Jump to content

Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Pedophilia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2018

This is missing any information regarding the impact of pedophilia on children. This page is entirely about the perpetrator and has no information about how perpetration impacts children or families or society. Once you've added this new section, our team of scientists will begin to expand it.

Please add the following:

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The suggested section conflates childhood sexual abuse and pedophilia, which are not considered synonymous by some authorities, as Legitimus and this article itself note. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Impact on Children

Pedophilia when acted upon has grave consequences for victims[1][2]. Behaviorized-pedophilia, as one type of child sexual abuse, is one of ten childhood traumas included in the Adverse Childhood Experiences study. From Dr. Melissa Merrick, et al. groundbreaking MANOVA analysis, "while the impact of ACEs varied depending on the outcome, sexual abuse remained a significant predictor across the board, further highlighting the severity of child sexual abuse on adult outcomes."[3] KTKonkel (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/VS69.pdf
  2. ^ http://pages.uoregon.edu/dynamic/jjf/articles/science05.htm
  3. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28419887
Please see the article Child sexual abuse for information on the abusive acts and the impact. "Pedophilia" is really about the perpetrator and their mental state, but there is a very irritating misconception that this term refers to the act of abuse itself. This is fundamentally incorrect and is even addressed in the article here.Legitimus (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I think more importantly the content is promotional for the Mellisa Merrick which is just distasteful and violates the WP:PROMO policy in any case. Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
this is not promotional, Dr. Merrick is the published primary investigator for this research. KTKonkel (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I do not think you are understanding the bigger problem. You're proposing changes to the wrong article. "Behaviorized-pedophilia" is not even a recognized term. It's called sexual abuse. Even the article contains sources indicating that confounding these two subjects is both ignorant and harmful. I would like to assist you in improving articles, but it requires an understanding of both the subject matter, and wikipedia's structure and rules.Legitimus (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The HRSA CoIN has added a section on the impact on children. We intend to expand this section a bit and welcome your assistance and/or feedback. We plan to add links on the impact of behaviorized-pedophilia on health of victims and perpetrators across the lifespan; the neuropathic and physiological consequences of being a victim of child sexual abuse; and evidence-based strategies to heal.

Since we are scientists in the US, most of our data will come from the US. As such, we are cognizant of the need to indicate that our sharing is from a US perspective. We hope that our colleagues from around the world will join us in sharing their data, evidence-based practices, emerging models, etc. We hope that through comparison and sharing of emerging models and promising practices, we might be able to turn the trajectories of the co-occurring epidemics of suicide, violence, untreated mental illness and addiction. KTKonkel (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

KTKonkel, per above, pedophilia (regardless of some sources misusing the term pedophilia) is a mental issue; it's about what goes on in the mind. Child sexual abuse is an act, and has been committed by many non-pedophiles. Keep in mind that the "child sexual abuse" category can also encompass statutory rape matters in which the minor is not prepubescent, while pedophilia is mainly about a focus on prepubertal children. You are conflating pedophilia with child sexual abuse. The HRSA CoIN source you cited above is not even doing that. And the initial sources you cited above are mainly about child sexual abuse, not pedophilia or pedophiles. We do not tolerate WP:Synthesis (read that policy). We already have a "Pedophilia and child molestation" section in the article explaining the topics' relation to each other and how they affect children. What you are wanting to add is solely about the impact of child sexual abuse. This is not the Child sexual abuse article. You've already been pointed to that article above. That is where content like yours should go. But your material should not be essay-like (see WP:Tone) or based on what websites like HRSA CoIN state. Do adhere to WP:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), also known as WP:MEDRS, when it comes to sourcing pedophilia or child sexual abuse material. As for the rest, adding only U.S.-based material calls into question a Template:Globalize issue. And Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy; see WP:Advocacy. If you add the material you are looking to add to the Pedophilia article, you will be reverted. If you add essay-like and/or poorly sourced and/or WP:Undue weight material to the Child sexual abuse article, you will be reverted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
As seen here and here, KTKonkel took our posts somewhat out of context by adding in "behaviorized-pedophilia" and other words. It seems what KTKonkel means by that made-up term is "pedophilic behavior," but what sources most commonly mean when they state "pedophilic behavior" is child sexual abuse. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2018

"Pedophilia is termed pedophilic disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), and the manual defines it as a paraphilia involving intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children that have either been acted upon or which cause the person with the attraction distress or interpersonal difficulty.[1] The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) defines it as a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age.[4]"

The DSM-5 makes a distinction between Pedophilia as a sexual attraction and as a paraphilia--not everyone who has pedophilic desires falls under the scope of the DSM-5. The above paragraph in this article doesn't note that distinction at all.

