Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Worldview questionable

First paragraph in lead: "Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger. As a medical diagnosis, specific criteria for the disorder extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13. A person who is diagnosed with pedophilia must be at least 16 years of age, but adolescents must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child for the attraction to be diagnosed as pedophilia."

This does not represent a worldwide view. The ages mentioned: 11, 13, 16 – they all cite the DSM as a source. Is this not an American bias? Given that pedophilia not only has social, but legal, repercussions, would it not be more encyclopedic to give a generalised statement as to what pedophilia entails in the lead and leave any specific references to ages in the article? I am sure the entire world does not conform to America's DSM or the UK's ICD. Indeed, in some Muslim countries, governed by Sharia law, these ages bear no significance at all, since adult men can take child wives and have sexual relations with them. For the lead section of this article to make a definite statement, rather than summarise the idea of what pedophilia involves is biased. Given that the article doesn't even attempt to discuss the Islamic view of pedophilia, which would not be undue given that it is a widerly discussed matter and there is a Child marriage in Afghanistan containing ample examples.

Ages should be refered to like Age of consent does by stating: "Age of consent laws vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, though most jurisdictions set the age of consent in the range 14 to 18." and handled in a similar fashion as Age of consent#By country or region, simply because the matter of pedophilia is becoming a controversial topic due to differences in laws, religions, and views regarding is as a psychological condition. The lead of this article is too absolute and narrowly focused. I can understand why the article is semi-protected, but is should not be protected so that the content can be manipulated to only offer one strict point-of-view when there are alternatives to presenting a wider perspective of the condition rather than America and the UK's limited dictation.

Furthermore, at Pedophilia#Definitions 2, the statement: "Pedophilia is not a legal term, and having a sexual attraction to children is not illegal in itself."

Where? Says who? These are broad remarks with pay-wall sources that cannot be substantiated by general readers. In what country is this the case? If all, then make it clear that a sexual attraction to children is not illegal in any country in the world, as it is not clear, although I would personally find that hard to believe and would like to see an openly-accessible source supporting the claim.

There is too much in this article that appears to be written based on one or two sources published in the same one or two countries, making it feel biased and ignorant of other nations views that must exist. Given that pedophilia is a concern for all nations and that all nations must have some form of legal position and health expert opinions on the matter, why is this article so reliant on American/UK sources only?

Sorry, but this article really disappointed me with its obvious gaps and unambitious lack of international coverage, I would have expected more on such a large topic which is becoming more releveant in today's society.

Thanks. 81.110.148.89 (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, IP. The WP:Lead paragraph is not only sourced to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM or currently DSM-5), but also to the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD or currently ICD-10). The ICD is not simply a UK tool; it's international. So I don't know why you called it "UK's ICD." And the rest of the lead and lower parts of the article are sourced to other medical sources. The article clearly relies on a variety of sources. Furthermore, many experts on pedophilia and other sexual disorders from other countries rely on the DSM and/or the ICD, and pedophilia is not as actively researched an area as a lot of other medical fields. As for age of consent and child sexual abuse matters, they are not the same thing as pedophilia, no matter how many times they are confused with pedophilia. We address that in the lead and lower in the article. In case you do not understand why they are not the same thing, I will propose what I usually propose to help people differentiate: If we define pedophilia as a mental disorder (which we do) and include up to age 17 in that sexual attraction, then how does sexual attraction to a 17-year-old differ from sexual attraction to an 18-year-old? Given that 16 and 17-year-olds are usually physically indistinguishable from 18-year-olds, age-wise, because they are post-pubescent and are not far apart in age, why does a person who is sexually attracted to a 17-year-old have a mental disorder, but not a person who is sexually attracted to an 18-year-old? How can we define pedophilia by age of consent when it varies from state to state, and from country to country? How can we define pedophilia by age of majority, when the age of majority is not age 18 everywhere? It would be like stating that a person has pedophilia in one state but not in another state, or in one country but not in another country. All that one would have to do is cross the state or border lines to no longer have pedophilia. That is not how mental disorders work.

This is why the article is clear about what is and is not pedophilia. Conflating pedophilia with child sexual abuse, age of consent and age of majority is not just a non-western thing; it is also very much a western thing (I'm sure it's more of a western thing). So when this article speaks of such conflation, it is speaking of the world in general. Yes, puberty varies, but the article gives age 11 as a typical example, to better help readers understand what pedophilia is and is not. It mentions age 13 the way it does so that readers are not confused about why age 13, an age at which people are usually already pubescent, is noted in the pedophilia criteria. And it mentions age 16 because it is true that 16-year-olds can be diagnosed as pedophiles, since they are post-pubescent and should not be finding prepubescent children sexually attractive. As the Pedophilia article notes, in its Development and sexual orientation section, pedophilia is believed to develop before or during puberty; a person is already a pedophile before they reach age 18. People do not magically become pedophiles as adults; that inclination was already there. That stated, I have been thinking of removing "generally age 11 years or younger" from the lead, given that so many 11-year-olds, especially boys, look prepubescent and pedophiles will indeed go after people who look prepubescent but are not prepubescent; this is why pedophilia and hebephilia overlap. The DSM also does not mention age 11 as part of its criteria; neither does the ICD-10. Then again, we added age 11 to be clearer, and because the general age range cited for hebephilia is 11-14. Flyer22 (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that reply. Yes, ICD is "International" yet ICD-10 only lists 13 countries which use it officially in their health services. That plus the U.S. use of DSM-5 accounts for 14 countries. There are about 196 countries in the world today, which illustrates my point; the article only covers how pedophilia is viewed in less than 10% of the world today. Which is useless. You say "we view pedophilia as a mental disorder". Who is we? Wiki isn't an op-ed and editors aren't supposed to express one-sided views, they're supposed to represent worldly views from a range of sources. So once again I say, less than 10% of world views are given coverage, we only see the "mental health" angle from the accounts of two sources – which seems WP:UNDUE in my opinion. I personally do not and never will consider it a "mental disorder" but a sick perversity which deserves capital punishment for the most extreme cases, but that's just me, I also consider the article too sympathetic, between the lines, of those abhorrent people who rape babies and kids – that's not a mental disorder, it's a criminal disorder! You say cross state borders does not change a mental disorder. No, but if the country a pedo enters does not classify them as having a "mental disorder" that makes a big difference, someone might rape a baby and get to see a specialist in country X, someone in county Y rapes a baby might find themselves up against a wall, with no psychiatrc evaluation; you can't write an article which forces the viewpoint "that pedos are mentally-ill" based on the evidence of two western sources. Furthermore, I doubt that these DSM/ICD texts qualify as defining mental conditions legally otherwise there would be less pedos in jail, many having used them in their defence. Your stress on it being a "mental disorder" is a bias which this article is also imposing, wrongly. The article reads as apologetic to the "disorder" because it is polluted with liberal ideals instead of impartial views of various national positions; the "disorder" is being treated as a health-related article from line one, which is fundamentally biased – to me that's like having an article on marijuana call it a "medicine" based on a dozen legalised-weed nations and refusing to acknowledge the majority of countries still calling it an illegal "drug", all because a few quacks think it cures cancer. It is written with sole purpose of being supported by material which classifies it as a "mental disorder" in 14 countries and makes no reference to the way the condition is seen in the other 182 countries, as a mental disorder or a criminal perversity. This article does not educate, it misleads. Where is coverage for pedophilia in Russia or Africa, or Australia, or South America, or Central America, India, Japan? None of those use the DCM or ICD according to the articles, yet I would expect they all have a position on pedophilia. I'd expect Russia to have criminalised the condition and shoot pedos without haste, given that they conflate pedophilia with homosexuality, but this article still ignores the way 182 countries consider the disorder which it is of no value to anyone wanting to see beyond the liberal views of ICD nations. It's like reading the Daily Mail and seeing the editor's blinkered opinions based on their purposefully cherry-picked sources and not getting the bigger picture either because they don't know it or they dont want the the reader to know the truth. 81.110.148.89 (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The relevant part of WP:UNDUE is that "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Climate change denial and intelligent design are mainstream views among the public, but given no weight on Wikipedia because they are rejected by reliable sources. For almost any medical subject, the most reliable sources under WP:MEDRS tend to be published in the context of Western medicine. All of our medical articles share this "bias".

I think it would be fine to remove the "age 11 years or younger" bit, per Flyer. KateWishing (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Which is why I'm asking why this topic is being treated as a medical subject, and therefore leading to bias in the first place? Was pedophilia a "medical subject" in Ancient Greece or Rome when grown men were fiddling with little boys? No, it was a social-norm. So why is treated as such now based on a minority view of health experts? Pedophilia isn't a new "trend", it has been around for thousands of years, and is treated in different ways. Only in recent decades has it been recognised as a threat and led to criminal cases. This article does not look at the range of apporaches to the "condition", it simply endorses it by passing it off as a "mental disorder". Sure, DSM/ICD are "reliable sources" but they're not a global standard, as I've shown: nor was the DMS/ICD around in ancient Greece – this article goes so far as to state "all paedos have a mental disorder" – what, we can time-travel now and determine that all Greek men with boys were mentally ill? Are we that certain? The ony reason I see pedophilia being detailed as a "mental disorder" here is to create the false impression that "pedos aren't bad people really, they're just wired wrong so we should forgive them and rehabilitate them at the expense of tax-payers, which included their victims and their families. Meanwhile, the pedo is given 'human rights' protection and cannot be discriminated against for their vile behaviour". Yeah.... right! However I try to read this article, I only see a pro-pedo agenda being established between the lines which makes me sick to the stomach. Was Jimmy Savile considered "mentally ill" or just a sicko? Same with Rolf Harris, has he appealed based in mental health grounds? Calling a behaviour a "mental disorder" and having it treated as one in legal cases are two different things, which is not made clear here. The article is tarred with the "mental disorder" brush. 81.110.148.89 (talk) 11:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

IP, again, the article does not only rely on the DSM/ICD for sources. And, as I've stated above, "many experts on pedophilia and other sexual disorders from other countries rely on the DSM and/or the ICD, and pedophilia is not as actively researched an area as a lot of other medical fields." You are also still conflating pedophilia with child sexual abuse; they are two different things even though they overlap. As for pedophilia being a sick perversity, there are certainly experts on pedophilia who wouldn't disagree with you on that. It is classified as a mental disorder and as a sexual perversion (paraphilia). As for Ancient Greece or Rome, see Talk:Pedophilia/FAQ (which is at the top of the talk page) , where it addresses the following question: "Why doesn't this article talk about pedophilia during historical periods of time (e.g. Ancient Greece or Rome, Muhammad)?" I don't know what else to state to you on these matters, but I assure you that we are not being sympathetic to pedophiles. I am one of the editors known for taking a stance against pedophiles and child sexual abusers. Many pedophiles hate pedophilia being called a mental disorder; this is because they view themselves as having a normal variation of human sexuality and view pedophilia as a sexual orientation. But as you can see, we still refer to pedophilia as a mental disorder in the article, and are clear that it is not a sexual orientation in the conventional sense. Flyer22 (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

This British IP User clearly is getting hung up on the words and his or her misinterpretation of them. Ignorant people in the UK frequently use pedophilia and child sexual abuse interchangeably even though they are separate concepts; the former is the persistent desire, the latter is the behavior. The behavior is the crime. The desire may be the cause, but not always, and the desire does not always lead to the behavior. This IP is not actually reading the article or the sources themselves. People in the world have all kinds of stupid or completely wrong ideas, and Wikipedia is intended to give the facts, not the popular consensus, because the latter is often wrong, clouded by blind emotion or simply very simplistic of a far more complex issue.Legitimus (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow! Even the article FAQ is biased. "Q: Why does this article characterize pedophilia as a mental or psychiatric disorder? A: Fundamentally, Wikipedia articles need to reflect the consensus expressed in the best-available reliable sources. Those sources characterize pedophilia as a mental or psychiatric disorder, so this article must as well."

Until recently the consensus from the "best available reliable sources" expressed that the British Army won the battle of Waterloo. The Prussians were barely given credit for their role. In short, reliable sources can, and often are, cherry-picked for being published by notable authorities in order to place more emphasis on what they contain in order to push aside all opposing views. Pedophilia is no more a mental or psychiatric disorder than ISIL is an "army fighting for the good of a religion of peace".

