Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

AN/I report re this page.

I have reported User:KimvdLinde's attack site about this page at AN/I. Interested editors may comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Hounding_and_off-wiki_harassment_by_a_WP_admin.3F_.28User:KimvdLinde.29
— James Cantor (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting me. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Globalizing

Yesterday, I tweaked the lead so as to have a somewhat more international angle to it, by highlighting that the international ICD10 stresses that pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubertal and early pubertal children, contrary to the American DSM IV that is more restricted to only pre-pubertal kids. Like any effort to make this article more balanced, this was reverted this morning by the usual editor. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Response to the null edit: that was a year ago and consensus can change when new arguments are brought forward. Furthermore, consensus is not the end of everything. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, everybody, look at this discussion: Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 12#Should we include the wording "early pubescent" beside "prepubescent" in the lead?

I was the first one to bring up such a matter, and am clearly not too opposed to "early pubertal" being in the lead, but it also comes with problems...as brought up in this discussion: Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 13#Borderline between pedophilia and ephebophilia.

As I stated in that second discussion: By "early pubertal stage," WHO means young people who still look prepubescent but are really pubescent and the pedophile does not care (that their target is actually pubescent). A pubescent 13-year-old boy, for example, may still look prepubescent; a pedophile is not going to pass on that. If the boy has pubic hair, the pedophile could insist that the boy shave; "problem" solved. Key word is "preference" here. A pedophile going after someone who is pubescent but looks prepubescent still has a sexual preference for prepubescent children.

I will go ahead and add back "early pubertal" to appease KimvdLinde, and for the reasons I stated in that first discussion, but this is not a "globalize issue"...which is why I will be removing that tag. How else do you think "pedophilia" is defined in other countries?

As for consensus, the consensus version usually stays until new consensus is formed. Flyer22 (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

And here we go again, definitions of a pedophile seem to differ, even among major diagnostic handbooks. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Definitions are pretty much consistent among the medical community -- prepubescent (as James M. Cantor so wonderfully showed above). Even the ICD-10 stresses "prepubescent" right after saying "prepubertal or early pubertal age." How else do you think a pubescent 11-year-old boy looks? Typically, he looks like a prepubescent! Still ripe for the picking for a pedophile. Again, the key word is "preference." A pedophile still prefers prepubescent children, or one who looks prepubescent. If you haven't noticed, the lead says "primary or exclusive." Even hebephilia, as far as I'm concerned, is a term which should be directed more towards girls (as some others think)...because an 11-year-old pubescent girl has more of a chance of not looking prepubescent and therefore stressing the difference between it and pedophilia. This is most likely why Karen Franklin skips straight to mentioning girls and says that hebephilia (generally 11-14) should not be deemed a disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association, because "large proportions of heterosexual men are sexually attracted to young pubescent girls." By that, I take it she means "normal men" (although she is focusing on the attraction rather than the preference). As even Dr. Frederick S. Berlin says, "Most men can find adolescents attractive sexually, although, of course, that doesn't mean they're going to act on it. Some men who become involved with teenagers may not have a particular disorder. Opportunity and other factors may have contributed to their behaving in the way they do." What I am talking about, though, is people who look prepubescent but are actually pubescent. What I stated in the "Should we include the wording 'early pubescent' beside 'prepubescent' in the lead?" discussion clearly shows that what you stated in your blog about the main editors watching over/editing this article is wrong. We clearly understand a bordeline between pedophilia and hebephilia. What we are trying to stay away from is further normalizing this term as applying to a sexual attraction to anything under 18. Because a man finding a 17-year-old girl (a complete biological adult, I might add) sexually attractive is not abnormal or pedophilia in any way. Plenty of normal men (including celebrities) found Britney Spears sexually attractive and admitted to it when she came on to the scene. They were generally called "dirty old men," not pedophiles. But today, any adult man lusting after 17-year-old Miley Cyrus is called a pedophile (even her older boyfriends), which may have to do with the television show that made her famous still airing episodes where she looks very young. The "common use" association has definitely gotten worse over the years...but it's still wrong. As wrong as calling fish-eating vegetarianism (as mentioned in the Vegetarianism article's lead).

You want to know why the medical definition of the term is correct? Why people should generally stick to the medical definition when defining pedophilia? It's for the same reasons Legitimus and the IP in the "Move" discussion stated above. Age of consent and Age of majority vary by state and by country and are not universal (even if 18 is the most used criterion for adulthood). If we go by that "not of legal age" reasoning, then what may be a pedophile in one state or country is not a pedophile in another state or country. And this is exactly why pedophilia is not based on socially constructed adulthood...but rather biological adulhood. Biological adulthood cannot be governed. You're either a biological adult or you're not...without society's say in the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, you do not get that this is an encyclopedia, and as such, we do not determine ourselves what is correct and what is wrong, we document what happens in the big scary world outside. if the term pedophile is used wider and wider, that needs to be reported. What you are doing is using the medical POV to determine the scope of the article, and sorry, that is wrong. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, you do not get that though this is an encyclopedia, it is not a dictionary (meaning dictionary sources need not apply to most of this article). We do not have to determine for ourselves what is correct and what is wrong, as that would be WP:Original research. We let the sources determine what is correct and what is wrong for us. And all medical sources say that applying the term "pedophilia" to everything under 18 is wrong. If your pop culture sources which muddy the term and label perfectly normal men pedophiles (as if there is some obvious physical age difference between 17 and 18) were authoritative over the medical sources and said that the medical sources were wrong, we would report that as well. But they don't. They don't say that medical sources are wrong at all, and certainly are not authoritative over them. All your pop cultures sources do is say "children" and yet also define children as being "between birth and puberty," only proving our point. If the term "pedophile" is used wider and wider, that needs to be reported, you say? Uh, we do that. And we rightfully say that researchers -- you know, the experts on this term -- say that such wide usage is wrong. Using a medical POV to determine the scope of most of this very medical article is not wrong. If that were the case, then all other similar Wikipedia articles would follow your logic, but they don't. If Anorexia nervosa was suddenly used by the mainstream public to refer to any skinny person... Oh, wait, it's already used in such a way. But you don't see that getting undue weight in that (very) medical article. Using a medical POV to determine the scope of most of this article is no more wrong than using a sexual POV (as in reliable sources about sex) to determine most of the scope of the Sexual intercourse article. We already compromised with you. You get a bit about the common usage in the lead, which was already in the lead in the first place. You don't get half the article on the common usage. As it would report what exactly? What a simple paragraph (as the lead already does) can? Can't very well use the dictionary sources to say they agree with non-prepubescent when they define "child" the way they do. And other than dictionary sources, there would simply be a lot of pop culture sources saying how so and so labeled...or wrongly labeled this or that person a pedophile. Like here as well. Stuff like that can be covered in the Misuse of terminology section. Or even a new section called In popular culture. Whatever. Flyer22 (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Overall Effect of Article

I would like to point out that, in reading this article for more information on the subject, it reads like an article in a medical encyclopedia, starting out by defining pedophilia as a mental disorder and immediately referencing diagnostic manuals, etc. Much of the article then go into great detail about various diagnostic criteria and physiological and psychological trends in diagnoses, as well as a long section on treatment. Most of this information is both irrelevant and meaningless to the average (non-technical) reader, as the average reader neither has a degree in psychology, nor is pursuing one at some point in the future.

This article explores the medical definition of Pedophilia as a psychiatric disorder in far too much depth, while not mentioning at all the part sexual interest towards children has played in current or past society. The Oxford English Dictionary definition doesn't mention any medical considerations at all, so it seems strange to put almost exclusive emphasis on pedophilia as a medical/psychiatric issue. It also seems that it would be prudent to include at least cursory discussions of the relationship between pedophilia and child pornography, emerging patterns of pedophiles using the internet, recent and historical scandals involving pedophilia (such as the Roman Catholic priest scandal that made headlines around the world for months on end -- it's very strange that there is absolutely no mention in the entire article), as well as literary and artistic figures from the past who engaged in behavior that would today be classified as pedophilia, among other topics entirely missing from the article. (For example, I notice that at the bottom of the article, there is a link to an article about Pederasty. It seems like Pederasty would merit at least a short paragraph in this article, if for no other reason to explain the distinction from pedophilia) As the article stands, to me, as a reader with no intention of practicing psychiatric diagnosis or treatment, it is almost completely useless excepting the section on etymology and the disgracefully short section Legal and Social Issues. 24.2.51.248 (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

As an example [1] this TIME magazine article, while containing some information not fitting in the prepubertal category, seems to have a lot more relevant and interesting information than this article. Obviously it's not an encyclopedia article, and it includes some anecdotal observations and isn't by any means comprehensive. However, it represents some of what an average user might come to this article expecting to find out. If a decision has been made to exclude this type of non-medical content from the article, it needs to be made extremely clear at the beginning of the article why this is the case and in which article this information can be found. 24.2.51.248 (talk) 10:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You'll pardon me if I am a tad suspicious of your anonymous post originating from the area near Sacramento, CA. You sound strangely familiar...

Legitimus (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add that much of the article goes into great detail about various diagnostic criteria and physiological and psychological trends in diagnoses, as well as a long section on treatment...because, well, this is an article on a medical issue first and foremost. Complaining about this article being too medical is like complaining about the Sexual intercourse article being too sexual. This information is not irrelevant or meaningless to the average (non-technical) reader at all...if they are coming here to find out what pedophilia is. No degree in psychology is needed to understand most of this stuff. And if they are unsure about a word, term, or person, they could always Google that topic. We are supposed to strive to create stellar articles. Not mediocre ones. Flyer22 (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I saw this listed on the RfC page. Honestly, the intro to this article is rubbish, and I can't be bothered to read the rest, because I see where it's headed. What is or isn't officially classified as a psychiatric disorder is decided by a committee, after much pork barrel negotiation. Homosexuality was at one point a psychiatric disorder. [2] Playing videogames too much is probably going to a psychiatric disorder in the next edition [3]. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't condone pedophilia, but a definition like "is a deviant sexual interest or behavior (paraphillia)" makes far more common sense. And you can easily cite some (psychiatric!) textbook for it. [4] The article on paraphillia has fare more common sense that this one. It say explicitly that "Psychologists and psychiatrists codified paraphilias as disorders..." Tijfo098 (talk) 20:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The intro of this article is not any more rubbish than the intro of the Anorexia nervosa article calling it an eating disorder, or other topics that are largely considered disorders being reported by Wikipedia as disorders first and foremost. And unlike homosexuality, pedophilia is still considered a mental disorder and most likely always will be. Saying pedophilia "is a deviant sexual interest or behavior (paraphillia)" is not specific enough. Though we have the DSM to go into that afterwards. But even if we did start the article out that way, it would still need to soon after note that pedophilia is largely considered a mental disorder in the medical community. Even the Paraphilia article says, "Pedophilia is a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children, or has engaged in child sexual abuse."

Whether or not to have pedophilia as a mental disorder in the lead has been addressed time and time again, usually by pedophiles (I'm not calling you a pedophile, just clarifying), and each time...it has been decided by either us or the larger community that it should definitely stay defined as a mental disorder in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the bad quality of other articles is not a guideline for this article. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not bad quality because you say so. It's precedent, and for good reason, and not because I say so (as if calling Anorexia nervosa or pedophilia disorders is "bad quality" anyway...yeah, right). Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it is because several editors say so. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Several editors or the larger community, which has always been the case with this or other Wikipedia articles. That's what WP:Consensus is. If we had not been here, this article would have been run by pedophiles trying to normalize pedophilia, as this FOX NEWS article wrongly reported of Wikipedia recently. What that article says was true back in the day, except for what it says about SqueakBox... But is wrong now. Flyer22 (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As a further comment, the introduction makes no mention of social issues whatsoever, as if pedhophillia was an abstract or purely medical matter. Here's a reading of 20th century UK history that might change you mind. [5] Now, Flyer22, you asked for comments, but it seems to me this is just a face saving exercise, or maybe you just enjoy debating in circles. Perusing this talk page, I see you don't give a damn what anyone else thinks about this article, and just repeat your point that its contents is perfect and sufficient as long as it mirrors the current version of the DSM and ICD. Given that attitude, I'm not going to make any further comments here. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The introduction does make mention of social issues, such as with the common usage of the term. We must also not confuse pedophilia with child sexual abuse or matters not relating to the medical definition. Pederasty, for example, is not the same thing. And if you perused this talk page more closely, you would see that I am not the only one who enjoys debating in circles and seemingly doesn't give a damn about what anyone else thinks. I would not have to keep repeating myself if certain people would not keep repeating themselves, suggesting that the common use definition (which goes off socially-constructed adulthood, and which varies by state and by country, rather than biological adulthood, which cannot be goverened) should be just as prominent in this article. These matters have been gone over time and time again...even before now, and shot down each time. Not just by me. Even as recently as a recent AfD. Like I said before, if I and the usual editors had not been here, then this FOX NEWS article would be right. Flyer22 (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Next step on definitions

Now that the definitions are all in one section, I propose that we structure the definitions to reconcile with the wiktionary definition. That way we are not making this about the numerous biomedical definitions used in mental health, but the "actual" definition we have been discussing above. By structuring it from oldest and most general senses to the many narrow definitions proposed and used in mental health, we will be giving this the required balance and NPOV. If the article ever gets unwieldy, we can revisit a separate article for the mental disorder (which is WAY over-represented in the article right now). Jokestress (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. And you know you and I disagree on what "the actual" definition is. What lay people think it is...is not how it will generally be defined here. Most of your changes have been accepted, and I would say it is better left at that. Flyer22 (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

All you have to do is provide a reliable source for this "actual definition" I keep hearing about. I have a laundry list of actual definitions we will be including over the next several weeks. I am doing them one at a time. If you want a "misuse" section, that should probably go under all the disease model stuff. It's only a "misuse" under those specific circumstances. This article has huge problems, and I think we can all work together to rectify them. That means making proposals and compromises that reflect reliable sources, not just defending the status quo because it matches one understanding of this phenomenon. Jokestress (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

A reliable source for the actual definition is in the article, plenty -- the sexual preference for prepubescent children. You have a laundry list of misuses...if they are anything similar to what is in the Misuse of terminology section, and we will not be including those as accurate definitions. They will either go in the Other uses section or the Misuse of terminology section, because this article should focus on the most authoritative sources. I am not for the Misuse section going under all the "disease model stuff," and have already explained why. It is only a misuse under those specific circumstances, you say? Oh, so a man who prefers 17 to 18-year-olds is a pedophile because someone incorrectly uses the term? Nope, that's not how it works. This article has huge problems, according to you, and your "solutions" have generally been shot down for a reason. Not because of WP:OWN. Furthermore, you seriously need to gain WP:Consensus before making such huge changes on such a controversial article as this one in the future. Flyer22 (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should get towards a more general definition of this term. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Getting towards a "more general definition" of the term would be getting away from the true definition. Is there a true definition? Of course there is. Otherwise, everything would count as pedophilia -- the act, the sexual interest in pubescents and post-pubescents, everything. This article is about the psychiatric disorder first and foremost, as it should be. We should not be giving undue weight to all these other definitions that cause nothing but harm. There are men who may have sexually abused a prepubescent child but are not pedophiles. Sexual interest in pubescents and postpubescents is not pedophilia. We should be clear about all of this. Not say, "Oh, you consider Mark Foley a pedophile? Then you are correct." Flyer22 (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point. A medical operationalization of a term is NOT the general term. What is the GENERAL definition? As for undue weight, the current article obviously has a lot of WP:UNDUE issues by medicalizing a general term. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not missing the point. My point is that this article should not hugely focus on the more general term -- which includes a sexual attraction to everything under 18. That is not pedophilia, no matter how generally applied. This article mainly focues on the medical term because this is more so a medical article, and "a sexual preference for prepubescent children" is the accurate definition of the term. That is not undue weight. We certainly don't need people coming to Wikipedia to learn about what this is, and then leaving here thinking that all of these "definitions" are perfectly valid. I also point out that we don't do this for most medical and legal articles here either. We don't present all or even most of the POVs about rape outside of its legal definition. The Sociobiological theories of rape section, for example, is small, for very valid reasons, and not because it has its own article. The Rape article focuses on the legal definition first and foremost...and mostly, just as this article should focus on the medical definition first and foremost...and mostly. Flyer22 (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I do not understand why you think I think the general term of pedophilia included everything below 18, so I would appreciate if you would not assume things I am not saying. Secondly, I am glad you agree with me that we should clarify the general use of the term immediately just like in the rape article, which immediately focuses on the legal term AND the general use of the term, within the first two sentences. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

What else would I assume? That's what the general definition is/what it includes. The term pedophilia is often thrown around by the general public to refer to a sexual interest in pubescent and post-pubescent teenagers. Surely, you have seen that with the Mark Foley case...and with the recent Roman Polanski case. You said the "general term." What else was I to assume? And as for this article clarifying the general use of the term, we already do that; it's right there in the lead. Yes, we say that experts advise against such improper use. Because they generally do, and we don't want people thinking that all those things are indeed pedophilia. I see no reason it should come early in the lead, however, which would only confuse people about the term's true meaning. The medical definition comes first in the lead, then the other uses. But we did have a different lead before, which started off saying "In the medical field," "In law enforcement," "In common use," etc. I could link to that lead if you want.

