Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 6

message: Someone keeps reverting my addition, even though I have source material added. --88.108.95.211 12:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Youre citing a book called "Fight Active Paedophiles" which perhaps is not the best possible source in the area. The information is not far from the "truth" though so I can't bother to make a proper cite on this. Voice of Britain 15:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Your source does not support your assertion. Jillium 19:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Have you stopped beating your wife? Jillium 22:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Female pedophiles do exist.  It's unpleasant but they do.  Even a preliminary google search shows that.  18.51.1.250 23:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Unpleasant,' no. And I just meant to imply that I'm not against 'references about female paedophiles' -- 88.108.95.211 just hasn't given any.  Jillium 23:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Female paedophiles

message: I believe in Paraphilias and gender identity disorders by E.S. Person (1989) (in this book), 5% of his female college sample self-reported sexual fantasies about 'significantly younger' persons. If anyone cares and wants to verify ... Jillium 22:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding females

message: There is no conflict since the data studies different type of subjects. The section is only missleading. Voice of Britain 20:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, although we should include those studies so that we can disambiguate actual pedophilia from the child molesters which some researchers use to represent them. Giving any credit to these studies will undermine the definition set out in our introduction. At the very most, we should point ou that these studies are correct, if put in line with our 'colloquial' definition. --Jim Burton 17:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem is that the papers Cohen cites studied child sex offenders, not paedophiles in general. Perhaps it could be noted that pathology tends to occur more often in samples of paedophilic sex offenders than in samples of nonoffending paedophiles? (I don't see why, though.) Jillium 00:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you telling me that a paper entitled "Clinical features of pedophilia and implications for treatment" isn't about pedophilia? -Will Beback · † · 00:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It cites research that attempts to study paedophilia in sex offenders. The studies found abnormal levels of pathology in sex offenders who happened to be diagnosed as paedophiles. Prison samples are not representative of the general population. Jillium 00:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's published in a peer-review journal, what some call the "gold standard" of sources. If there are other sources or articles which dispute the findings then we can add those to rebut it. But it wouldn't be appropriate to remove it just because anonymous non-experts feel it used faulty methodology. -Will Beback · † · 06:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are again looking for a conflict where there is none. The source is not bad, the science in it is not bad, the methodology is not bad, but it has limits in how much you can generalize the results to normal pedophiles. This is not an non-expert opinion, it is common knowledge to all professionals in the field. I can provide citations for this fact, but it should be extremely obvious for anyone with a basic understanding of research. Voice of Britain 09:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the study is good then include it with a note that the results may not apply to every one who is diagnosed as a pedophile. -Will Beback · † · 16:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It belongs at the child sexual abuse article under #Offenders. Jillium 16:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this article is fine as it is a reliable source on the topic. Not using the article is based on your personal opinion. That is more of a problem than including the research. FloNight 17:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again... since they studied fixated sex offenders, not general paedophiles, their paper is only relevant at Child sexual abuse#Offenders (i.e. the actual topic). The research they cite does not show "comorbidity" is typical in paedophiles. Jillium 17:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The study is about pedophiles. If you want to find where they define their study sample and give us a summary that'd be OK too. But it doesn't make sense to claim that a peer--reviewed study of pedophiles has no place in an article about pedophilia. -Will Beback · † · 03:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Missunderstood research

message: I'm going to put an  tag on the article and link it to a disambiguation page which will distinguish pedophilia from pederasty, ephebophilia, and other child-attraction disorders. A lot of Wikipedians are confused, so I think this'll be good. If you have other ideas, user talk me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Awesimo (talk • contribs).
:That wouldn't be appropriate. Disambiguation pages exist to point readers to the correct article when there are more than one with similar names. To differentiate among related concepts you should add a section to this article. -Will Beback · † · 19:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pedophilia (disambiguation) 

message: Are folks now arguing that there is no "generally accepted medical definition" of pedophilia? -Will Beback  ·:·  23:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that there is - as a preferential sexual attraction to prepubes and a paraphilia. This is shown in the DSM and other med lit. The actual sentence that you quote refers to the 'preferential attraction to prepubes' component. I will write a new version, since the implied meaning is 100% etymological and 50% medical. Jim♥Burton 00:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That didn't last. I've removed the opening clause of the sentence as it's not really necessary. -<B> ·:·</B> Will Beback  ·:·  20:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''In contrast to the generally accepted medical definition...'' 

