Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Potential source on bio- aspects, for those interested.

Hi, folks. I recently delivered a keynote address summarizing the recent neurological research on pedophilia and related phenomena (in English). That talk just became avaiable online, so I thought I would post it here for anyone who might be interested in the biological section of the mainpage but is missing plain-language descriptions of the research.
The recording is avail at http://vimeo.com/33793616 .
— James Cantor (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: revert by User:WLU of revision 465534144 by User:Edifyingdiscourse

Good catch WLU. The image with the following caption:

Under modern diagnostic criteria Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, would have been diagnosed as a pedophile for marrying a young girl called Aisha when she was 6.

totally does not belong in the article. ([diff]). I just wanted to additionally point out the relevant Wikipedia guidelines regarding its removal. It's not just because it is potentially (as WLU put it) "horribly unnecessarily negative and pejorative", but it is WP:Original research, and even if it were sourced it would be WP:SYNTH. Just thought I'd mention it here in case Edifyingdiscourse is looking for why their edit was removed or anyone else was thinking of re-adding it. MsBatfish (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. And from what I read in a few sources, Muhammad is said to have not engaged in sexual intercourse with this girl until she was able to bear children, aka pubescent, which would technically make him not a pedophile...if he was not significantly sexually attracted to this girl at the time their marriage was initiated. Remember, pedophilia is about the sexual preference for prepubescent children or those who look prepubescent (which is why researchers are thinking of merging hebephilia with pedophilia to create the new category of "pedohebephilic disorder"). So even if Muhammad had been sexually attracted to this girl while she was prepubescent, he would have needed to have a significant sexual attraction to prepubescent girls in order to technically fit the definition of a pedophile. Legitimus and myself actually discussed something along these lines at Talk:Child sexual abuse/Archive 8#Is indecent exposure child sexual abuse?, a discussion which evolved into the topic of child marriage. Flyer22 (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point. In addition, regardless of what any editor personally thinks about the subject, it is original research to say that Muhammad was a pedophile unless a reliable source specifically stated that. And even then we would have to say "_____ speculates such and such". One can't say that just because one source says that Muhammed may have had a child wife (who he may or may not have had sex with before she reached puberty) that therefore he was a pedophile. MsBatfish (talk) 07:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. And pedophilia certainly isn't based on marriage. Saying that he "would have been diagnosed as a pedophile for marrying a young girl" is just a no. Flyer22 (talk) 09:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It is worth noting that this specific matter is more political than scientific. The story of Aisha is a major talking point among American "Muslim bashers," as a way to denigrate the religion as a whole. Now what I am about to say is also original research I suppose, but I feel it is worth bringing up as a look from the other side: Aisha was 18, not 6. The way my Persian Muslim colleague explained it to me is the the Quran doesn't say anywhere she was 6. That comes from a third-party source, and was intended a sort of artistic metaphor for Aisha's "purity" and virginity (the numbers 6 and 9 have some kind of symbolic meaning). My colleague then pointed to several sources indicating the year of her death and age at that time, as well as the year of the marriage, from which it could be calculated that she was approximately 17 or 18. It is worth noting that he said he was offended this angle of the matter is so heavily downplayed in English Wikipedia, given how wildly accepted it is among educated Muslims, but surmises it is because the sources are all in Arabic or Farsi.Legitimus (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting and enlightening, Legitimus. Thanks for that. Flyer22 (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"Some people think X was a pedophile" is a pretty terrible inclusion on pretty much any page, not to mention we could pick from hundreds of historical figures who married, had sex with or raped someone who we would consider age inappropriate. Really, I think this is a WP:UCS deletion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

@Legitimus, i disagree with your assertion that Aisha was 18. The "third party soure" you speak about are actually Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim which are considred essential and the most authentic book after the Quran by Sunni muslims as well as other denominations. In fact, if you disbelieve in these books, you are no longer considered Muslim by the Orthodox Muslims. Pass a Method talk 11:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion RFC

An editor asked me to seek consensus for this edit which he removed before i was finished providing more references. Do you support or oppose the edit? Pass a Method talk 11:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Why jump right into an RFC rather than discuss the edit on the talk page? It's a little premature. N^oformation ^Talk 11:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

PassaMethod, you didn't necessarily need an RfC, but I can see why you added one since I stated that including your text would not go over well here at the talk page.

Like I stated in my edit summary, non-human animals are not diagnosed with pedophilia. There is also the fact that your sources don't call it pedophilia by name, I don't think. But even if you find sources that do, there's still the matter of what I stated about the diagnosis of pedophilia. Besides only being diagnosed in humans, it is based on sexual preference...not the act of sexual abuse. And "sexual abuse" is another term that is usually not applied to non-human animals.

Still, maybe you can make a good case for including this material in the article...if you find reliable sources calling it pedophilia. The article does mention how the term pedophilia is misused. So maybe it could go in that section, to say that some scholars apply the term to non-human animals? Or as a subsection of that section? Hmm, we'll see what others think. Flyer22 (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason i did not discuss is bcause Flyer did not discuss. If he removes without really explaining, what am i suppose to say/discuss? He asked me to seek consensus, so i did. Also, you seemed quite rigid in your reply, so i thought a 3rd opinion was inevitable. Pass a Method talk 11:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

PassaMethod, I'm female and I explained why I reverted you in the edit summary; that type of edit was/is more of a revert and then discuss matter, per WP:BRD. I then suggested that you bring the matter to the talk page. Noformation is saying that starting an RfC discussion this soon is premature. Such a discussion is typically only used either after WP:Consensus has failed to be achieved or because an undesirable consensus has been achieved and outside views are wanted. Flyer22 (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The ambiguous response you gave me meant that there was nothing to discuss. It was mostly a opinion based reply. Also you made the removal so YOU should have started a discussion, not me. Pass a Method talk 11:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing ambiguous about "PassaMethod, a section like this needs discussion on the talk page first. Not only should a section like this not be placed so high, non-human animals are not diagnosed with pedophilia." And the only part of that reply that is opinionated is where I felt the section should be placed. The rest is based on fact/policy, as shown above. How do you get around the fact that pedophilia is only diagnosed in humans, is not based on sexual acts (as defined by most of the psychological/medical community anyway), and is not used as a term in your sources? If we are to include your text, it will need to specifically use the word "pedophilia" and will need to be placed in a section allowing for the term to be used this way. Just like we have an In law and forensic psychology section about how the term is often not used in the medical sense in that regard. Those are my points. All valid. I do not at all understand when you call my edit summaries vague or ambiguous; they are pretty straight-forward and there is only so much that can be stated in edit summaries. And, no, I didn't have to start the discussion because I removed the material. The WP:BURDEN lies with you. Flyer22 (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I meant your response on my talk page was ambiguous + opinionated. Pass a Method talk 12:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, when I made that comment, there wasn't much more to say after what I'd already stated in my edit summary. And just when I'd had an additional response ready, I saw that you had already started a discussion here...as I'd suggested. So I then replied here with most of what I was going to state on your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess there was a bit of confusion involved today. Next time i recommend stating what you said in your edit summary on the talk page too. I dont really pay much attention to edit summaries if someone made a talk page comment. Pass a Method talk 12:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC) Pass a Method talk

I do not think this section needs to be included because in short it is apples to oranges. Like most psychological principles, the study and classification of this disorder is based on the human mind and human physiology. These animals have different physiological processes involved (physical growth and sexual maturity), and there are parts of there psychology we will never truly understand until some person invents a mind-reading technology that works on animals. It just falls too far outside the subject. Not to mention that animal behavior is a popular talking point for people attempting to further an agenda. There is a possible home for this information though in Animal sexual behaviour.Legitimus (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Erm, I would tend not to think it's a good passage. We don't know the inner lives of animals, so we with animals we can only described so-called "pedophilic behavior", which is really a misnomer and which I think the article tries to clear this up although there is some discussion of "child molestation". Whether any animal behavior can be described as "child molestation" I don't know, but animal behaviors are not generally described as "burglary" or "assault and battery" or "wire fraud" I don't think, so maybe not. Anyway it is getting a bit far afield and I would be skeptical that we can extrapolate much useful information from animal behavior, particularly insect behavior. And unless it's show that we can, I don't see why it belongs in the article. Herostratus (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Jours apres lunes

I suppose the fashion industry is becoming more lenient as time passes. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/french-company-sells-lingerie-year-olds/story?id=14324742#.TvHnl1ZLPE8 Gravitoweak (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This is tangentially related to this article's subject matter at best. Even if there was hard evidence that the designer of the clothing or the editors in charge of approving designs are attracted to children under 12, this would not be of any note in regards to this subject. There are several other articles that may apply, but again this is a news item, not a study.Legitimus (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Biased article

This article is written from a victimologist perspectice. It is not written with a Neutral Point of View. Can anything be done given that the article is essentially controlled by a very small number of individuals who ban anyone who opposes them? Cataconia (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality is demonstrated through the presentation of reliable sources. It is not asserted. If you have reliable sources that verify a relevant point, present them. Otherwise you're wasting everyone's time. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

As we all know, it doesn't work like that anymore in this article. The source will need to be approved by a few self appointed censors who, if they like it, will allow the edit to remain. If they do not, they will remove it regardless of how reliable and relevant it is. We all know this to be the case, why pretend any longer? Cataconia (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Besides, neutrality requires more than reliable sources. If you handpick the sources to fit a certain view, the article will be biased but with reliable resources. This article is a perfect example of that. Cataconia (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Until you demonstrate an understanding of WP:UNDUE, there's no point continuing this conversation. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, why debate when you can just ban any opposition. Does anyone of you actually understand the science well enough to make a UNDUE judgment. Nope. Cataconia (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have specific changes you'd like to make to the article based on what WP considers reliable sources? If not then there's nothing to discuss, WP is not a forum for general discussion of the topic or for editors to WP:SOAPBOX. N^oformation ^Talk 23:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

If I had, would they be allowed? No. It's not that people haven't tried adding reliable sources that doesn't completely conform to a very specific world-view that has the grips of this article. Where are they now? The sources are gone and the users are banned for made up reasons. The system has collapsed. Cataconia (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, unless you have specific changes to the article based on reliable sources you are wasting your time and the time of other editors. You're welcome to your opinions but wikipedia is not the place to express them, maybe consider WP:Alternative outlets. N^oformation ^Talk 23:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Would they be allowed? Cataconia (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

How can I possibly evaluate a source if I don't know what it is? N^oformation ^Talk 00:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Those who did what you said, where are they now? Banned. I'm looking for options. Cataconia (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

So obviously you know that those sources are not allowed here because they likely advocate pedophilia; there's your answer. Closing this thread, feel free to start a new one if you're willing to abide by WP:TALK. N^oformation ^Talk 01:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Advocate pedophilia? Have you gone mad? We are talking about mainstream research published in mainstream journals, Cataconia (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

And what are you saying that these mainstream sources will say? That pedophilia is normal, a sexual orientation, that child sexual abuse is not abuse and is not harmful? This article is written the way it is because no mainstream psychological/medical sources present pedophilia in the way I just described. And what I just described is the only "neutrality" you could be talking about, since it is the exact opposite of what this article says (with the exception that pedophilia may be considered similar to a sexual orientation). You know exactly what we mean when we say "advocate pedophilia." You are obviously aware of what goes on at this article and talk page, so don't play clueless here. Flyer22 (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean, any source that does not conform to your point of view is "advocating pedophilia" and should be removed and the user who posted them should be banned. This is a complete corruption of what wikipedia stands for, This is might is right perspective, whoever has the banning powers decides what the article should look like. If I had the banning powers, I could say that your sources are promoting X and ban you, and you could do nothing about it. Today, you can be banned for posting a relevant mainstream scientific source into the article. Is this the wikipedia way? Cataconia (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're so convinced that you cannot do anything and cannot even name a source, why bother posting? If you post a link to an article in PubMed or APA PsycNET, nobody here is going to ban you.Legitimus (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The article is locked for some reason. Will take a few days. Cataconia (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this article semi-protected, which means that non-registered users (aka IP editors) and newly registered users cannot edit it, only post on the talk page. But that is actually for a completely different reason: This article is a giant magnet for joke/prank vandalism. It was protected for a year once, and less 24 hours after the protection wore off, random teenage boys were posting their friends and teachers names. So now it is permanent.Legitimus (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I meant post a link to PubMed or PsycNET here on the talk page, so we can see what you are talking about.Legitimus (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

(thread has been refactored, this sub-thread continues after the next outdent marker)

Fine, post the sources here. If they are truly mainstream scholarly sources then no problem. If they advocate pedophilia I'll send a message to arbcom and you know the next step. N^oformation ^Talk 02:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that you guys hold the view that any mainstream schorarly article that does not conform to your view is indeed promoting pedophilia or is used to promote pedophilia. The main problem with this is that there have been a schorarly debate for many decades where normal mainstream scientists have argued with each other on many of the finer points in this area, and this wiki-article does nothing to reflect this. It simply assumes that one side has won and that the other side should not be presented here. This is original research for starters, but I guess you won't be banning yourselfs anytime soon for that crime. Anyways, your fear of what media will say has completely destroyed the quality of these articles and has corrupted wikipedia to the point where it reads like pure propaganda. Cataconia (talk) 09:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