But as for having all these inaccurate definitions of this term taking up an equal portion of this article, I am speaking of what WP:Undue says: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." What the general public believes -- that pedophilia generally means the act and applies to anything under 18 -- should not dominate here. That goes for reliable mainstream sources calling Mark Foley a pedophile. The general belief that he is one...does not mean we should give people the impression they are right about that. The simple fact is...they aren't. Flyer22 (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here is the version of the more neutral lead, where we start off saying pedophilia has a range of definitions. Of course, we go into the medical/psychological definition first. This was the preferred lead, even by me, for quite some time. And I wouldn't mind going back to something like that. Then we evolved to this and finally to the current version to make the lead less cluttered and add-in a bit about its origin. Flyer22 (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, pedophilia is used in normal English to indicate a sexual interest in pre-pubescent children. Nothing more and nothing less. See the various dictionaries for various slightly different definitions. Yes, you are assuming a lot, and it is irritating because I had to respond in several replies just to get it through your head what I mean because you assume all kind of things. If it is not clear what someone means, ASK. So, I hope you stop assuming I include pubescent kids and sexual child abuse with different motivations such as power trips. Now that we have this out of the way. Let's take the example of rape to rewrite the lead of this article.

Anyway, the current lead is a severe case of UNDUE, because of the pretty much exclusive focus on the medial operalization of the term at the cost of the general use of the term at the expense of the general use of the term. And that needs to be changed. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No, pedophilia is used in normal English to indicate a sexual interest in anything under 18, as noted by this expert and addressed in the lead and in the Misuse of terminology section. This was also evident from the Mark Foley and Roman Polanski cases; almost all of the media incorrectly labeled them pedophiles. Prime examples of misuse and normal use of the term. It has nothing to do with assumptions or anything else. Between you and I, I am not the one who often makes assumptions. And I need nothing drilled into my head to understand what you mean. You, on the other hand? May need to better consider my points. Twice I have even felt the need to point you to WP:CIVIL, as I feel your replies are sometimes rude and abrupt. I'm not here to frustrate you, and am willing to compromise. Why you seem to believe "normal use" of the word stops at prepubescents is beyond me. If that were the case, the Misuse of terminology section would not be there; it was put there through consensus because of the rampant misuse of the word regarding teenagers. The dictionary? All it says over and over again is the "sexual interest in children," almost always without specifying "prepubescent." I should know. The lead is not a case of WP:UNDUE. This is a medical article, about a medical term. Of course, the way the term is used medically is going to be covered the most. There is no way the lead can address all the things it needs to address about pedophilia in the medical sense in just one or two paragraphs...if that is what you are going for. And if so, what comes after that, two paragraphs focusing on how the public (in this case, the dictionary) uses the term to only refer to "the interest" rather than "the preference"? That would be WP:UNDUE. WP:UNDUE clearly says what the general public thinks is irrelevant in this case. We only address what they think in the lead because not only is what they think so widespread but also "off." This article's lead cannot be designed as lightly as the Rape article's lead without leaving out crucial information. We must address the fact that people who commit child sexual abuse commonly exhibit this disorder, but that some offenders do not not meet the clinical diagnosis standards. We must address that not all pedophiles commit the abuse. We must adress that "pedophilia" is used to refer to child sexual abuse itself, and to the sexual abuse of pubescent or post-pubescent minors, and that researchers are against these imprecise uses. We should note the term's origin, its causes, the forensic psychology and law enforcement uses, most pedophiles being men, media attention and social activism, and that there is no significant curative treatment for pedophilia. All of that should be in the lead. So unless you have a specific design for the lead leaving all of that in, I do not see any way the lead can adquately sum up all it needs to. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should touch on and summarize the most important aspects of the article, and should contain four paragraphs at the most. We did that. In fact, this lead was carefully designed.

I already gave you a link to a different lead-in for this article, which was also carefully designed, and starts out in a more neutral tone. You mention the Rape article's lead. Well, out of the three paragraphs for the Rape article's lead, it uses two paragraphs to focus on the legal aspects of the term. It only mentions the general use of the term once near the lead-in. This more neutral lead-in for this article does the same. But we go into more depth about the other uses. We touch on the medical definition first, then the other uses. Will that suffice for you? If so, we can only use that lead-in and a bit of the other stuff, because that version of the article's lead is more cluttered. If not, you need to give better detail about exactly what you want done with the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I made a proposal for the new lead below. Flyer22 (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC: WP:UNDUE to equally cover non-medical views of pedophilia in the Pedophilia article?

I wasn't sure whether to put this in science or society, or even media/literature, since this is not only a social topic but a medical one as well. So, hopefully, an outside editor will put it in the right category if I got it wrong.

On the issue: In the medical field, pedophilia is generally defined as a sexual preference for prepubescent children. Generally, the term is used to refer to the sexual act itself (child sexual abuse) and to describe a sexual interest in anything under 18. For this article, one view believes the article should stick mostly to the medical definition and research about the preference versus non-preferencial offenders. The other view believes the article should give a little more or just as much weight to how the term is generally used. Question is: Would focusing a little more or just as much on the general definition be undue weight, and confuse people entirely about the definition? This discussion has been had a little above this RfC on the talk page, and a little above that at #Merging sections on definitions, and was even taken to AfD. Compromises have already been made. How much more compromising should be allowed, if any? Flyer22 (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

See discussion above. The lead of the current article is a severe case of WP:UNDUE because of the near exclusive focus on the medical operalization of the general term. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see the discussion above to see why I disagree with KimvdLinde. Flyer22 (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposals for new lead

We can use this section for design and WP:Consensus of the new lead. We do this every time we design a new lead for this article. We go over what needs to stay in the lead, and then someone provides a complete version of how they would like the lead to be worded. I have already stated above in the #Next step on definitions section what I feel needs to remain in the lead; such information has remained in the lead after every redesign for very valid reasons. Here is my proposal of the new lead:

Pedophilia (or paedophilia) has a range of definitions as found in psychiatry, psychology, the vernacular, and law enforcement. As a medical diagnosis, it is defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 and older) characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary). The child must be at least five years younger in the case of adolescent pedophiles. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), pedophilia is a paraphilia in which a person has intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children and on which feelings they have either acted or which cause distress or interpersonal difficulty. The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) uses a slightly wider definition, and defines pedophilia as a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age.

In common usage, pedophilia means any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse, often termed "pedophilic behavior". For example, the Psychology Today Diagnosis Dictionary states, "Pedophilia is defined as the fantasy or act of sexual activity with prepubescent children." Common use of the term also extends to the sexual abuse of pubescent or post-pubescent minors. Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided, as people who commit child sexual abuse commonly exhibit the disorder, but some offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia, and the clinical diagnosis for pedophilia pertains to prepubescents. Additionally, not all pedophiles actually commit such abuse.

Pedophilia was first formally recognized and named in the late 19th century. A significant amount of research in the area has taken place since the 1980s. At present, the exact causes of pedophilia have not been conclusively established. Research suggests that pedophilia may be correlated with several different neurological abnormalities, and often co-exists with other personality disorders and psychological pathologies. In the contexts of forensic psychology and law enforcement, a variety of typologies have been suggested to categorize pedophiles according to behavior and motivations. Most pedophiles are men, although there are also women who exhibit the disorder, and the issue of pedophilia has been the subject of a great deal of media attention and social activism as it is stigmatized in much of the world.

No significant curative treatment for pedophilia has yet been developed. There are, however, certain therapies that can reduce the incidence of a person committing an abusive act on a child.

-Flyer22 (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Reject: The article lead (after some debate) is now quite well written. Your proposed alternate lead is weaker. Note you start off with a caveat about different definitions, but then re-post the medical definition (current) without specifying what 'other' definitions exist. I don't like article ledes that start off with 'definitions vary' type introductions (I call them nonce introductions), and I don't see how this type of language helps this article. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 17:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey again, Stevertigo. It wasn't KimvdLinde who made the above proposal; it was me. I am glad to see another editor who helped design the current lead, though. I agree that it is best. But you can see that two editors above disagree. The proposal is weaker in stressing the medical sense, but is still doing its job. I start off with a caveat about different definitions, yes. But I go into all of them. The proposal says "in psychiatry, psychology, the vernacular, and law enforcement." I go over all those, starting with the medical definition first. "Various definitions" lead-ins help provide neutrality, such as with the Gender article. Though I agree that such a thing seems "off" regarding the Pedophilia article. It's not as though most people consider this not a mental disorder. Flyer22 (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand. However I just looked at the article a few days ago and found its introduction section to be satisfactorily well written. An article lede should be straight to the point, and that's what the current version is. Introductions of the type "[subject] is [this]" can't be improved upon in the way you suggest. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 17:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The current lede is unacceptable. The one above is an improvement, but we are getting ahead of ourselves. The lede should reflect the article, which as it stands completely over-represents one definition of "pedophilia." There is a phenomenon of sexual interest in children. Among the terms for this phenomenon is "pedophilia." Among the definitions of "pedophilia" is a clinical diagnosis. Among the clinical diagnosis are competing diagnostic criteria. We need to cover all of that here (lest we have the dreaded "POV fork"), but we usually save the lede for last on these kinds of rewrites. Jokestress (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course I disagree that the current lead is unacceptable. But moving on: We are not getting ahead of ourselves; the lead should come first (as it is the starting point, after all). The proposed lead does reflect the article. The entire article need not be changed to what you say, however, for all the reasons already gone over above. What more do you propose we say about a sexual interest in prepubescent children? This article does not only cover the preference. It covers the preference, interest and act...as demonstrated by the Diagnosis section, the Psychopathology and personality traits section, and the Prevalence and child molestation section. You act as though it's only covering the preference. It's not. Whatever you want to add can go in those sections or the Other uses section, as long as there is no undue weight and your reporting is true and reliable. But pedophilia being about the preference/an enduring feeling is the authoritative definition of the term and should be most prevalent in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Per Stevertigo's comment, the first sentence should state what the article is about. Since this article has to be about the phenomenon and the term, we need to define the phenomenon, in my view:

• Pedophilia is sexual desire directed towards children.
• In behavior science, pedophilia describes adult sexual interest in children.

Or we can do it as a term:

• Pedophilia is a term which describes adult sexual interest in children.

Any similar simple declarative sentence proposals are fine. The above can be sourced to dictionaries, etc. Jokestress (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

To me, it's best to start off saying it "has a range of definitions" and then go into those definitions...as to be more neutral and not initially neglect the authoritative definition. We should also always stress "prepubescent," except for when speaking of how the term is generally applied. But the general definition should not come first in my view. The authoritative definition gets first place, as it does in most articles where there are different POVs of a term. We also have the distinguish tag which already stresses that "This article is about the sexual interest in prepubescent children" (it does not say "preference" at all, just "interest").

I want to say, though, that I appreciate us moving forward and trying to work on compromises with each other. Your "merging of definitions" proposal turned out alright indeed. Flyer22 (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Often, definitions range from generic (Pedophilia is the sexual attraction by adults to children) to highly specific (DSM IV). So, instead of saying there are a bunch of definitions, start with a generic one, and then explain how more specific definitions are used in specific fields.

If I were to rewrite the lead, I would write the first paragraph as follows:

Pedophilia (or paedophilia) is generally defined as the sexual attraction by adults to children. In general usage, this sometimes includes all minors, but appropriately includes only pre-pubescent children. As a medical diagnosis, it is defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 and older) characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary). The child must be at least five years younger in the case of adolescent pedophiles. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), pedophilia is a paraphilia in which a person has intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children and on which feelings they have either acted or which cause distress or interpersonal difficulty. The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) uses a slightly wider definition, and defines pedophilia as a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age.

-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That looks fine, but the first sentence uses a definition "sexual attraction by adults to children" that I don't see in books or papers. How about Pedophilia (or paedophilia) is generally defined as sexual attraction directed towards children. That's what my OED has, though some editions use "felt" instead of "directed." Further, since this attraction can occur in people who are not legally adults, it may be better to leave "adults" out of the most general sense. Otherwise we start getting close to "adult sexual interest in children," the most-used and best-sourced phrase which scares some editors. The revised first sentence can be sourced to published dictionaries, which seem preferable to the online freedictionary and m-w sources in the article. Jokestress (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with whatever general definition is best. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the above-suggested "sexual attraction directed towards children" is a good pick. While the absence of "adults" being mentioned worries me a bit (in that it there is possible confusion with the unrelated COCSA) I can live it with it since the rest of the lead makes the matter pretty clear. My only other suggestion is to reverse the position of the sentences "In general usage" with "As a medical diagnosis" because the latter is technically more correct. "In general usage" is ok to include in the lead, but it is still technically a pop culture muddling of the term. Similar to schizophrenia being used to mean split personalities and irony used in place of "coincidence," it might be popular but it's still wrong.Legitimus (talk) 12:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Still disagree with putting the general definition first. The general definition is the common use definition and is also not the authoritative definition. And as Legitimus said, it is "pop culture muddling of the term." The authoritative definition should come first, always in cases like this. If we are going to start off as going "straight to the point" about this definition, then it should be the one that most experts say is the correct definition. Keep in mind that we must not give undue weight to the general public's view of this term, as WP:UNDUE says. This is the case for most articles of a medical or psychological nature on Wikipedia. And we definitely should not leave out "adults." The fact that 16 and 17-year-olds can be pedophiles is covered by "late adolescents" and we specify 16 anyway. I still prefer my initial proposal, starting with the lead-in about its different definitions, but, to compromise again, here is my second proposal:

Pedophilia (or paedophilia) encompasses a range of adult sexual interest in prepubertal children. As a medical diagnosis, it is defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 and older) characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary). The child must be at least five years younger in the case of adolescent pedophiles. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), pedophilia is a paraphilia in which a person has intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children and on which feelings they have either acted or which cause distress or interpersonal difficulty. The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) uses a slightly wider definition, and defines pedophilia as a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age.

And then the common usage definition will be dealt with in the second paragraph, as demonstrated in my first propsosal. The first sentence states "interest" only and makes sure to note "prepubertal" as to stay close to the authoritative definition.

On a side note: I don't feel comfortable implementing any new version without the thoughts of the usual editors (other than myself and Legitimus) commening on this, and will be contacting them to weigh in. Flyer22 (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, you yourself said that the general use is wider than pre-puberal children, so this lead is unacceptable. That is why I wrote it as I did it. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's also been acknowledged, even by your version, that the general use is wrong. General use does not top authoritative use, especially on a medical or psychological article. It's that way on most medical or psychological articles here, if not all, and I see no reason it should be any different in this case. Going by your argument, we should not define the Vegetarianism article right off the bat as not including fish, since most people believe that, yes, it does include fish (so much so in fact that the Vegetarian Society felt they had to speak out against it). And the Rape article? Forget defining that right off the bat in legal terms, going by your argument. The Pedophilia article is more of a medical article. Not a "general public says this" article. This is why your version is unacceptable. People come to this article to learn what pedophilia is, not what it generally (and inaccurately) is thought of. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. And, besides, the dictionary most likely does not stress "prepubescent" because they already usually stress that a child is someone "between birth and puberty."

