I don't pay my parking tickets, that's immoral and illegal. If I take advantage of those far weaker, younger, and less powerful than me, that's abusive and exploitative. "Had sex with a 14 year old" does not "express exactly what happened," according to the majority view and the law and a large body of research on child sexual abuse. Saying the man had sex with the child is like saying the man had dinner with the pork chop. -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

My case is very simple, Pete. When a 30 something man abuses sexually a 14 year old girl we at wikipedia call this what it is commonly called, ie child sexual abuse. What we do not do is attack and blame the girl (oh she was mature, oh she was so manipulative), and make excuses for the man and claim it was "adult child sex". Nobody is claiming a whitewash, all we are trying to do is follow wikipedia policies re common usage and fringe views. had sex witha teenager is as inappropriate as it comes as 18 and 19 year old teenagers clearly have the right to, and can consent to, sleep with any men of their choice. If you want to see CSA as alwayys violent that is fine by me. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Petra, the fact that Goldschmidt had sex with the minor is a bare fact, upon which value judgments rest. If he didn't have sex with her, there would be no abuse, and no law violated. So your pork chop analogy does not apply. Squeakbox, are you seriously suggesting that somebody said "oh she was mature, oh she was so manipulative"? If so, you need to work on your reading skills.

As an aside, the reversions that are accompanying this discussion are disruptive and will not help lead us toward an improved article. I believe this article, like many, has not yet attained perfection, and am happy to work on improving it, but prematurely making edits that go undo text approved by a wide variety of editors over the last year will not help us do that.

The points that Squeakbox SSBohio made about what specific institutions define sex abuse how, is useful information. I would suggest that we get that information in a citable form, and work it into the text of the article. -Pete (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think i need to work on my reading skills, Pete, I advise you to desist from being incivil, such comments do not extend your argument but do make you look a bit silly, especially given the above comments. And if you want to insult real people who lack literacy skills I suggest you do not communicate with me again as i do not suffer fools gladly. Thanks, SqueakBox19:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right, and as I said on my talk page, I am sorry for that moment of incivility. I respect that you are approaching this out of a desire to build a quality encyclopedia. However, it does appear you have completely misunderstood Aboutmovies' argument in this case. -Pete (talk) 06:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