From pages 697 and 698 of the DSM-5:

"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." Blysse (talk) 06:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

This issue has already been discussed and resolved. Please see paragraph 2 of the section Development and sexual orientation, where the text explains the matter in more detail.Legitimus (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Why do I smell a sock? Anyway, this topic is also addressed in the Debate regarding criteria section. We are still going to treat pedophilia as a disorder because the vast majority of reliable sources do. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure if I'm replying correctly--there's no obvious "reply" button or field here...
I am not a sock. I've been making small edits to Wikipedia for several years, but only recently made an account. Not everyone you disagree with is a sock. Blysse (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blysse
Generally you should indent by adding colons before each line to show the progress of the thread. And "sign" by typing four tilde at the end. Also, your copy of the DSM is out of date, based on the phrasing it uses.Legitimus (talk) 12:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
You have further indicated your non-new status by your latest comment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Waddie96 (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the lead contains precise age definitions for paedophilia. No geographic area for their application is mentioned. I very much doubt that they apply all over the world. I suspect they are purely American definitions.

It would be impossible to list the varying laws of all countries in the lead. My recommendation would be to list none, and leave country-by-country definitions until the appropriate place later in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 03:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no legal definition of pedophilia. Not truly. The article makes this clear. If you mean the age of consent and age of majority aspects, which are covered by the "This use conflates" material, it's in the current lead because people often confuse pedophilia for sexual attraction to anyone under the age of consent and/or age of majority, when pedophilia is actually about sexual attraction to prepubescent children. It's in the lead because it's important and, per WP:Lead, the lead should summarize the article. The ages given in the lead have to do with pubertal age ranges, not anything legal. Yes, the onset of puberty varies, including across the world, but usually not too drastically. For example, the age of menarche is pretty consistent across the world. And either way, we follow what the sources state with WP:Due weight. And as discussed many times before, those ages should be there to give people an idea of what ages we are typically talking about when it comes pedophilic and non-pedophilic attraction. If you have an issue with the "In the United States, following Kansas v. Hendricks, sex offenders who are diagnosed with certain mental disorders, particularly pedophilia, can be subject to indefinite civil commitment." sentence being in the lead, I don't strongly object to removing it, but it is a summary of the "Civil and legal commitment" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
At least that bit says it's referring to the United States. Maybe my wording was inaccurate, but I'm concerned particularly with "A person who is diagnosed with pedophilia must be at least 16 years old, and at least five years older than the prepubescent child, for the attraction to be diagnosed as pedophilia." That may be not be a legal statement, but if not, it's a medical one, and I doubt that it's a global view. HiLo48 (talk) 06:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
The most authoritative medical diagnosis frameworks for pedophilia are the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems. They are what the vast majority of academic sources base their pedophilia criteria on, and both have set it so that the person must be at least 16 years old, and at least five years older than the prepubescent child, for the attraction to be diagnosed as pedophilia. We can only follow what the sources state and with due weight. Yes, 16-year-olds can be pedophiles since the vast majority of 16-year-olds are post-pubescent or very close to post-pubescent and should not be sexually attracted to prepubescent children. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
HiLo48, yes the material you are referring to is a medical definition, not a legal one, and is based on internationally used standards as mentioned by Flyer22. I am not aware of any medical standards across the world that differ from these definitions in any significant way. If there are, we need to see sources showing them before any change can be made.Legitimus (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead sentence

As seen here and here, I reverted Literaturegeek at this article and the Hebephilia article on changing the text away from "primary or exclusive." I made followup edits to the lead of the Pedophilia article, seen here, here and here. I did restore Literaturegeek's ICD-11 material, but I did so by using it to replace the ICD-10 material in the lead. I also added mention of the ICD-11 material lower in the article and changed the "DSM and ICD-10" heading to "DSM and ICD-11." That section now needs an update to give more attention to the ICD-11 rather than to the ICD-10. Legitimus and/or KateWishing, I haven't yet read the ICD-11. Does its criteria differ much from the ICD-10 criteria? For example, does it state that "The person must also have a persistent or predominant sexual preference for prepubescent children at least five years younger than them."? Via email, I know that KateWishing is busy and maybe won't be back on Wikipedia for sometime, but I've pinged her anyway because of her like-minded knowledge on this topic. I can also simply converse with her via email about this.