Moving on... For the common usage definition, my second proposal is this (only a slight alteration):

In common usage, pedophilia means any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse, often termed "pedophilic behavior". For example, The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary states, "Pedophilia is the act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children." This common use application also extends to the sexual interest and abuse of pubescent or post-pubescent minors. Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided, as people who commit child sexual abuse commonly exhibit the disorder, but some offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia, and the clinical diagnosis for pedophilia pertains to prepubescents. Additionally, not all pedophiles actually commit such abuse.

For the above right there, I simply traded out the Psychology Today Diagnosis Dictionary with The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary and tweaked the bit after it a little. I did this because The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary does not stress "prepubescent" and gives a more accurate wording of how pedophilia is usually defined in dictionaries. But of course we could also use the OED in place there as well. Either way, my latest two proposals take away any perceived undue weight. Undue weight would be placing any more significance on the general use than my proposals already do. Flyer22 (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus: General use before authoritative use?

I've asked Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Google Project to weigh in on this as well. Of course, if you are against the general use being put first, make a comment under the Oppose section and state why. If you are for the general use being put first, make a comment under the Support section and state why.

The proposals for the new lead are above. ‎

Oppose

• As I stated before, "General use does not top authoritative use, especially on a medical or psychological article. It's that way on most medical or psychological articles here, if not all, and I see no reason it should be any different in this case."... I have already made compromises. Just because the general use by the public does not come first, it does not make the compromises any less so. My version gives more neutrality without initially straying away from the authoritative, precise definition of the term. Flyer22 (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• The general definition is based on ignorance and is innately flawed as it attempts to apply variable legal definitions to what is a scientific subject. I am merely tolerating it's inclusion in the lead as a compromise, but it does not trump medical usage.Legitimus (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is an encyclopedia article about a scientific term. There is no support in reliable sources for a "general use" of the word "pedophilia" separate from its academic definition. The term is sometimes misused, such as the word "pedophile" being used in a news story to describe an adult who sexually abuses a young person who is legally a minor but is not a prepubescent child. That's not an expansion of the term, or a "general definition", it's just a mistake. Per WP:MEDRS, "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for science and medicine information in articles." --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as per above comments. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Anyone who has spent time with pedophiles knows that pedophilia is an affliction, and quite a sad one. It ia a psychiatric condition, and that it the primary meaning of the term, and we are a scholarly encyclopedia, and we use scholarly terminology absent a very good reason not to, of which I have not been convinced. Herostratus (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Support

• Despite the weird wording as if general usage of the term is not authoritative, the issue at hand is that the term pedophilia has a general usage, authoritatively recorded in dictionaries etc. The question is whether the medical operalization of the term should be dominating the article at the cost of the general usage of the term. My answer is no, it should not. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• KimvdLinde is right. There is no "authoritative" use, as Flyer22 continually misstates. From the Finkelhor above: "even the meaning of pedophilia itself is a matter of some controversy, with different theorists and investigators defining it in different ways." Authorities use both inclusive and exclusive definitions. We have citations that demonstrate this range of uses. We should start with inclusive (the broadest senses used in the literature), then move to narrow definitions proposed by others. The fixation here on the DSM/ICD definitions does not reflect how experts and the lay public use this term. It's classic WP:UNDUE based on a misrepresentation of this phenomenon and the many terms used to describe it. I'll keep repeating this: other definitions are not misuse; they are simply other uses. The DSM is not the be-all and end-all. There is growing sentiment that the whole DSM is garbage and should be eliminated. See "Time's up for psychiatry's bible," the recent editorial in New Scientist. Frankly, I am going to tag this NPOV if I continue to see claims about "misuse" and "authoritative" definitions. These falsehoods are easily disproven by quoting published experts. Jokestress (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. See the above discussions I have had with Jokestress about this. There is no controversy as to how pedophilia is defined among experts. Among experts, it is defined as a sexual preference or sexual interest in prepubescent children. And "preference" usually tops that. Finkelhor's statement about "even the meaning of pedophilia itself is a matter of some controversy, with different theorists and investigators defining it in different ways" does not trump how the term is generally defined by experts. Forgetting the DSM, this article has a whole slew of references that show "preference for prepubescent children" is the usual medical definition. And I will say this again, if it's not "sexual preference for or sexual interest in prepubescent children," it is most certainly a misuse. The act is not pedophilia, no matter how much it is commonly called such. Pedophilia is about what goes on in the mind, just like any other sexual interest. And sexual attraction or interest in teenagers is certainly not pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment. So to sum up: David Finkelhor is quoted in a book stating the definition is "a matter of some controversy." Pseudonymous Wikipedia editor Flyer22 insists there is no controversy and provides no sources to back that claim up. I believe our policy is to ignore the irrelevant opinion of Flyer22 and go with the published sources. I don't even know why we are discussing this. Jokestress (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Comment. You have yet to prove that defining pedophilia as a sexual preference for prepubescent children is a controversial definition among most experts. This article and its abundance of sources goes against your claim. One "expert" making a claim that there is "some controversy" is not sufficient to trump the medical definition being used first. And it is not up to me to prove anything anyway; WP:BURDEN lies with you. That is why we are discussing this. Flyer22 (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Comment. If you are unwilling to acknowledge published sources which clearly state that there is controversy in relevant fields regarding the definition of pedophilia, and that a range of definitions have been proposed and used in published sources, we should probably escalate this to dispute resolution. Verifiability, not truth. If you have sources that state there is no controversy, please provide them. It is patently obvious by reading published sources that a wide range of definitions are in use, from inclusive to exclusive. We should discuss the controversy and describe the range of published definitions, per policy. Jokestress (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Comment. I have already stated why your claim cannot trump the medical definition. This supposed controversy would be WP:UNDUE, unless the controversy is significant. Dictionaries defining pedophilia as a "sexual interest in children" when those same dictionaries also say that a "child" is "between birth and puberty" is not a controversy either. If anything, they agree with "prepubescent." And plenty of sources in this article state "preference." Again, the burden does not lie with me. If you want a controversy section in this article, that might be okay...as long it is clear that it is not bordering on WP:FRINGE. But that does not mean "the controversy" is significant enough to place the medical definition second. Flyer22 (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Abstain

• Comment. Flyer22 asked if I would weight in on the proposed ledes, and I am happy to do so. However, because I have published such definitions myself, I think I should abstain from registering a vote.

My main reaction to the discussion is that NPOV can be violated in two ways. The definition should, of course, follow from those “that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.” (That is, NPOV does not mean that all definitions must be handled equally; NPOV means that the existing RS’s should be reflected proportionally.)

Although it is entirely true that the biomedical definition is not unanimous, it would be an error to exaggerate the prominence of the alternatives. The scholar.google engine, which searches all academic fields, finds 19,700 articles with the keyword “pedophilia.” The results, which are (mostly) sorted by citation rate, show that the great majority of top scholarship uses the biomedical definition. So although one can certainly pick out from the literature notable authors who used alternative definitions, these comprise only a small proportion of the existing scholarship. (Moreover, the evolution among scholars over recent decades has been for greater, not lesser, precision; the pubs that used alternative definitions are very often 20+ years out of date.)

Wrt emphasis on lay-definitions, I think Legitmus put it best: “[I]t is still technically a pop culture muddling of the term. Similar to schizophrenia being used to mean split personalities.”

— James Cantor (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. If we are going by citation rate, David Finkelhor is about five to ten times more influential than Cantor's colleagues regarding the definitions of pedophilia and child sexual abuse. Finkelhor's inclusive definition is widely adopted for good reasons. Jokestress (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Ho-hum. I can suggest only what I always do about Jokestress' claims: Interested editors should just check for themselves. In this case, go to scholar.google.com, type in "pedophilia", and check whether Jokestress' or my description of the status quo seems the more accurate. (Doing what I note here shows that four of the top five most cited scholarly works on pedophilia are from CAMH/Clarke authors.)

Now, if Jokestress would like to switch her attentions, just for a moment, from me back to the page (and if we take for granted that Finkelhor is the biggest of fishes in this field, whereas my colleagues and I are mere plankton), we still have the easily shown status that the large majority of the most cited scholarly works on pedophilia use the biomed definition. Moreover, if one looks up Finkelhor's publication record (http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/researchers/pdf/cv_finkelhor-david.pdf), one sees that his field is the victim impact of childhood sexual abuse, not pedophilia itself. The article that Jokestress' cites (and cites) was his only one on pedophilia. I don't know if he'd use the same definition if he were writing that article today. (I've never met him.)

For emphasis, Finkelhor and Green and so on have every right to hold whatever dissenting view they like. Of the ~20,000 scholarly articles, however, and even if someone were somehow able to produce a list of 200 RS's that use some other definition, one would still have 99% consensus for the biomed definition. (Okay: Pause over. Jokestress may now return to sly references to how I should return to living under rocks and eating worms.)

— James Cantor (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, let's look at Google Scholar on pedophilia and child sexual abuse:

• Child sexual abuse, in Violence in America (D Finkelhor) Cited by 296
• Pedophilia and exhibitionism: A handbook. (JW Mohr) Cited by 207
• Phallometric diagnosis of pedophilia. (K Freund, R Blanchard) Cited by 135
• Assessment of the sensitivity and specificity of a phallometric test. (K Freund, RJ Watson) Cited by 109
• University males' sexual interest in children. (J Briere, M Runtz) Cited by 106 [BTW, James Cantor thinks this article should be excluded. COI?]
• Erotic preference in pedophilia. (K Freund) Cited by 109
• Explanations of pedophilia: A four factor model. (D Finkelhor, S Araji) Cited by 105

Now, let's look at Finkelhor on pedophilia and child sexual abuse:

• Sexually victimized children. (D Finkelhor) Cited by 1729
• Child sexual abuse: New theory and research. (D Finkelhor) Cited by 1676
• Impact of child sexual abuse: A review of the research. (A Browne, D Finkelhor) Cited by 1692
• Impact of sexual abuse on children: A review and synthesis of recent empirical studies. (KA Kendall-Tackett, LM Williams, D Finkelhor) Cited by 1489
• Sexual abuse in a national survey of adult men and women. (D Finkelhor, et al) Cited by 1152
• The traumatic impact of child sexual abuse: A conceptualization. (D Finkelhor, A Browne) Cited by 928
• A sourcebook on child sexual abuse. (D Finkelhor, S Araji) Cited by 910 [this is the source for the controversy comment]

So, 910 people cited Finkelhor for the book I believe we should cite. The highest citation number for Cantor's colleagues is 135. James Cantor's typical strategy for denigrating competing views is that someone is not specialized enough to merit consideration as an "expert." Only he and his friends qualify for inclusion (hence his denigration of Briere/Rutz). The claim that someone who studies child sexual abuse is not qualified to discuss pedophilia seems a bit self-serving, no? Jokestress (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Jokestress proves my point for me: Finkelhor is a well-published expert on victimization from child sexual abuse, not pedophilia. By running a search on "pedophilia and child sexual abuse", rather than on just "pedophilia," Jokestress confabulates the two literatures and gets results that reflect the sizes of those fields. (Child sexual abuse is a much larger field than is pedophilia; large fields produce more citations than small fields, by definition really, so citation counts can only be compared within a field and not between fields.)

But, to move this away from Jokestress' obsession with CAMH/me and back to the page for another brief moment: The relevant scholarly works on pedophilia are found by searching on "pedophilia", not "pedophilia and child sexual abuse", and the scholarly literature on pedophilia (itself) uses the biomed definition by far the most widely.

— James Cantor (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

And you prove mine. "Only phrenologists can understand phrenology" was a retort from the days of the Phrenological Journal. Finkelhor has given more than enough thought to "pedophilia" and "pedophilic behavior" to be widely regarded as an expert. His thoughts on operational definitions of pedophilia have been widely cited. Just because you haven't met him and don't agree with him doesn't make him an unreliable source. Jokestress (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Scope of article

Should the current pedophilia article cover all uses of the term, or should there be several articles covering the general use, the medical use etc?

To expand, as it seems to be confusing: Should Pedophilia cover everything from the most general usage of the term "Sexual interest in children" to the specialized medical definitions, or should we have a general Pedophilia article that covers the "sexual interest in children" and a separate article covering the medical term ([[Pedophilia {paraphilia)]]?-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

One all encompassing article

• My favorite. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Definitely for one all-encompassing article. Adult sexual interest in minors is the best way to go. And as I said before, I would be willing to help. Flyer22 (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  I am confused, one all encompassing article would be pedophilia covering ll uses of it. What I read here is that you want at least two separate articles, one about pedophilia the medical term, and one overview article.

  Not sure why you're confused. One all-encompassing article would not be about pedophilia (sexual preference for prepubescent children) only. It would be about pedophilia, any sexual interest in prepubescent children or underage adolescents, child sexual abuse, hebephilia and ephebophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  I am talking about pedophilia general usage vs medical operalization. Not about an umbrella article. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  You said one all-encompassing article; that is an umbrella article and what I am agreeing to. There should not be an article titled Pedophilia (general usage) or anything like it. All it would consist of is dictionary definitions saying the same thing over and over again. Where would the studies be on this general usage that includes everything under 18? The studies and research all focus on prepubescent children. If it's early pubertal, that's hebephilia. Mid/late/post-pubertal, that's ephebophilia. There really is nothing more to say about how the term is generally applied, except that it is often used to describe a sexual attraction to all children. Flyer22 (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  I wrote: Should the current pedophilia article cover all uses of the term. I did not write Should we have an umbrella article covering all terminology related to sex with minors.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  Er, the title says "One all encompassing article." And the meaning is the same thing, really...except some uses of the term simply aren't pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• I am fine with an all-encompassing article with a broader name. If we do that, we should merge hebephilia and ephebophilia and pedohebephilia and pedohebephebophilia and pseudopedohebephebophilia and whatever else the "experts" have discovered and coined this month. The new article will be scalable as they create additional diseases. Jokestress (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Pedophilia → Pedophilia (paraphilia) — Ok, in the past days, it has become clear that this article is about the medical operalization of the term pedophilia. Because of that, I suggest this page is moved to Pedophilia (paraphilia) to reflect the narrow scope, and to free the page for a discussion about the general term pedophilia as used in society, law enforcement, medical corner, etc. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support per nom, maybe we can finally start moving forward with these pages. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support This has been my assertion since my first post here. Jokestress (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. See lengthy discussion above. I would also like to note that not all the usual editors of this article have weighed in yet on this discusion. This article is about the preference, interest and act regarding prepubescent children. It is largely defined as only pertaining to prepubescents. Even the dictionary sources stress that a child is a person "between birth and puberty," aiding in the "prepubescent" definition of the term. To have an article titled "pedophilia" and have it not be about prepubescent children would only be an article muddying the term and lending to confusion (i.e cases such as Mark Foley). Flyer22 (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  Well, if you read what I wrote above, I was under the impression that it was only about pre-pubescent kids, but it was you who showed me I was in error. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Well, if you read what I wrote above, I am clear that it is largely defined as only pertaining to prepubescents, as in most literature and medical sources. The common use (pertaining to everything under 18) is simply a common use; not an accurate definition, just as the source I showed in that discussion states. Flyer22 (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - what other kinds of pedophilia are there except the paraphilic kind? And if the defintion differs slightly in accord with different fields, creating different articles violates WP:FORK. I don't understand what Kim's problem is with the current setup, and why he is changing his tactics from proposing a new lede to proposing a name change. I'd hate to jump to assumptions. Kim appears to be confusing the issue of terminology and the issue of topic.

Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• There are a lot of people with an unhealthy sexual attraction to pre-pubescent kids, who do not fit the formal DSM-IV definition of a pedophile. All those people are not covered at current. PS, I am a girl. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  Furthermore, there are critiques of the use of "pedophilia" as a diagnostic term: Studer (2006), Boer (2000), Chenier (2008), Green (2002). It has lost its utility because of the controversy about how to use it. We need a place to cover the phenomenon and a place for this specific term. Some editors freaked out when I created an article about the phenomenon, but the problem remains. Jokestress (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  • This article does cover people with an unhealthy sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children who do not fit the formal DSM-IV definition of a pedophile. This is covered in the Etymology and definitions section (specifically the Diagnosis sub-section) and the Prevalence and child molestation section. And judging by the sources in this article, the general medical community does not seem to be under any controversy about how this term is used. Flyer22 (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose unnecessary POV fork. Powers ^T 23:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose local opinion is largely dependent on the local age of consent, which is not 18 across the world or the US. There is already an article on ephebophilia, which some people believe is the same as pedophilia, and any article that uses 18 as the dividing line is highly biased against any jurisdiction where that is not legal age (such as countries where it is 21) 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • As I stated below, that is exactly why "pedophilia" should be limited in the way it is by the medical community: Age of consent and Age of majority vary by state and by country and are not universal (even if 18 is the most used criterion for adulthood). If we go by that "not of legal age" reasoning, then what may be a pedophile in one state or country is not a pedophile in another state or country. And this is exactly why pedophilia is not based on socially constructed adulthood...but rather biological adulhood. Biological adulthood cannot be governed. You're either a biological adult or you're not...without society's say in the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• The modern tendency for human puberty to be earlier and earlier makes queryable the right criterion here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The name change would cause a POV fork by creating a separate article for an imaginary construct such as: the kinds of pedophilia that are not a paraphilia. That POV fork was rejected with strong consensus recently at the AfD for Adult sexual interest in children. There are other articles for the various separate related topics. For example, newspapers sometimes inaccurately use the term "pedophilia" to describe incidents of pederasty, (sexual abuse by an adult male of a minor male who is not a prepubescent child). That kind of use doesn't create a new separate topic, it's just a mistake, or a way to sell papers through sensationalizing the story. That's why scholarly sources for scientific articles are preferred in Wikipedia policy. And this is a science article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary, the current title is perfect and does not need changing, plus the POV fork arguments are compelling. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose absolutely and would you people please cut it out. If we have an article Pedophilia (paraphilia), what will be the name of the corresponding POV fork article? Perhaps Pedophilia (loving and caring relationship) or Pedophilia (perfectly normal desire) or whatever, hm? Maybe we could have an In popular culture section ("On Family Guy, Stewie says...").

I am supposed to be retired from this, as I am quite frankly afraid of these people, who cannot seem to refrain from harrassment (e.g. see here, or here's a gem from the New York Times:

"Ms. James (N.B.: this is Andrea James, User:Jokestress as she openly admits on her user page) downloaded images from Dr. Bailey’s Web site of his children, taken when they were in middle and elementary school, and posted them on her own site, with sexually explicit captions that she provided."

Lovely. I could tell you what the captions were but I don't want to spoil your breakfast. Gee, now that I've weighed in here, maybe Andrea will post the route my kids take to school. Why are we, as Wikipedia editors, even required to interact with these kinds of people? How many other editors are going to be intimidated by this sort of thing? Is this how these people plan to get their way?

What a waste of time. These people are never going to be allowed their hideous POV. We are never going to go sliding down the path that leads to "But other experts maintain that in a safe and caring consensual relationship, a loving and respectful adult can..." or whatever. So why are we even talking about this? Herostratus (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please vote: is Frederick S. Berlin a crank?

Since that's how consensus is built on this page, please vote if he's acceptable as a source here (for his own views) on pedophilia. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to his work? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The source used here is the same one I pointed you to...to show you how widely the term is misused, which is also distinguished here by the Encyclopædia Britannica...and other encyclopedias. Flyer22 (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No, he is not a crank: "He was Associate Professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and Founder of the Sexual Disorders Clinic at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. Dr. Berlin has written extensively on sexual disorders for numerous distinguished journals, including The American Journal of Psychiatry, The New England Journal of Medicine, and The American Journal of Forensic Psychiatry." Sums it nicely up. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• This is a mal-formed RfC even in the terminology of the heading. Did someone call him a "crank"? Why is this question even being asked? And assuming he's not a crank, that's not a sufficient condition for his writings to be automatically reliable as a source in general. Berlin is published and has credentials, yes, however he has also has expressed some controversial views and engaged in controversial treatment methods that have not been widely accepted. There is no consensus among researchers that all of his writings are in line with mainstream academic views. To determine if something he wrote is useful as a source for the article, that requires seeing the proposed text that his work would be used to support, and which of his works is referenced. Then the decision can be made, within the context of the use. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 10:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Depends. Asking if he is a crank is a loaded question. What assertion are we talking about? Material source to a specific person undergoes varying levels of vetting and scrutiny, so it depends on the asserted fact and the source that used to support it.Legitimus (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Richard Green ref

Ok, I added the Richard Green ref again to the article. It was kept out of the article because it was claimed that some past 'consensus' to do so existed. However, that 'consensus' was based on a rather different question: "Should Richard Green (sexologist)'s article and resulting controversy advocating removal pedophilia from DSM be added to the article?". Here, it was added with regard to the issue of 'content pedophiles', basically, those who fail the diagnosis because they are not distressed by having those feelings. As for the consensus that was claimed previously, it was actually a four against three score, with the only open expert in favor of inclusion. So, no consensus either way. As such, I do not think there is any objection to add him to the article as a second person who has objections to the DSM IV definition of the term. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

As said above, I'm okay with the inclusion. It seems Legitimus doesn't mind it much either, though I dare not speak for him. Flyer22 (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the matter of address "contended" pedophiles (or what some may call egosyntonic pedophiles) I'm ok with including it. That is a genuine flaw to the DSM-IV-TR. My gripes with Green's paper have to do with completely separate matter that right now is not a problem in this article.Legitimus (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad that this issue is solved.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Merged definition and criticism to definition sections

Generally, criticism related to a specific aspect of the article, like criticism to medical definition, should be kept together for clarity. Having a criticism section at the end of the article dealing exclusively with a paragraph at the top of the article does not make sense. Hence, I have moved the criticism section to the appropriate place so that the topic (medical diagnosis with pro's and cons) is kept together. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems ok to me with the current state of the criticism section.Legitimus (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind either, since it is still titled Critcism. Flyer22 (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section

I started a Criticism section due to what I stated in this edit. It needs to be expanded upon, of course. If there are any objections to having a Criticism section of term's medical definitions, explain why you object. This is not a criticism section for pedophile opinions on it, so no worries there. Flyer22 (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's ok to have it. Only thing is what we call it. Barbaree seems to criticize the criteria rather than the "definition" per se. And does Barbaree endorce or criticize using actions as the sole diagnostic criteria?

Also, the Barbaree cite seems incomplete somehow, since it is a chapter from a book. Sexual deviance: theory, assessment, and treatment published it's first edition in 1997, and the second edition in 2008. I only have access to the latter. Of note is that the chapter in question appears to have been completely re-written in the 2nd edition by two other authors, Camileri and Quinsey. Also, the 1997 edition pre-dates the DSM-IV-TR (published in 2000) so is that criticism still applicable?Legitimus (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, good questions. See, I rushed the section (as I have to go for now and just wanted it out there already). But I'm sure we'll solve this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I tweaked the section to this. For the Barbaree part, I added in "1997" to specify and until we can get further info on that 1997 piece. I'm going to go ahead and trust the line about his endorsement of using actions as the sole diagnostic criteria, since it was already in this article before I made the criticism section. The other piece I added was written up by Tijfo098, as seen here. I altered the word "controversy" away from relating to the pedophilia criteria, and left out Richard Green, for reasons already gone over. But if it is felt that Green should be mentioned, I am okay with it. Flyer22 (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think omitting Green just shows again how biased this article is. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I only omitted him due to past consensus. I am okay with mention of him. We can form new consensus right here. My vote is to include. Flyer22 (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Which past consensus? The same that held this article in hostage with the medical terminology only approach. Looks like that consensus has been soundly rejected, and so I think the proper way is to include things, and if there is substantial objection, to discuss it then. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This past consensus: Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 14#"Is pedophilia a mental disorder?"

I voted oppose due to the reasons given by Jack and Legitimus. But looking back, James made valid points as well. And this article mostly covering medical terminology has not been rejected at all. The latest discussions and "polls" show that. But we have been including things to reach common ground -- things that are not "out there" to include. The lead matter has been settled. We now have an Other uses section. The Misuse of terminology section has been changed to Misuse of medical terminology, and we even now have a Criticism section on the medical terminology. What else do you want included? Flyer22 (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, there are some improvements, but this article is still far too much medical oriented. Just look at the intro. But heck, this article is owned by you, and quite frankly, it is getting really obnoxious. I have some more on this later this evening when I am home, because I doubt that your claimed consensus actually exists once I tally the names of the various people. To add, the previous discussion was about a specific way of including it, and the tally was just slightly in favour of not including. What I saw there is anything but a consensus. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Kim, I am listening to you. Trying to work out compromises. True, I don't get the "far too much medical oriented" deal...because, as I have said before, that, to me, is like saying the Rape article is too law-oriented. Or the Sexual intercourse article is too "sex-oriented." Yes, I feel the lead is fine... because it tackles the medical definition first, including "early pubescent," all without stressing "preference" in the first line...the common use definition second, and then the origins of the term and how the term relates to society as a whole. This article, like all medical topics on Wikipedia, is naturally going to have more medical detail than non-medical detail. Most of the research on it deals with medical insight. What type of research or significant information could we include that is out of the medical field, other than simply reporting on child sexual abuse? We already have a Child sexual abuse article. The only thing I can think of left for us to add to this article is an In culture or In popular culture section.

And will you stop the "own" accusations? Just because I am the main person editing this article these days, it does not mean it is owned by me. As I said at the noticeboard, "The only reason I am the main one speaking out for what has been gone over time and time again at [this] article, mainly with pedophiles who have now been blocked or banned, is because Legitimus is trying to take a [brief break] from [this] article, Jack-A-Roe is too busy these days, SqueakBox is hardly active on [this] article anymore, and MishMich is completely missing in action." And we all know James is often busy. Yes, there was WP:Consensus to not include that article by Green. There are only a few of us editing this article; when there are more against something than for, we have to take that as consensus, unless we take it to the wider community. I really am making an effort to work with you here. You have a point about the previous discussion having been about a specific way of including Green. Again, I am now okay with Green being added. I am just trying to make sure that enough people are okay with it first. Flyer22 (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Kim I have about had it with your attitude. You know why I've been keeping away from this article? Because I know when someone isn't interested in listening and I would be wasting my breath/manual dexterity. So I just stop engaging. If I have to pick between an article going in a bad direction and getting pushed around by a hard-headed ignoramus, I'll take the former thank you. I learned my lesson long ago when a middle-aged pot-bellied druggie kept insisting to me he knew more about what was a drug effect and what was a placebo effect for a specific substance than the American Pharmacists Association because he ingested it himself enough times. Sometimes you just gotta fold and walk away. You know what's stupid about all this? When I peel back all the vitriol from your posts and blog, I probably agree with most of the stuff you bring up; seems like many others here would too. But when you come in with that adversarial attitude and slinging insults, people are going to disagree with you anyway regardless of what they think.

I'll stay available as a resource and if someone needs sources or fact checking, but I am not going to stand around and argue with someone who can't be civil.Legitimus (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, thank you for letting me know that you are just contrary because I do not talk your way of talking while addressing the serious issues with this article. I think it sums it nicely up. So, if you just want to be contrary, I suggest you indeed edit other articles. As for the uncivil charge, I think you better back that up with diffs. Finally, maybe you and Flyer22 should consider that if people put their stamp of ownership on the article, yes, things will get slkowly but surely tense. I raised the issues long before I wrote my blog post. Do you know why I wrote the blog post? Because of the same issues that are still a problem, namely ownership and undue issues. Some things have improved, but many issues remain. If you want the issues to go away, I suggest you actually deal with it instead of just being contrary as you just indicated.

I am quite aware that recently, about 5 people have commented on the general tone of the article. Me and Jokestress to start with, and later several others both here in reponse to the RFC [6][7] and at my talk page in response to the AN/I report [8] as well as at the AN/I rerport itself [9]. So, maybe take those responses at heart and start fixing this problem article instead of being contrary.

And oh, I laud the effort of the regulars to keep the pedophiles from slanting this article towards acceptance of pedophilia, but when such an effort result in ownership of the article when non-pedophiles want to contribute to the article, it becomes a problem. Anyway, I despise people who misuse children in any form just to be clear. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Kim, James and I have also commented on the rudeness of some of your replies. Your first post on my talk page was rude, I feel. But moving on: The several other editors have not agreed with you and Jokestress or "new" editor Tijfo098...judging by the latter "RfC discussions" and the move discussion. The one IP in the link you showed is basically saying this article should be dumbed down so that "regular folk" can understand it, and that's bull. That's not how Wikipedia works, and "regular folk" should be able to understand this article perfectly well as it is. And Hans Adler's comment resembles some things I've been saying. Adler says, "It is important for researchers to be careful about the way they present their findings to the public so that it cannot be abused." I say, "Exactly." That is why we report what are deemed the accurate definitions of pedophilia first. The term is abused/misused much too often. This is not a "problem of an article." It would be a "problem of an article" if not letting some random 21-year-old kid know that he is not a pedophile for finding some 17-year-old girl sexually attractive, as is often the case for Miley Cyrus and her boyfriends. Adler says, "Specifically, if researchers come to the conclusion that there are two different types of pedophilia that can be clearly separated, then they must be able to say so without fear of public smear campaigns." I say, yes, the Criticism section is tackling these "two different kinds of pedophilia"...and researchers still are not saying sexual attraction to everything underage constitutes pedophilia. Adler says, "But it appears to me that due to some unnecessary underlying disagreements, you are currently not addressing these points constructively." And that is what Legitimus was trying to say about your approach to this article.

Watching over this article and discussing things, and gaining consensus to change things is how Wikipedia works. And yet you call this "own" with us. You keep saying this article needs "improvement" without specifying what improvement it is you seek. The only "improvement" you clarified was the lead, and that has been taken care of...even though you disagree with some of the wording. You say you "despise people who misuse children in any form just to be clear," but, again, that is not what this article is mainly supposed to be about. It is mainly supposed to be about what goes on in the minds of pedophiles. The act is mainly documented at the Child sexual abuse article. It seems to me and others that you want people walking away from this article calling sexual attraction to any minor an accurate definition of "pedophilia." But what I am saying is that research says that's not true. And if it was true, then it would mean that even being sexually attracted to post-pubescent bodies would be pedophilia. Do you not understand that post-pubescents are full adults? While not all of them have the title of legal adults, they are still completely physically mature people. How can a sexual attraction to that be pedophilia in any way? I came across an 18-year-old boy one time who truly believed he was a pedophile simply because he had a 16-year-old girlfriend; sending that type of message is not something I feel this article would be better for.

Anyway, if you can lay out what changes you are seeking for the body of this article, we can start there. But, yeah, I really don't see what else it needs. Child sexual abuse is covered. Age disparity in sexual relationships is covered, etc., etc. Flyer22 (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Lets start with your accusation of me being rude. This edit. That was rude? Lets see what triggered that. I had added the DSM IV age criteria of 13 years or younger after I checked the DSM IV. That was without crosschecking of the DSM IV changed to 12 years, with as part of the edit summary "Shouldn't we change it to 12, to match the Diagnosis section?" Basically, it got reverted without actually checking the main source. The first hint of article ownership in action. But it get worse. The 12 year criterion is pure original research because there is no source that claims that age criterion. Worse, it was written as if it was in the DSM IV, basically misrepresenting a reliable source.

But lets move on to what I posted on your talk page that you consider rude. Bascially, I say I would appreciate it if you would check your sources before reverting me. The reaction I get is obviously ownership reaction: "I know what it says, or else I wouldn't be working at the article". Obviously, you did NOT know what it said, but because you were working on the article, you would know better than a new editor who actually did check the source in question. And oh, first asking for a RFC because you cannot win the argument, and then label one of the editors who shows up as a "new" editor (quotes in the original) fits with the ownership issue. Anyway, I could keep pointing out edits that effectively result in ownership of this article, but I suggest that you just stop doing so. In that context, I think it would be wise if you stop proclaiming where this article should be about. This article is about what reliable sources say about pedophilia, and whether or not you like those sources is irrelevant. Whether you think that the article should be about a specific aspect, that is not for you nor the combined editors to determine. Again, the reliable sources dictate what this article is about. Blocking other editors of doing so is akin ownership of an article.