After reading the sources, I am pretty convinced that using the term "abuse" is not acceptable in this article. The definitions get into details that, as far as I know, are not available in this specific case. The case was never litigated, Goldschmidt was never found guilty. So we don't have any court documents, findings of fact, etc. that would tell us whether the minor was "forced or talked into sex or sexual activities by another person." (as quoted from the definition in the NIH source.) It may be tempting to suppose that a mayor in his 30s was the instigator, but such a supposition is beyond our role as encyclopedia writers. The only documents we have at our disposal, as far as I know, are those in which Goldschmidt confessed to having had sex with her, which don't go into the kind of detail that would be required for this sort of conclusion. (There were court documents from later litigation; I'm not sure if those are available on the web, or if they go into detail. If they do, that might change what I said. It would be worth researching this more thoroughly.) -Pete (talk) 07:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Are Pete and I the only editors here looking to improve the article in general and have made edits in the past demonstrating this and not just here about the sex part of the article? As to fringe views, their is nothing fringe about the various definitions of child. AGAIN WHAT GOLDSCHMIDT DID WAS WRONG. I second Pete's suggestion of reading if you think anyone here thinks the actions were proper or are trying to term this as "adult child sex", let alone trying to have the article read that way. AGAIN WHAT GOLDSCHMIDT DID WAS WRONG. My comments about 14 year old's levels of maturity is a general statement and does not bear on this specific 14 year old. AGAIN WHAT GOLDSCHMIDT DID WAS WRONG. It was used to demonstrate why the definition of child varies. It also demonstrates why the laws in Oregon (where everything took place as far as I know) distinguishes between these. Society, as reflected in the laws, deems 14 years olds more responsible than say 8 year olds. 14 year olds in various jurisdictions can be tried as adults and legally marry. If I recall correctly they can also make certain medical decisions without the need for parental consent, a six year old cannot. AGAIN WHAT GOLDSCHMIDT DID WAS WRONG. 14 year olds can, in a way, consent to sexual relationships as long as the other person is less than 4 years their elder, which is not the case here but only used to demonstrate the distinctions society draws on a 14 year old. AGAIN WHAT GOLDSCHMIDT DID WAS WRONG. Just as we as society make distinctions between physically forced rape and statutory rape and deem forced rape more reprehensible as demonstrated by the longer prison sentences, we make distinctions between 14 year olds and 13 year olds in Oregon law concerning sexual abuse, and as I pointed out above, Oregon law does not classify this as the closest thing to child sexual abuse in the ORS. AGAIN WHAT GOLDSCHMIDT DID WAS WRONG. For those advocating for the inclusion about abuse or child, please read the portion of WP:NPOV that discusses adding value judgments, such as those related to Hitler. Here, as there, you do not need to say Goldschmidt is a bad man or that it was an immoral action. The reader will read this and in most cases find it was immoral/wrong/horrible, but they have to make that connection themselves. I and I think everyone here agrees what he did was immoral, but not everyone agrees on the same set of morals. And that is why we do not make the judgments, the reader does. AGAIN WHAT GOLDSCHMIDT DID WAS WRONG. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The text of Goldschmidt's confessional letter is, as far as I know, the only thing approaching a "primary source" for this issue. We know that the letter is not accurate, insofar as he claimed that the confession came as an act of personal atonement, while it is widely known that the pressure of a state senator and two local publications was the real cause. However, we simply don't have a better source. Goldschmidt used the terms "affair" and "relationship" in the letter. Following is the full text of the letter. (In addition, I'd recommend the first source cited in the article, from the American Journalism Review. This national publication is not compromised on this issue in the way that the Oregonian is, and has journalistic integrity as a core element of its mission. This publication uses the phrase "ongoing sexual relationship" in its intro paragraph, and derides the use of the term "affair.") -Pete (talk) 08:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Text of the statement Neil Goldschmidt made to The Oregonian on Thursday: Beginning in 1975, while I was mayor, I had an affair with a high school student for nearly a year. In 1994, I funded a conservatorship in her behalf, believing I was partly responsible for her difficulties coping with her life. For almost thirty years, I have lived with enormous guilt and shame about this relationship. I have also been afraid that it would be exposed to my family, friends and the public whose respect I have sought to earn. How can such behavior be erased when the damage to others and to myself lives on? I have sat in my place of worship each year at Yom Kippur, the day of atonement in my religious tradition, reading in silence, searching for personal peace. And I have found that the answer to that question is that it cannot be erased. The pain and damage that I have caused have been with me constantly. I have known all along that my private apologies and actions, deep and true though they were, would never be enough. I apologize now, publicly and completely. I am truly sorry for allowing the relationship to happen at all, with someone too young to be responsible or accountable for her actions; for failing my first wife; and for betraying the trust of family, friends and all those who put their trust in me. This moment has arrived at a time when I am struggling with my health. Finding some measure of personal peace, in addition to stepping aside from my public service and business activities, is part of that struggle, part of what I must do in order to heal. In my life I have been blessed with a loving and supportive family, wonderful children and grandchildren, and a wife who helped me confront this issue. With all sincerity, I pray that God will accept my contrition and protect my family from the pain that a life led poorly in part may bring to their homes. May a forgiving God mend my broken heart and those I have broken. And may Oregonians accept this apology, even if they cannot forgive my actions.

A criminal's letter (written after the statute of limitations expired) making self-serving excuses is not a "primary source" for terminology. -PetraSchelm (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You're correct, but you're also not following the point I made. It is the closest thing we have to a primary source for what happened. Unless you can dig up some court documents, we don't know a thing about what happened beyond what Goldschmidt said happened. I'd suggest calling Nigel Jaquiss, if they are available to the public, he would know about it. -Pete (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that what happened is in much dispute, but that how to describe it is. While I have drawn my conclusion that what happened constitutes child sexual abuse, I can see where both perspectives are valid and attract sincere adherents. I'd like us all to leave the article be as we work on building a consensus. I'm recapping the major arguments on either side below, with the hope that it will inform the discussion. --SSBohio 19:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

A user has requested comment on biography for this section. This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFCbio list}}. When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.

