Talk:Child sexual abuse/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

female assailants

I added statements and sources from two new academic works (from my university's Women's Studies collection) on female sex abuse of children. Please review these sources and discuss any changes before reverts. They raise some shocking issues that are rarely researched in the US and that need to be shown as part of the child sexual abuse picture somehow. 128.111.95.237 04:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I added citations to back these statements and other statements I added about female assailants and their victims in response to the fact templates. However, I need assistance with the correct form to use when adding citations. Would someone please provide me an example of a text citation used in the article so I can clean my citations up? This article is very confusing to me because I am unfamiliar with all the ways citations are being cited here. 128.111.95.245 01:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Question about child sexual abuse

I got a question and it might seem to fit here. I just found out that my mom's brother's wife, "played" with her son's penis when changing him when he was little, my mom and grandma saw this countless times and were outraged. Does that count as a molest? Also, I do think it is possible that I was molested myself by her during a sleep over with my cousens (do to sleeping, I remmeber having my shorts on and when I woke up, I was only in my underwear). Should I turn her in, is she a risk to other people/childen? blackbox13000

Wikipedia doesn't give legal advice, but my personal opinion is that she should be locked up. For better results you should ask the question at the humanities reference desk.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 09:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I responded to your question at Talk:Blackbox13000; your talk page. I think that yes, that does sound like child molestation. It does count. I would recommend that you speak with the Child Protective Services agency in your area. Please reply to User_talk:Joie de Vivre, my talk page if you would like to talk or if you need help identifying the child protection resources in your area. Joie de Vivre 21:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Iv taken care of it, waited on hold almost wasnt worth it. I had the info on hand, but I wanted a second openion on it, I didnt really want to jump the gun, thanks blackbox13000

Suggest new topics: adolescent sexual abuse, sexual abuse laws

This topic deserves 3 articles, or at least 3 major subtopics:

Adolescent sexual abuse Child sexual abuse Sexual abuse laws

The first two are very distinct. Child sexual abuse is usually related to pedophilia, adolescent sexual abuse is not.

They have different psychological impacts on their victims.

Sexual abuse laws usually cover both.

Merge False allegation of child sexual abuse into this?

I created a new topic False allegation of child sexual abuse. The article is still young and needs sources and non-US points of view. Will Beback recommended merging it with Child sexual abuse. Personally, I think it's big enough to stand on its own but would like some additional feedback. Dfpc 23:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I propose a merge. The topics are basically the same. We already have separate articles on specific instances of false allegations, including McMartin Preschool trial and Day care sexual abuse hysteria. There isn't much to say about the phenomenon of false allegations, and the couple of sourceable paragraphs that can be produced would be best kept here. -Will Beback · † · 18:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool, SqueakBox 18:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I created False allegation of child sexual abuse. I would rather merge it into a general article on false allegations of criminal behavior, with "See also" links in all related articles. Unfortunately, I don't know of a general "false allegations" article. Anyone know any experts on false allegations involved in this discussion? Dfpc 18:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Miscarriage of justice may be what you want, SqueakBox 18:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's close but it focuses on wrongful convictions, not taking into account the harm done by a false allegation. If the article must be merged, neither MoJ and CSA are a perfect fit. Given that, I'd prefer to not merge at this time. I posted on Talk:Miscarriage of justice and linked back here. Hopefully people will see it and reply. The more opinions we get the better decision will result. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dfpc (talk • contribs) 21:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

I would recommend great caution in merging the false allegations article into the child abuse article. The topic is highly political, and only a full and balanced consideration would do justice to the topic. It would be much better to elaborate on the issues of how reports are made, and how they are substantiated or unsubstantiated. In any case, the current false allegations entry is much too sketchy for a merge. Mmcjprof 05:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

the fact that it's "sketchy" is all the more reason to merge. Child sexual abuse is also political, and the two are inextricably linked. -Will Beback · † · 06:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

How many examples are needed for "some states" in close-in-age exception statement?

In the 20:47, 2 May 2007 edit, RalphLender tagged the statement Some states have special rules when the two parties are close in age as unsourced. The very next sentence includes Iowa complete with a citation. Before I look up the laws in every state, how many state statutes are sufficient before this can be de-tagged? Barring a single source saying "several states have close in age exception," I think 2 more examples with citations should suffice. Comments? Dfpc 21:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There must be some source to support the statement...maybe try a google search on the "some states..." and see if you get a citation. I'd suggest keeping it specific...if there are two states, just state that...or leave it as is and let others add...If there are two examples, then saying two states would be accurate...DPeterson^talk 22:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found an ABC News quotation saying most states have Romeo and Juliet laws. Dfpc 22:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Good citation/source...thank you. DPeterson^talk 00:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Effects on Children

I reverted to the version without the two unsourced statements. If there are citations to support the statements, please add those. Otherwise, the statements are conclusions and "original research" or opinions...neither of which have a place here. RalphLender^talk 13:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

... Voice of Britain 13:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop deleting the material in this section. What is present is referenced and meets the wiki standard of being verifiable. RalphLender^talk 15:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I have nothing against any properly sourced information added, but I do have problems with information that isn't. This area is a political minfield so we should have sources of the highest quality that also easily can be checked. This is done by citing peer reviewed sources and writing proper references. All in best intentions. Voice of Britain 19:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia standards only require that a source be verifiable RalphLender^talk 20:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

