Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 22

media/common use

The common/media (use of the term) paragraph at the beginning, belongs in the misuse (of the clinical term) section. You're just repeating yourself. Also, putting it at the start, and outside the right (misuse of clinical terminology) section, gives it some sort of factual relevance - when there is no factual relevance. It's just the misuse/incorrect use of a clinical term.

Please be careful with this. Many people with Anxiety disorders and OCD visit pages like this, to research these things (as part of their Obsessive/compulsion rituals). For such reasons, medical/clinical articles need to be clinically accurate.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

You are violating WP:Consensus and WP:Lead with your repeated reverts:[1][2][3][4]. That paragraph has been placed third in the lead, not at the beginning. And like I've stated to you in my reverts of your edits, this article (topic in general) is not only a medical topic. The lead is supposed to sufficiently summarize the most prominent/controversial parts of the article, per WP:Lead. That paragraph is not only a summary of that section you put it in. It's a summary of different parts of the article. It's summarizing the fact that, in common usage, pedophilia often means any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse, the fact that "[t]his common use application also extends to the sexual interest in and sexual contact with pubescent or post-pubescent minors," and the fact that "[r]esearchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided because although people who commit child sexual abuse commonly exhibit the disorder, some offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia and these standards pertain to prepubescents. Additionally, not all pedophiles actually commit such abuse." Those are important details that should be in the lead, all of it. That paragraph is tackling the topic of medical accuracy, which you are trying to deprive readers of. It is not misinforming readers, but informing them/clearing up their misconceptions. Thanks to your edit, if it were to stay (it won't), a lot of them will keep on using the term inaccurately, since (according to statistics gathered by Wikipedia), most of our readers don't read past the lead. Yes, a lot of our articles tackle misconceptions in the lead, especially if those misconceptions are as prominent as the misuse of the term pedophilia. But this is not simply about tackling misconceptions, as I've already pointed out. Your edit also duplicates information in the section you put it. As you are clearly a newbie (meaning your sporadic editing, not the fact that you've been editing Wikipedia as Cjmooney9 since 2010) who does not understand Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines, I suggest you read Wikipedia: Policies and guidelines, and learn to follow the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle essay. Your WP:Edit warring this important material out of the lead is most unfortunate. And if you continue to edit war it out of the lead (which I've stated because someone else will revert you), that will eventually lead to you being blocked. Flyer22 (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. I am happy to discuss.

Firstly, I don't see any consensus on here. In fact it doesn't seem to have been discussed at all.

Secondly, I agree that this is not only a medical topic. But is a primarily clinical article. The subject does also appears as part of discussion in popular culture. But if you wish to discuss the area of media inaccuracy and misuse of the term, then please put it under a section named thus. Or create an article about it. You've decided to put the entire section, in the introduction, of a primarily clinical article. I have no idea why. This gives the implication that this opinion is also clinical. It's not. And unless either the point is clearly made within the paragraph, or it appears under it's own section, it remains ambiguous.

Thirdly, I don't think the paragraph is that clear at all. There's far too little clinical knowledge displayed here. And it's very ambiguous.

Fourthly, I did not create a misuse section. The section already existed in the article. That is my entire point. You are attempting to have the entire misuse/inaccuracy section, in the introduction. Making up more than 50% of the introduction in fact. And then it's being repeated again in the correct section. The subject should be approached in the correct section.

A small section about misuse of the term in the introduction is fine. However, you seem convinced that 50% of the entire introduction of a (primarily) clinical article, should refer to this. Again, it's a primarily clinical article.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Cjmooney9, you don't see discussion because it has been archived long ago after said discussions were concluded. There are pages and pages about this matter that have come and gone (see archive links at the top of this page). Second, the misuse paragraph is 1/5 the lead, not half.

I happen to be quite familiar with patients who have the OCD subtype where they obsess about having deviant sexualities (it's called Primarily Obsessional OCD) but I am not finding it a plausible concern, nor a notably large enough population to accommodate, that we would need to remove this material from the lead completely. Indeed I fail to see why this section would affect such a person. The one matter I will give you is that the paragraph in question should more forcefully express how wrong the popular usage is, in the way Schizophrenia is often confounded with dissociative identity disorder, which it most certainly is not. Legitimus (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2013‎ (UTC)

Cjmooney9, you can check the archives for consensus about the lead; the lead has been thoroughly worked out, and what was there prior to your removal was there for the reasons I noted above. Though consensus can change, it has not changed on this. Your sloppy, damaging edit should be reverted for the reasons I've already made clear. The entire misuse section is not in the lead. Again, read what I stated above about that paragraph summarizing parts of the article; it is not only summarizing that section. If you read the article, you should see that. That paragraph is completely in compliance with WP:Lead. You call it repeating, when that is exactly what providing an adequate lead is about -- summarizing what is stated lower in the article. It is not a word-for-word repeat; it's a summary, just like the parts you chose not to remove or move are summaries. Per WP:Content fork, we will not be creating a separate article just to go over those aspects. Those aspects are not presented ambiguously; the paragraph makes perfectly clear that what it is talking about is common use and misuse of the term pedophilia and that this is not how experts on the topic define pedophilia. It also talks about the very important fact that child molestation does not necessarily equate to pedophilia and that pedophilia does not necessarily equate to child molestation. There additionally is not "far too little clinical knowledge displayed here" in this article. What is in this article, which is also a social topic, among other topics (see the WP:WikiProject tags on the top of the talk page), is most (the significant majority) of the clinical knowledge known about pedophilia. And, as the third paragraph, and not even the biggest paragraph, what you moved certainly did not "[make] up more than 50% of the introduction." Before your removal, and after what you removed is restored, this is how the lead reads: The first two parts of the introduction go over the medical definitions. The third part goes over the common use definition/common misconceptions. The fourth part goes over what has been known about pedophilia and what is currently known about it; it essentially summarizes the topic as a whole. All very important paragraphs for the lead. I can only consider your take/response on this matter to be due to your inexperience with the way Wikipedia is supposed to work, and due to your inexperience with the emphasis that experts put on not misusing the term pedophilia and not necessarily confusing pedophilia with child molestation. Flyer22 (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello all - firstly, please don't let my rather sloppy edit make everyone desperate to stick to the status quo. If something is odd and ambiguous, it's just odd and ambiguous. I've read it through, twice again, now, and I still don't follow it.

I do not have inexperience in clinical psychology. I'm probably considered an expert. And I still don't follow the paragraph!

And the problem I have is not the emphasis of that paedophilia is not child abuse (this is an important point), but the lack of emphasis that common/media use of the term paedophilia is not actual clinical, medical, scientific paedophila.

Reading the paragraph, it's large amounts of information, and quotes, about media common use, but all it actually says in response, to me, is that people who commit child offenses aren't always paedophiles. There's a tiny bit at the end with the disclaimer that "these standards pertain to prepubescents" but it's very hard to understand. And not clear at all.

I agree with the second comment. If you're going to talk about common use/media use, then please make it clear whose this opinion is, and that it's not clinical, scientific or medical. And make it clear how wrong it is, clinically.

Answering your question about POCD, it's about the 2nd most common form of OCD. Huge numbers of people are affected. They come to sites like this as part of their obsession/compulsion ritual. Reading about it (and realizing they're not)makes them feel better. It's imperative that what they do read, is accurate, and clear. I realize this is possibly seen as a niche, but I'd have thought the whole point of these articles is they're accurate and clear.

thanks Cjmooney9 (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I see that you want the paragraph tweaked. Okay, but would you at least defer to WP:Consensus and revert your edits until that text is tweaked (proposals worked out on this talk page)? I would be largely repeating myself if I further emphasized why that paragraph should be in the lead. Your alteration certainly should not remain while this discussion is going on. Remember that you've made the Misuse of terminology section significantly even more redundant. Because what you have altered is the WP:Consensus version, you are supposed to convince us of why that material should not be in the lead or should be significantly cut down. You have not convinced me of either. After having worked out this matter several times before, it's not surprising that you would not. But as Legitimus shares your point about further emphasizing the inaccuracy of the common use definition, I am slightly convinced to oblige you on this. In the meantime, do try to take the time to better understand the WP:Lead guideline. Flyer22 (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm taking this article off my WP:Watchlist for now, and for the first time ever. I have too many other things, including stressful things with regard to Wikipedia, to have to worry about. The last thing I need is to have to worry about a matter that I've worked out for the umpteenth time. And I certainly don't have any time, or the patience, to guide another editor on any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Have a blast. I'll check in on this article at a later date. Flyer22 (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes please learn how the rules of this wiki work first, Cjmooney9. If you ignore this and continue to just repeat yourself or edit-war, your account can be blocked from editing.

Now, as a show of good faith, let me offer a tweak. Here is what I propose: In popular usage, the word "pedophilia" is often incorrectly used to mean any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse. For example, The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary states, "Pedophilia is the act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children." This common use sometimes even conflates the sexual interest in and sexual contact with pubescent or post-pubescent minors. Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided because although people who commit child sexual abuse commonly exhibit the disorder, some offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia and these standards pertain to prepubescents. -Legitimus (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I found it difficult to see exactly what Legitimus had changed in the proposal above, but by using a file diff viewer, I have been able to work it out. For the benefit of others, here are the proposed changes:

1. First sentence, "In popular usage, pedophilia means any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse, often termed "pedophilic behavior"." changed to "In popular usage, the word "pedophilia" is often incorrectly used to mean any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse".
2. "This common use application also extends to the sexual interest in and sexual contact with pubescent or post-pubescent minors." changed to "This common use sometimes even conflates the sexual interest in and sexual contact with pubescent or post-pubescent minors."
3. The last sentence, "Additionally, not all pedophiles actually commit such abuse." removed.

For my own part, I agree with (1): it provides clarity that this is an incorrect use of a word. Wikipedia articles are mostly about the subject matter encompassed by each article title, not the word or words used in the title, but in this case we are discussing a popular misuse of a technical term, so it is good to make that clear. I agree with (2) as well: I was unsure what was meant by a "common use application" – either use of the word, or application of the word, not both at once. I'm not sure we need "even" in the new version: we have said that this is a misuse, and "sometimes conflates" is enough, I think. I'm not sure what is wrong with the sentence in (3). Is this not the final part of the disjunction between the two uses (clinical and popular), and so worth mentioning? It could be reduced to ", and not all pedophiles actually commit such abuse." and tagged onto the preceeding sentence for less emphasis.

For the larger point, I think that it is important, both in the lead and the body of this article, that we cover all significant aspects of this subject - clinical, social, psychological, popular. This is the top-level article on the topic. I'm not sure if there are any others yet, but per WP:SPLITOUT, if it were to get much larger, then aspects of the topic may end up in sub-articles. Even should that happen, it will still be important that this parent article covers all aspects of the topic. --Nigelj (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Nigelj glad you agree with most of these. Regarding (2) I am fine not using the word "even." Not necessary. Regarding (3) I actually was not sure why it is relevant to popular usage. The problem in popular usage is over-use of "pedophilia" to things it does not apply to, and the "some offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards" sentence is supposed to dispel that. The remark that not all pedophiles commit abuse is dispelling a misconception that is never stated.Legitimus (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought that the common misconceptions inherent in the 'everyday' use of the term (which are trying to document and dispel here) are (a) all sexual abusers of children are pedophiles and (b) all pedophiles sexually abuse children, as well as (c) any sexual interest in people under 16 (or 18, or whatever) is pedophilia. --Nigelj (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

(b) is a common misconception about pedophilia, but not a misuse of the term. Further, it is not mentioned as being a misconception in the first place in the lead. Actually I don't see a source stating it's even a common misconception (that is, that all medically diagnosed pedophiles abuse children).Legitimus (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I see the distinction. Fine. Thanks for the explanation. --Nigelj (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: For documentation in this section, Widsith removed "incorrectly". Unlike Widsith, I would not state that most of those sources don't feel that their use of the term is incorrect; they simply don't know that it is incorrect, or, other times, don't care and want to use a term that the public is generally familiar with vs. an obscure but accurate term. And there's also the fact of sensationalism. Furthermore, no non-medical (non-psychology/psychiatric) source is an authority on pedophilia. As for the rest of Legitimus's text, it's obviously fine. However, I thought the same as Nigelj about the word "even" not being needed. And as for keeping or not keeping "Additionally, not all pedophiles actually commit such abuse.", I would have preferred that remain in the lead, and there is no better place for it than in the paragraph it was placed in. However, it's not discussed lower in the article (not in a significant or even minor way), and so it is not WP:LEAD-compliant. Flyer22 (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Section break

I disagree with the point about the use of the word "incorrectly". If a person truly believed that water was a gas, as they knew little about science, it wouldn't mean they were correct or speaking about it correctly to their friends. It is incorrect.

Also, I felt the balance in one of the sentences was wrong so tweaked a few words.

Most clinical research shows that the majority of (total) child abuse is committed by none-pedophiles. A lot of the research you cite is studies into pre-pubescent child abuse - in which around 65% of perpetrators are pedophiles.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 09:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

With regard to your balance edit, wrong again, and reverted again. I was going to state, "And you are going to edit war again, aren't you?" But while I was typing up this reply earlier the previous hour while busy with matters off Wikipedia, you predictably did. And perhaps just as predictably, I reverted you. It's made very clear by the sources in the Pedophilia article and in this section above that it's very often that the word pedophilia is "used to mean any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse." It is hardly a "sometimes" matter. And with regard to "[m]ost clinical research show[ing] that the majority of child [sexual] abuse is committed by none-pedophiles", read the Pedophilia article; the sources quite clearly differ on that matter, and that matter has been discussed before on this talk page; see Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 17#Confusion of Pedophilia and Child Molestation, Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 17#Prevalence rates, Talk:Child sexual abuse/Archive 8#Error in Mayo Clinic article, pedophiles account for 65% of child molesters, not 88% and Talk:Child sexual abuse/Archive 8#Personal opinion about the Mayo Clinic reference and some comments. We should not put "many" when the "clinical research" reports differently on that topic. Where are your sources (appropriate sources, mind you) that state that "Most clinical research shows that the majority of child [sexual] abuse is committed by none-pedophiles"? Note: I left out the "total" add-in to your post. Also, the lead text you changed was not debating whether or not they are technically pedophiles; it was simply noting that "some offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia and these standards pertain to prepubescents." You added in to your comment above, "A lot of the research you cite is studies into pre-pubescent child abuse." Well, yeah, since pedophilia accurately concerns prepubescent children. Therefore, the appropriate action on your part should have been to change "although people who commit child sexual abuse" to "although people who have sexually abused prepubescent children" (or something like that), not to add-in "sometimes." This, re-adding "incorrectly," is not a compromise; everything you added in that edit is WP:Synthesis, which is against policy. It is also still edit warring. Flyer22 (talk) 12:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't plan to edit war. But if I truly believe something is wrong, I should change it.

"Often" is meaningless in an encyclopedic article. I could say that "often pedophilia is not used to describe post pubescent children". In certain contexts (ie the media, newspapers)it is used with that definition. But the context was undefined. What you meant originally I think is that often, in some contexts, it's defined this way.

Most of the clinical research you have posted seems to back my point about the other change, having a quick look. As does most of the debate on the boards. For example The Mayo Clinic research, quoted above defines "children" as under 13 in the study. As in, it's a study of Pedophilic sexual molestation only. In which they found 88% were pedophiles. Many studies are like this - they say "children" but they also define what they mean by children. I believe this was originally used to verify that child molesters "were commonly pedophiles". Again, I can dig out some research, or perhaps someone else can comment, but I was under the impression that research shows that the majority of child molestation is opportunistic. Cjmooney9 (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Posting this as an example of one of the times you changed your "13:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)" reply. I don't care if you plan to edit war or not. Edit warring is obviously always your initial response to someone rejecting your edit, judging by your contributions. You always seem to think that your edit is supposed to stay until WP:Consensus is to remove it; for some reason, you still think that, despite having been told above that that's not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. And you have not proven that your edits are more accurate on this matter. You stated, "Most of the clinical research you have posted." What clinical research have I posted? How can it be called "most"? What the clinical research shows is that researchers are not generally sure whether or not most child molesters are pedophiles. Indeed, a lot of researchers don't believe that most people who sexually abuse prepubescent children are pedophiles. Go ahead; have more than "a quick look," including with regard to the discussions about the accuracy of the Mayo Clinic source (as recently as higher on this talk page, but then again, I see that you are now familiar with that section). And do look at/read what the Pedophilia article states on the prevalence subject. Because of all that, I haven't a clue as to what you are talking about on this matter. And the term often is not "meaningless in an encyclopedic article"; neither is commonly. If they were, they would not be needed in many of our WP:MED articles, something specifically stated in, or clearly supported by, the sources. They give appropriate context, just like you feel that the terms incorrectly and sometimes give appropriate context. However, you add such words without the correct context and against the WP:Synthesis policy. Either revert yourself...or give the correct context, like you are supposed to do. No, that is not what I meant with regard to the common use matter; I meant what I stated -- "it's very often that the word pedophilia is 'used to mean any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse.'" Besides being covered by many sources, it is quite easy to see that the general public has not a clue about how to correctly use the term pedophile or pedophilia. And "under 13" does not automatically equate to "prepubescent," especially with regard to girls (most girls are pubescent before age 13, usually showing breast development). Flyer22 (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. You're completely correct in saying that "under 13" isn't necessarily pre pubescent. What I mean is "child abuse" in the US refers to any sexual activity with a child up to the age of 18 years of age. And 16 years of age in Europe. So a study of 0-13 is not a study of child abuse. It's a study of very particular child abuse. I will pull up some research, but if you check any information sites on the subject, they have general stats, and most child abuse is by people who can not possibly be diagnosed as pedophiles. As it's usually against teenagers, in an opportunistic way. So when the article says it's common for pedophiles to be involved in child abuse cases, it's not an accurate choice of words. It's common for them to be involved in child abuse against pre-pubescent targets. But it's actually uncommon for general child abuse. A more neutral choice of words is necessary in my opinion.