Literaturegeek, the reason we have gone with "primary or exclusive sexual attraction" for the lead sentence after all these years, following significant discussion on how to word that lead sentence, is because experts are clear that pedophiles are primarily sexually interested in prepubescent children, and enough sources speak of exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Sources commonly state "sexual preference," but we found "sexual preference" problematic because it's so equated with sexual orientation and currently redirects to the Sexual orientation article, and (as noted in the Sexual orientation article) "sexual preference" can suggest a degree of choice. So we went with "primary or exclusive sexual attraction." Use of "primary or exclusive sexual attraction" is clearer than the DSM's "a paraphilia involving intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children that have either been acted upon or which cause the person with the attraction distress or interpersonal difficulty" or the ICD-10's use of "a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age" or "a persistent or a predominant preference for sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children." It's also clearer than the ICD-11's use of "sustained, focused, and intense pattern of sexual arousal—as manifested by persistent sexual thoughts, fantasies, urges, or behaviours—involving pre-pubertal children." So we've gone with the clearer and more concise wording for the lead sentence, and we've gone with noting the diagnostic frameworks' specific definitions in the second paragraph of the lead. Lower in the article, we go into further detail on those diagnostic frameworks. The ICD-11's definition doesn't negate that pedophiles are primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to prepubescent children. The "primary or exclusive sexual attraction" wording is simply a clearer and more concise way of stating it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your thoughts Flyer. Previous discussions (which I have not read as I do not watch list this page) that reached consensus for lead sentence were, I assume, pre-ICD 11, so perhaps a new discussion needs to occur. I don't have much to add to what I wrote in my edit summary. An intense, sustained focus is not necessarily the same thing as a preference or exclusive interest (see dictionary definition to see it is not the same as preference). In this case, I believe that the ICD 11 is saying that a paedophile could have an intense preferential interest in adults or adolescents but if an additional intense non-preferential deviant focused interest in prepubescent children is present then that would still make that person a paedophile. To me this makes sense because any sexual arousal to prepubescent children is pathological and grossly abnormal on every level and if it is significant then preference should not matter when it comes to diagnosis as the abnormality in thinking is prominent and present. I am not sure I agree with your revert, but will not revert back because I am not familiar with what the academic literature says and am mindful that as a non-expert I could easily make a mistake.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to discuss, Literaturegeek. The literature on pedophilia has been clear to specify that pedophiles have a sexual preference for prepubertal children (which is sometimes either described as primary or exclusive) and to note that those who have sexually molested prepubescent children are not necessarily pedophiles. Those who have sexually molested prepubescent children can either be pedophiles (preferential) or non-pedophiles (non-preferential, which also includes situational offenders). For example, Michael C. Seto, one of the foremost experts on pedophilia, notes this. As you can see, we also include material on non-pedophile child molesters in the article, and Seto is cited for some of it. You state that "any sexual arousal to prepubescent children is pathological and grossly abnormal on every level." And yet child sexual abuse of prepubescent children is as prevalent as it is, and experts (including Seto) have time and again found that many of the offenders have no strong sexual interest in prepubescent children. With this edit, you stated, "The ICD 11 eliminates the silly DSM V requirement for preferential or exclusive interest. The reality is that any sustained and substantial arousal to prepubescent children is perverted and makes one a paedophile." But it is the ICD-10 that states "a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age" and "a persistent or a predominant preference for sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children," and "sustained and substantial arousal to prepubescent children" does equate to "primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children." To quote the DSM-5 again, it states, "a paraphilia involving intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children that have either been acted upon or which cause the person with the attraction distress or interpersonal difficulty." This is not much different than what the DSM-IV-TR stated. And this has been interpreted by number of sources, including this one I included, to mean "primary sexual attraction." So I'm not understanding how you are interpreting the ICD-11's definition to mean anything other than "primary or exclusive sexual attraction." It's not stating "that a paedophile could have an intense preferential interest in adults or adolescents." If actual pedophiles had an intense preferential interest in adults or (pubertal or post-pubescent) adolescents, there wouldn't be as much of a medical concern about them as there is; they would be viewed as significantly treatable. By this, I mean that the success of turning their sole focus on adults as sexual partners would be high. There would not be so much work being done to try to get pedophiles intensely, or even a little bit, sexually interested in adults. One of the main reasons experts talk about pedophilia being such a risk and unable to be cured is because of the difficulty of focusing pedophiles' sexual attraction on adults. Some can have a little sexual attraction to adults, but it's never a preferential interest in adults. With child molesters who have no primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, there are certain issues that might have led them to sexually abusing a child. And because their true sexual focus is on adults, they are far easier to treat with regard to ensuring that they don't re-offend. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I want to also go ahead and note that because pedophiles' sexual interest in prepubescent children is so intense and is primary, and although some have tried to get pedophiles to sexually focus on adults, treating pedophiles mainly involves intervention methods so that they can possibly control their urges to molest children or reduce their sex drive. They are high-risk because they very likely to offend or re-offend. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Okay, but ICD 11 removed the word 'preferential' from their latest definition and I explained above, with reference to a dictionary definition, why their definition no longer requires preferential interest for a diagnosis to be made. I doubt they removed the word preferential without a lot of consideration. Typing walls of text does not change this (I don't mind reading but it will put off other editors reading and joining this important discussion), so how does Wikipedia respond is the question. And btw response to treatment is not part of diagnostic criteria for psychiatric disorders, for example the treatability of schizophrenia or depression are irrelevant when making a diagnosis of said disorders.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
