Talk:Neil Goldschmidt/Archive 1

General Questions

Moved from the article (good questions, but the article body's not where they should be asked):

"Has he committed other sexual crimes against children?"
" Who were the people who assisted in the Rape cover-up?"

-- llywrch 16:33, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Article status

I'm listing this article as "Start" class, changing it from "B." I think there are too many things missing to warrant a "B" rating, and I'll summarize as best I can:

Goldschmidt was regarded as the state's most influential politician/power broker for several decades, with both populist appeal and ties to big business. The reasons for this are not explored very thoroughly in the article.
His time as Transportation Secretary is not discussed, nor the notable aspects of his time as governor.
His initiative to extend the Park Blocks is not discussed, nor any of his attempts to shape Portland after his exit from elected politics.
His relationships with other notable Portland and Oregon figures is not discussed.
There is no "electoral history" section at the end.

I'm no expert on Goldschmidt, but my sense is that his influence on Oregon ties in with the subject matter of many other Wikipedia articles, and that should be drawn out better. I hope others will chime in, as I'm sure my list is incomplete. -Pete 00:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statutory Rape Category Redux

As happens so often on Wikipedia sometimes the same concerns come up multiple times. In this case I believe the system worked well and the person checked the talk page, which most people don't bother to do.

Since the topic is come up again, I thought I'd again voice my concern about using this category for this particular person. First, let me state I don't have an opinion one way or another except for the fact that I am a resident of Oregon (though at the time he served I was not voting age) and do remember some things regarding him being Governor of Oregon.

My concern is that the category (as of the last time I looked) specified someone who was convicted. I believe that we have to becareful assuming admitting to a crime is defacto conviction, when it clearly isn't. There's no doubt that Goldschmidt's reputation has been severly tarnished by the admission of what he did. However, I think in terms of categorizing it the statutory rape category doesn't work well. Davidpdx 21:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goldschmidt's influence

JobsElihu, I think it's important that the introduction to the article give some sense of the massive influence Goldshmidt had in Oregon politics over multiple decades. You may be right that a direct quote from WW is not the best way to do it, but is there another way to phrase it that you think would be more appropriate? Stories from WW, the Tribune, the Oregonian, the Statesman Journal etc. all attest that he was the most influential political figure in the state. It's a fact that the opinion is widespread, and worthy of prominent inclusion in the article. -Pete 03:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that Goldschmidt's influence, at one time, was massive. Even the reporter that was quoted, however, admits that Goldschmidt's current influence is weak. Why don't we just leave it as using the citation for the support, but rewrite the intro so that it doesn't look like Wikipedia is doing cartwheels in support of the admitted child molestor. The sentence could be simple in that it states, "Goldschimidt, at one time, was highly influential in Oregon politics and business." That may not be perfect, but it is a starting place. Please feel free to work on it. The quote that we had in the intro was really over the top, though.--JobsElihu 16:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said that his influence wasn't shot to hell after the crime was revealed. Early '70s plus three decades equals early 2000s. Still, the impact of his influence is still felt; consider that both Saxton nor Kulongoski have ties to Goldschidt, which effectively prevented each from using the issue against the other in the 2006 election, and also the current allegations against Bernie Giusto. Also, claiming that he was extremely influential is not a value judgment, and it's not "doing cartwheels." Martin Luther King and Mother Theresa were influential, so were Adolph Hitler and Joe McCarthy. "Highly influential" fails to capture the sway that Goldschmidt had over policy decisions in Oregon for an extended period. -Pete 20:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I invite you to re-write my sentence, so we can discuss that. The WW author is a good writer, but this one sentence just seems, out of context that it is, to be too praiseworthy of GS. Let's work on a creating a sentence with which we both can live. We both agree that he had huge influence, then the scandal broke, years after the molestation, then his personal influence wained considerably, yet at the same time, many of his former politican/businessmen friends are still highly influential. I look forward to your re-work of my sentence. I pointed out before that my sentence was not perfect. And maybe one sentence is not enough to convey the rise and fall of GS.--JobsElihu 21:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this: "For the next three decades, Goldschmidt was widely considered the most influential figure in Oregon politics, both in his capacity as an elected public official and as a private lobbyist and policy consultant." (Please note that this is intended to "pair" with the following sentence, which clearly indicates that his reputation took a hit from the revelation of the statutury rape and coverup.) Also, the intro needs to cover the big points, but not back them up fully -- I think it's fine if nuances are left to the sections below. Agreed? -Pete 03:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I would add that sentence if I had written it. Please do and thanks.--JobsElihu 03:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I will. I hope you'll keep working on the article, too -- it could definitely benefit from your critical eye. Sorry if I was a little snappy in our first encounter. -Pete 03:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goldschmidt's rape of a 14 year old child

I expanded the statement at the intro of the article about his admitted rape of a 14 year old girl. The information is accurate according to Goldschmidt and can be verified in W-Week or oregonlive.com. This rape is significant to the sunset of his career, therefore I felt expansion was needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.129.39 (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits have been reverted a few times (not by me) and it seems like this is something that should be discussed further to prevent the article from becoming too bias in one direction. I'd encourage you to discuss it here on the page. While I personally am not as involved in Wikipedia as I once was, I can try to drop by and contribute if time allows. Davidpdx 12:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, let's discuss. THe article should be clear that what occurred was unlawful rape of a child, and NOT just an "affair" as intro of the article previously stated. Calling it just an "affair" in the intro cannot stand because it represents a POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.129.39 (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted a couple times, but let me clarify: I'm not opposed to making changes to the article. I generally don't like the recent changes by the anonymous editor, more on the grounds of quality of writing/flow of the article than anything else. I'm going to leave the current version for the time being, in the hopes that more editors will take a crack at wordsmithing the article. -Pete 16:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really satisifed with the language either. An editor recently reverted with a summary of: "one of the most ridiculous edits i've ever seen. stop trying to push POV on wikipedia". I think calling the rape of a 14 year old girl by a powerful politician an affair is just as POV and ridiculous. Cacophony 21:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not rape. Rape is forced (physically) sexual relations. This was statutory rape, a distinct crime with a different set of elements, and basically no defenses. Element one, victim under a certain age, element two, was there sexual contact, yes and yes=guilty (unless married). Thus under Oregon law apparently (if the article is correct) it was third degree sexual assualt. So, "rape" would violate WP:BLP so it needs to be a term other than rape by itself. I've been thinking something aong the lines of: In XXXX, Goldschmidt admited to illegal sexual contact/intercourse with a 14-year-old girl that sharply reduced his political clout.

As to the reversions, I did one. It had nothing to do with the wording. Anon IP, if you read the edit summaries you would know why it was reverted. In the future, please read those summaries under the "history" tab so you can save us some time. In my summary I refered to WP:LEAD with a handy link just for you. But to summarize, the beginnning of an article is what we call a lead, it is usually few paragraphs at the beginning of the article that is a brief summary of the topic. In that area we generalize and give a brief summary of the topic, with details later. For instance a sentence or two on being mayor, a sentence or two on being governor, etc. Then later after this brief summary we give the details in the body of the article. Writing as much about the sexual misconduct in the lead violates undue weight. Trust me, as someone who is not a Democrat, I have no love for him, but we have guidelines and policies we must all follow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboutmovies (talk • contribs) 23:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding whether or not it was rape, it most certainly was. Check the Oregon Revised Statutes and you will see that it was rape in the 3rd degree. Further in Oregon, a 14 YO cannot give consent for sex with an adult. The ORS clearly calls it rape, so why can't we call it rape here. Do you have a problem with the word "rape" itself? The law calls it rape, so why can't we be accurate in what we call it? And so far as the intro goes, I don't disagree, so I changed things in my latest edit, but someone deleted it too --- along with the rest of my edits. I don't understand why ALL of my edits were changed. I will try it again with the guidelines that aboutmovies listed. please don't change without discussion. thanks!!!!! 71.111.129.39 00:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AM, I agree with you that we have to be careful in the wording. I also agree that the crime (which he was not convicted of due to the statue of limitations expiring) would have been statutory rape since she was 14. I think any mention of the scandle should be minimized in the lead portion so it doesn't violate the WP:LEAD rule. There is enough information in this article (including sources) for someone to get a good idea what happened and make their own conclusion. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, rape is "1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse. 2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction. 3. Abusive or improper treatment; violation: a rape of justice. [2]. The other point I want to make is that what happened can be both statutory rape and an affair (Goldschmidt was married) so the two are not mutually exclusive. Whether Goldschmidt cheated on his wife with a 14 year old or a 60 year old, he still had an affair. I understand that you think using the work affair is minimizing the situation, but wanted to point out that it was indeed an affair whether his actions were legal or not. I think the anon IP needs to clearly state what changes he/she wants. I also think for now, the anon IP needs to hold off editing the article until some things are agreed upon and we make sure whatever wording is used doesn't violate WP rules. Davidpdx 01:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm frankly not happy that you have jumped to make the edits without having them worked out on the talk page. While I won't revert them, I honestly won't condone it if someone else does. I think you also need to be more patient with editing in these situations and be willing to talk out points that are in contention. In terms of changing your edits without discussion, frankly that's not how Wikipedia works. Since the edits are contentious, the really need to be discussed BEFORE the changes are made. Davidpdx 01:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, but rather than a general statement, please be specific about which additions to the main article you don't like, and the specific reasoning, and suggested alterations. Hopefully we can work togther rather than resorting to general statements.71.111.129.39 02:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon law may call it rape now, but it did not at the time. The law as of 1971, which was not changed until 1981 (thus the period of the crime) was (O.R.S. § 163.375):

1: A person who has sexual intercourse with another person commits the crime of rape in the first degree if:
a: victim is subjected to forcible compulsion by the person;
b: victim is under 12 years of age;
c: victim is under 16 years of age and is the person's sibling, of the whole or half blood, the person's child or the person's spouse's child; or
d: victim is incapable of consent by reason of mental defect, mental incapacitation or physical helplessness.

So unless the former honor student was mentally defective, as a 14 year old it was legally not rape. Which I see in the article it was changed at some point to someone useing the current law whereas before I could have swore it was something to the effect of: at the time it consituted 3rd degree sexual assualt. See, due to the Constitution (see Ex post facto law) we can't really change the lawfor crimes already committed (in general).