As for "often", I just don't agree. It's often said that global warming is a hoax, in the media and by the public. That's the common use. I can verify this millions of times. But it's often said by people who don't know much about environmental science. At the same time, classic global warming theory is often used by people that do know a bit more. Some context is needed. I'm not saying it has to be one way or the other, but surely there can be some common ground.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Cjmooney9, I told you what should have been done about the child abuse part; I stated "the appropriate action on your part should have been to change 'although people who commit child sexual abuse' to 'although people who have sexually abused prepubescent children' (or something like that), not to add-in "sometimes." That stated, even though "sometimes" is likely WP:Synthesis, it's not problematic (or else some other Wikipedian who watches this article would have reverted you) and it may be more accurate...considering that, to reiterate, researchers are not generally sure about whether or not most child molesters are pedophiles. The use of "many" in place of "some" for "many offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards" is still a bit concerning; this is because, not only is it likely not supported by the sources you have attributed it to (meaning that it is WP:Synthesis), a lot of people take "many" to mean "most" or may otherwise think that "many" in this case means that most people who sexually abuse prepubescent children aren't pedophiles; it is likely true that they are not, but, again, "researchers are not generally sure about whether or not most child molesters are pedophiles." It's difficult to come by statistics on pedophilia, for the reasons named in the "Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 17#Prevalence rates" discussion. And use of "incorrectly" is WP:Synthesis, unless supported by the sources you have attributed it to; I don't think it is supported by them.

You stated "but if you check any information sites on the subject, they have general stats, and most child abuse is by people who can not possibly be diagnosed as pedophiles." First, we are talking about child sexual abuse, so it's best that you make that clear by stating exactly that and not "child abuse." Secondly, like we both stated, when considering to diagnose a person with pedophilia, the research concerns prepubescent children (usually anyway); this is because researchers generally know that sexual attraction to a 17-year-old, for example, is not pedophilia; furthermore, the terms child sexual abuse and child molestation most commonly refer to prepubescent children, and child sexual abuse (child molestation) is generally a more serious crime than statutory rape (which usually concerns clearly pubescent or post-pubescent minors). Lastly, the sites you speak of (general sites out there about child sexual abuse and/or pedophilia) generally do not count as WP:Reliable sources for medical content; what counts in that regard is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS-compliant sources). So all in all, I consider your abuse arguments with regard to research to be weak.

As for "often", we'll have to agree to disagree, because, like I stated, the same can be said of other words. My main point on the "often" matter is that "often" is more accurate than stating "sometimes" for the line "In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often incorrectly used to mean any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse." Common ground, a good compromise on this matter, would be to use "commonly" in place of "often." Flyer22 (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your point about changing it to "although people who have sexually abused prepubescent children are commonly pedophiles'"

However, you've changed argument a little bit.

"Many offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards" was only added as the current version states, to paraphrase, that most child sex offenders are pedophiles. Most are in fact not. As discussed child sex abuse is defined, as either 0-18 or 0-16. With the majority of offenders offending against teenagers. Statutory rape basically. So I think the whole sentence needs to be re-worded to something like the above. The Child Abuse article, actually has it right already, with a good sentence on this, so maybe it can just be the same?

In regards to your second point, I agree with your general point about people commonly assuming child sex abuse refers to pre-pubescent child abuse, but officially it very much is 0-18 or 0-16. And it has it's own research. As I said, most papers define age ranges, so not to have these problems with the definition of "children". This is part of my argument -many people who read "child sex abuse" will assume it is actually anyone under the age of consent. The wikipedia article for child sex abuse says this as well. So it needs to be clearer what the article is actually referring to and consistent.

cheers

Cjmooney9 (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Cjmooney9, I'm not sure what you mean by "changed argument a little bit." The current version of the article does not state that most child sex offenders are pedophiles, either before or after your latest edits to the article. The reason it does not is already addressed by me above. And "commonly" did not imply "most." Either way, I don't understand your need to stress that we are speaking of prepubescent children. This is already very clear by the lead; it clearly defines what we mean by "pedophilia" and that the term is also used inaccurately. The only parts of this article that relate to people as old as 16 is when speaking of the fact that 16-year-olds can also be pedophiles and when relaying text in the In law section.

The part you are referring to with regard to the Child sexual abuse article is not much different than what the lead of the Pedophilia article stated, and it is something that I tweaked months ago (meaning the line in the Child sexual abuse article). It uses the word some, just like this article used to, with regard to offenders not meeting the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia. However, it uses the word prepubescent as well, so I can see what you mean about wanting the Pedophilia article's lead to be similar. Still, once again, "when considering to diagnose a person with pedophilia, the research concerns prepubescent children (usually anyway); this is because researchers generally know that sexual attraction to a 17-year-old, for example, is not pedophilia"; this fact is why your need to stress that the sex offenders being considered are being considered with regard to prepubescent children makes little sense to me. Because the article clearly defines what pedophilia is in the medical sense, the article already makes clear that the sex offenders being considered with regard to child sexual abuse are being considered with regard to prepubescent children. We even state "and these standards pertain to prepubescents." So of course the offenders who are not sexually interested in prepubescent children do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia; of course we are excluding those offenders. It's because of that, that this change I made just minutes ago to the Child sexual abuse article is likely not necessary. That stated, I made this tweak that we have both agreed on for the Pedophilia article (the prepubescent mention). I didn't add back "commonly" because of the aforementioned debate concerning whether or not most offenders who have sexually abused prepubescent children are pedophiles. And I didn't change "many" back to "some" for "many child sexual abuse offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia and these standards pertain to prepubescents." because, when taking into account the aforementioned "Pedophile or not a pedophile?" debate, as well as the fact that child sexual abuse cases can refer to sexual offenses committed by adults against pubescent and/or post-pubescent minors, "many" is more accurate and the rest of the line specifies the prepubescent focus.

With regard to "people commonly assuming child sex abuse to pre-pubescent child [sexual] abuse"... No, I was not only referring to what people commonly think. I was more so referring to law; this is something that the Statutory rape article makes clear (though it currently needs to be better sourced). A 23-year-old man who has had sex with a 17-year-old girl who is under the age of consent, for example, usually will not be charged with "child rape" or "child sexual abuse"; sexual offenses against prepubescent children are treated far more seriously than an adult engaging in sex with a post-pubescent minor and therefore sexual offenses against prepubescent children are always labeled "child rape," "child sexual abuse" or "child molestation" (or something that quite clearly stresses that the minor is very much a child). That 23-year-old man would mostly likely be charged with statutory rape, though it would typically be called something different under the law. Whatever it is called, it typically would not be called "child rape," "child sexual abuse" or "child molestation" by the law; the general public would be more likely to call it such. And 0-18? For the vast majority of the world, including in the United States and United Kingdom, a person who is age 18 is not a child (but rather an adult), and many parts of the world define a 16 or 17-year-old as an adult. Flyer22 (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The previous version said it was common for child sex offenders to be pedophiles. This was my original concern with it. The citation for this was studies of pedophilic child sex offenders, not studies of total child sex offenders. As in, the citation was actually saying that it is common for offenders in pre pubescent pedophile cases to be clinical pedophiles, but that many don't fit the clincal criteria.

The Child Sex Abuse article states it's common for "pedophilic child sex abuse" to be committed by pedophiles, but that many don't fit the clinical criteria. This is accurate, and fair (studies show 80% of pedophilic child sex offences by pedophiles).

Sorry I just didn't think it was that clear at all. It's still a bit mixed up. The quote used, and citation, was and is referring to studies of pedophilic child sex abuse - that it's common for perpetrators in pedophile cases to be pedoplhiles (around 80%), but that the term shouldn't automatically be used, as many pedophilic child sex offenders do not meet the actual clinical criteria (around 20%).

To clarify my point - the quote used (and citation) is actually saying that a proportion of people in actual pedophilia cases cannot be diagnosed as clinical pedophiles - ie not all pre-pubescent child sex offenders, are clinical pedophiles.

Whereas this article is using it to say that although it's common for pedophiles to be involved in child sex abuse cases, many do not meet the clinical criteria.

The "many do not meet clinical criteria" and clinicians warning against blanket use of the term, refers to pedophile cases - ie a small proportion of offenders are opportunists and don't meet clinical criteria.

The following, in the other article, is the correct use of the quote:

"Some sources report that most offenders who sexually abuse prepubescent children are pedophiles,[18] but some offenders who have sexually abused prepubescent children do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia.[19][20]"

The clinician quote is a rebuttal of the use of the blanket term in actual pedophile/pre pubescent sex offences. Not total child sex offences.

Sorry for the long continued posts, and apologise if I am coming across as aggressive or patronising (this is just my unfortunate style of writing and not my intent!)

many thanks

Cjmooney9 (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I just read all of your latest reply minutes ago (yep, I took a long break from this discussion because I didn't feel like debating this matter any further); replying before this section is archived: You stated, "The previous version said it was common for child sex offenders to be pedophiles." I've already been over that. Some sources state that it is common for child sex offenders to be pedophiles. And when they state that, they obviously are not referring to "total child sex offenders." We've already addressed how the word child may be defined differently and that sexual attraction to clearly pubescent or post-pubescent people falls outside the (medical) definition of pedophilia. You are defining pedophilic broadly. The article is clear that not all people who have sexually abused a prepubescent child are pedophilic, if using the term pedophilic to mean a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children or even simply a genuine sexual attraction to them. Where is it supported in the article (or anywhere) that "many pedophilic child sex offenders do not meet the actual clinical criteria (around 20%)"? For one, 20% is not "many" to me. And you stated "the citation," but there is more than one citation that is used for the "although people who commit child sexual abuse" sentence; six different sources are used for that sentence. The Child sexual abuse article does not state "it's common for 'pedophilic child sex abuse' to be committed by pedophiles, but that many don't fit the clinical criteria." It states: "Some sources report that most offenders who sexually abuse prepubescent children are pedophiles." And that is not meant to be taken as "these people repeatedly sexually abuse prepubescent children"; it's meant to be taken as "have sexually abused" -- meaning "they have done it one or more times" (this includes situational offenders). And I'm going to go and add "have," and change "sexually abuse prepubescent children" to "sexually abused a prepubescent child" after this post. You stated, "Whereas this article is using it to say that although it's common for pedophiles to be involved in child sex abuse cases, many do not meet the clinical criteria." Well, we've been over that as well; the lead isn't like that anymore because you changed it. And the lead was never exactly like that; this is because it was never stating that "many pedophiles do not meet the clinical criteria." It was stating that many child sexual abusers (offenders) do not meet the clinical criteria; that's what it still states because you changed "some" to "many." You stated "a small proportion of offenders are opportunists and don't meet clinical criteria." Been over that as well; sources report differently on that topic.

Nope, you were not patronizing. Maybe if I sensed that you are correct on all what you stated above, I would have felt that you were being patronizing. You only come off as aggressive when you engage in the type of behavior I already noted above is problematic behavior for you to engage in. Flyer22 (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Broader scope

This article seems to predominantly focus on the phenomenon as pornographic (and its legal requisites) in peacetime. I think it needs a broader scope to tackle/represent issues of paedophilia elsewhere. By this I mean war rape (see that talk page for what I am working on). As defined by "under 18," it occurs in virtually every such conflict where there is war rape (and my current case study is Latiam). But in some conflicts its worse with children even much younger than merely the legal definition. At the same time boys are also victims. Similarly (and I dont know if this qualifies) but there is also child perpetrated rape/sexual violence.

Id also like to add that sexual violence is not only rape/penetration, according to the literature in academia. Would those other mechanisms (?) not count as paedophilia too?Lihaas (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Lihaas, I'm not entirely sure where you are coming from on this matter...either here or on my talk page; pedophilia is not every sexual attraction/sexual act between an adult and someone under the age of consent/age of majority; not only have we gone over this before extensively on this talk page (including at a point in time with you), the article quite clearly addresses this. If pedophilia were defined by the age of consent/age of majority, then that would mean that a person has a mental disorder/is a pedophile in one state or country but not in another; it would mean that sexual attraction to a post-pubescent 17-year-old is pedophilia; it would mean that an 18-year-old adult who has sex with a 17-year-old minor, for example, is a pedophile. That is not what pedophilia is, and this article should not misrepresent pedophilia as such.

And as for this edit you made with regard to war rape, sexually abusing a child is not always about being sexually attracted to that child; this article addresses that. And it is especially true with regard to war rape, where rape is often used as a weapon instead of as a means to satisfy one's libido. Flyer22 (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Its late and Ill get to the first point later

But actually war rape ALSO @"satisfies"...it is in the literature. war rape then DOES INCLUDE PaedophiliaLihaas (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope, there is nothing to discuss on this matter between us because after years since I last clarified to you what pedophilia is and is not, you continue to confuse what it is. Refrain from trying to discuss this with me any further. Go to the archives of this talk page and read what has been made clear about what pedophilia is and is not, or, hey, read this Wikipedia article. And comprehend it. I know what the literature on pedophilia is -- the actual literature on it (meaning scholars who study the subject); if you knew, you would not still be confusing the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 02:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and a war rapist who happens to be a pedophile is not the same thing as your idea that rape of a child during war rape means pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Redefining pedophilia as "sexual orientation"?

Without comments but with emphasys added, here is the transcript of the top half of page 698 of the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition" (DSM-V) published by the American Psychiatric Association in Arlington, VA, 2013:

"The diagnostic criteria for PEDOPHILIC DISORDER are intended to apply both to individuals who freely disclose this paraphilia and to individuals who deny any sexual attraction to prepubertal children (generally age 13 years or younger), despite substantial objective evidence to the contrary. Examples of disclosing this paraphilia include candidly acknowledging an intense sexual interest in children and indicating that sexual interest in children is greater than or equal to sexual interest in physically mature individuals. If individuals also complain that their sexual attractions or preferences for children are causing psychosocial difficulties, they may be diagnosed with pedophilic disorder. HOWEVER, if they 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." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.247.171.150 (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 17#Development and Sexual Orientation and Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 18#Edit to reflect the DSM-V changes?. Flyer22 (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Note after archive: "Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 18#Edit to reflect the DSM-V changes?" was moved to Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 17#Edit to reflect the DSM-V changes? after this change. Flyer22 (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Etymological misapplication

The Greek root Anglicised as Phile does not cover sexual attraction or activity. The term was misapplied in the early and mid twentieth century. As Greek is a prescriptive language these errors cannot constitute valid applications.

The misapplied term paedofphile / Paedophilia needs to be removed from medical, scientific and legal use. If these disciplines wish to use words from other languages as definitive terms they need to have much greater respect for the historical context and idioms in which they were applied.

Until this travesty has been corrected, please can Wikipedia provide a disclaimer to the misapplication of the Greek root.

Science relies on pedantry for us to communicate with other scientist through time. This is why we are supposed to use dead prescriptive languages.

“You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means” from the Princess Bride, William Goldman

Robert J Price (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

We already say "As pedophilia denotes sexual attraction, the term's Greek meaning is not employed by medical authorities" and that's plenty sufficient I think. Herostratus (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Whether to keep the section Pedophilia#Distinguish from?