(thread has been refactored, the post below is a response to the post by Legitimus above made 16:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC))

If you're serious about adding to the page, then post here, on the talk page, the source you want to use and the change you want to make. It's very easy to debate abstracts - without any specifics you're just wasting everyone's time. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

That's alright, I will add them in the article in due time. They will be in line with wikipedia policies. Cataconia (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Based on your contribution history, I would suggest posting your suggestions here first or they'll probably be reverted as soon as someone else notices them. In addition, other editors can suggest changes, better sources, or state why the policies and guidelines prohibit the source or change. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I could do that, but I fail to see the point. I doubt anyone here knows more about the subject than me anyways, and you guys do not appear to have a history of going through that process before you post. Cataconia (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

@Cataconia: You are absolutely correct that this article is owned and controlled by about 6 editors. Mainstream opinions of legal and medical experts are dismissed as "fringe" or as "promoting" pedophilia. It's an intractable problem specific to this topic. Most editors give up on dealing with these six people, which is of course what they hope to achieve. I wish you the best in dealing with them. Jokestress (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It never ceases to surprise me how backwards the minds of pedophiles and those who support positive pedophilia/child rape arguments work. You are the ones supporting this material, continuously trying to get it into this article, and the six editors who block you every time are the corrupt ones? The higher-ups who ban you are the corrupt ones? Laughing my ass off. How is it not promoting pedophilia to say that pedophilia is as okay as heterosexuality and homosexuality and that adults engaging in sex acts with prepubescent children can result in as many positive effects as it can negative effects? And do enlighten us by telling us what "mainstream opinions of legal and medical experts" say that pedophilia is a normal mental process and that sexually abusing children isn't so bad? Even Rind et al. weren't mainstream and got their asses handed to them by the majority of psychologists and medical experts. What you are supporting are fringe views, per Wikipedia:Fringe. The majority of experts call pedophilia a mental disorder. The majority of experts deem adults engaging in sexual activity with prepubecent children, even pubescent ones, to be bad. This article is not being selective in its sources. It just so happens that the view that "pedophilia and adults performing sex acts on prepubescents equals bad" is the majority view. I don't even believe that there is a significant minority of researchers claiming otherwise. Or else sources of that nature would have been produced on this talk page by now. I don't know where you think being all secretive about these sources of yours is going to get you, when, if added to the article, we'll see them regardless, and when you're very likely to be reverted. So your criticism about this article, its protectors, and how this makes Wikipedia corrupt is laughable at best. Deeply disturbing at worst. Jokestress, how disgusting that you would support such garbage from a likely pedophile. If you're going to identify as a woman, you should at least think like one. In my interaction with pedophiles and child molesters, I haven't come across one woman supporting such garbage. Until now. Cataconia isn't even new, as evidenced by his knowledge of the inner workings here. Thank god we don't have you and those like you editing this article, for it would say that pedophilia is a normal variation of human sexuality and adults performing sex acts on prepubescents isn't something to be concerned about. I applaud the six "owners" of this article. And FYI: They aren't the only ones making sure that editors like you don't push your sickening POV here.

Sincerely, one of the birdies from Perverted-Justice. 72.159.131.3 (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You confuse ethical questions with factual ones. No one is claiming sex with children is good, nor that such ethical questions should even be mentioned in this article. You (and I assume most others here) seem to completely have misunderstood what the core-problem with the article is. What we are dealing with is not a fringe theory but a alternate theory which is completely OK by wikipedias standards:

"4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted. For instance, the theory of continental drift was heavily criticized because there was no known mechanism for continents to move. When such a mechanism was discovered, it became mainstream as plate tectonics."

The alternate theories that ought to be in the article belong to a significant minority and should be Wikipedias own standard be presented in the article. So far, all criticism from you guys have completely failed to understand the scientific issues involved and have been attacking straw-men. Cataconia (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Though I am tempted to remove the entirety of the outrageous personal attacks by the IP editor above, I will leave them for now because they are an excellent expression of the prevailing attitude that keeps this article from reflecting the full range of scientific and legal literature. Jokestress (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong all the way around, Cataconia. First of all, adults performing sex acts on prepubescent children is not just an ethical issue. It is factually classified as abnormal and as a source of significant psychological harm for the child, which is supported by the abundance of references in this article. You claim that you are not advocating that sex with prepubescent children may be okay? That pedophilia is not a mental disorder? C'omn, you questioned us calling it a mental disorder in a post that was removed from the talk page! What are you proposing be added to this article, if not those things? Why so vague and secretive? What else could you possibly be talking about? We aren't stupid, just so you know. So you can take your vague suggestions/hints and vague assertions of bias and direct it elsewhere, off Wikipedia. You confuse psychological and medical consensus with being non-neutral and biased. You even had the gall to say that there is no consensus that pedophilia is a mental disorder, when, in fact, there is. This article is a product of that consensus. Including your "significant minority" isn't going to change that. So to scream "bias" or "problematic" in this case is absolutely ludicrous. I doubt that there is a significant minority claiming that pedophilia is mentally normative or that "adult-child sex," as pedophiles like to call it, is not (or may not always be) psychologically harmful. Especially since you haven't displayed any reliable sources to support those claims. We don't have to present ours. They're in the article. And make no mistake about it, your view is fringe.

But trying to talk sense with people like you is uselees. So you keep it up with your vague comments about what you want to add to this article and how the article is biased because it dares to report the consensus view, with no fringe views included. As if vagueness will save you from being blocked/banned. 72.159.131.3 (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2012 (

"Pedohebephilic" no longer in the proposed revisjon, reference to same in article is outdated

The current DSM-5 draft proposes to add hebephilia to the diagnostic criteria, and to consequently rename it pedohebephilic disorder to cover the physical development overlap between pedophilia and hebephilia.

Untrue as of November 18, 2011.

Now called simply "Pedophilic Disorder", see http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=186# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.39.108 (talk) 07:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. I also wonder if, because of things like this, we should generally avoid integration of specifics from the DSM-5 development process. It's still very much a work in progress.Legitimus (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Having seen this section an hour earlier, I was just coming to tweak the text...but I see that Legitimus already took care of it.[1][2] The proposal is still the same; it's just a change in name. Somehow, I missed the name change in early January of this year when tweaking the lead. I did check the source again back then, but the name change didn't register. Flyer22 (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Missing section on harm

Where is the section of scientific evidences about harm to children? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.187.93.89 (talk) 07:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

See child sexual abuse, it has plenty. Remember, pedophilia is the drive, sexual abuse is the act.Legitimus (talk) 10:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Sharp increase in number of sexually abused children

Has there been a sharp increase in the incidence, or at least the reported incidence, of sexually abused children? The JAMA Special Communication about pedophilia, which is currently used as a source on five different places in the article states the following:

“ The Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-3), which addressed only those cases involving parents, parent substitutes, adults, or nonparental teenagers in a caretaking relationship with the child, estimated that the number of sexually abused children rose 125% from 133 600 reported cases in 1986 to 300 200 in 1993. ” — Sedlak AJ, Broadhurst DD., Executive Summary of the Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect. Washington, DC: US Dept of Health and Human Services; Administration for Children and Families; Administration on Children, Youth and Families; National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect; 1996.

Yet, in the section on Prevalence and child molestation there's no mention of this development? Is this information not corroborated, or is there some other reason why this development isn't mentioned in the present article? (Or is it mentioned somewhere else in the article and I have simply missed it?)

I also find this section commingling the two quite disparate topics of prevalence of pedophilia on the one hand and child molestation on the other to be an odd mixture. Shouldn't they be separate? Perhaps the title should be "Prevalence of pedophilia and child molestation"?

If the intended focus of this section is prevalence, then discussing numbers for both pedophilia and child sexual abuse would be relevant. In this context the correlation between the two should be discussed. Then specifically discussing the prevalence of pedophilia over time could be discussed with reference to the quote above. __meco (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

They should not be separate. Not only is not much known about the prevalence of pedophilia, and therefore a section on it would be very small, unless, like some sources say, the majority of child molesters are pedophiles (which could tell us the prevalence of pedophilia), the section is discussing the link between pedophilia and child molestation, and how one may be independent of the other. It's not confusing the two; it's noting the confusion between the two and how there is sometimes a link and a lack of one other times. This is best covered in one section. As for the title, it's clear to me that the "prevalence" part is referring to pedophilia since it is followed by "and child molestation." But I see that you are saying that this section is also discussing the prevalence of child molestation and that this should also be represented in the heading. Well, like I stated, the prevalence of child molestation is sometimes equated with the prevalence of pedophilia because so many child molesters do have a sexual preference for prepubescent children, but I suppose this is one of those times where Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings allows the article title in a section heading.

As for the information you feel should be in this article: Well, there isn't a lot of things being added to this article these days because everything readers need (note: I stated "need") to know about pedophilia is already in the article. It could actually be WP:GA already, with some copyediting and the removal of the bullet-point, trivial In culture section. The article is more about pedophilia (the mental disorder) than it is about the act of child sexual abuse, and we leave most of the information about child sexual abuse to the Child sexual abuse article. But I don't mind the piece of information you cite being in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I see a problem with adding it. Then we would have to make a choice between simply adding it, without commenting on how these figures relate to pedophilia, or we add it and make a commentary, except that would be original synthesis unless we can pin that discussion down to one of the existing or new sources. __meco (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

If you find a place where it fits in the above discussed section, I don't view it as problematic to include it there without discussing how it may or may not relate to pedophilia. But, yes, it is best that it go in the Child sexual abuse article if we're not going to tie it to pedophilia in some way. Flyer22 (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Major Error

Because somebody decided to name this article using the American spelling, the definition given on this article is technically incorrect, as 'pedophilia' translates literally as sexual attraction to FEET', NOT children. As a result of this, frankly idiotic americanisation, I believe that this article MUST be renamed.

No, foot fetishism is podophilia. This confusion results from mixing up the Greek and Latin word roots. The word pedophilia is rooted entirely in Greek, not Latin. "Ped-" (or "Paed-") in Greek is "child" (Pediatrician) but in Latin "Ped-" means "foot" (Pedestrian). "Pod-" is the correct Greek root meaning foot (arthropod, podiatrist). "Philia" is also Greek, so if one were used Ped to mean Foot, you would have a Latin prefix on a Greek suffix. If you're going to come in here with an attitude like that, at least try to be informed instead of opinionated.Legitimus (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Confusion of Pedophilia and Child Molestation

The Section "Psychopathology and personality traits" describes mainly Child Molesters in the research. The majority of research is solely on Child Sex Offenders, which are discussed in the section "Prevalence and child molestation" as often not meeting the diagnosis of Pedophilia or having a true sexual attraction to children, which is the intention of the article. In addition, Given the study review cited questioning the findings of any personality connections and questions of methodology, I wonder if it is needed for the page as the findings are mainly in reference to Child Molesters, and I feel would be more appropriate in the article on Child Sexual Abuse. I understand it's difficult with current research, but the page feels muddled between the attraction (Pedophilia) and the offense (Child Sexual Abuse). 143.229.183.32 (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good idea to have a section in both articles discussing the problems of inferring knowledge about one from the other and vice versa? __meco (talk) 07:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to have state what I stated above in the #Sharp increase in number of sexually abused children section: Not only is not much known about the prevalence of pedophilia, and therefore a section on it would be very small, unless, like some sources say, the majority of child molesters are pedophiles (which could tell us the prevalence of pedophilia), the [Prevalence and child molestation section] is discussing the link between pedophilia and child molestation, and how one may be independent of the other. It's not confusing the two; it's noting the confusion between the two and how there is sometimes a link and a lack of one other times. This is best covered in one section.

It seems that the Psychopathology and personality traits section is going on the fact that a lot of pedophiles do sexually abuse children and that a lot of child sexual abusers are pedophiles, which makes that section relevant to this article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

History

Is there an article on the History of Pedophilia? Portillo (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I take it you mean historical information on it. Either way, the answer is no. And I don't see how there could be an article on that. The history of pedophilia is in this article (the Disease models section, with regard to what you're referring to) and there isn't much more to state on it than what we've included. What you are probably thinking of is the history of child sexual abuse. But as the article makes clear, pedophilia and child sexual abuse do not always equate to the same thing. One is the mental disorder. The other is the act, which may or may not encompass the mental disorder. Flyer22 (talk) 08:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. What I was refering to by History, was pedophilia throughout ancient and modern civilisations. How did ancient civilisations treat pedophilia and was there ever a civilisation where it wasnt considered immoral? Portillo (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem with studying that area is not only was the term coined in the late 19th century, but that was also when the very concept of mental illness was first starting to get going. Before a certain time everyone "knew" epilepsy was caused by demons. Pedophilia is certain to have existed, but it wouldn't have been cataloged properly, and just like today, it is often very hard to detect.