On a second note, dictionaries usually go with rape as forced, thus the term statutory rape. Oregon is free to define its legal defintions, as it has also defined a blow job as "Deviate sexual intercourse” (no longer good law). But it cannot red-define what the law once was. If Oregon wanted to it could define fraud as "exceeding the posted speed limit by greater than 10 miles per hour in a posted construction zone, but that's only a legal definition and not what the rest of the world would define it as. Aboutmovies 03:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David, I have no problem with the affair part, I don't know who removed that. I just have a problem with the anonIP and calling in "rape" as that is not accurate. AnonIP, a 14 yo could give consent to her husband. 14 and even younger can get married in some states, and Oregon would have to honor that marraige, see the privelages and immunities portion of the U.S. Constitution. Aboutmovies 03:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you only quote part of the law regarding rape. Note the 1971 reference. 163.355 Rape in the third degree. (1) A person commits the crime of rape in the third degree if the person has sexual intercourse with another person under 16 years of age. (2) Rape in the third degree is a Class C felony. [1971 c.743 §109; 1991 c.628 §1] 71.111.129.39 04:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that’s third degree, which is statutory rape. Notice you won’t find a Wikilink to Rape in the third degree, or find a definition for “Rape in the third degree” in a dictionary. What I’m saying is unless it is 1st degree rape, you can’t call it just rape. It has to be statutory rape, or if you want to say it every time, you can call it “third degree rape”. I know this is splitting hairs, but that’s what the legislature did when they broke it down into three degrees (same thing with murder). They realized that not all rape is the same, some is less egregious than others and thus lesser degrees get lesser penalties. If you call it just rape, then the dictionary meaning is going to attach, which under that definition this was not rape. Aboutmovies 06:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Argue about technicalities all you want but we know in our hearts that it's completely unfair to classify this situation with a single word. --Liface 10:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just another note, everyone needs to keep in mind Goldschmidt was never convicted of a crime (no matter whether you want to call it rape or statutory rape) because of the lapse of the statute of limitations. Yes, he did admit to it and yes it was a damn sick thing to do, but we do need to keep that in mind. Also saying illegal when referring to something that is a crime is unduly repeatitive. If I said illegal bank robbery, doesn't that sound a bit stupid?

Frankly I've changed my mind and am not comfortable with several of the edits that were made and have reverted the whole lot of them. I think it's possible to come to a compromise, but to do that we need to work out the differences before the edits are made. Davidpdx 13:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, please take each of my edits one by one and feel free to discuss. BTW, I removed the word "rape" where it stood alone without at least the words "Third Degree" in front of it. I don't necessarily agree with this, but that's a compromise I was willing to make. This should make those who were concerned about the word "rape" without the qualifier much happier. In a few places, the term "relationship" was replaced with "illegal relationship" which is more accurate. Perhaps "illegal sexual relationship" might be more precise. comments? 71.111.129.39 14:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent edits are a bit of an improvement over earlier attempts. I agreee with David, however, that repeating the fact that it's illegal over and over is redundant, and is frankly an insult to the reader's intelligence. The Oregonian was in error to characterize the activity an "affair," but that's because -- I believe -- it was the only way they referred to it in several articles. It's not a problem to refer to it as an "affair" or a "molestation" or a "relationship" if it's been previously made clear that it was a crime. David also makes a good point, that you (the anonymous editor) are not helping your case any by continuing to make changes during an active discussion. Things work best here when they are discussed ahead of time. You're trying everyone's patience. -Pete 18:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, I assume that you have nothing specific in my edits to the main article which are problematic for you at this time?? That's good because I did try to edit things such that it would please everyone, while still maintaining accuracy. 71.111.129.39 22:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Out of respect for the Wikipedia community and civil discourse, I do not always jump to reverting. If you take that as a sign that I endorse your edits, that's your mistake. -Pete 22:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to second Pete's comments. Anon IP, you need to discuss the edits BEFORE you make them, not after. I've made that clear multiple times. Because of your last commment, which clearly was meant to give the appearence of consensus, when their clearly is not, I have once again reverted your edits. I will continue to do so until you follow the rules and do as requested by discussing the edits beforehand.

If you continue to revert, then you'll force us to take other actions which aren't as polite as we are being at this point.Davidpdx 01:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strange, it seems that you are reverting my edits without any discussion as to which specific words or statements you take issue with. Please discuss specific words or phrases on a word-for-word basis. I welcome the discussion, but nobody appears willing to do anything but say things like "You need to discuss first, I'm going to revert." The exception is the person who took issue with the word "rape" without clarifiers in front of it. Although it clearly was "rape" as defined under ORS, I nonetheless changed the "rape" wording, so obviously I'm willing to work it out. Unless you are willing to discuss, you are committing vandalism of my work. thanks71.111.129.39 18:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far as the anon IP, using whois etc., you have more info about me than I have of you. It's not like you are using your complete real names here. 71.111.129.39 18:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

71: Discussion is rather pointless when you continue to misrepresent the things others are saying. Nobody has said you can't, or shouldn't, remain as anonymous as you like. -Pete 21:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that anyone said that I "can't or shouldn't remain anonymous." Please show me where I did. I simply made a comment that I find the IP address to contain useful information. Saying that I "continue to misrepresent the things others are saying" sounds like an attack. This is something which is against wikipedia policy.

So far as my edits go, again I ask that people take each of my edits and make suggestions one be one. So far, nobody seems willing to entertain specific discussions. Again, I encourage all who are reading this page to participate. 71.111.129.39 23:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anon, first with the "vandalism of your work" see WP:OWN as to why that don't fly. As to info about us and you and anon, you seemed to have lost Pete and myself. You seem to think people care about who you are when you say "you have more info about me than I have of you" since I have as much info about you as you of me. I've never bothered to look where your IP address is coming from, because it doesn't matter. I don't have a problem with you being an anon IP editor. I do have, and judging from the comments from everyone else, a problem with you edits. If you want to try and have an edit war, that will only lead to semi-protection of the page, not to mention it appears three editors here are willing to revert your edits until there is a proper discussion, which means you will likely break the three revert rule. I emplore you to listen to us, we are the Wikipedia community. Your actions are not WP:CONSENSUS and when you say "please don't change without discussion" it comes across as disengenious as that is exactly what you have done, changed to begin with w/o discussion. And now that we have said this needs to be discussed you keep trying to re-insert your opinion (please don't claim that you are only inserting the truth). Lastly, keep in mind that this is the biography of a living person and has special considerations due to legal liability, liability that fall son the individual editor who makes the statements and not on the foundation. As to specific edits, read WP:NPOV and you may come to understand why we have issues with your edits and the broadness of the complaints. Aboutmovies 23:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again please tell me which of my specific edits does everyone take issue with? the most recent statement is saying that I'll lose some type of edit war. It seems to me that nobody has taken my edits one by one and discussed them in any specific manner. I already said I'm willing to discuss, but so far, I hear about how 3 people are willing to revert my edits. What gives? (the exception is the guy who discussed the word "rape" with me -- that was a fruitful discussion.) A false claim that I " misrepresent the things others are saying" isn't helpful. People have requested discussion, so please discuss. 71.111.129.39 00:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still awaiting comments before I revert back to my edits. 71.111.129.39 03:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is lay out the changes on the talk page. There are several things being discussed below, such as changing the section header and also changing the wording in some places. You can layout your changes several different ways, but I can suggest one way. Start a new section heading. Then take each change and number them, after that list the way it is now and the proposed change. If you do something like that it makes it easy to talk about. Again you can do it differently, but (at least in my mind) that's the most organized way to do it. Davidpdx 04:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DavidPDX said: "If you continue to revert, then you'll force us to take other actions which aren't as polite as we are being at this point."

May I suggest that you don't threaten me again. What you said is a direct threat, which is against the TOS. I'm new here and not sure how to report a threat, otherwise I surely would. I'm going to edit the main article. I've given plenty of opportunity for discussion. Several have obviously seen my edits so no need to repeat them here. If you wish to discuss, then fine, but please stop the threats.

Aboutmovies said: "(please don't claim that you are only inserting the truth)" Are you suggesting that I have posted something which is not truthful? Just asking because it's difficult to know with a few words from a keyboard.

And Pete, again I ask, where did I "misrepresent the things others are saying" as you stated? 71.111.129.39 01:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not being "threatened" with anything that isn't normal when someone is disrupting Wikipedia. "Other actions" include reporting you if you commit three reversions in a 24-hour period, as I mentioned on your talk page, asking for a request for comment, reporting the incident to the administrator's noticeboard, etc. If you feel the need to report anyone here, please read up at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, and I'd say go for it, though it's understood in the TOS that "threat" means legal threats and threats of bodily harm and the like, not threats of action on Wikipedia. If anyone in this discussion had other actions besides the ones listed in mind, please add them. Thanks. Katr67 02:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anon, with the quote I simply asked you to not do something that is vert typical when Wikipedia editors are informed about NPOV, by saying they are only adding the truth. So what I said, was with your edits and the comments being made here on this talk page regarding your edits, that I hope you don't try to justify those edits by claiming that you are just inserting the truth. If I thought you were lying about something, I would have said so. The point is, truth is a matter of perspective. I know that sounds weird, but trust me on this. If this wasn't the case there would be no need for Wikipedia's policy of Neutral point of view since the truth would theoritcally be neutral. The other problem is that it isn't so much the factual "what did Goldy do" but how it is presented. Again, the NPOV is a policy, which Wikipedia has very few policies. And when ~90% of an editor's edits are on a single article, and those edits tend to be pushing a singular point of view (Goldscmidt is a very bad man/criminal/rapist/son of the devil), that is not a neutral point of view and not what Wikipedia is for. Does the crime need to be included? Yes, nobody has said differently, and it was here long before you came around. However we are all bound by NPOV and WP:UNDUE and though this crime was horrendous, stupid, and a big news story, it has to be in the perspective of a person who served in the Cabinet, was governor, mayor, and a major political clout person for 30+ years. Seriously, take a look at Richard Nixon and see how much Watergate info is there. If you do, you will notice that it does not dominate the article. Again, Goldschmidt did a bad thing, but overtime (please note this is an encyclopedia and not a tabloid) the crime will have less of an impact on the view of Goldschmidt. Look through history and see how many politicians have had serious problems such as this and you will see how the scandal gets some coverage, but it doesn't dominate, and overtime diminshes. When an editor constantly brings up crime, crime, crime, illegal, illegal, illegal there is a reason, and I don't think it is because that editor is trying to remind the reader. The reader after two senteces isn't suddenly going to go, "oh crap I forgot this was a crime thanks for reminding me after two sentences I'm a total dumbass." So if you are trying to remind the reader, no need to. If you have some other point, let us know what it is. Since writing the article in a manner where the topic "overwhelm(s)" the reader would violate Biographies of living persons, again another policy. So with those policy points in mind, what changes to the article are you looking for? Aboutmovies 03:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take one last crack at addressing you directly, 71. Ordinarily, I try not to speak for others, but in this case, I have a great deal of experience collaborating with David, Katr, and Aboutmovies. (I'm sure they'll correct me if what I say is inaccurate.)