Sorry, Flyer22, but there is an essence of truth is what your "profile" states at that other wiki, which I have just polluted my browser with. Some editors are prone to squatting on articles and manipulating the content. They are prone to sniping all new-comers, or acting with aggressive paranoia towards IPs and new accounts. They are especially skilled in putting a spin on things in order to "justify" what the artice says, even though it clearly goes against wikipedia's standards. This is more the case on controversial articles which receive fewer editors because they don't like to be seen showing an interest on the topic. Can't say I'm particularly interested in the overall topic, I simply came here after watching Citizen X and reading about Andrei Chikatilo – I was disgusted at the poor content and lop-sided presentation this article offers. I'm also suspicious of the long-term semi-protective state, as it tends to give squatters the upper-hand to maintain their own edits and weaponise the protection against new edits. I'm not saying or even suggesting that you have done any of these things, I haven't looked into the article edit history, nor do I care to. I'm simply saying that someone is responsible for introducing and maintaining unbiased elements within the article, and giving it an overall pro-pedo tone, as well as creating an FAQ to substantiate the edits, i.e. compounding bias with biased justification. It's all well that editors have a free hand when using wikipedia, but when it comes to presenting a sexual perversity with rose-tinted wording something is wrong with those editors. FAQ: "This article in particular is about a topic in the area of medicine" shows where the problem begins, by classifying it as "medical" based on two cherry-flavoured sources. Now to highlight that someone is not keen on receiving new comers, by minimising exposure, I find that the article is not categorised in "Human sexuality", "Human behavior", or "Sexual emotions" and yet pedophilia would appear to cover those three issues to some degree. Big topic, two closely-related categories, zero broad-area categories – come on, who are we kidding? The agenda here is bigger than daylight. This article is so in favour of pedos being crazy rather than criminals deserving death that Jimmy Savile might as well hang a "Fixed it for me" badge on it. 81.110.148.89 (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

"Ignorant people in the UK" – coming from an ignorant, stereotypical what? As I said before, some people like to put a "spin" on things to justify themselves. You certainly qualify under the term "pedo-apologist" as well as presenting yourself as a racist individual. I also said before, that several of the sources are hidden behind pay-walls or require subscription. A good way to maintain an article's biased state is to prevent peope from verifying the references. Yes, we know the behaviour is the crime. That still doesn't mean that the 182 countries in the world view it as a mental illness. Get on the same track, instead of going off on your own convoluted path. I'm talking about the article being focused on one thing: what health professionals think. Tell me, why is beastiality or zoophilia only refered to as a "mental disorder" under the heading "Research perspectives" half-way dow the page, while this article considers pedophila being a "mental disorder" as absolute fact in the lead? Liberal BS! 81.110.148.89 (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Seeing no need to address the views in your latest comments, I'm going to point you to this cracked.com interview with James Cantor and David Prescott: "5 Ways We Misunderstand Pedophilia (That Makes it Worse)." Especially see the "#3. Society Doesn't Recognize It as an Illness ... Even Though Science Does" part of it. Flyer22 (talk) 14:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Pseudo-scientific fluff published by a comedy site with no citations.

In society there are always going to be people who try things even though they are not part of a group that does them full-time, e.g. M-S-M who aren't actually gay. There will always be sickos willing to try child porn or even sexual activity with a child yet deny being attracted to kids, and yet, once they're caught and convicted, society, the media, politicians, and all but a tiny minority will call them "sex offenders" AND "pedo-philes" because, regardless of what frauds or shrinks think, or freaks who support anyone who promotes "boy love", the terms ARE interchangeable in most of society – it is only some apologetic agenda that stops the truth being put into the article, instead it created some synthesized article that accounts for a few corruptible scientists and a handful of opinions while ignoring other world views. This separation of "sex offender" and "pedo-phile" appears to me as a concerted effort to decriminalise child abuse AND/OR legitimise sexual attraction to children. You don't really think any sane democratic government on Earth is ever going to fully recognise pedo-philes and grant them some form or equal status do you? What do they expect, a sexuality and campaign-letter of their own: LGBT+P perhaps? Regardless of what I think, because I'm less likely to be persuaded of this child-molester nonsense than of the existence of a god, I've made by points known: the article is contemptible, lop-sided, and finds excuses to tuck men into bed with children instead of castrating them. Pedo-philes are not mentally-ill, but non-pedo-philes who endorse them and want them on the streets winking and waving at kids, like they're just some sweet old man with dementia, certainly are! Going to wash my hands now and run my browser through a 35-pass cleanse after seeing all this unproductive liberal tripe!

BTW Flyer22, Science doesn't recognise God as real either, but tell that to the 71% of Christians in the USA who do, and millions of other religious folk, compared to <1% of perverts in the world who identify as a "pedo-phile". No argument against society is worth making unless it makes sense when tested against benchmarks. There are billions of people (mostly parents and children) in the world who would put sex offenders and pedo-philes in the same basket (over a fire), compared to only a few hundred or so scientists who promote this flimsy claim that pedo-philes are mentally unbalanced. I fail to see how you established a genuine consensus from a sympathetic minority of theorists; this article appears to be nought but a fringe theory lobbied by monsters. 81.110.148.89 (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a tip: comments like "You certainly qualify under the term "pedo-apologist" as well as presenting yourself as a racist individual" are not going to help. GAB^Hello! 17:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive me, I'm an "Ignorant person from the UK", remember. It's more natural to be ignorant of people than being into small children, so I'm comfortable where I stand. But thanks for siding with the issuer of racism instead against the victim, most sincere of you, maybe you should get a job in the UK justice system, it works much the same way. 81.110.148.89 (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

That fluff piece, as you call it, which certainly is not pseudo-scientific, is to help laypeople better understand pedophilia. You know, because clearly the vast majority of them don't understand it. This discussion is a prime example of that. You have even conflated the term sex offender (which is a broad term) with the term pedophile. I suppose I can't blame you on that since, as I've stated before, the general public associates the term sex offender with "child molester" or "pedophile." That, of course, doesn't mean that we should merge the Sex offender article into the Child sexual abuse article or into the Pedophilia article. And let's face it: You wouldn't trust any scholarly source I point you to on these matters anyway. You are going by your own definitions and terminology, and are faulting Wikipedia for sticking to the facts instead of misuse of language and misconceptions. Your line of thinking hurts society, for reasons noted in that so-called fluff piece and reasons noted by various experts on pedophilia and/or other paraphilias and mental disorders. And there is nothing fringe, or WP:Fringe, about those reasons. I can't be sure if you actually mean what you state or if you are WP:Trolling. But I'm done discussing these matters with you. Anyone who states or implies that I am a pedophile-apologist or am pro-pedophilia in any way clearly isn't paying enough attention, not even to the pedophiles who stalk this article just to see if they can finally skew it with pro-pedophilia content because Flyer22 and others are off the job of "guarding" it.

Also, while I'm on the subject of terminology, I don't think you're using the term racist correctly either. Flyer22 (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

What you think is the exact reason this article reeks. It isn't encylopedic article, it's a subjective piece of liberal nonsense, an op-ed, with you and whats-his-face above as its self-designated overlords, pushing your own views with your own selection of unworldly sources. There is a mental disorder at work here, but it's not pedophilia – it's egomania. You've become a fundamentalist for an oppressive group of freaks. How many mental disorders are we to list before the whole criminal worlds becomes one big "protected" class of psychos? Pedo-philes, zoophiles, tree-huggers, incestuals, rapists? It's like a religious institution, pushing for rights to discriminate while demanding to be protected from discrimination. In this case, perverts seeking the right to love other people's children without being marginalised and subject to abuse. I don't think you're using the term "trolling" right.... that's the discourse of someone who has lost an argument on YouTube or Facebook, not a serious issue on Wikipedia.... do grow up. Yes, DSM/ICD may be considered "facts" to you, but let's fact it, to many more people the Bible and Qur'an contain "facts". So you claims to offer "enlightenment" are more about self-aggrandizement than sincerity. You can't expect to brainwash everyone with this liberal crock.... there are two forms of mental disorders: theoretical and empirical. Those that can be proven by science with brain scans, blood tests, behaviour patterns and even treated with medicines, and those which are perceived to be "real" only because they are common across the populus but there are no physical markers and no known medical treatments. I put it to you that these claims of pedophilia being a mental disorder and completely theoretical, that the MRI scans are not conclusive enough, I doubt more than one or two countries have considered the data, so for you to form an authorative opinion is hardly principled, and I concluded that this article is based on theoretical psychology rather than empirical fact, and is therefore maintained in its current state under false pretences for political purposes; it may not be pro-pedophilic in terms of approving of pedo-philes, but it certainly goes half way to letting them off the hook based on a pitiful choice of sources. Now, you can argue, cry, stamp you feet and defend youself all you like. You've stood yout ground and I've stood mine. When you given people an inch, they're certain to take a mile. There are simply some people on this planet unworthy of recognition, let alone freedom amongst the population. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative environment, you seem to do a poor job of it by considering yourself a self-appointed regulator of an article which already consists elements of those things you claim to potect it from. You think my line of reasoning hurts society? My dear, I would gladly save society by personally shooting or hanging every known pedo-phile and advocate of man/boy associations on the planet. The best way to deal with some people it to eradicate them from the gene pool altogether, and prevent their ideals from corrupting or harming others. Language isn't being misused by me, it's being revised by you and those who want consider pedo-philes "safe", not potential sex-offenders, put them in a tax-funded home for 90 days, have a nice chat with them daily, tell them they're good, then pack them back off into society with a firm handshake and no furher official action, so that not even future police checks prevent them getting jobs with children or vulnerable people. That's the future of pedophilia under people like you.... build up a fence of legal rights and special privledges around a threat to society, so the next time one of them abuses a child they're safe from the media due to legal-anonymity, can't go to jail and receive care instead of jail time. Next they'll be running up a bigger bill on the NHS budget than smokers. As though this country wasn't soft enough already! 81.110.148.89 (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Was pedophilia a "medical subject" in Ancient Greece or Rome when grown men were fiddling with little boys? No, it was a social-norm. So why is treated as such now based on a minority view of health experts? Pedophilia isn't a new "trend", it has been around for thousands of years, and is treated in different ways." Uhm no...that was not pedophilia. This term has a specific meaning. The term you are thinking of is paiderasteia. The socially-acknowledged institution in which a mature male (erastēs, the active lover) bonded with or mentored a teen-aged youth[13] (eromenos, the passive lover, or pais, "boy" understood as an endearment and not necessarily a category of age[14]). M.L. West views Greek pederasty as "a substitute for heterosexual love, free contacts between the sexes being restricted by society."[15]

This is not that subject.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that the response to the IP user overlooked something important. The IP user is claiming that the article introduces or reinforces western bias, and does not represent a worldview of the subject. Additionally, the IP user complains about the sources being behind paywalls. So my challenge to the IP user is to provide some reliable sources that show how the topic is treated elsewhere, by professionals who investigate it and try to understand what is happening. Politicians or religious leaders may simply outlaw or otherwise proscribe certain activities, but how do the educated scientists classify it? I think that you will find the "western" thought in this area is more prevalent than you first imagined. Second, if you are concerned about not being able to read the actual DSM-5, I would suggest that you Google it. The entire text is available online. I cannot speak for everyone else, but I believe that understanding the causes of certain behavior will better allow prevention of that behavior, before it occurs a first time. This applies equally to sex crimes, murder, drunken driving, and any number of other socially unacceptable behaviors. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  06:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