The dictionary definition of "focused" is irrelevant. And it's not helpful to read anything into why "sexual preference" is not used in the ICD-11, any more than it is helpful to read into why the DSM-5 does not use it. But given the aforementioned issues with "sexual preference," and that this Wikipedia article does not use it for the lead sentence or most other text in the article, it's easy to see why the newer diagnostic frameworks do not use it either. It's still, however, the case that a number of reliable sources (including experts) summarize the diagnostic frameworks as "primary sexual attraction," "sexual preference" and "exclusive sexual attraction." WP:Due weight is with going with that, not for leading with the new and lengthy ICD-11 diagnostic definition. I see no valid reason to lead with the DSM-5 or ICD-11 diagnostic definition, as if giving one or the other primacy, when both the DSM and ICD have somewhat of a different definition and both are widely used for pedophilia diagnostic information. I see no valid reason to lead with the DSM-5 or ICD-11 diagnostic definition when the medical literature overwhelmingly simply states that pedophilia is a sexual preference for prepubescent children, before going into specific diagnostic criteria. Furthermore, although the ICD is international, and I mentioned not giving primacy to one diagnostic framework over the other, the overwhelming majority of the literature points to the DSM first and foremost, over the ICD, when noting diagnostic criteria. My "walls of text" are there so that you and others can understand (even though we usually don't get a significant number of others weighing in on pedophilia matters here). Aspects concerning this topic are not easily explained in just one paragraph (unless it's a huge paragraph). I find it apparent why I mentioned treatment aspects, since I was countering your belief of the existence of pedophiles with "intense preferential interest in adults or adolescents." Researchers very much do take the time to distinguish between offending pedophiles and non-pedophilic offenders, and this is where intensity of the attraction is important. These are two different groups that require different types of treatments. It is partly why the diagnoses are the way that they are. Otherwise, describing pedophiles as having "intense preferential interest in adults or adolescents" would be common. I await Legitimus's commentary before commenting further (if I need to comment further, that is). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I did not know the DSM V had dropped the 'preferential' wording, that is good because the diagnostic criteria should be expanded to incorporate all men who find prepubescent children substantially attractive regardless of sexual preference for adolescents or adults. I just think it is normal to not be aroused by prepubescent children at all, and to in fact be repulsed at the idea. It seems the ICD 11 and DSM V have seen sense, it would be sensible if our article gave more weight to this viewpoint. Is it possible the academic literature is outdated because of researchers following DSM IV and ICD 10 preferential criteria in the past? Your large blocks of text are intelligent and make good points, I hope I did not offend you. What about User:James Cantor, surely he could contribute to this conversation since he is an expert in the subject matter?.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Since Legitimus has not yet weighed in (and I'm not sure if he will), I'll go ahead and weigh in again. It's not accurate to state that the DSM-5 dropped "preferential" wording. You'd first have to point to where the DSM used "preferential" to begin with. Like I stated above, reliable sources (including experts) summarize even the DSM-5 diagnostic framework on pedophilia as being about a primary sexual attraction to prepubescent children. You stated "substantially attractive regardless of sexual preference," but I do not understand how you are defining that since adults who have "intense preferential interest in adults" are not characterized as having substantive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Research indicates that they are neurologically different than pedophiles, and treatment for them if they sexually abuse a prepubescent child is often successful. Those who are substantially sexually attracted to prepubescent children are included in the frameworks, but the DSM criteria has been criticized (for reasons noted in the "Debate regarding criteria" section of the article) and it still is. That stated, despite my commentary above that "it's not helpful to read anything into why 'sexual preference' is not used in the ICD-11," it actually is. I took the time to finish reading up on the ICD-11 history, including the "sexual preference" aspect. Dispensing with the "sexual preference" aspect is not about pedophilia; it's about researchers believing that arousal patterns for paraphilic disorders in general need not be exclusive or preferential. This does not take away from the fact that the pedophilia diagnostic criteria and the medical pedophilia literature in general primarily concern exclusive and preferential attraction. Below, in the collapse box, is commentary from two sources on the literature and why the preferential aspect is so important. They state what I stated above, but in more detail. One is a 2015 review of the literature; although Frontiers Media was listed as a predatory open-access publisher, the listing was controversial (as noted in the Frontiers Media Wikipedia article). I'm citing the source because it does summarize the literature well and it goes over points I went over above. It appears you personally want to define anyone who has sexually abused a prepubescent child as a pedophile, but the DSM-5 and ICD-11 criteria, and pedophilia literature in general, do not work like that. Also, it is not up to Wikipedia to state what is outdated, whether based on what the DSM or ICD does or not. It is up to Wikipedia to follow the literature with WP:Due weight, and that includes waiting for the literature to catch up with changes. We hardly ever lead with the DSM and ICD definitions in our medical articles, although they are given their due weight. We can't build the entire, or even most, of the article around what the DSM-5 and ICD-11 state when there is so much to cover on the pedophilia topic, including suspected neurobiological causes...which rely on the preferential aspect.
