Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 7

message: Why cannot I add "Mohammad" as a bullet to the "See Also" section? Mohammad married Aisha when Aisha was 5 or 6 years old. This is, by all definitions, pedophilia. Is there some kind of silent consensus here that Mohammad's pedophilia cannot even be mentioned?  I see that PC is at work, as always. Tauphon 15:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved your text to the bottom where it should go. I'm guessing no one noticed it because we usually look at the bottom for new stuff. Here is why we can't add "Mohammad" to this article. First, the medical determination requires an examination by a professional. This is not possible. Sometimes modern people try to make a guess about a historical person using available data, but there is little usable data in this case and in cases where data is available the accuracy such retrospective analysis is questionable. Using the colloquial definition we run into the same issues of available data. For example this could have been a ceremonial marriage or the ages could be the result of a misinterpretation. --Gbleem 08:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Take a look at Aisha. Muhammad clearly doesn't belong on this page Nil Einne 18:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you would need impeccable sourcing for us to even consider adding him, so do bring sources here, SqueakBox 18:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition is modern, but if we wanted to apply it retroactively, a large percentage of the ancient world might have been considered pedophiles.  The Bible doesn't mention anyone's age at marriage, but the Talmud clarifies things by specifying, for example, that wives who are less than 12 years old should use birth control, since pregnancy might kill them.  If a male's brother died, he was expected to marry (and have children with) his brother's widow, and there is discussion of this obligation still holding in a case where the bridegroom-to-be is 9.  And these views were hardly unique to the Middle East.  Listing people from the fairly distant past would be as meaningless as adding thousands of names to a list of slaveowners.  Context is everything.—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Poindexter Propellerhead (talk • contribs) 04:22, May 20, 2007 added by DPetersontalk 21:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mohammad 

message: I agree, all that material was largely based on one college student sample and represented Undue influence regarding the ciation.  Nice job deleting that section. DPetersontalk 00:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent deletion of "incidence" sections

message: The line A hospital in Berlin, Germany reported success using role-play therapy and medicine. The pedophiles were better able to control their urges once they understood the child's view.[52][53] is sourced with a news story and not an empirical journal.  Do other editors think that is noteworthy enough to warrant it's inclusion?  Consider this an informal within article RfC.  DPetersontalk 23:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the one who added that. I think it's verifiable that the clinic has made this claim, and that it was the result of an actual study. Whether a claim of an effective treatment is worth mentioning is another matter. I'm not sure why we'd require it to have been published in an empirical journal. (Though I presume they'll publish in one eventually).  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 23:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, here's a link to the institute conducting the study:  They are part of Charité, called "the largest university hospital in Europe".  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 23:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's essentially a detailed press release about the study, in English. "Prevention of Child Molestation in the Dunkelfeld"  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 23:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question on treatment citation

message: Citizendium now also has a live article on pedophilia at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Pedophilia.  What strikes me after reading it is our first sentence now.  We define pedophilia as exclusively or primarily attracted to children.  Both Norbert de Jonge and Marthijn Uittenbogaard stated on TV that they are luckily also attracted to adults.  Need we rephrase our definition to "strongly or even exclusively" to reflect the lower occurence of 7% of exclusives?
:Interesting point.  DSM-III required that the attraction to pre-pubescents be "repeatedly preferred or exclusive;" DSM-IV lets the diagnostician specify whether it's exclusive or non-exclusive.  I'm thinking that our first sentence is based, at least in part, on the older definition.  Does anyone know of a reason (based in the current, standardized definitions) why exclusivity should be retained as a criterion? Poindexter Propellerhead 13:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The DSM-IV is the criteria to use.  DPetersontalk 22:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citizendium: Nonexclusive pedophiles 

message: I'm inclined to change "peripubescent" to "early pubescent" in the lead, because I don't think anybody knows what "peripubescent" means. Dybryd 08:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is ok with me. DPetersontalk 12:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "peripubescent" -> "early pubescent"

message: I restored this section to a previous version; a lot of sourced information seemed to have been excised without any reason given. It is important to state the research that shows that not all pedophiles are molesters, and not all molesters are pedophiles, and someone had deleted several claims that emphasized this. I would remind editors that, especially in the case of controversial articles, it is appropriate to discuss the elimination of info beforehand, particularly when it is extensively sourced.
I can perhaps find more sources to cite for the claims in this section, if that is the issue, although I think these claims already are sourced well enough to be included.
For now, I also deleted the curious sentence "However, regardless of "cause," it is a mental illness in accordance with the DSM-IV definition." What exactly does "it" refer to: sex offenses? Sex offenses certainly do not in and of themselves indicate mental illnesses in accordance with the DSM, and if "it" was referring to pedophilia, then a section on sex offenders seems like an odd place to include this sentence.
Mike D78 05:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Occurrence in child sex offenders