According to my own research, there has never been a culture in history that openly and fully sanctioned sex with prepubescents. Some cultures like the Greeks were accepting of activity with adolescents, but not really little children. It is worth noting that some tribal cultures were reported to have been accepting of this in the 18th and 19th century, but this was later discredited as proganda intended to paint certain tribal cultures as "Godless heathens" who needed to be converted to "save the children."Legitimus (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I stated something similar in this link, Legitimus. I did mention Semen#Cultural practices. But like I stated, "[I]t's not about sexual activity with the children in those cultures, but rather about the supposed power of semen." Flyer22 (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Portillo, there is of course an expansive academic literature on the history of pedophilia, more than enough for a standalone article, but the editors who control this article/topic actively censor any information that does not conform to their worldview. Ning de Coninck-Smith has a good overview in the Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society. Michel Foucault is the most expansive in terms of contextualizing the eugenic ideology and moral panics reflected in the current article - see History of Sexuality. Steven Angelides wrote a nice piece on the discourse of child sexuality in the Journal of Homosexuality about 10 years ago, also nicely summarizing the "child-saving" movement. I'd also recommend Threatened Children: Rhetoric and Concern About Child-Victims by Joel Best and Moral Panic: Changing Concepts of the Child Molester in Modern America by Philip Jenkins, which are more about contemporary Western history. You won't find any of that here, though. The handful of people camped out here won't allow anything but their narrowly-construed disease model materials. Unless you are a highly experienced editor, I would not try to insert any of that, either. You will be suspected or even accused of having utterly outrageous motivations, and they will try to have you sanctioned. You'll have a better sense of what's going on here after you read those books. Jokestress (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt responses everyone. Portillo (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, Portillo. There are no editors controlling this article and you would be wise not to listen to Jokestress, per my and Legitimus's comments above, especially about confusing every instance of child sexual abuse with pedophilia. When we become suspicious of editors editing this article "or even [accuse them] of having utterly outrageous motivations," it is almost always because they have very clearly demonstrated pro-pedophilia and/or pro-child sexual abuse attitudes, which is why most of the blocks on such people are carried out by the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, not usually because any editor has confused pedophilia with child sexual abuse (the confusion part was only a big issue when certain editors wanted to make it seem as though defining pedophilia as a sexual attraction to/preference for people who clearly are not prepubescent is a valid definition of pedophilia and should be given as much weight as the clinical definition). Just remember what I stated about the distinction between the mental disorder and the act, and also read what this article states about that distinction. Also see the In law and forensic psychology section, which doesn't just go by the mental disorder/disease model. Flyer22 (talk) 03:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Flyer22, you are still fixated on the wrong issue after all these years. The problem is not age range definitions. It's that not all sexual interest in children meets the definition of pedophilia, something buried in this article almost as an afterthought. You have made over 25% of all edits here in the last 2.5 years, mostly removing any information that does not conform to your idea of what this article should encompass, and you guys lobbied to censor ancillary materials that would outline this issue so the article reflects the full range of adult sexual interest in children. That is a great disservice to our readers. This article is woefully inadequate in covering non-pedophilic interest, to the point of WP:UNDUE. Any mentions of the history of these interests outside of the clinical model are negligible. We don't cover the full range of activities people with those interests engage in, or links between pedophilia and sexualization of children in the media or its historical manifestations in sex work, child labor, and violent crime (like well-documented sex offenses against children in Victorian London). The article does little to explain how awareness was raised about this sexual interest and its connection to reforms in child labor and other shifts in attitudes about the concept of childhood. You are winning the war of attrition and have effectively shut down improvements to the article and topic for years, all from a misguided belief that anyone who has something to add outside your worldview must be "pro-pedophilia." Even accusing any editor of that, even by implication, should be an instantly bannable offense, in my opinion. Jokestress (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not fixated on the wrong issue after all these years. You are. And once again, you have it all backwards. You stated that "[t]he problem is not age range definitions," but then go on to state "you guys lobbied to censor ancillary materials that would outline this issue so the article reflects the full range of adult sexual interest in children," which just shows that the problem is exactly about your belief in these "range of definitions." You even go on to state that "[t]his article is woefully inadequate in covering non-pedophilic interest," despite the fact that this article is titled Pedophilia and should mostly be about pedophilic interest, not non-pedophilic interest. This article would be woefully WP:UNDUE (read what that means) if it was mostly or even half covered in these "range of definitions" that do not conform to the authoritative definition of pedophilia. And, yes, there is one -- the primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children. You know that, but refuse to accept it. Even if the definition is changed to include early pubescents, it would still mostly be about the sexual interest in prepubescent children, especially since so many early pubescents (boys in particular) look prepubescent. Experts in this field generally distinguish between pedophilia (the mental disorder) and the act of child sexual abuse, clearly stating that one does not necessarily encompass the other, as shown by various high-quality sources in this article. But you have never seemed to understand that, wanting this article that is supposed to be about pedophilia, and the authoritative/medical definition of it first and foremost, per WP:MEDRS, to be about all sexual interest in people under the age of eighteen. One cannot forget when you tried to make an article about that, neglecting that we already have other articles for that, and, when you didn't get your way, tried to have the Pedophilia article be about that. If this article were formatted the way you wanted, the definition of pedophilia would be so muddled that people would walk away from it not knowing what pedophilia actually is; they would walk away believing the same popular culture definition of it, thinking that even a 21-year-old with a sexual interest in a 17-year-old is pedophilia. And that is ridiculous. This isn't about "winning the war of attrition"; it's about accuracy and due weight. And the editors we have shut down at this article, as in making sure they don't edit it, including in the last 2.5 years, have been pro-pedophilia and/or pro-child sexual abuse. And there have been times that instead of clearly recognizing what those editors were, or rather not giving a damn, you have encouraged them to edit this and other child sexual abuse articles, as seen in this edit, all because of not having gotten your way. That is what should be an instantly bannable offense. Cataconia was/is quite clearly pro-pedophilia/child sexual abuse, but you acted as though it was a simple case of the big, bad bullies trying to shut down neutrality. All you do with regard to this article is stalk out its talk page and take the time to violate WP:TALK to complain about the editors you disagree with, especially if you see a chance to criticize James Cantor, any time you see fit, all while trying to make your complaints relevant to whatever topic you are responding to; in my opinion, you should have been banned from this talk page a long time ago or should have banned yourself from it. Your posts here are unproductive and continuously combative. But Wikipedia is not a battleground. Your taunting, combative rants and/or spiels do not belong here. Flyer22 (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. I have never lobbied for this article to be about age ranges. You are the one fixated on age ranges. I strongly believe there should be an umbrella article, with this one mentioning the distinction from adult sexual interest in pre-pubescent children, with a mention or two of non-adult sexual interest in pre-pubescent children. This article would then link to that one. I am interested in seeing this article fully discuss the range of definitions, which it does not. The issues of non-adult pedophilia, adult non-pedophilia, and non-adult non-pedophilia do not get appropriate coverage on Wikipedia. You are the reason for that. Not anyone else. You won't allow it here, and you lobbied to stop a separate article because you seem to think pedophilia would lose its very meaning if we cover this topic in this manner. Will you allow this article to be edited to reflect all the published work on these issues, since the consensus last time we tried this is that any separate article is a POV fork? Jokestress (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if she will, I won't. Herostratus (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

What is your reason for not wanting to make these issues more clear? If a separate article is a "POV fork," then it stands to reason this is where we should cover those topics. Jokestress (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Jokestress, you state that you "have never lobbied for this article to be about age ranges," but you have because you have wanted, and still want, to give it just as much weight to the sexual interest in all people termed children as it does to the sexual interest in prepubescent children. Not to mention, the act of child sexual abuse as well. You've been clear about that. Even your last heavy posting regarding this topic was to try and get the lead of this article to first relay the popular culture definition of pedophilia. And I've already been over why this article should not fully, as in equally, discuss "the range of definitions" of pedophilia. WP:UNDUE is clear about this. We are supposed to give some weight to the other definitions, and we do, not equal weight to them. Furthermore, "non-adult pedophilia" only covers 16 and 17-year-olds being diagnosed with pedophilia; child-on-child sexual abuse is usually not pedophilia. And "adult non-pedophilia" and "non-adult non-pedophilia" are not very relevant to this article; I don't even know what you are trying to convey with those "terms." If it's not pedophilia, or doesn't largely make up pedophilia (that is the sexual interest in or sexual abuse of prepubescents, especially the primary or exclusive sexual interest in them), it shouldn't be given much weight in this article (or any in some cases). And I clearly am not the only reason that this article has not turned into your desired format. It's not about me allowing anything. It's about following WP:UNDUE and WP:MEDRS. Flyer22 (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it's not clear, but I am saying the non-pedophilic sexual interest in prepubescents is poorly covered here and sitewide. I am not talking about sexual abuse or other acts. I am talking about a larger phenomenon and a term for part of that phenomenon (preferential interest/orientation). This is a big problem, because a lot of people are reading this article, and I believe many are not getting correct information because of how this is covered. Some older teen or adult who gets tingly thinking about prepubescent children or in response to actual children or media depicting children is not necessarily a pedophile and is not necessarily classifiable as mentally ill. That's not clear at all from this article. We need to make all that very clear for lay readers. The question about history is also important, as historical aspects of this phenomenon have been systematically censored here. For instance, one significant historical view is that pedophilia is an extreme version of normal masculine sexuality. The question about history got me thinking maybe it's time to revisit this and try to rectify the problem. Jokestress (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I am clear on what you have been stating; I just disagree with it. For example, that "[so]me older teen or adult who gets tingly thinking about prepubescent children or in response to actual children or media depicting children [may not necessarily be] a pedophile [or necessarily] classifiable as mentally ill" is explicitly clear in this article. It is clear under what circumstances a late adolescent who is a minor, and under what circumstances a legal adult, may be diagnosed as a pedophile. There is the Etymology and definitions section, which includes the Debate regarding the DSM criteria about this very thing, and the Prevalence and child molestation section. The "historical view" that pedophilia "is an extreme version of normal masculine sexuality" is extremely WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. That is what I am trying to get across to you about some of the things you want incorporated into this article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

And when sexual interest in prepubescents is classified as non-pedophilic, it is when referring to those who do not have a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescents (i.e. when distinguishing some child sexual abusers from pedophiles). Again, this article should mostly be about pedophilic sexual interest in prepubescents. Even a little sexual interest in prepubescents, for whatever reason, is classified as pedophilic by some scholars, which this article does cover. Flyer22 (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The information about ancillary phenomena in the lede should be reflected in the article itself proportionally. It is not. And the view that pedophilia is an extreme version of normal masculine sexuality is not some fringe belief but the view held by Havelock Ellis, who isn't even mentioned in the article despite being one of the most famous authors on the topic in history. One of many examples of how this article is being held hostage by a small group who feel they must protect this article from "pro-pedophilia" forces trying to expand our coverage of these phenomena. Will you allow me to add information about Havelock Ellis' work on this topic, as part of a larger section titled History? Jokestress (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The lead summarizes everything that it should, per WP:LEAD. And the view "that pedophilia is an extreme version of normal masculine sexuality" is fringe. And it's certainly WP:UNDUE to devote a whole section to it. It does not matter that it is a view held by Ellis. That does not make it any less fringe or undue. Again, keeping such views out of, or limited, in this article has nothing to do with this article "being held hostage by a small group who feel they must protect this article from 'pro-pedophilia' forces," not unless it is pro-pedophilia. And you would do well to stop attacking us; as I stated, that is unproductive/doesn't help your case at all. If text is pro-pedophilia, yes, we will keep it out of this article. If it's more fringe than it is pro-pedophilia, or simply undue, we will either not include it or we will give it limited space, as should be done. That's called following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you can find a good place for the Ellis material in this article, without giving it undue weight, and the other editors agree, I will not object. Flyer22 (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

And just to be clear on what fringe is, WP FRINGE partly states: "An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner."