• Please discuss here whether to keep that new section. It was claimed "We don't include these type of sections in articles; see WP:LAYOUT; we also don't tell readers what is important to note.". But many men have been wrongly accused of paedophilia because of this sort of misunderstanding, and have suffered serious consequences thereby, as is known from newspaper reports. Wikipedia, ultimately, is an information source for the general public. There are "distinguish from" entries in many disambig pages. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Anthony Appleyard, with as long as you have been registered with Wikipedia, and considering that you are a Wikipedia administrator as well, it's difficult for me to believe that you do not know that this and this that I reverted you on is inappropriate text to be included in this article. It's just as difficult for me to believe that anyone has confused pedophilia with pediatrics. But either way, I suggest you become more familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as the WP:NOTREPOSITORY policy. This article is not a disambiguation page, and Wikipedia disambiguation pages usually distinguish without stating "distinguish from"; after all, because those pages are disambiguation pages, meaning that they are meant to distinguish, there is no need to add "distinguish from." Flyer22 (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I also don't like this spelling variation edit you made, considering that I view it as lead clutter and considering the way that you added it is not the standard way such text is added to Wikipedia articles, but I'll worry about that at a later date (such as whether or not to put it in a footnote or regulate it to the Etymology and definitions section). Also note that with regard to reverting each other on your Distinguish from section, it was on you to follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (WP:BRD) before it was on me to do so. Flyer22 (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

This is an article, not a dab. Challenged new text is generally not forced in before a discussion. The purpose of an article is to provide reliably sourced and encyclopedic information—protecting people is not Wikipedia's role. Further, no amount of dictionary information tacked on this article is going to make the slightest difference to the claimed problems. The only way to make a possible encyclopedic entry on this would be to find a couple of good secondary sources that make the points claimed in the OP. Johnuniq (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• "confused pedophilia with pediatrics" :: this confusion by uneducated people in the street who don't properly know what either word means, has happened and has been documented in reputable newspapers. People colloquially slang shorten "p(a)edophile" to "p(a)edo", and so uneducated people in the street guess wrong meanings for words whose spelling starts with "p(a)ed(o)-". OK, OK, sorry, I'll leave it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see the documentation that such confusion occurs. The vast majority of such alleged incidents I investigated turned out to be jokes and cartoons, some of which evolved into urban legends. The only real incident was able to find was a British pediatrician (a woman, mind you) had "paedo" spray-painted on her front door by teenage miscreants. And even in that case the evidence seemed to hint that the miscreants were trying to be funny rather than genuinely believing she was a pedophile.Legitimus (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Anthony Appleyard, I've seen pedophilia/podophilia confusion before; see Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 17#Major Error. However, I have never witnessed a person confusing the words pedophilia and pediatrics or pedophile and pediatrician; the spellings are completely different, even when shortened to "pedo" and "pedi" (or "pedia") and the pronunciations are completely different. That is why I can't understand how anyone would confuse these two terms. Same goes for comparing the term podiatry with pedophilia, though that confusion is more reasonable than the pediatrics example. Flyer22 (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• "were trying to be funny" :: if so, it was a joke in very bad taste and risking starting serious harassment against the victim. Currently here in England the word "paedophile/-ia" is very well known to the general public beyond the point of wearisomeness in the newspapers and the television news; not so the other words mentioned here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't doubt that it's horribly misused and abused in the UK. Heck I remember watching Peep Show where some pre-teen hooligans harass Mitchell's character by calling him "paedo." But similar to the doctor's story, the hooligans do not actually believe he is attracted to children; they're merely saying it to embarrass and upset him because they dislike him. I've not seen any evidence that people genuinely mix up the words and attack innocent people based on the words alone.Legitimus (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Treatment section problems

The sections "Pharmacological interventions" and "Limitations of treatment" are problematic. In the latter, there is really only one statement about any limitations, "but this method is not recommended ...", and the source is not reliable. Unless someone objects, I will combine these into a section titled "Castration", or perhaps "Chemical or physical castration" (other suggestions welcome), and reorganize it a bit. I'd like to incorporate some info from this source. Klortho (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with giving the section some adjustments. Do you need full-text copies of any sources?Legitimus (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, no. Klortho (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

history

this article needs a history section. i just read suetonius' 'the twelve caesars' and was looking for some info/understanding. i expected to find a reference to this disorder having existed among several roman emperors, and much more. an example would be the article on 'mental illness'; its history section provides at least some historical/broader perspective, preventing anyone's coming away with the impression that, say, mental illness as a general phenomenon suddenly sprang to life in the late 19th century. from this article, lacking any alternative info, one could get just that impression re pedophilia. 63.142.146.194 (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Age limit of children

A pedophile for most people is someone attracted to children up to around 20 or 21. Boys are still children at 19, especially if they don't have facial hair. So puberty ends with full facial hair. 19 year old with no facial hair is pubescent or prepubescent. So-called ephebophiles are a subset of paedophiles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.252.81 (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

IP, none of what you stated is even remotely true. For example, most people think that sexual attraction, any attraction, to a 19, 20 or 21-year-old (all who are adults) is pedophilia? That is obviously false. As for facial hair, I made this statement today with regard to puberty and facial hair. And like I stated, "Continuing to physically mature does not equate to continuing to go through puberty. For example, many men don't start to grow facial hair until their early 20s; starting to grow facial hair at age 22 does not mean that the 22-year-old man is still going through puberty." Flyer22 (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Paediophilia is conventionally (and NPOV) defined by the kegal rulings of age of consent.

However, there is likely a sociological definition, but that opens a whole can of worms. But perhaps if there is literature we can use tht as definitionalLihaas (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The act of sexually abusing a child, which is related to but distinct from pedophilia, is defined by the legal rulings of age of consent/age of majority; I further addressed this in the #Broader scope section below. Flyer22 (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Puberty is a relatively short period - around 3 years. Ephebophile means an attraction to someone who has finished puberty. You're referring to physical maturity, which for many people doesn't end until they're over 30.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 09:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources somewhat differ on how long puberty lasts. Flyer22 (talk) 12:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Number of pedophiles among child molesters

I noticed, that the number of pedophilic offenders in Hall & Hall study is possibly misquoted. There are two citations in the study, one is Abel GG, Harlow N. The Abel and Harlow child molestation prevention study. Hall & Hall study claims 88 % of offenders are pedophiles, but it the Abel study, the number is related to number of victims molested by pedophiles. The number of pedophilic offenders is about 65 % based on the Abel study.

Does anyone have more resources? We have one study, that says 7 % identified themselves as exclusive and one study, that say 88 % (or 65 %?) of offenders are pedophiles, but I found for example claim of Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem: "For instance, it is a fact that real pedophiles account for only 20% of sexual abusers." http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4959361&Language=E&Mode=1 I've also seen somewhere a resource claiming it's about 50 %, but I don't remember which one and only the abstract of the cited study was freely available, which didn't contain such claim. But the numbers I've found differs significantly, so I don't think one study is enough here.

Also I think it would be good to add a note what definition of pedophilia is used, the numbers can differ based on the definition used. Lunruj (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Similar comments were brought up at the Child sexual abuse talk page. See Talk:Child sexual abuse/Archive 8#Error in Mayo Clinic article, pedophiles account for 65% of child molesters, not 88% and Talk:Child sexual abuse/Archive 8#Personal opinion about the Mayo Clinic reference and some comments. As for definitions, we can if the sources note what their definitions are. But scholarly sources on the topic of pedophilia are usually speaking of prepubescent children, whether they define pedophilia as an exclusive or primary sexual attraction to them or not. Flyer22 (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems that more people agree, that there's a misquotation in the Mayo Clinic report. So I think it should be either replaced with the number in the original study and changing the source to the original study or removed. But I can't edit semi-protected arcticles. Lunruj (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You are still wrong here. Reports tend to define "children" at the start. In the Mayo report they define children as "under 13". So the report is about pedophiles and molestation of pre-pubescent children. As in pedophilic activity.

So 65%/88% (not sure which one it is in the report) of sexual abuse of pre pubescent children is done by pedophiles. It's not data for all child abuse

Cjmooney9 (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Like I just stated in the media/common use section below, "under 13" does not automatically equate to "prepubescent," especially with regard to girls (most girls are pubescent before age 13, usually showing breast development). Furthermore, the aforementioned past discussions about the Mayo Clinic source clearly show problems with that source. Flyer22 (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I agree. But as in my below point, "child abuse" refers to sexual activity with anyone under the age of 18 in the US. And 16 in Europe. Any study of children under 13 is not a study of child abuse. It's a study of very particular child abusers. As stated (and I will pull up the stats - sorry, I'm a bit busy at the minute). Most child abuse is against teenagers, in an opportunistic way.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

We should keep this discussion in one spot instead of replying in two different spots. But, in part, I stated below: First, we are talking about child sexual abuse, so it's best that you make that clear by stating exactly that and not "child abuse." Secondly, like we both stated, when considering to diagnose a person with pedophilia, the research concerns prepubescent children (usually anyway); this is because researchers generally know that sexual attraction to a 17-year-old, for example, is not pedophilia; furthermore, the terms child sexual abuse and child molestation most commonly refer to prepubescent children, and child sexual abuse (child molestation) is generally a more serious crime than statutory rape (which usually concerns clearly pubescent or post-pubescent minors). Flyer22 (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

"Pedophilia" in other animals section

I have reverted this ridiculous section that was added by CensoredScribe; I reverted per what was already discussed on this talk page (Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 17#Inclusion RFC); there is no documented evidence that pedophilia exists in non-human animals. Pedophilia is a mental disorder documented in humans; it is about a deep-rooted, mentally-driven desire (a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescents, prepubescent children), not simply the behavior (the act of sexually abusing a prepubescent child), which is why pedophilia and child sexual abuse are very much noted as distinguished in this article.

I'm surprised it took me showing back up to this article after many hours from Wikipedia for this mess to be reverted. Flyer22 (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Found this article while reading one of Rush Limbaugh's blogs: Paedophilia: bringing dark desires to light --173.51.29.188 (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2014

Development and sexual orientation

... Quote: "These observations, however, do not exclude pedophilia from the group of mental disorders because pedophilic acts cause harm, and pedophiles can sometimes be helped by mental health professionals to refrain from acting on their impulses."

This sentence should be removed, because the two arguments used here are complete nonsense. I will explain them seperately:

1) "...because pedophilic acts cause harm"

a) The term "pedophilic acts" doesn't make sense, the author must mean "child rape" or "child abuse" instead. Those criminal acts can be committed by anybody, regardless their sexual preference. Because if somebody rapes a woman, can this be written as a typical "heterophilic act"? Of course not, because in that case you directly connect all heterosexuals to crimes such as rape and abuse.

b) Also, "causing harm" is not a valid argument to determine if somebody suffers from a mental illness, because then a burglar, a murderer, or somebody who sets cars on fire as a form of protest must also be mentally ill, because he obviously "causes harm". So some people deliberately cause harm because of reasons, such as surviving in a poor country, as a form of political protest or just for fun. We CAN NOT connect those things directly to mental illness!

2) "... because pedophiles can sometimes be helped by mental health professionals to refrain from acting on their impulses."

This is also not a valid reason to classify pedophiles as mentally ill, because EVERYBODY can be trained to refrain from acting on their impulses, regardless their sexual preference. A heterosexual priest can be trained to refrain from sex because he or his community expects him to devote his life to God, a homosexual person can be trained to refrain from sex because he could be born in an evangelical community which expects him to do so, and so a pedophile can be trained to refrain from sex because admitting would cause social problems and harm children. So if this argument would be valid, EVERYBODY who can refrain from sexual acts should be mentally ill. This is of course complete nonsense. Abstinence however doesn't change people's sexual orientation, and there is still no scientific proof that pedophily can be "helped" or "cured" by "mental health professionals" with the method of applying abstinence. On the contrary, neuroscientists recently have discovered that people can be classified as pedophiles already BEFORE BIRTH, by studying their pre-natal brains, and those people will stay pedophiles during their entire life. Also there is no scientific proof that the number of pedophile men who rape children is significantly higher than the number of heterosexual men who rape women or the number of homosexual men who rape other men. Because of this, pedophiles can not automatically be classified as people with "stronger" impulses than other people, and therefore, the assumption that the impulses of pedophiles are a result of mental health problems is not based on any reliable scientific source.

Scientific source: http://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/psicologia/fpelaez/Ev_Int_P_sexuales/Documentos/Swaab_07.pdf

Most relevant quote from this source: "There are also claims of a change from pedophiles and homosexual men into heterosexual behavior through stereotactical psychosurgery by means of lesions in the nucleus ventromedialis, but these interventions are not only of questionable ethical quality, they also do not meet any scientific standard and thus cannot teach us anything."

Conclusion: Any claim that certain criminal acts like child rape are directly connected to pedophily, or that mental health coaches can "help" pedophiles from their impulses, are NOT based on any reliable scientific source.

AW78 (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't where to start with your post other than you say you need to do some serious reading on Wikipedia's polices about No original research (i.e. you cannot use you personal observations and/or opinions in an article), Synthesis of published sources (i.e. using a good source that is only tangentially related to the topic and putting a "spin" on it to advance your personal opinions), and on the practice of mental health in general, because you seem to have no concept of what actually defines a mental illness.Legitimus (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: I fully concur. This is not WP:NPOV but is blatant synthesis - drawing your own, extremely broad, conclusion from one cherry-picked quotation. Arjayay (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Definition yet again

SqueakBox, what problem do you have with the WP:Consensus lead version of the first sentence that you felt the need to change it? Is it the fact that it clearly states that 16-year-olds can be pedophiles as well? I disagree with your change to that first sentence, because pedophilia is first and foremost a medical term, at least if going by the most reliable sources on this topic -- WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, and it is also first and foremost a mental disorder. Per WP:LEADSENTENCE, "if the title is a specialised term, provide the context as early as possible. For example, instead of:

A trusted third party is an entity that facilitates interactions between two parties who both trust the third party.

write:

In cryptography, a trusted third party is an entity that facilitates interactions between two parties who both trust the third party."

That is one reason why "As a medical diagnosis" fits coming first in this case. Your version removes first defining this topic in the medical field, that it is a disorder and that it is about adults (or rather late adolescents and adults) having this disorder. Yet it still currently uses the words "diagnostic criteria" and "disorder" in the first sentence without context, and has the linked "psychiatric disorder" mentioned in the second sentence somewhat out of context. I would be all for beginning by stating that "Pedophilia or paedophilia is a mental disorder," but the wording "As a medical diagnosis" was added as a compromise for the few people stating that calling pedophilia a mental disorder is non-neutral or puts heavy emphasis on the medical aspect; so "As a medical diagnosis" was added to make it clear that it is the medical field that calls pedophilia a mental disorder. The first and second paragraphs are set up to focus on how the term is medically defined. The common (non-medical) use of the term comes after that. All that stated, your version does flow better; it just needs tweaking, in my opinion. The only reason that I didn't revert your change to the first sentence is because I know that you very likely would have reverted instead of simply bringing this matter to the talk page to discuss it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

My issue has been that we need to define pedophilia before stating the medical definition, for readability. I am here in this edit purely trying to make the article read better, I am not carrying an agenda about the content itself, for example that 16 year olds can be pedophiles sounds fine to me (its not like I make the definition, we leave to the experts whom we record through reliable sources) nor am I doubting that it is a medical term though we arent a medical encyclopedia and must assume our readers are medical laypersons with no background in medicine (much like me) and so what they will want to read first is a simple layperson definition of pedophilia, and I have tried to do that without altering the content in any way. Too often consensus edits can read badly because they are consensus and my concern here and now is that the opening reads well, and for me this means putting the layperson definition first.♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Per what I stated above, we are defining pedophilia by stating the medical definition first. That is the authoritative/accurate definition of pedophilia; this is something you agree with, or at least have agreed with in the past; see Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 15#Consensus: General use before authoritative use?. Your change has not removed the medical definition coming first; it has removed the context that goes with that definition, which is "As a medical diagnosis," and placed it second. Per WP:LEADSENTENCE, we should give that context as early as possible. The layperson (common use) definition of pedophilia is not first, nor should it come first, because laypeople generally define pedophilia as adult sexual attraction to any minor (any person under 18)...as the lead and lower body of the article notes. The layperson (common use) definition comes after the medical definitions, as it should. Again, your first sentence does not note that pedophilia is a mental disorder, yet speaks of "diagnostic criteria" and "disorder," which makes it sloppy. Like I stated, it also does not note that pedophilia is a late adolescent/adult sexual attraction.