So, as for your misunderstanding of what I am saying. I really do not appreciate that you, after me explaining things so frequently, still misrepresent what I am saying. It really adds to the feeling of ownership of this article, because what I actually say is misrepresented so that the actual message I am sending is gone so nothing has to be changed because the misrepresented opinion of me is not what I want changed. So, I suggest you actually read what I have been writing before once again claiming things I have not said.

My main problem with this article is that it is primarily about the medical operalization of the term, ignoring the wider scope. By creating a "Criticism" section, that notion is only strengthened. If the article was not so one-sided, most of that would be included under the diagnosis section, as they are just different ideas about diagnosing pedophilia. By separating them into a diagnosis section (at top) and a critisism section (at the end), the issue of the medical operalization as defined in the DSM IV remains. The focus of the DSM IV also makes it an American oriented article; starting the the ICD 10 for that matter is a far better starting point as it is globally used. The lead has been improved somewhat, but still suffers from the same issue, namely a medical operalization focus over the general use of the term. And no, I am not satisfied with the changes as currently implemented. Anyway, this should be a nice starting point of a good discussion how to change the article so it is less biased towards the medical operalization, which is a clear case of WP:UNDUE. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh, yes, that edit was rude. Lets see what triggered it. An asssumption that I was not familiar with the DSM-IV and didn't know what I was doing. You still say, "Basically, it got reverted without actually checking the main source." No, it got reverted because, "I was assuming good faith in this edit made by another editor, feeling that he must be going off some other source. The fact that the other usual editors did not revert him back then (and, really, we see everything) led me to believe even more in the reason behind the change. But... Whatever." You said you understood. Clearly, that was a lie. But it gets worse, because you said you did not confuse pedophilia with a sexual attraction to pubescent or post-pubescent teenagers. Soon, a little later, you were doing just that -- wanting the ignorant misuse of the term put forth as valid.

Obviously, I did NOT know what the DSM said? Uh, yeah, go back through the archives of this talk page, where the DSM is brought up time and time again. I have been working on this article since 2007. And yet I wouldn't know what it said? Think again, and keep wishing that I did not have extensive knowledge of pedophilia so that you can further your "own" accusations. Asking for an RfC because I cannot win an argument, you say? I say that just shows how out of touch you are with Wikipedia's rules. And as you can see, the RfC had nothing to do with my "winning" the argument. You suggest that I stop "owning" this article? Please! All I have done is bring things to this talk page, compromise with you and the like, the exact opposite of what you state at User:KimvdLinde/Own at pedophile. When you don't get your way at an article, you run off like a spoiled little child and cry "Own" and then post about it on a blog or here. In that context, I think it would be wise if you stopped proclaiming what this article should be about. This article is not just about what reliable sources say about pedophilia. If a reliable source says pedophilia is a sexual attraction to people ages 20 and up, no, that does not mean it should be in this article, especially when we have experts on the topic saying that's not true. There are reliable sources misreporting Michael Jackson's height, but the editors of his article (and related articles) got that right and did not use those sources as though there is some sort of controversy about his actual height. You see, we also use WP:Common sense here at Wikipedia -- something you don't seem to understand. You just want any old junk in this article to further your POV that the term "pedophilia" should apply to any and all minors, which is absolutely absurd, given that age of consent and age of majority laws/rules vary, and that most late teenagers are full physical adults themselves...which is why they can be pedophiles as well. You make it sound as though America is allowing pedophilia by having the age of consent start at age 16 in some states. Whether we think that the article should be about a specific aspect, that is not for me nor the combined editors to determine, you say? Wrong again! That is exactly how Wikipedia works. We ask, discuss, what should and should not be in this article. That is how Wikipedia works all around. WP:Consensus. What do you not understand about that? We block pedophiles and pedophile-POV pushers here, thank you very much. If editors like you had been around back then, this article would be a complete mess. And, contrary to what you believe, it is not a complete mess.

You've explained things so frequently? No, you haven't! You have not said exactly what you want included in this article, other than the lead! And now the lead matter is over, whether you like it or not.

Again, you say your main problem with this article is that it is primarily about the medical operalization of the term, ignoring the wider scope. I ask, "Why not just go to all medical articles and say they should be half about wrong usage of the term?" Try that at the Anorexia Nervosa article or even the Mental retardation article and you will get the same treatment. I mean, what wider scope for pedophilia are you talking about? Everything under 18 being called pedophilia? Well, everything under 18 is not pedophilia! Why should we include the whole Criticism section under Diagnosis, when what Howard E. Barbaree says is not usually how pedophilia is diagnosed, and when it is already covered with the line "On the other hand, a person who acts upon these urges yet experiences no distress about their fantasies or urges can also qualify for the diagnosis," and when the new "two types" of pedophilia are not even official yet? But, really, these "two types" of pedophilia are already covered in the Diagnosis section -- Exclusive and non-exclusive (which vary in level of intensity). Read up on them. This article is not only or mainly focused on the DSM-IV. The Etymology and definitions section also makes that clear; it cannot be helped that most experts say pedophilia is a sexual preference for prepubescent children. That goes globally as well. If you go to China, you will find that pedophilia is defined exactly the same way by experts there. You want non-expert opinions in this article? Well, I have asked you over and over again what type of layout this article would have if we were to go about that. Would there be an In culture section? An In popular culture section? What???? You have not proposed a layout. That is what I mean about you not being clear. I'm still not understanding your problem with the lead, and never will. It starts out the way all medical topics on Wikipedia start off. You don't see the Anorexia Nervosa article starting off by saying, "Anorexia Nervosa refers to any really skinny person." Or "In common usage, "Anorexia Nervosa refers to any really skinny person." I am not and never will be convinced that "common usage" of the term pedophilia should come first; neither were the majority of fellow editors (including the additional ones from the move discussion). So I compromised with you. Anyway, I am looking for some sort of layout from you, a specific layout, as some sort of starting point so that we may move forward. Flyer22 (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Please provide diffs of other articles where I cry own to win a dispute. If you cannot, I expect an apology for a false accusation.
2. If I add something that is straight out of the DSM IV (and indicated in the edit summary), and you change that incorrectly and then claim you know the DSM IV, you obviously do not. Otherwise, you would have known that what I added was correct. Hiding behind others is just plain weak and really does not fly with me.
3. Please provider me with a diff where I claim that pedophile included post-pubescent. If you cannot, please drop the repeated accusation that I did so.
4. Well, first you used the rape article as an example of how it should be done and now you conveniently shifted to the Anorexia Nervosa article, which curiously does not start with a medical operalization at all. Contrary to this article.
5. The fact that you have edited this article for so long does not give you any more priveledges on what reliable sources say.
6. The lead matter is not over. You unilaterally proclaiming to have edited according to consensus, while I have argued that the consensus is actually quite different.

-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Oops. I should have said, "When you don't get your way at this article, you run off like a spoiled little child and cry 'Own' and then post about it on a blog or here." But the same goes for your interactions with Cantor. And you will not be getting an apology from me, when it is clear that I will not be getting an apology from you regarding your accusations.
2. Hiding behind others? Laughable! This talk page has been over the DSM time and time again -- generally age 13 years or younger. So what, I was blind every time I had to look over the DSM -- check it? Okay (sarcasm). You are the one who said, "This is a unfortunate aspect of changes in terminology that apparently is going on." I trusted one editor, who must have seen the same "unfortunate aspect of changes in terminology" you saw, and apparently others at this article trusted him as well. I felt he had good reason for changing "13" to "12"...and had only just noticed it the day you changed it back to 13. It's just plain weak that you cannot get past your hostility towards me to see the damn truth.
3. Please provide you with a diff where you claim that pedophilia includes post-pubescents? No diffs needed. You claim it every time you state the lead should say pedophilia should generally refer to the sexual interest in children, or that the article should be half about that. "Children," of course, includes underage post-pubescents. "Children" by itself is not specific enough, and you very well know that.
4. The Rape article is still a good example to use. It starts out with the legal definition first, then goes into the "general use," then back to rape offenses. And guess what? This article starts off with the medical defintion first, then goes into the general use definition, then child sexual abuse offenses. And the Anorexia Nervosa article does not start out with a medical operalization at all? Uh, what do you call it saying "Anorexia nervosa is an eating disorder characterized by refusal to maintain a healthy body weight, and an obsessive fear of gaining weight due to a distorted self image"? Eating disorder has nothing to do with medical operalization at all? What you seemed to miss is that the Anorexia Nervosa article starts out classifying Anorexia Nervosa as a disorder, just like this article -- after a general line -- starts out classifying pedophilia as a disorder.
5. The fact that I have edited this article for so long does not give me any more privileges on what reliable sources say? Never said it did.
6. The lead matter is not over? Uh, yes, it is. You can argue that the consensus is in your favor all you want, but judging from this talk page, it clearly is not. The problem with your version of the lead, other than starting out with the inaccurate "definition" of pedophilia, is that no dictionary sources say "pedophilia generally refers to a sexual attraction to children"; they do not use the word "generally"...and those same dictionary sources you cite specify "child" as being "between birth and puberty"...which you continue to ignore. Your dictionary sources therefore agree with "prepubescent" when it comes to pedophilia. Other than popular culture sources (as in the media wrongly using the term), you have no sources saying that it is perfectly valid to call pedophilia a sexual interest in just "children." Other encyclopedias, such as the Encyclopædia Britannica, specify right off the bat what pedophilia truly is, and so should we. Flyer22 (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Ok, problem solved. Glad you took that accusation away.
2. Yes, you are. What you did is first not checking yourself a change with an ambiguous edit summary, and them when I add something specifically referring to the DSM, you revert it, subsequently claiming that you thought the earlier change was correct because OTHERS did not fix it. Hiding behind others.
3. Good that you realize I did not say it and that it was YOUR interpretation that leads you to that conclusion. A post-pubescent is not a child. And just check, puberty lasts till about 16-18, which only after that, they are post-pubescent. So, it is your interpretation of what I write, not what I am saying. This is a MAJOR issue with this discussion.
4. Looks like we are reading different articles. I did not know that the word "disorder" was exclusively claimed by the medical establishment and is not to be used outside of that. Thank you for letting me know.
5. Good, glad we agree we have the same privileges with regard to editing this article. Now lets see if we can agree on what actually is a consensus. 4-5 vote is a consensus for the 5 vote position?
6. Well, if you think you can determine whether the lead discussion is over, you are back to the ownership issues.

-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

1. LOL.
2. LOL again. Why would I have to check the DSM, when I already know what it says? I did not say I thought the other change was correct because OTHERS did not fix it. I said nothing of "correct." I said I was assuming good faith in that editor. I was also going to ask that editor about the change, until you reverted me and sniped at me.
3. Nope. You did say it; you have been more than clear about wording things as "children." We all know what "children" includes. But now you say a post-pubescent is not a child? Well, finally! Then you agree that the lead should not just say "children," since society often regards underage post-pubescents as children anyway. And if you check out the Adult article and dictionaries again, pubescents are not biological children either. One does not have to finish puberty to be a biological adult. And correction -- puberty typically ends at age 15 or 16 for girls; 17 or 18 for boys.
4. The point is that Anorexia Nervosa is defined as an eating disorder by the medical establishment, which the Info disease box clearly shows.
5. We do have the same same privileges, and right now, yes, consensus is for the medical definition coming before "common use" definition.
6. The determining is not up to me; the sources and community decides. And they have for now.

Flyer22 (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

1. .
2. Well, if you knew what the DSM IV said, you would have known that it said 13 and younger, and you would not have changed it, because you would have known that the sentence about the DSM IV diagnostic criteria was actually correct, and the 12 year was incorrect.
3. Huh, no, I never said post-pubescent being children, but if you want to insist, I suggest you back it up with some diffs instead of just asserting that I said it.
4. Okay, thank you for conceding that disorder is not an medical exclusive term.
5. Well, I do not see that consensus, in fact, if I have counted correctly, I see a majority that wants a different lead.
6. Well, then we obviously disagree what they have decided.

I am glad we have worked out a few issues and that some of the accusations have been leveled. Now that we have established that we have the same rights and what consensus is, I will start implementing those things supported by consensus. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

1. .
2. We've already gone over this. If you must insist I had no idea what the DSM said, then whatever. But those familiar with me at this article since 2007 know I am familiar with the DSM and its criteria. My knowledge of pedophilia is one of the main reasons I even started editing/looking after this article. I rarely dabble in things I'm not familiar with here at Wikipedia.
3. I assert it, because "children" includes post-pubescents. You know that's how society sees underage post-pubescents, due to age of majority, and yet you keep pushing for the beginning of the lead to say "children" without any qualifier.
4. Not what I said, but okay.
5. What majority wants a different lead? The question is clearly proposed above, about "which use" we should go with first, and most editors have said medical use. Medical use was also seen as triumphant in the move discussion. Randomly counting people, such as the IP in the Globalize section, who have nothing to do with the proposed question about medical use vs. common use does not count; that IP, for example, did not weigh in on the consensus discussion. And regardless of him, there is no consensus for your proposed lead -- or common use being before medical use. And again -- your "common use" does not even back you up because dictionaries generally say that a child is a prepubescent.
6. Clearly.

I am glad we have worked out a few issues and that some of the accusations have been leveled as well. But you do not have consensus for your version of the lead, and that is clear from above. You should not implement any of the debated material without consensus. I didn't revert your Green addition because you made a valid point about what the concerns were in the previous discussion about him, and because I don't object to him being included the way he is now included. Neither would James. Flyer22 (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

1. .
2. Well, let me ask you some questions:
   1. What is the age criterion in the DSM VI for pedophilia?
   2. What did I add?
   3. Where did you change it too?
   4. Which one was correct?
3. Thank you for admitting you were asserting it and not me. A Child is generally a human between the stages of birth and puberty. Check dictionaries and even wikipedia. It was you who asserted that is had a wider definition in general usage, and I accepted that. It is obvious that the general usage is wider than the DSM IV (like the ICD 10, which brings back the US-centered scope currently or even the new DSM V expansion), but also, that that usage is not really preferred. If you recall, my lead proposal was exactly dealing with that without immediately jumping to the US-centered medical operalization.
4. Well, do you then claim disorder is exclusive to the medical field?
5. Yes, if I correctly read what people wrote, the consensus is not what you think.
6. .

-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

1. .
2. No, let's ask you one big question:
   1. How is it that one could not know the age criterion in the DSM for pedophilia when that same one has been working on the Pedophilia article since 2007 and, before you arrived at the article, it was brought up as recently as this discusion? I was clearly aware of the DSM criteria for pedophilia and have been for some time. Your refusal to accept my word and insistence that you are correct about why I reverted is both silly and tiring.
3. I said that "pedophilia" is used to refer to a sexual attraction to all minors, something I could not believe you didn't already know. I backed that up with a source, to show that it is incorrectly used to refer to all minors. The keyword is "incorrectly." What you call "the general usage" is the wrong usage, like experts state. And the point is that your "general usage" dictionary sources do not back you up in excluding "prepubescent"...because they say that children are prepubescent.
4. Sigh. Not even answering that. I made my point.
5. You did not read correctly then.
6. . Flyer22 (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

1. .
2. Well, easy, the person in question changed the proper DSM IV age criteria to a incorrect age even when the edit summary indicates it came from the DSM IV. Now that I have answered yours, answer mine.
3. Well, you are correct, it is obvious that SOME people use that term very broad. I have not made that claim. What I do claim is that the term is generally used in wider way than the strict DSM IV definition. See for example the ICD 10. I also know that many people would not inculde all minors, specifically because of age of consent laws are generally more permissive than age of majority. So, your repeated assertion that my way of seeing is a specific way is incorrect. Children are not post-pubescent. That is a ludicrous claim to make. They can be minors yes, but not children. Unless you want to use the word entirely different, in that everybody is a child of someone.
4. And your point was, that it was a medical definition because it was called a disorder?
5. Well, we will find out.
6. .