Everyone here has dealt with more contentious issues than this one, and has done so with some grace and diplomacy. Nobody is angry with you, or even particularly concerned with who you are or what you're trying to accomplish. Our goal is to create an excellent encyclopedia. Nobody is making threats, merely making a good faith effort to inform you of what might transpire if your behavior doesn't change. The actions Katr described above would not be punitive in nature, but simply the best course of action for maintaining stability and neutrality on this encyclopedia article. Frankly, she did miss one option, which is probably the most appropriate, given your lack of interest in creating an account: semi-protection of the article would not have any direct impact on you, but would prevent anyone not holding an account from editing the article for some period of time.

You happen to be choosing a confrontation with no fewer than four of the most prolific editors of Oregon-related articles. If you do not find a way to embrace a more productive exchange of ideas -- and I believe all four of us have made an effort to engage you in that way -- you will find yourself wasting a lot of time. Yours and ours, but mostly yours.

Proceed however you like. It's my hope that you will choose the way that best employs your knowledge and expertise. -Pete 04:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I think we are wasting our breath at this point. I certainly didn't mean it as a threat and maybe I should have been more specific in explaining what the consequences of someone's actions on Wikipedia are in terms what can be done if they continue reverting. I also felt with my last post above, I was holding out an olive branch and explaining exactly how the anon could lay out the changes he/she wants so that they could be discussed. I guess the reply showed me I just wasted my time. Davidpdx 07:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

section heading

I think that "2004 sex scandal" is the wrong section heading, in two respects. First, it could easily be read to mean that the "sex" occurred in 2004. Second, and more important, characterizing it as a "sex scandal" is inaccurate. If it had just been a 30-year-old sex scandal, it would have been a fairly minor issue. The notable aspects are that it was criminal sex with a minor, and the coverup. I'd suggest this: "2004 revelation of sex crime and coverup." Open to other suggestions, though. -Pete 00:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be to use that minus the 2004. One question I have is how legitimate it is using the word "sex crime" when someone is admitted to something, but not been convicted. Then again I guess one can commit a crime and never get caught (shoplifting is a perfect example). Also with the words "coverup" we have to make sure that any allegations of wrongdoing by others are worded carefully. For example, an ethics complaint has been filed against Kulongoski but nothing has been proven. I worry whether fictional hearsay or conspiracy theories would be added. Given all that, I think "Revelation of sex crimes and coverup" would work I guess. Davidpdx 05:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David, it's been well established that Goldschmidt committed a crime: the Willamette Week referred to it as a crime, and even the Oregonian said, in relation to the case, that it "does not reveal the identity of sex crime victims." Goldschmidt was also disbarred under a provision that is based on "criminal activity." The fact that he could not be prosecuted is a mere technicality in this matter -- that is, it's not a question of whether he did what is alleged (and what he has admitted); it's merely a question of the statute of limitations.

As to the coverup, the activities of Robert Burtchaell, and Goldschmidt's financial support of the victim and desire for secrecy, have been covered extensively. Of course there is nothing worth covering regarding the present governor -- that's no more notable than the hundreds (at least) of bar complaints lodged every year. -Pete 06:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think with all the conspiracy theories going around about who knew what, it opens a can of worms for someone to come in and POV push those theories whether they are true or not. Of course with Wikipedia, that happens anyway. Davidpdx 08:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, just to be real clear then -- this is a concern I've had for some time. (I think I'm the one who initially titled the section that way, but hey, I make mistakes sometimes.) I'm bringing it up because there seems to be a revival of interest in this article, not out of deference to anyone.

On the specifics, another possibility- the WW has referred to "sexual abuse." That's a term we could use instead of "crime." Pete 18:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, might as well be consistant with the way it is worded. It also would make it less confusing.

I'm curious if anon is simply unwilling to discuss these things and has disappeared or what happened with that person. Davidpdx 04:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not unwilling to discuss. Look back at the number of times I requested discussion for my edits. regarding this edit, I agree. "2004 sex scadal" isn't optimal.71.111.129.39 03:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well certainly this is one portion of that discussion. So far I hear three people discussing this, which is good. How about "Revelation of Sexual Abuse in 1970's" as the section header? Davidpdx 04:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's good. AP Style would dictate "1970s" not "1970's" but I'm not sure what WP:MOS says about it. -Pete 17:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since headers are supposed to be short and sweet, I'd drop the 1970s bit, and it would be "Revelation of sexual abuse" per MOS. Aboutmovies 17:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best suggestion yet. I think we have a winner. -Pete 04:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go for that. Aboutmovies is buying the pizza for everyone! Davidpdx 07:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary new discussion section/compromise solution

I took a stab at reworking the anon's preferred wording (anon, if you read the edit summaries in the page history, you can see, point by point, how I addressed my objections to your wording). I'm not happy with how the bit in the intro turned out ("thus" is such a stuffy word), so if anyone else wants to make an attempt at clarification please do. I think it has been made clear above that no one is threatening or threatening to "out" anyone, so let's move on and discuss the article as it is currently worded. Anon, if you want to see further changes, post the sentence in question on this page as it is currently worded, and then post the change you would like to see and we can discuss it. WPORE editors, we can use the "Support"/"Oppose" style to comment on any proposed changes, if that works for y'all. If the anon feels s/he is being ganged up on by Oregon editors, we can file an RFC and get some outside opinions. Katr67 13:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katr67: Thanks for taking the bull by the horns and doing what I wanted all along: Specific discussion about the article. AboutMovies deserves a little credit too for starting a discussion about the article, although there was lots of other stuff that didn't have much to do with the article in his recent post. And, there was another poster too who actually discussed the article early on ---thanks! But, You two guys, Katr67 and Aboutmovies get 3 gold stars and a cup of Java for moving things where they needed to go. I'm disappointed in some of the other posters. Despite my repeated requests, they would never discuss my initial edits in specific details. As one poster stated, we were "Wasting our breath" on things that had nothing to do with the article. I can't understand why there was initially so much discussion about me and very few specifics (actually no specifics for some time) about my edits. I would urge you guys to learn to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. One poster threatened me, and then there was response about how it wasn't really a threat. All of this could have been avoided. I didn't want an edit war, I didn't want to "choose a confrontation" as one poster stated. I just wanted to stick to the article, and improve it. Something that I feel finally occurred. At any rate, I'm happy with the article now. Unless it gets reverted or changed in some material manner, or some news about Neil G. occurs which needs to be added, I'm done here with my edits. Thanks again Katr67 for your thoughtful edits, and for your skills in resolving this. -- and to everyone here, perhaps our paths will meet again. 71.111.129.39 01:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anon, you have a very selective memory. Several times I pointed out how you could lay things out and you refused to even acknowledge my suggestions, much less take them. As to the threats, there are rules on Wikipedia and I recommend you read them. 1) You were clearly in error the way you were going about editing the article in assuming your edits had WP:consensus by stating that other editors should discuss the edits you made AFTER you made them; 2) Someone who is clearly reverting over and over again can be reported and given a temporary ban, which is the direction you were headed had you continued to edit war. This is what I was referring to; 3) You were clearly unwilling to discuss edits and POV pushing (see WP:POV); 4) At least one edit WAS discussed in a seperate section during the time period this all happened, but you refused to contribute. Davidpdx 08:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deserve any praise--I didn't do much. I think the anon is being disingenuous about his/her participation here, but let's keep further comments on the anon's behavior on the anon's talk page and save this page for discussion about improving the Goldschimidt article. Katr67 15:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davidpdx said: "Anon, you have a very selective memory..."

I don't see any need for insults. Please stop the insults right now. Please keep the discussion focused on the article. You're making statements about me which aren't true. All I was doing was to "be bold," which is a wikipedia phrase. I was active here on the talk page during the discussion, and more than willing to discuss the article and SPECIFICS of my edits. I did make many comproimises from my original article modifications --- did you not notice? I wasn't reverting over and over as you state. I made many comments on the talk page to facilitate discussion, and these comments didn't always result in me doing a reversion. 71.111.129.39 04:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you make false claims about what I have done, yes you have a selective memory. If you want to attack me, then sure your going to get slapped back. Davidpdx 11:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take this off this page folks. You're no longer discussing the article. I have a feeling this back and forth isn't going to get anywhere though, so why don't you both drop it? Thanks. Katr67 14:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Katr67, I'd like to drop this, but the gate has been opened such that I need to defend myself here. DavidPDX, if you think I have made false claims about what you have done, then please, let's discuss the specifics. It may be just a misunderstanding since I'm not sure where you think I may have made false claims. Also, You made a statement about if I wanted to attack you. I don't see what I could have done to make you think I attacked you, or would attack you. My intention was just to improve the article here. Please recall part of the Wiki pillars is to "keep it civil." Please keep this in mind before you make statements such as "sure, your (sic) going to get slapped back." I find statements such as this to be counterproductive.

thanks!! 71.111.129.39 20:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 2006-11-22.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Another source to mine for info

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

GAN on hold

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

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[reply]
Done "He continued to work across party lines reduce regulation and to repair the state's infrastructure" - missing a word after "lines"?
Done "they divorced in 1990" - sounds like the children divorced...can you reword
Done "a reporter for Willamette Week, for thirty years he was" - newspapers and the like go in italics
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
Done "was considered the state's leading power broker on transportation issues" - this needs a ref
Done Ref 8 needs an accessdate, a format=PDF, etc.
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)[reply]

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

Done First paragraph of Governor of Oregon could use some use of "he" rather than "Goldschmidt" all the time
Done Also, some of the short paragraphs in that section could be merged
- Done Same in next few sections
Done (several were like this) Ref 18 has author's name as "first, last" while all others are "last, first"
Done "at the time, he cited marital difficulties." - ref?
Done "He stayed active in Portland as well," - previous sentence mentioned Portland, so "as well" isn't needed
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, SqueakBox 19:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There should be no debate about whether it was "relations" or "abuse." The correct legal term for what he did is "rape" or "statutory rape." That is clearly established by Oregon law and his confessional letter of apology. DiscoDiGomma (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ The Sexual Exploitation of Children, Chart 1: Definitions of Terms Associated With the Sexual Exploitation (SEC) and Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children (CSEC) (p. 4), University of Pennsylvania Center for Youth Policy Studies, U.S. National Institute of Justice, August 2001.
^ Child sexual abuse definition from the NSPCC

Request for Comment

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Discussion

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)[reply]

Mizu-san, I think cultural difference accounts for part of it. However, as the interminable discussions at child sexual abuse and the former adult-child sex article essentially confirm, this Wiki has determined that there is only one acceptable view regarding what constitues child sexual abuse. This mirrors the prevalent view, particularly in the U.S., that all sex between adults and minors is child sexual abuse. The popular press & scholarly literature both overwhelmingly represent that view, with the popular press going so far as to use the term pedophilia to refer to all adult-minor sex, and the existence of operations like To Catch a Predator and organizations like Perverted Justice testifies to this being a wide-spread majority view. An American can even be prosecuted in the U.S. for going to Africa or Asia to have sex with a 14-year-old girl; Such is our determination that this activity contitutes the abuse of a minor, a legal child. I've cited a half-dozen sources that all define an adult sexually penetrating a 14-year-old as child sexual abuse. What Goldschmidt admittedly did is exactly what the term child sexual abuse means. Not to say so is to give him a pass rather than honestly reporting his conduct. --SSBohio 14:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

World wide view

A 14-year old is not legally a child in several developed nations. Sex with 14-year olds can, at best, be regarded "sexual abuse", but not "child sexual abuse" in those nations. I will take Germany as a concrete example, because it is the largest Western country where this is the case.