Okay, this discussion is going nowhere -- & if you look to the archives, this point has been disputed in the past. I'm listing this at WP:RFC to get some outside eyes on this matter. (And for the record, I feel calling this episode in Goldschmidt's life "child abuse" is misleading to the point of violating the intent of WP:BLP; one might as well call a 30-year-old man marrying a 14-year-old girl "child abuse" & toss those people in Africa, Asia & Appalachia into the same box with the sexual sadists & serial rapists of children.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some of the issues raised

There appear to be two distinct ways of thinking regarding how to treat this subject in this article:

Some (including me) believe the activity meets the definition of child sexual abuse, so it should be described as such in the article. NPOV -- The term relationship sets the wrong tone. The power imbalance makes this a case of abuse, not a relationship. BLP -- This must be identified as abuse in order to write compassionately and accurately about the victim and about what Goldschmidt did. V -- Based on the sources' definition, this is child sexual abuse. Not mention ing that is effectively a choice to be less informative.

Others believe that describing what happened without identifying it as abuse is the way to go. NPOV -- It expresses a non-neutral value judgment to call this abuse. It's better to describe the situation with basic facts and allow the reader to draw their own conclusion. BLP -- This article shouldn't be seen to accuse Goldschmidt of something. V -- If we say this is abuse, we're not being conservative about only using verifiable information.

I think we can achieve consensus on this, since we're all trying to improve the article. --SSBohio 19:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• This is obviously a matter of cultural difference. In Africa, Asia, and Appalachia, it may be acceptable to marry a fourteen-year-old girl, whereas here it would usually be illicit. For example, in most US states, parental consent is needed to marry under the age of sixteen (let alone engage in sexual intercourse as in this situation). In Goldschmidt's case, this could be considered statutory rape. Again, this depends on the state and even region involved. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 23:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

SSBohio, I think your breakdown is almost entirely accurate, and will be very helpful to improving the article. Two problems, though: first, BLP makes reference in the lead section to the privacy of an individual. The article identifies Neil Goldschmidt, so any account of his actions must be accurate. The victim of the crime -- whose rights most certainly must be respected -- is, thankfully, anonymous to the public. We do not know her identity, and the general public does not know her identity. So her privacy is not at risk.

Second, the sources you provided above provide definitions of "child abuse" that are specific. The specific facts of this case, unlike (say) the facts of the Clinton/Lewinsky case where the evidence goes into extraordinary detail, are not sufficint to evaluate it in terms of the definitions you provided. We do not know whether the acts were "forced or talked into" by Goldschmidt (even though we all might make the same assumption about what almost certainly happened). We do not know who was or was not gratified. The evidence before us is incredibly scant. We might be 99.9% sure that what happened constituted child abuse, out of our understanding of who the people involved were and what their relationship was; but without that .1%, we cannot call it child abuse. Anyone who does is opening themselves up to libel charges; I suppose that's your choice, but I would not advise making it lightly.

Mizu, your point is generally true, but does not capture the essence of the current dispute. The article makes it quite clear that the act was statutory rape under Oregon law, that part is not under dispute. -Pete (talk) 06:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

To complete the thought: declining to call it "child abuse" is not logically equivalant to saying it was NOT child abuse. It may very well have been child abuse; the article should not assert otherwise. But the article should not say it WAS child abuse unless there is 100% certainty that it was child abuse. -Pete (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say go with the article. It says sexual relationship. This is a neutral way to phrase it, and people can make up their minds -- most Americans will obviously consider it to be abusive (i.e. extreme statutory rape). Calling it child abuse is too much, especially when the source doesn't say it. ImpIn | (t - c) 08:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this has been explicitly said yet, re: the neutrality of the word "relationship": people talk all the time about "abusive relationships," relationships in which there is a power imbalance, etc. The word "relationship" does not connote equality, or healthiness. A marriage is a relationship, yes; but there are also relationships between prisoners and their guards, between politicians and their constituents, between criminals and their victims, etc. I get the sense that people are reacting to the word as though it somehow connotes a healthy, happy, equal standing among peers. But it does not connote that. -Pete (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Another phrase that we could maybe use, though: "...had sexual relations with a teenage girl over a period of three years..." -Pete (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it was not sexual relations, it was sexual abuse. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

They may very likely have been "abusive sexual relations," but we do not have sources that tell us that with certainty. An encyclopedia article describing them as "sexual relations" provides a perfectly good foundation for a moral educator to describe them as "abusive sexual relations"; there is no logical contradiction. But the role of an encyclopedia is not to be a moral educator -- especially in a case where sufficient factual information to make a moral judgment is not available. -Pete (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree with Squeak. (Also, I have to say I'm tired of the semantic wikilawyering by someone who appears to have an Oregon politics COI or near COI and some page ownership issues. It's a majority source issue; majority sources say abusive and exploitative. And the comparison to Clinton-Lewinsky was almost as bad for unclear-on-concept as the "14 year olds can be manipulative" comment...) -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This WW article uses the word abuse dozens of times. One of the most telling phrases is