As a compromise, I suggest we go back to even older wording for the first sentence: "Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children." Or perhaps "late adolescent" in place of "older adolescent," though RJR3333 (who is now indefinitely blocked) replaced "late adolescents" with "older adolescents" for one version of the first sentence. It might also be good to keep the "generally age 11 years or younger, though specific diagnostic criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13" text as a part of the first sentence (though that's kind of run-on sentence territory if not placed in parentheses), or it can be added to the "As a medical diagnosis" sentence that currently comes second. Flyer22 (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Per what I've stated above in this section, and per there having been no objections, I have implemented my above proposal, as seen here and here. It is still likely best that "16 years of age or older" remain in the first sentence; I state that because the age range of the adolescent is not specified by "older adolescent" or "late adolescent." Still, it is specified in the second sentence. Hopefully, there are not any readers who will only read the first sentence. And if there are, I'm sure that they are the significant minority (as compared to the majority that reads at least a little more of the lead). The prepubescent age range should definitely stay in the lead, per Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 17#Age range, and should perhaps stay in the first sentence. The wording "typically characterized" had been used in the first sentence by me because of the ICD-10 including "early pubertal" in its definition of pedophilia. However, most of the medical community (by a vast margin) does not state "prepubescent and early pubescent" when defining pedophilia, and so we should not give WP:Undue weight to that definition by having it in the first sentence. Flyer22 (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

For me the only issue here is to have a definition that is well written, I am happy to go for what you want if we can write it well, we are doing the article a disservice, though, by having a badly written open sentence, first impressions♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

SqueakBox, the current opening sentence is not much different than your version, except that it's more accurate/clearer (per what I've stated above). There is nothing badly written by stating "Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children." And if that began with "As a medical diagnosis," it wouldn't be bad writing either. The add-on part of "generally age 11 years or younger, though specific diagnostic criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13" is another matter, however, and does not need to be in the first sentence if it affects readability (not to mention that it can be argued as bad writing). It is important to stress in the first sentence that pedophilia is a mental disorder and that it is an adult/late adolescent sexual attraction, as discussed many times before at this talk page. Because some people (though such people are usually pedophiles) don't view pedophilia as a mental disorder and the DSM-5 seemingly thinks of pedophilia in a wider sense that can be divided as "pedophilia" and "pedophilic disorder," that is another reason it would be best to begin with "As a medical diagnosis," to make clear that we are referring to pedophilia in the medical sense when we state "mental disorder," "psychiatric disorder," "primary or exclusive sexual attraction," "prepubescent" and "diagnostic criteria." We have dealt with people (usually pedophiles) at this article objecting to us calling pedophilia a mental disorder. So the "As a medical diagnosis" wording for the first sentence was a compromise (not so much with the pedophiles) on that front (and a way of avoiding such discussion again), to make it clear to them that, medically, yes, pedophilia is a mental disorder. But, for that first sentence, I have left out "As a medical diagnosis" as a compromise with you. Again, I am okay with moving the "generally age 11 years or younger, though specific diagnostic criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13" text to the second sentence, but I see no issue with the first part of the first sentence (other than it not being clear what is meant by "older adolescent," and the fact that it perhaps opens us up wider to the "Pedophilia is not a mental disorder." complaints). Flyer22 (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: I changed the first sentence/rearranged the lead a bit so that the first sentence is not run-on and the lead flows better. Flyer22 (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hat note removal

The hat note says <quote>This article is primarily about the sexual interest in prepubescent children. For more in depth information on the sexual act, see Child sexual abuse. For the primary sexual interest in 11–14 year old pubescents, see Hebephilia. For the primary sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents (15–19), see Ephebophilia.</quote>

We already state what the article is about in the opening, we dont need that in the hat note too. We also cover both Hebephilia and Ephebophilia in the article itself and I have now linked to the child sex abuse article in the opening. So IMO the hat note is unnecessary and merelyy distracts the reader, the majority of whom wont have heard of Hebephilia and Ephebophilia before reading the article and if they dont know the names they can find them out when they read the article♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I was the one who originally added it. At that time, the lead didn't seem terrible clear on the matter and I had been encountering infuriating misuse of the word "pedophilia" itself left and right. You know, the usual stupidity of thinking it literally is the word for CSA or that it means being attracted to anyone under age 18. Based on the currently phrasing of the lead, I could go either way and am open to the opinions of other experienced editors in this area.Legitimus (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Legitimus, I think you added that WP:Hatnote when the lead was clear enough, but you added it to make it clearer that child sexual abuse does not automatically equate to pedophilia. I agreed with that addition, and added on to it (it's also been edited by others since then). The WP:Hatnote in this case helps people not only find the topic they might actually be looking for (child sexual abuse, hebephilia and/or ephebophilia), but also distinguishes these related terms right off the bat for readers. Keep in mind that, like WP:LEAD notes, many who read Wikipedia don't read past the lead. In fact, Wikipedia statistics report that most people who read Wikipedia don't read past the lead. So not having that WP:Hatnote up there is a disservice, I feel. However, I am not too hard-pressed to keep it up there. Flyer22 (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Already one downside to not having the aforementioned WP:Hatnote. There will likely be more editors who will overlook that these terms are already linked in the article and decide to place them in the See also section. There will also likely be the occasional editor who will add back such a WP:Hatnote. But, like I stated, "I am not too hard-pressed to keep [the WP:Hatnote] up there." Flyer22 (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: Actually, rethinking this, it is likely that I will re-add the WP:Hatnote (tweaked a bit or not) at some point...per what I stated above in this section. It's safe to state that far too many people are looking for those aforementioned other topics when they visit this article; we should help them find those topics from the start. Flyer22 (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Muhammed: Notable historical examples section

I cant find any references that are serious in claiming not that Muhammad sexually abused a 9 yr old child but that he was a pedophile. Why does this info not appear in the Muhammad article? Cant be lack of notability so I assume it must be because we cant actually source this info properly. When we include it in the Muhammad article we can include it here too. In the criticism of Muhammad article we get a reference to pedophilia in the speeches of a right wing politician, not a good indicator♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I was under the impression that there was a general ban on labeling any person a pedophile in this article, including any mention of them whatsoever on the page, as it is considered such a heinous label as to raise concerns about defamation or in this case religious intolerance. The administrators were at one point VERY strict about this to the point they were deleting such edits out of the history entirely. The only time I would think it would be at all acceptable to including anyone by name would be if there was a reliable source indicating medical diagnosis. While it might be possible to do a "deductive diagnosis" on an individual who is convicted in a court of law of committing CSA on multiple occasions such that it spans a time period greater than 6 month, and all victims are under 12, this would likely be in violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. (Ironically, child porn convictions are a much stronger indication of having the disorder than a single act of CSA, but again, WP:SYNTHESIS).

On the topic at hand, Muhammad is actually one of the poorest examples if you take the above factors into account. There is debate among Muslims if Aisha was actually 9. Some sources indicate she was age 16-18 when they were married. And it would be a single instance for an individual who is also recorded as having had a great many relationships with adult women.Legitimus (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

[ WP:Edit conflict; I was already about to extensively quote you, Legitimus. Also note that I added ":Notable historical examples section" on to the heading of this section so that it is clearer as to what this section is about, with the subsequent comments; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived.] I'm going to quote three things from Legitimus with regard to this "notable historical examples" topic. But first... I'd already told ParkinsonProject that the material that he added to this article would be removed. A section like that does not belong in this article because this article is about pedophilia, not child marriage. Like the Child marriage article documents, child marriages happen for all sorts of reasons (including ones that have not a thing to do with sexual attraction) and usually includes a teenager as the child. Sexual attraction to a clearly pubescent or post-pubescent teenager is not pedophilia, and men marrying teenagers was very commonly practiced throughout the historical world; teenage pregnancy was the norm, as extensively noted at that talk page in this recent discussion about the birth of Jesus. Both (a man marrying a teenage girl and that teenage girl becoming pregnant) are still the norm in some societies. So taking all of that into account, the 15-year-old example that ParkinsonProject included was silly. Also see what Legitimus stated about child marriages with regard to Muslim countries, which shows reasons that a child marriage may occur; that text is at Talk:Child sexual abuse/Archive 8#Is indecent exposure child sexual abuse?. Legitimus stated, "Child marriages are far from the norm in any of these areas. Even when they do occur, the reason is primarily symbolic, not sex. Many times there is a dowry tradition at work (making the motivation greed basically), or the marriage is done as a way to unite hostile factions. Often times the bride doesn't even live the with groom until she has grown up. Yes, there are no doubt pedophiles among Muslims who's motivation is sex, but I do not see how they occur more frequently than pedophiles here in the US."

So I applaud Frze for removing the aforementioned material here. Even though he had the wrong idea by removing it here, it was very unwise for James Cantor to restore that material. Restoring material simply because of WP:NOTCENSORED is flawed in this case, and I advise James Cantor to read WP:Offensive material. I applaud SqueakBox for removing that material here, here and here.

As for the Muhammad part, like Legitimus stated in this Examples from History discussion at the Child sexual abuse article: "This topic has been covered before in one form or another (see the archive in the top-right), but one problem is what we would even do with this information. Historical examples all seem to lack adequate descriptions of mental health outcomes. It's just as valid to assume these children were scarred for life and suffered all the consequences modern children do, but all the written works were by 'perpetrators.' There is also some evidence that these past events are not what they seem, contrary to the popular re-telling of them. Examples: Aisha was 18 in some interpretations based on her date of death compared to other time-points (the numbers 6 and 9 were intended as symbolic). And the Greek 'boys' referred to in classical literature were around 16-20, not little children, as can be seem clearly in paintings where the 'boy' is the exact same height has his 'man' lover, and the 'boy' simply lacks a beard."

As for the History section that is currently in the Pedophilia article... It is unsourced. And most importantly in this regard, as was noted in the History discussion we had in June-August 2012 on this talk page, it is illogical to have a section about pedophilia throughout history (unless it is about the history that documents certain people studying pedophilia and noting the development of how the term came to be defined, which is something this article already does.) In that discussion, it was asked, "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?" Like Legitimus stated: "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.'" Flyer22 (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Heading!

An article should start with a summary of the subject followed.

Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger, though specific diagnostic criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.[1][2][3][4] As a medical diagnosis, it is a psychiatric disorder in persons 16 years of age or older. 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.[1][2]

To quote in the summary is nonsense, hence has no meaning. Quoting rubbish also does not do the trick. I am not interested to read the references. However how absurd is it to quote this bullshit. 11 years,16 years, 222 years, 42 years, 499 years old. Bang!

This article sucks.

Check WIKI rules and you will see that the opening statements of this article are against all encyclopidia nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.101.167 (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

What Wiki rules? I named some Wiki rules in the #Definition yet again section above, where I suggested that it might be best to move the years information out of the first sentence. And by the #disorder? section you created above, coupled with other recent commentary on the disorder mention, I can see that I was absolutely right about leaving "As a medical diagnosis" in for the start of the first sentence; so I may very well add that back, and move the age criteria out of the first sentence. Flyer22 (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Noting here as well: I changed the first sentence/rearranged the lead a bit so that the first sentence is not run-on and the lead flows better. Flyer22 (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Start paragraph comments

Text: Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger, though specific diagnostic criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13. Comment: The issue of whether the sexual attraction to children is a "primary" or "exclusive" attraction is not unimportant, but it is not necessarily accurately put. The issue with pedophiles is not that they are "primarily" or "exclusively" attracted to children, rather that their attraction to children is sexual, and not just the normal kind of attraction to children which is loving. Using the words "primary" and "exclusively" has the problem that it asserts that pedophiles would not be attracted to adult women or men, when they very well could be. -Cybrepilot (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

No, when it comes to sexual attraction, "primarily" or "exclusively" is what separates pedophiles from situational offenders (see Child sexual abuse#Typology) or some other "not necessarily a pedophile" child sexual abuser; the fact that a pedophile's sexual attraction to prepubescents is so intense is exactly why pedophilia is deemed "incurable." Pedophiles generally have a difficult time finding non-prepubescents sexually attractive and they generally cannot be romantically/sexually satisfied by adults. Their sexual focus is usually on prepubescent children. If people who are primarily sexually attracted to adults, but occasionally use or have used a prepubescent child for sexual gratification, were routinely deemed pedophiles by mental health professionals, getting pedophiles to be with someone their own age would be a lot easier...obviously because they would rather not be with prepubescent children in a sexual way. Flyer22 (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is true, Cybrepilot. They have to be primarily or exclusively interested in children to meet the criteria. I recently read a journal of a true pedophile. While fully aware of the wrongness of his attraction and a dedicated non-offender, he nevertheless has an exclusive attraction. He is literally incapable of achieving erection with an adult woman. It's a miserable existence to say the least.

That is not to say that "situational offenders" get off the hook. It's just that, by the medical criteria, they do not qualify as "pedophiles." They certainly do qualify child sexual abusers of course. Granted, I fall into a camp that anyone who ever does anything sexual with a prepubescent child has something very, very wrong with their brain, and I daresay is still very much mentally ill (even if that illness is simply psychopathy). Normal adults find even the thought of doing such a thing nauseating (thus why it is so despised). I liken it to such things as borderline personality disorder, where a person might not meet the full diagnostic criteria, but still are considered to have "borderline traits" that are still destructive.Legitimus (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

disorder?

why is being pedo a DISORDER. Are you a court, a judge. An article can not begin like that. Being pedo is not a disorder. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.101.167 (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Per the Wikipedia:Child protection policy, editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships, or who identify themselves as paedophiles, will be i

When I was a kid my dad bought me an encyclopedia (some people believe wikipedia is already one). Being of German origin, it was of course a 'Brockhaus', consisting of 6 heavy books. That was in 1976.

Then later I learned to work with this books (no www, no wikipedia drama) and quoted within my school exams, what was stated there.

Very much later I learnt (BE) that the choice of words plus the description in the books were NEUTRAL, to an extent that I did not understand until I was in my 40ties.

So I miss this in WIKI, I am happy to know printed published serious articles about the subject.

WIKI is biased, and if you try to counterargue you get deleted from the article.

NEUTRAL is the essence of it all. Describe without judging, love the subject you write on, be honest but fair, consider other people's point of views.

Being NEUTRAL is the hardest thing.

I don't want my children to read this article. IT SUCKS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.101.78 (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You are of course lying. I have copies of many print encyclopedia, and they align with this article just fine. For example Encyclopædia Britannica, one of the most famous and popular in the English language, states the following:

"Pedophilia, also spelled paedophilia, psychosexual disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engages in sexual acts with a prepubescent child of the same or the opposite sex. Pedophilia is a type of paraphilia, a category of recognized mental disorders defined by unusual fantasies, urges, or behaviours that are recurrent and sexually arousing."

Now let me make this clear: I do not suffer fools gladly and this will be your first and last warning. If you want to have a rational conversation about how to improve this article you had better shape up and learn the rules. However if you're a troll or a pedophile, get out. Or I will inform the authorities.Legitimus (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Anon IP, if you think the article lacks a neutral point of view then this talk page is a good place to suggest your proposed changes, and see if consensus supports you. But this is an online encyclopedia, so posts here need to be relevant to writing or improving articles. If you don't have any specific suggestions for the article but simply feel that your children shouldn't read it, the easiest step to take is simply not to read it yourself or let them use your PC. I don't mean for this to sound dismissive - if you have specific suggestions or proposed edits feel free to post them here. Euryalus (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Disorder

I hate it that the article describes it as a psychiatric disorder, when that would be exactly the same as calling homosexuality a psychiatric disorder. I guess the bias is so ingrained that it finds its way into official sources. Enkidu6 (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that conservative thinkers will always use the pprogress of the gay movement as a precedent of a sort of "slippery slope" development. Nobody wants to open that pandora's box. Therefore, just let it remain as a mental disorder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParkinsonProject (talk • contribs) 19:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

We need not to use our personal thoughts about the article topic in the article, we need to summarize what reliable sources say. Zad68 19:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

What Zad said. Also, ParkinsonProject, you would be correct but it also gets pushed from the opposite side: Pedos themselves like to encourage that slippery-slope fallacy under the delusion that they can "ride the coat-tails" of the gay rights movement. This why pedophiles often like to compare themselves to homosexuality, but of course they always ignore what actually defines a psychiatric disorder.Legitimus (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for splitting this section, Legitimus. Before others replied to him (and while still keeping WP:Talk in mind), I was certainly tempted to move Enkidu6's comment to the #Definition yet again section above where I commented on the fact we have gotten comments at this talk page like Enkidu6's before and that the old/new format of the lead may lead to us getting comments like that more often. But I was also tempted to respond to Enkidu6 comment, and I'm so tired of reading/responding to comments like that (especially the homosexuality comparison)...that I decided to let someone else handle it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we could have a FAQ we could point to when new editors ask this question? Zad68 21:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

We can have FAQs on articles? That sounds like a great idea but I don't know how to do that.Legitimus (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep. I'm familiar with them at other articles about controversial topics; for example, see the top of Talk:Homophobia. Flyer22 (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

There is the following query about how to create one: Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 November 15#How do you create an FAQ?. That was in 2009. There wasn't a guideline about how to create one then, and I think there still isn't one. Flyer22 (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh cool. That would probably come in handy for quite a few articles I frequent.Legitimus (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, the text doesn't show up for some reason. If anyone knows how to fix that please go ahead.Legitimus (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean, Legitimus? On my computer screen, it's showing up. Flyer22 (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, works now. Must have just been my browser.Legitimus (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way, good job on the mental/psychiatric disorder answer. Flyer22 (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine work on this ... I hope you don't mind but I copyedited the explanation to lead with the fact that Wikipedia summarizes sources, before going on to explain how the sources treat the disorder. It's important that newcomers realize that we're not making up the classification, it's the sources that are doing it. Zad68 02:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Legitimus, this new addition has reminded me that I've been meaning to ask if you wouldn't mind creating an addition for why we don't have a section detailing pedophilia throughout history. We can have a History section with regard to coining and defining the term pedophilia, which already exists by the Disease models section, but having one that details pedophilia throughout history is problematic...per the reasons stated in the #Muhammed: Notable historical examples section above. Flyer22 (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