These are not unless they clearly point to the original research, which I beleive it doesn't. If it do then point us there directly instead. Voice of Britain 20:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of "verifiable" is that another user can follw the citation and verify that our summary of the material is correct. It does not mean that we have to be able to reproduce the research in the the cited reference. -Will Beback · † · 20:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I see, so that's the way you wanto play. At this point i can do one of two things: I can accept the challenge and start unserious edits, adding whatever sources i can google, or I can withdraw and accept that the quality of the article will remain low. I choose to do the latter, congratulations, you win, and all according to the rules. Voice of Britain 20:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There are several kinds of sources: Primary sources, reliable secondary sources, questionable/unreliable secondary sources, false sources, and probably other categories. Articles from CNN and other reputable news outlets are mostly primary or reliable secondary sources and are fair game for Wikipedia. Blogs run a high risk of being questionable or outright false and are generally not acceptable, although there are of course exceptions. Parody web sites are examples of false sources. Of course, primary sources, such as academic papers publishing original research, or eyewitness testimony of an event, are the gold standard. See WP:REF, WP:RS, and WP:V for more on this. From WP:V: In general, sources of questionable reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight are considered unreliable and should not be used except in limited circumstances. Dfpc 21:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Why aim for less than gold standard? Is this some school project we just wanto get done so we can go home and watch tv? If we don't strive for rising above the mediocre, then we should just quit since there are many other webpages who already provide the information you can find here. Voice of Britain 21:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

For the purposes of Wikipedia, academic papers are considered secondary sources. Primary sources are not the "gold standard" and in fact their use is discouraged or outright banned. -Will Beback · † · 21:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stick to your area of expertise and leave serious editing here for the people who has actual knowledge of the subject. This is by far the most efficient way of doing things by any standard. Voice of Britain 21:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

We edit according to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. See No original research: Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. -Will Beback · † · 21:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This is like some Orwellian nightmare. I use primary sources by the normal definition of the word. Should be perfectly clear? You use secondary sources by the normal definition of the word, also clear? Why is this a problem? It is a problem because the information is very dubious and with secondary sources which doesn'r point to the primary it is basically impossible to verify the claims (again be the normal definition of the words). I don't interfer with your areas of expertise, and I would appreciate if you returned the favour here. Voice of Britain 21:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no areas of expertise and I interfere in all aspects of Wikipedia. If you'd like to have me banned please go ahead and make a proposal. Until I'm banned I'll continue to promote adherence to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I'm sorry if that's inconvenient. As for your points above, if a TIME reporter says that he's spoken with witnesses who recount a set of events then we accept the report's article as a secondary source. We don't require access to the reporters' notebooks, tape recordings, and other primary sources. -Will Beback · † · 22:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware that you are editing a part of an article which deals with the finer parts of the research of what effects trauma may have on certain parts of the brain? Are you qualified in this area? Do you have any expertise at all on this subject? What is the deal here? Tell me cause I really don't get what you are trying to do here. Voice of Britain 22:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any editors on Wikipedia having expertise in the field of child sexual abuse. If you'd like to identify yourself by name and credentials then we might accept your expertise. Until then let's just focus on the edits, not the editors. -Will Beback · † · 22:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I do focus on the edits and I do have issues with them. Especially the sources. If you cannot provide sources that allows me to verify the claims then they will be removed. I couldn't care less about claimed expertise, what I care about is expertise showing in edits, and I see none at this point. Basic understanding of research methodology and the area at hand is what I wanto see. Voice of Britain 22:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

External links

Why are we deleting the entire external links section? And why do we call those deletions the "factually correct version"?[1] -Will Beback · † · 22:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

People can use google, wikipedia isn't a link directory, it clogs up the article.

It is the factually correct version, so why call it anything else? Voice of Britain 23:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

People can use Google to discover most of what's in this article. However on wikipedia we like to have external links sections. Until you can gain consensus for its removal please stop deleting a major and conventional section. -Will Beback · † · 23:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And what's factually incorrect about the external links? -Will Beback · † · 23:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Some like link section on wikipedia, obviously not all. So there is no consensus on this area. I won't start a fight over this since it does not matter much. Sure it makes the article cloggy and less appealing but it could be alot worse. Voice of Britain 23:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleting the info three time in a few hours counts as fighting over it. Thanks for realizing that it's not worth it. While not everyone likes external links sections they are part of the norms of Wikipedia. -Will Beback · † · 23:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It takes two to tango as they say. Voice of Britain 23:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the links. Didactic pronouncements in edit summaries are not a way to get on people's good side, for starters. Herostratus 23:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I say keep the external links. Unless a link is unrelated to the topic or its content is itself dubious or likely not fact-checked, it should stay. If you remove a reference, specify why each removed reference was removed in the edit summary or here. Examples: "removed reference acme, it's a personal blog written by a layman who appears to be shooting off at the mouth. Factually dubious." "Removed reference Child Abuse link refers to material no longer in this article." Note that "link is now an ad farm" or "link is defunct" should NOT be removed but should be flagged with "link no longer active as of May 2007" or some such. If possible, it should be replaced with a link from www.archive.org or another backup copy. Bottom line: If you can't justify removing it, keep it. Dfpc 04:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I say we should keep the links as well, they serve a purpose in this case, SqueakBox 05:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. RalphLender^talk 15:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources wanted

I restored the properly sourced version. You may feel the urge to revery but before you do, make sure that you add propoer cites for any claim you make so that I can verify the information. Cause that is exactly what I will do, and remove any that doesn't support your claims. Voice of Britain 23:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove this amterial?