That is exactly what we've been doing with this article. The mainstream definition among experts on pedophilia is that it is a mental disorder characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children. Not "an extreme version of normal masculine sexuality." Flyer22 (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't read the thread, but I think that when there is an article about the History of homosexuality, there should also be an article about the history of pedophilia. There's no need to ask Flyer22 for permission, however engaged she may be in editing this article. It's up to admins to decide whether it's appropriate to have such article on Wikipedia or not. --Xumbar (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Xumbar, if you'd like to start it, I'll do what I can, but dealing with the [[WP:OWN]ers of this subject area is best done by people who have extensive editing experience. It's a dispiriting grind and a war of attrition to try to cover this topic accurately, and you may want to get more editing under your belt before making an attempt. Let me know if you'd like some help. Jokestress (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not up to me alone or the administrators. It's up to the guidelines and policies mentioned above and WP:Consensus. And give the "owners" and "accuracy" spiel (your "accuracy" is far from accuracy and you know it) a rest, Jokestress. Seriously. I'm sure that you know by now that that's one reason "the owners" don't want to work with you. But continue with the jabs; never fails to make you look bad every time. Flyer22 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Flyer22, please let me know what I have posted in article space that is inaccurate. I'm also curious what you believe my point of view and motivations are. You seem to be suggesting my edits are biased or not within consensus. What exactly do you think my goals are regarding this topic? Jokestress (talk) 03:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've already let you know, Jokestress, including plenty of times in the past, and am not interested in discussing all of that again at the moment. As for your point of view and motivations, I'd rather not discuss that either. Flyer22 (talk) 03:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hans Eysenck

RJR3333 has included Hans Eysenck in the lead. It states, "Hans Eysenck, in The Causes and Cure of Criminality, says that the popular definition of pedophilia is 'any sexual act' performed against a child under the age of 16."

In my view, the way that one scholar defines pedophilia or what one scholar says is the popular definition of pedophilia should not be in the lead. For one, I'm quite sure that the most popular definition is sexual attraction to/a sexual act performed against a minor under 18; this is something that RJR3333 has also stated. And guideline-wise, the line does not comply with WP:LEAD; this way of defining pedophilia is not covered lower in the article. And as those who are familiar with/understand WP:LEAD know, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the most important aspects of the article. What is not covered lower in the article should typically not be in the lead. While the popular/non-medical definitions are covered lower in the article, including sexual attraction to/sexual abuse of pubescents and post-pubescents, specifically defining pedophilia as "any sexual act performed against a child under the age of 16" is not.

I and others (others he has personally gone to for advice) have advised RJR3333 to suggest changes, changes that are likely to be contested or significant changes, on the talk page first because pedophilia is a contentious topic. I have also informed him that the lead was formatted after extensive debate, each and every part (such as using "As a medical diagnosis" as a neutral compromise wording with regard to the non-medical definitions of pedophilia), and that changes to the lead usually need to be discussed first as well. But he continues to ignore that, choosing to continue to debate things with me instead of posting here to get wider input. And since he decided not to bring the Eysenck material to the talk page for discussion before adding it either, I have obviously decided to bring it to the talk page for discussion for him/myself/others. Flyer22 (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that the popular definition of pedophilia was attraction to someone under 18 recently. I said most people would consider a person having sex with someone under 16 was the popular definition when I explained why I thought the new definition of pedophilia was going to include all adults being attracted to minors under 15 as pedophiles was moving closer to the normal definition. And like you said before, the age of consent in most of the United States is sixteen, and outside of the United States it tends to be fifteen or lower, if the popular definition were sex with anyone under 18, then the age of consent would probably be 18 in most places. I just looked up what I said what I wrote was "most people would consider an adult 21 or older having sex with anyone under the age of 16 a pedophile". So I did not say what she said I stated. Hans Eysenck is a legitimate authority/reliable source to quote on the popular definition. --RJR3333 (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Eysenck is one of many scholars whose views should be cited in the article but are not. His views are certainly reflected in it already. He was a major figure in the eugenics movement, so he wrote a number of pieces discussing pedophilia from the POV reflected in the article as it stands. Jokestress (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

RJR3333, so you are going to sit here and state that you never stated that most people would define pedophiles to be 18 or older and therefore a sexual attraction to anyone under 18 to be pedophilia? Okay, deny all you want. Don't ask me to provide a diff for it either. And, yes, the most popular definition of pedophilia is sexual attraction to anyone under 18. It's certainly been made clear at this talk page enough. That is the most popular definition because age 18 is the age of majority in most places, and the general public therefore includes the legal definition of child in their definition of pedophilia. This is why Mark Foley was called a pedophile, no matter the fact that the boys he went after were generally 16. And Hans Eysenck is not an authoritative source on either the medical or popular culture definition of pedophilia. There's no such thing as one scholar being an authoritative source on it anyway. He mostly doesn't belong in the lead because of the reasons I gave about following the WP:LEAD guideline. But I'm not about to sit here and extensively debate this with you, like I have extensively debated other things with you lately. And despite what Jokestress states, many scholars' views on pedophilia should not be in this article, per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS; the WP:UNDUE policy and those two guidelines are clear about that. But whether his view should be in this article or not, it should not be in the lead if not covered lower. And it isn't. Flyer22 (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I stated that a long time ago that most people would consider sex with anyone under 18 a pedophile. But what I stated most recently was that they would consider sex with someone under 16 a pedophile when I was talking about the "normal" definition. --RJR3333 (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

And its obviously not true that everyone considers sex with someone under 18 a pedophile, because if that were true then most places would have an age of consent of 18 or higher, and the vast majority of countries outside the United States have an age of consent below 18. Also whether or not a pedophile has to be at least 18 and sex with someone under 18 is pedophilia are two separate issues. I did recently say most people would say pedophiles have to be 18 or older but I didn't say then that they would consider sex with someone under 18 a pedophile, I said under 16. I said the thing about sex with anyone under 18 being pedophilia a long time ago, but not recently. --RJR3333 (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally Hans Eysenck is THE most quoted scholar in the history of psychiatry, and the second most quoted scholar in neurology and psychology falling behind only Sigmund Freud, so he's not just some random scholar. --RJR3333 (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Like I stated, claim what you want. But I did not state that "everyone considers sex with someone under 18 a pedophile." I stated "[sexual attraction to anyone under 18 is] the most popular definition because age 18 is the age of majority in most places, and the general public therefore includes the legal definition of child in their definition of pedophilia." And that statement has shown itself to be true. The Mark Foley case proved it more than any other case, in American history at least. So your age-of-consent logic is faulty, seeing as most people do not care if the age consent is 16. It's 18 in the majority of the public's mind because most people under 18 are still legally defined as children.

But stop trying to deflect what this discussion is about at its core. It's about Eysenck not belonging in the lead at all. You can continue to ignore the WP:LEAD guideline all you want, but it does not agree with you. And if you were to take this matter to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section, or, better yet, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, they'd tell you the same thing. Flyer22 (talk) 03:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If the age of consent is 16 then 16 year olds are not legally defined as children, what you said does not make sense. They cannot vote, but that isn't the same thing as them being children. --RJR3333 (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, Eysenck's views on pedophilia are very relevant because he advocated using eugenics to eliminate pedophiles from the population and said people inherited the trait, ie were born pedophiles. --RJR3333 (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? What you are stating is what does not make sense. Do you not know that Mark Foley was defined as a pedophile, despite Foley going after 16-year-olds (grooming them at 16 and waiting until they are 18 to have sex with them), and the age of consent being 16 in Washington, D.C.? He was defined as a pedophile because most 16-year-olds are legally children, and therefore the general public includes sexual attraction to 16-year-olds in their definition of pedophilia. This is covered in some other sources in the article. And as much as you have pointed out that 14-16 year olds are still children, even using the word "children" unless realizing that it's better to use "minors," your stating that I am not making any sense is quite ironic/ridiculous. Age of consent does not make one a legal adult. You know that. The 16-year-old is still legally a child.

Seriously... Should I take this matter -- the "What should go in the lead?" matter -- to one of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style pages I listed above, or start a WP:RfC about it, since it is clear that this is one of many Wikipedia guidelines you do not understand and will just keep deflecting by trying to engage me in some silly debate? Or should we just wait for other editors to weigh in before I do any of that? Flyer22 (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, if 16 year olds are legally able to have sex with 30 year olds, then in that respect they are not even legally children/minors, they are in other respects, but those respects are not relevant here. Are you flip flopping and now saying the age of consent is 18 in most of the USA. And there are some places where the voting age, drinking age, employment age, etc. are below 18. --RJR3333 (talk) 04:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I just want to take this opportunity to clear a few things up. Flyer22 has held a grudge against me because one time I said I hated her because I was frustrated with how much she had kept correcting me even though I already apologized for it, and she falsely accused me of making a death threat against her without providing any evidence for her claim, and she also has accused me of stalking her, claiming that I keep trying to talk about her to other editors and on her talk page, I should not have done this but she keeps nitpicking at my edits and it wounded my pride so I felt the need to react to her, which was immature and foolish. She also has accused me falsely of having a bias that the age of consent should be 18, which I don't, my view is it should be 15 or 16, and I've actually been criticized by at least two editors for showing that bias constantly in my edits and it was only recently that I managed to keep that bias out of my editing. --RJR3333 (talk) 04:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. I do believe that your ability to digest material properly is way off, since you cannot understand anything that I stated above. Bottomline is that you are wrong regarding the most common definition of pedophilia and regarding Eysenck being in the lead. And bringing up the "16 year olds are legally able to have sex with 30 year olds" aspect makes no sense on your part either since you are always talking about/injecting the "close in age" factor that hangs over some of these age of consent laws. Most importantly, this talk page is not the place to try and continue your dispute with me. You state that you are not obsessed, but, since you cannot continue the dispute with me at my talk page, you continuously try to continue it elsewhere. This talk page is simply your latest stop. The only one who has held a grudge has been you and I have not made one false claim against you. Not to mention, I stated that you wished I was dead, not that you made a death threat against me. Yes, they are two different things, something else you can't seem to grasp. And since you refuse to use the talk page responsibly and follow Wikipedia guidelines, I am going to wait at least two days before bringing the Wikipedia community in on this lead issue. You are wrong, and WP:CONSENSUS will show it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I never brought up any "close in age" factor in any discussion recently, so I don't know what you're talking about. I actually criticized Malke for bringing that factor up when he was debating me. Anyway you have not provided any evidence for your claim that I wished you were dead, and I'm not forcing you to comment on my work on these talk pages, you are choosing to. If you make these claims against me I'm going to respond. I don't even know who you are, I have no obsession with you at all? And I don't have any of the biases you claimed I have. I've said repeatedly I think the age of consent should be 16 across the board without there being a close in age factor, and that the age of majority should be also, if there was any problem with bias in my edits, it was in favor of the age of consent being 16 instead of 17 or 18. I apologize for being rude to you, but I am not obsessed with you, and in fact just to prove that you're wrong, I'm just going to leave wikipedia, because I'm tired of you having a leg to stand on in calling me a stalker of you, acting like I'm just another Richard Farley, another article I edited. --RJR3333 (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Claim what you want. Your edits prove otherwise. I've already commented on the other stuff enough, such as you not needing to know me personally to be obsessed with me, so you are not about to pull me into that debate again. Apparently, the example I gave about WP:WIKIHOUNDING is another thing you did not properly digest. Editors are obsessed with other editors all the time without personally knowing who they are. I can name various cases. No, I don't believe that you Wikihounded me. I would have reported you if you had. But you are forcing me to comment on your work when your work is something that needs correcting and/or discussion. You are continuously trying to force me into debate with you about our disputes any time you take the same issue to a talk page and use that talk page inappropriately, as you have now done once again. And as for leaving Wikipedia, like I stated, you always state that. Why do you state it over and over again when you have no intention of leaving? You left once before for a few months, but still... Stop stating it unless you are going to do it. At least put the "Considering retirement" tag on your talk page and leave it at that until you finally do leave for good, or at least until you leave for longer than a few months, unless you change your mind. Flyer22 (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

A non-technical research summary.