That was my next plan, because that is also a topic that has come up quite a bit.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2014

Please add the spelling variant 'pædophilia'. 2.102.81.115 (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

2.102.81.115 (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That spelling variation (British) is already included in the WP:Lead, with the exclusion of that squished letter a and e design. We are not going to include the same exact spelling for the sake of a squished letter a and e design. Flyer22 (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

These articles disagree:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foetus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faeces

2.102.81.115 (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22 I'm closing this Kap 7 (talk) 08:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionarian requesting advice on defining terms

Hi, all. [[Pedosexual]]/[[pedosexuality]] redirect here, so this seems like the place to ask — are those terms synonymous with pedophile/pedophilia, or do they denote something distinct? If they're synonymous, are they limited to a particular usage context, e.g. are they technical terms used by psychologists, or terms used by people who compare pedophilia to heterosexuality/homosexuality and describe pedophilia as a sexual orientation, or are they just rarer synonyms of pedophile/pedophilia? I apologize if I'm bringing up some contentious issue that's been discussed before; feel free to just point me to specific archives; the only thing I saw in the archives that seemed relevant was one comment implying that the terms are used by those with the point of view that pedophilia is an orientation (plus several irrelevant-to-me discussions of where [[pedosexual]] should redirect to). I ask about this because I'm a Wiktionary editor and I'm trying to figure out if Wiktionary's entries on the terms (wikt:pedosexual, wikt:pedosexuality) need to be modified and/or given context-clarifying usage notes. I figure that the people who watch this talk page may have resources/expertise on the subject. -sche (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe they're terms used by people who compare pedophilia to heterosexuality/homosexuality and describe pedophilia as a sexual orientation. AFAIK they don't have any standing in the medical or scholarly community. Not 100% sure of that but that's the general vibe I've gotten. Herostratus (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I generally hear it used by people with an "agenda" as it were, as mentioned by Herostratus. I never hear any of my colleagues use the term. A quick browse through PubMed shows it is infrequently used in scientific literature, and only in a very nuanced way. In these papers, "pedophile" and "pedophilia" are the predominant terms used, while "pedosexual" is solely used as a adjective to describe behavior. For example "one of the strongest single predictors for pedosexual offense recidivism" or "Within the pedophilic group, pedosexual interest and sexual recidivism were correlated..." The word "pedosexuality" returns no hits at all other than a single mistranslation of a German paper.Legitimus (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both. I've reworked the definitions over on Wiktionary. Armed with your insights, I've made my own survey of literature. Some of the works I saw using the words did seem to have the agenda Herostratus mentions, but they seemed to use the words with the same basic meaning as the scientific works Legitimus describes, so I haven't added any usage notes at this time. -sche (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Pornography

How it is possible to conclude that "An extensive collection indicates a strong sexual preference for children"? The person may also have a extensive collection of adult porn. The size of a collection does not of itself indicate preference.

The ownership of a collection cannot be an indicator, much less the single best indicator "of what he or she wants to do". Passive viewing of photos and images, and acting on those preferences, are two very different things. I have a large collection of photographs of aircraft, but have no interest in flying! I would have thought that someone with a collection of pornographic photos of children may actually be less inclined to action than someone who pursues children but has no photos. After all, I doubt that many rapists keep large collections of violent adult porn.101.98.175.68 (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to read that section in more detail and examine the sources, because this matter is addressed quite well. You are making a unfounded generalization based on personal experiences that are not analogous, rather than offering any sort of reliable source.Legitimus (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Section "Causes and biological associations"

The section talks about certain neurological or other problems or differences in "pedophilic men", such as lower IQ, poorer memory test scores, more left-handedness, lesser physical height etc., however the given citations generally seem to focus on pedophilic sex offenders, and not all pedophiles. Statistics on the latter might in fact be difficult to make, given the unlikeliness of a person to admit to pedophilia if they are not already in a clinic, prison or have a record as an offender. I haven't scanned the rest of the article for this possible mistake, but it sticks out especially here. I would recommend clarification by changing the phrase "pedophilic men" to "pedophilic sexual offenders". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:51:4A02:43FA:213:E8FF:FEED:36FB (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted you are not the first person to bring this up. To state it briefly, there are quite a number of sources being used here so it would depend which one you mean.

Having examined an number of them in their full-text form, I can tell you that only a few of them, if any, use convicted sexual abuse perpetrators as their sole source. These studies draw from any of the following:

• Child-porn-only offenders (which studies have show is more diagnostic if pedophilia than sexual abuse).
• Clinical referrals - subjects without criminal record that are receiving psychiatric treatment, either for self-disclosed pedophilic impulses or discovery of such interest during treatment for another condition.
• Self-referrals - yes, some pedophiles genuinely want help and will admit they have it to a professional when their privacy is protected by law. Remember, pedophilia is not a crime, only actions are.
• General population - recruited from people in general usually without disclosing what the study is actually looking for. With a big enough sample, pedophilia will be detected during the study evaluations in a small portion, and the non-pedophilic subjects act as a control group.

Legitimus (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I looked into all the sources more carefully now. Currently these are the citations numbered 76 to 86 (inclusive), so I'll refer to them through that. From quick reviews of their abstracts/summaries, it seems to me like 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, and 86 focus specifically on sex offenders, or are their summaries misleading? For 77, 83, and 85 I cannot be sure from the summary, and 76 was done exactly to address our question and done on random individuals; however it seems to only address IQ, lesser education, and left-handedness, or maybe some things were excluded from the abstract. Perhaps one could assume that study 76 "proves" that the others would apply to non-criminal pedophiles as well? But then the amount of certainty implied by the language used in the article seems too strong. It might be better to reflect exactly the nature of these studies; that they have generally been done on sex offenders, and one has attempted to prove the results to also hold for non-offending pedophiles and (partly?) succeeded in doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:51:4A6F:EFD7:213:E8FF:FEED:36FB (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You have a point. Certainly this specific section has been a subject of debate over the years so maybe it could be presented more clearly or with more detail as to how the conclusions were reached. To explain, this article was a "battleground" of sorts for many years and only now has seen relative peace.

I have access to most studies in their full text form, but it has been a year or two since I read these. It will take me a bit to refresh myself and then I will see if I can rephrase a bit to explain the nature of the studies conducted.Legitimus (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok having examined a number of them, especially those by Cantor and Blanchard; they use the term "offender" loosely and their referrals are rather broad in nature. Most of their samples are from their outpatient psychiatric laboratory, and the patients were referred by an impressive variety of routes. These do include convicted criminals, but also self-referrals, doctor referrals, lawyer referrals, and institution referrals. And even then it gets more complex. For example, self-referrals include both people with genuine pedophilia that want help, as well as non-pedophilic sex addicts, people with POCD suffering from intrusive thoughts about sex or pedophilia (they are not actually pedophiles, just have an anxiety disorder). Doctor-referrals included mentally retarded patients who's family or a third party was concerned about them. Some from the legal system were referred by parole or probation officers, but their crimes were not necessarily CSA related or even sexual. Further adding to the diversity of the sample is that "offenses" also self-disclosure and credible accusations (i.e. they eliminated any situation where there was no corroborating evidence, the accuser had anything to gain from the accusation, or if the accusation came a significant time after the offense).

I do see the issue with how that first paragraph states it very flatly as fact. Despite the strong sample, it of course has limitations like any study. I will try to rephrase it.Legitimus (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I think that looks much better. 2003:51:4A6F:EFFF:213:E8FF:FEED:36FB (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I am certainly a paedohebephilie (hebephile to be specific). I have been keeping eye on the updates to these articles for years now, to keep myself in reality. But this part have always made me wonder. The updates did not change the tone of the section at all (might be because i have read a lot of material and i know more about the background). I think the main factor that the article still says is this: pedophiles, who get the urges to go after real girls and can not help it. That is the brain overrides the moral principles and starts to collect material, has to fight with themselves etc. Not all the people whose brain is trying actively over raid their morality end do not end up doing crimes, but they still find it problematic.

What i really want is to get some scientific work and citations about people like me, who has no urges whatsoever to real young girls, thus has no reason to find help as i am no threat to other human being (that includes collecting visual material, visual material equals demand and someone might satisfy the demand so yeah no pictures or any sort of material whatsoever of real little girls), what about those pedophiles? Are they included somewhere in citations which i have missed? If there is none then this article should certainly distinguish them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.25.254 (talk) 11:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

That is actually covered but in an indirect way, and talked about somewhat under Virtuous Pedophiles. The short answer is, from certain points of view, such people may not even be pedophiles at all. The very definition requires action (abuse or porn) or distress. If there is no action, and no distress, the person is technically not a pedophile according to diagnostic criteria. Some consider this a flaw of the criteria, but one could also argue that since no treatment is necessary (no actions to stop, no distress to sooth), that it falls outside the meaning of mental illness. I feel it's worth mentioning that a differential diagnosis of such persons is Primarily Obsessional OCD, which causes the intrusive thoughts of pedophile but no true sexual drive. Such persons are known to sometimes even self-identify as pedophiles, only to learn the truth in treatment.Legitimus (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't entirely agree with Legitimus on this one. A primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children is pedophilia, whether the pedophile can control their impulse to be sexual with prepubescent children or not; the literature on the topic shows that. I don't think many experts who study pedophilia would argue that such a sexual attraction is not pedophilia, though there is a bit of debate in the literature about whether or not pedophilia can be split into a mental disorder/paraphilia category and a non-mental disorder/non-paraphilia category, based on distress. And while the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) emphasizes action and/or distress, it also quite clearly emphasizes the fantasies involved on the part of the pedophile. Other diagnostic criteria for pedophilia do not require distress. The Pedophilia article does address the DSM criteria debate. The DSM-5 proposed that pedophilia can be split into a mental disorder/paraphilia category and a non-mental disorder/non-paraphilia category. Anyway, if you have "no urges whatsoever to real young girls," then, like Legitimus stated, you don't qualify as a pedophile or a hebephile. Flyer22 (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I was merely stating what some (not necessarily me) think about it, and making a distinction between intrusive thoughts and actual sexual attraction. A lot of the evidence points to true pedophiles have impulse control problems, which raises a measure of doubt about persons who self-identify yet have no actions whatsoever, and have never had an actual mental health workup.Legitimus (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I caught your wording of "certain points of view." I mainly took objection to the "If there is no action, and no distress, the person is technically not a pedophile according to diagnostic criteria." and "The very definition requires action (abuse or porn) or distress." wording. I objected for the reasons I stated above. And for the reasons you and I have emphasized on this talk page countless times -- that child sexual abuse (the action) is not the same thing as pedophilia (the mental aspect), and that a person does not have to have acted on their sexual attraction to prepubescent children to be a pedophile. I simply did not want anyone reading this discussion to move away from it with the wrong idea about what pedophilia is. For this discussion, I felt that it was important that we be clear if one has a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, that alone is considered pedophilia in the vast majority of literature on the topic, and, whether there is an impulse control problem there or not, such an attraction is considered abnormal or atypical by the vast majority of experts studying the topic. Flyer22 (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

To me it seems that the dispute comes from media (people who are not qualified comment on pedophilia) vs science definition of pedophilia. Legitimus seems to somewhat include the media definition, which basically connects pedophilia to abuse or distress (child abuse), thus allows definition to exclude virtuous pedophiles. Also there is something in between too. Between pure virtuous pedophile and the distress: lolicon material that i consume. There has yet been any conclusive material/consensus on the matter of fictional child pornography. One can argue that banning that is thought crime and restricts creativity, but if data arises that shows its clearly harmful, then its a sad day for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.25.254 (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Not media, but rather I was referring to the DSM criteria. The media definition is any action with someone under age of consent, an absurd notion from a scientific perspective, and I think we can all agree on that. As Flyer points out, the DSM is not the only scientific criteria. Diagnosis can be done one of many ways, but the point I was attempting to make (poorly worded, I admit) was that some kind of professional judgement is necessary when there is a complete absence of evidence of sexual drive other than self-disclosure. I admit my perspective is altered by the fact that I work more with people with anxiety disorders such as OCD, not sexual disorders, and have encountered people I mentioned above that actually are not pedophiles. The key difference is they do not even use "simulated pornography" like lolicon. They literally have no drive whatsoever, no objective or subjective sexual response to stimuli in that age range; they are simply consumed by fear of it. Using "lolicon" would qualify as "acting on desires" for psychiatric diagnostic reasons, regardless of whether there is any law against it, and thus would rule that out (Up until now I did not know that was what you meant). As you say, the jury is still out if such material is good or bad to use for the individual's mental health (i.e. does it increase or decrease distress or likelihood of real abuse), but it is an indicator of true sexual drive and so the POCD angle would not apply.Legitimus (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

This is why i focus more on reading discussion, things come out that the article does not specify (i can not edit since my non native English is not good).

Every society in history has set some sort of taboo or hatred towards a group of people since it benefits the elite by focusing attention from real problems. One of these things are now pedophiles, its thought crime even to think about it (ofc real actions should be illegal, since the data is overwhelming about the harm of child abuse), killing any rational discussion, when you make something taboo you can not discuss it rationally (discussion about the mental state of pedophiles, not if they could have sex with minors). This is partly our morality now (terrorism, questioning current market system and democracy, maybe something else that i do not know) and as always science and media outlets main job is to try to confirm current societal morality, no matter how unreasonable it is. I think this article shows that since its still based on reliable sources, which try to confirm to the societies norm, that is you start with pedophiles are evil and you generalize it to anyone who has those feelings and research goal at first is to show that pedophilia is evil no matter what. Hopefully in long run the scientific method will overcome that as it has with homosexuality (they are not comparable one to one of course, since pedophilia still involves non consent), Cantor somewhat is making progress towards it.

That is why i think some of questions are not handled in the pedophilia/hebephilia/lolicon article, that go through media constantly, but are not answered here (maybe i am just stupid):

In Japan they just (finally) made illegal possession of real child porn (including just naked pics of minors which still were legal to possess). But the reason why manga and anime was not included was probably because of their powerful lobby and big industry since politicians still focus on one or two incidents, where a child abuser got caught with lolicon material. They use it to say all lolicon material leads to crime. Also BBC news went to manga shop and took random material and said its full of rape (it definitely has rape in it, but it is not majority). This raises few questions that is not handled.

Why is it that humans make conclusions about a taboo based on one or two incidents? Why is it that there is no data other then one or two news articles to make political decisions about legality of fictional material? Why are they making decisions about those matters without any actual research? Decision is not just finalized law, but personal opinion which is expressed publicly. Why is it that its OK to watch horror movies with horrific torture and violence, but that does not lead to harm, but pedophilia fantasies do? If they are not comparable, why are they not comparable? Why is it OK when one human says "i personally do not like this, therefore it should be banned" when it comes to sexuality (improving in some areas thou) but not OK to say it when it comes to "taste" (music, literature etc)? Of course assumption is that it does not harm anyone.

More questions:

Why is it that every time on TV or any discussion about pedophilia draws picture of a pedophile who is active predator and almost never is pedophile shown as a normal human being? Why is it that there is little to no distinction between different levels of distress in ones pedophilia? Why is everything put into same puddle, which is if your pedophile you go into the category of lower IQ, other coinciding mental problems etc? Even when you say this article does not, I say it does. Because when someone who comes with general media portrait of pedophile, she or he will definitely just confirm the media portrait of a pedophile (non scientific reading).

Last and i think most important question: Why is it when person with some attraction towards minors comes into this article, he can almost certainly say he has some serious mental disorder and he is lesser human being? Is it because it is simply true, or is it because this article is on reliable sources and that is how it ended up being or is it because lack of research and other sides do not have reliable sources? This is where you have to take random reader into account, not all readers are like Flyer or Legitimus, who understand science and its methods.

Maybe this is pointless rant, if it is out of context and just shows my stupidity, please feel free to delete it as it would just be noise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.25.254 (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I should say a few very important things first: These talk pages should not be used for rants or as a forum. There is already a risk portions of this thread will be deleted by administrators for that alone, though I will compliment you on at least being reasonably civil. In the many years of watching these articles the majority of pedophile users were rude and downright delusional (that is, they attempted to alter this article and others to falsely claim sex with children was not harmful). A few were confirmed as having abused children and felt it was completely ok to do. People like you seem to be extraordinarily rare, and thus very difficult to study. Cantor is one of few to have at least looked.

One thing that really confuses me though. You are Estonian by your IP and admit English is not your first language. So why are you here, on English-language wikipedia? Don't you have a version of this article in your own language?Legitimus (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually it was rather roundabout criticism of the article. I think i can bring perspective of a individual who actually has the paraphilia (mainly hebephilic). After high school when i watched anime i noticed i liked younger looking characters. Of course society and law has often its reasons why something is outlawed so instead of letting fiction dictate my realities, i searched for evidence (yay for science). Result being that I am readily aware of the harm and dangers children meet, often being shocked about the realities of the harm. Luckily only thing i feel towards real children and adolescent girls is annoyance since they cant have proper conversation about the world and science. I am even prepared mentally to leave lolicon material behind when research comes out showing lolicon can lead to harm (even when it does not lead myself to abusing children, the medium itself can affect other consumers, so i can not create demand by consuming it, as demand leads to suppliers). Anyways this article has 2 main flaws for a pedophile, with assumption reader is not knowledgeable of scientific method and will skip the "boring" parts:

1. Pedophile who is unknowing and without misconceptions and just wants to learn. That pedophile comes to this article, he can be sure he is probably stupid, violent and will have trouble controlling himself, while society will hunt him down and put him into jail.