message: This page has been protected due to edit warring.  Exploding Boy 17:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For how long? SqueakBox 18:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Shouldn't it be tagged as such at the top of the page, then? Dybryd 18:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For three days, to start.  Forgot to add the tag: done now.  Exploding Boy 21:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article should be tagged, not the talk page? DPetersontalk 21:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 3 days sounds okay to me, gives us all time to think through what we want to do next with this whole series of articles, SqueakBox 22:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: I don't understand why a large section of the article was deleted.  I restored it.  If that was an error on my part, pls explain.  I just did not see any reason stated for the deletion, hence my restoration. DPetersontalk 17:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know who deleted it, but it's pretty obvious why.  SqueakBox's merge was undone, so now we have a Pro-pedophile activism article, an Anti-pedophile activism article, and you have once again restored the content of both articles into Pedophilia as well. I think you know all this, but since you asked....-Jmh123 17:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I'd not seen that.  I see your point now.  While there are two sep articles, the material is to remain separate.  DPetersontalk 19:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, perhaps you will once again remove the duplicated material until the matter is settled?  -Jmh123 19:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No?  Alright, I did it.  I see no need to duplicate the material, and it is entirely excessive in its present form in this article.  -Jmh123 22:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Added back large section deleted

message: I have added a link to a site wich tries to cover the debate within the psychiatric community on the issue whether or not pedophilia should be considered a mental disorder. It offers comments made by 21 prominent sexologists/APA professionals. It covers the views of, among others, Green, Rind, Moser, Spitzer and Berlin. What do you all think? Equilibrist 08:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is fine.  We just need to understand that this is an opinion piece. It is not published in a professional peer-reviewed journal.  At this point in time Pedophilia is a mental illness, by definition, per ICD-9 and DSM. DPetersontalk 00:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was indeed published in a professional peer-reviewed journal: it appeared in the December 2002 edition of Archives of Sexual Behavior and was written by a noted psychologist and sexologist. Psychology is a "soft science," and the official APA line on pedophilia could be seen as simply an "opinion piece" as well, albeit one subscribed to by a larger number of people at this point. I agree with another editor's suggestion that this article needs a brief "alternative views" section to concisely note the opinions of academics like Green. Mike D78 01:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If it's alright, though, I may change the link to a mirror of the article itself, as the current link merely points to a summary of it. Mike D78 01:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, Mike, go ahead. I agree that we need to include a link to the original article by Green as well, somehow. Equilibrist 04:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Added new link

message: I've added a quote to the article which I think illustrates Berlin's position on pedophilia pretty well. I also deleted the sentence about his view not being consistent with the DSM criteria, as he actually does still consider pedophilia to be a disorder despite viewing the term "orientation" as an accurate way to describe it. Mike D78 22:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New quote from Fred Berlin 

message: This removed content is important for people to take their own conclusions about the subject of the article. I believe people reading this will find it really important that the manual that says that pedophilia is a paraphilia also used to say that homosexuality is a paraphilia until 30 years ago. This information will allow them to relativize the importance of that source. Someone researching the subject could, of course, just go to the article about the DSM and find this out for themself. I think the question is really how relevant this is. Since there are only two' manuals in the introduction, and thus the DSM stands for half the manuals, I find this is important enough to be in the introduction. A.Z. 03:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The place to question the DSM is in the article on the DSM.  Wikipedia does not exist to lobby for a specific POV and it should not serve as a tool for propaganda; rather it exists to explain the world as it is.  Someone researching the subject will see the facts, and that is as it should be. The APA has made it very clear that there is no plan to change the diagnosis or endorse pedophilia.  -Jmh123 04:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this issue has already been covered in "external links", which leads to a full version of Green's discussion paper "Is pedophilia a mental disorder?". Among other things, Green refers to his opposition against listing homosexuality as a disorder as an argument against the vagueness of the DSM criteria right at the beginning of his article. Nevertheless, I think that the statement could be included in the "alternative views" section, if someone could create\propose it. 80.165.17.67 22:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The removed material does not belong.  This is an article about Pedophila, which is a mental disorder per the DSM and ICD-9.  I agree with Jmh123 that the place to raise the historical issue of homosexuality having once been included belongs in the DSM article, just as material about how once radical masts were the norm for breast cancer treatment...or bleeding was once a treatment, etc. DPetersontalk 22:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DSM and homosexuality 