If you look at the German article for child sexual abuse (Sexueller Missbrauch von Kindern), you will see that the term is clearly defined, both legally and medically, as sex with minors under 14 years of age.

Consensual sex with minors aged 14 or older is legal in Germany, unless the minor is younger than 16 and decides to press charges. And even then it is not legally considered "child sexual abuse", but "adolescent sexual abuse".

So if Neil Goldschmidt had been in Germany at the time of this incident he would probably have broken no laws whatoever. And remember, this is Germany we are talking about, not some crummy, obscure little third world country with a culture vastly different to the US.

Ok, so he broke the law in the US, and according to US law he did commit "child sexual abuse". But so what?

The Wikipedia article child sexual abuse should represent a world wide view, not a view limited to the US and UK. The age of consent is 14 or younger in all of the following places: Most of South America (including Brazil), China, Japan, Mexico, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Hungary, Estonia, and several others. Remember, only about half of the English Wikipeida readers are located in the US

When linking to child sexual abuse, we are linking to the general definition of the word, not the US legal definition. Note that the article does not specify an age. A large chunk of the developed world does not consider his actions "child sexual abuse" so I say, let's give it the benefit of the doubt, so as not to violate WP:BLP.--Foreverdamaged (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are not writing an encyclopedi8a about either the US or even the English speaking world (not even remotely) but this article is clearly US centered and the CSA issues are not even alleged to have taken place outside the US so the AoC in places like Latin America and Europe are not relevant, FD you seem to be offering a semantic argument. IMO of course we should use the US definition of CSA and not an international wikipedia definition. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to this as child sexual abuse

Professional literature

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, the American Psychological Association, the University of Oklahoma Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, and the National Institutes of Health. 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 with regard to defining child sexual abuse.

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.

Child has multiple definitions;
- Traditionally, a child is one who has not yet reached the age of consent, but has passed the age of reason. That is how childhood is differentiated from infancy at common law.
- Black's Law Dictionary's first definition of child is a person under the age of majority.

Child sexual abuse is a term with its own meaning, distinct from the meanings of its constituent words.
- Sexual activity involving persons younger than 18 years of age. Most often perpetrated by an adult, such activities include rape and molestation, pornography, and exposure of children to the sexual acts of others. -- The Sexual Exploitation of Children, Chart 1: Definitions of Terms Associated With the Sexual Exploitation (SEC) and Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children (CSEC) (p. 4), University of Pennsylvania Center for Youth Policy Studies, writing for the U.S. National Institute of Justice in August 2001 and quoting the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information(1996).
- Sexual abuse is when a child or young person is pressurised, forced or tricked into taking part in any kind of sexual activity with an adult or young person. -- What is child abuse? From the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
- 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 abuse - sexual - definition, Leisha M. Andersen, M.D., Pediatrician, in MedlinePlus, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. 22 January 2007.

These are the relevant definitions I've found in [[WP:RS|professional literature, along with their sources. Highlighting mine. --SSBohio 15:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lay sources

Child sexual abuse includes teenagers.
- An Episcopal bishop accused of concealing his brother's sexual abuse of a 14-year-old girl decades ago twice walked in during the abuse. -- Church trial begins for Episcopal bishop from the Associated Press, 9 June 2008.
- Arraignment set for suspect in child sexual abuse: … Sources said that Kearney knew both of his alleged victims, who are females and were 12 and 13 years old at the time the incidents began in 1997. The abuse allegedly occurred intermittently through the year 2001 … -- Arraignment set for suspect in child sexual abuse from the Tidewater News, Franklin, Virginia, 4 June 2008.

Some lay sources would be useful as well. --SSBohio 15:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provided some examples of lay use of the term to refer to the sexual abuse of teenagers. --SSBohio 17:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specific to Goldschmidt

No one can say with certainty how much of the arc of the woman’s life was shaped by the man who molested her starting when she was 14. -- The 30-Year Secret: A crime, a cover-up and the way it shaped Oregon. Nigel Jaquiss. Willamette Week. May 12 2004. Cover.
Jeff Foote, the lawyer who represented the woman Goldschmidt abused, also attended the meeting. -- Ibid.
Bachman (Goldschmidt's attorney) said the statement would refer to Goldschmidt's sexual abuse of the 14-year-old girl and the contrition he felt about it.-- The 30-Year Secret: A crime, a cover-up and the way it shaped Oregon: The Background. Nigel Jaquiss. Willamette Week. May 12 2004. Cover.
"In cases where girls have been abused, they often don't come forward until their 30s or 40s," says David Slader, a Portland lawyer who has brought sex-abuse cases against the Catholic Church. -- Ibid.
Public-records searches identified court documents in Washington County and Seattle that described his sexual abuse of Susan in great detail, without actually naming Goldschmidt.-- Ibid. (N.B.: "Susan" is a pseudonym given to Goldschmidt's victim by the Willamette Week.)
One of the many unanswered questions about Neil Goldschmidt's sexual abuse of a 14-year-old girl is how he kept it a secret for 29 years. -- The 30-Year Secret: A crime, a cover-up and the way it shaped Oregon: How Gov. Goldschmidt Aided One Man Who Knew. Nigel Jaquiss. Willamette Week. May 12 2004. Cover.
"Our records indicated that the abuse started when she was 14 and ended when she was 17," (Jeff Foote) says. "It happened, and it happened over a sustained period of time." -- The 30-Year Secret: A crime, a cover-up and the way it shaped Oregon: Months? Or Years?. Nigel Jaquiss. Willamette Week. May 12 2004. Cover.

Here are some quotes where sources refer to Goldschmidt's sexual abuse as sexual abuse. Emphasis mine. --SSBohio 17:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues raised by not describing Goldscmidt's conduct as child sexual abuse

The issues raised by not describing this as child sexual abuse are:
- It is not a question of what state laws Goldschmidt may have violated, but rather one of what activity he engaged in, and what terminology describes that activity. "Sexual relationship" is simply innacurate terminology for what he did, because it diminishes what happened. Child sexual abuse accurately describes the situation.
- 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 definition of child sexual abuse changes, that would be the most accurate description.
- This 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 (in the common sense of male-female relationships); He could not, since she couldn't consent. By definition, what he did was child sexual abuse.
- 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.

We simply can't accurately depict what happened without describing it as child sexual abuse, because it meets the peer-reviewed definition of child sexual abuse. If we don't describe it that way, then we're making the conscious decision that even though this was child sexual abuse, we're just going to keep that information to ourselves. --SSBohio 15:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Request for Comment continued

Reply to SSBohio and Llywrch

I think the nested discussion is getting difficult to follow, so I'm replying at the bottom to the most substantial recent comments, those from Llywrch and SSBohio.

Llywrch, I generally agree with what you say, though I would not frame it that way. I don't believe it's our role to evaluate what is significantly worse than what else; we should do as little of that as practically possible, while exploring the facts of an issue. I say that child abuse is a term that has, to my knowledge, never been applied to Goldschmidt by a reliable secondary source; that is the primary reason that we should not use it here. Digging in a little deeper, I think we find the reasons why it hasn't been used in a secondary source, is because it is not something that can be asserted with absolute certainty, given the minimal information available on exactly what happened. The quote highlighted above by SSBohio, starting with "No one can say with certainty...," clearly makes this point. No one can say. Not without a far more detailed description of the events in question than is available.

SSBohio, your detailed analysis is very helpful in clarifying where you're coming from, and your reasoning. I appreciate it. However, much of it is not accurately reflecting the views expressed in this discussion. There is nobody in this discussion who has objected to the use of the term "abuse," which has been in the article -- indeed, in a section header -- for many months. Aboutmovies and I have both made it abundantly clear that we consider the term "abuse" appropriate for this article. Your entire section "Specific to Goldschmidt" addresses this "straw man" exclusively. You suggest that "Goldschmidt sexually abused a 14-year-old girl" would be the most accurate description; I don't think you'll encounter any resistance on that point.

Also, you say that "Calling what Goldschmidt did "a sexual relationship" is less specific than calling it child sexual abuse. It makes ambiguous the question of victimization." I wholeheartedly agree. In writing an article, it is generally necessary to refer to things in more and less specific ways at different times.

You also say "This 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 (in the common sense of male-female relationships); He could not, since she couldn't consent." I would submit that the "common sense of male-female relationships" is entirely your reading, and is not the way most people would read it. There is no suggestion in the article that they had a "common male-female relationship"; they had a relationship, as I said before, just the same as any two people, in a multitude of circumstances, might have a relationship. Any two people might have a sexual relationship, as well; that is not to say it's not an abusive sexual relationship. The attachment of a positive value to the term "sexual relationship" is your own choice, and not one I agree with.

The definitions of "child abuse" are helpful as well, but you are misinterpreting your own sources. For instance, where the APA says "Children and adolescents … appear to be at approximately equal risk for sexual victimization," there is no assertion that every case of sex between an adolescent and an adult is child sex abuse.

My bottom line: "abuse" is fine, "sexual relationship" is fine as long as it's not the only term used. "Affair" is not acceptable, "child abuse" is not acceptable. Ultimately, the quality and accuracy of the article rests more on how these terms used, than on what terms are used. -Pete (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, you accuse me of inaccuracy, yet it is you who are introducing deliberate distortions of the sources I've cited. To what purpose? I'm frankly tired of having to defend a definition of child sexual abuse that enjoys widespread acceptance among experts and laymen alike, except in this article.

The APA formatted their definition as a question & answer: Who are the Victims of Child Sexual Abuse? Children and adolescents … The construction is standard for written English. In logical terms, the APA asserts that both children and adolescents fall within the set victims of child sexual abuse. Your comment distorts this simple declaration beyond reason: Saying that there is no assertion that every case of sex between an adolescent and an adult is child sex abuse is an unreasonable manipulation of the facts. It is just as reasonable to say that the APA made no asserion that every case of sex between a child and an adult is child sex abuse; That is to say, not reasonable at all.

As to the meaning of relationship: If I talk to most of the people I know about "Neil's" relationship with "Linda" and don't qualify it in any way whatsoever, it is understood to mean a relationship in the romantic sense. If I talk about Neil's relationship with his psychologist, it comes across differently. That is how the language is interpreted, in context. More to follow. --SSBohio 21:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I don't buy that the APA quote was ever intended as a definition. It's a discussion of the topic. If we were to treat it as a definition, we could use that "definition" to call sex initiated by a 17 year old with his 18 year old girlfriend "child abuse." Which is also completely unreasonable; the problem is simply that the thing you call a "definition" is no such thing. Similar for the other sources you cite.