• This could explain the problems sexual abuse victims have with regulation of mood and other limbic functions, especially as exhibited in borderline personality disorder. Other studies also indicate that the psychological trauma caused by sexual abuse can lead to temporal lobe epilepsy, damage to the cerebellar vermis, along with reduced size of the corpus callosum. Children who had suffered only sexual abuse showed somewhat greater damage than children who had suffered only non-sexual physical abuse. However, the most dramatic effects were seen in those who had suffered both sexual and physical abuse. Male and female victims were similarly affected. [2] More recent studies indicate that sexual or physical abuse in children can lead to the overexcitation of an undeveloped limbic system [3]. Twin studies have suggested that the variations may be explained by genetics. The theory that stress is causing brain damage is implausible accordig to Harvard Professor Richard McNally. However, there is substantal evidence that traumatic stress causes notable changes in brain functioning and development

• Other studies also indicate that the psychological trauma caused by sexual abuse can lead to temporal lobe epilepsy, damage to the cerebellar vermis, along with reduced size of the corpus callosum. Children who had suffered only sexual abuse showed somewhat greater damage than children who had suffered only non-sexual physical abuse. However, the most dramatic effects were seen in those who had suffered both sexual and physical abuse. Male and female victims were similarly affected. [4]

It appears sourced. -Will Beback · † · 23:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I will agree when I see direct references to the studies those links refer to. So I can check databases or in worst case go to the library to get them. All without having to do any detective work to get there. I assume to have read the articles already so you should have no problem providing such references. Voice of Britain 23:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't require that sources list all studies that go into writing an article. That's a false standard. You cannot simply make up rules on your own. -Will Beback · † · 23:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

A source has a purpose and is justified by that alone. We don't use sources just because it is fun or look fancy, they should point the reader to the informaion he needs to be able to verify or refute the claims made in the article. This is not the case in your version and until it is fixed I will continue to restore to versions that can. Since they claims you make in the article are disputed and of low generalisational quality it is highly important that you allow for other editors and readers to have full chance to examine the claims. If your intentions are honest, then such critical examination should be welcomed by you. Voice of Britain 23:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, that material has sources. You may legitimately complain if it doesn't accurately summarize those sources, or if the sources are unreliable. I don't see either of those being the case. Instead it appears you are creating an arbitrary, ad hoc rule to prevent the material from being included in the article. I would note that this is material which purports that there is lasting harm to children who suffer sexual abuse. There appears to be a pattern of removing sourced material which presents this point of view. -Will Beback · † · 00:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

To check that I would need the referenses I have been asking for. Can you see the problem? I have no removed any such information, I have been adding better sources from peer reviewed and prominent researchers. If your case here is to proove lasting harm despite what science shows then its clearly POV. Voice of Britain 00:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) Let's start with the second paragraph. Here is the source: http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/36/5/36. In what way does the text misrepresent the material in that source? -Will Beback · † · 00:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a guy writing about some studies. I want the studies he is writing about. Too much information is lacking in this state to be able to judge the claims being made. Voice of Britain 00:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

We're citing the guy who's writing about studies. Do you have some reason to assume that "pn.psychiatryonline.org" is an unreliable source? If not then there's no justification for deleting this. There's no Wikipedia rule that I'm aware of that supports your position on this. -Will Beback · † · 00:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia only requires that sources be verifiable. If one disagrees with a source, other sources may be cited to contest the original citation...but all that is requireed is described in the article on verifiability. DPeterson^talk 01:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources." Here is where it falls in this case. The claims here are so dubious that only the studies themselves can provide the answers. Feel free to add them so the rest of us can verify that the claims in the article are correct or not. Voice of Britain 03:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wether the claims are dubious or not is a matter of opinion, not fact. In this instance the citations are relevant. However, if you disagree strongly, the proper dispute resolution process would be to either request an RfC or we could hold an informal poll. RalphLender^talk 15:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Effects on Children section

Whoever keeps deleting the material in this section is bordering on vandalism. The section as I restored it is appropriately sourced with material that meets the wikipedia standard of being verifiable...please do not delete it. RalphLender^talk 15:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

They do not meet the standards of wikipedia policy, which has been pointed out earlier. With best regards: Voice of Britain 10:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with you on this. What is your opinion that leads you to object? DPeterson^talk 12:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There are new studies which cast great doubts on the claims of damages on the limbic system, or more specifically, damages to the hippocampi in relation to exposure to trauma. Some of the studies may or may not be affected by the results of the new studies, so that is why I don't wanto just say "its wrong" or "its right", but rather look into the details and examine it throughoutly, which is not possible with the current citations since they lack clear direction to the primary sources (realspeak). Voice of Britain 12:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You didn't even read the section. A verifiable source was added!!! DPeterson^talk 12:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well done, I added your source to the text. Voice of Britain 13:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Some things need clarity

Alot of the referenses here are vague, they point to summaries which do not give enough information of the methods or results. I would like some clarity on the following subjects:

This could explain the problems sexual abuse victims have with regulation of mood and other limbic functions, especially as exhibited in borderline personality disorder.

Seems out of context, what does it point to?

Other studies also indicate that the psychological trauma caused by sexual abuse can lead to temporal lobe epilepsy, damage to the cerebellar vermis, along with reduced size of the corpus callosum. Children who had suffered only sexual abuse showed somewhat greater damage than children who had suffered only non-sexual physical abuse. However, the most dramatic effects were seen in those who had suffered both sexual and physical abuse. Male and female victims were similarly affected. [5]

Which studies are refered to here? What do they say? The source only lead to a unreferenced summary which gives to little detail to be useful.

More recent studies indicate that sexual or physical abuse in children can lead to the overexcitation of an undeveloped limbic system [6].

Same problem here, which are the "More recent studies" and exactly what do they say? Not enough information.