message: Introuction of article has been vandalized, suggesting the cure to pedophilia is 'lyncing and beating people up'. Now well in certain specific cases I do not disagree 100%, lynching was misspelled, so it should be fixed. What, if anything, it should be replaced with, I have no idea, so I leave the edit to someone else.Alexander 10:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need for this in the introduction. Besides, it's inherently POV, and we already have a whole section on "treatment" where all of the currently mainstream approaches have been covered in sufficient detail (beating people up is NOT one of them, BTW!) Equilibrist 11:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You can usually tell from the history if the vandalism was an addition or a replacement. If you aren't sure then you should delete the vandalism. It is better to have missing data than vandalism. Other people can add the good information in if the vandal deleted something important. --Gbleem 11:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction vandalized 

message: Under Extent of Occurrence section, some sort of statistics or mention needs to be made of women, as it does not just affect men.Alexander 10:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, we could mention that there is also a significant minority of women who are sexually attracted to children. For starters, here's an article that might be of interest: http://yani.glgarden.org/Archive/07-2003/Article01.html Equilibrist 11:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extent of Occurrence and Article in General 

message: I think the spelling paragraph in the definition section is interesting, but it is very POV and may not belong in the definition section. --Gbleem 12:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  spelling 

message: According to this article, pedophilia is a preferential or exclusive sexual attraction by adults to prepubescent youths. What if it's not preferential or exclusive (if an adult is sexually attracted to prepubescent youths as well as adults but more to adults)? Would that person still be classified as a pedophile?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiBone (talk • contribs). 
:I'm not sure about scientifically but yes I would say they are a pedophile. Sort of like a Bi-sexual is still considered gay.  Jmm6f488 07:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pedophilia is a relatively modern term invented by psychologists at the end of the 19th century. At the time they defined it as an almost exclusive, recurring sexual interest in youths that does not extend to any noticeable signs of pubertal development (which would exclude those who fit WikiBone's description). Until then, for all practical purposes, there was really no such thing as "pedophilia". It is hardly surprising that the term causes confusion. Judging by the available historical records, it seems that most adults had a relatively arbitrary attraction span, often descending slightly below the pre-pubertal age, and typically ranging from ca. 8 years to adulthood (adolescent above the ages 8-10 were usually refferred to as "young men/women" instead of "children", a term that was reserved for toddlers). So generally, I would say no. A pedophile, as understood by the psychological criteria, is someone who is "fixated" on children, ie. that most, if not all, of their sexual attention is directed exclusively toward pre-pubescents. The other group is defined as expressing a so-called "situational pedophilia", which is characterized by the ability (as opposed to preference) to respond to children. Just as we would not normally define prison male-male contact (heterosexual men engaging in sodomy due to sexual frustration) as "homosexuals", most situational pedophiles would not normally be described as pedophiles in strictly clnical terms (otherwise, we would have to define at least 30% of all adult populaton as pedophiles!). Equilibrist 12:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you're talking about, Jmm6f488. Bisexuals are considered bisexual and homosexuals are considered homosexuals, that's why they are called that. And EVERYBODY has at least some level of attraction towards everyone else. For example, it wouldn't be right for someone who is 100 times more attracted to adults than they are to children (in other words, 1% attracted to children and 99% to adults) to be called a pedophile. Just like you wouldn't call someone who is 100 times more attracted to the opposite sex than they are to the same sex, a homosexual. That's why we say "preferencial or exclusive." Ospinad 19:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Preferential Or Exclusive Sexual Attraction

message: The article has now been fully protected as there's a full-on edit war over that Ray Blanchard study. Folks - please work out your differences here on the talk page or come to some consensus over the paragraph. When you're ready, just get back to me or file a request for unprotect at WP:RPP. Thanks - Alison ☺ 05:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article fully protected

message: FYI: Happy Camper II has been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia as a sockpuppet of an individual indefinitely banned by the ArbCom. Fireplace 23:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note on [[User:Happy Camper II|Happy Camper II]]