No. The response simply does not recognize the accuracy of the complaint. The IP is asking us to alter the current, sourced content, towards a historic view of the term in relation to the ancient sexual social norms of Greece and Rome or other areas were the term "Pedophilia" is not actually used. This is an old argument that is just resurfacing again. We have a solid consensus of editors that separate the subjects. I do not support any changes at this time. The IP has not convinced me to alter my opinion.--Mark Miller (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mark. I was trying to use the indentation to show I was responding to earlier comments by the IP user, and not the most recent reply (yours) which was in regard to a different part of the IP user's statement. (I guess that didn't work very well.) Anyway, I was specifically addressing the IP user's earlier comment of, This does not represent a worldwide view. The ages mentioned: 11, 13, 16 – they all cite the DSM as a source. Is this not an American bias? Given that pedophilia not only has social, but legal, repercussions, would it not be more encyclopedic to give a generalised statement as to what pedophilia entails in the lead and leave any specific references to ages in the article? I am sure the entire world does not conform to America's DSM or the UK's ICD. To this (and similar) comments, I say show us some RS with a non-western bias then. The IP user also states: I also said before, that several of the sources are hidden behind pay-walls or require subscription. A good way to maintain an article's biased state is to prevent peope from verifying the references. The most significant resource, the DSM-5, can be found by using a Google search. I was unable to determine if the material was properly licensed, so I will refrain from directly linking to a downloadable version, but it's out there. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  18:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows pay walled sources. There is nothing unusual about that. See WP:PAYWALL. The accusation of this being an issue on top of other unreasonable statements, claims and accusations of the IP lead me to believe they are misunderstanding the difference between two different subjects.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Correct, but if I can point a concerned reader (or others with similar concerns who have not voiced them) to the same information, in a free location, perhaps some good will come of it. Meanwhile, it will be a formidable task getting this IP user to take off the blinders and understand that there is a difference between pedophilia (the preference for pre-pubescent youth) and paiderasteia. The IP user also needs to understand that there is a difference between having such a preference, and acting on it: The person with the preference who never acts on it is not violating any laws (that I know of), but the adult who sexually touches a pre-pubescent youth, whether or not that is the adult's preference, is committing a crime in nearly every jurisdiction in the world. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  05:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Teenage paedophiles

Why a person must be at least 16 year old to be considerate a paedophile? A 13-15 year old boy who plays whith 5-8 year old girls, and enjoys it sexually is a paedophile too, why not? Just because he's minor? 93.172.31.208 (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Because that is what it says in the DSM-5, which is our reliable source. We're an encyclopedia; our job is to document concepts, not to redefine or rethink them. --Ashenai (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

As I've noted previously, there are other reliable sources than that one, and other uses of the term "pedophile", which this article is at fault for not describing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The World Health Organization (WHO) has also been cited as requiring "at least 16 years of age." Why age 16 for a diagnosis of pedophilia? 16-year-olds are usually post-pubescent or almost done with puberty; they have adult bodies and their sexual orientation is usually solid, even with sexual confusion/sexual identity issues. Thus, they are usually physically indistinguishable from 18-year-olds, and are also commonly mentally indistinguishable from them. They shouldn't be finding any prepubescent child sexually attractive. And keep in mind that pedophilia is believed by experts to usually form near or during puberty. A person is usually already a pedophile before they turn age 18. Flyer22 (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

And one more thing: Child sexual abuse is not the same thing as pedophilia; that goes for child-on-child sexual abuse as well. So while the media has labeled Jared Fogle a pedophile, just like it did with Mark Foley, it is unlikely that he is one, especially given his significant interest in underage teenagers. I would speculate further here about his sexual attraction, but there is WP:Not a forum and WP:BLP to keep in mind. Flyer22 (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

So you say it's ok when a 14 year old boy finds 7 year old (obviously prepubescent) girls more sexually attractive than 12+ year old girls? Is it 100% normal? Can he change his mind and stop liking little girls when he turns 16/18? Is there some researches about this issue? 93.172.31.208 (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I've unhatted this section, because it is clearly discussing the definition used in this article ("our reliable source"), and so does not fall foul of WP:NOTAFORUM. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Given that we cover the medical definitions and the popular use/inaccurate definitions, what definitions are you referring to? And this thread you unhatted clearly falls within WP:Not a forum. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Curable or incurable?

I hope I'm doing this right, I've never talked on Wikipedia.

I came across this study from 2008 while doing some googling:

It was written by William L Marshall, apparently a noted psychologist. Some of his other work is referenced in the article.

He says his treatment of both pedophilic and non-pedophilic sex offenders lowered their sexual response to children to below average male levels, consistently over a 2-year period of follow-up tests and also that none of them re-offended over a 30-year period.

The way the article is written it seems to suggest that pedophilic sexual preferences cannot be changed, that pedophilia "is no easier to alter than homo- or heterosexuality" (quote). Is that certain though? The study seems to suggest otherwise. I don't have any scientific expertise and I know little about the research on pedophilia. Can someone with the knowledge go through the study and see if it's legit? Does it change anything? Is it groundbreaking?

Donitee (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not groundbreaking. Our article mentions that some treatments can alter measurements of sexual arousal (e.g., "Behavioral treatments appear to have an effect on sexual arousal patterns during phallometric testing, but it is not known whether the effect represents changes in sexual interests or changes in the ability to control genital arousal during testing, nor whether the effect persists in the long term."). The general consensus is that these are probably not real changes in sexual preference, but some scientists, like Marshall, disagree. KateWishing (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for answering, KateWishing. I'm always suspicious of a new account showing up, especially at an article like this one, stating that they never talked on Wikipedia before...and yet manages to sign their initial post. This is because a person who has never talked on Wikipedia before almost always forgets to sign their first post. And we've had too many returning problematic editors at this talk page.

Anyway, KateWishing is correct. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I signed my post because it said that I should... I also had to google how to reply to a comment on Wikipedia because it didn't say. And I didn't come here to edit the article, I just wanted some clarification. I don't know why you would assume I have ill intentions. Thanks anyway...

Donitee (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I questioned your intentions (more so your newness), per what I stated above, and now again per you WP:Indenting. Yes, you could have simply copied us with regard to indenting, but indenting properly is also uncharacteristic of WP:Newbies (the very new ones anyway). If you are truly a WP:Newbie, then fine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

And if you truly don't understand my skepticism of new accounts that don't edit like newbies at this talk page, this link shows a recent example of what I mean. I have ample reason to be skeptical in these cases. But I apologize if my suspicion regarding you was misplaced. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

According to most of the literature on pedophilia there seems to be consciences growing that individuals are born pedophiles and it is not effected much if any by environment. Therefore most of the treatments are based on preventing violent sexual outbursts. From Havard university "Classified as a paraphilia, an abnormal sexual behavior, researchers have found no effective treatment. Like other sexual orientations, pedophilia is unlikely to change. The goal of treatment, therefore, is to prevent someone from acting on pedophile urges". It seems that pedophilia is very similar to homosexuality in this regard. Hope that helps. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Unless you have valid sources for the claim that most of the literature indicates that people are born pedophiles, it is best not to make such claims. I told you before, making the same arguments as the IP in Talk:Sexual orientation/Archive 4#Pedophilia does not help your case. You are going to have to do much better than simply citing that Harvard source for assertions that pedophilia can be validly defined as a sexual orientation. Also keep in mind that there is no scientific consensus on how sexual orientation is caused. The vast majority of scientists these days believe that sexual orientation is caused by a complex interplay of biology and environment (including womb environment and social environment); they do not believe that sexual orientation is a "one or the other" matter, but rather a complex interplay of things. Read up on the sexual orientation literature before you go around asserting that pedophilia is a sexual orientation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

One more thing: The "It seems that pedophilia is very similar to homosexuality in this regard." argument has been made time and time again at this talk page and related talk pages by pedophiles and child sexual abusers, a number of which were banned by WP:ArbCom. It is a common argument made by pedophiles. So you should not be surprised that editors continue to scrutinize your edits in these areas. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Free to edit for all... including those who oppose...  Retrorick wikipedia  talk  19:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

___

References

Disorder?

Pedophilia is a disorder... Why do so many people interchange "child molester", "pervert", and "child sexual abuse" with "pedophilia"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:8C00:EE:150D:6C96:F7D5:5D0D (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion about Pedophilia. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

While the other two are not necessarily interchangeable, "pervert" is. A pervert doesn't have to molest or sexually abuse to be a pervert. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The word pervert is the least interchangeable. The Pedophilia article addresses why people associate pedophilia with child sexual abuse; I also think it's obvious why they do. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

As is said in the article, not all pedophiles molest children and not all who do molest children are necessarily pedophiles. Pervert I think is more of a general term to describe people who lust over people of any age, not just kids. In the first place, the talk page is to discuss improvements to the article which I don't think this really is--Awesomewiki64 (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

A think there is value in defining pedophilia as a paraphillia first then as a disorder. Pedophilia will always be a paraphillia. It may not always be a disorder, especially with the current trends in DSM-6 compiling. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 06:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

We will continue to define pedophilia first and foremost as a disorder in this article. Speculation that it "may not always be a disorder" is not suited for this talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Excessive language

In the summary it states near the end "and not all pedophiles molest children.". I have reviewed the two of the three references and they do not contain information suggesting that most pedophiles are sexual abusers. Therefore the wording in this statement is inaccurately suggest that a majority of pedophiles molest children and is an example of weasel language subtly forming a bias with the goal of conflating pedophilia with child abuse. I will change this statement to a more neutral and balanced, "A pedophile does not necessarily molest children."Boilingorangejuice (talk) 03:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Note that I reverted Boilingorangejuice. As seen by Boilingorangejuice's contributions, he keeps seeing problems where they don't exist as far as pedophilia and child sexual abuse topics go. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you please present some sources that back up this position that virtually all pedophiles are sexual abusers? Because the three current references do not support that position therefore that last statement is a NPOV violation. Also I am a female so please do not refer to me as "he".Boilingorangejuice (talk) 06:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Nowhere does the lead state that virtually all pedophiles are sexual abusers; it goes out of its way to make it clear that a pedophile is not necessarily a child sexual abuser. As for you feeling that the sentence implies that pedophiles are likely to be child sexual abusers, the research indicates that they are likely to be child sexual abusers. Even members of Virtuous Pedophiles fight against their urges to sexually abuse a child. Pedophiles have stronger urges to sexually abuse children than non-pedophiles do; you know that. As for you being female, I will be completely honest and state that it is a claim I highly doubt, given your edit history when it comes to pedophilia and child sexual abuse topics. In all my years of being involved in pedophilia and child sexual abuse topics (on and off Wikipedia), never have I seen a woman argue matters in the ways you do, as seen at Talk:Relationship between child pornography and child sexual abuse and at Talk:Earl Bradley. In other words, never have I seen, or read a case of, a woman arguing child pornography and pedophilia matters the way you have. You can also doubt my sex/gender, for all I care, but my sex/gender is confirmed by different Wikipedians. So I'll refer to you as "Boilingorangejuice" instead of "he." You can consider that disrespectful or whatever, but Wikipedia has had many cases of men pretending to be women to reduce suspicion as to their motives when it comes to certain topics. I take watching this topic very seriously, as you well know. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

My concern is at the end of the third paragraph in the introduction. We have this line " and not all pedophiles molest children" which implies that all most all pedophiles are child abusers which is not backed up by any of our sources. I understand your view point flyer22 and agree with you that pedophiles are more likely to be child abusers than individuals from the general population but that is not what this sentence is saying. It is saying that almost all pedophiles are child abusers which is not supported by the literature. I suggest something more neutral such as "A pedophile does not necessarily molest children" that more accurately represents our sources position or perhaps removing that end of the sentence completely as it does not add educational value to the article. Does anyone else have an idea for how we can more neutrally represent this? I want to get more diverse input from other editors on this issue. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

We include the "a pedophile is not necessarily a child sexual abuser" aspect for the very fact that it does add educational value to the lead, which is meant to summarize the article. If we are going to note that some child sexual abusers may not be pedophiles, we should note that some pedophiles may not be child sexual abusers. I changed the wording to this, and then to this. I used that wording because we don't know if the pedophiles are telling the truth or not about whether they sexually abused a child. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

We should use the phrase "and most pedophiles do not molest children." instead of "and not all pedophiles molest children." Based off the fact that less than 30% of federal child porn charges are file against individuals involved in physical child abuse and the fact consumption of child pornography is a more reliable indicator of pedophilia than molesting a child. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

We should not use that wording, and we will not be using it; this is because we do not know, and there is no valid/WP:Reliable source making the claim that most pedophiles do not molest children. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

no green great dragons plz

An editor changed "...a primary or exclusive sexual attraction... to "...an exclusive or primary sexual attraction..." which really doesn't matter, except that the edit summary was "Again - made list alphabetical order, prevents bias", which is... pedantry, which, OK, there's nothing (necessarily) wrong with pedantry, but it's wrong pedantry. English writers do not follow alphabetical order when writing such clauses, but rather another order, the general order of adjectives.