However, there is substantal evidence that traumatic stress causes notable changes in brain functioning and development

Page numbers should be added as it is the standard practice and extremely useful, especially when the text is so vague as this one.

Until these issues have been resolved, I have lifted out this section in its entire form here below:

---

This could explain the problems sexual abuse victims have with regulation of mood and other limbic functions, especially as exhibited in borderline personality disorder. Other studies also indicate that the psychological trauma caused by sexual abuse can lead to temporal lobe epilepsy, damage to the cerebellar vermis, along with reduced size of the corpus callosum. Children who had suffered only sexual abuse showed somewhat greater damage than children who had suffered only non-sexual physical abuse. However, the most dramatic effects were seen in those who had suffered both sexual and physical abuse. Male and female victims were similarly affected. [7] More recent studies indicate that sexual or physical abuse in children can lead to the overexcitation of an undeveloped limbic system [8]. Twin studies have suggested that the variations may be explained by genetics. The theory that stress is causing brain damage is implausible according to Harvard Professor Richard McNally. However, there is substantal evidence that traumatic stress causes notable changes in brain functioning and development

---

Lifted out some more

Draucker (1992) had previously argued that sexual abuse against both boys and girls had similar effects, and that "initiation" was part of the myth that males are always the initiators of sex and cannot be abused.

Crawford (1997) asserts that our socially repressed view of female and maternal sexuality conceals both the reality of female sexual pathologies and the damage done by female sexual abuse to children.

Denov (2004) notes that the topic of female sex offending is one that is barely "beginning" to be studied and is a phenomenon that causes surprise, shock and utter revulsion even among counseling professionals.

In my opinion, these are surely interesting but not quite sharp enough to be in the effects section. They seem to belong elsewhere. Voice of Britain 10:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Note to User:Voice of Britain

Please do not delete other's material...Better to Assume good faith and discuss 'proposed' changes here first and build consensus. I note that you have a long history of contentious editing and have been blocked before. Try to keep a cool head. If you do continue to merely delete material that is sourced (verifiable per wiki) you may find yourself blocked again. Please try to work to build consensus here. DPeterson^talk 12:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Poorly sourced material should be deleted is a policy here on wikipedia. I have lifted out the text so anyone who wanto keep it can in good time add proper sources. This is standard practice. Voice of Britain 13:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires only that sources be verifiable. the material I've added has verifiable citations to support the statements. If you continue to edit in this contentious manner, I will suggest other action be taken. Consider using a poll or another dispute resolution method to solve content disputes. Randomly deleting and changing other's material is not productive nor is creating an edit war. Please use dispute resolution processes to build consensus. DPeterson^talk 13:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Just add proper sources and there will be no problem. Voice of Britain 13:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

He did. RalphLender^talk 14:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe other editors would like to chime in on the discussion below so that agreement can be reached. It may also be time to file an Rfc. What do others think? RalphLender^talk 14:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Some editors seem to be creating arbitrary standards and deleting sourced material which doesn't meet them. The editing on tihs and related articles ahs been extremely tendentious recently, despite calls for more collegiality and civility. If this pattern continues a user RfC would certainly be appropriate. -Will Beback · † · 18:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think greater community involvement would be a good thing, SqueakBox 18:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Voice of Britain has violated the WP:3RR, again. What are our options here? I do see the filing of a complaint about this and wonder what else can be done to stop destructive editing? DPeterson^talk 21:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect, I have not reverted the same text 4 times. Voice of Britain 21:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you have and have been 'BLOCKED' for violating the [WP:3RR] rule. See your talk page or [9] or the original filing. Please stop this behavior. This is at least the second time you have been blocked for such behavior. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Voice_of_Britain] DPeterson^talk 03:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Poll on Effects of Child Abuse Section

Rather then have an edit war regarding the disputed content, I propose editors comment on the following section to be continued as the section on the effects of child abuse, rather than the version Voice continues to revert to. Please put your "vote" in the section below this.

Version supported by RalphLender

'Effects of sexual abuse on children' Kendall-Tackett and others found that a wide range of psychological, emotional, physical, and social effects have been attributed to child sexual abuse, including anxiety, depression, poor self-esteem, somatic complains, complex post-traumatic stress disorder, emotional dysregulation, neurosis, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other more general dysfunctions such as sexualized behavior, school/learning problems, behavior problems and destructive behavior. , Furthermore, children who have been sexually abused show measurable negative changes in brain functioning and development

It has been suggested that young children who are abused sexually by adult females may incur double traumatization due to the widespread denial of female-perpetrated child sexual abuse by non-abusing parents, professional caregivers and the general public. Most men formerly involved in woman-boy sexual relations, however, evaluate their experience as positive upon reflection.

Wakefield and Underwager (1991) note the difference between CSA experiences of males and females, where more males than females report the experience as neutral or positive, saying that "It may be that women perceive such experiences as sexual violation, while men perceive them as sexual initiation." Rind et al. (1998)'s research suggests that this difference was present in 59 college studies on the issue, suggesting that males who claimed that their abuse was consensual were not significantly less well adjusted than the norm. Draucker (1992) had previously argued that sexual abuse against both boys and girls had similar effects, and that "initiation" was part of the myth that males are always the initiators of sex and cannot be abused. Crawford (1997) asserts that our socially repressed view of female and maternal sexuality conceals both the reality of female sexual pathologies and the damage done by female sexual abuse to children. Denov (2004) notes that the topic of female sex offending is one that is barely "beginning" to be studied and is a phenomenon that causes surprise, shock and utter revulsion even among counseling professionals.