message: The very last External Link currently reads like this:- Paedophilia is not a crime - well reasoned, written by a monogamous married man. I'd like to propose removing the words "well reasoned" and the comma. WP:NPOV requires that we describe the link contents neutrally. (It would be a different matter if a reliable source had described the essay in those terms; then it would be a simple matter of attribution. But as it stands, this edit should be a no-brainer.) Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 03:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While you are at it take out the rest of the description, as well - no where in the article is the author identified by gender or sexual fidelity. 199.125.109.77 03:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Either remove the entire summary or replace it with something more neutral (ie not referring to the marital status or gender of the author). I also think we are at the point where the entire article can be unprotected. Euryalus 03:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While the authors gender and fidelity is probably horribly irrelevent, it is stated on  that the article is written by Martin Willett: Editor of Debate Unlimited, and on  that his marriage is "faithful". I would suggest just changing the summary to indicate the name of the author. 199.125.109.51 03:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would seem to be more informative, as well as more neutral, in terms of information presented. I didn't suggest removing the rest of the description because I didn't want there to be any controversy about the edit. However, if we can reach a consensus as to what would be the best form of words for the description, so much the better. I would suggest that the author's name and editorial capacity would be suitable information to include. A name by itself is often not valuable information. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 04:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  The linked essay is just private opinion by a totally non-notable person. Why is it useful for Wikipedia to refer to it? DanB†DanD 23:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External link

message: Is the DSM worth mentioning? If it is, then should it be mentioned in the introduction as saying that pedophilia is a paraphilia, without any further information? There's a rather large section of criticism on their article, and a section about the influence of politics when it comes to deciding what is a disease or not.
Also, what does the "standard" in "standard medical diagnosis manual" stand for? I'm not a native speaker of English, so this could be the reason why I don't know what the word "standard" is supposed to mean in this context. It looks like a vague, subjective, unverifiable term to me. If I'm right, then the sentence could be rephrased to "The ICD-10 and DSM IV, which are medical diagnosis manuals, currently describe pedophilia as a paraphilia and mental disorder of adults or older youths, if it causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." A.Z. 03:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything is notable, DSM is. It's the most influential manual in the world in this area. However, I completely agree that the criticism of DSM (of which there is plenty) should be mentioned in the article. DSM has little or no scientific credibility left nowadays. Völund Smed 07:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The DSM is the single most widely used tool in regards to pedophilia within the legal and law enforcement communities the world over. Professionally, no other resource is considered credible. The idea that it shouldn't be mentioned is laughable, as even if it has fallen out of favor with the scientific community, it is still the primary professional resource when it comes to those dealing with pedophilia in society. VanTucky Talk 07:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DSM

message: Would it be proper to include a mention of NAMBLA in this article? 70.118.88.184 16:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, NAMBLA is mentioned in the pro-pedophile activism article to which this article refers.  Greetings: Roman Czyborra 10:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it would be appropriate, these people are also pedophiles not just PPAs, SqueakBox 20:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NAMBLA

message: Theo Sandfort, a very notable modern writer on pedophilia, published in 1984 the article "Sex in Pedophiliac Relationships" in The Journal of Sex Research. The subjects were 25 boys ranging in age from 10 to twenty-five, who were "then involved in pedophiliac relationships with adult males."
Clearly, the older of these boys are pubescent. It seems to me that this notable academic usage -- by one of the writers cited definitionally in pederasty -- causes a problem or two with the hard line between prepubescent "pedophilia" and pubescent "pederasty" that many editors on Wikipedia so forcefully assert.
How shall we incorporate this usage into the definitional paragraph? Dybryd 09:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how or if we should incorporate it. Pedophilia is certainly a different matter than pederasty or what one would call Ephebophilia, as we know, considering that a sexual attraction to mid-to-late adolescents is not considered a mental disorder, and with good reason I'd say, considering how 16 to 17-year-olds can easily pass for being legal adults, as in they look no physically different age-wise than 20-year-olds (well, the majority of the time). However, or if ever, we incorporate what you cite above, we have to make sure that it's not confusing, or alters the true definition of pedophilia, of course. Flyer22 12:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is, does pederasty sometimes extends below the pubertal age? If a pederast has a broad range of attraction, including individuals that are clearly sexually immature in appearance, then I would suppose that it is certainly relevant to pedophilia. However, at this point I doubt that it needs anything more than being mentioned under the "see also" category. Equilibrist 00:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Theo Sandfort, teenagers, and the definition of pedophilia

message: An editor has expressed concerns on this talk page about this removal of material. SqueakBox removed three times the post, so I'm posting this one that he won't remove. A.Z. 21:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a banned user and a disruptive edit so my removal of it was fully justified given the history of problems, SqueakBox 21:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous version of this section actually pointed out that there were many unsupported deletions following on from the edit listed. Thanks to A.Z. for re-creating this section though. And considering that he was blocked with the official justification of sourcing academic opinion and creating an article that is now doing just fine, I wish him a speedy return to action. digitalemotion 04:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed content on June