Tolkien wrote about why we say "A great green dragon" but not "a green great dragon" (barring a theoretical instance where we have a number of great dragons and are differentiating just by color).

“ I first tried to write a story when I was about seven. It was about a dragon. I remember nothing about it except a philological fact. My mother said nothing about the dragon, but pointed out that one could not say 'a green great dragon', but had to say 'a great green dragon'. I wondered why, and still do. ” — J. R. R. Tolkien

Well Mr Tolkein, the reason can be sussed by a complicated analysis of how English speakers order adjectives (I don't remember the exact argument, but it comes down to "that how we roll, but it's not random, there are a number of rules we unconsciously follow." One of the rules is something along the lines of general-to-specific. It's why we say "a rare or unique" while "a unique or rare" grates a bit ("a rare or even possibly unique" is OK though).

By the same token "...a primary or exclusive..." is normal, while ""...an exclusive or primary..." is just slightly "off" and unidiomatic, which is why I reverted it. Herostratus (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: This matter was taken to the editor's talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

section 2.3 Child pornography needs more info,

There’s more than just the collection of pictures, it also includes mostly digital imaging (CGI Based) cartoon grooming complementary to the cartoons watched on televison by children. Somone needs to look into this, it helps to understand and prevent... Retrorick wikipedia (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

"digital imaging (CGI Based) cartoon grooming " Retrorick what are you referring to as a tool pedophiles use to normalize sexual abuse? erotic hentai Lolicon or CGI simulated child porn?Boilingorangejuice (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Both...  Retrorick wikipedia  talk  18:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pedophilia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usccb.org/comm/kit6.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.atsa.com/ppantiandro.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=10666088

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pedophilia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://a.pomf.se/hzsgkd.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Molesters is an inaccurate noun choice

This is a dated, slang and derogatory term. We should be using "child sex abuser" "child sex offender" instead of "molester". The term molester does not carry an accurate description of the child sex abuser we are looking to represent. The primary definition of Molest via the Merriam-Webster dictionary is to "annoy, disturb, or persecute especially with hostile intent or injurious effect". This is a poor noun to use in the context of pedophilies that sexually assault children. Instead of using the verb molest we should use sexually abuse or sexually assault. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not what this says: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/molest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4300:DB28:C9A5:11DD:5DC3:755 (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually it is what it says. Even with your link. Please view the "full definition" not the truncated "simple definition" that you are referencing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and uses full definitions not slang or partial simple definitions. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to be overly exercised that it's derogatory. The terms "murderer" and "nazi" and so on are also derogatory, but we still use them when accurate, and why not. If it's dated and/or slang that's a different matter, though. One thing that's not helpful is to look up just part of an idiom (and "child molester" is an idiom) and pick it apart, as you did with "molest". This is like saying "play means 'engage in activity for enjoyment and recreation rather than a serious or practical purpose'" so we should not use the term 'baseball player' since they are doing it as a job" and so on. You can do this with most any idiom and it's not usually helpful.

This doesn't mean that "child molester" isn't dated or slang or both. Certainly I can see benefits as wall as drawbacks to using the more formal "child sex abuser" or "child sex offender" instead. But we need data. And this Google Ngram indicates to me that "child molester" remains by far the most common term, although other data that contradicts that may exist. Herostratus (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Awesome graph! And yes i am referring the term "child molester" not "molester" to make it clear. In the graph you have posted it is clear that the term child molester, while currently the most absolutely used term, has fallen in popularity while the terms "child sex offender" and "child sexual abuser" have each grown over 400% in the last few years. To me, this indicates a trend that academia and to a smaller proportion, news media is phasing out the term child molester for more accurate and formal terms for this type of individual. A child molester sounds like someone that tickles or harasses a child not quite the term we are looking for in the context of child sex abuse.Boilingorangejuice (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Right, I get your point. And yes, Google Ngram is a great tool for getting data on questions like this -- spread the word! One problem is, I think that Google Ngrams would give equal weight to a serious academic or journalistic book and a throwaway scandal book or whatever. On the other hand, we don't give or want to give too much weight to "serious" sources over "popular" sources. If the ivory tower uses term X but the general public uses term Y, we should go with term Y -- we are a work for the general public. This is not an absolute. IMO some extra weight should be given to serious intellectual sources -- but only some. (We do want to avoid using fancy academic terms that the general public won't understand, but "child sex offender" and "child sexual abuser" are plain English.)

So anyway, yeah the graph might show a trend, but we don't want to get too far in front of trends. And the terms you favor are trending up, but from from a pretty low base (and if I smooth the graph enough -- here -- the slight downward dip for "child molester" disappears. OK that's probably cheating...). We are supposed to be followers, not setters, of current terminology. At the current rate, maybe in 20 or 30 years we can make this change. Herostratus (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Interesting perspective. I guess we shall wait and see! Boilingorangejuice (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Historical Interest

The documented discussions on the subject , ancient articles, scientific or press, have historical interest and could be cited . If deemed inappropriate by the fact that being a "medical article", this article may be subdivided to address the historical part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvorjik (talk • contribs)

See Talk:Pedophilia/FAQ. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pedophilia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/dutch_movement_frame.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Narrow definition

Why exactly is a high level of attraction to prepubescents necessary in order for it to be considered pedophilia, when very few adults are capable of ever experiencing any amount of such feelings at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuboll345 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Tuboll345 (talk · contribs), the fact that so many people who have sexually abused prepubescents are not actually pedophiles conflicts with your assertion that "very few adults are capable of ever experiencing any amount of such feelings at all." There are those who have a genuine sexual attraction to prepubescents, and then there are those who can get sexual pleasure from a prepubescent without actually having a genuine sexual attraction to them. For the lack of a better comparison, think of how a man might have sex with a woman he does not find sexually attractive...but is still able to get sexual pleasure from that encounter. For those who turn to little children for sex, it's often that the adult is using the child as a sexual substitute. Some have pretended that the child was an adult while engaging in sex with the child. And then there are the ones who, according to some researchers, have a genuine sexual attraction to prepubescents and adults. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

In regard to those who have a genuine attraction to both prepubescents and adults, I find it rather confusing that there are sources which indicate the existence of such people, but then go on to suggest that such people are not pedophiles if their attraction to prepubescents is weaker than their attraction to adults. Like the main article saying that child molesters who are attracted to both children and adults are only considered pedophiles in the same vein as those who only like adults if the attraction to prepubescents is stronger than the attraction to adults, and then Simple Wikipedia referring to pedophiles who only like adults as exclusive pedophiles and those with a secondary attraction to adults as non-exclusive pedophiles, but then not having a name for adults who prefer other adults but also have some attraction to prepubescent children. So if there are adults who genuinely are attracted to both prepubescents and adults, then why aren't the ones who prefer adults also considered pedophiles if they also happen to have some real attraction to prepubescents? As far as I'm concerned, such an attraction is still unusual enough that it would make sense for it to warrant such a label. Tuboll345 (talk) 02:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Tuboll345, to enough researchers, those who have a genuine sexual attraction to both prepubescents and adults are pedophiles. After all, the lead does state "primary or exclusive." This source that is noted at Talk:James Cantor, for example, states, "Although the majority of pedophiles are exclusively attracted to children, many are fortunate to have some attraction to men or women their own age. This is why many pedophiles are able to get married, have healthy sex lives, bear children, and even deny the reality of their attraction to children far into their adult lives."

Also at that talk page, you can see that I challenged part of that by stating, "I just looked at the second source (cbc.ca). A number of experts would debate [it ...] And by 'debate,' I mean that a number of experts on pedophilia usually don't think it's many that are 'fortunate to have some attraction to men or women their own age.' At least as far as genuine sexual attraction goes. We address the exclusive vs. non-exclusive aspect in the Pedophilia article (here and here), which also notes the definitional issue that comes along with it and the topic of child sexual abuse. I don't know of any reliable documentation of a true pedophile being able to have a satisfactory sex life with an adult; so I like that the article also relayed the following: 'Even when pedophiles do find adult partners to have a relationship with, they often are more strongly attracted to children than adults, and for obvious reasons.' So despite my concern about the source making it seem that pedophiles being sexually attracted to adults is common, the source does seem solid."

This is not like bisexuality, where being sexually attracted to both automatically gets someone titled "bisexual" (though, as noted in the Bisexuality article, what it means to be bisexual is also debated). The reason that it's common for experts to disregard those with a weak sexual attraction to prepubescent children as pedophiles is due to what I initially stated to you above. Simply put, either the experts don't believe that the sexual attraction is genuine or they don't believe that it's strong enough to warrant a diagnosis of pedophilia. When it comes to pedophilia, the sexual attraction is a big part of it. This is because pedophiles have a difficult time being sexually satisfied with an adult sexual partner and their sexual attraction to prepubescents is likely to lead to the sexual abuse of a child. Situational offenders and similar are also a worry, but it is usually easier to counsel such individuals, in the way of preventing harm to a child, because their primary sexual attraction is to adults and not to children. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Links to articles about puberty, adolescence, etc

I placed some links to the Wikipedia entries about adolescence, puberty, and others, which were removed (by Flyer22 Reborn). The reason offered for their removal is that "people usually know what prepubescent means." And that the link to it "leads to the preadolescence article, and prepubescent and preadolescence [sic] are not necessarily the same thing." However, I would think it'd be trivially necessary for an encyclopaedic article about paedophilia to contain such links, which here are of evident and paramount importance. We cannot assume adequate knowledge on these subjects by someone looking up pedophilia in Wikipedia.
Moreover, the Wikipedia entry for preadolescence is quite clear and quite informative in its definitions:
"Preadolescence, also known as pre-teen or tween, is a stage of human development following early childhood and preceding adolescence. It commonly ends with the beginning of puberty, but may also be defined as ending with the start of the teenage years. ... The point at which a child becomes an adolescent is defined by the onset of puberty or by the beginning of the teenage stage. Adolescence is also viewed as ending with the teenage stage. However, in some individuals (particularly females), puberty begins in the preadolescence years, and adolescence may extend a few years beyond the teenage years in others (typically males). Studies indicate that the onset of puberty has been one year earlier with each generation since the 1950s."
In so many words, prepubescence and preadolescence are presented under the same title in Wikipedia, with the nuances in meaning offered therein. We should treat the terms as Wikipedia treats them, and the links should all be re-instated. Any opinions, please? -The Gnome (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The prepubescent link has been discussed before at this talk page; the discussion or discussions are somewhere in the archives, and involved thoughts about linking the term prepubescent, and where is the best place to redirect the term, meaning to either the Puberty article or to the Preadolescence article. While it currently redirects to the Preadolescence article, it is not the ideal choice; it is simply the best choice we currently have since there is not much to state about being pre-pubertal. Just as puberty and adolescence are not the same thing, neither is prepubescent and preadolescence. We want people to understand pre-puberty and puberty well enough at this article, which ensures them understanding pedophilia a lot better than they currently do. As this article notes, pedophilia is commonly misunderstood, to the point where the average person will call adult sexual attraction to a 17-year-old "pedophilia," despite the fact that a 17-year-old and an 18-year-old adult are usually biologically and mentally on the same level. Preadolescence, which can include pubertal children, is not what we mean when we state, "Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children." I do not think that the link would help our readers; I think it would only add to the confusion, which is why I oppose re-adding it to this article. Like I stated, people usually know what prepubertal means. And we do link the Puberty article in the Pedophilia article. The only way I might (MIGHT) support linking prepubertal at this article is if the lead and lower part of the Preadolescence article addressed the distinction between being prepubertal and preadolescent a lot better than it currently does. A Prepubertal section at that article might be a good idea, and then the term prepubertal could specifically link there. But, again, there is not much to state about being pre-pubertal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

And the only reason the Preadolescence article even bothers to note that what it does regarding puberty and preadolescence is because of my edits to that article years ago. Looking at it, though, I need to change/update those sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Your response comes down to a personal opinion about what people do and don't know. On what basis do you assert that "people usually know" what all these terms that are relevant to pedophilia mean? You claim that what people "usually" know is not in the relevant Wikipedia articles! Would you care to reconsider this position? -The Gnome (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