A variety of behavioral impairments caused by child sexual abuse (Complex post traumatic stress disorder) have been documented. Changes in brain development and functioning have also been documented. This could explain the problems sexual abuse victims have with regulation of mood and other limbic functions, especially as exhibited in borderline personality disorder. Other studies also indicate that the psychological trauma caused by sexual abuse can lead to temporal lobe epilepsy, damage to the cerebellar vermis, along with reduced size of the corpus callosum. Children who had suffered only sexual abuse showed somewhat greater damage than children who had suffered only non-sexual physical abuse. However, the most dramatic effects were seen in those who had suffered both sexual and physical abuse. Male and female victims were similarly affected. [10] More recent studies indicate that sexual or physical abuse in children can lead to the overexcitation of an undeveloped limbic system [11]. Twin studies have suggested that the variations may be explained by genetics. The theory that stress is causing brain damage is implausible accordig to Harvard Professor Richard McNally. However, there is substantal evidence that traumatic stress causes notable changes in brain functioning and development Furthermore, children who have been sexually abused show measurable negative changes in brain functioning and development.

Version supported by Voice of Britain

[This section added for convenience by Dfpc 15:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC) based on a recent post by Voice of Britain. If it is incorrect, please replace it.]

'Effects of sexual abuse on children' Kendall-Tackett and others found that a wide range of psychological, emotional, physical, and social effects have been attributed to child sexual abuse, including anxiety, depression, poor self-esteem, somatic complains, complex post-traumatic stress disorder, emotional dysregulation, neurosis, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other more general dysfunctions such as sexualized behavior, school/learning problems, behavior problems and destructive behavior. They also found that a large number of children where symptom free and more well adjusted than the clinical control groups.

A 1998 meta-analysis of studies using college samples by Rind et al. suggested other causes for the previously cited relationship:

Meta-analyses revealed that students with CSA were, on average, slightly less well adjusted than controls. However, this poorer adjustment could not be attributed to CSA because family environment (FE) was consistently confounded with CSA, FE explained considerably more adjustment variance than CSA, and CSA-adjustment relations generally became nonsignificant when studies controlled for FE.

It has been suggested that young children who are abused sexually by adult females may incur double traumatization due to the widespread denial of female-perpetrated child sexual abuse by non-abusing parents, professional caregivers and the general public. Most men formerly involved in woman-boy sexual relations, however, evaluate their experience as positive upon reflection. Several studies have shown that children may experience consensual child sexual abuse as positive.

Wakefield and Underwager (1991) note the difference between CSA experiences of males and females, where more males than females report the experience as neutral or positive, saying that "It may be that women perceive such experiences as sexual violation, while men perceive them as sexual initiation." Rind et al. (1998)'s research suggests that this difference was present in 59 college studies on the issue, suggesting that males who claimed that their abuse was consensual were not significantly less well adjusted than the norm. Draucker (1992) had previously argued that sexual abuse against both boys and girls had similar effects, and that "initiation" was part of the myth that males are always the initiators of sex and cannot be abused. Crawford (1997) asserts that our socially repressed view of female and maternal sexuality conceals both the reality of female sexual pathologies and the damage done by female sexual abuse to children. Denov (2004) notes that the topic of female sex offending is one that is barely "beginning" to be studied and is a phenomenon that causes surprise, shock and utter revulsion even among counseling professionals.

A variety of behavioral impairments caused by child sexual abuse (Complex post traumatic stress disorder) have been documented. Changes in brain development and functioning have also been documented. This could explain the problems sexual abuse victims have with regulation of mood and other limbic functions, especially as exhibited in borderline personality disorder. Other studies also indicate that the psychological trauma caused by sexual abuse can lead to temporal lobe epilepsy, damage to the cerebellar vermis, along with reduced size of the corpus callosum. Children who had suffered only sexual abuse showed somewhat greater damage than children who had suffered only non-sexual physical abuse. However, the most dramatic effects were seen in those who had suffered both sexual and physical abuse. Male and female victims were similarly affected. [12] More recent studies indicate that sexual or physical abuse in children can lead to the overexcitation of an undeveloped limbic system [13]. There is some evidence that traumatic stress causes notable changes in brain functioning and development Furthermore, children who have been sexually abused show measurable negative changes in brain functioning and development However, a recent study by Mark Gilbertson have shown that trauma may not be the cause for damage but that preexisting riskfactors may increase the risk for developing PTSD. This is supported by studies which show that those who have shown damage also have a history neurocognitive abnormalities. An extensive literature review by Harvard Professor Richard McNally indicates that nongenetic explanations for changes in brain functioning are improbable.

[End of text added for convenience by Dfpc 15:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC).]

(It should be noted that I, Voice of Britain, do NOT in any way support a vote on this subject at this point in time.)

VOTE/POLL

RESTORE THE Version supported by RalphLender:

1. 'Yes' It is well referenced and meets the wikipedia standard of having verifiable sources. RalphLender^talk 14:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
2. NO Way to early for a vote and substantial additions have been made since then so would be very strange to restore it. This is also not something one should vote over as it deals with difficult topics which cannot be solved simply by popular vote. I suggest we continue to replace the weak sources with better ones like have been done in part atleast. Voice of Britain 14:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Comment OK, let's try this: Call a truce for at least week. It's not going to kill anyone if a "weaker" or "lower-quality" version is on the main page for a week or two. Let both parties flesh out their proposals in separate sections in this talk page. That way, they can borrow from each other and people can comment on both proposals as they are evolving. When both proposals are firm the community can either vote on one or the other or take the best from both to create a new merged article. By the way, I'm basing this technique on one of the Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures: The admins fully-protect the whole article and flag the content as "locked due to an editing dispute." Both sides hash out their differences, then the admins unprotect the article. Dfpc 15:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