-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Outdent

1. This is ridiculous. I gave my reason for reverting you, and all other contributions/discussions I have either made or had at this article about the DSM prove your conclusion as wrong. Get over it.
2. And we tackle that some people use the term wider, but it is still wrong usage, and that is what we make clear in the lead. People commonly misusing the term does not mean that such misuse should go first in the lead or that it should be given as much weight in this article as the correct/medical usage. Children are not post-pubescents, you say? That is a ludicrous claim to make, you say? No, it is not a claim at all. And it is absolutely ludicrous that you have even stated such a thing. Post-pubescent minors are regarded as children; this is not something I even need to source. But, to indulge you with a source, Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law states that a child is "a person below an age specified by law." Post-pubescent minors are regarded as children, not simply minors, by the general public every time there is some kind of sex scandal involving them and older adults. Likewise, prepubescents can be considered minors as well. And if "children" only meant "prepubescent," you wouldn't be so determined to exclude "prepubescent" from the beginning of the lead. By your reasoning, I could just as easily say that pubescents are not children either...since they are biological adults after all. Therefore, calling pubescents children -- all because society says they are -- is ludicrous as well (by your logic).
3. My point is that Anorexia Nervosa is defined as disorder by the medical community, and it being determined a disorder is included in the lead first...right beside the Info disease box.
4. Well, we will find out? We don't have to "find out." It's clear from above. The medical sources are authoritative and correct. Your "general use" sources don't back you up, seeing as I could just as easily use those sources to add in "prepubescent" to your version.
5. .
6. Flyer22 (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

1. .
2. No, the facts are pretty clear. You changed it away from the DSM IV in the DSM IV criteria section while claiming you know the DSM IV.
3. Well, the main point remains that you think that how the world at large uses it is superseded by the medical operalization, which is bogus. And really, you can cherry pick a source but the law version ios not really what the general public uses. So, lets take the general merrrian websters def: "a young person especially between infancy and youth". But heck, I am not maki9ng those claims about ownership for nothing.
4. Well, my point is that with anorexia nervosa, the general use and the medical definition are rather close, and the article does not start with the DSM IV diagnostic criteria:
   1. A. Refusal to maintain body weight at or above a minimally normal weight for age and height (e.g., weight loss leading to maintenance of body weight less than 85% of that expected; or failure to make expected weight gain during period of growth, leading to body weight less than 85% of that expected).
   2. B. Intense fear of gaining weight or becoming fat, even though underweight
   3. C. Disturbance in the way in which one's body weight or shape is experienced, undue influence of body shape on self-evaluation, or denial of the seriousness of the current low body weight.
   4. D. In postmenarcheal females, amenorrhea, i.e., the absence of at least three consecutive menstrual cycles.

   Does not look like those criteria are in the second line of the article. So, lets stop the pretense that the article is even close to this out of balance article.

5. Yes, I just have to go through all the edits and make a tally.
6. .

-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

1. I appreciate the break for one day.
2. The facts are pretty clear indeed. You are wrong, which is clear from my past discussions about the DSM at this article. You are not going to get me to lie and say that I did not know what the DSM said, so, again, you might as well drop it.
3. The main point remains that you continue to think that common and wrong usage should top correct and authoritative usage, which is bogus. The law version is not really what the general public uses? Yes, it is, and I backed that up with a source. Another source taken from the lead also backs this up. A child, by society's standards, usually includes everything under 18.
4. The Anorexia nervosa article may not start out with the DSM IV diagnostic criteria, but it still starts off defining it as an eating disorder first. It does not go into common usage first...or even at all. In common usage, really skinny people are called anorexic all the time. The point is that most, if not all, medical articles here at Wikipedia define their terms in medical terms first. No pretense.
5. A tally won't matter. Authoritative sources, as well as yours, specify prepubescent children as the source for a pedophile's sexual interest. And the recent consensus discussion is currently in favor of medical usage first. Past consensus is also for medical usage coming first. Unless new consensus is formed for your version, per WP:Consensus, the current version will remain. I doubt that your version would last long even if it did suddenly gain enough support to be implemented, per WP:MEDRS.
6. Flyer22 (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

1. .
2. Well, I know how you see it, and what remains is that an editor who claims that she knows the DSM IV changed the proper information away from the DSM IV. What you excuse is is really irrelevant to me.
3. Well, looks like we won;t resolove that issue, as expected. I am not expecting you to give a inch on the current medical operalization narrative, regardless of how many people object or how many sources are put forward.
4. Well, maybe because you like the Anorexia nervosa article so much, we could cut out the DSM IV info from the lead and make it more general. Seems that you think that is a good way>
5. You are not the only one who can decide what happen with this article, and I dispute completely that your perceived consensus is still there. So, the lead is going to change.

-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

1. .
2. If "my excuse" was irrelevant to you, you wouldn't have kept bringing it up. But oh well. At least it seems dropped now.
3. There's nothing to resolve. Sources and a simple Google search show me as correct. Heck, even the Child article does. There is a such thing as a "minor child," after all. I'm not giving an inch as far as putting the incorrect and "common use" definition first, no. For the various reasons gone over by me and others. We have already compromised with you. The problem is that "compromise" is not good enough for you; you just want your way.
4. Nope. Because authoritative sources should be in the lead.
5. I did not say I was deciding anything for the article! You are the one acting as though what you say goes. The lead is going to change? Not to your view, it isn't. Why? Because of what I stated above. There is no perceived consensus on my part. Past consensus is for the medical definition coming first, and so is current consensus. The recent consensus and move discussions show this. If you are counting, then you should also be counting James's thoughts, as well as Stevertigo's. Only two editors, yourself included, are for putting the "common use" definition first...judging by the talk page. Only two editors, yourself included, have said that the lead should start out saying "children" instead of "prepubescent children." Tijfo098 argued for the lead not starting out as immediately defining pedophilia as a mental disorder simply because the DSM says so, not for your proposal, and that was taken care of (by changing the initial lead-in and simply specifying it as an "interest"). This means your version will not be put forth, unless you gain new consensus. You can say that your version will be put forth all you want, but the policies and guidelines I have cited are on my side. And even if your version were to be implemented, the fact remains that it would not last long because it does not hold up; even your sources disagree with you, as they specify a child as someone who is prepubescent; most dictionary sources specify a child as prepubescent, either first and foremost or only. There is nothing wrong with the lead saying that pedophilia "encompasses a range of adult sexual interest in prepubertal children," because that is correct. "Early pubescent" is the exception, and only because "early pubescent" often still looks "prepubescent." That is the only damn reason the ICD-10 says "early pubertal." Notice that it does not simply say "pubertal." Contrary to your beliefs, it is not just the DSM IV or America's medical community which restricts pedophilia to prepubescent children. This article, with its many sources, shows that pedophilia is not only restricted that way by the DSM. In the general medical community, pedophilia is a sexual preference or interest in prepubescents. Not pubescents or post-pubescents. We can add non-American sources saying the same thing. Consensus is not just about "voting" anyway; it is also about the weight of arguments. And the argument that the incorrect and "common use" definition should come before the correct and authoritative definition does not hold up. It never has at Wikipedia articles.
6. Flyer22 (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You know what, you can keep claiming things I do not say (maybe dig up a few diffs to prove your case), but that does really not make it something I have said. So, I am done with those aspects of the discussion, which included that I obviously have perceived a different consensus among editors commenting on this article. As for the compromise, no, that was not a compromise I agreed with. So, no, you have not compromised with me yet. So, we will continue. As for you claim that the DSM IV is so important in reliable sources, better check the literature. How many research articles do you think use that definition versus articles that use a more generic definition? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Refer to the above. The DSM IV is an authoritative source, and so are the expert sources. The majority of the medical community and scholarly text stresses "prepubescent," as James makes perfectly clear in this edit. Correct and authoritative use trumps incorrect, "common use" at medical articles; it always has. Flyer22 (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

paper quote

For those that have no access to the paper by Studer and Aylwin, here is the relevant quote:

The diagnostic criteria as specified in the DSM-IV-TR (2000) are both over-inclusive in that all acts of child molestation warrant diagnosis, and under-inclusive in that individuals who have not acted upon, and who are not distressed by their sexual interest in children do not meet diagnostic criteria.

They state it this strong, not me. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The authors use warrant because of the DSM-IV-TR criteria:

A: Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).

B: The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

Let me see if I get their argument straight. Criterion A warrants inclusion if the person has recurrent behavior involving sexual activity with a kid. Criterion B warrants inclusion if they acted on it. Combined, this includes all child molesters because they showed the behavior as well as the acted upon. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It makes more sense when you explain it that way, because initially it comes across like they completely forget Criteria A. At the same time, it seems like their interpretation (and any professionals who do the same) is missing the spirit of the criteria and crunching it down like a legal statute. One could argue that the "behaviors" must be "sexually arousing" to the patient in order for that to be applicable, which brings the matter back to the mind. And as far as I know, in practice, behavior alone typically does not equal a diagnosis.Legitimus (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

ICD 10 vs DSM IV: age range difference

The international ICD 10 and American DSM IV differ in various important aspects from each other. One of them is the range of children included. The DSM IV stresses pre-pubescent children, while the ICD 10 states pre-pubescent and early pubescent children. So, to pretend that the ICD 10 is similar to the DSM IV with regard to this aspect is a misrepresentation of the ICD 10. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No misrepresentation. The World Health Organization's definition [10] states:

ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders- Diagnostic criteria for research F65.4 Paedophilia

1. The general criteria for F65 Disorders of sexual preference must be met.
2. A persistent or a predominant preference for sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children.
3. The person is at least 16 years old and at least five years older than the child or children in B.

The fact that it includes "early pubertal" does not stop the fact that it mostly stresses "prepubescent" and is used as the source for adolescent pedophiles in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

well, lets start at the beginning: WHO ICD10: F65.4 Paedophilia: A sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age. That they do not mention that in the specifications for research, which is not the main document, is irrelevant. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, this difference is also mentioned by Seto in his 2009 review. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how it's irrelevant. But the point is that this source is used to source "prepubescent" and the note on adolescent pedophiles; therefore, there is no misrepresentation going on...especially since we mention it and "early pubertral" specifically after the DSM criteria. Flyer22 (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I disagree, and you bring up another crucial point, and that is that the ICD 10 ref is used to ref the DSM IV criteria. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

We usually disagree on what should be done with this article. Nothing new. The ICD-10 ref is not used for the DSM IV criteria; it overlaps with it, when it comes to a sexual preference for prepubescent children. The lead says, "As a medical diagnosis, it is defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 and older) characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary). The child must be at least five years younger in the case of adolescent pedophiles." That is mostly the ICD-10's definition. Flyer22 (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the key word is MOSTLY. If the ICD 10 ref has to stay, the sentence has to be fixed to reflect the variation between the sources. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The source does not have to be "fixed" in any way. The ICD-10 part is sourcing itself -- as it includes prepubescents and adolescent pedophiles. That is what we are using the ICD-10 for in the lead-in. Because it agrees with "prepubescent." Sources are combined like this all the time, without any type of uproar. We do not say the ICD-10 does not include early pubescents; therefore, it is not a misrepresentation, especially since we mention it and "early pubescents" in particular. Flyer22 (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I leave if for what it is, because that section needs to be rewritten once the medical diagnosis section has been updated with the other general used methods for diagnosis. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

As I stated below, I am not sure what other relevant diagnosis you mean. If it is a diagnosis saying that "preference" is not needed and only "interest" is, that is not how pedophilia is typically defined in the medical field. Even your Seto source points this out. This is why not all child sexual abusers are considered pedophiles. It certainly is not typically defined as extending to pubescents in the medical field. Flyer22 (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

If whatever you are planning to add does not go along with fitting how pedophiles are typically diagnosed, as in officially termed pedophiles by the medical community, then it should go in the Other uses section. Flyer22 (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Changing source

This morning, I added information of a new source to the article.[11] The authors explicitly state that: "The diagnostic criteria as specified in the DSM-IV-TR (2000) are both over-inclusive in that all acts of child molestation warrant diagnosis, and under-inclusive in that individuals who have not acted upon, and who are not distressed by their sexual interest in children do not meet diagnostic criteria." Flyer22 took it upon herself to change the wording from The criteria are over-inclusive because all acts of child molestation warrant this diagnosis to The criteria are over-inclusive because all acts of child molestation are considered for diagnosis because the lead says something else..[12] I changed it back explaining it was the authors words, not mine [13] and she basically changed it back to fit with lead again.[14] Considering for is a fundamental different meaning than warrant. That the lead says something else than this source is irrelevant. If that is an issue, it should be solved without changing the meaning of the source. Changing the meaning of the source because other sources say something else is original research and is not allowed at wikipedia. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This is no problem. I was not focused on your source. What I and Legitimus have stated can simply be sourced to that part as well. Flyer22 (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I understand that you do not think it is a problem, but what I see is original research and that is a problem. I suggest you find a different solution without changing what the source says. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's been fixed with a source that specifies that not all child molesters fit the clinical definition of a pedophile. No original research. Flyer22 (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No, warrant is still changed to considered for, aka the meaning of the source is still changed. Aka, Original research. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, because "considered" is sourced to the source I added, not to your source. But I will go ahead and rearrange. Flyer22 (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, while a person who acts upon the urges but experiences no distress can also qualify for the diagnosis, it does not mean that they will qualify. That is the problem with quoting someone else's opinion of the DSM. Flyer22 (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

We;;. I changed the section to reflect better the source while keeping the general qualifyer on how people see it in place. Also explained how they see the over-inclusiveness, because it is not readily obvious. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. Flyer22 (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources when multiple secondary and tertiary sources are available

From WP:RS: Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources. Although I have generally no problem with primary sources, when we have multiple secondary and tertiary sources, I question why a rather specific primary source needs to be included, like the Blanchard2007 ref in the beginning of the lead when there are at least four secondary and tertiary sources for the same point. if it needs more references, I am sure we can find a whole bunch of secondary sources to add. Thoughts? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I question why he shouldn't be. That's what I'm saying. Flyer22 (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, because there are probably a few hundred primary sources that say the same, so do you want to add all those? What is needed is some good references, not all references. if there is an abundance of good references, secondary references are preferred in those cases because they sum up the research of many articles, contrary to primary sources. So, unless there are no good secondary sources, primary sources should be avoided. Therefore, it is up to you to ague why this primary source is so special that it needs to be included when there are many secondary sources available. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you feel that primary sources should be excluded? Just because secondary sources are available, it does not mean primary sources should be excluded. Primary sources are often backed up with secondary sources in Wikipedia articles. Flyer22 (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that primary sources should be excluded if there are sufficient secondary sources, in line with WP:RS. If there are good secondary courses available, it requires aditional arguments before including primary sources. I have not seen those arguments in this case, other than a personal preference, which would open the door to adding tens of primary sources that are actually far more to the point. This article not even uses the DSM IV criteria for the diagnosis of the patients, but phallometry, a different operalization than the DSM IV. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It is also personal preference to exclude primary sources if there are sufficient secondary sources. The above says "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources," not that primary sources should be excluded or excluded entirely. I prefer the Blanchard source to the Seto source because the Blanchard source is more reliable in my view about what it means to be a pedophile. Using primary sources does not mean we will be using primary sources all time. Yes, we use Blanchard, Cantor and their team in this article, but that is not a bad thing; they are experts on this topic. As long as we are not mostly using their findings, then using them at some points is fine. But I am not too stressed to keep Blanchard in the lead. As long as there is no movement to remove all of his or Cantor's work, I suppose it will be okay. Flyer22 (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with Cantor's etc work, and it should be included at appropriate places. This just was not one of them. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Where did the surgical castration section go?

It's in use, or even on the rise in a number of EU countries, Poland, the Czech Republic, etc. [15] Tijfo098 (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of the afflicted seek it voluntarily [16], even in the US. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

definitions order

Whether the definitions should be ordered as popular first or expert first depends on the reason for defining. Wiktionary seems to be meant as a popular dictionary, so far; the instruction on writing its definitions doesn't say so explicitly but supports that perspective. The Oxford English Dictionary orders definitions in historical order, oldest first; it's intended as a scholars' dictionary and scholars tend to want to know what the word meant in 1700 and 1920, since often they already know what it means today. The OED and Merriam-Webster's Third New International rely more on edited literature to find what was used popularly and among educated people but only weakly in any particular profession; professional words tend not to appear unless they've made it into general English. The Dictionary of American Regional English is a dialectal dictionary that avoids whatever has appeared in print; it relies on personal interviews, diaries, dialogues in novels trusted as authentic, and the like. I think the American Heritage Dict. draws on newspaper files for the examples it relies on when writing definitions. Taber's is for nurses and Stedman's is for physicians and their definitions are written accordingly. Glossaries and children's dictionaries are almost all prescriptive, limited to what a user is supposed to say; descriptive dictionaries describe actual use by whichever audience is intended to rely on it. In short, how to order definitions is up to the editors and depends on the purpose of defining at all.