Hi, folks. Should anyone be interested in expanding the "causes" section of the mainpage, the following provides a very complete and very readable summary of the current findings. http://gawker.com/5941037/born-this-way-sympathy-and-science-for-those-who--want-to-have-sex-with-children — James Cantor (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Self-promotion yet again and not "very complete." As one of many examples, gay men are much more likely to be non-right-handed, but that was omitted from the list of groups. That's because the self-promoter cited is an "activist minority in the mental health field" whose findings tend to put some convenient distance between the two phenomena. We should probably avoid blogs on such a volatile topic. Jokestress (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Etymology and definitions — query

I'm having trouble understanding the first paragraph in this section, which is:

The word comes from the Greek: παῖς (paîs), meaning "child", and φιλία (philía), "friendly love" or "friendship".[28] This literal meaning has been altered toward sexual attraction in modern times, under the titles "child love" or "child lover", by pedophiles who use symbols and codes to identify their preferences.[29][30]

It's clear up to "modern times" but then seems to imply that the meaning ("usage"?) was changed by pedophiles ... and what does "under the titles ..." mean? (I know this is explained a bit in the sources, but the article text needs to be coherent). Alexbrn (talk) 08:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Alexbrn. I'm the one responsible for that not-so-good wording, and I see your point about it needing tweaking. What wording would you suggest for the rest of the line? And would you divide the line? As it seems is already clear to you, though not the clearest wording, the line is attempting to state that "child love" does not simply mean "friendship," but is usually used by pedophiles (and hebephiles, at that) expressing that they are sexually attraction to these children; many of them prefer to use "child love" or "child lover" instead of thinking of their sexual actions toward these children as sexual abuse and/or themselves as pedophiles. Flyer22 (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22, I'm fine with the para up to "modern times", but lose it after that. If the comma after "modern times" could be turned into a full stop, and the remaining text following it be unpacked into something which made sense, that would be great. But I'm afraid I can't suggest what that might be as I simply don't get it :-( ... (I am coming here, BTW, from the antisemitism Article where we have a related "etymological definition" vs "actual usage" kind of issue). Alexbrn (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I changed the wording to this. Do you find that satisfactory? And by not "getting it," I take it you meant the previous wording noted above? Also, are you stating that the Antisemitism article tackles pedophilia? Flyer22 (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Flyer22 — that's great, I think that make perfect sense now, thanks! And no, antisemitism has nothing to do with pedophilia, it's just we have a similar class of problem, since, in rough terms, antisemitism means (technically) anti-semitic-speaking-peoples, not (as mainstream usage has it) anti-Jew. Alexbrn (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I apologize for the confusing wording to begin with; sometimes, I'm awful with grammar. And I see, about the Antisemitism article; thanks for clarifying what you mean about that. I wish you all the best with working out things at that article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit by MrADHD

MrADHD, regarding this about IQ level, it appears to be supported by one or more of the sources; I state that because pedophiles and hebephiles having lower IQs than teleiophiles (those with a primary or exclusive sexual interest in adults) is mentioned in the Hebephilia article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You are indeed correct; I am new to this topic area, so will make some mistakes. Sorry and thanks for pointing out my error. On closer inspection though, the hebephilia article states that hebephiles scored midway between pedophiles and teliophiles in IQ levels, so probably best that is pointed out otherwise we would be misrepresenting the findings. What do you think? The neurobiology of pedophilia appears to differ from hebephilia which differs from teliophilia from what I have read. Or am I wrong?--MrADHD | T@1k? 21:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

LOL, minutes ago, I was just about to reply, then I saw the text disappeared, and then I saw that you'd created a new section for it. I'd considered creating a new section for it as well, but it seemed like a waste doing so. If I had, I wouldn't have addressed you in the heading by name, though, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Technical and format standards. But since you created the heading of this section, the action seems fine.

I understand your point about clarifying the hebephilia bit, but that section is about pedophilia. So diverging into discussion of hebephilia is off-topic, because, unlike the section in the Hebephilia article, pedophilia and hebephilia aren't being compared there. But by that same token, your removal of mentioning hebephilia from that section is justified. Flyer22 (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Haha, okay. :-) Agreed, we'll just leave it deleted then. People can visit the hebephilia page if they want to read about details about hebephilia then. :)--MrADHD | T@1k? 21:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Prevalence rates

I am just wondering if the prevalence rates here are accurate? DSM IV, paedophilia from my understanding is quite rare; I would have thought prevalence rates of less than 1 percent. 3 - 9 percent can't be right, surely? I just can't believe 1 in 20 people have a preference for prepubescents and actually as half the population is female, and paedophilia is nearly always a male thing; that means almost 1 in 10 men are paedophiles according to wikipedia! Are the sources including adolescents below the age of consent or hebephilia for these statistics? Are the sources using ICD-10 or DSM IV diagnostic codes for epidemiology and if so, should this be made clearer to the reader?--MrADHD | T@1k? 16:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a very valid point. Sounds way off, possibly due to confounding the prevalence of child-sexual-offenders with that of pedophiles. I have a copy of the DSM-IV here, and it doesn't mention prevalence, so this will require some more digging. I'm going to go looking for full texts of some the cited sources to see if this can be addressed, but if you have those sources or have better ones, by all means mention them.Legitimus (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, the section does state that the "prevalence of pedophilia in the general population is not known," despite stating "but is estimated to be lower than 5% based on several smaller studies with prevalence rates between 3% and 9%." And then we have studies defining pedophilia not just by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children, but dividing pedophilia into the categories of "Exclusive (i.e., 'true pedophiles') and non-exclusive (or, in some cases, 'non-pedophilic')." This is where that one U.S. study on 2429 adult male sex offenders who were categorized as "pedophiles," with only 7% identifying themselves as exclusive comes in. And then we have the Mayo Clinic stating that approximately 95% of child sexual abuse incidents are committed by the 88% of child molestation offenders who meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia, and the FBI stating that a "high percentage of acquaintance child molesters are preferential sex offenders who have a true sexual preference for [prepubescent] children (i.e., true pedophiles)."

So it does make one question if a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children is rare, or just how rare it is. But I've also always considered it rare (the kind that most experts in this field consider to be pedophilia -- primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children), and that most child sexual abusers are not pedophiles, but are rather opportunistic and/or situational offenders, especially since most child sexual abuse offenses are committed by people the child knows (relative or acquaintance, but usually a relative; "usually a relative" going by some sources). I don't even think that most people who commit these offenses are doing so because of stress or because they are an "all-around sexual deviant," but rather because they are sexually indiscriminate when it comes to age groups -- will use a child as a sexual substitute in the absence of an adult sexual partner, no matter whatever moral beliefs that they (the adult) may have. And by "absence," I mean not only those who don't have a sexual partner, but those who do and also sexually abuse the child when that adult is not there to witness it. But statistically, it's proven difficult to gauge just how many people are pedophiles...except for in the cases where studies have concluded that repeat offenders are pedophiles or have been loose with the term and thrown in non-preferential child sexual abusers into their definition of "pedophile." Flyer22 (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but are those 'smaller studies' based on estimates of the general male/female population or male population? Or more importantly, are they estimates of paedophilia in the sex offending section of the prison population which some well intentioned wikipedian has wrongly extrapolated across to the general public? Which is what I suspect. I have met all sorts of weird and wonderful people in my colourful life who have confessed all manner of things to me, including sexual perversions say when intoxicated but never have I met someone who fantasises about prepubescent children, never, let alone preferentially! Obviously they exist, as people have been victimised by them and I know a couple of victims, but I think probably less than 0.5 percent of the population are paedophiles; natural selection would or should have weeded out DSM IV paedophiles thousands of years ago and made them a rarity, as their behaviour makes little reproductive sense. Also our tribal ancestors probably would have ganged up on paedophiles and thrown heavy rocks at their heads if they had a tribe member repeatedly molesting their prepubescent little kids. This is another reason I just can't believe these 'approximate' 3-9 percent statistics. I agree not all child sex offenders are paedophiles and there will be some who abuse oportunistically or else because of a severe personality disorder such as sociopathy and narcissism etc and they enjoy abusing and degrading for sadistic or power reasons; such people are simply child abusers and sadists rather than true paedophiles. I know there probably aren't any certain statistics for the epidemiology of paedophilia but I don't think we can leave the article as it is, implying that approximately 1 in 10 men walk around obsessing about prepubescent kids!! That is obvious nonsense.--MrADHD | T@1k? 19:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: Just showing that the above was also discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, as seen in this link. Flyer22 (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit suggestion (since article is locked)

Suggestion to change this:

As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia, or paedophilia, is a psychiatric disorder in persons 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, as specific diagnosis criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13).[1][2][3][4][5]

to this:

As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia, or paedophilia, is a psychiatric disorder in persons 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 11 years or younger, though specific diagnosis criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13).[1][2][3][4][5]

as the former is somewhat misleading on first read. (Also removed unnecessary commas.)

Also, this:

sex offenders that are diagnosed with certain mental disorders

has an incorrect relative pronoun, and should actually be this:

sex offenders who are diagnosed with certain mental disorders.

(— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.185.79 (talk) 15:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, IP. The wording "generally age 13 years or younger" was there because, as the rest of the line states, "specific diagnosis criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13." I'd recently added the "as specific diagnosis criteria" part because the "13 years or younger" part is confusing to a lot of people, since most kids these days reach puberty before age 13. So, because of that wording change, I no longer consider the parenthetical note misleading (not even on first read). However, as I'm not opposed to the alternate wording you suggested, and it is accurate and is even clearer, I made the change. I don't see any unnecessary commas that you removed, though. You are stating that a comma doesn't need to be after the first and second spellings of pedophilia?

I also made your second suggested change (seen in that second diff link in my first paragraph of this section). Flyer22 (talk) 15:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Also tweaked the lower part for consistency. Flyer22 (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Issue of Teenagers with other teenagers.

The article focuses on adults over 21 and prepubescent children, however it defines pedophilia as a difference of 5 years. Many people marry those who are 5 or 10 years younger, so when a person is 16 their sibling could be friends with their future spouse, and they could develop an attraction to their personality before a sexual one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.86.184.50 (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't really apply. This disorder is about being sexually attracted to people have not gone through puberty yet. If people know each other as kids, but don't do anything sexual, then grow up and get together later, that's a completely separate matter. True pedophiles have a persistent attraction to prepubescents even as they grow up, and so in your scenario would lose interest entirely in the younger sibling after they went through puberty.Legitimus (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

IP, the article makes it very clear that "An adolescent who is 16 years of age or older must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child before the attraction can be diagnosed as pedophilia." It clearly states "prepubescent child," and this matter is clarified lower in the ICD-10 and DSM section, where it states, "The criteria also indicate that the subject should be 16 or older and that the child or children they fantasize about are at least five years younger than them, though ongoing sexual relationships between a 12–13 year old and a late adolescent are advised to be excluded."

I'm not sure how you equated the five-year age difference the way that you did, but, as Legitimus pointed out, that's not what this article is stating at all. It's only defining pedophilia by a difference of five years when stressing that the older person must be at least five years older than the younger person. But even the age difference doesn't automatically mean that the older person is going to be diagnosed as a pedophile, which is something the article also obviously addresses. Flyer22 (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Age range

Is it really necessary to give an age range in the lede?

"As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia, or paedophilia, is a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children."

...would be a much better opening paragraph. Issues regarding age can be dealt into the "Etymology and definitions" section.188.25.161.41 (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The use of chronological ages has been a difficult matter to resolve for this article for quite some time. There's been prior discussions too if you check the talk archives. In short, there is nothing wrong really with your suggestion, but it has been argued that certain details need to be included in as prominent position as possible for purposes of the reader. To clarify, "the reader" is all the people coming to this article having little or no prior knowledge of the subject, or in many cases, gross misconceptions. Such readers are not necessarily likely to understand what age range "prepubescent" means. Even the DSM names the rough age ranges for this reason.Legitimus (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the age range matter was also addressed in the #Edit suggestion (since article is locked) section above. And it is covered in the Etymology and definitions section (both at the beginning and in its Diagnostic criteria subsection). But, as for having it in the lead, another reason that is a good thing is because, according to statistics mentioned by Wikipedia, most people who read Wikipedia articles do not read past the lead. The age range is important enough that it satisfies the WP:LEAD guideline. Flyer22 (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Causes of pedophilia in the natural growth of the individual

It is believed that pedophilia is rooted in a very strong sexual attraction that the person felt during his childhood, at the age of 8-12 years, towards members of the opposite sex or the same sex, coupled with their lack of identity and sexual maturity in the natural growth of the person.

"In the case of pedophilia in men, is because the individual felt a sexual attraction towards boys or girls of his same age when he was a child, and then we assume, he began searching pornography for their age. As the years passed, the individual grew up and his sexually attraction towards children of his age was not commensurate with their natural growth but he stayed sexually attracted towards boys or girls of the age he was when he was a child. "(Rafael Medina)

Rafaelosornio (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I reverted you. Your information is unsourced and is attributed to you as the researcher. We have no way of knowing that you are a researcher in this field. And even if you are, you must adhere to our WP:Reliable sources guideline and our WP:Original research policy. Read that, and also read WP:MEDRS and WP:Conflict of Interest. Flyer22 (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Girllove symbol

User:Kintetsubuffalo added File:Symbol of Girllove.svg to the article about a month ago with the caption "Symbol of Girllove, used by pedophilia advocates". This was soon quite appropriately flagged as needing a citation. Today User:RaInBoWxDaShX changed the caption to "The "GLogo", a symbol of Girllove, used by online pedophilia communities" and added a link to something called "Newgon Wiki" as a reference. Newgon Wiki states "Our resource aims to document facts, opinions, arguments, research and testimonies relating to physical attractions and relationships between minors and adults (see ethos). We strive to expose the positive side of these often condemned facts of life". As it is also a wiki, it cannot be treated as a reliable source per WP:RS. I am removing the image entirely until such time as reliable sources can be found. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the Newgon Wiki would be a workable reference because it itself is in some sense an online pedophilia community, and therefore is evidence of the symbol's use in this manner, but I understand how this could contradict Wikipedia policy. The symbol is also described in the following FBI document published by Wikileaks: http://wlstorage.net/file/FBI-pedophile-symbols.pdf Would this reference be sufficient? RaInBoWxDaShX (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I will be placing the image with the new reference under "Pedophile advocacy groups", as this seems to be the section most relevant to the subject of the image. If there are further objections please let me know here. RaInBoWxDaShX (talk) 09:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Nearly 600 editors have this page on their watchlists. I'm not sure why no one else replied, but I am sorry for not personally replying to your question sooner. There are a couple of issues that I have with you replacement of the image. The FBI file you are using as a source has Wikipedia listed as one of its sources, which suggests that it isn't an authoritative source. The other problem I have with it is that images should illustrate what is in the article, not simply be decorative. There is no discussion of the symbol in the body of our article, and the apparent scarcity of reliable sources suggests that perhaps there is no need to have the image at all. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The image might be fine in an article on a specific organisation that uses it, but is undue here, regardless of sourcing. Andreas JN466 14:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Pedophilia and child molestation

I find using terms exclusive pedophile synonymously with true pedophile and non-exclusive pedophile synonymously with non-pedophilic confusing. Exclusive and non-exclusive is used to differetiate between pedophiles with nearly no sexual reactions to adults and non-exclusive is used for pedophiles, who have significant sexual reactions to adults (but who prefer children). True pedophile and non-pedophilic is used to differentiate between those child molesters who are sexually attracted to children and those who choose children from different reasons and who aren't predominantly sexually attracted to children.