   Comment If anyone can vote in this then i Strongly oppose this kind of process. These versions should not even be in dispute since I have not removed the bad sources at all this time. Voice of Britain 15:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

   Did you mean to use ::? Everyone else is using #, which is used for a numbered list. Dfpc 20:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

4. Yes re Ralph, SqueakBox 18:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
5. No, I don't see anything wrong with VOB's version. Jillium 20:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
6. 'YES' Keep the version by RL. It is good, well documented and accurate. DPeterson^talk 21:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment True, but my version is even more well sourced so its a weak point. Voice of Britain 21:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You leave out very important information...furthermore some of the material you say is "current" is quite old and not necessarily from reliable sources (peer reviewed pubs). Nor is your version "even more well sourced," since others disagree with you. DPeterson^talk 03:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Added notice to Effects of Child Abuse Section

I added the following text to the Effect section: This section is undergoing frequent revision by more than one editor. Additional information may be found in the article history and on the talk page or by returning later. May 5, 2007. Please remove it a few days after the dispute is over, not before. Dfpc 15:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the thought, but every article in Wikipedia is subject to revision. There's no point in putting up a notice about it. If you want to highlight the dispute, we have some standard editing tags, like {{POV}}, {{OR}}, etc. More important than notices are efforts to get consensus. -Will Beback · † · 18:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. RalphLender^talk 19:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is the path to go down, IMO, perhaps leading to a situation where the arbcom can comment on this whole issue of paedophile activists not going for NPOV but to promote their views, SqueakBox 21:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There need not be any conflict at all if people used proper sources, why is this so hard? Voice of Britain 21:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Not quite so simple, sourcing is a requirement but wikipedia does not need to keep every sourced statement, SqueakBox 21:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the definition of "proper sources" is very malleable. Much sourced material has been removed. -Will Beback · † · 21:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The first step is to make sure everything has a proper source. Once this is done you can start critically examine their correctness, if have proper weight and their coverage, biasing factors etc. The problem is that at this rate, we will never get there because people keep adding or defending poorly sourced material or removing properly sourced material. Some seem to see some kind of pedophilia conspiracy here and feel the urge to "defend" the article. The problem is that there is no such conspiracy and that such behavior creates endless conflicts. Trust me, add any material you like, whether it support pedophilia or not and I will not complain as long as it is factually correct and well sourced. All I ask is that you do the same. Voice of Britain 21:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think SqueakBox is correct here and it may be best to follow that path. There does seem to be some issue here with pedophilia activists on this, and other pages. AbCom will probably the the end step...but we can pursue other interim steps first. Unfortunately, I don't have high hopes as Voice of Britain has again been blocked for violating the WP:3RR rule [14] DPeterson^talk 03:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

RfC REGARDING USER:Voice of Britain

I have filed an RfC regarding Voice of Britain's conduct on this page. Feel free to review this at [[15]]. Note, that to be filed, it requires at least two editors to sign-off on it. If you have comments, plese put those on the RfC page. I have also notified Voice on his talk page. DPeterson^talk 13:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Cause effect or association?

- Rind et al reviewed 59 STUDIES of thousands of college STUDENTS.
- If you want to discuss other aspect's of Gilbertson's finding, create another sentence. Your replacement does not convey the same information.
- I haven't read the sources for the other information you deleted, but I hope you have... -Jillium 23:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: "article does not state cause-effect." It says: "These data indicate that smaller hippocampi in PTSD represent a pre-existing, familial vulnerability factor rather than the neurotoxic product of trauma exposure per se." -Jillium 00:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edit says, "found a different cause-effect..." That is just not true, they make no statment about cause, effect and is a POV statement. These data indicate is factual and more accurate, so that is what should be stated. SamDavidson 00:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It says: "These data indicate that smaller hippocampi in PTSD represent a pre-existing, familial vulnerability factor rather than the neurotoxic product of trauma exposure per se." Also, my version says "indicates," not "found." -Jillium 00:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, there is not cause-effect relationship stated in the article... the accurate statement would be that they found an association...or, as I edited the line to remove the cause-effect statement, which is not true. SamDavidson 00:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That sentence (and the rest of the study) clearly indicates that, instead of trauma causing "hippocampal atrophy," a reduced hippocampus predisposes to PTSD (whereas the other "cause-and-effect" theory would claim that PTSD indicates trauma which damages the hippocampus). -Jillium 00:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

to be more precise, your line reads: "study by Mark Gilbertson, however, indicates a different cause-and-effect," the article and study does not mention cause-and-effect this is your opinion. What they found was "smaller hippocampi in PTSD..." That is a factually accurate statement and is the one that should stay. If you really feel very strongly about this rather and edit war, as others have suggested, wikipedia has content dispute resolution processes...you can call for an RfC or you could begin a poll. If you'd like I can do start that and then we can see what other contributors think and the basis for their thinking. SamDavidson 00:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

They found a "smaller hippocampal volume predicts pathologic vulnerability to psychological trauma". The study was an investigation into cause-and-effect! "Recent human studies show smaller hippocampal volume in individuals with the stress-related psychiatric condition posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Does this represent the neurotoxic effect of trauma, or is smaller hippocampal volume a pre-existing condition that renders the brain more vulnerable to the development of pathological stress responses?" -Jillium 00:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Their study was not an experimental design and they make no statements about causation...only association. No where in the article do they state, "small hippocampal volume 'causes'...." That is your interpretation (original reserach). Therefore the best course of action is to just state what they state without the editorializing..."They found, "...." In fact, trauma has been found to be associated with smaller hippocampal volume in several studies of abuse, PTSD, and child sexual abuse. Let's just stick with direct quotes. However, if you feel strongly about this, as I said before, the proper course of action to resolve a content dispute would be to have a poll or file and RfC to get outside editors views. SamDavidson 00:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think both have reasonable arguments, but I beleive my addition of Richard McNally adds the appropriate summating text for this area and thus complements the short version of the text about Gilbertsons study. Hopefully this solution is ok for everyone. Voice of Britain 10:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Kendall-Tackett

Can we please address Kendall-Tackett's findings individually rather than citing it with different studies and juxtaposing their results unspecifically? -Jillium 19:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Voice of Britain 20:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

da hell...?