Relatively recent sources on the importance of "preferential" when defining and diagnosing pedophilia
There are those who do display a sexual preference disorder, namely pedophilia (i.e., the sexual preference for prepubescent minors) and/or hebephilia (i.e., the sexual preference for pubescent minors) (Seto et al., 1999). Although this preference increases the risk of engaging in CSA, only about 50% of all individuals who do sexually abuse children are pedophilic (Blanchard et al., 2001; Schaefer et al., 2010) and not every pedophilic individual actually has abused children. ie other 50% of individuals that have abused children are those who do so without a sexual attraction to children; i.e., they lack the necessary social skills to develop and maintain emotional and sexual relationships with appropriately aged peers and look to 'replacement partners' in children as a kind of 'surrogate' (Beier, 1998; Seto, 2008; Mokros et al., 2012b).
The behavioral criterion was not included in the DSM-5 as a specifer, though it holds relevance for researchers and clinicians. From a clinical point of view, both child pornography consumption and/or hands-on CSA offenses would count as preference behaviors (Seto, 2010; First, 2011).
It is a completely different situation for perpetrators who committed sexual offenses against children, which were not caused by a pedophilic preference. Those are the surrogate types of sex offenders and can be diagnosed within the category of impulse-control disorder, accounting for the lack of a sexual preference for children but the committed act of CSA (DSM-5: 312.89; ICD-10: 63.8). Moreover, most sexual assaults happen in the 'Dunkelfeld' for approximately every reported case of CSA; another five are left unreported, suggest some scholars (Hall and Hall, 2007; Seto, 2009). Dunkelfeld is a German word that literally translates to 'dark feld.'
It is of great importance for clinical diagnosis whether or not an erotic preference for the body scheme of children on the fantasy-level exists. There is a high chance that this information would be given voluntarily by self-referred, self-motivated pedophilic men, but less likely by those who are already involved with the legal system (probation etc.). It is therefore essential for the assessment and a reliable diagnosis to obtain a cooperation/compliance level. In self-motivated pedophiles, this collaboration is highest and makes them a highly interesting target group for research (see Section 'Methods for Diagnosing Pedophilia'). This underlines that pedophilia as a sexual preference must be seen independently from sexual offending against children – otherwise there would be only offending pedophiles. From a research point of view, it is imperative to understand in what way the neurobiological conditions – notwithstanding sexual preference – encourage the sexual behavior. These are possibly the same mechanisms that also encourage offense-like behavior in men with other sexual preferences (for instance in the case of rape on the background of sexual preference for adult women). Additionally, research efforts have to unravel which neurobiological mechanisms determine and regulate sexual preference, and how preference and behavior are interconnected.
In the research domain, pedophilia is currently viewed as a phenotype of sexual preference within the realm of human sexuality.
Pedophilia is a sexual preference that is often associated with child sex offending (CSO).
More than 60 000 cases of child maltreatment and neglect have been reported by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services in 2012. About 10% suffered from sexual abuse, though estimates of unreported cases are considered to be at least 10 times higher (Hanson et al., 1999). Pedophilia is defined as a preference disorder: an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to (pre-)pubescent children, age 13 years or younger (World Health Organization, 1993). Pedophilia, i.e. the sexual preference disorder, is one of the most important risk factors for actual child sexual offending (CSO) (Seto, 2008). However, only about half of all sexual offenses against children are being committed by pedophiles and it is estimated that only about 50% of pedophiles engage in CSO throughout their lifetime (Maletzky and Steinhauser, 2002). Thus, pedophilia and CSO are interrelated but distinct phenomena. There is little doubt that pedophilic preferences, once in place, are fixed and do not change across the lifespan (Seto, 2008). This is the case although pedophilic preference and even more CSO are strictly sanctioned and judged as immoral in nearly all-contemporary societies. Therefore it is highly reasonable to assume that there are alterations in e.g. the moral valuation of sexual interest in children and CSO in men suffering from pedophilia.
  • And on the non-recent side, there's also the fact that, in the 2008 "Pedophilia and Sexual Offending Against Children," from the American Psychological Association, page 4, and the 2009 "Pedophilia. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology," Seto has stated that sexual abuse of a prepubescent child may be motivated by high sex drive, criminality, or opportunism, rather than a sexual preference for prepubescents (pedophilia). He's also cited alcohol use. It's not always a matter of anti-social tendencies for offending non-pedophiles. I do not see that Seto's commentary on that has changed.
Yes, James can obviously weigh in and be helpful to the discussion. He weighed in when we decided on "primary or exclusive" years ago (although I was originally okay with going with "sexual preference" for the lead sentence back then; we both were), and I've discussed pedophilia matters with him a number of times (on and off Wikipedia). But from I know of James's research, on both pedophilia and hebephilia, his views do not differ much from Seto's. Although James has used DSM-5 type wording for hebephilia (which is not in the DSM-5) at the Hebephilia article, he has been clear that pedophiles have a primary sexual attraction to prepubescents and hebephiles have a primary sexual attraction to pubescents. Similar to how pedophilia has been defined and diagnosed, not every man who has found a pubescent sexually attractive is considered a hebephile by academics. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
You wrote: "It appears you personally want to define anyone who has sexually abused a prepubescent child as a pedophile..." This is not the case at all, I know, for example, that child sexual abuse can be motivated by certain abusive personality disorders rather than a genuine attraction, etc. I just believe that any persistent sexual arousal to prepubescent children is abnormal and represents psychopathology, namely paedophilia and felt ICD-11 might support this position. I guess I personally believe that the diagnostic criteria should sub-divide paedophilia into exclusive, preferential and non-preferential subtypes; that is a personal opinion which is not really relevant to the article, but saying it since you brought up what you felt my opinion was. It is okay if I am proven wrong by User:James Cantor and yourself about what the ICD-11 is saying, I fully expect to make mistakes being a non-expert.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I suggest, let's stop typing and see if Legitimus, James Cantor or anyone else wants to read through this and comment. I think if this section gets any bigger no one will want to read through it, per WP:TLDR.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