If my argument is based on personal opinion, then so is yours. It is your personal opinion that linking the term prepubescent is beneficial to our readers. My argument is that it's not because the place that the term redirects to is not about prepubescence. In what way is your argument based on any of our rules? As for what supports my argument, my argument is based on facts and what is best for Wikipedia readers...in addition to my personal opinion. I've been editing this article since 2007 and have been through many pedophilia discussions on this talk page. I know what our readers and editors are confused about when it comes to this topic. On what basis do I assume that people usually know what prepubertal means? On the same basis that I assume people usually know what puberty means. Puberty is a common knowledge topic. Are you going to argue that people don't usually know that "pre-puberty" means "before puberty"? If so, on what basis does such a claim make sense? Per WP:Overlinking, linking everyday (meaning common knowledge) words is overlinking, except for articles where the term is especially relevant. "Prepubertal" is especially relevant in this case, but the Preadolescence article is not about prepubescence. So do I care to reconsider my position? No. If it comes down to it, I will (per my commentary above) resolve the issue with that redirect, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I've given a decent compromise suggestion above and am willing to support that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It is not my "personal opinion" that people come to Wikipedia looking for information. The subject we are dealing with is evidently serious. You are asserting that something related to this serious and sensitive subject is "common knowledge" in order to prohibit links to it, yet you fail to offer any substance to that assertion. (Your initial claim that the relevant articles in Wikipedia are inadequate is thankfully behind us.) And it seems that, despite the long experience you claim in editing, you misunderstand what the rule about overlinking is about. Let me help here by offering an actual quote from it: "Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are not usually linked: Everyday words ...; names of major geographic features, locations ...; common occupations; common units of measurement ...; dates..." (emphasis added) This not only indicates what should typically not be linked but also clearly points out what can or must be linked: Whatever is particulalry relevant to the article.

All the terms puberty, adolescence, and the related terms prepuberty, preadolescence are particularly relevant to the context of an article about paedophilia. Your invocation of the overlink rule is without basis. If you believe otherwise, then let's ask the opinions of other editors in a formal RfC. -The Gnome (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

People come to Wikipedia looking for correct information, just like they do regarding any other dictionary or encyclopedia outlet. In my view, what you are arguing for is to mislead readers, considering that you are arguing to link a term to point people to an article that is not about that term/concept. You stated that I am "asserting that something related to this serious and sensitive subject is 'common knowledge' in order to prohibit links to it, yet [I] fail to offer any substance to that assertion." Wrong. I offered plenty of substance to that assertion. You are simply intent on linking the term prepubescent for some odd reason, despite my valid arguments. You stated that my "initial claim that the relevant articles in Wikipedia are inadequate is thankfully behind us." What? No. I've consistently stated above that linking the term prepubescent is inadequate (well, actually, misleading), and I've thoroughly explained why. I did not argue against linking puberty or adolescence in this article. Puberty was linked in this article before you arrived at it. You are bent on linking a term that leads to an article that is not about that term and will confuse readers. I mentioned the WP:OVERLINK guideline because not only did you overlink the term prepubescent, I wanted to give an example of one of our rules advising against linking everyday (common knowledge) words. I acknowledged that the term prepubescent is especially relevant to this article; I also explained why linking it in this article is problematic. If we look at MOS:LINKSTYLE, it states, "Beware of linking to an article without first confirming that it is helpful in context; the fact that its title matches the concept you wish to link to, does not guarantee that it deals with the desired topic at all." This is similar to you linking prepubescent, which will take people to the Preadolescence article. If we look at WP:OVERLINK, it states, "The function of links is to clarify, not emphasize; do not create links in order to draw attention to certain words or ideas, or as a mark of respect." Does linking to the Preadolescence article really clarify what prepubescence is? Keep in mind that preadolescence is usually designated as ages 10 to 13, while prepubescence covers anyone who has not reached puberty; this obviously means babies, toddlers and those before the pre-teen stage are included. I do not see that you are thinking with the mindset of what is best for our readers. If you were, you would be trying to compromise. In addition to the compromise I mentioned above, there is also the option of using "who have not begun puberty" in place of "prepubescent," like Simple English Wikipedia does for its first sentence. Of course, prepubertal would still be used for quotes in the article, but, per MOS:QUOTE, links generally should not be within quotes anyway. You want an RfC? Okay. Started one below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The argument you are making (i.e. when people see the term "pre-something," they already know this is about "before something"!) is nonsensical. Onwards with the RfC to put this whole nonsense behind us asap. (Looking over your Talk Page and your being-blocked record, I realize, however belatedly, what I've got myself mixed in. Ah, well.) -The Gnome (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing nonsensical about any of the arguments I've made thus far, including the fact that people generally know that prepubescent means "before puberty." And, indeed, the meaning of "pre" is common knowledge/common sense. The fact that you clearly did not do your homework on my block log, or the fact that I work in controversial areas (which are naturally going to be rife with disputes), shows that you clearly don't do much homework on anything else. But given your sporadic edit history, which indicates a lack of Wikipedia editing experience, I shouldn't be surprised. Ah, well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

We are not obliged to do any kind of complete "homework" on your edit log; the fact that you've already been blocked twice speaks for itself and no excuse about the subjects you are dealing with being "controversial" will wash. The message on your Talk page where you essentially discourage other editors of opening any kind of dialogue with you is another indicator of your approach. In your own words:

Please do not post on my talk page unless necessary. I try to avoid Wikipedia as much as possible. I used to like this site ... but I now view much of it as corrupt. ... Editing here can ... be a huge time stink. Life is too precious to spend as much of my time here as I used to.

If contributing here is so painful, why do you even bother? As to my own Wikipedia history, you may find my edits "sporadic" :-) but I try to be cooperative and reasonable. You should, too. -The Gnome (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

We are indeed obliged to do complete homework on people's edit logs before speaking on matters we know nothing about. Editors are wrongly blocked all the time here at Wikipedia, including administrators. Look at administrator NeilN's block log. Those blocks were a mistake, and so were the blocks on my account, as noted by a number of administrators, including The ed17. Being wrongly blocked is an excuse for a stained block log. If you are going to comment on one's block log, you should actually know what you are talking about. It's editors like you who make our WP:RfA's a joke because you just see blocks without doing your homework on those blocks (or you know, simply reading what the edit summaries of the unblocks clearly state). I was not using the fact that I edit in controversial areas as an excuse for my block log. I noted that I edit in controversial areas as an explanation for my talk page often showcasing a lot of disputes. Anyone who has edited here as long as I have and in as many controversial areas as I have knows that the disputes are plentiful, no matter what compromises are made. Not that I need to explain myself to you, but I still edit here for reasons I previously made clear; I stated, "I believe that it's best that I help this site, seeing as many people come here for information (Wikipedia is almost always ranking highest in search engines, and that type of thing is always going to bring in a lot of readers) and a lot of those people trust what they read here. So it's my job to make sure that any topic I am heavily editing is as accurate as possible." Do I like editing here anymore? No. And I don't have to like it.

Cooperative and reasonable, you say? I have been cooperative and reasonable, which is why I have tried to compromise with you. I suggest that you stick to making appropriate talk page comments that pertain to this article, instead of using my block log to deflect and to cover your lack of any substantive argument. If you had any decency as an editor, or rather more editing experience, you would know that trying to use an editor's block log against them in the way that you have done on this talk page is WP:Harassment. If you continue to inappropriately comment on my block log, my reasons for still editing here, or similar, I will be seeing you at WP:ANI. Editors like you are one of the reasons I don't like editing here anymore. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I simply regret having got involved with you in this sorry mess of a dispute and nothing can prevent me or prohibits me from saying so. There is precisely zero interest on my part to contribute to this "conversation" any longer so you are free to have the last word, complain about being harassed (!) or do whatever else you choose to do from here on. Take care and good bye. -The Gnome (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC: How best to resolve the prepubescent link dispute?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

At the Pedophilia article, there is a dispute regarding linking the term prepubescent. One view is that linking the term helps readers understand what prepubescence is and/or the topic of pedophilia. This view asserts that "prepubescence and preadolescence are presented under the same title in Wikipedia, with the nuances in meaning offered therein. We should treat the terms as Wikipedia treats them." The other view is that the link is misleading and confusing since the term prepubescent currently redirects to the Preadolescence article, and prepubescence and preadolescence are not the same thing, which is why preadolescence is usually designated as ages 10 to 13 and can include pubescents, while prepubertal is broader in age range and is specifically about those who have not reached puberty. This view asserts that the sending readers to the Preadolescence article will hinder the understanding of pedophilia, which medically relies on the prepubescent aspect.

If you are seeing this from an RfC page or your talk page, the initial discussion on the matter can be seen at Talk:Pedophilia#Links to articles about puberty, adolescence, etc. Options for how to resolve the dispute are presented below.

Option 1: Simply link the term prepubescent.

Option 2: Link the term prepubescent, but add a Prepubescence section to the Preadolescence article and redirect the term prepubescent there. Creating a Prepubescence section at the Preadolescence article can obviously be an option regardless of what is decided here at the Pedophilia article, but it has been explicitly suggested as a compromise.

Option 3: Use "who have not begun puberty" in place of "prepubescent," like Simple English Wikipedia does for its first sentence.

Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support option 2 or 3, per my above commentary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• Option 3 Most clear, less fuss and it is unclear to me what kind of content would go into the section described in Option 2. Option 1 is unclear - do you mean WL to preadolescence? Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2 There is simply no excuse in withholding links to articles that amplify on and offer additional information on terms crucially important to "paedophilia." If this means more elaboration in an already existing article, then (sigh) so be it; interested editors should have a go at it. Let's go ahead and place links to "prepuberty" and "preadolescence" and be done with this. -The Gnome (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Option 3 Or even a modification/simplification, for example 'piped' link using 'pre-pubescence', linked to puberty, most readers would understand the use of 'pre-'. The point surely being made is that these children have not really even started the purely physical changes that lead to physical sexual maturity and the article linked to should cover those physical changes. Adolescence tends to be used to cover the intellectual, social and emotional changes that lead to early adulthood. Linking to pre-adolescence doesn't seem to cover the same point and even with a new section, might serve to confuse. Pincrete (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2 with the caveat that {{R to anchor}} can suffice if defining the term in a dedicated section would otherwise be disproportionate and undue. It seems to me, however, that a fourth option would serve this RFC even better; Option 4: change the target of Prepubescent from Preadolescence to Puberty#anchor and define the term in that article, (logically, it ought to be defined there anyway). Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2 JonRichfield (talk) 09:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1 This is in response by the RfC request. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 14:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Any of the three, though with a (very slight) preference for option 2. The important thing is to link to a place where the relevant term is defined; we should not leave such a term unlinked. "Pedophilia" is not a highly technical word, certainly less than "prepubescent", so we should not assume that readers who came here to learn about the former know about the latter. (@John Cline: I did not understand the difference between your proposed option 4 and option 2 - could you explain?) (Note: bot-summoned, and I stopped reading the discussion below about halfway.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Tigraan, I don't think that prepubescent is a more technical term than pedophilia. I'm sure that people generally know what prepubescent means, but people often misunderstand what pedophilia is in the clinical sense (and the article notes this). Like I've noted, there also is not much to state about being prepubescent. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Tigraan for asking this of me.

The RFC asks how to best resolve the prepubescent link dispute, describes the contested elements, and infers the answer exists in one of three options.

Although the dispute hinges on the [[prepubescent]] wiki-link taking readers to the preadolescence page and the wrongful impression the link gives; implying the conceptual sameness of preadolescence and prepubescence when no such similarity exists, all three options are inexplicably premised on the misnomer that [[prepubescent]] ought to continue being redirected to preadolescence. Clearly, redirecting [[prepubescent]] to puberty is a better option as prepubescent is an ancillary term that correlates well with puberty.

This is why I suggested option four: to re-target [[prepubescent]] from its current form, #REDIRECT [[Preadolescence]], to its better form, #REDIRECT [[Puberty]] also stating that an expanded description of prepubescence was logically better situated within the article on puberty than it ever would be on the preadolescence page.