message: ...to registered users, IMO. Half the edits seem to be vandalism, and a good chunk of these are by unregistered users. Jim♥Burton 04:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to Wikipedia. If you think this is bad you should see "Monroe Doctrine". <B> ·:·</B> Will Beback  ·:·  04:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is a particularly sensitive case, since we often see personal details and phone numbers being posted to Pedophilia along with the usual "conan salmon isa the very big peado in nantwich avoide him at all costs" type stuff. Getting them to register isn't asking much and should save some time. Jim♥Burton 09:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I sympathize, as I've reverted my share of vandalism, but it's not going to happen. Wikipedia articles are only protected for limitied periods of time in response to particular problems. <B> ·:·</B> Will Beback  ·:·  09:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page should be restricted... 

message: Right, my inclusion of age disparity in sexual relationships is obviously worthy, since pedophilia is listed as a factor, hence 'see also'. Linking to a category containing child sex offenders is not, IMO, since pedophilia is not mentioned on that page and is not the primary motivator for such offenders. The colloquial link is valid, until you notice that submitting to that confusion would be to misinform our readers as to the true meaning of pedophilia. Jim♥Burton 06:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that age disparity is apropriate, but I'd also say that child sex offenders is appropriate too. It's not our job to correct the common usage of the term. The purpose of categories is to assist reader navigation.  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 07:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, but the secondary nature of the colloquial definition deserves little of the (disproportionate) attention it seems to be getting, hence my removal of a page that didn't mention pedophilia at all. On the whole, I'm satisfied as long as he doesn't go removing age disparity again. Jim♥Burton 09:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also relevance 

message: An editor edited the intro with the comment:
*changes to the first couple of paragraphs need to be discussed on the talk page. 
But I don't see any discussion of that revert. What's up?  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 05:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording of the first two paragraphs was discussed a long time ago. The phrase "in contrast" was specifically added to address the concerns that the colloquial use of the term was being presented as equivalent to the medical definition. --Gbleem 06:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Didn't the activist article have a source? --Gbleem 20:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. I see your explanation above. --Gbleem 20:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  boylove girllove 

message: I just reverted a deletion less than a day old.  Someone deleted material only because it was unsourced.  It wasn't flagged  which is probably why it stayed unsourced so long.  Don't summarily delete unsourced material just because it's unsourced.  If that's the only reason you are deleting it, mark it with the  template and wait a few weeks.  Better yet, improve the article by finding a source and adding it.  Dfpc 00:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The nearly identical material in the activism article was marked with a {fact} tag for nearly a year before someone dug up an inadequate source. Sources are more than links, they are what we should be using to write the article. If something isn't sourced there's a good chance it was written off the top of someone's head. In any case, thanks for finding those sources.  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 03:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag unsourced material with {{Tl|Fact}} before deleting it 

message: Barbaree, H. E., and Seto, M. C. (1997). Pedophilia: Assessment and Treatment. Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment. 175-193.
I was looking at the new childlove source. I can't read the first one but the second one is definately using the term in the colloquial sense it is impossible to diagnose people who post on the internet. That takes me back to the Barbaree source
near the beginning of the article. Could someone who has access to the book tell me more about his action based classification. --Gbleem 00:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  action as a definition Barbaree 

message: I see above that a number of neologism such as "pedosexual" have been redirected to this page from the activism page. However, the terms are discussed in that article and not in this one, and since all have their origin as part of the pro-pedophile movement, that page is the more appropriate redirect. DanB†DanD 02:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neologisms which are synonyms for pedophiles or pedophilia should redirect here, and they should be briefly mentioned here.  Other "activist" terms should be redirected elsewhere.  Which particular neologisms did you have in mind?  I see incoming redirects from Phebophilia, Pedosexuality, Boylover, Girllover, Lolita Syndrome, Child Lover, Girl Moment (note change), Man boy love, plus many variations of the word Pedophile.   Phebophilia should redirect to Ephebophilia, I'll change it shortly.  I'm not sure about Lolita Syndrome and Girl Movement.  Girl Moment is used by activists to describe time spent with a girl.  Boy Moment is the male analog.  "Date" is a partial synonym.  These terms could redirect here, to Pro-pedophile activism, or to Romance, or be deleted for lack of significance (note edit).  The rest:  Pedosexuality, Boylover, Girllover, Child Lover, and Man boy love, are all synonyms for pedophiles or pedophilia or the combination of pedophilia and ephebophilia or the combination of pedophiles and ephebophiles.  Dfpc 03:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  They're not synonyms at all: all are political terms denoting identification with a particular activist movement, not a psychiatric diagnosis like pedophilia. DanB†DanD 03:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, just because it isn't used by the APA doesn't mean it's not a valid term.  Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia not a medial encyclopedia.  If you show me that a term is a near-synonym to "Pro-pedophile activism" then it should redirect to Pro-pedophile activism.  Now, if you want to discuss whether terms like Boylover should be in Wikipedia at all that is a legitimate arguement.  However, once the term exists, it should either have its own article or redirect to a synonym or near-synonym since one is available. Dfpc 03:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's work our way up from the sources. If the sources call these terms synonyms for pedophile activists then we can add that. Or whatever the sources say.  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 05:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I said in an earlier post that I would direct these terms to the activism page. I waited to see what sources people would find. So far none of the sources seem to support that these terms are anything other than self reference terms. --Gbleem 06:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neologisms of the pedophile activist movement