Wikipedia's purpose in defining words thus depends on Wikipedia's purpose. Clearly, it's meant for anyone who can read at a middle school level or higher; they don't need any other background. One is not expected to be a scientist, for instance, to read a science article.

WP wants neutrality, so both expert and popular definitions should be presented separately when they differ and when they are part of majority or significant minority discourse. I.e., in this case, neutrality encompasses both expert and popular.

WP wants verifiability and expert meanings are usually more easily verified, because they're often officially promulgated and disseminated with no doubt as to official authority.

Definitions should come from promulgators rather from antagonists. E.g., the definition of a religion should not come from its sworn enemies, even if the sworn enemies vastly outnumber the adherents and no one understands how the religious community survives at all.

As to pedophiles, most people (at least in the U.S.) fall into one of three groups: nonexpert pedophile; nonexpert enemy of pedophiles; and expert (most people being not pedophiles, experts are presumably not pedophiles). Pedophiles could tell us what they mean by the word but as soon as they announce themselves they know they risk being put away or worse, so we probably won't hear from enough of them to get their consensus and those willing to tell us after they've been incarcerated may be telling us only what their parole boards or doctors would like to hear, so those will tend to approximate psychologists' definitions or be based in denial. The nonexpert enemy is problematic because, one, they're enemies and thus less reliable and, two, many will be sharply contradictory even within an individual: they'll say any adult having sex with a girl is a pedophile but in a separate conversation they, at least men, will object to charging any young man with so-called "statutory rape" of a slightly underage girl, especially one often deemed attractive, because, they'll say, she was old enough to make her own decision (a sign is that it's hard to win those cases in jury trials).

Popular definitions are available from dictionaries, but generally dictionaries, except dialectal ones, are tertiary sources (derivative dictionaries rank even lower). WP shuns tertiary sources, at least when secondary sources are available. Dialectal dictionaries are secondary but rarely appropriate for WP. Surveys generally are secondary. I haven't read of a survey asking the public to define pedophilia but I wonder if anyone believed they needed one so I wonder whether they'd have spent the money to survey a representative sample with a low margin of error.

Popular definitions are useful because they tell us how society organizes its perceptions and responses. When people decide there's an important problem they can't handle casually or amateurishly, they tend to demand specialized service from people willing to focus serious time and effort into it. Those latter people soon become experts in the service. So when experts define central terms, they tend to do so to, more or less, fulfill public demand for their service. If the mental services fields define pedophilia only to prepubescence when law goes to 18, that tells me the public supports mental services on the men when the girls are prepubescent but only a legal whacking will do if the girls are older up to 18. The public hasn't been asked to approve the professional definitions but they tend to approve their end services or they don't reward them (e.g., pay them). Among the groups of experts society has engaged for the purpose are those in law, psychology, and biology (in some subjects historians, philosophers, and religious leaders will have at it but I don't know that to be the case for this word in any major way). Law is important but in the U.S. laws would be more likely to define sexual assault as an act and intent as to whether a single act was deliberate and then the criminal justice system would consider whether to manage a court loser as being at risk of recidivism in the same way that a bank embezzler may become a recidivist, but the law probably does not define pedophilia as a separate phenomenon, since we don't convict or sue for pedophilia (viz., for liking) but for the deliberate act. I gather from the WP article that biology is new to the field, so it may not have settled on definitions. So psychology and psychiatry (and maybe social work except it's far down the totem pole) are likely to provide the richest sourcing for definitions that are verifiable and appear in reliable sources.

Medicalization technically refers to psychiatry (and other medical fields) rather than to psychology, since psychologists are not allowed to prescribe prescription medicines, but both can apply behavioral techniques and talk therapy and can rely on the same studies of those, so I assume the professional organizations in psychiatry and psychology largely agree on the definition. If they disagree, they should be put side-by-side.

The practice of psychology does have major problems. It tends to be used to evade responsibility, even if that's not what its practitioners plan. If someone wants to protect Johnny who's suddenly facing jail, one obvious way out is that he didn't know what he was doing and got carried away by a little seductress (a fiction but never mind), and that sounds like it can be cured by a psychiatrist, boot camp, or an adult girlfriend, all of which are highly problematic responses, even if they work. I think psychological cures probably work on men who want to change but that doesn't include men who only say they want to change, and that may be most of them. But psychologists failing to cure pedosexuals doesn't mean their latest definitions are bad. The badness resides in the pedosexuals. Psychologists' current definitions of pedophilia may still be the best available relative to the profession. Whether arrested perpetrators, their families concerned that their futures not be damaged, and institutions trying in private to rescue people who should be jailed publicly to deter others are trying to duck responsibility is a separate issue. If psychologists, biologists, lawyers, or conjurers can reduce pedosexuality, more power to them. Those making the major efforts in that direction are likely have useful definitions we can state.

The DSM has been severely and validly criticized in and out of the profession. Nonetheless, until it is professionally renounced or replaced, it remains the authority because of which organization has promulgated it, a leading organization for the profession, and it is relied on for legal and insurance purposes. For example, in the U.S. if a patient believes a practitioner has committed malpractice and sues, the practitioner can rely in court on the DSM in establishing the standard of care owed to the patient. It's not the only way but it is one.

Professionals in individual communications likely evolve different definitions idiolectally and dialectally, but they can't be relied on because secondary sources glossing professional dialectal use are almost certainly lacking.

Professional definitions tend to be more complex than lay meanings, such as if they fragment a subject. A solution to aid readability is to start with a relatively simple overarching concept and place the precise definition under that umbrella.

Legal definitions are harder to source. The last time I saw the Merriam-Webster legal dictionary it was of forgettable quality. Black's Law Dict. isn't top notch but is widely accepted among U.S. lawyers. The best is a recent legal treatise on the subject, written for attorneys, with a definition cited to its source; since this probably is not a matter of Federal Constitutional law (although influenced by it), it's likeliest to be defined either Federally or in states by statute or in a majority opinion from the highest court of the jurisdiction (U.S. Sup. Ct. or a state's highest court). Absent those sources, other sources, like regulations or other courts' majority opinions, can be binding within their respective jurisdictions (maybe persuasive elsewhere or maybe not), therefore authoritative to that extent.

Popular misuse of language may become correct use just because it's popular, a feature of English linguistics (and of most languages, and although French has an official organization to control language development English has no equivalent), and popular error becoming correct just through repeated use is a potential source of confusion which itself can cause errors. Nonetheless, if most of the public and most of the edited news media have a sense of the word that is internally consistent, then that is roughly what the society says the word means. Arriving at such an evolved definition can't be done by finding a pattern in 200 newspapers, since in WP that would be OR, but dictionary editors can do that. That is roughly how editors of leading descriptive dictionaries judge what to put in. If someone invents a word or mangles an old one and then enough people use it that way for long enough it'll get into an authoritative dictionary. If that happened for a popular definition of the word pedophilia, once this has arrived into secondary sources the WP article should reflect that and give that definition, although not if it hasn't spread enough and lasted enough to be significant in general discourse.

Descriptive dictionaries of general English cannot assure that definitions will neatly interconnect, as between meanings of pedophilia and child for age, because they derive their definitions from whatever people write or say, even when limited to edited writings, because people don't make their words neatly interconnect. People tend to use those two words in different contexts; when they say pedophilia they'll also refer to children but most times they refer to children they don't refer to pedophilia, and that allows meanings to get fuzzy at the border. (Note that a common core word usually has many definitions.) Legal language supports neat lexical relationships (there's a saying in law that "the law is a seamless web", meaning that no two laws ever conflict, but what it takes to resolve an apparent conflict is another story), but, compared to law, general language gets fuzzy quickly.

Readers' expectations may shape the article. I thought that pedophilia was about wanting sex with anyone too young legally to consent and didn't know about the distinctions. However, the lede's first sentence and the template above it already clarify the ages scoped by the article and refer me elsewhere for the age cohorts it doesn't cover.

If reliable secondary sources on popular general English support the word pedophilia as going up to 18 and if that has become established, it may be useful to readers to say something like that and then to distinguish lay and specialized definitions on the age point. It's not feasible to label the lay definition as an error if it is established lay usage, but it is important to explain that they're different and perhaps that they serve different purposes. For example, if the treatment of adults should differ according to the child's/minor's age, then having different definitions may be operationally useful to mental and criminal service providers.

I'd sequence definitions from psychology and psychiatry first, followed by those from law, biology, and the general public (per suitable dictionaries), followed by those from any other disciplines (if any) that contribute a significant minority to the discourse, e.g., history.

Nick Levinson (talk) 06:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC) (Corrections (clarifying lower jurisdiction, word vs. concept, and on labeling a lay definition and cutting an excess reverse virgule): 07:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)) (Dummy edit only because I erred in the last edit summary: 08:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC))

One major unresolved problem is that among mental health "experts," the word pedophilia is used in two significantly different ways, even in the DSM: to describe the general phenomenon, and to describe a more narrowly-defined mental disorder. It leads to a counter-intuitive definition that not all pedophiles can be diagnosed with pedophilia. My own attempt to tease apart the two conflicting definitions was torpedoed for "promoting pedophilia" by the editors camped out at this space. Due to WP:OWN issues, the article asserts the One True Definition™ is the narrowest one used. The casual reader of this article leaves with an inaccurate take on this topic because of a strange obsession with some nonexistent "TRUE" definition combined with paranoia about anyone trying to rectify the copious problems with this article. Anyone questioning the problems with this article is smeared as some sort of pedophilia advocate at best and an actual pedophile at worst. It's POV pushing and undue weight of the highest order, combined with breathtaking violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA, being waged as a war of attrition. Jokestress (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is a study out there that actually scored articles on the definition they used for their study, and the DSM IV definition is only used occasionally (10 out out 271 studies. Talking about serious undue. Other diagnostic methods are missing all together, like the SSPI and phallometric methods. because the issues are so severe, a edit by edit approach is not going to kick it, and I therefore have started a sandbox page to do a massive rewrite. Please come over and lets see if we can make a far better page than this one. I think in that way, we can resolve the fear of the owner of this page once they see things are actually better. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in, Nick. You already know I greatly appreciate your contributions at this encyclopedia, as you deal with sexual orientation and sexuality like I do, and we have sometimes crossed paths, working together nicely. Your take on this matter just so happens to go along with what we have already done with the lead of this article, adding to the consensus to keep the medical and correct definition before the incorrect, common use definition. Jokestress says the lead and article gives the impression that not all pedophiles can be diagnosed with pedophilia. The matter lies in how pedophilia is defined. It is often defined as a "preference" by the medical community. And the medical community, not just the DSM, says that not all child sexual abusers, for example, are pedophiles. However, this article does not only focus on pedophiles who have a sexual preference for prepubescent children. The Etymology and definitions section breaks down two different types -- exclusive and non-exclusive -- in varying degress (with a link), clearly showing that people who may not be primarily sexually attracted to prepubescent children are considered pedophiles as well. The lead starts out saying pedophilia "encompasses a range of adult sexual interest in prepubertal children," which is true; pedophilia addresses the sexual interest in prepubescent children or children who look prepubescent (the mention of "early pubescent" covers the looks part James Cantor and other experts have mentioned). The lead makes clear the actual definition of pedophilia first, as experts have stated over and over again that the lay person definition is wrong. This is no narrow definition of the term; it is the correct definition. People leave this article knowing that referring to a person's sexual attraction to a pubescent 15-year-old girl or post-pubescent 17-year-old boy or girl is not pedophilia. How is that wrong? Sexual preference for pubescent and post-pubescents is covered at Hebephilia and Ephebophilia. Just because most of the general society conflates pedophilia with age of majority, it does not mean we have an obligation to call them right in saying that a sexual interest in all minors is pedophilia. And that is what the word "children" without any qualifier is -- all minors. WP:OWN is constantly stated by Jokestress and KimvdLinde of the usual editors here, when all we are doing is putting forth the authoritative and correct definition of pedophilia first -- interest/preference in prepubescent children. Flyer22 (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll look for a hardcopy DSM IV, to see about a conflict.

The sandbox looks like a work in progress and, being a writer myself, I don't want to dump my mitts in prematurely. Besides, I'm not an expert in this field. Some points only:

• Footnote 1 supports a 0–18 definition, so either the cite should be to <http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pedophilia> because on <http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/pedophilia> only the second definition is for general English, the first one being limited to the prepubertal, or, if you prefer the latter URL, the reference should specify the definition that's from Am. Heritage.

• In the lede's second sentence, instead of "appropriately" I think I'd prefer the more specific "in psychology this" and then at the end of the sentence I might add "(pubescent children are objects of [[hebephilia]] and older adolescents are objects of [[ephebophilia]])" or "(for pubescent children see [[hebephilia]] or for older adolescents see [[ephebophilia]])", letting the hatnote be reduced to just its first two sentences. By adding either parenthetical note, you could avoid a misunderstanding by a lay reader thinking psychologists don't care about their 16-year-olds.

• At one point (after "at least five years younger in the case of adolescent pedophiles."), you have named references in reverse numerical order. I tried that when I preferred that one reference be considered by readers as somehow better. However, I've found such articles edited by someone or a bot putting the references into numerical order, which I think is normal in refereed scientific journals anyway. So, if you prefer the references be in a counternumerical order you choose, you probably should reword main text so each reference can follow a different word, although if that results in cumbersome wording that might get edited out by someone else. I have no easy solution. (If you don't care, it's not worth the work to keep them in numerical order and the bot or someone can do it if they like.)

• Categories should be disabled until an article goes live because the category pages list the sandbox article (I looked at one and the sandbox page is at "K"). The intended categories can still be shown on the sandbox page itself, although the layout will be different, by typing a colon before the word "Category" without a space each time. Commenting out the translations list might be a good idea, too; the result will be a display of those entries at the page's bottom instead of in the left navigation bar.

Nick Levinson (talk) 04:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC) (Correction of Dorland's to Am. Heritage: 05:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC))

Regarding the DSM-IV, may I be of help? I have all versions of the DSM dating back to the first (or at least easy access to them). So, what is it you are looking for? Also, do you mean the DSM-IV (1994) or DSM-IV-TR (2000)? As to the rest of the issue, I have chosen to recuse myself at this time but will remain for purposes of vetting and finding sources.Legitimus (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Nick, you don't have to be an expert to work here, as I'm sure you know. And non-experts are even encouraged to help at medical articles, as to help with some balance. We have never turned away people simply because they aren't experts or because they have not studied this topic extensively. As has been stated many times, I started studying this when I was 16 (and was not always in Florida when I did). I am 28 now (just turned 28 on the 4th; still look quite young, though, LOL) and still often do not understand some aspects of this disorder. For example, why do pedophiles often feel they have to act on this disorder instead of seeking help for it? Well, I know their rationale, but still... Since they like to compare themselves to gays so much, I point out that there are plenty of closeted gay men who go almost their entire lives without seeking out another man. Does pedophilia (and I am speaking of the ones with a sexual preference for prepubescent children; the ones who cannot seem to squelch their sexual desires for even the briefest of time) really drive people to be unable to control themselves sexually? I never buy that they cannot hold back and spare a child. The majority are simply selfish, and want what they want. They try to rationalize it as "helping the child come into their sexual own" and say that the child should have as much say over their own body sexually as adults (insisting that age of consent should be dropped to as low as 7 or even lower). Whatever.

Anyway, as for KimvdLinde's sandbox. The problem is that most editors here, including yourself, have either stated that they would have the psychology/psychiatric definition come first or that it should come first. I also feel that all the common use stuff should go in the second paragraph, and not the last as you suggested. Other than that, I don't have a problem with reasonable changes to the article, which has already happened and continues to happen as this article and topic evolves. Flyer22 (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Legitimus, probably DSM IV-TR, unless earlier versions are important for modern professional use and not just historical reference. The point of possible conflict is in the comment above by Jokestress, who says "the word pedophilia is used in two significantly different ways, even in the DSM: to describe the general phenomenon, and to describe a more narrowly-defined mental disorder", identifying them as "conflicting". I'm curious if there's actually a conflict and what it is, or if two definitions can be reconciled.