I hope I answered your question satisfactorily. If I have not, please advise me as such so I can explain myself further. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

For whatever little this is worth, I happen to fully agree with the point presented by Tigraan, i.e. "The important thing is to link to a place where the relevant term is defined; we should not leave such a term unlinked". And John Cline offers an excellent IMVHO course. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 09:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Jytdog, when it comes to a Prepubescence section in the Preadolescence article, I mean a short section about how the body is before puberty. I'm trying to think of something to resolve the issue with the prepubescent redirect. And, yes, linking prepubescent means a wikilink to the Preadolescence article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

As the only place where content describing what a person is like before puberty, is in the puberty article, then that is the only viable link. Linking to Preadolescence, which takes great pains to define itself as not being about the period before puberty, makes no sense; it is nonsense. I don't agree with generating in content in Preadolescence about prepubescence as this is WP:OFFTOPIC there. The only sensible !vote above is option 3 Jytdog (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, like I noted above, deciding where the prepubescent link should redirect to has been discussed before, and points were made that having it redirect to the Puberty article is a poor choice since the Puberty article is about puberty. When one links prepubescent, they are expecting the link to explain something about prepubescence. The Preadolescence article was believed to be the best option for the link since preadolescence commonly ends with the beginning of puberty. The article actually does the address the psychological state of people right before puberty or adolescence. But this psychological state is usually designed at ages 10-13; sometimes age 14 is included. And those ages are both prepubertal and pubertal ages (though being prepubertal at age 13 or 14 is very uncommon these days, especially for girls). This means that, as the article notes, a preadolescent person can be pubertal. The prepubescent link has been an issue for years, and I'm not sure how to resolve that issue. There isn't much to state about being prepubescent. Creating a Prepubescence section in the Puberty article would seem unnecessary, and creating one in the Preadolescence article would seem to neglect the fact that preadolescence is specifically about a specific age range. But prepubescent already redirects there. Should I just go ahead and create a stub Preadolescence article, which is unlikely to be significantly expanded? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The article should contain a link to whatever article explains the concepts of adolescence, preadolecence, puberty, and prepuberty. The arguments that are offered by Flyer22 Reborn about these concepts being "common knowledge," supported by references to the English dictionary are frankly nonsensical. If the article that best informs the user about "prepuberty" is "puberty," by all means so be it. But it would be incorrect to simply state that prepuberty is, well, the period before puberty and be done with it. Not in the entry about "pedophilia." -The Gnome (talk)

• Pincrete, Ι agree, as it happens, with the thrust of your argument. Shouldn't we have therefore in the article explanations about the difference between "puberty" and "adolescence" through the appropriate links to Wikipedia articles? -The Gnome (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Only in so far as is necessary to clarify any specific point. When replying above, I hadn't looked much at the article, which takes a more literal, 'diagnostic' and precise definition than that often used in everyday speech (which often includes attraction to or acts with any under-age person by a legally adult person). In the context of the article, late adolescents, are being deemed to be effectively 'adults' for the purposes of 'diagnosis'. So I am reluctant to say if linking clarifies 'in the abstract'. Pincrete (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The Gnome, there is nothing "frankly nonsensical" about "adolescence, preadolecence, puberty, and prepuberty" being common knowledge, no matter how much you state that there is. And either way, I have not argued against linking adolescence or puberty; I have argued against linking prepubertal, for reasons I've already made abundantly clear. And, like Pincrete and I have stated, people usually do know that "pre" means "before." And there is no need to ping me to this talk page, even if you are trying to alert Pincrete of who I am. Pincrete and I are familiar with each other.

Pincrete, your arguments are pretty much what I have been stating. I like your suggestion to use a "pre-pubertal" link. Like I noted above to Jytdog, something needs to be done about the prepubertal link, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I was happy to offer an opinion in the context of this article, but am less certain beyond that. The topic being covered in this article is attraction to children who still lack any, or almost any of the secondary sexual characteristics that are ordinarily associated with sexual attraction. Puberty has a fairly precise meaning, even if it imprecise as to what point it starts or when it is finished, is a 3 or 4 year process and doesn't necessarily equate to an age. Maybe the redirext of pre-puberty to pre-adolescent is wrong since it tends to imply both that the two pre- terms are synonyms (which they aren't, quite), but also that adolescence and puberty are synonyms, which is even less certainly true. Pincrete (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record, I alerted Flyer22 Reborn when I started a conversation in this page about a revert Flyer22 Reborn did on my edit, as I usually do out of courtesy, and that was that - there has been no "ping" whatsoever since that one time from my part, not to Flyer22 Reborn nor to anyone else. I have made no attempt whatsoever to contact or "alert" Pincrete - or anyone else for that matter. I have no idea what Flyer22 Reborn is on, off or about. And I wish to see this very sorry mess end, a.s.a.p. -The Gnome (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Let go, and slowly back away from the horse. —Hexafluoride ^{Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk} 21:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, The Gnome: After I warned you about harassment above, and after you made it seem like you were done with this whole ordeal, you soon afterward decided to edit another article I significantly contribute to, making edits there which were also unhelpful, and then you decided to come back here days later to deny that you pinged me after your initial ping, and to insinuate that I'm on drugs...all while using passive-aggressive pings in that latest post as well? I see. I'll have a solid case on you should I decide to report you.

Here's a tip: If you want this "very sorry mess [to] end, a.s.a.p.", then stop coming to this very sorry mess to start more mess. I've dealt with your type time and time again. It is not unusual for it to continue with the editor visiting and editing another article I've significantly contributed to (as similarly stated on my user page under the "My WP:GAs and WP:FAs" listing), as if they are looking for more conflict with me. And I do not have the patience for it this time. Hexafluoride gave you some advice above. It would be wise of you to follow it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear. Once again, for the record:

About "pinging". I have not "pinged" nor "alerted" anyone. Unless you consider "pinging" the use of the full form of a User's style, which I try to always do, as a rule, simply so that anyone who reads about a User can go directly to the User's page. And that is all.

About Tribadism. Yes, I found the article when I was looking over your many and frankly quite valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Why was I looking them over? Because I was curious about the combination of an evidently knowledgeable and hard working contributor with the kind of over-the-top passion that carries into confrontation. Anyone reading the text above, would see how this quite simple matter has escalated and who's to blame. (I originally inserted a couple of links to extant Wiki articles, that was all - next thing I know, there's an avalanche of anger, accusations and threats!)

Editing Tribadism. I do not care at all whether you have contributed to the article "significantly" or not at all. No one owns an article! I simply stumbled upon a very small mistake in the Etymology section and corrected it. You have reverted it but I have no wish whatsoever to come back to that. The only thing I care to point out is this: I found a small mistake and corrected it. If I had found a dozen big mistakes, I'd have tried to correct them as well.

My single, simple edit in detail: The Greek noun tribas comes from the Greek verb τρίβειν (pronounced: trīvin). As it happens, I speak fluent Greek and can assure you that the correct pronunciation of the above verb in the first person (τρίβω) is trívο and not tribō as it currently and incorrectly stands after you reverted my edit. Ask any Greek person.

And, oh yes, I made a couple of changes also in the style of some non-English words, but it appears that this was an error according to Wiki style rules. No problem whatsoever. (And thanks for correcting them.)

As the man said, there is no "me and you" here. Have you perhaps considered that, on account of your many bad experiences (as you have stated) editing Wikipedia in the past, you are being a little paranoid? Or a tad belligerent? I have zero intention of "harassing" you, attacking you, or to do anything harmful at all. I'm here simply to contribute, even if I can only do so "sporadically" as you put it. You may report me anywhere you want. I truly do not care: I only regret this whole very sorry mess.

Finally, if the comment by Hexafluoride was indeed addressed to me, I thank him/her and state that I'm truly trying to step out of this as much as I can. But I cannot allow, not as long as I'm an active editor, false or incorrect accusations against me unchallenged. But, again, thanks anyway. I suggest to Flyer22 Reborn (again, whose record of contributions is really impressive) with respect and without malice, that we all allow this RfC to take its course and leave it at that. -The Gnome (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Pinging me means linking my username in a post with a new signature. So you indeed pinged me after your initial post. I noted that there was no need to ping me. You then decided to ping me in your "11:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)" post with multiple passive-aggressive, pseudo pings, all while denying that you had pinged me. That post was also intended to insult me, with your "Flyer is on drugs" nonsense. And after all of that, you have pinged me yet again with your "23:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)" post. You are clearly engaging in WP:Baiting behavior.

As for "over-the-top passion", I am not interested in your analysis. But as for who is to blame for this mess of a discussion, you are. You insisted on using an unnecessary and misleading wikilink. I calmly explained what my issues were with doing that. I tried to compromise. You then insisted on an RfC, threw a hissy fit and decided to insult/belittle me by focusing on my block log. You did not keep the discussion professional. You are to blame.

As for "tribas," I follow what reliable sources state (see another search link here), not Wikipedia editors' claims. I see nothing in the sources about trívο.

As for "little paranoid? Or a tad belligerent", that is what stalkers and other disgruntled editors who have been blocked or otherwise sanctioned for harassing me have stated. Considering they were blocked or otherwise sanctioned and used tricks similarly to yours, such statements are clearly asinine. Unless I am focusing on a sock, never is it the case that I follow these editors to an article they significantly edit after I've gotten out of a heated debate with them; this is because more conflict with those editors is the last thing that I want. But with them and their thoughts on me, more conflict is exactly what they are looking for; usually.

As for significantly contributing to an article, it matters in this case since it was a clear indicator to me that you did not simply happen upon that article. If it had been an article I edited a few times, that is less of a concern. When it is an article an editor significantly contributes to, it is a concern for WP:Hounding reasons.

Insulting me and complimenting me in the same post will not be winning you any favors. I do not wish to talk or otherwise interact with you. And if I report you, you will know. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

You are still engaging in outright falsehoods.

I never pinged nor alerted anyone. The entry for "pinging" mentions that "Plain links to user pages will also work to notify the mentioned user." I explained from the start of this silliness that simple links to user pages is a standard practice of mine - and not just by me but by many other editors, too. The intent is to facilitate the reader into further inquiry of the respective editor's profile; not necessarily to "alert". (I fail to see that would be wrong with "pinging" itself but never mind!)I have had a significant number of my edits amended for WP:OVERLINKING, as one can see. But what you identify as "passive-aggressive" behavior, with "pinging" etc, is all in your mind.

Allow the Modern Greek pronunciations of the root terms ("τριβάς", "τρίβω") to remain as they are in the Tribadism entry. I no longer care. Perhaps someone else would care enough to undertake the necessary clarifications and distinctions in the Etymology section. (For anyone so inclined, one could start here or here.)

There were no false compliments on my part. In fact, there were no compliments at all - simply the facts as I see them. Yes, you are a genuinely significant contributor to the encyclopaedia. And also, yes, you are engaging in extremely belligerent behavior. Perhaps this is how you normally conduct business. I don't know. Revisit the reason for this circus and see for yourself: It is about a couple of darn links to other Wikipedia articles! Talk about raising storms in a teacup.

And, sorry, an RfC may have been mentioned by me in the discussion, which I thought proper to begin here, formally, but you suddenly initiated the RfC before the discussion had progressed much! So, who "started this", then? And who went on to threaten the other party with "reports" about "harassment" and such nonsense? Really, no one, or at least I am not, is harassing you, stalking you, hunting you or attacking you. Take this for what it is, i.e. a true statement, or keep thinking about "passive-aggressiveness" and other such fantasies. -The Gnome (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Please ask at WP:HELPDESK if unsure what "ping" means at Wikipedia. I say that because your 28 January 2017 comment above includes a user link what would ping Flyer, and that is in the same post where you say you have not pinged or alerted anyone. It would be better if future comments focus on the content of this article without your thoughts on other editors. Johnuniq (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Johnuniq, for the suggestion, which I followed. As to your advice about the focus of our comments here, perhaps it would be even better if your advice were addressed to the editor who initiated this teacup storm; or, at least, to both parties. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

As noted by Johnuniq, you did ping me. I even linked to WP:Ping while explaining what it is so that you would understand. As for the rest, I've already stated what I need to state; I'm not going to repeat myself. The only editor here "engaging in extremely belligerent behavior" is you. And you somehow think that I started this "teacup storm" when it is you who took the revert matter to this talk page, got upset by my logical explanations, suggested a RfC (yes, it's clear that if I hadn't started the RfC, you would have), then started insulting/belittling me. Do move on. No one here wants to read any of this nonsense, as made clear above and below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I wish to betsy that people would take their personal posturings and vituperations offline. Preferably right offline, not even to their talk pages, even when the issues do affect the articles.
I am not much fussed about the whole RFC thing in this case. I reckon that the article is in any case rather precious in its fine discriminations on matters that in real life are not finely discriminated. This is one of the factors that muddy the waters for practically any topic that rouses socially conflicting emotions, and for us to count the angels dancing on split hairs amounts to feeding the trolls. If either of the other options gets chosen (I sided with 2), the worst that can happen is that a few readers will go away with their delusions of precision re-affirmed, and none of the options is proof against that. Come to that, neither is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), published by the American Psychiatric Association. JonRichfield (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Crafted the section

Per the close by DarjeelingTea above, I went ahead and crafted the section and reinstated the prepubescent link, as seen here (followup edit here) and here. And I re-targeted the term prepubescent there. I didn't specifically request a non-admin closure, but it didn't matter whether an admin closed the matter or not, as long the matter got closed/settled.