“

Jeff Foote, the lawyer who negotiated a settlement with Goldschmidt on Susan's behalf. "Our records indicated that the abuse started when she was 14 and ended when she was 17,"

”

Seems like "sexual abuse" is accurate and well supported. Am I missing something? —EncMstr (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The article uses "abuse" but never "child abuse." Also, that is one article of many. The preponderence of coverage uses the term "sexual relationship." (There's no argument about the term "abuse" by itself, which has been in the article through several discussions and for many months.) -Pete (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, for the record, I have no conflict of interest on any issue related to this article. I'm not sure why it would appear that I do. The closest I've come is campaigning, as a volunteer, for Vicki Walker, who is arguably Goldschmidt's most outspoken critic. -Pete (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you have some page ownership issues, and are extremely personally invested in the issue of Oregon politics, per your userpage and your edit history. But I think the WW source settles it utterly (not that we needed an additional source to support the majority view). Sexual abuse should be in the article, with the WW cite. -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point. Since she was aged 14 to 17, it would be "teenage abuse", considering the usual meaning of "child". Is that what the issue is? —EncMstr (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The critical article is child sexual abuse not child as it is the former we wish to link to not the latter. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Petra, you're entitled to your opinion on "ownership issues." I disagree. I have done a great deal of research on Goldschmidt's career and the coverage of this scandal, and I believe the perspective I bring is highly informed on the specifics of the situation. That doesn't mean I disrespect the reasoned deliberations of others, or that I will stand in the way of people improving the article.

EncMstr, natural language isn't something you can apply syllogisms to as readily as, say, math. If you could, then you could call an 18 year old slapping her 17 year old boyfriend a child abuser. It's essential to use language in a way that is informed by the context. So, I believe the issues under dispute are these: whether or not it's permissible to use "sexual relationship," among other terms, as a description of what happened (I say yes), and whether or not it's permissible to use "child abuse," among other terms, as a description of what happened (I say no.)

What is NOT under dispute is whether "abuse" is an acceptable description, for our purposes, of what happened (it is), and whether or not "affair" is an acceptable description for our purposes (it's not). I think we all agree on that much. Hope that helps clarify things. -Pete (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to cool off and step back somewhat--you're overly engaged, responding to everyone instead of letting a conversation develop between any others, posting in all caps, you violated 3RR, etc--ownership. Rein it in, keep a cool head, and step back more.-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

EncMstr, I think you have put your finger on the problem, & IMHO both sides are too busy talking at (if not past) each other to consider that this issue is blocking them from a consensus. No one is arguing that a felony crime has been committed; however, there are degrees or kinds of felony crimes. For example, one can call manslaughter (i.e., a killing in an angry rage), or negligent homicide (i.e., causing an accident that leads to someone's death) "murder", but doing so oversimplifies, it removes the accuracy or subtlety of the wording; using that language reduces the matter to black & white. Another example of the matter would be possessing or using an illegal drug: I think almost all of us would see possession/use of heroin as a far different matter than possession or use of marijuana.