Also the sources supporting the claims, that child molesters are often pedophiles are problematic. First (Mayo Clinic report) is based on G. Abel study and in the study sexual behavior towards children lasting over 6 months is used as sufficient criterion. However, this kind of behavior doesn't have to be motivated by predominant sexual attraction to children. At least this should be added as a note. The second source (Lanning, Kenneth) and in part I read (pages 25 - 41) I only foud the claim, that many child molesters are true pedophile (without direct references). I've read in claim by Czech sexologist Petr Weiss and Antonín Brzek, Weiss saying that 90 % of child molesters are not pedophiles and Brzek asked about that claim said that those are estimated, but that it's true that vast majority of offenders they are examining are not pedophiles. I think it would be useful to find more resources. The definition of pedophilia used in studies and the way of examination of offenders is important.

There shouldn't be parts about child sexual abuse, which aren't related to pedophilia. Those should be under the article about child sexual abuse.

94.113.225.37 (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Exclusive pedophiles are called true pedophiles, and that's because they are exclusively sexually attracted to prepubescent children. You are correct, however, that "non-exclusive" doesn't necessarily mean "non-pedophilic," considering that a person who is primarily sexually attracted to prepubescent children (meaning mostly sexually attracted to prepubescent children, but can be a little sexually attracted to post-pubescents/adults) is still considered a pedophile by all experts on the topic of pedophilia. A lot of experts on the topic of pedophilia also consider "primarily sexually attracted to prepubescent children" to be true pedophilia. Both primary and exclusive pedophiles are often put under the "preferential" title. However, "non-exclusive" and "non-pedophilic" are sometimes used interchangeably; this is why the following wording in the ICD-10 and DSM section currently states, "Non-exclusive offenders—or 'non-exclusive pedophiles'—may at times be referred to as non-pedophilic offenders, but the two terms are not always synonymous." And the following wording in the Prevalence and child molestation section currently states, "non-exclusive (or, in some cases, 'non-pedophilic')."

It's difficult to keep some parts about child sexual abuse that aren't about pedophilia out of this article, even when reliable sources are connecting child sexual abuse with pedophilia, and that's because child sexual abuse is conflated with pedophilia often and non-pedophilic offenders are compared to pedophilic offenders often. Sometimes, even law enforcement confuse the two things (which this article notes). See the Confusion of Pedophilia and Child Molestation discussion, where I stated, "Not only is not much known about the prevalence of pedophilia, and therefore a section on it would be very small, unless, like some sources say, the majority of child molesters are pedophiles (which could tell us the prevalence of pedophilia), the [Prevalence and child molestation section] is discussing the link between pedophilia and child molestation, and how one may be independent of the other. It's not confusing the two; it's noting the confusion between the two and how there is sometimes a link and a lack of one other times. This is best covered in one section." And also see the #Prevalence rates section above, where I stated, "[S]tatistically, it's proven difficult to gauge just how many people are pedophiles...except for in the cases where studies have concluded that repeat offenders are pedophiles or have been loose with the term and thrown in non-preferential child sexual abusers into their definition of 'pedophile.'" Flyer22 (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Nymphet. Ngram shows it in use in 1821. Long before Nabokov.

[3] 24.178.43.100 (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This raises two questions. First, what works back then actually feature the word? The link appears to allegedly show instances of the word in literature, but doesn't not appear to name those works or provide context. It is possible the word existed (possibly in French) but had a different meaning. Second, what is the relevance to this article?Legitimus (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Relevance to this article is mention that Nabokov coined the term nymphet in the Pedophilia#In culture section. The Google Books OCR software (or whatever they use) is mostly misreading the text for 19th century works (nymphae, etc) [4]. The OED indicates the word came into usage in the 17th century to indicate a young or small nymph (poetic) (see also Nubile#Nymphet). Modern meaning, "a sexually attractive or sexually mature young girl", follows the publication in 1955 of Lolita (although Nabokov apparently thought this definition inaccurate). Nabokov defined the term in the following manner: "Between the age limits of nine and fourteen there occur maidens who, to certain bewitched travellers, twice or many times older than they, reveal their true nature which is not human, but nymphic (that is, demoniac); and these chosen creatures I propose to designate as 'nymphets'." FiachraByrne (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Development and Sexual Orientation

Good overview from http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2010/July/pessimism-about-pedophilia

"Consensus now exists that pedophilia is a distinct sexual orientation, not something that develops in someone who is homosexual or heterosexual. Some people with pedophilic urges are also attracted to adults, and may act only on the latter urges. Because people with pedophilic urges tend to be attracted to children of a particular gender, they are sometimes described in the literature as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual pedophiles. Roughly 9% to 40% of pedophiles are homosexual in their orientation toward children — but that is not the same as saying they are homosexual." 99.235.227.179 (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Stating that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, at least regarding the usual/authoritative way that sexual orientation is defined (which is by sexual and/or romantic attraction to males and/or females, men and/or women, not whether or not someone is a child, adolescent or adult),[5][6] is WP:FRINGE. Some people (including a few researchers) use "sexual orientation" loosely, but it is not at all scientific consensus to call pedophilia a sexual orientation. Flyer22 (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I had never noticed that sexual orientation is only enumerated as heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual. I assumed the paraphilias were sexual orientations as well: the direction one's sexuality is oriented. Would an exclusive pedophile then be considered 'asexual' as they have no significant attraction to adults? Then again, while asexuality is considered a sexual orientation by some, the traditional approach appears to be to consider it a lack of a sexual orientation. In this case, would an exclusive pedophile be considered to have no sexual orientation? Neither of these options seem logical to me. 99.235.227.179 (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

No, since asexuality is defined as experiencing little (very little) or no sexual attraction to any person, an exclusive pedophile would not be considered asexual. Not unless he or she identifies as having romantic, but not sexual, attraction only to prepubescents. Like I stated, sexual orientation is not usually/authoritatively defined by whether or not someone is a child, adolescent or adult. If a man who is a pedophile is exclusively sexually attracted to prepubescent girls, for example, then he is a heterosexual pedophile. Flyer22 (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so you're saying that, for a person who identifies as being exclusively attracted to prepubescent girls, their 'sexual orientation' is 'heterosexual'. That clears up the logical inconsistency. 99.235.227.179 (talk) 05:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the male-female orientated sexual attraction makes it a heterosexual orientation. The source you listed above touches on this as well. The man being a pedophile is just an aspect of the male-female orientated sexual attraction; instead of being sexually focused on women, the man is sexually focused on prepubescent girls. And going back to the topic of asexuality, for a moment, some asexuals identify as heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual and this is because some asexuals experience romantic attraction...and sexual orientation is defined by romantic attraction in addition to sexual attraction, without one needing to come along with the other. However, because asexuals experience little or no sexual attraction to others, some of them identify as heteromantic or homoromantic, for example. And judging by your comment above regarding some people considering asexuality a sexual orientation while others consider it a lack of a sexual orientation, I take it that you've read all or parts of the Asexuality article and know that already. Flyer22 (talk) 05:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The way I interpret the article, "sexual orientation" is used to mean an innate sexual preference (as opposed to a developed preference) for a certain group. Use of the term is not intended to implicitly legitimize or illegitimize pedophilia, but rather, to make a statement about its origins. Although the information seems worth including, I think sexual orientation is vague in this context, and the term should be re-worded. Knight of Truth (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Online female pedophilia

Lambert, Sharon (1 July 2008). "Deductive thematic analysis of a female paedophilia website". Psychiatry, Psychology and Law. 15 (2): 284–300. doi:10.1080/13218710802014469. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Erroneous DSM quotation .. not "And" but "or" ....

In your article it says: "These include the presence of sexually arousing fantasies, behaviours or urges that involve some kind of sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 11 years or younger, though the diagnosis criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13) for six months or more, and that the subject has acted on these urges or suffers from distress as a result of having these feelings.

The actual DSM wording is: "Over a period of at least six months ... recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges OR behaviours involving sexual activity with a prepubscent child or children ..."

Important diagnostic consideration. Someone who never abused a child but has those recurrent and intense sexually arousing fantasies could be a pedophile, with the "or". With the "and", they are pedophiles only if they have victimized ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.234.138 (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I fixed that part of the ICD-10 and DSM section, IP, while also making other tweaks.[7][8] Flyer22 (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Section "Causes and biological associations"

If I remember correctly this was addressed in the past, but the section "Causes and biological associations" confuses pedophilia with child sexual abuse. The section doesn't give many details about the research cited, but my understanding is that this was conducted on people convicted of child sexual abuse; and therefore must be biased in its sample of subjects - not all pedophiles act to engage in CSA, most who commit CSA are never caught, and many who are initially investigated are not convicted in the end (generally due to lack of sufficient evidence since this is very difficult to prove in court). This means that this research can't just be generalized to be "about pedophiles". 2A02:2F0A:502F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:A382 (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not true for many of the sources in that section, at least the sources in there now. Many of the studies use subjects that were referred via the mental health system as being diagnosed with pedophilia, without necessarily having committed CSA. Also, it is your opinion that studies with only judicially-refereed subjects are not generalizable. The scientific experts that wrote the papers, and the other scientists that subjected it to peer review, probably would not agree with you, and not to be disparaging but their opinion is considered more valid.Legitimus (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit to reflect the DSM-V changes?

The article includes this paragraph: "According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), it is a paraphilia in which adults or adolescents 16 years of age or older have intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children that they have either acted on or which cause them distress or interpersonal difficulty.[1]"

The DSM-V no longer recognizes "pedophilia", but "pedophilic disorder". What makes it a disorder is acting on it or causing marked distress. This implies that "pedophilia" by itself (the attraction to children) is not a disorder. I think that this point is worth making. When people on the web ask "What is pedophilia?" and the answer is "It is a disorder...", quoting Wikipedia, I think the alternative perspective of the DSM-V ought to be noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EthanEdwards72 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

"Pedophilia by itself" is a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children; the majority of researchers still recognize that as abnormal and as a disorder. Any other type of sexual attraction to prepubescent children (such as adults who are situational offenders) is usually distinguished from pedophilia by experts in this field, as this article makes clear, though such attraction is not considered normative by experts in this field either (unless WP:Fringe). I'll leave others, such as sexologist James Cantor, to comment on the rest of your statement; I don't have the patience at the moment. Flyer22 (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

And "marked distress" is with regard to sexual attraction, along the lines of what the lead already states: "in which adults or adolescents 16 years of age or older have intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children that they have either acted on or which cause them distress or interpersonal difficulty." Flyer22 (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe Ethan’s point is quite fair, and I think a lede can be written that serves each of the purposes mentioned. Specifically, I think that that could best had by using a very simple definition followed by an acknowledgement of the vagaries (which could be expanded upon in the article). Let me suggest this as an alternative to the current wording:

Pedophilia is the sexual interest or preference for children. It is distinct from child molestation, which is often, but not always, motivated by pedophilia. There is some disagreement among experts and psychiatric manuals over when pedophilia should be diagnosed as a disorder, called Pedophilic Disorder in the DSM-5 and Paedophilia in the ICD-10.

— James Cantor (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

James, we have extensively discussed why the first part of your suggested wording should be avoided. And I still disagree with using such wording, per the reasons stated by me and those who voiced similar opinions to mine in the Experience of preference and Next step on definitions discussions back in 2010, and per what has been stated many times on this talk page about using the term mental disorder with regard to pedophilia. Those who agreed with my statements or portions of them includes you. First, saying "pedophilia is the sexual interest in children" includes any sexual interest in children, including pubescents and post-pubescents, when most experts in this field include "prepubescent" and not pubertal and post-pubertal aspects when defining pedophilia. We don't need readers citing Wikipedia for the inaccurate assertion that pedophilia is any sexual interest in children, and we don't need Wikipedia contradicting itself -- a contradiction to what is stated at parts in the article about distinguishing sexual attraction to prepubescents from sexual attraction to pubescents or post-pubescents. The DSM-5 also includes "prepubescent." And like you stated in the "Next step on definitions" discussion: Although it is entirely true that the biomedical definition is not unanimous, it would be an error to exaggerate the prominence of the alternatives. The scholar.google engine, which searches all academic fields, finds 19,700 articles with the keyword “pedophilia.” The results, which are (mostly) sorted by citation rate, show that the great majority of top scholarship uses the biomedical definition. So although one can certainly pick out from the literature notable authors who used alternative definitions, these comprise only a small proportion of the existing scholarship. (Moreover, the evolution among scholars over recent decades has been for greater, not lesser, precision; the pubs that used alternative definitions are very often 20+ years out of date.)