(2) We are absolutely not describing this without qualification. The WP article goes into a lot of qualifying detail, including describing the relationship as being abusive. So your example does not apply. Anyone understanding this as a relationship "in the romantic sense" would be reading the article in a very casual and selective way. -Pete (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) What would it take to meet your definition of the word definition? The APA wrote the question. The APA wrote the answer. It was not part of a discussion of the topic, but something more akin to a frequently asked questions list. The APA includes adolescents as victims of child sexual abuse. The cite backs that up. That position is also upheld by the other sources I cited. First, you attempt to quibble by saying that the APA never said that all adult-teen sex was child sexual abuse. When I refuted that, you challenge whether the APA is defining what they themselves explicitly define. Doing so because it was written in a Q&A format is an exercise in hair-splitting worthy of a Bill Clinton deposition. Compare to WP:SOUP.

(2) You're right. We are not (nor have we ever been) describing this without qualification. What he did is to have sexual relations with a teenage girl on multiple occasions starting when she was 14 & continuing until she was 17. What he did meets the definition of child sexual abuse. No one has said we should remove detail from the article, only that we should identify his activity by the term of art it is defined as; To raise that as an issue is to make a red herring argument. Your sweeping generalizations about what we are "absolutely not" doing or what deficiencies "anyone understanding this" a particular way might be exhibiting are, to be frank, offensive. Not everyone will draw the same conclusion as you about this situation and this is ment to be consensus-building, not consensus-dictating. That doesn't make them (or me) casual or selective in our comprehension.

The conduct Goldschmidt engaged in meets the definition of child sexual abuse, according to multiple sources. You have those multiple definitions. Describe it any other way as well, but this is, denotatively, a case of child sexual abuse, no matter what else it is described as in addition to that. --SSBohio 05:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I find this method of breaking up the flow of discussion rather than leaving it threaded to be distracting and confusing to me. If there's something above that bears discussion, then above is the place to discuss it, or at least within the same main heading. This disjointed conversation is in desperate need of refactoring. --SSBohio 13:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) So you think that every single instance of sex between people ages 17 and 18 is an instance of child sexual abuse? Because if you consider the APA's statement (and similar ones) a definition, that's the logical consequence. If that's your opinion, you're welcome to it, but I disagree.

(2) To my knowledge, there is not a single source that specifically identifies Goldschmidt as having perpetrated child sexual abuse. You can ignore all my other arguments, if they strike you as mere quibbles; this is the heart of the argument. When no published account in a reliable source describes Goldschmidt's activities, specifically, as child sexual abuse, it is original research to call them that here. (And original research resulting in statements that might be considered defamatory is, further, a violation of the BLP policy.)

As I've said before, you may want to call Nigel and see if he can help you access the court records, or just make your own public records request; if Goldschmidt admitted to child sexual abuse, or if expert testimony in the court case stated unequivocally that he committed it, that would be a citable source that would permit the use of the phrase. -Pete (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I actually don't think that every instance of sex between an 18 & 17 year old is child sexual abuse -- hardly any is probably more like it. But, leaving aside the chasm of difference between that scenario and what Goldschmidt admits to doing, I am not a reliable source for what that term means (& neither are you.) I'll take the APA's word for it, since they're experts and their work is well-regarded and rigorously reviewed, as is the work of the National Library of Medicine and all the others I cited. If you think your arguments about whether 40-year-olds are engaging in child sexual abuse when they have sex with their childrens' 14-year-old babysitter actually hold merit, then go try them at the child sexual abuse article. Until the meaning of the term changes, such "relatioships" will remain child sexual abuse, regardless of your opinion or mine.

(2) Your argument is yet another quibble -- A source says that Goldschmidt sexually abused a 14-year-old girl; The definition of child sexual abuse encompasses the sexual abuse of a 14-year-old girl. must those exact words be used verbatim in order for you to accept the denotation of the term? Child sexual abuse occurs even in the midst of the loving relationship that can only exist between a 40-year-old politician and his kids' 14-year-old babysitter.

(3) Goldschmidt personally admitted to fucking a 14-year-old when he was more than twice her age. He didn't take her out to dinner & a movie; He took her to the basement and fucked her while she was still a child. Since that (by definition) is child sexual abuse, no further research is necessary. He's already admitted it. --SSBohio 21:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA, and keep the link.--Thanks, Ain lina (box)? 18:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

additional comments

Support use of child sexual abuse link. It's completely clear from all sources that this was a sexual abuse of a minor, not an "affair" or "relationship. There are no reliable sources questioning it and even the use of the word "affair" by some news outlets was widely criticized, for example in the Washington Post:

"Readers stunned by the story on Neil Goldschmidt also were angered by The Oregonian's characterization of his having sex with a 14-year-old as an 'affair.' The newspaper used the word in the banner headline Friday and in the story and caption underneath describing Goldschmidt's confession. Reader Linda Goertz of Portland was typical: 'Shame on the Oregonian! Wiser editorial eyes should have caught the highly distasteful error in this headline: 'Goldschmidt confesses '70s affair with girl, 14.' Sexual encounters with 14-year-old children are NOT and never have been 'affairs.'... Therese Bottomly, the managing editor for news, regrets the use of the term 'affair' on deadline. "

Under the law, that's called "child sexual abuse"; it's completely appropriate to wikilink to the Wikipedia article about that topic in the text of this biography.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents:

<Pete said> So you think that every single instance of sex between people ages 17 and 18 is an instance of child sexual abuse. Pete, these weren't seventeen and eighteen year olds. And he wasn't a young man suffering momentary lapses in judgment and making youthful mistakes. He was a trained lawyer, member of the bar, had a wife and children and was the mayor of Portland - abusing his underaged babysitter for years. And after she was discarded, she turned to drugs and alcohol. She even introducing evidence in one of her DUI court cases linking the two (the article should probably cover this, it's in the references). It's not our job to judge the depths of evilness here, or explain it away by comparing it with 17 and 18 year olds, but to objectively report it.

Unrelated:

I think the article should have more coverage of his two handed business dealings; on the one hand Goldschmidt had a private law firm making lots of money consulting for public institutions, and on the other he was on the board of various public institutions. For example, The American Journalism Review recounts state senator Vicki Walker wanted to ask Goldschmidt at his hearing for a seat on the Oregon Board of Higher Education, what he did to earn a $1 million consulting fee for the State Accident Insurance Fund.
The article doesn't mention the word ENRON, it should.

--Duk 22:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's frustrating that people are still misunderstanding my position so badly. I have stated numerous times that "affair" is not an acceptable description of what happened; also, I have never stated that Goldschmidt's disgusting (and, obviously, sexually abusive) activities bear any resemblance to relations between a 17 and 18 year old (that was a logical point that, apparently, was too nuanced for such an emotionally-charged subject.)

I know that this discussion has been very complex, but I implore commenters to familiarize themselves with what is under dispute, and just as importantly, what is not in dispute. -Pete (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, back to the point - neither sexual abuse nor child sexual abuse is the perfect description here. Maybe replace revealed to have sexually abused a 14-year-old girl with something like revealed to have engaged in statutory rape with his 14-year-old babysitter, repeatedly and over a period of years. --Duk 01:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duk, I see at least two problems with that:

The definition of child sexual abuse (according to acknowledged experts in the field) encompasses what Goldschmidt did. To not use the term is to make a judgment that we shouldn't refer to something both factually true and intrinsically relevant to this biography subject.
Statutory rape is a criminal offense. Describing what Goldschmidt did as such -- absent a criminal conviction -- is a bit tenuous. By analogy, if Goldschmidt had killed someone, we likely oughtn't describe it as murder absent a criminal conviction.

Pete, I don't think I'm misunderstanding your position. I think that the broad strokes are:

You believe that the term child sexual abuse is not applicable to what Goldschmidt did. You believe this for presumably good reasons; After all, your history is one of contributing positively to the encyclopedia.
You've employed methods and arguments in support of your belief that are untenable for the reasons I've identified
You've raised quibbling arguments that flow directly from WP:SOUP.
We know for a fact what Goldschmidt did; I think we agree that his actions were sexually abusive, but we disagree whether they constitute child sexual abuse.

That's the way things stand (from where I sit). I've placed this issue on the noticeboard of WP:PAW to gain a broader perspective from editors who have had long-term involvement with editing concerning the topic of child sexual abuse. I was wondering if you could do a few things for me:

Review the definitions I posted above and describe your objections to them individually (except the APA definition, as you've stated them already)
Review the lay media usage examples above and do the same
Propose compromise language that would be acceptable to you while still respecting my (and others) issue with the current language.

I think that the less this is an ideological argument & the more we work toward hammering down language (word-by-word if necessary), the quicker we can resolve this. --SSBohio 14:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio, thanks for the summary. Your final point is still incorrect, though:

We know for a fact what Goldschmidt did; I think we agree that his actions were sexually abusive, but we disagree whether they constitute child sexual abuse.

First, we know what he did only in general terms; the clinical background you provided makes it clear that sex with adolescents is "child sexual abuse" only in certain cases. Second, we agree that what Goldschmidt did was child sexual abuse -- almost certainly. The only disagreement is whether our level of certainty is sufficient to make a statement, or a link, that has the potential to violate WP:OR, violate WP:BLP, or open us up to a libel or defamation suit.

Let me put it this way. In 2004 and since, all across Oregon and the USA, newspaper reporters had serious conversations with their editors, and with their attorneys -- much like this one -- about how to treat the serious and shocking revelations about a prominent regional figure. In the following publications, they made the determination that "abuse" was a suitable term:

The Willamette Week
The Oregonian
The Portland Tribune
The Portland Mercury
The New York Times
The Los Angeles Times
The Washington Post
The American Journalism Review

(Side notes: The Oregonian also made the decision to use the term "affair," for which they took a lot of flack. The LA Times picked up on that term, others didn't. The Willamette Week and Tribune, who were both pursuing a Pulitzer prize -- successful in the WW's case -- had every incentive to use the most sensational term they legally could, in their efforts to upstage the dominant local daily. Nearly all of these publications also used the term "sexual relationship.")

But the number publications I've found that have used the term "child sexual abuse" in describing Goldschmidt's crime is zero.

In order to comply with the original research policy's prohibition on synthesis, we would need sources that specifically describe Goldschmidt's activities as child sexual abuse. (Please read the first paragraph in that section of policy; the example given, regarding plagiarism, is very similar to this one.)

I will return and review your expert citations in more detail (beyond the three I have already read closely and two I have commented on), but as you can see, because they don't deal with Goldschmidt specifically, they can't address this fundamental need.