2. Pedophile who tries to confirm in any way that pedophilia in some circumstances is OK: when you go to child prostitution, age of consent and child marriage pages and specially look at history part you see that children and minors were often connected to sex. When they come to this article, they have no reason to think that if society would change maybe it would become OK again. It is because this article does not handle or say anything about the harm in previous cultures, where involving having sex with children was not to say common, but not loathed. I make assumption that of course it was harmful to girls since it was male dominated societies mainly and girls did not have any right to say anything. It is a nice "opening" for pedophiles reasoning (if there is any reasoning).

Anyways i have polluted this discussion with enough nonsense so i will stop. Also about the Estonian wiki. It is very weak, it is quantity over quality, a lot of the main articles were created 10 or so years ago and been updated very little. I use Estonian wiki to move to English wikis articles (for the sources), which is i guess Estonians wikis only strong point. I also spent 6 hours reading the archives to see the pedophiles trying to alter this article, which was mildly amusing (and reading more things that are not int he article, was educating). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.25.254 (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hebephilia is not officially recognized as a paraphilia (I mean by any authoritative source); see its Wikipedia article. However, an adult being sexually attracted to a pubescent who looks prepubescent is hardly any different than an adult being sexually attracted to a prepubescent, which is why I think that the ICD-10 includes "early pubertal age" as part of its pedophilia definition. Flyer22 (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Sir (since you are only an IP address for reference), another matter I did not mention above is I feel you may be projecting your feelings and worries onto the text of this article, because I just don't see how it would give that impression to a reasonable person. If a reader is unreasonable, it's frankly not wikipedia's responsibility (and often pointless) to accommodate that unreasonableness. Also, you will likely not find too much in the archives about past pedophiles' behavior because in many cases their posts were scrubbed from the record for legal reasons.Legitimus (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Section "Development and sexual orientation"

Like a lot of people here have mentioned, this article has assumed that pedophiles are dangerous or can "pray away the gay," so to speak. (Not that pedophiles are exclusively gay; that pedophiles can work at not being pedophiles.) But I'd really like to see some special attention on this section because it doesn't elaborate at all on other takes of pedophilia, instead saying only that "pedophilia has been described as a disorder of sexual preference..." Yes, it has, but there are opposing viewpoints, especially recently, not to mention what was mentioned above: cultural differences. But going on, although there is a citation for "pedophiles can sometimes be helped by mental health professionals to refrain from acting on their impulses which cause harm to children," this statement is actually misleading. It assumes that pedophilia is a sexual disorder because pedophiles can cause harm to children, but these situations are actually rare. I think this section could really use more information and more than one viewpoint on this to prevent it from not allowing readers to learn about other sides of the issue. 107.194.85.243 (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what "a lot of people here" you are talking about, or how you could know that unless you are familiar with this talk page. Either way, you are wrong on that matter, considering that a lot of people have not stated that at this talk page; usually, the ones who did or came close to stating it were pedophiles (the "pray the gay away" comparison has never been used at this talk page, to my knowledge, until now). So... You think that it's rare that pedophiles cause harm to children? And by "harm," you mean sexual activity with children? Any WP:Reliable sources for that? As you can see from the Prevalence and child molestation section, the literature on that matter is not as certain as what you claim regarding it. As for the section in question, we should go by WP:Due weight with that (read that policy). As for praying pedophilia away... No, the article is very clear that there is no cure for pedophilia. Does the article "assume" that pedophilia is a mental disorder and therefore needs a cure? Yes, and with obviously good reason. Also, what is and what is not pedophilia, as medically defined (not the popular culture definition, which is to call any adult sexual attraction to someone under the age of 18 pedophilia), is not a matter of cultural differences; so no need to stress over that.

On a side note: Remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I should have been more clear, although I think it's possible you misunderstood me a bit, but that's beside the point. I just wish this section of the article said everything you just mentioned, basically. That it pointed out facts that pedophiles who aren't sexually active with children can't be called "rare" or "typical" because often the pedophiles who admit they are, are often caught in the act or desperate for help in not harming a child, meaning that how statistics on pedophiles and how they deal with any urges are skewed. I think this section needs more information about what it would mean if it is a sexual orientation. Not all people of any orientation crave sex, and I would indeed call it "rare" that one would be a rapist, molester, or so forth -- although a pedophile may have an entirely different story. If this part of the article expanded on that, I think it'd be great. 107.194.85.243 (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

We already have the Prevalence and child molestation section to address the prevalence of pedophilia and child molestation topic; I don't think we should duplicate that topic in another section of the article. And considering how common child sexual abuse is (often being committed by those who do not fit the clinical definition of pedophilia), I can't think of it as rare that a person would be a child molester; the same goes for rape in general; rape is too common for me to call it rare that a person would be a rapist. I suppose what you mean is that the average person is not a child molester or a rapist; that wording is more accurate than using the word rare in these cases. But, yeah, because child sexual abuse is common, if I had a child, there are very few people I would trust alone with my child. And because of pedophilia's especial prevalence in men (including late teenage males) as compared to women (or late teenage females), and the prevalence of committing child sexual abuse among men (or late teenage males) as compared to women (or late teenage females), I would be less likely to trust my child in the care of a male as opposed to the care of a female; I don't mind if that sounds sexist. Protecting my child (again, if I had one) comes ahead of any perceived sexism. That's the way it is with my care of my niece and nephew (who are currently ages 5 and 3, respectively). Anyway, back to the topic of the article, the Development and sexual orientation section can be expanded; but it needs to be expanded with care, considering that it's common among pedophiles to claim that pedophilia is a sexual orientation and therefore natural; they often liken their "sexual orientation" and the opposition they receive to it to homosexuality and how homosexuality was once widely considered a mental disorder in health sources. But what pedophiles need to understand, like many people who are not pedophiles know, is that the matters are not the same or close to the same. Flyer22 (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I've read through your stuff and am impressed with your knowledge, so I'll leave it at this because I think you're right and I'm wrong. It's a touchy topic, and I suppose I was just concerned it was a little one-sided, but if it's addressed elsewhere in the article, then that's good. Seems like I should read up on it. Thanks for responding, and you don't seem sexist to me. 107.194.85.243 (talk) 06:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

wrong ranking order in article

Normally when a phenomenon is described, after the definition we start with the size i.e. the statistics or prevalence of the phenomenon, followed by the cause(s) etc. Here the wrong ranking order is used. 13-07-2014 Nicolaas19 (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Nicolaas19 (talk · contribs), if we are to follow any order of sections for this article, Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Sections is the guideline we should follow on that matter since this article is about a disorder. So it seems that the Diseases or disorders or syndromes section is the section of WP:MEDMOS that we should follow, though there will obviously be deviations because of different topics here at the Pedophilia article than ones listed at WP:MEDMOS. Anyway, going by that guideline, you are correct that the definition and/or classification comes first (which is what the article does), but the prevalence information is supposed to be placed much farther down, right before the History or Society and culture section. The closest thing we have to a History section in the Pedophilia article at the moment is the Disease models section. I can be fine with making that a History section (which I think it was at one point before), but, since it's about defining the term, I think it fits better in the Etymology and definitions section where it currently is. And for why this article doesn't talk about all sorts of historical periods for pedophilia, see Talk:Pedophilia/FAQ. Flyer22 (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Definition

personal attacks
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A number of edits show clear infiltration (editing by people who do not declare an affiliation to single interest groups) by PIE (Paedophile Information Exchange) and NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association). That means

the article is much more heavily skewed toward the pro-paedophile viewpoint than is reasonably acceptable. Here are a few examples. I have used italics to highlight the skewed wording.

"in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger."

This reflects the desire for PIE / NAMBLA to create distance between the word "paedophile" and the actions of adults who want to have sex with children older than 11 but younger than 16. They want to do this because the word paedophile has such strong connotations of abuse. This wording is also problematic because it is certain, unambiguous. Yet the next paragraph says "Pedophilia has a range of definitions". A better first sentence would be:

"in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to children, generally age 11 years or younger."

I'd like to remove the "generally age 11 years or younger" fragment too - that is not supported by the references given in the infoboxes which either do not give ages or give the age of 13.

Wikipedia is not voting, but here are a list of four suggested forms of the first sentence. I do this not so people can vote, but to show that I am offering mild changes that are supported by references.

• Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger.
• Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 13 years or younger.
• Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to children, generally age 13 years or younger.
• Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to children.

My strongly preferred form of the first sentence would be the last example.

_{DECLARATION OF INTEREST: I am not linked in anyway to groups, charities, or organisations that deal with paedophillia or child abuse.} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.5.10 (talk • contribs)

Do not make personal attacks against other editors.

Regarding the content, both "11 years" and "prepubescent" appear supported by reliable sourcing and so I see no reason to change it. Zad68 12:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, IP. There has been no "infiltration by PIE and NAMBLA members" in years, not a successful one anyway; we get rid of every obvious (or, in some cases, not-so-obvious) pro-pedophile pusher, per WP:Child protection. As for the definition, a matter that has been extensively discussed on this talk page, the article uses the word prepubescent for the initial definition because that is the correct and primary definition regarding the term in medical literature; otherwise, any sexual attraction to a minor under 18 would count as pedophilia, which, like the Pedophilia article notes, is incorrect. As for the "generally age 13 years or younger" bit, that is clearly already included in the first paragraph; the reason we no longer include "generally age 13 years or younger" in the first sentence is because people these days, especially girls, generally are not prepubescent at age 13. Also take notice that the lead covers "early pubertal age" as well since there is physical overlap there with regard to the prepubescent and pubescent stages; see the Hebephilia article for more detail.

On a side note: Remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I would have signed your username for you above, but Zad68 tagged it as unsigned. Flyer22 (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello. My post was originally longer (and angrier), but Flyer22 covered most of if. It's ridiculous to suggest that those "organizations" are skewing the age used in this article. It is quite well documented in the medical literature if you read the rest of the article and its sources. While it is true that "pedophile" has stigma attached to it that many would rather distance themselves from, it is patently absurd to attempt to contradict decades of research and clinical work just so you can plaster the nastiest label possible on someone. Pedophiles and hebephiles are different neurologically and psychologically. Scientists have examined the brains of both and they are not the same. Further, the psychiatric abnormality that would drive a person to be interested in someone who has not even reached the first signs of puberty is rather dramatic, whereas in modern times there are many 15-17 year olds that are physiologically indistinguishable from persons 21-22 years old, making it less about having a diseased sexual drive to a certain appearance, and more about exploitation, manipulation and control of a person who lacks autonomy and emotional development. Still wrong and harmful, but for different reasons.Legitimus (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Pedophilia in history

Please consider adding information about pedophilia in the early Christian church in the first and 2nd centuries C.E. Mass child rape was practiced by the founding church fathers, according to new research. Refer to: Hillman, David C.A. Original Sin: Ritual Child Rape & The church. Berkeley, Calif: Ronin Press, 2012. 107.131.117.141 (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Pedophilia is not the same thing as child sexual abuse. The Pedophilia article makes that very clear. Also see Talk:Pedophilia/FAQ. Regarding the material you want added, the same material you added to the Child abuse article, the inclusion of that material is likely a WP:Due weight violation; it might also fit the category of WP:Fringe. It's certainly controversial enough to get the attention of someone other than the editors who watch the Pedophilia article. Highly likely that someone will remove it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source showing more pedophiles are homosexual

This source appears to prove there are in fact more homosexual pedophiles than heterosexual: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756

Since this is a controversial topic for now I will not edit the info into the main article. Someone maybe who has a better way to insert the proper text into the article should do it, and who also has a better sense of grammar (as you can see I'm not the best at it).

The most important information that stands out is the following - the disparity proving there are more homosexuals who are also pedophiles:

"the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles among the general population is approximately 20:1"

"the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1"

DMSMD (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it proves anything conclusively. It's a difficult subject and it's not like physics where an experiment can be found to be universally reproducible and thus proof (to the extent that anything outside of pure math can be "proven") of some objective truth.

They used phallometric tests and I don't know if those are universally accepted (I'm not saying they're not, I just don't know), and the test subjects were "various groups of sex offenders against children" and I don't know if that projects to the general population (maybe it does; I don't know).

I'm not saying it's not a good study. I wouldn't be surprised if it's true -- if the percentage of child sex convictions is such that 33% of the offenders are preying on male children, which the abstract says is an established fact, that'd consistent with the study's results (although there may be other, entirely unrelated, reasons for that 33% figure).

So it belongs in IMO. It is the National Center for Biotechnology Information which I don't know who they are but they sound OK. I wouldn't use to ref a straight statement of fact ("About 10% of male pedophiles prefer male children, double the percentage of male homosexuals in the general population") but just describe the study, and throw in that the population studied was sex offenders ("A study by the American National Center for Biotechnology Information showed that about 10% of male child sex offenders prefer male victims") or something like that -- somebody else could probably write it better. Herostratus (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

For those interested, I wrote a comprehensive review of exactly those statistics. It is available open access from the UToronto site: http://individual.utoronto.ca/james_cantor/blog1.html.
— James Cantor (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

e/c...This is a 22 year old primary source. Thinking in this subject area has changed significantly over time. I disagree strongly with the proposed content based on the source, or really any use of it here. If this study produced useful results, they should appear in up to date secondary sources produced by authoritative bodies. Those sources should be used, not this. Zad68 14:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... it does seem that ifit were to be used it might belong more in Child sexual abuse than here... the population studied were all sex offenders, and I don't know what how close is the overlap between child molesters and pedophiles (and that is also contentious and not really known or really possible to know, I guess). It is one study and it is getting long in the tooth, but for scientific stuff like papers you're not always going to get a good secondary source summarizing all the research I guess. We do use scientific and academic papers to source statements here sometimes, but yeah we have to be judicious and for contentious areas such as this one we want to be conservative here.

As to Cantor's summary, hmmmm... I guess it says that a statement like "ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles" is not too meaningful... you can't really be both, since the hetero/homosexual dichotomy which is (somewhat) useful for most people doesn't really apply to pedophiles. Not saying Cantor's right be he makes a case that looks reasonable on the surface at any rate. OK let's leave it out. Herostratus (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with the source I provided? Seems pretty clear to me, the text says: "the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles among the general population is approximately 20:1" "the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1" I am just a layperson but there seems to be a lot of psychobabble going on here to obfuscate the obvious (which the source proves), that there are more homosexual pedophiles than heterosexual pedophiles. Again, I knew this would be controversial and realize it's not politically correct but that doesn't mean it's not accurate. The information should be added to the article if it is reliably sourced which I always thought was the standard for Wikipedia. DMSMD (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I see PMID 17135125 is a much more recent review article that argues against this "proportionality argument" the primary source is making. Zad68 02:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Zad68 I tried to view the full article but when I click "download full text" I get a message saying "Sorry, you do not have access to this article". Could someone who has access to the full article please publish the data/text here on WP that debunks the so-called "proportionality argument"? DMSMD (talk) 03:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Could Zad68, Herostratus, or James Cantor (who seems to be the most knowledgeable person on this topic) succinctly explain why the data from that reliable source should not be inserted into the article? I'm somewhat confused on this issue, thanks. DMSMD (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Someone proposing an addition needs to succinctly explain why text should be added to an article. Why would a primary source on a 22-year old study with an inconclusive conclusion be helpful? My "inconclusive" refers to the fact that it is hard to work out what the significance of the result is. Dropping raw numbers into an article is rarely helpful unless recording unequivocal facts such as the average temperature at a certain location. Johnuniq (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

DMSMD succinctly the main reason is: There are up to date secondary sources, such a review article in a MEDLINE-indexed journal, that provide conclusions regarding this topic, and when we have an up to date high quality secondary source, we use that in preference to an outdated primary source. The primary source you are bringing is part of the data set available to the authors writing the review article and the fact that the authors came to a conclusion counter to how the primary source was pointing indicates that the primary source is of poor quality or utility or has been superseded by stronger sources published since then. Suggest you read Cantor's essay he linked and also user:Jytdog/Why MEDRS?. If after you read both of those discussions thoroughly you still have questions feel free to ask. But do read those discussions first. Zad68 03:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

There is also strong correlation between pedophilia and homosexuality. Statistics show that homosexual parents are 3 times more likely to sexually abuse their adopted children. See the link: http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research . But of course, that will never be included in the article, since Cantor, Zad et al are well-known homosexuals who promote themselves on wikipedia.190.23.9.238 (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

If you get some solid research, unlike the research you cited above, supporting that material, it can be included in the Pedophilia article or the Child sexual abuse article. However, as is made clear by both of those articles, pedophilia is not the same thing as child sexual abuse (well, except for in lay terms). As for the sexual orientation of the editors of this talk page, where does James Cantor promote his homosexuality on Wikipedia? And how do you conclude that Zad68 or any of the rest of us are gay or lesbian? Whatever the case, per WP:Talk, the talk page is not for discussion of Wikipedia editors' sexual orientation, unless, of course, those editors have Wikipedia articles and the discussion is about mentioning their sexual orientation in those Wikipedia articles. Flyer22 (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

James Cantor et al have editorial power at Wikipedia which they use to promote their own research at the expense of others. James Cantor has stated his homosexuality at his own wikipedia website. From what I have seen at other discussions, what constitutes reliable research is highly arbitrary and subjective and is defined by those in charge (the editors).190.23.9.238 (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology, if you are not already aware of it. As that matter shows, Cantor does not have the editorial power you seem to think he has. He must adhere to the WP:Conflict of interest (WP:COI) guideline, and commonly notes his WP:COI on talk pages. And what are reliable sources on Wikipedia should be based on WP:Reliable sources. For some sourcing aspects, there are specific guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS) and WP:Fringe. The latter two are especially important for articles such as the Pedophilia article. If editors are arbitrarily defining what are reliable sources for use on Wikipedia, there is a problem. Also see WP:Biased. Flyer22 (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Cantor, Zad et al are well-known homosexuals -- won't my wife and children be surprised. Flyer22 entertaining this IP any further is a complete waste of time, if it continues I'll just ask to have this Talk page semi-protected. Zad68 03:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer we avoid long-term semi-protection as it would have prevented the well-intentioned and useful Greek Etymology thread further down. However, I feel that archiving threads needs to be more aggressive. Contentious threads hanging around are big magnets for incompetent agenda-driven anonymous editors to keep dredging up. The original poster of this thread was indef-blocked so I would suggested immediate manual archival.Legitimus (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistencies and other problems with the definition

There appears to be an inconsistency in the WHO definitions of Pedophilia. The link in the classification box (in the top right of the page) to ICD-10 F65.4 links to:

   http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en#/F65.4  

Here the definition is: “A sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age.” This page calls itself: “ICD-10 Version:2010,” which I presume means the publication date is sometime in 2010. However, the definition stated in footnote 2 (also for ICD-10 F65.4) links to a different place:

   http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/GRNBOOK.pdf

Here the text, dated 1993, is quite different.