I've been doing other stuff, but what the heck is going on with this article? Don't answer that. For the time being I have restored the version of 17:02, 2 May 2007. I can say for certain that at least the first section (Effects of sexual abuse on children) has deteriorated markedly since then, particularly in giving WP:UNDUE weight to, ah, minority viewpoints. Some post-17:02, 2 May 2007 material may be OK and we can add it back in, but I think it's better to start from a secure baseline and go forward rather than trying to work our way back. Herostratus 20:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It repressents majority viewpoints in science, it includes the perhaps most cited literature review in the field for example. Do you have any evidence to support your statement? Your revert seems very dubious unless such evidence is brought forth. Voice of Britain 20:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please cite which minority viewpoints are being given undue weight before indiscriminately reversing all the work that's been done on this article over the past few days. -Jillium 20:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There are however some undue weight towards negative effects, considering that about 50% have positive/neutral experiences (rind, 1998) the article has very little weight towards those cases. Some other points that should probably be clarified in the article is about clinical and non-clinical cases, we have alot of clinical research but generelize it to child sexual abuse in general. Voice of Britain 20:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

considering that about 50% have positive/neutral experiences ???? I don't think that holds for female victims. Bear in mind that Rind's research has been the subject of expert critiques, and hanging your opinion solely on that paper and its references can be intellectually dangerous. Unfortunately, politics means there isn't much after 1998 that will agree with Rind - any American scholar whose research leads him to agree with Rind will bury his results to protect his professional reputation. Dfpc 20:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I could quote atleast 10 different sources to support similar figures, its not dependant on the rind study. The figures vary ofcourse, they are lower for females but higher for males and ofcourse, clinical research differes from nonclinical and so forth. But as I said, we should try to balance the article better and add more specifity in regards to methods, samples and so forth. (The Rind study may be controversial but it is still cited among top professionals in the field as an authorative source so if its good enough for them then it should be good enough for wikipedia.) Voice of Britain 21:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, it's hardly disputable that a significant portion of children appear to be "asymptomatic" or indifferent to their abuse. (15%-40%, maybe?) The section is titled "Effects of sexual abuse on children," so this is very relevant. What problem exactly do you have, Herostratus? -Jillium 21:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If 60%-85% of people become symptomatic then that is what we should focus on, obviously, not on the 15%-40% who do not. The asymptomatic folks should be mentioned, but we shouldn't give the fact that the not everyone becomes symptomatic excessive weight. By anaology, some people survive illneses like the plague but we wouldn't use that fact to argue that the illnesses aren't really so bad. -Will Beback · † · 21:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing anything. Would it better if sections on harm and other effect were split up? -Jillium 23:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Be careful equating being asymptomatic or indifferent with being harmless. A person can be asymptomatic now because she's learned to deal with the trauma and is fully recovered, or may have buried the emotions and be on the verge of a mental collapse. A person may also have zero direct physical or psychological harm but may still be affected in a negative way. For example, a person wants to write an autobiography but has to leave out the incest because her father is still alive despite her burning desire to write a complete autobiography. While not harm, this is a negative effect caused by the combination of sex with her father and society's reaction to it should it become known. Dfpc 21:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue should be regarded as "a central topic in its own right" according to one of the most cited literature reviews made by some of the most prominent researchers and published in the most important journal on the area. So there is plenty of support for significant writings on this area in the article. Voice of Britain 21:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Herostratus point is 'VERY' on target. SamDavidson 01:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"don't add refs to quotations"

References are already in the quotation. Full citations don't detract from the article and they're helpful to the reader. Revert yourself, please. -Jillium 23:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't add links to quotations, internal or external, and I'm not sure we need a long quotaiton for this material. Why can't it be summarized? -Will Beback · † · 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, if we only quote informztion which disputes the concept that CSA is harmful then we're unbalancing the article. I suggest we summarize all of the quotes and try to avoid giving undue attention to any single study. -Will Beback · † · 01:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I summarized the first. -Jillium 01:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that.SamDavidson 01:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is the quote on McNally being removed?

Can someone explain this behavior? Voice of Britain 16:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it isnt vandalism. Please apologise for your bad faith claims, SqueakBox 16:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you please explain the behavior? If it isn't vandalism then there must be a good reason for it. Voice of Britain 16:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me quote JonesRD's edit summary "removed POV statement...In addition, the article is not "recent" and does not support the statement.", SqueakBox 16:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Your are actually claiming that Harvard Professor Richard McNally, who is one of the most influential researcher in the field, is making POV statements and making unsupported claims? May I ask on what grounds you make such a claim? (note that the removed text is a quote, written word by word by Richard McNally). Voice of Britain 17:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is old and not current. What is the basis for stating Mcnally is the "most influential researcher in the field?" My review of the lit shows very little research by this individual regarding the effects of a child being molested by perpertrators, pedophiles, and others. DPeterson^talk 17:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

2002 is just as current or more current than most of the other research we cite in that area. But it doesn't matter, you haven't given a justification for your removal of the quote so your attempts to censor it will be reverted.