Flyer22, pedophiles often feel they have to act on this disorder instead of seeking help for it for about the same reason that most adults feel they have to act on their respective sexualities, especially heterosexuality, which is socially accepted (as increasingly some other sexualities are, too). Pedosexuals leave to us to convince them that there's something wrong with what they do, namely the effect on the children.

I lack credentials for almost any subject, but I also lack self-developed expertise in quite a few, and this is one of those, so, except for an occasional point, I prefer not to weigh in and maybe mangle something that others are tending to better than I will. I have to choose subjects.

Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see. From my own reading, this accusation that the DSM has conflicting definitions appears to be untrue. It is only defined one way, as a mental disorder. It is on page 571-572. I can scan these two pages if needed.Legitimus (talk) 11:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

ephebophilia

Ok, confusion. ephebophilia is sometimes confused with pedophilia, and that is apparently considered so confusing that it was added to the hatnote. Intersperced through the article, several terms were mentioned and explained, infantophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia, because of the confusion it can cause. For that reason, I brought them together so people can find those confusing definitions in one place, and know where they are about. Flyer22 now argues that ephebophilia should not be among them because it is not important enough. I think we should be consistent and deal with them in one place instead of interpserced at various places, and I personally think that oif we are mentioning a specific term in the hatnote, which is often the first thing people read, we have to clarify it in the text at a reasonable place as well, and not somewhere 60% or so into the article. Thoughts? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I simply don't feel that it should go as high as you put it; it's already lower, in the History of disease models section. And then mentioned in the Misuse of medical terminology section. I don't object much to hebephilia being so high, since it can overlap with pedophilia (especially in the case of boys, which I have pointed out before)...and since Pedohebephilic Disorder is being considered. Flyer22 (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think what bou do is introducing more confusion, but considering the poor state of the article, I think there are more important things to fix, such as the diagnosis section. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not introducuing more confusion; it's clearing up confusion. You are not currently pleased with the Diagnosis section, which is why you will be adding more to it, but it is not in poor condition already. Oh well. Difference of opinions. Flyer22 (talk) 13:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Would creating a sidebar template perhaps be helpful? It would be narrower in focus than the paraphilias template, present a compact list of links to pedophilia-related articles, be well organized, be editable as a separate document (so if someone creates an article on topic x the link could be added to just one template but all the articles showing the template would link to the new topic x), display on every page where a one-line template is inserted, and display as either expanded or not as an editor specifies. Some of these templates have nice artwork and probably some are plain. A sidebar usually appears on the right, near the top of a page; the space to the right of the table of contents is usually empty and this can fill it. Examples of sidebars: BotanySeries; History of India; Science.

I don't know how easy it is to create one, but others would have to populate and organize it because I don't know enough to know which topics are important and which would just bloat the template.

If there are too many topics, a solution is to create a list or index page, which differs from a category in permitting annotations but requires that the list/index be manually edited like any article, when categories self-populate automatically. The list/index can be linked to in a sidebar, too, so the sidebar can be limited to important topics and the list/index, giving readers access in more ways to more topics.

Inline linking within the article would continue as at present.

How does this sound? Would anyone be willing to do the populating of a sidebar?

What should be the name at its top, e.g., Pedophilia, Pedophilias, or something else? maybe something more inclusive? Probably, the name should coincide with the name of an article, so the name can be a link.

Nick Levinson (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ephebophilia is not in the pedophilia category page or the paraphilias template. Should it stay absent from both? Nick Levinson (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It are all bascially age related categories. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ephebophilia is not in the pedophilia category page or the paraphilias template because it is not considered a paraphilia/mental disorder. James Cantor/James Cantor has also commented on this. Flyer22 (talk) 13:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Cure for the mental problem

Is there no cure for this mental problem? For example transsexuals cure their mental problem, dysphoria, with sex surgery and hormone therapy, so there has to be a cure for this as well. It's not HIV. Kerliboxxy (talk) 00:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where you are going with that question, but assuming good faith: It does not work the same way, and transsexualism is not a comparable subject. I don't know how you came to the idea that it was. For pedophilia, there is no universal 100% successful "cure" and indeed there are very few of those in medicine in general. There are successful cases where a pedophile is able to start being attracted to adults and no longer fantasizes about children, but these are case-by-case, they are uncommon and they are often affected by variables that the therapist cannot change.

Because this disorder's core principle is a drive to act in a manner than harms others, there is often a focus on simply preventing those harmful actions. This focus is not necessarily the best at working towards a true "cure" but rather it is an unfortunate necessity.Legitimus (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Medical Hypotheses paper (of Studer & Aylwin )

Why is this given so much weight when peer-reviewed review papers, like Blanchard's 2009 [17] exists, and it also discusses in depth the criticism brought by various against the DSM-IV-(TR) criteria? Granted, Blanchard's proposals to solve those issues should only be attributed to Blanchard (and to the DSM-5 subworkgroup now), but I don't see a good reason why Blanchard's paper is constantly thrown out from here in favor of more obscure sources. (per discussion in the sections above). Tijfo098 (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of it is primary vs secondary sources per WP:RS. There were also some conflict of interest issues in that one of Blanchard's coauthors is a user on WP who, depending on the paper, may or may not have suggested some of Blanchard's papers be added. However I can't ignore than the weight of the aforementioned COI was largely exaggerated due to a certain other user have an axe to grind with Blanchard and his group.Legitimus (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Blanchard's paper is a (good, in my opinion) secondary source for the purpose of summarizing criticism, but a primary source for his own proposals. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

the Blanchard 2009 paper is fine as a summary of some of the criticism. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no objections to it's use either. My previous reply was just an explanation.Legitimus (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No objections, per statements above. Flyer22 (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Expansion

I've opened up the article for expansion on the general society's views, as Kim and Jokestress have voiced should be done. I'm okay with it is as well. Is everyone else? Flyer22 (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Legitimus, you think you can add some information on how pedophilia is defined in law enforcement? I remember us discussing it one or two years ago. Flyer22 (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the word doesn't appear in any statutory laws that I know of, but it does appear in a handful of places with regards to police work. There are forensic manuals like Holmes and Holmes (2002) used by the FBI that use the term "pedophile" to mean the exact same thing as "child molester," but temper this by breaking it down into offender typologies that include what we would probably call a non-pedophile offender. Come to think of it I need to see if there is a new edition to this book and if the terminology changed. One other that only remember being mentioned in passing is some special investigative unit in the UK called the "Paedophile Unit." I don't recall the source though.Legitimus (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. I remember this being brought up. And we mention typologies in lead and in the Diagnosis section. "Paedophile Unit" used to be in the lead, I think. Flyer22 (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Now I changed it to this, but I don't know. I am trying to stop what would lead to a lot of overlap. For example, child molestation is covered by medical research, by law enforcement, and by society. So where do we place that section? Just let it remain under medical psychology? I'll probably rearrange the titles again. Flyer22 (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

And now to this. I added "specific" because the History of disease models deals with psychology as well. And I suppose all three sections (medical, law enforcement, and society) will cover child molestation. The sections just need to be different enough to not be complete repeats. Flyer22 (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

"specific" read awkwardly, so it was removed. People know what we mean anyway, since the title "History of disease models" obviously will relate to its psychological background. No need to be technical about everything; I'm just like that sometimes. Flyer22 (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I did a little writing for the forensic/law enforcement section using the subjects I mentioned. Holmes does have a new edition out as of 2008. It still uses "pedophile" in a non-medical way, but at least provides definitions and justification for this use in the chapter opening. Holmes prefers to define (for purposes of his book) pedophile as "a perverse lover of children" and includes non-sexual offender types, such the "mysoped" who is primarily focused on the sadistic and murderous actions, and may not do anything sexual.Legitimus (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Legitimus. I knew you would come through. Flyer22 (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

With the new redesign, is everyone okay with the lead-in being changed to "has a range of definitions as found in psychiatry, psychology, the vernacular, and law enforcement," away from "encompasses a range of adult sexual interest in prepubertal children"? This way, the lead no longer starts out with "prepubescent" only and better accompanies the article's redesign. The "As a medical diagnosis" part goes into "prepubescent" and "early pubescent" anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it for the reasons stated above and in that edit summary. Of course, I did not mess with the rest of the lead. The Medical diagnosis part still comes first due to the majority of editors saying it should and because it comes first in the lower body of the article. If anyone objects to widening the lead-in, I'm all "ears." Flyer22 (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

For the moment, yes, that is an issue that will come back soon enough once the other sections are completes and the diagnosis section expanded with other relevant diagnoses. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what other relevant diagnosis you mean. If it is a diagnosis saying that "preference" is not needed and only "interest" is, that is not how pedophilia is typically defined in the medical field. Even your Seto source points this out. This is why not all child sexual abusers are considered pedophiles. It certainly is not typically defined as extending to pubescents in the medical field. Flyer22 (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

If whatever you are planning to add does not go along with fitting how pedophiles are typically diagnosed, as in officially termed pedophiles by the medical community, then it should go in the Other uses section. Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Diagnosis and definition are two separate but related things. Even if there was only one single definition (there are more than one), there are a multitude of diagnostic tools, of which the DSM IV is just one. The diagnostic criteria in the DSM are just one way to diagnose a pedophile, a specific operalization of the term. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, diagnosis and definition are two separate things, and we make that clear in the lead. The point is how pedophiles are typically diagnosed. People are not usually diagnosed as pedophiles by the act of child molestation alone, nor are they usually diagnosed as pedophiles by "interest" alone. If the information you want to add is not in line with how pedophilia is typically diagnosed, it should not be in the Diagnosis section but rather in the Other uses section. Unless, we are going to split the Diagnosis section into two groups (which I am not opposed to). But as for "early pubescent," that certainly is not how pedophilia is typically diagnosed. Even by the ICD-10's standards, that person would surely have to have a sexual interest in or preference for prepubescents; I am sure of that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, DSM IV criteria are used in only very few studies. Most studies use different criteria, either a different way based on self-reporting, SSPI or phallometric measurements (used in the Blanchard 2007 paper). There are a few others, but those are rare. A diagnosis section that actually fails to report the most frequent used diagnostic tools is a serious problem, and currently, it focuses on the diagnostic method that is only rarely used on studies about pedophilia (from a literature review, 10 out of 271 studies). What I intent to add is how diagnostics are genrally done, and you can out your fear aside that it is about child molesters, because I do now the difference. Trying to put general used diagnostic tools in the other uses section is not acceptable. As for the ICD 10, what you think it is is irrelevant, it is what is is, and early pubescents are included. Seto even make a point of it to stress that the new hebepedophilia classification is actually equivalent to the current ICD 10 classification based on what is included. But I think when you start looking at the actual data, hardly any hebepedophila has a narrow age range, most have a wide age range, based on the phallometric measurements Canor and Blanchard presented in their articles. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I am familiar with other diagnostic tools used to identify pedophilia. I have never always focused on the DSM IV only. I would say that the ICD-10 and DSM IV should still come first in the Diagnosis section, however. My fear was/is what you have in mind for the lead after adding more to the Diagnosis section. The DSM IV is still the most authoritative source, and every other diagnostic tool should not be in the lead. The lead is meant to summarize the most important aspects of a topic, per WP:LEAD. And the main definition of pedophilia among experts in this field is a sexual preference for prepubescent children; it is also how pedophiles are mainly diagnosed. As long as that stays clear in the lead first and foremost (as most editors have currently agreed that it should), I look forward to your additions. Flyer22 (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm ok with some of the alternative diagnostic tools being added. I had a source paper that compared 4 different tools that was very good, but I have misplaced it (will get back). Also, with regard to the ICD-10, I would advise using the "Green Book" and "Blue Book" mental illness supplements rather than the one-sentence definition from the main text. These two texts go into greater detail about diagnosis, and may clear up the aforementioned issue about "early pubertal" targets. To summarize though, the Green Book mentions only prepubescents and almost spot-on mirrors the DSM. The Blue Book mentions them, but adds "sexually mature adolescents" as falling outside the definition.Legitimus (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This article? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

That's very close. Same authors and criteria. But it's this one.Legitimus (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You want to add the information about the "early pubertal" targets stuff yourself, Legitimus? Or will you leave that to Kim? Or rather just help out? And are you only referring to the Diagnosis section? Or to adding it to both the lead and Diagnosis section? Like a bit about it in the lead, and expansion of it in the Diagnosis section, or is that too much clutter for the lead? Flyer22 (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, what we have to do is first determine what is actually used, and based on that, adapt the lead. Quite frankly, I think that choosing one specific set of diagnostic criteria to be featured in the lead is not okay, especially if it is so limited used in reliable sources as the actual way of diagnosing. I think that the specific diagnostic criteria have to be eliminated from the lead and a more general sentence about what kind of diagnostic methods are used should be added. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Going into the DSM as the first diagnostic criteria goes back to what Nick said. "The DSM has been severely and validly criticized in and out of the profession. Nonetheless, until it is professionally renounced or replaced, it remains the authority because of which organization has promulgated it, a leading organization for the profession, and it is relied on for legal and insurance purposes." There is also the matter that (even though it doesn't say it this way) it stresses a sexual preference for prepubescent children, which most experts agree with when it comes to diagnosing pedophilia; so it isn't off there, even if most researchers don't rely on the specific DSM criteria to diagnose pedophilia. It pretty much sums up the "intense" and "enduring" parts that most experts believe define a pedophile and separates them from situational offenders. It's not as though we go into the complete DSM layout in the lead; it's mentioned first because it is seen as the authority, even with its critcism. For example, lay people are quick to cite the DSM first. The ICD-10 is a good balance to it, especially since it tackles the overlap of pedophilia and hebephilia. If you can work other diagnostic criteria into the lead after the DSM-IV and ICD-10, without it seeming trivial or as clutter, then I say go for it. We can always tweak things. Flyer22 (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This is again the definition versus diagnosis issue. The definition needs to be in the lead, and a overview on how it is diagnosed, but promoting one diagnosis tool is not appropriate. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No need to promote one. But even you said the DSM is authoritative. I definitely feel that it should stay in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, no need to promote one. Just explain to me, why is the DSM IV in the lead in all details and phallometry only mentioned one time in the behavioral intervention section? When I started with this article, based on this article, I thought indeed that the DSM IV was authoritative for the US. After reading a lot of articles, I have changed my mind. The problem is that several other diagnostic methods are not even mentioned in this article, while a substantial part of the research as well as the assessement of individuals uses those tools. When I started with this article, I thought there were some issues with the general flow of the article and somewhat too much focus immediately on the psychopathological aspects of the term, but by now, it is obvious much much more needs to be done. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The DSM IV is not in the lead in all details, but you are right that phallometry should be mentioned more, and that the article needs more work. I cannot explain why phallometry is not mentioned more, as I started helping out with this article in 2007 and most of it was already written before I joined the team. Changes were made over time, but you are correct that it is clear that more changes should have been made and need to be made now. We were pleased when James Cantor joined, and he did not seem to feel the article was suffering from lack of information of other diagnostic tools; I suppose that is part of the reason we felt the article was just fine as it was, as long as he was helping out.This source[18] goes over all the issues we have most recently addressed, and a lot of it definitely needs to be in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think there are few more articles, including two that go through published articles and scored what diagnostic method they are using. What shocked me was the relative unpopularity of the DSM IV in research articles.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Some diagnostic methods simply do not lend themselves well to research, whereas others do not work very well in clinical settings. For example, it is a bit of a hard sell to convince your patient who's comes to your office seeking therapy to strap a device to his genitals and look at possible lewd pictures vs. simply building a rapport with you over time and talking about his thoughts and emotions (whereby the therapist can use something like the DSM). In research, it's easier to use phallometry because it is a one-time exam (usually) and the subject is informed of what is expected going into the study, thereby eliminating those that would be reluctant to go through with it. These pros and cons of each are covered somewhat in the 2008 edition of Sexual Deviance.Legitimus (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)