Your efforts to reach out to other stakeholders (PAW) are worthwhile, but incomplete. We need people with a background in things like libel law as well. (Along these lines, I talked with a friend who endorsed my perspective. This person is a 10+ year member of the Oregon Bar, had been active as both a lawyer and a judge, is familiar with the case, and also has a background as a journalist. Of course that conversation doesn't prove anything, but I just want to let you know I've also been seeking a broader perspective.) -Pete (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Taking each ofPete's points in turn -- per force, more confusing than having threaded discussions about particulare points or issues -- I have to raise some objections and refutations to your response:

You state that my final point is still incorrect because (in part) we know what he did only in general terms. I made no assertion that we knew what he did in specific terms. We only need to know that he sexually penetrated a 14-year-old girl while he was a wealthy, powerful, adult man.
the clinical background you provided makes it clear that sex with adolescents is "child sexual abuse" only in certain cases -- What is your support for that? What are the criteria you see? I only see one source that even mentions other criteria. How does Goldschmidt not meet the criteria?
- The NSPCC does say that it is when a child or young person is pressurised, forced or tricked. I included this definition in the interest of balance, as a counterpoint to Aboutmovies' selective use of definitions.
- The University of Pennsylvania study specifies (without qualification) that child sexual abuse is sexual activity involving persons younger than 18 years of age.
- The APA states that the victims are children and adolescents.
- Professor Barbara Bonner, an expert in the field, defines it as the exploitation of a child or adolescent for the sexual gratification of another person.
- The NLM defines it as the deliberate exposure of minor children to sexual activity.
- All of these definitions encompass what we know of what Goldschmidt did.
Including the term has the potential to violate WP:OR, violate WP:BLP, or open us up to a libel or defamation suit.
- It's not original research to use a term of art to refer to something that it is defined as referring to. Fitting the definition is enough to allow use of the term.
- It's not against our biographies of living persons policy -- a bad policy because of its openness to abuse such as this -- to call something by the term which denotes it. That's simply how language works. In the same vein, we could call Goldschmidt a politician without any other source's ever having done so, because the definition of politician encompasses Goldschmidt.
- We (Wikipedia) would not be open to a libel or defamation suit, as Wikipedia did not exercise editorial control over what was written. The author would be liable. That's me, and I'm willing to accept that remote chance.
In order to comply with the original research policy's prohibition on synthesis, we would need sources that specifically describe Goldschmidt's activities as child sexual abuse. -- No, we wouldn't. This is a point I've already refuted. Using a term as it's defined is not synthesis.
The example given (in WP:SYN) regarding plagiarism is very similar to this one. The point that refutes your assertion comes when WP:SYN says that that example is original research because it expresses the editor's opinion…. Here, it's not a matter of opinion. The adult fucked the adolescent. This is defined as child sexual abuse, not in my opinion, but according to the plain, ordinary facts we already have.
as you can see, because they (the expert sources) don't deal with Goldschmidt specifically, they can't address this fundamental need -- The conclusion drawn is not supported by the argument made. The experts define child sexual abuse. They don't need to have heard of Goldschmidt to do that. If I wanted to refer to Goldschmidt as a white male, I wouldn't need a source to tell me any more than what the term of art means, certainly not one to tell me his color or gender.
Willamette Week refers to Goldschmidt as having molested the girl. In modern American English, the term molest is nearly exclusively used to refer to child sexual abuse. When is the last time you heard of an adult molester? If they say he molested her, and what he did meets the definition of child molestation, then that's what it should be called. I simply think that the clinical term (child sexual abuse) befits an encyclopedia better than the more emotionally charged term molested.

This is about using appropriate terminology to explain what happened. The terminology that most aptly describes what Goldschmidt did is child sexual abuse. How can you refute that when it's the definition of the term? --SSBohio 17:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources use variations on the phrase "sexual abuse of an underage girl" or "sexually abused a 14 year-old girl"; several sources use the word "molest" or child molester". Those are all synonyms for child sexual abuse.

There is no wikipedia policy that says the exact phrase that is an article title must be used by a source in order for an article to be linked. It's still child sexual abuse even if that phrase is not used word-for word in the sources, because the sexual abuse of a minor perpetrated by Goldschmidt (a matter of public record) falls under the defintion of child sexual abuse.

Multiple sources describe what he did as sexual abuse of an underage girl; so there can be no controversy about using that phrase. The article on sexual abuse links directly to child sexual abuse for cases when the victim is a minor. No original research is involved with using the link according to definitions directly in the article.

Multiple sources describe his acts as "molestation" or use the phrase "child molester", that links, again, directly to the article at child sexual abuse.

It's clear and not original research that his "affair" was sexual abuse of a minor, by definition, child sexual abuse. The libel question is a red herring. It's not libel to report what's already a matter of public record. There is no risk of legal action against Wikipedia and no violation of WP:BLP. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry, I thought I had post this a couple of hours ago) Here is the link to the notice at PAW. I've also left a note at the BLP Noticeboard. Katr67 (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, can you please point to one of the "multiple sources" that describe Goldschmidt as a child molester? I do not recall seeing any. Also, the concern about legal action is more about you or me getting sued, not Wikipedia, which is not a legal entity. The Wikimedia Foundation is not generally understood to be liable for the content of its web sites; individual editors are. — Peteforsyth — continues after insertion below

Williamette Week - The 30-Year Secret: "...molested her starting when she was 14." ... "he's a child molester."
Washington Post: "These documents consistently describe Goldschmidt's behavior as 'sexual abuse' and 'molestation' that caused detrimental effects long afterwards."
Eugene Weekly: "...molesting a 14-year-old girl"
Washington Post; "Steve Duin, a columnist, complained about "reverential" coverage. 'We are dealing with a child molester,' he told editors, according to an internal memo sent to reporters at the paper."
Oregon Catalyst: "...Oregon’s most notorious child molester."

Those are the ones I found with a quick Google. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using terms that are used in our sources is generally fine; so using the terms " sexual abuse of an underage girl" or "sexually abused a 14 year-old girl" or "molest" is fine. Linking to sexual abuse is fine, from where the reader may click child sexual abuse. That's all perfectly acceptable. Taking a step from "sexual abuse" to "child sexual abuse," though, is something that no secondary source covering this incident did. So we can't either. -Pete (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, the assertion that we can't describe what Goldschmidt did as child sexual abuse doesn't become more true for its repetition. It's invalid for all the reasons that Petra, Squeak, Jack, & I have enumerated. Unless you're prepared to falsify our refutations, the repetition of your assertion doesn't advance the discussion. Maybe your assertion is right, but based on how it stands now, it's been falsified and that falsification is (as of yet) unchallenged. --SSBohio 18:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm technically "on break," but the specific discussion about "child molester" was already underway. So briefly: there are only two sources linked above by Jack that both contain the phrase "child molester" and are reliable sources. Both of them are quoting a source (Steve Duin) who made the statement verbally, the sources are not directly making an assertion about Goldschmidt. I submit that's an important distinction, but I'll leave this to others to discuss for now. -Pete (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's start here: this is a request for comment. The editors who have already been arguing about this for a million years up and down this page need to take a break and calm down and give the commenters a chance to make their points. I confess I did not read the entire contents of this page, and I can't imagine who would want to, this long winded argument has rambled on so long. I did, however, read the section of the article under debate, and I think it's use of the term "statutory rape" is both accurate and appropriate. It conveys what happened in a concise and legal manner that also conveys the gravity of the situatiuon without presenting a skewed POV. So, I am in favor of leaving in the language that is there now and I would repeat that the already involved editors need to chill out. There are a couple million other articles that could use some help, and there is a also a whole wide world outside of Wikipedia and I think y'all should go visit it for a minute and clear your heads. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving.Beeblbrox (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox, that's fine by me, I'll take a break. For what it's worth, I think the most recent discussion is all you need to look at, I think SSBohio and I have gotten better over the course of discussion at articulating our points. -Pete (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just came here from the RFC page and have deliberately chosen to not read through this discussion and just give my opinion as is. To me, there is a simple answer: we should avoid using the term, "child sexual abuse", because its use suggests that Wikipedia is drawing its own conclusions rather than simply reflecting existing consensus (the latter being something we should always be doing). Of course, if relevant, respectable sources use the term then it's fine to quote them (either directly or indirectly). In addition, we should be using terminology like this only in reference to its local (i.e. US and Oregon) meaning - obviously, since this is an internationally read site, we cannot be implying in an article that a sexual relationship between a 30-year-old and a 14-year-old is ipso facto "child abuse", "statutory rape", or whatever else. Why? Because there are plenty of places in the world where such a relationship is perfectly legal (e.g. some prefectures in Japan; in fact, I believe I'm right in saying that it's legal in Texas in certain circumstances, with parental and court consent, for a 12-year-old to be married). We should always report such things as direct or indirect quotes from other sources, otherwise we are indulging in original research. -- Hux (talk) 00:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining the discussion. Unfortunately, your argument about original research is an argument that's been raised before. It's important to realize that we're not conducting original research by using the term precisely as it's defined by multiple expert sources. We all have the liberty of forming our own definition of child sexual abuse and deciding whether this fits our personal definition. However, there is already a generally accepted expert definition of the term, a definition which includes what Goldschmidt did. We should use it. --SSBohio 21:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does everyone on planet earth who loves to argue semantics frequent wikipedia? Find the original reporting on the topic. How did credible media sources refer to the relationship? Was it described as illegal? Do they mention if it would have been considered illegal? If they don't, check the laws, was it statutory rape at the time the acts were committed? If yes, then this argument is moot and the term child sexual abuse is perfectly legitimate. Inane arguments about "cultural differences" are not helpful, and by the way, on a personal note...gag! In some cultures forcing women to wear burqas and expecting girls to have four male witnesses supporting rape is the norm. Doesn't make it moral, or acceptable ANYWHERE so learn how to make credible arguments or spare the rest of us having to wade through wads of this stuff. PLEASE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.66.156 (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How did credible media sources refer to the relationship? That's one of the problems; at least one 'credible' media source, The Oregonian, with whom Goldschmidt has influence is accused of massaging the truth for his benefit - referring to it as an 'affair'. No source has denied that this was a criminal act, that it was statutory rape and that it went on for a very long time. --Duk 07:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zaphod

Inserted arbitrary break for ease of editing. --SSBohio 20:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of going on for a very long time, I applaud the editors who took my advice and took a break from this tempest in a teacup. There is so much here it is hard to say what the consensus really is, but I think all in all it is leaning toward leaving it defined as "statutory rape". Personally, I most certainly do share the sense of outrage that anyone could call a sexual relationship between a grown, married man and a child to be an "affair" , however, it seems clear the newspaper that made that unfortunate choice of words has already been taken to task for it. Statutory rape is what occurred here, is what he would have been charged with if not for the statute of limitations, and the term conveys the gravity of the situation without adding any of our own moral context. As for the contention that in some cultures such "relationships" are acceptable, Mr. Goldschmidt did not come from one of those cultures and was not living in such a place when these events occurred. I think we can all consider the matter closed. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your taking the time to have a look at this point of contention. It's difficult to tread the fine line between being inflammatory (child molester) and banal (affair) when it comes to an emotionally-charged issue like this. I see the reasoning behind your proposal, but, unfortunately, I can't support it. Here's why, as I see it, statutory rape isn't the appropriate terminology:

Statutory rape is a crime -- If I'm the subject of a Wikipedia article and I killed someone, but I was never convicted of murder, then it would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to define me as a murderer, because such a definition presupposes guilt for that crime. Similarly, calling Goldschmidt's actions statutory rape presumes a criminal offense we literally cannot judge.
Statutory rape is a legal term -- The legal controversy over this issue has long passed; Framing it as a statutory violation effectively limits the scope and effect of Goldschmidt's actions.
There is a term that encompasses the larger context of this offense without limiting it to a matter of law, and that term is child sexual abuse. Multiple expert sources define this conduct as child sexual abuse. All we need to do is accept the consensus of experts in the field and we can use a term that signifies both the moral and emotional issues concerning Goldschmidt's actions. --SSBohio 20:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree with SSBohio on the first two points, and actually if you were to dig waaaaay back in the archives, long before this issue came up, there was a pretty strong consensus among maybe 3-4 editors to that effect. Basically, we're here to report "what happened," not merely "what the legal apparatus determined about what happened." In most cases, we can't really get into a lot of detail about unprosecuted crimes without running afoul of defamation, libel, or WP:BLP. But in this case, the perpetrator of the unprosecuted (and unprosecutable) crime admitted to it, and there is a broad precedent among many publications for covering it as fact, rather than mere allegation.

As far as I'm concerned, it's fine to assert that the act constituted statutory rape, but there is much more to be said about it than that. But let's not forget that in spite of Beeblbrox's edits and comments above, the crime is still covered pretty thoroughly, and is referred to in several places as sex abuse. I think the article is still in pretty good shape, on the whole, as it stands.

The points above actually go to the core of why I still disagree with SSBohio on the third point. The explicit coverage by reliable sources is precisely the thing that lets us treat the matter in detail, without violating Wikipedia policy or the law. Many sources have referred to this unprosecuted crime as sex abuse, which means that we can, too -- we can cite specific publications that assert that he sexually abused a minor.

The fact that no independent source has specifically referred to Goldschmidt's actions as child sex abuse, though, means that we can't, either. We can state that he abused someone, because many media sources have stated as much; we can state that she was a minor, because many media sources have stated as much; but we cannot synthesize the two and state that it was child sex abuse. It may well be that it was child sex abuse, but we cannot state it as fact. Nor can we link to it (without considerable explanation), because that is essentially the same as asserting it as fact. -Pete (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

< ~~pete~~ Ssbohio said> It's difficult to tread the fine line between being inflammatory (child molester) and banal (affair) ... .

There's a 'fine line' between child molesting and having an affair? That's where I stopped reading. ~~Pete~~Ssbohio, you are an idiot. --Duk 01:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duk, you can stop reading wherever you like, but if you're going to declare me an idiot…perhaps you'd do me the courtesy of making sure it's my words you're responding to, and not somebody else's? -01:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Pete, thank you for setting me straight. --Duk 01:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying, but your edit to your own comment doesn't address the core problem. You've been around enough to know about the no personal attacks policy. Also, it's pretty clear from the various things SSBohio has said that he/she is not an idiot at all; far from it. Whatever you chose to take from those words, was undoubtedly a misunderstanding. Please remove the personal attack from this talk page, it's not accomplishing anything, and will only serve to damage our ability to work together. -Pete (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no not again

As stated above, he admitted what happened and the accepted legal definition of what he did is statutory rape. However, my very, very strong suggestion is for the editors who have been arguing this up and down forever should drop the stick and step away from the dead horse for a while. It is clear the group of editors involved in this conversation are at an intractable impasse, and the right move here is for all involved parties to let it go, and see what happens for a while. Beeblbrox (talk) 04:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I've waited for quite a while. At any rate, I was not involved in this earlier, and never presented my arguments regarding the wording of the argument.

The Webster's dictionary definition of "fascism" is "a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control." Hence, using that technical definition, we could likely label numerous political figures who have articles here "fascists" by arguing that the label was technically accurate. Obviously, such a claim would be heavily disingenuous. Moreover, it would be solidly categorized as disruptive editing intended to make a point. Since the "technical term" used here is clearly for a political purpose rather than for the sake of accuracy, it is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV.
Furthermore, I would challenge the thus far unchallenged citation of the various organizations that make up the American psychological establishment as a violation of WP:RS. The definition of "child sexual abuse" is clearly disputed even among their ranks, as is clearly evident from the Rind et al. controversy. There is clearly controversy about the accurate definition of "child sexual abuse" among the psychological establishment, as well as the APA's political capitulation during the Rind affair: [3]
More than that, the definition of "child sexual abuse" used here is closely tied with the definition of pedophilia, which is categorized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as a paraphilia. The DSM itself cannot be considered a reliable source. It is a well publicized fact that they previously categorized homosexuality as a paraphilia, essentially abandoning scientific reasoning in favor of political pressure. Moreover, there are between between members of the DSM panel and the pharmaceutical industry: [4]

Hence, the fundamental issue here is establishing consensus, and there is an obvious dispute between the two camps here. One group, the one that favors defining Goldschmidt's actions as "sexual abuse," defines the opposite view as that which favors defining Goldschmidt's conduct as a "sexual relationship" rather than "sexual abuse." I disagree. The opposite view would be that which defines his conduct as a "sexual affair." The term "affair" would not be so blatant a violation of WP:NPOV as the term "abuse," but I will concede the fact that it can be reasonably interpreted as making a definitive value judgment about the relationship between Goldschmidt and his underage partner. Hence, the term "relationship" is a middle ground upon which consensus can be built, as both "affair" and "abuse" make definitive value judgments about the nature of Goldschmidt's liason with his underage partner, while "relationship" bows to neither extreme, and is a mere statement of facts. An interpersonal relationship is defined as a "relatively long-term association between two or more people," and it can be plainly stated that Goldschmidit had an interpersonal relationship of a sexual nature with his underage partner. It can also be plainly stated that this constituted statutory rape, and I did not remove that part.

Please note that I am trying very hard to assume good faith here, even as I have seen this discussion devolve into crude and insulting personal attacks. The comment regarding girlchat sites made by SqueakBox above would be a perfect example of this. It has not been easy to watch PAW running roughshod, trampling WP:NPOV guidelines at every opportunity they get. I will plainly state that I believe that Squeakbox, Herostratus and that entire crowd have engaged in this sort of behavior in the past. I do not wish for it to continue, and am merely attempting to build consensus on this article that has been neglected for a more than sufficient amount of time. Agnapostate (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Addition

In addition to the above comments I made, it is necessary to address the claim that the terms used by a professional news organization are nonbiased. The Associated Press article was cited above in an attempt to justify using the term "sexual abuse of a girl" in reference to a sexual interaction between a legal adult and a legal minor. Yet in another AP article, the first paragraph is "In a victory for rebellious teenagers, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a mother violated Washington's privacy law by eavesdropping on her daughter's phone conversation." [5] Do you honestly claim that this article is nonbiased? Clearly, the mainstream media has reliable source issues when it comes to youth-related articles. Agnapostate (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latest edit war

There are some problems with this latest text; engaged in a sexual relationship with an underaged high school student over a period of three years, when she was 14 to 17 years old.

'high school student' isn't accurate. Before the abuse she was an honor student and president of her (middle school) class. After the abuse began, she dropped out of highschool and descended into a life of mental problems and substance abuse.
At 14 she might have been a middle school student when the abuse started (I couldn't find out for sure in the references).
Changing 'girl' to 'high school student' and 'female' is a blatant attempt to soften overall description.

--Duk 14:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I merely refer back to established standards of time and grade level. For the most part, "middle school" did not exist in the 1970's; rather the correct term would be "junior high." Yet, according to established time standards, she would have been a high school student throughout the majority of the duration of their relationship.

abuse or relationship

Referring to the same diff as above, about the replacement of "sexually abused" with "engaged in a sexual relationship".

The two sources for the sentence use the first form, and they say that the second form was used by Goldsmith and by the Oreganian, and they say that the first form should have been used by them. Basically, the Washington Post source says:

"The former governor gave a statement to the Oregonian, the state's largest paper, admitting to what he called an 'affair' with the girl. 'But court documents obtained earlier this year by WW paint a very different picture of the relationship,' says Willamette Week. 'These documents consistently describe Goldschmidt's behavior as "sexual abuse" and "molestation" that caused detrimental effects long afterwards.'"[6]

And the ARJ source says (if you click on "the continuation of the history"):

"Tucked inside was an 'extraordinary' five-page excerpt from a rape trial in Seattle, included as a way to prove post-traumatic stress disorder she suffered after this rape was a factor in her DUI." [7] Ooooops, very bad quote, Goldsmith was not involved on this trial, thanks for warning me. Better quote below. "[Rowe told the copy-editor to remove 'affair' from the headline] Rowe went to bed assuming the headline was affair-free. The next morning, she says, 'When I pulled the paper out of the bag at home, I just went, "Ugh."' (...) [Readers and journalists] decried the A1 headline for glossing over the ugliness and criminality of Goldschmidt's actions"[8]

so it's OK to talk about sexual abuse on the article, as it's supported by sources. (disclaimer: I'm not involved on this dispute and I have never edited this article, I only came here because someone left a comment on my talk page) --Enric Naval (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on there, can you please strike out your second quote. Read that article carefully, especially the next paragraph:

A former colleague now working at a fellow alternative paper, Seattle Weekly, plowed through about 1,000 pages of court documents related to the rape case — and though Goldschmidt had nothing to do with that attack, within the reams of information was something about a prior incident and a man who was 21 years older, a family friend, a trusted neighbor.