When suggesting what your viewpoint might be, I chose to focus on "anyone who has sexually abused a prepubescent child as a pedophile" instead of sexual arousal or sexual attraction because whether sexual abuse of a prepubescent child is motivated by sexual preference, anti-social tendencies, high sex drive, criminality, opportunism, or what you referred to as "abusive personality disorders," some level of sexual arousal is involved (and some would argue that therefore some level of sexual attraction is involved, which is why the pedophilia research has focused on preferential sexual attraction, which can also mean "exclusive," although enough experts distinguish between sexual attraction and sexual arousal on the general topic of sexuality). I appreciate you clarifying your stance. Whatever any of us personally thinks, we obviously can't use WP:OR to decide on article matters, and we should adhere to the WP:Due weight policy. But, yes, I will wait and see if Legitimus and/or James comments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Of course I was not suggesting WP:OR for the article space (WP:OR does not apply to the talk pages, per se), I was thinking of ICD-11 and the correct interpretation of it for the article space.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I know that WP:OR doesn't apply to talk pages. But you have given your interpretation of the ICD-11 matter, and I'm stating that the article wording or formatting shouldn't be based on our (any of our) interpretations of the ICD-11 matter or similar. The ICD-11 is given due weight in the second paragraph. Anyway, I've gotten word from Legitimus via email that he can't weigh in right now because he's busy and that he will weigh in tomorrow. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I only have been able to read a small bit of this wall of text, but I have a few points I want to address. First, the idea that the DSM is USA-only is not true. The DSM is used all over the world and printed in 18 different languages, and scientists from those countries similarly contribute to it even if it originated in the USA. While the ICD is an overtly "international" system, it lacks depth when it comes to mental health diagnosis. Pedophilia is given a small paragraph in the ICD, while it is given 4 pages in the DSM. Many countries outside the USA use both for this reason.
A second problem I'm seeing is such a strong push to use terms from ICD-11, which hasn't been fully approved or implemented yet, much less adopted by any kind of majority. Using such a fledgling text seem far too hasty.Legitimus (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, after Literaturegeek stated, "The DSM V is an American centric diagnostic tool whereas ICD 11 is superior because it is an international expert concensus.", I considered addressing that specifically. Instead (as seen above), I eventually stated, "both the DSM and ICD [...] are widely used for pedophilia diagnostic information. [...] Furthermore, although the ICD is international, [...] the overwhelming majority of the literature points to the DSM first and foremost, over the ICD, when noting diagnostic criteria." And as for leading with the ICD-11, I addressed that with WP:Due weight points. Do you object to the ICD-11 mention in the second paragraph, Legitimus, and think that the ICD-10 statement should remain there for sometime longer instead? Or do think it's fine there? I personally think it's okay there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
And I take it that your view on use of "primary or exclusive" is the same (or pretty much the same) as it was in 2014? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion about the reference to ICD-11 in the second paragraph of the lead, but feel that it's so new that giving it such prominence seems hasty. I would suggest, but not insist on, mention of both the ICD-10 and ICD-11, to illustrate how the phrasing has changed. The ICD-10 is obviously still in use; health-care institutions rarely just roll straight over into a new diagnostic set or coding system overnight (or even in the same year), and scientific literature up this point is not going to have been operating on that diagnostic system.
Regarding primary or exclusive, my opinion isn't that important. What is important is that the DSM-V uses the phrase "greater than or equal to" attraction to adults. The reasoning is noted in the DSM, which like many mental disorders is about if certain thresholds are met that indicate (based on the research) how much the patient is going to be impaired, distressed, or be a risk to others. If the patient doesn't meet those thresholds, then that changes the therapeutic approach. Pedophilia is a highly charged subject in the public eye and so laypersons often like to jump to conclusions about who they label with it, all the while lacking a fundamental understanding of how medical diagnosis is meant to work.Legitimus (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we've seen how laypersons often like to jump to conclusions about the term and diagnosis for the condition, which is why we address that aspect in the article. I think your opinion is important on how best to word things like the lead sentence because you are familiar with the literature and this therefore helps you to assess how to apply due weight. As you know, pedophilia isn't usually defined as "greater than or equal to attraction to adults." So that's not wording I could support for the lead sentence. The wording we currently use in the lead for the DSM-5 is clearer and more accurate in definition than that wording. And even when looking at the latest review articles, some of which take the DSM-5 into consideration, they define pedophilia as a primary sexual attraction. As for the ICD-10, I'm not keen on the idea of having both the ICD-10 and ICD-11 in the lead. I think it would be overkill and a bit confusing to readers. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I have never read any of the raw DSM criteria on paedophilia, although was aware of the greater or equal than caveat and saw that ICD-11 did not have this caveat which I thought relevant to this article. Agree this conversation might be premature and that it is sensible to wait until ICD-11 is fully approved and released before replacing ICD-10 references. I wrongly thought it was the final approved version, but that will happen in 2019 I believe. Thank you for commenting Legitimus.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of Societal Perception in Lead