Now one may be thinking that I did not add much about being prepubescent. Well, that's because, as I've stated before above, there's not much to add about being prepubescent. I saw a few sources talking about the health of prepubescents and the state of prepubescents' genitalia before reaching puberty, but the genitalia stuff is best left to the Tanner scale article. Looking over the book sources that mention prepubescence, it is common for them to tie it to preadolescence in some way; so I do still think that this material is best served in the Preadolescence article rather than in the Puberty article. (Granted, these same sources also obviously mention puberty.) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Self-help groups section

I have reverted TealHill on the Self-help groups section for reasons explained in the edit summary. TealHill added this section as a subsection of the Treatment section, and the material was unsourced. This article is about pedophilia; it is not about child sexual abuse (although child sexual abuse is mentioned because pedophiles are likely to commit it). It is not about sexual addiction. What WP:Reliable sources, specifically WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, state that pedophilia is a sexual addiction? What WP:Reliable sources state that self-help groups are a treatment for it? The Pedophilia article makes it very clear that pedophilia is unlikely to be cured. It is not something you simply treat by going to a self-help group. It is not like an alcoholic going to Alcoholics Anonymous at all.

TealHill also created unnecessary subheadings; by that, I mean subheadings for a little bit of material. MOS:Paragraphs states that such subheadings generally are not needed. And they were not needed in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I've taken this matter to WP:Med since TealHill's edits are broader than this article. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Template:Paraphilia-related support groups. A permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

TealHill, regarding this, I did not only previously revert you because of the template you added. Above, I also noted subheadings. "General" subheadings are helpful because if that initial content does not have a subheading (while the other content in the section does have subheadings), readers commonly think that the first subheading contains the first paragraph when looking from the table of contents. This means that they often overlook the material that is above the first subheading. For what I mean, see this, this and this discussion from the Changeling (film) talk page. When a "General" subheading or similar is there, then readers will not overlook that initial content.

As for your WP:UPFRONT claim, the "effectiveness" material is not too technical or more technical than the material that comes after it in the Treatment section; so I see no need for it to be moved to last in the Treatment section. Furthermore, I think it makes more sense to address the effectiveness issue in the General section before getting into the more detailed treatment aspects. For medical articles, it's also not always the case that the more technical material is placed last. If it were, then the "Society and culture" listing at WP:MEDMOS#Sections would be placed high instead of low.

As for you hoping to source the support groups material in the future, I hope that you will propose the addition on the talk page first, given what I stated above and at WP:Med.

One more thing: I do not see how empty sections are helpful, which is why I reverted you on this at the Child sexual abuse article. Some might think that they compel editors to add material to the section, but I've seen these sections left blank for months or longer. And given how important the topic of child sexual abuse is, such a section should be handled with care, not left consisting of what is essentially an "Expand me, please." sign. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

One more thing: TealHill, regarding your suggestion with this edit at the Child sexual abuse article, that is not ideal either. Paraphilias are more about what goes on in the mind than they are about the act; they are recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors. A person who has engaged in a paraphilic act does not necessarily have a paraphilia. A person who has sexually abused a child does not necessarily have a strong and recurrent sexual interest in children; the Pedophilia article addresses this. People often think of child sexual abusers as rare, mentally ill people who are strangers to the child. The truth is that many people who have sexually abused a child are found to be mentally competent and are familiar with the child; they are usually family members or friends or acquaintances of the family, and it's often that they don't even have a sexual preference for children. Because their sexual interest in children is so minor, they are far easier to help psychologically than those who are diagnosed with the paraphilia/mental disorder pedophilia. Some of them, however, are repeat offenders and may need a lot of psychological help. Separating the repeat offenders from pedophiles can also be challenging. There is some content in the Treatment section of the Pedophilia article that can be used for a Treatment section in the Child sexual abuse article. And I would suggest that this Treatment section be placed last in the Offenders section of that article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Eyes at new I, Pedophile page?

Hi, folks. A documentary film about non-offending pedophiles came out recently, titled I, Pedophile. I have created a page for the film, and (because my work and I are in it) I have included the "connected contributor" template. For anyone interested: Do please review the page, and make whatever appropriate changes. I have also uploaded an image, which could be added to the main page. My vanity aside, I wasn't sure that I should post it to the main page myself, so I put the link on the talk page, so that others could (if desired). Thanks! — James Cantor (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I haven't seen the film, but am putting the article into my watchlist.Legitimus (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Remission

Does anyone have any information on why pedophilic disorder is the only paraphilic disorder that doesn't have a remission specification in the DSM-5? Was that just a drafting error? It seems forensically significant.

• https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/witness/201305/forensic-implications-the-dsm-5-part-ii-ii
• http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/special-reports/pedophilia-interventions-work
• http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-014-0323-1

Dave Carder (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe it has to do with involuntary commitment legislation whose aim is to keep certain prisoners indefinitely. If a paedophile 'patient' was found to be in remission then he could make a valid case for his release and society doesn't want that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.71.164.78 (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pedophilia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160724010712/https://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Paraphilic%20Disorders%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf to http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Paraphilic%20Disorders%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/dutch_movement_frame.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bostonmagazine.com/ArticleDisplay.php?id=27

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Latin American Farc, School of the Americas, Military Intelligence Community (OEA).

There is no mention here about the forms and manners that pedofilic forms and manners are forcefully created by the Military Intelligence Associations of the America's to satisfy a somewhat 'Arabic' context of theology (Roman/), where pedofilia is not considered a disorder.

There are documents that directly link the school of the America's (these days Southcom), with Latin American Intelligencia (Spanish/colombian/catholic-arabic), that had as underlying the creation of pedofelic, homosexual and other quote 'sexual' orientation in order to discredit an individual or group to arouse 'the economy' to take reprisals. (United States Methods in War fare propaganda that include both methodist and baptist propaganda specialists, including training sessions in the United States and abroad).

The neglect in that mention is what exactly? Omission, or oversight to not have to do anything against these 'intelligence operators'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.37.159.51 (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia content is based on what we call reliable sources". What are the reliable sources on which we could base content about this? Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Dolls

Not a treatment so does not belong in that section. I guess the question is does this belong anywhere?

"Shin Takagi, founder of the company Trottla, manufactures life-like child sex dolls in the belief that doing so provides a safe and legal outlet for men expressing pedophilic desires."

References

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The text was added on 28 May 2017. It should be removed unless a secondary source which also satisfies WP:MEDRS asserts that the dolls have some effect of encyclopedic interest. If notability were satisfied, an article could be created on the inventor or the company or the dolls. However other articles are not available for by-the-way mentions. Johnuniq (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

When it comes to the bit added by the PvOberstein account, I will note that one reason I object to the content is because certain editors (Tisane included) want it added. But I also object because it simply is not a treatment. It's a speculative treatment by the creator of the dolls, who also has...an issue. And as for including it elsewhere in the article, it could go in the "General" subsection of the "Society and culture" section, but it is still a speculative treatment by the creator of the dolls. It's similar to the argument by some researchers that child pornography (whether real-life or simulated) has possibly helped pedophiles and child sexual abusers not commit child sexual abuse; there are counterarguments to that, however, and we have not yet included that child pornography aspect in this article. I wouldn't want us to include the child sex doll sentence that PvOberstein added without adding a counterargument to it. And it certainly does not need its own section; see MOS:Paragraphs. Furthermore, child sex doll material is currently included in the Sex doll article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: Per what I stated above, the PvOberstein account added the sentence to the Sex doll article...but with a counterargument. I haven't yet read the sources, but the "reinforcement" aspect is exactly what I was thinking of when thinking about this topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Infantophilia: get your story straight

Wikipedia has varying and inconsistent definitions of Nepiophilia, also called Infantophilia. In the article List_of_paraphilias, Nepiophilia/Infantophilia is rather clearly defined as an orientation toward people ″five years old or younger″. However, in the article Chronophilia, it is defined as attraction to people ″ages 0–3″. This article, Pedophilia, defines the perimeters as including ″ages 0–3 or those under age 5″, in other words, those four years old or younger. In an attempt to bring consistency to Wikipedia, I did try and edit the page. I chose to edit it so that it would say ″five years old and under″. This edit was reverted, with the citation that ″Wikipedia is not a reliable source″. Since my edit was reverted, we have three different Wikipedia articles (not including any others that reference Nepiophilia or Infantophilia) which delineate Infantophilia three different ways. In the list of sexual fetishes, it's described as attraction to those five years old or younger, in the Chronophilia page, it's described as attraction to those three years old or younger, in the Pedophilia page, it's described as those four years old or younger. I would be thankful if someone would bring all three Wikipedia articles into agreement. I would do it myself, but my edits will just get reverted. DarkApollo (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)DarkApollo

You are a Wikipedia editor, like everyone else here. It is "our" story. The only thing that matters are what reliable sources say. What sources say what? Jytdog (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Mind the accusatory tone, DarkApollo. I doubt anyone did that on purpose, considering different editors work on different articles and the term is not widely accepted. It's also an appalling subject that not a lot of people probably want to look into .

So I did a little digging to figure out why the definition is inconsistent. In this article (pedophilia) there are two sources for the definition, Laws et al (a book) and Hall & Hall (Mayo Clinic). "Laws et al" defines the term as "sexual preference for infants" but does not provide a numerical age. Hall defines it as younger than 5 years, but I noted Hall is itself quoting an earlier paper by Greenberg from 1995 titled "Infantophilia - a new subcategory of pedophilia? a preliminary study." The List_of_paraphilias article quotes this same paper (Greenburg) as it's source. The Chronophilia article uses Laws et al as it's source.

It is interesting to note that both Hall and Laws list Greenburg as a reference, an do not actually study the concept, but merely make brief mention of it. I also noted that only Laws et al uses the term "Nepiophilia," and it's not clear where they got that term. No source I can find uses the 0-3 age range. I did however find a rather interesting book source titled "Understanding and Addressing Adult Sexual Attraction to Children" by Dr. Sarah D. Goode (a sociologist) that had this to say:

Nepiophilia (with or without the connotation of diapers) does seems to be used with in the paedophile community. However, these terms do not appear to be listed in the DSM or ICD, and most online references to the terms are circular, bringing the reader back to a disputed Wikipedia article on ' lnfantophilia' (Wikipedia 2008). This article was flagged , as from January 2008, as needing to be expanded, linked and verified by the use of citations; in other words, as being insufficiently scientific to comply with Wikipedia's standards as an online encyclopedia. Thus it is possible, interestingly, that these terms have been adopted, not from the medical establishment (other than possibly the work of John Money), but primarily from the paedophile community itself, where they are sometimes taken as a self-definition.