And if you'd like, we can include an interpretation of Gilbertson by the leading researcher of neurological changes in abused children, Martin Teicher in "Effects of Childhood Sexual Abuse on Neuropsychological and Cognitive Function in College Women" (2006):

Gilbertson et al. found that nontrauma exposed monozygotic twins of subjects with combat-related PTSD had reduced hippocampal volume, which strongly suggests that reduced hippocampal volume may be a risk factor for the development of chronic PTSD, rather than a consequence of trauma exposure and PTSD.

The quote you are deleting is clearly given as someone else's view, not fact. That does not qualify as POV. -Jillium 18:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The material has to do with combat-related PTSD...not trauma caused by being sexually molested. DPeterson^talk 20:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

..The relevant material shows that people with PTSD tend to have a smaller hippocampal volume. This "strongly suggests" that the differences in the hippocampal volume of people with PTSD found by other studies can be accounted for by prenatal conditions. That's how McNally and Teicher interpret it, anyway. You're welcome to mention a competing interpretation, if cited. -Jillium 18:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't a quote, and (in my pdf version) the material it summarizes is on page seven, as the sentence itself says. The article already says that the Rind quote is taken from the abstract. -Jillium 19:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Either put in a direct quote or remove implication it is a direct quote. RalphLender^talk 20:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Argue with Will about that, not me. It used to be a direct quote. -Jillium 20:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make Personal attacks This is not a perrsonal argument. Either put a page number for specific quotes if the quote is relevant and verifiable. RalphLender^talk 20:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

-Please do not misrepresent my behavior.

-The quote is on the seventh page of my pdf. -Jillium 20:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Your PDF does not matter. As said before, do not make this personal. just be sure if you are putting in a quote that you use "" "" and cite a page #. DPeterson^talk 22:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's what you have to do to verify the quote you just placed a fact tag on.

1. Click the reference link.
2. Read the fourth paragraph.

Is this too hard? I mean I don't want this article to be just for super-intelligent people capable of reading 4 (four!) paragraphs. How could I simplify this so you'll stop spamming the article with tags?

As for Rind, all you have to do is read the abstract. Like the article already says. Did you catch that, man? The abstract. Abstract. You have to read the abstract to verify it. The quote is from the abstract. Of the article. The abstract. Okay? Abstract. Remember?

Oh, and the article doesn't support your guys assertion that the trauma "was not sexual in nature." Can you give me a page # for that? -Jillium 23:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

POP QUIZ!! Where is the Rind quote from? -Jillium 23:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, other editors don't have to verify anything. If you want to insert a quote you must use quotation marks and provide the citation and page number. That is Wikipedia form and policy. Therefore the only acceptable form is for you to use quotation marks (""), a verifiable citation and page number; otherwise it is not a quote and is not verifiable. DPeterson^talk 00:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

- blockquote by itself marks a quotation, but we can use quotation marks if you insist.

- Specific, easily verifiable references have already been provided. I have no obligation to provide a page number. The abstract is always on the first page of a study, and the abstract is anyways more easily verifiable. You can verify the quote by simply clicking a link. I don't know about your definition of "verifiable," but... it's nothing like Wikipedia's. -Jillium 01:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition, please adhere to WP:CIV and avoid WP:NPA. Your snide or sarcastic comments seem inconsistent with both these policies and also inconsistent with WP:AGFDPeterson^talk 00:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop editing incivilly. -Jillium 01:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Jillium, you are the one editing incivilly so please stop accusing other editors of doing so merely because they dislike your swearing, SqueakBox 01:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the one restoring glaring inaccuracies just because an editor I dislike was the one to remove them. What does swearing have to do with anything? -Jillium 01:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It is rude, uncivil and creates a horrible atmosphere. There si nothing uncivil in Petersen' edit diff you gave me. Expressing your dsilike of an ediotr is assuming bad faith. Assuming without reason that an ediotr dislikes you is worse. Please dont, SqueakBox 01:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

DPeterson's restoration of mistruths and POV pushing offends me more than anything he could say on a talk page. My comment to DPeterson was only rude and uncivil reciprocally, but I probably should have toned it down a little. Sorry. -Jillium 01:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is the quote on McNally being removed? Part 2

I was away visiting my parents so I couldn't reply, but I will now address the points which I can see in the earlier discussion.

• The article is old and not current.

As Jillium already has pointed out, the book is from 2003 and is more current than most of the material we use, so this argument is not reasonable unless you can demonstrate that the material is obsolete. It does however cast doubts on the material you posted which is from before 2003 which implies connections to CSA trauma which may have been incorrect.

• What is the basis for stating Mcnally is the "most influential researcher in the field?" My review of the lit shows very little research by this individual regarding the effects of a child being molested by perpertrators, pedophiles, and others.

Here is what he has to say himself: "I am Professor and Director of Clinical Training in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University. I have 250 publications, many in the field of traumatic stress and memory, including the book Remembering Trauma (2003, Harvard University Press). My research, funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, includes laboratory studies on cognitive functioning in adults who report having been sexually abused as children. I served on the American Psychiatric Association's committee for revising the diagnostic criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and I am among the approximately 260 psychologists and psychiatrists identified by the Institute for Scientific Information as "highly cited" (i.e., top one half of one percent of all published psychologists and psychiatrists worldwide in terms of citation impact)."

Should be good enough for wikipedia I think. Voice of Britain 18:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I see now that the quote has been restored, good work everyone! Voice of Britain 19:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)