Well, I am also for greater precision. If we include "prepubescent" and say "Pedophilia is the sexual interest or preference for prepubescent children," that is also not most accurate because that includes child molesters who are not pedophiles, and experts in this field generally make a distinction between "any sexual interest in prepubescent children" and "pedophilia," because, like this articles notes, there can be a number of reasons that an adult takes sexual interest in a child without being a pedophile in the technical sense. Your suggested wording does not help distinguish these offenders from pedophiles, despite the article making very clear that there is a distinction. And disagreement about calling pedophilia a mental disorder is minor among experts in this field, and it is not controversial among them to call pedophilia a mental disorder. Like I stated above, the majority of them still view pedophilia as a mental disorder. It would therefore be WP:UNDUE WEIGHT and misleading to make a statement about disagreement over "disorder" in the lead, as though "disorder" is a major dispute among the experts with regard to pedophilia and as though there is controversy about it. Not to mention, that aspect is not covered lower in the article...except for hints at it in the Debate regarding the DSM criteria section. And though I originally had no problem using the word preference, stating "preference" is also problematic because, as was agreed on in the "Experience of preference" discussion, many (maybe most) people take sexual preference to mean sexual orientation. That's also why "sexual preference" currently redirects to the Sexual orientation article, which was noted as a problem with regard to mentioning it and linking to it in this article; the term is used interchangeably with "sexual orientation" too often and overlaps with "sexual orientation" so much that it seemingly cannot sustain its own Wikipedia article. And most experts in this field do not consider pedophilia to be a sexual orientation, though a lot of them compare it to one, and too many pedophiles want pedophilia to be called a sexual orientation because they feel that it legitimizes their sexual attraction. As you know, too many of them have tried to call pedophilia a sexual orientation in this Pedophilia Wikipedia article. The term sexual preference can also signal "choice" and doesn't as accurately cover those who have an exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Because of all that, I feel that we should stay away from "sexual preference" as the lead-in...and away from it in the rest of the article unless quoting a source. In the "Experience of preference" discussion, its "prefs" subsection, you stated: Yes, I think "primary sexual attraction" is accurate and does indeed appear frequently in RS's. (I probably have used it myself.) The related phrases would also work: "sexual interest primarily in prepubescent children," etc.

Lastly, I like the order of the current WP:Consensus lead: Medical definitions first, popular usage definitions second, and information about the history of pedophilia and how far research has come on the topic placed last. As you know, I have always strongly felt that the medical definitions of pedophilia take priority. I feel that any mention of the DSM-5 definition in the lead is better placed in the second paragraph, where the other medical definitions are. I'm not sure about removing the DSM-IV TR definition and replacing that with the DSM-5 definition in that paragraph, or with removing any mention of the DSM-IV TR criteria in the ICD-10 and DSM section, considering how very controversial the DSM-5 has been (as discussed in the DSM-5 Wikipedia article), but I'm not against doing that. Flyer22 (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Flyer is entirely correct wrt WP:Consensus etc. However, consensus can change, and my personal 2 cents isn't in 100% agreement with the DSM and ICD (which don't entirely agree with each other). (As you might guess, I usually follow the results of primary sources, whereas WP prefers secondary and tertiary sources.) FWIW, the opinions of many experts has been shifting, partly in the wake of the DSM debates and partly (I believe) with the advent of several groups of (non-offender) pedophiles participating in (productive) discussions with those experts. I have no reason to push the POV, but the release of the new DSM (and its separation of pedophilia from Pedophilic Disorder) would indeed seem a logical time to discuss how WP handles it.— James Cantor (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know that consensus can change, James. That's always important to remember/point out on Wikipedia. However, the problems stated with your suggested wording are as valid now as they were three years ago. I agree that the DSM-5's separation of pedophilia from Pedophilic Disorder should be mentioned in the lead, especially since the topic is discussed in the "Debate regarding the DSM criteria" section. It should also be elaborated on in that section. My disagreement with you at the moment is simply about your proposed changes to the lead, per above. I'm interested to see if Legitimus has a suggestion about how to include the DSM-5 matter in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like to propose the insertion of the following paragraph just before the one that starts with "ego-dystonic sexual orientation":

---

The conclusion of the final DSM-V is that the term "pedophilia" by itself does not refer to a psychiatric disorder. There is no longer an entry for "Pedophilia" but only one for "Pedophilic Disorder", and it states that if individuals "report an absence of feelings of guilt, shame, or anxiety about these impulses and are not functionally limited by their paraphilic impulses (according to self-report, objective assessment, or both), and their self-reported and legally recorded histories indicate that they have never acted on their impulses, then these individuals have a pedophilic sexual orientation but not pedophilic disorder."

---

This finesses the issue of whether pedophilia is in fact a disorder, by addressing only the DSM-V position on the matter, not that of "consensus", however that is to be determined. EthanEdwards72 (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe that is an inaccurate representation of the DSM-V changes. The only thing that changed was the name; the diagnostic criteria stayed exactly as they were[9]. The elaboration in the above proposal on what defines it is unnecessary. To clarify something, the changeover in DSM terms from [paraphilia] to [paraphilia] disorder was to separate non-dysfunctional "kink" from true paraphilic dysfunction. The APA even specifically calls out pedophilia as not changing, saying the name is only different "to maintain consistency with the chapter’s other listings."

Legitimus (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That's some of what I was thinking, Legitimus. After all, "Pedophilic Disorder" is pedophilia...even if titling "Pedophilic Disorder" a more stressful version. And as the lead of the DSM-5 article currently states, which is supported by reliable sources lower in the article, "Various scientists have argued that the DSM-5 forces clinicians to make distinctions that are not supported by solid evidence, distinctions that have major treatment implications, including drug prescriptions and the availability of health insurance coverage."

Anyway, do you feel that we should mention in the lead that the DSM-5 lists pedophilia as Pedophilic Disorder, and that we should mention the DSM-5 aspects in the "ICD-10 and DSM" section? If we don't add some sort of information to the article about this, other than what is in the "Debate regarding the DSM criteria" section, someone might add it in a less accurate way. Flyer22 (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with mentioning that the DSM-5 calls it a specific name. It's also ok to mention the name changed from a prior name so long as we specify the diagnostic criteria did not change. I do not think we should be trying to claim this change implies more than what is stated by the APA in the official releases.Legitimus (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think these objections have merit. The fact that some scientists don't like the DSM-5 isn't a reason not to say what the DSM-5 position is; moreover the objections do not specifically call out anything related to the pedophilic disorder issue. When you say ""Pedophilic Disorder" is pedophilia...even if titling "Pedophilic Disorder" a more stressful version." that muddies the issue. Pedophilic disorder is a *subset* of pedophilia. "Pedophilic disorder" is a more stressful version, true, and the distinction is between a version that is not a disorder and one that is. In [10], the general case is stated quite clearly, and the specific comment regarding pedophilia says only that more widespread changes were considered but not adopted; it does not say that it is an exception to the general change. I think the quote is quite clear and unambiguous in laying out the possibility of a pedophilic sexual orientation that is not a disorder. Instead of my suggested "The conclusion of the final DSM-V is that the term "pedophilia" by itself does not refer to a psychiatric disorder." we could substitute, "The final DSM-V states that in some cases pedophilia is a sexual orientation but not a disorder." That would also make the necessary point.

EthanEdwards72 (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

What objections are you referring to? Above, there is agreement to add information about the DSM-5 calling pedophilia "Pedophilic Disorder" and to elaborate on that lower in the article (past the lead). So you must be referring to Legitimus's statement that you provided an inaccurate representation of the DSM-5 changes and that we should not be "trying to claim this change implies more than what is stated by the APA in the official releases." As for the scientists, it's not just a matter of some scientists not liking the DSM-5; it seems that many do not like it because, again, they feel that it "forces clinicians to make distinctions that are not supported by solid evidence." I am not muddling the issue when I state that "Pedophilic Disorder" is pedophilia; I'm not because, as I've made clear, the vast majority of the literature on the topic of pedophilia, old and recent, regards pedophilia as a disorder...whether it's called a mental disorder, a sexual disorder, or both. The scientific community generally feels the same way on that matter that they felt three years ago about it. I researched the topic a bit this past week just to revalidate that, despite already knowing it. I don't see where many scientists have changed their opinion on that aspect. I maintain that "disagreement about calling pedophilia a mental disorder is minor among experts in this field, and it is not controversial among them to call pedophilia a mental disorder." But I do recognize what the DSM-5 states, and I have no issue with including something in this article about it. But it makes no sense to give WP:UNDUE:WEIGHT to it, considering the points that contrast yours about it above. Flyer22 (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Updated, as seen here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 August 2013

See also

• Child sexuality
• age of consent
• Teenage pregnancy
• Prevalence of teenage pregnancy

...

• Virtuous Pedophiles

95.73.36.224 (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The ultimate is a redirect, I cant see what the 1st four have to do with the subject of this article, to my mind there is no connection. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Virtuous Pedophiles, which is on my WP:Watchlist, was an article. But SqueakBox made it a redirect soon after the IP's request. I don't much care if Virtuous Pedophiles is an article or not, but it should be removed from the See also section if it's going to remain a redirect. And, SqueakBox, I take it that you started back up watching this article after this discussion between us at the Age of consent reform article? Or have you always remained watching it while having stepped back from the subject on Wikipedia for some time? Either way, welcome back. Flyer22 (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I actually didnt use my watchlist for any articles for years until recently (last month or two). Pigsonthewing has afd'd Virtuous Pedophiles after another user challenged my redirect action. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Similarly, I went about two years without using a WP:Watchlist until this year (see User talk:Flyer22/Archive 11#Thank you!, and I've mentioned elsewhere on my talk page before then that I had abandoned my watchlist). And, yes, I saw that Pigsonthewing nominated that article for deletion after James Cantor contested the notability tag and redirect. Flyer22 (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 September 2013

Reason: Consensus through talk page discussion is needed.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please summarize and add the following to biological section of pedophilia In the biological section of pedophilia, it states that pedophile men hava lower IQ, are left handed, have lower heigth, lower education level, etc. It should be noted and emphasized that this are averages, meaning that many pedophiles have high IQ, are not left handed, are taller, have high education level, etc. The above is mainly based on research conducted by canadian homosexual psychologist James Cantor and protegee Blanchart on a small group of prissoners (mostly) who actually raped several children, so it is describing an average of people who comitted an act, contrary to what is stated at the top of the article that it is only about desire. These research are of questionable quality as well. For example, lower height found is only 1 inch, which may be statistically insignificant for larger sample groups. How does this compare with philipines or chinesse, whose average height is 20 cm lower than canadians? Are canadian prissoners of pedophilia (from the referenced research by James Cantor) way taller than heterosexual chiness? How about chinesse pedophiles, are they shorter than chinesse non-pedophiles? Does it relate two how female in your environment see you (lower height) thus this trait being more psychological than biological? Also, a lot of left handed people are not pedophiles, have higher IQs, etc. The above patterns in people may describe biological differences, but these differences are not necessarily causation of pedophilia, as is implied. If pedophiles may have less testosterone, then how come most pedophiles (but not all) are men? Earlier research conducted on pedophilia found no statistical difference on IQ levels of pedophiles (http://www.jaapl.org/content/13/1/17.full.pdf), contradicting the canadian team research, who found only a 10 point difference, which is really minimal and not significant according to several IQ experts. The validity of IQ tests have also come into question as na effective way of measuring intelligence (see wikipedia article). There is also a link between homosexuality and pedophilia which should be addressed. While most homosexuals claim that there is no connection between the two, research has shown that there is a 70% chance that homosexual couples sexualy abuse the children they have adopted (http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF08L46.pdf) Research bias (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. If you are asking for an edit request, you need to provide the exact edit you want made. RudolfRed (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 October 2013