The details make this case too complex to simply call it "child sexual abuse". The age, most importantly. Now all of us would accept that, at least in some cultures, a person on reaching puberty is no longer a child: in the contemporary US, most 13 & 14 year-olds have undergone puberty. On the other hand, the law does not see these people as adults; in most locales, the age of consent is 16 or older. Hence, this incident falls into a gray area, where it is a felony (like manslaughter), but not as heinous as pederasty (or like premeditated murder). If I am right in suspecting this is what Pete & others also believe, I am somewhat disappointed that they haven't made this point explicit. On the other hand, if PetraSchelm & the others who argue that this distinction does not matter, I believe that if they win this battle it will lead them to losing their war (to speak metaphorically): by expanding the meaning of the emotionally-charged term "sexual child abuse" in this manner, its meaning is weakened, & those who disagree with them may successfully argue that they apply it to acts that few consider felonies, such as kissing a pre-pubescent child on the lips. That is why I advocate that this article should state the simple facts -- that Goldschidt had a sexual relationship with a 14 year-old girl. Some, like PetraSchelm, will be allowed to interpret this as being "sexual child abuse", while others will be allowed to interpret this as a criminal act & a disgrace. Sometimes the consensus comes in finding a way for the parties with opposing points of view to agree to disagree. -- llywrch (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Um, hello? I don't see where Pete has posted in all caps (unless you mean the single word "not" just above), and he seems pretty calm to me. Are you talking about Aboutmovies? Re: Ownership. There are several of us who work on Oregon-related articles. We worked to get this article to GA-status, so we are invested in keeping it that way. Though several of us work closely together, it's rare we all agree, and I've never seen an actual case of WP:OWN perpretrated by members of WP:ORE. Tempers flare sometimes, but we are quick to ask for outside opinions, and warn each other about incivility and the like, and generally we try to keep the process moving rather than stubbornly blocking consensus. Since this was wisely opened up to comment from folks who might not otherwise be involved in Oregon, politics and/or child abuse awareness, can we move on from discussing the behavior of individual editors and concentrate on coming to consensus about the wording? Thank you. Katr67 (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I want Pete to step back and cool off--above he has posted in all caps; I don't care for people shouting at me. Also, he's the only one who has violated 3RR, and Squeak has already had to warn him about incivility. The most irritating thing though, is posting in reply to everyone, as if he were the moderator. That seems to have stopped, but I don't want it to start up again, either. Also, I would say this matter is settled per the WW source. -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Petra, the only non-acronyms I've capitalized in this discussion are "not" and "was" -- my intent was merely to emphasize the word, not shout. But I will try to use italics for that going forward. I have not violated 3RR, which contains a specific and important exemption for WP:BLP concerns. I did make a single uncivil comment, which I regret, and apologized for both here and on my own talk page; if the apology is insufficient in any way, I hope SqueakBox will let me know, because I'd like to do what I can to move past it it. Finally, I understand and respect your concern that I've been drowning out other voices; I disagree that I've crossed that line in this discussion, but I will try to be more restrained in my commenting going forward; I'd suggest that you can assist in that effort, by increasing your efforts to digest my remarks and reflect them accurately in your own responses. -Pete (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You have abused a BLP excuse to violate 3RR; there was no BLP justification--and its part of a pattern which points to ownership and overengagement--posting in all caps, posting too much and in response to everyone, incivility. If you can't see that these things add up, it's even more evidence that it's time to take a break/step back and get some perspective. Meanwhile, the majority view, per all the sources Ssb posted, is clearly sourced and explained. The additional WW source for use in the article has now been provided. We understand if you don't agree, but that doesn't change the majority view or sources. If you don't understand, that sounds instead like a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I did post a message in all caps, repeatidly, and will do it again if someone continues to direct me towards some sort of pro child sex abuse chat sites despite my numerous mentions that what I found this person did was wrong not only in the current discussion (but again some of us have actually been working on this article for a long time and not just here for a single purpose) but also in previous discussions, then I will repeat the phrase so that they get it. Though reading something above, it seems kind of odd that in some of the sources provided for child sex abuse say it is for both adolescents and children. Odd, I could have sworn I was told anyone under the age of majority was a child by someone, which means there would be no need to distinguish. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Saying things like "I did post a message in all caps and will do it again" and "Then I will repeat the phrase so that they get it" are likely to get you blocked until you "get it," I wouldn't do that if I were you. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Petra, I haven't participated in very many rfcs, but I thought they were supposed to include discussion? Can you point me to the relevant guideline about rfcs that says someone isn't supposed to respond (or respond too much) to others' comments? Thanks. Katr67 (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Posting to in response to every single editor as if he were the moderator is just one of the things Pete has done which shows overengagement and ownership. The relevent link is WP:OWN. Meanwhile, Ssb has provided numerous sources demonstrating the majority view is abuse, and EncMstr has provided the specific WW cite for "abuse" and this case. I don't think there's anything left to discuss; the sources are clear. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

page protection for a week due to edit warring. Let's try to talk it out. --Duk 07:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Behavior issues

Again, I'd like to point out that we are trying to reach consensus about the wording of this article. Rather than continuing to discuss editors' behavior, I'd suggest that if anyone feels an editor is being disruptive, that they please just report the user at WP:3RRN or WP:ANI, or file a user- or admin-conduct rfc as appropriate. That way uninvolved editors can assess the situation and the conduct discussions can take place in one of those venues and not detract from the content discussion. Katr67 (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)