message: Removal of: *Boy-lover, Girl-lover, Child-lover, and Pedosexual, are terms of self-identification used by some pedophiles. 
These terms are clearly related to pedophilia.  Removal is arbitrary and weakens the article.  Unless someone convinces me that I'm wrong, I'm reverting.  Dfpc 21:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly oppose as this an extreme and unnotable minority belief and as we are not here to promote pedophilia but to write a neutral encyclopedia I can see no good reason to revert the removal of this provocative material, and if you do revert expect totally disputed and weasel word templates at the least, SqueakBox 21:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree that it is an unnotable minority belief.  If it were unnotable then nobody would take note of it.  By the way, I'm surprised Pedophilia doesn't already have at least some neutrality-related tag.  Dfpc 21:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Unnotable? It certainly meets up with the guidelines at WP:NOTE: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." --CA387 17:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pedophiles are indeed a notable minority, their positive descriptions of themselves are clearly not. We could then equally add more notable insulting terms (perv etc) but I would oppose that too, SqueakBox 17:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: An offer of compromise:  Creation of a page just for synonyms and near-synonyms of "pedophile" and "pedophilia."  This page would include terms used primarily by pro-pedophile activists, regional terms, and terms used by the medical community.  The page would be a "list" page like a disambiguation page, with a link or links to related articles.  Unlike a disambiguation page, there's no need to follow the "one blue link" rule.  For example, a term used in England might link to Pedophilia and Great Britain.  In addition to terms "Boy-Lover" etc, it would include terms like "kiddie raper" and the like, provided those terms are in use.  Dfpc 21:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need the slang terms in this article. Slang terms in general tend to be short lived and hard to varify. The existance of a terminology article separate from the activist article has no bearing on whether the two self reference terms belong in this article.--Gbleem 02:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Not only that, but it's also a POV Fork, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. --CA387 17:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The girl lover and boy lover have been determined to be pedophile activist terms and they should link there.  The girl lover and boy lover should be back in. --Gbleem 02:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how we made that determination, but the terms don't need to be in two articles. Either here or pro-pedophile activism, but not both.  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 04:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really want them in the is article for any other purpose than to point at the activism article Their definition should be discussed there. You are right they really don't need to be mentioned at all in the Pedophilia article. --Gbleem 11:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, but you haven't given any reason in accordance with WP:NOTE that shows that these are "unnotable" and don't belong here. --CA387 17:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, that's a double negative. Can you or anyone else prove the notability of these terms is the real question. And how would people feel about including terms pedophiles use to identify themselves alongside terms others use to identify pedophiles, including slurs (which we clearly have precedent in wikipedia to be able to use). NPOV would mean including both types of terms but IMO notability would indicate using neither, SqueakBox 17:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, whoever the author of the statement was seems to have already provided the statement's notability; it had around four sources. As far as my quote earlier, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.", this seems enough to have the deleted material restored. I agree with you that the article should not be pro-pedophilia, but the statement as it was doesn't really seem to violate this in any way: "Boy-lover, Girl-lover, Child-lover, and Pedosexual, are terms of self-identification used by some pedophiles, particularly pro-pedophile activists". In as far as all of them have basically the same meaning as pedophile to begin with—they all mean that you're attracted to children, after all—I can't really see it as a "slur". I can also see it violating POV if the article started out Pedophilia, or pedosexuality, is... As it stands now, though, I think we're doing more harm than good by deleting well-referenced material. --CA387 17:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There may be an argument to have these terms in the pro pediophile activism article but being referenced does not prove notability. We are dealing with a sickness, not those who wish to glorify that sickness (that is what the pro-pedophile article is for). Any slurs would likely be anti pedophile terms which in this article would need to go alongside pro terms for NPOV, SqueakBox 18:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I suppose that by looking through the article, the terms are notable but, as you said, out of place. I think we'd be better off devoting our energies to expending the article as a phenomenon in society, rather than debating about whether pedophilia is "good" or "bad", and putting the article in danger of becoming POV. I'll cede the point that the terms, as related more strongly to the pedophile activist movement, would be better off in that article. --CA387 18:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO this and related articles already suffer from POV, SqueakBox 18:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of Boy-lover etc. from related terms