As it stands, there is little comment on how general society currently views pedophilia in the lead, as is written about in the "Society and Culture" section of the article. It seems appropriate to summarize this section in a sentence(s) the the end of the lead, perhaps commenting on the following topics: stigma, anti-pedophile activism, and advocacy Ruyter - talk 01:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

not able to be cured

The assertion of the fact that pedophilia is "incurable" is flimsy at best.I would recommend a re-evaluation of this point to include reference to at least two or more sources, or else support removal of the assertion, as being highly contentious without having merit of the general scientific community. 71.91.178.54 (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I would agree. I will give seven days for objections before I make the edit. USN007 (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

And you will be reverted on that edit, per the fact that there is no known cure for pedophilia and the experts are clear that it is unlikely to be cured. We follow what the WP:Reliable sources, especially WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, state on the topic of pedophilia. Not your personal opinions. You also do not help your case by being a new, suspicious account showing up to this article out of nowhere to agree with an IP three minutes after the IP's post. Surely, you should have learned by now that WP:Socks do not get far at this article or any other pedophilia-related or child sexual abuse-related article on this site. And do spare me any talk of biting you as a newbie or falsely accusing you. I've been right on socks every single time regarding this article. Goodbye. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Always nice when a sock would agree with themself. DMacks (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Non-offending pedophilia section

There has been a lot a recent research examining men with pedophilia who self-report that they have not had sexual contact with a child. I wonder about adding a section to the Pedophilia Wikipedia page that provides an outline of what we currently know about pedophilia in non-offending samples and the characteristics that differentiate men with pedophilia who have and have not committed a sexual offence. Part of this new section could also focus on what we know about those with a sexual interest in children, without a focus on offending vs. not offending (i.e., basic sex research findings).Ian V. McPhail (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian V. McPhail (talk • contribs) 21:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

For instance, such a section could provide details from Mike Bailey's recent paper looking at sexual attraction patterns in men with pedophilic interests:

http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-47529-006

Bailey, J. M., Hsu, K. J., & Bernhard, P. A. (2016). An Internet study of men sexually attracted to children: Sexual attraction patterns. Journal of abnormal psychology, 125(7), 976.

Or, Kevin Hsu's recent paper on autopedophilia.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797616677082

Hsu, K. J., & Bailey, J. M. (2017). Autopedophilia: erotic-target identity inversions in men sexually attracted to children. Psychological science, 28(1), 115-123.