Based on this, I think it's reasonable to remove the 0-3 parts from articles. I am not certain about what to do with the Nepiophilia term. On the one hand, it's quote in two reliable books, but on the other, it appears it may have never been recognized scientifically.Legitimus (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Legitimus. I am really impressed with your findings and in such a short time. It's fascinating that ″nepiophilia″ doesn't even originate from the medical or psychiatric establishments. I think Dr. Goode is correct in her observation, as such I don't think the term ″nepiophilia″ should be used. I will use ″infantophilia″ henceforth. If you and other editors agree with me, we should consider jettisoning the word ″nepiophilia″ from this article and the other two. It's something to consider. Because attraction the those under age 18 (going by legal standards, or under 14, going by the DSM-V standards) is such a sensitive (and life ending/ruining) subject matter, I think it's incumbent on us to rely on medical and psychiatric sources. And ″nepiophilia″ seems to be invented kink terminology without a source. Again, thank you for your impressive ability and contribution to return to and use original sources. DarkApollo (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)DarkApollo

I argue to retain mention of infantophilia/nepiophilia, precisely because of what Legitimus has stated. By this, I mean that two reliable sources noted by Legitimus comment on this, and what the quoted text states is perhaps something we should note in the Definitions section. Either way, I don't think it can be validly argued that pedophilia does not include sexual attraction to babies and toddlers. Babies and toddlers are prepubescent children and some pedophiles have an age range preference. Some prefer those around age 5; others prefer those around age 8 or older. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I did find one early reference to the term "nepiophilia" in a scholarly source. It us used by Dr. John Money in his entry in the 1990 book Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions, where it states:

The chronophilias are named according to the developmental age of the eligible partner, which approximates the sexuoerotic age of the chronologically adult chronophile. If the eligible partner is an infant, "infantophilia"* is the diagnostic term. If it is essential that the infant be wearing diapers, however, the Greek-derived term for the diapered infant, "nepiophilia"*,applies. (Look twice at those who come to a masquerade party in diapers!)

It's not clear where Money came up with the term or it's peculiar (and uncorroborated) definition, and the text shows clear signs this was the early days of paraphilia research. Greenburg (which solely uses "infantophilia") on the other hand is a strong source as they studied actual pedophiles, trying to learn what made these sub-types different.

I don't think either of these terms should be removed, as they have been covered in scholarly sources, even if one might have had dubious origins, it's a term people might come across or come searching for.Legitimus (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog, I agree with what you wrote. ″The only thing that matters are what reliable sources say. What sources say what?″ This is what I also wanted to know. @Legitimus has provided the answer to that, I think. I started this talk because I want the highest quality standards for Wikipedia, that means (to me) being as factual and using the most reliable and respectable sources. Having three Wikipedia articles that vary, with the example I provided, is not good and can and should be remedied. That was partly my point here.

@Flyer22 Reborn, I didn't say that ″pedophilia does not include sexual attraction to babies and toddlers″ or argue that infants and toddlers are not prepubescent children. Nor did I intend to argue that ″some pedophiles″ are not attracted to this age range. Rather, I wanted to clear up the defining age range characteristic and, according to what @Legitimus, nepiophilia seems to be used without qualification. I see the warning label at the top of the Talk page, ″This is not a forum for general discussion about Pedophilia.″ I don't think I've violated that by seeking clarification on what is infantophilia and nepiophilia, and what do they include?

@Legitimus wrote, ″I don't think either of these terms should be removed″. I was only going to argue for the removal of nepiophilia, on the grounds that it has no basis of use, outside of perhaps kink or niche communities. But if you don't think ″nepiophilia″ should be expunged, than I guess that's it. Although, it may be helpful to point out, in the body of the articles, that infantophilia is the term used by professionals and specialists. Likewise, I thought infantophilia would include age 5. It's not a purely arbitrary numeric delineation. Despite the name infant-philia, it seems to center on toddlers, persons aged 12 to 36 months. Age 5 is usually included as ″Play age″ or early childhood. Take a look at the Human_development_(biology) article. You'll see that, developmentally, infants are newborns (0 days old) to 1 years of age, toddlers are 1-3 years of age, play age or early childhood is 3-5 years in age, prepubescence (schoolboys/schoolgirls and ″tweens″) are 6-11 in age, and adolescence are 12-19 in age.

In any case, thanks to all three of you for participating in this discussion.DarkApollo (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't state that you stated such. I was simply noting my thoughts on the matter after you stated "Because attraction the those under age 18 (going by legal standards, or under 14, going by the DSM-V standards) is such a sensitive (and life ending/ruining) subject matter, I think it's incumbent on us to rely on medical and psychiatric sources." In the article, we rely on medical/psychiatric sources for the aspects that we should rely on them. Some other things, such as legal matters, are supported by other types of academic sources. A Definitions section, much like a Society and culture section, commonly gets more leeway in our medical articles; see WP:MEDDATE and WP:MEDMOS#Sections for some leeway we allow in medical articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Image reverted

I reverted the Setabepiw3547747 account on the pederasty image since this medical article does not need an image to illustrate what pedophilia is, and since pedophilia cannot be illustrated, and since pederasty is not pedophilia. Setabepiw3547747 should perhaps read Talk:Pedophilia/FAQ. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

More specifically, the "Why doesn't this article talk about pedophilia during historical periods of time (e.g. Ancient Greece or Rome, Muhammad)?" portion of Talk:Pedophilia/FAQ. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Similar reverted

Garfield7380 account, the above applies to you as well. Do not make problematic edits like this again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Moving "mental disorder" out of the lead sentence, etc.

I reverted these recent changes by Rebroad. The main reason that I reverted is because Rebroad removed "a psychiatric disorder" out of the lead sentence and replaced it with the vague "is the condition" wording. He then moved the disorder aspect to the second paragraph with the qualifier "is considered to be." These edits violate WP:Due weight and WP:Weasel wording. There is a WP:Due weight violation because the literature on pedophilia/pedophilia disorder overwhelmingly classifies it as a disorder. There is no middle ground; by this, I mean that there are not many psychologists and psychiatrists stating that it's normal or a simply variation of sexuality. If experts are not calling it a mental disorder, they are calling it a disorder of sexual preference. Although it has been compared to sexual orientation, it is not considered a sexual orientation in the traditional sense or by any authoritative medical source. It has only been compared to sexual orientation in terms of development and how stable it is. It is usually pedophiles, child molesters and sympathizers who call pedophilia a sexual orientation. And, in the past at this article, it has been pedophiles, child molesters and sympathizers who have consistently tried to remove "is a mental disorder" and/or "is psychiatric disorder" from the lead sentence or from the lead altogether. Using the "is considered to be" wording is WP:Weasel wording because it begs the "By whom?" question and can lead to a Template:By whom tag. Whom in this case is the medical literature, and that is what we should be following...without any qualifier.

Rebroad also changed "and the literature indicates the existence of pedophiles who do not molest children" to "and people with the disorder sometimes exhibit child sexual abuse." This aspect of the lead was also extensively discussed before. As has been noted before, we do not know how many pedophiles do not molest children. So stating "sometimes" gives the implication that only some or few pedophiles molest children. For all we know, it could be the case that most pedophiles molest children or even that all of them have at one point or another. All we know is that, per the claims of some pedophiles, it may be that some pedophiles do not molest children. So acknowledging that the literature indicates the existence of pedophiles who do not molest children is more accurate than stating that people who have pedophilia "sometimes exhibit child sexual abuse." Furthermore, "sometimes exhibit child sexual abuse" can be taken to mean that a pedophile sometimes commits child sexual abuse, but not other times. I could support adding "and the literature indicates that some pedophiles do not molest children." And even though I question "some," I could also support adding "and some pedophiles do not molest children." This is only because we do state lower in the article that some pedophiles do not molest children (even though it could be argued that it is more accurate to relay that some pedophiles state they have not molested children).

Thoughts? I'll alert WP:Med to this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

agree w/ Flyer22 reverts[1]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, before I add "some," I'd like to see which of the sources actually use the word some in this regard. I assume that the Michael Seto "Pedophilia and Sexual Offending Against Children" source that KateWishing used to improve parts of this article uses the word. I know that sources use the wording "not all pedophiles are child molesters," which is very similar to the wording I used for the lead until I changed it (followup edit here) to what it currently states because of a complaint from a now indefinitely blocked (sock) account. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Just because a body (in this example psychiatrists) deem something to be a "disorder", does not make it so. It needs to be NPOV and therefore it needs to be made clear who is saying this. As far as I know, Wikipedia isn't by definition, what is said according to psychiatrists. Only under these circumstances are the reverts appropriate, IMHO. Disorder by definition is based upon systemic bias, and Wikipedia has a policy on avoiding systemic bias. --Rebroad (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, for the purpose of Wikipedia it does, and we have to consider it. It might not "make it so" according to you, but we can't consider that. Systemic bias has nothing to do with how much weight we assign to each opinion, but about the fact that some sources aren't used because they are about topics that people aren't interested in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Rebroad, do read the WP:Due weight policy, which is an aspect of the WP:Neutral policy. You should know by now that neutrality on Wikipedia is not the same thing as neutrality in common discourse. Pedophilia is deemed a disorder by the medical community, plain and simple. If you want to challenge that, then perhaps you should consider becoming a prominent psychiatrist and challenging the majority. But your opinion would be WP:Fringe. And not only does WP:Systemic bias have nothing to do with this matter, WP:Systemic bias is a WP:Essay. It is not a policy or guideline. We are not going to give WP:False balance on this issue just because some pedophiles, child molesters and sympathizers disagree with pedophilia being called a mental/psychiatric disorder.

I have reverted you again because not only is your "sometimes exhibit" wording unsourced, it is problematic. I noted above my issues with the wording, including that "sometimes exhibit child sexual abuse" can be taken to mean that a pedophile sometimes commits child sexual abuse, but not other times, which is not what the sources are stating. You have not validated "sometimes exhibit" at all. You have offered no sources that use "sometimes" or "some." And if you do offer sources, they should be WP:MEDRS-compliant. Meanwhile, I have pointed to sources that use "not all pedophiles are child molesters." I will not tolerate problematic editing at this article whatsoever. And that includes your WP:Edit warring. So if you continue to edit problematically (including edit warring) at this article, inserting your POV, I will take the matter straight to WP:ANI. This is one topic where I am not at all willing to consistently debate an editor's beliefs about the topic; I've been through that enough over the years. Also do see the FAQ at the top of the talk page for why we characterize pedophilia as a mental/psychiatric disorder. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

For now, I've gone with "and some pedophiles do not molest children." Followup edit here. I'm going to make a point of reading this source and seeing what wording it uses. Same goes for similar sources. So far, regarding solid sources, I've come across "not all" rather than "some." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Changed other "sometimes exhibit" wording as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer that the lead should state pedophilia is a disorder, because most reliable sources say so. As she explained, the proposed "sometimes exhibit" wording is misleading. I like the current "some pedophiles do not molest children". I don't have the Seto book at hand right now to check, but this 2016 review concludes "A non-trivial number of non-offending pedophiles exist, and recent research is providing some initial understanding of them." KateWishing (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Kate. I see that you replaced the source as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

"Treatment" and "Development and sexual orientation" sections

As seen here, here and here, there is a recent dispute over wording used in these two sections. So far, the dispute involves Rupert loup, KateWishing and myself. Considering how much I hate it when people compare pedophilia to homosexuality, and especially when pedophiles and child molesters compare them, I understand why Rupert loup removed the following: "Fred Berlin, founder of the Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic, believes that pedophilia may be no easier to alter than homosexuality or heterosexuality."

As seen times before on this talk page, including in the section immediately above this one, I also hate when pedophiles and child molesters call pedophilia a sexual orientation. But since some researchers have compared it to a sexual orientation to highlight how strong the attraction is and that it might be innate or at least a complex combination of biology and environment that emerges before or during puberty, and considering that the section notes that pedophilic acts cause harm and that the American Psychiatric Association is clear that it is not a sexual orientation, I feel that the following should stay: "For these reasons, pedophilia has been described as a disorder of sexual preference, phenomenologically similar to a heterosexual or homosexual sexual orientation. These observations, however, do not exclude pedophilia from the group of mental disorders because pedophilic acts cause harm, and mental health professionals can sometimes help pedophiles to refrain from harming children."

That's two different pieces of text. Since the one I support retaining already notes "phenomenologically similar to a heterosexual or homosexual sexual orientation," and since Rupert loup reworded the Fred Berlina part to state "Pedophilia may be difficult to alter," and KateWishing tweaked it, I don't see that we need to keep the Fred Berlin quote. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)