So as the article is talking about a rape in Seattle and only how those documents helped the reporter better verify Goldschmidt had engaged in the earlier incidents. It is not calling what Goldschmidt did rape, at least not in that quote you posted. Aboutmovies (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for warning me of my mistake. I stroke that one out and put up a better quote. The article also says that some people complained that the headline should have read "rape", but that was based on their personal opinion about the incident, and not based on any court record. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the behavior of certain editors regarding this article, I believe the current version, which restores the compromise solution we came up with earlier, in July, is the best one for now, pending further discussion. Though the "totally disputed" tag might be a bit over the top. Note that my endorsement of the current version, as linked above, does not mean I approve or disapprove of the behavior of anyone whose preferred version this might be. Katr67 (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the latest edit war seems to be a throwback to an argument about something we had earlier agreed upon--that what Goldschmidt did can be termed "sexual abuse". I believe all camps were able to agree on that point. The controversy after that was whether what he did was in fact "child sexual abuse". On that point we reached an impasse and thankfully everyone took a breather. To revert to the pre-compromise version that terms Goldschmidt's actions as an "illegal sexual relationship", besides the horribly clunky wording of that phrase, goes against a hard-won consensus. Again, I'd say step away from the stick. Katr67 (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The users who have been reverting my edits have narrowly avoided violating 3RR, and furthermore the claims that you have made on my talk page are disingenuous and untrue. In the future, please remember to maintain civility and assume good faith. My arguments did not factor into the previous edit war, and what I said about the politically motivated cover of "technical definitions" must be taken into account. Agnapostate (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have indented this as I assume you are replying to me re: "claims you have made on my talk page". If I am mistaken, please reindent (per WP:TALK) and clarify to whom you are speaking. I warned you with {{uw-canvass}} as your request for other editors to look at this page wasn't neutral. Note that I don't particularly like your behavior nor that of Squeakbox, et al. However, please see my note above about behavior issues. If anyone has committed a reportable offense, please report it and keep the discussion here about the content of the article. Note again that several of us who disagree with Squeakbox, et al, have also worked on this article and agreed to a compromise solution. I understand that you have a need to go after the edits of certain editors, but this article is being watched over by several members of WikiProject Oregon, most of whom, as far as I know, do not have an agenda about child sexual abuse one way or the other, and that it has been vetted as a Good Article, thus it is being held to a higher standard than most articles. So please keep your problems with any one particular editor away from this article. I'm planning to make note of the current discussion at WP:ANI so that previously uninvolved editors will take a look at the current situation. Cheers. Katr67 (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katr67 is correct. The consensus terminology was agreed with lots of discussion resulting in a solid verifiable compromise based on reliable sources. Agnapostate came here spoiling for a fight from his first edit to this article a few days ago, complete with antagonistic edit summary, followed by a string of other antagonistic comments on this page and various user pages. What's the real point of all that? No-one is interested in this fight, it's all coming from Agnapostate, he's fighting himself. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category statutory rapist

Before this category is readded. Can folks provide source(s) that clearly show that this individual belongs in this category and its appropriateness. Thank you. --Tom 00:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure -- according to the AJR story (citation #1):

“

…Goldschmidt was mayor and she would have been 14, well within Oregon's limits for statutory rape.

”

according to the Oregonian article "Goldschmidt confesses '70s affair…" (citation #37):

“

According to Oregon laws in effect in 1975, sexual intercourse with a girl under age 16 constituted third-degree rape, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

”

A U.S. Department of Justice's publication, and other sources cited in the statutory rape article, further clarifies what is and isn't considered statutory rape.

At the core: Goldschmidt admitted to the behavior, and the behavior clearly constitutes a violation of the statutory rape law in effect at the time. We at Wikipedia are not synthesizing these facts to draw that conclusion -- we're repeating what independent publications said about it. Though it is rare to use a term like statutory rape in a case where there has not been a conviction, there are occasional exceptions where that is the right thing to do; this is one of those cases. -Pete (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally Tom, read the archive here as we've been down this road before. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Pete, this has been discussed before. There is a glaring difference between making a judgement and writing NPOV. If he was convicted of the crime, I would be all for adding the category and defending it to the hilt. The sad fact is that he wasn't. That can't be changed.

Those that wish to, can look back to the archive (but I doubt they will) and see this has been discussed in the past (as Aboutmovies noted). I don't think much has changed in terms of public statements since this all came out a couple of years ago.

On a personal note, if you go look at my editing history, you'll see very few edits in recent history (for the past year and a half or so). There is a good reason for this. I simply refuse to participate anymore because of this kind of bullshit. It's this kind of stuff that causes people to quit Wikipedia. Davidpdx (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the archives and it looks like the consensus was for not including it? Also, Pete, your analysis seems to be OR or that you are coming to this conclusion yourself. Are there sources that "label" him as a statutory rapist or was he convicted by a court of law? If not, I would leave this out. --Tom 13:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)ps, does somebody have the link to the RFC on this? TIA --Tom 13:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. On the archive, linked here, on the first sections you can see Davidpdx arguing against the category. Pete, Aboutmovies, Cacophonie and Liface think that "rape" shouldn't be used and that something like "statutory rape" or "third degree rape" should be used. User:Katr67 restored the wording[9], so she must have agreed to the wording even if she didn't say so on the talk page. The only ones disagreeing are Davidpdx and User:71.111.129.39, this last one kept reverting until he is told to bring the issue to ANI if he "feel[s] that anyone who edited the Neil Goldschmidt page violated any of Wikipedia's policies in any way"[10]. The words "statutory rape" have remained on the article since then.

On 3 June 2008, SSBohio, decide to change sexual relationship with a link to sexual abuse [11] which was edit-warred and spawned tha discussion at Talk:Neil_Goldschmidt#Sexual_relations_or_sexual_abuse, and finally an RFC was opened here on this same page about that term, and continued on a different section here, where it was discussed whether "statutory rape" should be replaced with the stronger term "sexual child abuse". Everyone agreed that statutory rape was already adequate and accurate, and the stronger term was inadequate and inaccurate, except for SSB. About 10 June the discussion ends when Beeblbrox asks that "the editors who have been arguing this up and down forever" stop beating the dead horse[12].

The matter stayed closed until Agnapostate basically stomped into the talk page like an elephant on a china shop, reverting with increasingly uncivil edit summaries when he failed to convince other editors with his arguments. It was rebuffed with complaints by several editors that the matter had already been discussed and that there was consensus for the edits.

Finally, about Davidpdx's complaint, notice that Category:Statutory_rapists says nothing about the persons having convicted, it just talks about cases where it happened, and there is overhelming consensus supported by solid sourced arguments that statutory rape actually happened, as defined by Oregon's law at that time.

So, Tom, your actions are against consensus. If you really want to to remove the cat then gather some solid arguments, address the issues raised on the other discussions, and start another RFC on the matter. And, for fuck's sake, don't remove the category again if you get reverted by other editor, as you have given no argument for the removal, and there is really a consensus for him having done statutory rape, even if you can't see it.

And don't, really, don't remove the category again saying "read all the discussions" or "I don't see the consensus" because I have just spent like 2 hours and a half, in spite of being tired, reading stuff and checking page histories to compose this message and check if there was really consensus or not, and there is an overhelming consensus. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I am just trying to figure out what the agenda is for inclusion. Just because you are tired and blathering at this point doesn't really sway me. So 4 or so editors are in favor of including this category? Also it seems like a stretch to say that the category says nothing about the persons having convicted, it just talks about cases where it happened, and there is overhelming consensus supported by solid sourced arguments that statutory rape actually happened. It "happened" according to who? Anyways, since you said for fuck's sake, I won't revert for now.--Tom 15:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)ps, I reverted back for now.--Tom 15:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring the cat (I reply on the below section about it). Notice that the "four editors" figure is counting only the editors on the archive page, I didn't count the editors on the RFC sections. Also notice that it's not just a head-count, but the arguments presented by them. My apologies for my harshness, I was tired, and the timing was a bit bad, as it was right after the edits of a POV pusher that was trying to whitewash this article, completed with the apparition of a SPA that reverted to his version. That strains patience quite a bit.

The edits that you made later[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive476#Need_some_help_with_Neil_Goldschmidt] don't make me very happy, but at least they are either according to what the sources say, or are removals unsourced stuff. Editors more experienced with the article should check if the changes are correct. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read the entire talk page since this whole thing blew out of proportion and I have been AWOL as of lately on Wikipedia. It is telling that those who are pushing the changes are 1) Saying there was no consensus; 2) That only two people supported removal of the category and 3) That suddenly there is a huge consensus for leaving it in. Keep in mind as I've said before on this page and in the archieve, I'm not defending what Goldschmidt did, I'm merely pointing out that adding the category is wrong.

If you look back at my notes in the archieve I pointed to something Jimbo Wales said about putting things in Wikipedia articles. I've copy/pasted this from the archieve:

In a discussion about rape categories Jimbo Wales, the creator of Wikipedia stated [13]:

"Conviction is a sufficient standard. A lack of a conviction should strong predispose us against listing a person in this sort of category, but there could be other *clearly defined* criteria which would do work for us similar to a conviction. The lynch mob mentality is worse than failing to have some criminals listed. Calling someone a 'criminal' is a contentious matter which ought to be done only very carefully, cautiously, and conservatively."

It also might be a good idea for you to look at the conversation that took place on the Category talk:Convicted child sex offenders page here: Category_talk:Convicted_child_sex_offenders#Public_Service_Message. Also note, that such disputes have been taken before arbitration, mainly Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_Min_Zhu which looks at dealing with articles listing people as child rapists. One of the tenents of that decision was Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WebEx_and_Min_Zhu#Final_decision.

I really hate repeating myself over and over again. Personally I have no stake in this and have pretty much all but quit Wikipedia because of this repetitive bullshit. Davidpdx (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Include or exclude Category:Statutory_rapists

Would folks mind posting here and brief reason:

Exclude - Was there a conviction or sources that "label" this individual as such. --Tom 15:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tom, you are not being reasonable. I do not plan to engage in this unnecessary exercise. A case has been made, an agreement has been reached. If you disagree with it, make your own case. Votes aren't going to change reality. Another link for your perusal: [14]. Not to mention court papers. -Pete (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And other sources calling it third-degree rape [15][16]

All that states is what the law is. I know this whole thing is semantics but I would still rather only include people who have been convicted in a court of law in this category. --Tom 19:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also says "Although the statute of limitations blocks any criminal prosecution of Goldschmidt (...)". Also, he made a settlement to pay 250,000$ to the girl to keep her silent about the story. There is no reasonable doubt that he *did* commit statutory rape, as defined under Oregon law at the time, even if he was not convicted because he made a settlement with the girl.

Seriously, the inclusion on the category is a wider issue. If you have problems with the inclusion criteria, then you should go to Category_talk:Statutory rapists and open a discussion there explaining why it should only have convicted people, and raise the issue at one of the forums at Wikipedia:Village pump, or go to WT:BLP and ask if the inclusion on the category on non-convicted people is a violation of BLP policy. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, sounds good. --Tom 16:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been an active participant in Wikipedia for a few years, though I am not active as I once was. I think the way this has been been pushed by some is ridiculous and petty. There was a pretty relevant discussion about it in the talk archieve regardless of what some say.

Even though there was a RFC about 3 months ago, no one bothered to try to contact those who have been involved with editing this article for years. It's all about pushing agendas.

I believe Jim Wales made it very clear that there should be adequate proof when something is added that gives such a strong perception like the Statutory Rape category. If Wikipedia users want to ignore that, then fine. I have made no secret that I believe that category should not be there and clearly refers to someone who is CONVICTED of the crime.

Exclude See above comments Davidpdx (talk)