A. The general criteria for F65 Disorders of sexual preference must be met.

B. A persistent or a predominant preference for sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children.

C. The person is at least 16 years old and at least five years older than the child or children in B.

This latter definition looks to me to be a more clinical definition, whereas the former one could perhaps be a commonplace definition. Nevertheless, the former definition is significantly more encompassing in that it allows for the inclusion of children who are post-pubescent. There are either two WHO definitions for F65.4, or, it would seem, that the definition in footnote 2 is out of date. If the latter is the case then presumably the definition in the footnote should be changed.

Both WHO sources classify Pedophilia under “Mental and behavioural disorders” rather than as a “psychiatric disorder” as stated in the first sentence of the article. I wonder if this might not be a better as “mental or behavioral disorder,” perhaps “mental disorder,” especially given the title of the page it links to.

There also seems to be a mistake in the definition in the second paragraph, where it claims:

The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) defines it as a "disorder of adult personality and behaviour" in which there is a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age.[5]

Footnote 5 also links to:

      http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en#/F65.4  

If this is the correct link, the condition of been an “adult” seems to have been added, and the qualification “usually” has been omitted.

I wonder if the first paragraph is a bit misleading for two reasons. Firstly it tries to provide a definition that is related to the age of the child. This is problematic because such age-related definitions differ from one jurisdiction to another. (For example, the Wikipedia page for childhood claims the legal definition of a child varies from 15 to 21, and age of consent presents an even wider scope.) So it would appear the age related components of the first paragraph cannot be correct generally. The second reason is that the definition here is a medical definition. Without questioning that this is probably the most important definition, I do think the first sentence of the second paragraph (“Pedophilia has a range of definitions, as found in psychiatry, psychology, the vernacular, and law enforcement.”) would make a much better beginning to the article because it makes clear that the word does not have a single consistent meaning. (The entry in the Wiktionary link at the end of the page seems to agree with this contention.)

Having stated that: “Pedophilia has a range of definitions ...” (in the second paragraph), the third paragraph seems to contradict this point: “In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often incorrectly used to mean any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse.” If this statement is correct then perhaps the claim of there being a “vernacular” definition should be omitted or qualified in some way. Alternately, perhaps the line should read: “In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often used to mean any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse; however, this is not consistent with the medical use of the term.” In any case, I wonder if this point is too specifically medical to warrant being placed early in the introduction, especially as the psychological, vernacular, and law enforcement definitions have not yet been presented.

Also, without wanting to refute the point, I think the phrase “many child sexual abuse offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia” deserves a more precise definition of what “many” means in this case. I don’t have access to the cited literature (and even if I did I don’t consider myself to be qualified to summarize them), but the use of “many” is a little worrying, again because it comes in the introduction. The text quoted for footnote 14 seems to talking of “some” rather than “many,” which seems to make the assertion seem a little contentious. If this is the case then perhaps this issue should be placed in a less prominent position (which it actually is already).

In general the whole of the introduction seems to mostly favor a medical definition. If this were a medical encyclopedia then this would seem wholly appropriate; however, assuming that it is a general encyclopedia I wonder if this is sufficiently neutral. I do not personally object to the predominance of the medical definition, but it is not consistent with the claim in the second paragraph that: “Pedophilia has a range of definitions, as found in psychiatry, psychology, the vernacular, and law enforcement.” Moreover, I suspect that the majority of people would disagree with any medical-like definition in favor of one that presented it has being some combination of immoral, unnatural, perverted, blasphemous, and so on. While I agree with none of these adjectives, I do think that labeling non-medical definitions as “incorrect” (as happens in several places in the main article) might be seen as dismissing most commonly accepted definitions. Rather them calling them incorrect, it might be better to say they disagree with accepted medical definitions.173.228.91.3 (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, IP. As you may have seen, we went over the definition aspect in the #Definition section above. And as stated there, we addressed the definition aspect times before on this talk page. If you are the same person who started that section, I stand by my statement there. If you are not that person, I stand by my statement there. As for the ICD-10, it defines pedophilia in both ways; despite its use of "usually" in the second citation you pointed to (which is a brief online definition), it has never included attraction to post-pubescents as pedophilia, considering that including such would be far off from any medical definition of pedophilia. As you noted above, the ICD-10 states: "A sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age." I stated in the Definition section above, "Also take notice that the lead [introduction] covers 'early pubertal age' as well since there is physical overlap there with regard to the prepubescent and pubescent stages; see the Hebephilia article for more detail." The second sentence currently has the ICD-10 definition that only uses the word prepubescent because that sentence is focusing on prepubescents, not the rare medical definition of pedophilia that includes early pubescents. But, as long as the source is focusing on prepubescents and not on early pubescents, I don't mind the ICD-10 source there being replaced by a different source (especially since it's dated to 1993 and medical sources on Wikipedia should be up-to-date when they can be). Regarding the rest: Psychiatric disorder, you will notice, redirects to the Mental disorder article; they are the same thing. And the ICD-10 supports "adult," more specifically those 16 years of age or older, regarding people who can be diagnosed with pedophilia. If it did not, then pedophilia could be taken to apply to, for example, a 12-year-old pubescent boy who is sexually attracted to a 10-year-old prepubescent girl. We've had people question at this talk page before whether children, as in prepubescent children, can be pedophiles.

You stated: "I wonder if the first paragraph is a bit misleading for two reasons. Firstly it tries to provide a definition that is related to the age of the child. This is problematic because such age-related definitions differ from one jurisdiction to another. (For example, the Wikipedia page for childhood claims the legal definition of a child varies from 15 to 21, and age of consent presents an even wider scope.)" Again, refer to the Definition section above. Pedophilia, as accurately defined (and, yes, the medical definition is the accurate definition), is not based on age of consent or age of majority. If it was, then this would mean that a person has a mental disorder (in this case, pedophilia) in one state or country, but not in another state or country, which is silly. Furthermore, pedophilia (a mental matter) is not prosecuted; child sexual abuse is prosecuted. So pedophilia is not truly a legal matter, despite the terminology that some law enforcement people use.

As for beginning the definition of pedophilia with a vague meaning, that is a no. Per WP:LEADSENTENCE, the lead sentence should have a clear definition, unless the topic is not clearly definable. Pedophilia is clearly definable. Considering that the definition of pedophilia is usually consistent in medical literature, and has far more range in common usage, we should either tweak or get rid of the "Pedophilia has a range of definitions, as found in psychiatry, psychology, the vernacular, and law enforcement." sentence.

As for the "often incorrectly" bit, that was recently added by an editor, which resulted in the following discussion: "Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 18#media/common use; as seen in that discussion, the reason that I disagreed with the "incorrectly" part is because it's not supported by the sources for that line, and is already sufficiently covered by the rest of that paragraph; so I have removed it again. You stated that "psychological, vernacular, and law enforcement definitions have not yet been presented." The lead does present psychological definitions of pedophilia; psychological definitions, like psychiatric definitions, tie into medical definitions of pedophilia. And the lead addresses the law, what is meant by legal aspects (not truly legal definitions) of the term. The "media/common use" discussion also shows how "many" got added regarding the "many child sexual abuse offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia" text; I initially objected to "many" (which was originally "some"), but since child sexual abuse includes prepubescents, pubescents and post-pubescents as victims, stating that "many child sexual abuse offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia" is accurate. The lower body of the article, meaning past the lead, also addresses child sexual abuse vs. pedophilia.

Regarding your statement that "In general the whole of the introduction seems to mostly favor a medical definition."... Well, that is reflective of the article as a whole. Per WP:Lead, the lead should summarize the article. And aside from a layman view of pedophilia (including people tossing around the term pedophile willy-nilly), the vast majority of the pedophilia topic is a medical topic. This article should follow Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles (WP:MEDMOS). In the article, we give WP:Due weight to non-medical definitions of pedophilia, but we are not going to have this article present non-medical definitions as prominently as the medical view. Flyer22 (talk) 08:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your most interesting reply. I am not the person who posted here before, and I don’t really have much of an axe to grind here. I mainly posted because I did not fully understand the information presented.

If I understand you correctly, the WHO provides both a simple definition and more technical definition for ICD-10. This is understandable, but is very regrettable (IMHO) when the definitions are not compatible. This is especially true for a term such as Pedophilia which does not enjoy a commonly accepted definition (at least between technical and non-technical people), so it might be very helpful if the article pointed this out somewhere. If I understand the situation correctly, and, for example, we applied the recent case of the now deceased British TV presenter Jimmy Saville to the simple WHO definition the answer would be yes, but if we applied the more technical definition the answer would be no. (Saville, it seems, was mostly interested in mid-teenage girls (legally children), who would generally be capable of bearing children (post-pubescent).) This situation is not helped by the fact that a poll of the British people would, I feel sure, produce a near 100% yes result (that he was a Pedophile), and a cursory inquiry to ICD-10 would appear to confirm this; however, on a more in depth inquiry, to the same authority, this would be found to be incorrect ("overturned on appeal,” as it were).

Without wanting to appear critical in any way (because I do think the article is basically very good ) I don’t follow your assertion that “... [the simple WHO definition] has never included attraction to post-pubescents as pedophilia, considering that including such would be far off from any medical definition of pedophilia.” The problem is that it does not tell us this on the simple WHO page, or here. Perhaps there is an introduction page where it says something along the lines of “the online guide is a simplification of the full definition, and in some cases this can lead one to construe the exact opposite of the meaning we had in mind.” Anyway, it would be just great if the Wikipedia were to help with such difficulties.

You point out that you use the term “early pubertal age.” It appears first in in the second paragraph (“The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) defines it as a "disorder of adult personality and behaviour" in which there is a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age.[5]”), but this is not what footnote 5 says. I grant you do mention this later referring it to footnote 30, (I’ve not read this paper) but it then appears a third time referring again to footnote five. This situation is not helped by the term not existing in the Wikipedia, so it is hard to understand the difference between “early pubertal age,” and post-pubescent (especially as teenage girls can either have children or they cannot, making a third category unclear).

As I say, I do hope this is not sounding over critical, but I do think the information in the introduction is particularly important, especially when a contentious term such as this is involved. If a neophyte (such as me) come here and finds an explanation with a footnote reference that does not appear to support the explanation (as in the second paragraph), how can this be understood?

My only point re: “Psychiatric disorder” vs “Mental disorder,” is the latter might be better because there is no page called “Psychiatric disorder” and there is one called “Mental disorder,” which seems to indicate a preference for the latter term.

The ICD-10 may identify a group people who are 16 years or over, but I don’t understand why you would substitute this for “adult,” when most places in the world (including the USA) the term “adult” does not mean 16 years or over? You also highlight the inappropriateness of a 12 year-old being labeled a Pedophile for being attracted to a 10 year-old. But the initial paragraph also implies that the attraction of an 18 year-old to a 14 year-old would also fail to meet the definition because the age gap is less than five years. This might be true medically, but I do think the fact this this would be illegal in many places (including in some parts of the USA) would be worth mentioning. All I am saying is that this age-related thing is minefield where the chances of being misunderstood are high, and that the concentration on the medical definition could be misleading.

I can’t argue the finer points of Wikipedia, because I do not know them, besides I am sure you are correct And I do, BYW, very much appreciate the work you and others have done here.173.228.91.3 (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You talk about how definitions can vary depending on context yet you seem to dismiss this construct when you talk about age of a pedophile. Adult can mean 3 different things: sexual maturity, legal maturity and social maturity. If you take legal maturity then it makes even less sense then the things you bring up about pedophilia. Because in many countries you can murder people for money before you can drink alcohol (joining army at 18, can drink at 21). Ofcourse there is problems between sexual maturity and actual adulthood (that is what we call adolescence), like empathy in boys. But this article is about sexuality (sexual disorder) and thus sexual maturity does fit in this context. Also reliable sources might seem to disagree because the debate is ongoing and hebephilia is a term that only recently started getting wider acceptance.193.40.25.254 (talk) 10:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Well I think you are supporting my point here (which I probably did not elucidate very well). This is (a) that the introduction is a not the best place to present complex information, which people may misunderstand given the small amount of space; and (b) for the same reason, the issue that these particular ages are from some (but presumably not all) medical authorities may not be clear, so a casual reader could think this was a universal opinion (which I assume is not the case), or worst still that it was legally significant. One other reason (now I think of it) is (c) that people may not read the full article and so one may not get the opportunity to offering a more nuanced explanation. To be clear, it is not that I think the information is wrong or that it should be removed; it is that it should appear in the article body where it can be expanded so the probability of a misunderstanding would be reduced. BTW I based my assertion on age of majority, but I agree that the situation is more complex than that.173.228.91.3 (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I have just now read IP 173.228.91.3's reply to me, after having repeatedly put the matter off, as seen here and here. I kept putting the matter off because I am not fond of long debates about pedophilia, especially with people who do not have as much knowledge on the subject as I do. While educating people can be a good thing, the reason that I feel the way that I do about not having long debates about pedophilia and what it encompasses is due to many past debates at this talk page or other Wikipedia talk pages about it, and because of trying to educate people about it off Wikipedia. In other words: I am burnt out on the subject, especially due to people not listening to solid reasoning. So if the IP returns to ask any more questions, I likely will not be answering them. But moving along... Take note that this reply is dated after the comments below. Regarding the ICD-10, I'm not sure what the IP is trying to state about a more simple definition and a more technical definition, or how the IP can take the ICD-10 definition to mean that it includes post-pubescents. Yes, one of the aforementioned WHO definitions does not mention "early pubertal," but "early pubertal" does not include mid-teenagers unless the mid teenager is just starting puberty; it is rare that a mid teenager would be starting puberty. An early pubescent usually does not look the same age as a post-pubescent (people can usually tell a 12-year-old or a 13-year-old apart from a 16 to 18-year-old); the Tanner scale is one of the texts that partly show why that's the case. It does not matter that both the 12-year-old pubescent girl and 16-year-old post-pubescent girl (who is a child or adult depending on the law or society) can have a child. Usually, one is clearly physically mature, and the other is not. This is also witnessed biologically in the case of birth, as early pubescents/early teenagers have significantly more pregnancy difficulties than mid or late teenagers who are pubescent or post-pubescent do; their reproductive organs are not as well-equipped for pregnancy as the reproductive organs of the older females are.