Reason: Consensus through talk page discussion is needed.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please change the section on Causes and Biological Section as I stated before Please chnage the following sentence: "Although what causes pedophilia is not yet known, beginning in 2002, researchers began reporting a series of findings linking pedophilia with brain structure and function: Pedophilic men have lower IQs,[76][77][78] poorer scores on memory tests,[77] greater rates of non-right-handedness,[76][77][79][80] greater rates of school grade failure over and above the IQ differences,[81] lesser physical height,[82] greater probability of having suffered childhood head injuries resulting in unconsciousness,[65][83] and several differences in MRI-detected brain structures.[84][85][86]" To read as follows: "Although what causes pedophilia is not yet known, beginning in 2002, a Canadian research team began reporting a series of findings on a subset of inmates and heterogenous groups attempting to link pedophilia with brain structure and function. In their research, they found that pedophilic men, on average, have IQs which are 10 points lower than the IQ mean,[76][77][78] poorer scores on memory tests,[77] greater rates of non-right-handedness,[76][77][79][80] greater rates of school grade failure over and above the IQ differences,[81] slightly lesser physical height by one inch than the average male height,[82] greater probability of having suffered childhood head injuries resulting in unconsciousness,[65][83] and several differences in MRI-detected brain structures, all compared to male Canadian control groups and statistics.[84][85][86]" Then following this sentence, please add: "However, the above findings contradict earlier research reviewed in (http://www.jaapl.org/content/13/1/17.full.pdf), where no correlations were found with senility, IQ or mental retardation, and tetosterone levels where between normal and high." Reason for change: The way the research by Blanchard, Cantor et al is written on wikipedia implies that all pedophiles have lower IQs, have poorer scores on memory tests, lesser physical height, etc, while there are many pedophiles who have high IQs, score well on memory tests, are tall, are not left handed, etc. It is average results on an average of men (not even women) with a certain paraphilia. Their research was originally conducted mainly on inmates, then later on, after criticism, they moved on to supposedly heterogenous groups, as I stated and can be read on the cited articles. Cantor states on the wikipedia talk page that he has oftained "metadata" from all over the world. For example, how does he compare the probability of school failure in Congo with Canada? Are the two educational systems even comparable? Is there any "metadata" on head trauma injury on pedophiles from China? Pretty much all of this association of traits with pedophilia, as stated in wikipedia, is comming from two sources: the Canadian Research Team, and their associates in Germany for MRI scans. Of course these MRI scans where only conducted in Canada and Germany, and are averages. Cantor has no MRI "metadata" from all over the place. Head injuries and MRI studies, as stated in Wikipedia right now, don't explain why pedophiles are predominantely men, not women. A short left-handed girl who suffers a concussion, as opposed to a boy, is much less likely to develop pedophilia, hinting that there may be other factors which are much more relevant. As stated in the wikipedia article, the MRI studies "may suggest" that certain patterns are associated with pedophilia, which means they may also suggest something else which may or may not have a realation to pedophilia at all. There are plenty of neurological diseases where MRI or CAT scans are useless. Patients come with serious problems, much more serious than something as innocous as pedophilia, and nothing shows up on the scans. This is not to undermine their research, but to prevent the use of their research, as it has been too often, to generalize, discriminate, humilliate, diminish, stigmatize and undermine a whole subset of people who may not even be pedophiles. I sincerely hope this is not their intention. I believe the inclusion of 20-30 year old research is important. For example, Newton proposed his laws several hundred years ago. While more recent theories derived on Einstein's work are more complete, they don't invalidate Newton's mechanical system for most of everyday, real life applications. Thera are tens of thousands of examples like this in academia. In other words, the fact that research is 30 years old does not mean it is wrong; newer research is not correct just becuase it is new. Same for completeness. If 30 years from now, research is done contradicting the Canadian team, i wouldn't be surprised. So, for the sake of completeness, please include the earlier research I have stated, so that the general public has a better, more comprehensive and fair view of the matter at hand, from more research teams than just one or two. As it is written now, it is innacurate, flawed and biased towards one side of the coin. Research bias (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. RudolfRed (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 October 2013

Reason: Consensus through talk page discussion is needed.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In the Causes and Biological Section Please chnage the following sentence: "Although what causes pedophilia is not yet known, beginning in 2002, researchers began reporting a series of findings linking pedophilia with brain structure and function: Pedophilic men have lower IQs,[76][77][78] poorer scores on memory tests,[77] greater rates of non-right-handedness,[76][77][79][80] greater rates of school grade failure over and above the IQ differences,[81] lesser physical height,[82] greater probability of having suffered childhood head injuries resulting in unconsciousness,[65][83] and several differences in MRI-detected brain structures.[84][85][86]" To read as follows: "Although what causes pedophilia is not yet known, beginning in 2002, a Canadian research team began reporting a series of findings on a subset of inmates and heterogenous groups attempting to link pedophilia with brain structure and function. In their research, they found that pedophilic men, on average, have IQs which are 10 points lower than the IQ mean,[76][77][78] poorer scores on memory tests,[77] greater rates of non-right-handedness,[76][77][79][80] greater rates of school grade failure over and above the IQ differences,[81] slightly lesser physical height by one inch than the average male height,[82] greater probability of having suffered childhood head injuries resulting in unconsciousness,[65][83] and several differences in MRI-detected brain structures, all compared to male Canadian control groups and statistics.[84][85][86]" Then following this sentence, please add: "However, the above findings contradict earlier research reviewed in (http://www.jaapl.org/content/13/1/17.full.pdf), where no correlations were found with senility, IQ or mental retardation, and tetosterone levels where between normal and high." Research bias (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Because I am the RW author of most of those studies, I prefer to let the discussion be led by others. I would recommend great caution in evaluating the edit request, however. The claims/description provided by User:Research bias contain several factual inaccuracies, subtle POV language, and SYNTH. For example, the conclusion that pedophilia is associated with lower mean IQ is based on meta-analysis, a formal technique for gathering all data ever reported; it is not the result from my team only or "a subset of inmates...". Regarding the final sentence suggested in the edit request: Science moves forward, not backwards. That is, newer, more comprehensive findings are supposed to replace 30 years older, much smaller, and less comprehensive studies. Etc.— James Cantor (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC) I'm already highly suspicious of these edit requests for several reasons. For one, a username like "Research bias" suggests a tendency towards denial of mainstream scientific findings that disagree with their own political/religious doctrines. Of particular note was the last thread contains several factual errors such as claiming all the pedophilic sample were inmates, when in fact many were clinical referrals. But what really sealed was the ludicrous linking of homosexuality to pedophilia and using a link from the Family Research Council, a well-known right-wing Christian political organization with very well documented bias to the point they are listed as a hate-group. The request here seems to serve little purpose other than undermining the source material, particularly the requested addition of a 30 year old obsolete study.Legitimus (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.. Marking this as answered until there is consensus on the change. RudolfRed (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard

The author of the above edit requests filed a case at WP:DRN, where I am a volunteer. The case is at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Pedophilia. I closed the case because, as it says at the top of the DRN page, "The dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before requesting help at DRN." I am also collapsing the requests; the collapse templates should be removed if the requester starts discussing them and seeking consensus. Note: I have no previous connection with this topic or the editors working on it. --22:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 October 2013

Please change the section on Causes and Biological Section as I stated before Please chnage the following sentence: "Although what causes pedophilia is not yet known, beginning in 2002, researchers began reporting a series of findings linking pedophilia with brain structure and function: Pedophilic men have lower IQs,[76][77][78] poorer scores on memory tests,[77] greater rates of non-right-handedness,[76][77][79][80] greater rates of school grade failure over and above the IQ differences,[81] lesser physical height,[82] greater probability of having suffered childhood head injuries resulting in unconsciousness,[65][83] and several differences in MRI-detected brain structures.[84][85][86]" To read as follows: "Although what causes pedophilia is not yet known, beginning in 2002, a Canadian research team began reporting a series of findings on a subset of inmates and heterogenous Canadian groups attempting to link pedophilia with brain structure and function. In their research, they found that pedophilic men, on average, have IQs which are 10 points lower than the IQ mean,[76][77][78] poorer scores on memory tests,[77] greater rates of non-right-handedness,[76][77][79][80] greater rates of school grade failure over and above the IQ differences,[81] slightly lesser physical height by one inch than the average male height,[82] greater probability of having suffered childhood head injuries resulting in unconsciousness,[65][83] and several differences in MRI-detected brain structures, all compared mostly to male Canadian control groups and statistics.[84][85][86]" Then following this sentence, please add: "However, the above findings contradict earlier research reviewed in (http://www.jaapl.org/content/13/1/17.full.pdf), where no correlations were found with senility, IQ or mental retardation, and tetosterone levels where between normal and high." Research bias (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Reason for change The research performed by the Canadian team, to the best of my knowledge, has not been fully veryfied by other research teams (left handedness, lower height by one inch, greater probability of childhood trauma, etc. MRI scans from Germany and Canada differ, where on small subset groups, and this is not stated in the article. As it is now, it is etnocentric and geacentric, and tt contradicts earlier research, as stated, so I think this is important to note. Previous answer by Cantor was arrogant at best, he did not want to accept research contradictory to his own (which may be cherry picked data, 50% of psychology research is). There is a strong correlation between homosexuality and child molestation, statistics don´t lie, but I will leave it for later. I would like another editor (not the previous one who sided with Cantor) to review this edit request. Research bias (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Stop making these requests until you get consensus on the change you're proposing. RudolfRed (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Eyes, please?

As the sections above show, the single purpose account has not gained any support for the repeatedly suggested changes. However, an IP account has nonetheless just instituted those same edits at James Cantor. Rather than address the errors and POVs in those changes myself, I'd prefer that someone else take a look and provide whatever input appropriate. Thanks.— James Cantor (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Replied on Talk page, but with explanation about these edit requests as well since they are related.Legitimus (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 October 2013

Please change "Another study, using structural MRI, shows that male pedophiles have a lower volume of white matter than a control group.[84] Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has shown that child molesters diagnosed with pedophilia have reduced activation of the hypothalamus as compared with non-pedophilic persons when viewing sexually arousing pictures of adults.[88] A 2008 functional neuroimaging study notes that central processing of sexual stimuli in heterosexual "paedophile forensic inpatients" may be altered by a disturbance in the prefrontal networks, which "may be associated with stimulus-controlled behaviours, such as sexual compulsive behaviours". The findings may also suggest "a dysfunction at the cognitive stage of sexual arousal processing".[89]" to " "In another study using structural MRI, no differences were observed on a particular male pedophile from control groups, but on a small sample group, a statistical group average of lower white matter was observed.[84] In contrast, in Germany, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has shown that a small sample of child molesters diagnosed with pedophilia have reduced activation of the hypothalamus as compared with non-pedophilic persons when viewing sexually arousing pictures of adults.[88] A 2008 functional neuroimaging study notes that central processing of sexual stimuli in heterosexual "paedophile forensic inpatients" may be altered by a disturbance in the prefrontal networks, which "may be associated with stimulus-controlled behaviours, such as sexual compulsive behaviours". The findings may also suggest "a dysfunction at the cognitive stage of sexual arousal processing".[89]"

Reason for change: No difference in white matter can be observed in one individual alone. It is a statistical average (reworked data) of a small sample of people compared to a small control group. Research bias (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

As I say, I think it would be more appropriate for other editors than me to lead the discussion. I would offer, however, that the suggested edit unnecessarily relies on a single primary source. A new meta-analysis of all existing fMRI data (available here) provides a superior encapsulation, however.— James Cantor (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Have the discussions, reach a consensus with the other interested editors, then ask for the edit. Editors responding to the {{edit semi-protected}} template should never make edits which do not have either an implied consensus or an established, explicit consensus. (In practice, some number of the other interested editors will be auto-confirmed and they will be able to implement the agreed-upon changes.) Thanks, Celestra (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Eyes again, please?

This time at Virtuous pedophiles. An editor there has had difficulty establishing talkpage consensus for a series of mainpage edits. The editor previously AfD'd the article, but did not gain consensus for that either. At the failed AfD of the article, the editor expressed his opinion about the page as "a pro-pedophile rant," "not NPOV and I dont think, looking at the article, that we can make it NPOV." Despite the talkpage accusations against me from that editor, I have no COI about the group, other than I happen to respect what they are doing. Nonetheless, the page would benefit from input from folks other than me.— James Cantor (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

What has this got to do with the pedophilia article, or are you just canvassing? And which editor are you referring to? ie which of the thousands who didnt afd the Virtuous Pedophile article? Strikinmg your knowingly false claims is not impressive. You apparently think you are above responding to the very real COI charges but this isnt the place to discuss your COI activities anyway, this si the place to discuss the pedophile article. If you want to canvas you should go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, that, notn here, is the appropriate place. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit suggestion regarding Treatment (not NPOV)

This phrase:

"Although pedophilia has yet no cure"

is not NPOV as it implies that one will be found at some point. Perhaps the wording below would be better;

"Although no cure has been found for pedophilia"

(192.0.204.205 (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC))

Firstly Im not sure you need to add cure, period. It is a phenemenoa that is age-old and at various points in history what is regarded negatively today has been viewed not so unvafavourably. GHeck, evfen today you have child marriage in some places that is at least quasi-legal (and marriage means consummation)Lihaas (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: Legitimus I already accepted the IP's request. Flyer22 (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)