The IP said that the first ICD-10 mention is not entirely supported by its source. Yes, that source, while it does use the wording "prepubertal or early pubertal age," does not state "disorder of adult personality and behaviour"; therefore, I've gone ahead and removed "disorder of adult personality and behaviour" from the lead. The adult aspect is already clear from the first paragraph. As seen with that edit, I also altered the second paragraph of the lead away from "Pedophilia has a range of definitions, as found in psychiatry, psychology, the vernacular, and law enforcement." At the time of the IP's post, this is what footnote 30 was; I don't know what the IP means about footnote 30 when stating, "I grant you do mention this later referring it to footnote 30, (I’ve not read this paper) but it then appears a third time referring again to footnote five." If the IP meant this section by a "third time," that is sourced appropriately. As for use of the wording "disorder of adult personality and behaviour" meaning that 16-year-olds are adults, the wording was not stating that; however, the fact that 16-year-olds are biological adults who are typically post-pubescent (or close to post-pubescent) is why any sexual attraction they have to prepubescent children is treated very much the same as the sexual attraction to prepubescent children that older post-pubescents (people 18 years and older) might have. Whether one wants to consider 16-year-olds children, adults, or somewhere in between, they are far from prepubescent and should not be finding prepubescent children sexually attractive; pedophilia is characterized as an adult disorder, and the adolescent age range includes legal adults in addition to non-legal adults. As for "an 18 year-old to a 14 year-old" scenario, the main reason that is not pedophilia is because neither of them are prepubescent. Well, typically, a 14-year-old is not prepubescent. And if an 18-year-old is prepubescent, that is a very serious delayed puberty problem. The lead already addressees legal matters, and that the medical aspects are not tied to those...except for the child sexual abuse and civil commitment aspects. Flyer22 (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Pedophilia is Psychiactric, not medical. And is defined by DSM not WHO. I am sure there are various general definitions of it from other bodies, but they're not all relevant. Under some official definitions, those attracted to a 17-20 year old would be a pedophile.

Psychiatry/Mental illness is defined by DSM definitions. It's not a medical disorder

Cjmooney9 (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Psychiatry is a medical specialty. To be a psychiatrist, one one attend medical school and go through residency like any other physician. Anything psychiatric is also medical.

Pedophilia is defined in both the DSM and ICD. There is no official definition that would include attraction to 17-20 year olds and you have provided no source that even suggests that.Legitimus (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Pedophilia is defined by almost every medical body on the planet. I'm alarmed that you seem to think medical bodies like ICD and DSM IV have similar standings in the field. It's not the case at all. Only one has any relevancy.

The ICD definition went to DSM only last year, and was thoroughly rejected by the psychiatric profession, by a massive majority.

I assume ICD was recently given such prominencto support the wishes of the person who started the definition debate, to support his position. Politics needs to stay out it. I assure you, I can add legitimate medical definitions myself, that says a sexual attraction to a 17 year old is pedophilic. Of course that's ridiculous, but that is why you should stick to the expert industry definitions, and not general GP handbooks.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You haven't a clue as to what you are talking about on these matters, and I've replied below in the #definition section. Like I stated there, the ICD-10 has been in the article (including in the lead) for a long time. Flyer22 (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

People patrolling pages, trying to keep them exactly how they personally want them isn't in the spirit of Wikipedia. You constantly delete things, with no explanation. And constantly discount points people make, with no explanation. You haven't responded to anything I have said on DSM/ICD.

It's all true. You're trying to compare official psychiatric research to a GPs handbook. ICD definition was rejected overwhelmingly my phsychiatric profession at the last DSM. Considering Pedophilia is a psychiatric illness, I'd say this is pretty important!

People adding random, alternative definitions, for their own vanity is ridiculous

Cjmooney9 (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Mention pedophilia in specific cultures ?

I'm not sure, but it seems like we would need to discuss this. See http://thediplomat.com/2014/09/pakistani-director-tackles-child-abuse-in-pakistan/ 107.131.117.141 (talk) 09:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but not here. Please see Child sexual abuse. Remember, pedophilia is the desire, abuse is the act. That work is about abuse. The article is actually using the term wrong in the opening.Legitimus (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

article is getting a bit political

There is hardly any criticism of DSM in reality - 99.9% of researchers rely on it. Psychiatrists get a democratic vote on the definitions, so a vast majority support it. Yet the small minority of criticism has it's own section, giving it undue prevalence, and nothing to counter it. DSM exists, as a vast majority of academics/researchers/psychiatrists have voted for it to be that way, after all.

ICD is not used for diagnosis. It's a list of medical definitions, GPs user. It's not a psychiatric diagnois. It shouldn't be anywhere near the diagnosis/official/medical sections

If we need to highlight the minority of criticism of DSM it should be countered, and balanced

thanks

Cjmooney9 (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"not all pedophiles molest children"

Do you guys realize how ridiculous this statement is in the introductory paragraph? The analgous statement for other orientations is "not all heterosexuals are rapists". Data released by the FBI shows that while millions of people download child porn the vast majority of them are not out there raping children as there would be a lot more child abuse events if that were the case. This is an example of weasel words.

"not all pedophiles molest children" should be changed to "most pedophiles do not molest children"

24.239.126.78 (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

You are referring to the part of the lead that was agreed on in the #Clean up: Proposed lead changes section below. That's not a ridiculous statement; it is not an "analgous statement for other orientations [meaning] 'not all heterosexuals are rapists'." It's not the same thing at all, and this is touched on in the #Clean up: Prevalence and child molestation section below. For one, pedophilia generally is not considered a sexual orientation by scientists or by the general public; the vast majority of people who consider it one, as you know, are pedophiles. A lot of scientists have compared it to a sexual orientation without categorizing it as a sexual orientation. For two, as noted in the Effects of pornography article, stating that pornography decreases sexual offenses is not a proven fact. For three, sexually abusing prepubescent children is a very common feature of pedophilic offenders. While many heterosexual men are rapists, it is not as valid to state that raping females is a very common heterosexual male (as in human male) feature. Flyer22 (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

And what WP:Reliable source do you have to support the claim that "most pedophiles do not molest children"? You see, many WP:Reliable sources can be found supporting the statement that "most heterosexual boys or men are not rapists." Flyer22 (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

definition

The addition of the ICD definition to the intro, just to placate the above user, makes it a bit farcical. You say "it has a range of definitions", then just list two definitions that are almost identical! It doesn't have a range of medical definitions - it has one.

I'm unsure of the motivations of wanting to give so much prevalence to a general, GP, handbook, definition, that is also factually wrong?

Pedophilia is psychiatric, and governed/diagnosed by DSM. I could find you official, general medical definitions, from other bodies, that define it as an attraction to anyone under the age of 18.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 12:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The ICD-10 (which is by the World Health Organization) has been in the lead for a long time, including since the last time you and I discussed the lead in 2013/early 2014. And it should be there since it reaches farther than the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) demographic-wise, and defines pedophilia somewhat differently than the DSM. Mentioning both is fine per this section of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS). I and others have already been over the common use matter with you, now seen at Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 18#media/common use. That there are medical and popular culture definitions of pedophilia is a fact, no matter that you, I and others consider the popular culture definition a misuse of the term pedophilia. The misuse matter is already made explicitly clear in the article. And, yes, in the Pedophilia article, we should include how the term pedophilia is defined among laypeople and law enforcement. I am not having another excessively long debate with you about these matters, especially since your "prepubescent" arguments remind me not so much of a respect for the clinical definition of pedophilia, but rather as a defense for hebephiles to state that they are not pedophiles, when, in fact, there is significant overlap between those two philias...and a pedophile can find a pubescent who looks prepubescent sexually attractive.

I am fed up with you coming back to this article every few months or several months to add WP:Synthesis to the article, along with your WP:Edit warring. This time, if you continue such behavior, I will take you right to the WP:Edit warring noticeboard or to WP:ANI. If the WP:Original research noticeboard were not slow, I'd take you there. You were reverted here by Valenciano. And what was your first instinct, from that point? To revert back to an edit that is not supported by the sources and does not make sense. Like Valenciano stated, "there are no children over the age of 18, so this adds nothing." The phrasing "children under 18," which is sometimes used by sources (such as medicine commercials), is flawed because of that. The "18" part of the sentence "In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often used to mean any sexual interest in children under the age of 18, or the act of child sexual abuse." adds nothing. It is fine as: "In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often used to mean any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse." It does not need your WP:Synthesis of "incorrectly" that was taken out months ago. The lead is already clear about what is inaccurate usage of the term pedophilia without resorting to that. This and this are WP:Synthesis additions (more so that first one), and they are unneeded. And there is no serious medical source that defines pedophilia as "an attraction to anyone under the age of 18." When it comes to the medical definition, the emphasis is on prepubescent children. And you know that, despite the fact that you contradict yourself with your pedophilia arguments and don't seem to understand pedophilia as well as you claim to or attempt to imply. Like I stated, if you keep up this reverting, things will not end well for you regarding this article at all this time. Flyer22 (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Really, you're getting a bit too political. I'm quoting science at you to protect hebephiles!? No, I'm just quoting science at you! As it's an article on science, that is wrong.

Pedophilia is a primary attraction to prepubescent children. Not a sole attraction. It means they greatly prefer small children, and hence they are their primary source of their fantasy. They can in theory be attracted to adult women as well, to a much lesser extent. Many pedophiles are married. They have the ability to have sex with an adult women, they just don't fantasize about it.

Hebephilia is a primary attraction to pubescent children. As with above, they can also be attracted to other age ranges, to a lesser extent. Younger and older. Again, they fantasize about pubescent children, primarily, which creates their diagnosis.

There is no crossover, scientifically. As science, and the hebephile diagnosis, does not say that a hebephile doesn't also find prepubescent children attractive, to a lesser extent. It only says that their primary/main source of fantasy is pubescent children.

Please do go to the warring board if you wish. I am sick of you ignoring/deleting people's valid points, as they don't match your own POV. Every time I come here, more science is missing.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, you barely know what you are talking about on this matter. For example, stating, "Pedophilia is a primary attraction to prepubescent children. Not a sole attraction." Pedophilia is commonly defined by experts and by medical sources as an exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. More loosely, it is defined as exclusive or primary sexual attraction to prepubescent children; see Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 18#Start paragraph comments, where I stated, "No, when it comes to sexual attraction, 'primarily' or 'exclusively' is what separates pedophiles from situational offenders (see Child sexual abuse#Typology) or some other 'not necessarily a pedophile' child sexual abuser; the fact that a pedophile's sexual attraction to prepubescents is so intense is exactly why pedophilia is deemed 'incurable.' Pedophiles generally have a difficult time finding non-prepubescents sexually attractive and they generally cannot be romantically/sexually satisfied by adults. Their sexual focus is usually on prepubescent children. If people who are primarily sexually attracted to adults, but occasionally use or have used a prepubescent child for sexual gratification, were routinely deemed pedophiles by mental health professionals, getting pedophiles to be with someone their own age would be a lot easier...obviously because they would rather not be with prepubescent children in a sexual way."

Legitimus, who is also very knowledgeable on this subject, agreed, stating, "I'm afraid this is true, Cybrepilot. They have to be primarily or exclusively interested in children to meet the criteria. I recently read a journal of a true pedophile. While fully aware of the wrongness of his attraction and a dedicated non-offender, he nevertheless has an exclusive attraction. He is literally incapable of achieving erection with an adult woman. It's a miserable existence to say the least. That is not to say that 'situational offenders' get off the hook. It's just that, by the medical criteria, they do not qualify as 'pedophiles.' They certainly do qualify [as] child sexual abusers of course. Granted, I fall into a camp that anyone who ever does anything sexual with a prepubescent child has something very, very wrong with their brain, and I daresay is still very much mentally ill (even if that illness is simply psychopathy). Normal adults find even the thought of doing such a thing nauseating (thus why it is so despised). I liken it to such things as borderline personality disorder, where a person might not meet the full diagnostic criteria, but still are considered to have 'borderline traits' that are still destructive."

To assert that I know nothing about pedophilia and/or hebephilia is silly. Yes, there is a significant overlap between those philias, which is made clear in the Pedophilia article and in the Hebephilia article. And if we are going to speak in terms of guarding, I have been guarding the Pedophilia article for much longer than two years. As for reporting you: As noted on my user talk page, I will indeed report you at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard soon. Flyer22 (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

This is going to be a very hard debate as we're actually agreeing here, and we're still arguing. Even your own article is saying it's defined as a "primary or exclusive attraction". Primary or exclusive. You're also right in saying it's an extreme attraction, that they don't move away from, and often don't want to get away from - pedophiles are diagnosed by their fantasies. Which, by definition, means they enjoy it. Why would they stop doing something they enjoy. This is the psychosis that defines them. Enjoying doing terrible things. Much like a serial killer.

I'm also getting confused with your argument. As you were/are arguing there is both crossover between pedophile/hebophile, and also that it is impossible for a pedophile to find a pubescent child attractive? How can there be a crossover then? You're agreeing with me - a pedophile is defined by that primary/sole attraction.

Please do report though. This article needs some independent assistance.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to get into an extensive debate with you again; I told you that above. You confuse matters on this topic, and that, combined with your WP:Edit warring, frustrates me. For example, I never stated that it is impossible for a pedophile to find a pubescent child sexually attractive. If I thought that, I would not have used the words "primarily or exclusively" in my "15:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)" post above, and I might have qualified that post with "true pedophile" since (as noted in the Pedophilia article) "true pedophile" more commonly means "exclusive pedophile." And before that, I stated above, "a pedophile can find a pubescent who looks prepubescent sexually attractive." The keywords there are "looks prepubescent"; that is where the overlap comes in. Chronophilias are about being primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to the looks of a particular age group. Many early pubescents, especially early pubescent boys, look prepubescent. And there are some people, especially boys, who are prepubescent at age 13, which is why the DSM extends the prepubertal age range to 13 for pedophilia even though, these days, it is an age that is not usually prepubescent. The "looks prepubescent" aspect is also why I think that the ICD-10 includes "early pubertal age" for pedophilia. Of course a pedophile is going to be sexually attracted to a person who looks prepubescent and has no noticeable adult-like body (granted, there are pedophiles who have an age preference; for example, preferring a 5-year-old to a 10-year-old).

As for independent assistance, I don't think you want the kind of independent assistance, you will get at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard. Flyer22 (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Saying under 18 is way too controversial given most laws of consent are lower than 18; eg in my country an adult of any age can sleep with someone who is 16 and they dont get labelled pedophiles and would likely sue if they were labelled as such. There is no need to add this sentence, its too problematic and hasnt even been added with a couple of iron-clad sources which to say the least is what would be required. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I actually agree with you. I originally wanted to add a small part saying that the common/media definition was technically incorrect (pedophillia being a primary attraction to prepubescent children). However, the person who monitors this page daily, kept deleting it.

So I decided to just write what the common/media definition actually is, so readers can figure it out it's incorrect themselves. I greatly prefer just having a bit saying the media/common definition is technically incorrect, but it keeps getting deleted. The point I'm trying to make is the media/common definition is controversial, scientifically, and completely incorrect, so on a factual/scientific reference page, maybe we should mention that quickly.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly stated to you by more than just me, the article is already clear that the popular definition is incorrect (medically incorrect at least). It states that in the lead, and at other parts in the article, including the Misuse of medical terminology section. This article does not need your WP:Synthesis. Flyer22 (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Provide sources for your assertions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

In the UK the Daily Mail say would likely label someone pedophile for attraction to a 15 yr old but not to a 16 yr old. Please bring some sources here and we can discuss how or if to add them. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

And this is unneeded redundancy, already covered by the first paragraph, both in terms of primary sexual attraction and in terms of "prepubescent children at least five years younger" than the older person. Flyer22 (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Haven't we demonstrated a consensus/solution and you're still edit warring?

Cjmooney9 (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

No, there's no consensus to add your poorly worded/sourced text. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The last three reverts of your edits weren't done by Flyer22, and I don't see any consensus for the most recent of your changes (the one I reverted). Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh my word. So you think using half a quote, to misconstrue it, to present a certain POV is ethically acceptable in any form of life?!

You don't want to use the entire quote as it completely changes it's point Cjmooney9 (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the full quote from ICD

This is your quote in the intro

"a disorder of adult personality and behaviour in which there is a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age."

this is the full quote.

"a disorder of adult personality and behaviour in which there is a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age. A person 16 years of age or older meets the definition if they have a persistent or predominant sexual preference for prepubescent children at least five years younger than them"

DSM and ICD diagnosis are basically the same. You don't want to include the full quote, as you want to infer there is some sort of debate between the two on the subject. Very misleading.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The very first paragraph of the article contains the sentence "A person who is diagnosed with pedophilia must be at least 16 years of age; adolescents must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child for the attraction to be diagnosed as pedophilia," as I said in my edit summary, and Flyer22 said above. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this was more silly redundancy; do go ahead and get WP:Blocked already, Cjmooney9. Flyer22 (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: Cjmooney9 has been blocked by

De728631 for 36 hours for WP:Edit warring. He'll be back at this article and talk page, however; I assure you. Flyer22 (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Also take note of the obvious WP:Sockpuppetry concerning Cjmooney9 at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard. Flyer22 (talk) 03:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)