My point here is that the research on community (i.e., non-forensic) samples of pedophilic individuals is growing and will continue to grow over the coming years. To provide the public with up to date information on pedophilia, these research findings should be included on this wikipedia page.Ian V. McPhail (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian V. McPhail (talk • contribs) 22:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Good idea, I am happy to help by adding information about research, advocacy, and clinical organizations that work with or support this population. Jeremy Malcolm (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
There is no "non-offending pedophilia section." Nor should there be, since non-offending pedophile material is relevant to more than one section in the article. So having such a section would make it seem as though all of the non-offending pedophile material is in one section, when it's not, and it would likely result in redundancy by having some of the same non-offending pedophile material in that section and in others. As for the sources you cite, we should stick to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. This means generally avoiding WP:Primary sources and certain other types of sources. Read WP:MEDRS and WP:Primary sources. There are already enough primary sources in the article that I need to replace with secondary or tertiary sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
From what I can tell, the advice is that "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content". "Generally" is a broad guideline, but in the absence of systematic reviews, primary scientific journals are a good way of providing the available evidence. There is one secondary source, an article titled "Non-offending pedophiles" in Current Sexual Health Reports, that I co-authored that reviews *some* of this literature, but beyond this there are no secondary sources discussing this emerging body of literature. So I can't see replacing these primary with secondary sources.
One problem with this wikipedia article is that it conflates child sexual abuse and pedophilia, for instance, in the Cognitive behavior therapy section, the following sentence (and reference) "A 2012 Cochrane Review of randomized trials found that CBT had no effect on risk of reoffending for contact sex offenders" applies to sexual offenders and is not specific to the treatment of pedophilic interest. From a different angle than the one I originally presented, some of the work I can recommend would be to make this article internally consistent and make sure when discussing research, Wiki editors do not use research on sexual offenders that does not focus on or measure the pedophilic status of those offenders, to describe pedophilic individuals.
As well, my original suggestion, if a section to itself would not be appropriate, could be revised to be a suggestion that this emerging body of evidence be integrated into the existing sections. For example, the Personality traits section, one could include the following reference and describe the traits in non-offending and offending pedophilic men: [1]
My overall point is that this article is focused on forensic research (generally speaking) to the detriment of more recent sexological research and conflates pedophilia with sexual offending against children. It would be a service to readers to update the page with this research, even if there are no secondary sources, and to remove instances of conflation.Ian V. McPhail (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Editors unfamiliar with the WP:MEDRS guideline and who are looking to add primary sources always look to the "generally" part of the guideline, which is why that part of the guideline is bolded and certain editors are looking to make the guideline stricter. See what WP:MEDPRI states about why we avoid primary sources when we can. Among other things, it states, "If material can be supported by either primary or secondary sources – the secondary sources should be used. Primary sources may be presented together with secondary sources." Now read the rest of the guideline, the sections that follow that one. I have always been for "generally" remaining, but you and others who insist on using primary sources instead of secondary or tertiary sources, including any review articles that might be available, do not help your case. I will not be surprised if the guideline eventually removes "generally," even though it's a guideline and not a policy. I'd only need to make one trip to WP:Med about any extra primary source material being added to this article, and the primary sourced material would be reverted. On top of that, we might get an editor being overzealous about the matter, forgoing WP:Preserve, and removing existing primary source material, although the topic of pedophilia is not as actively researched as a number of other topics. For less researched areas, it's why WP:MEDDATE states, "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published." Because of the slow progress in this field, this article has relied on primary sources, but we should still try to avoid them when we can. Because I am very familiar with the literature, I can replace enough of the primary sources with secondary or tertiary sources, and preserve appropriate content (per the WP:Preserve policy). I meant to do this earlier...so that when the time came to reject more primary sources being added, no one would be able to point to the article having existing primary sources or at least not many of them. I am open to what you want to add (without a separate "Non-offending pedophilia" section), but, other than when citing the DSM-5 or ICD-10, we need to try to stick to good academic book sources on the matter or reviews we can find on PubMed or on the TRIP database. If we are to use primary sources, we should try to make it sparingly.
As for conflating, there is no conflating child sexual abuse and pedophilia in this article. I and others have made sure not to do that. We even mention the conflation aspect in the lead, in the "Pedophilia and child molestation" section, and have a "Misuse of medical terminology" section. Regarding this and this, that is not a conflation. The first source is titled "Psychopathy among pedophilic and nonpedophilic child molesters" and the second source is titled "Facial and prosodic affect recognition among pedophilic and nonpedophilic criminal child molesters." Your claim that "child molester" is not in use in the scientific literature is not accurate. It's true that child molester is not preferred, but it's obviously still used by some academic (including scientific) sources on pedophilia. Like I stated when reverting you, academic sources on the topic state "child molesters," "child sexual abusers," "child sexual offenders," "nonpedophilic child molesters," and "nonpedophilic child sexual offenders." Some state "situational offenders." The text in the article stated "non-pedophilic child molesters exhibited psychopathy, but pedophiles did not" before I changed it to "non-pedophilic child sex offenders exhibited psychopathy, but pedophiles did not." Your wording of "non-pedophilic sexual offenders against children" is long-winded and unnecessary. Neither the sources nor the text is conflating child sexual abuse and pedophilia; the material is clearly distinguishing between pedophilic child sex offenders and nonpedophilic child sex offenders. The A 2012 Cochrane Review material is not an example of the article conflating pedophilia with child sexual abuse. The source mentions "disorders of sexual preference" in its first paragraph, and it's what pedophilia has been classified as before. That stated, since the source is not specifically about offending pedophiles, it and its text should be removed unless the source is clear that it's studying pedophiles and non-pedophiles. Otherwise, the Child sexual abuse article is a good fit for the material. I don't agree that the Pedophilia article is generally focused on forensic research. Well, okay, in terms of child sexual abuse, I get what you mean. We have one "Law and forensic psychology" section and cover the forensic aspect there. Yes, there is overlap in the article when discussing pedophiles and child sexual abusers, but that cannot be helped. The article is clear when it's referring to child sexual abusers instead of pedophiles who may or may not be child sexual abusers. You seem to have an issue with the article being so focused on child sexual abuse, but the literature on pedophilia is overwhelmingly focused on child sexual abuse. Like the "Pedophilia and child molestation" section states, "Little is known about [pedophiles who do not molest children] because most studies of pedophilia use criminal or clinical samples, which may not be representative of pedophiles in general." And like the "General" subsection of the "Treatment" section states, "Most categorize their participants by behavior rather than erotic age preference, which makes it difficult to know the specific treatment outcome for pedophiles." We can only follow the literature with WP:Due weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, Flyer22. Though I think we should be a bit more civil to stay focused on improving this wiki article. I read the secondary source Wiki material you linked, and I understand the intent of the guidelines. Though I think the research I am referring to lacks a secondary source that reviews this research. The nearest to my mind that would be a secondary source is the review article James Cantor and I wrote a few years ago, it's published in a peer-review journal[2]. There is a reasonably sizable amount of new research into pedophilia that is missing from this wikipedia page, which I think is unfortunate and we should be open to revising this content, even if the majority of sources are primary. So the science I am referring to is (1) mostly primary sources and (2) without a secondary source (I do not think I am missing a review article, as you have charged). In this case, I would argue it is reasonable to include this research on the Pedophilia wiki page. One way forward is for me to start posting full references and links to these research studies here on the talk page, and then editors can look at these articles and we can decide where they fit in the Pedophilia page.
And just so it's clear, I'm a scientist who does a lot of research on pedophilia and sexual offending against children, see my researchgate page (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ian_Mcphail2).Ian V. McPhail (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
About terminology, I always like to advocate for specificity, even if the phrasing is a bit more clumsy. In all my publications I use "sexual offender against children". As well, the journal Sexual Abuse that published the article titles, "Facial and prosodic affect recognition among pedophilic and nonpedophilic criminal child molesters", since the publication of that article in 2009, has released its intent to use person-centred language. See here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1079063218783798 . This is not the be all and end all and mean this Wiki page has to use this language, but it does suggest that the term "child molester" is not favored.
With the Cochrane Review, I am familiar with it and it is mostly focused on the effectiveness of sexual offender treatment programs in reducing sexual recidivism. These programs are general treatment programs where the admission criterion is having been convicted of a sexual offence. These programs are not for pedophilic individuals, or even pedophilic sexual offenders, even though it is likely there is some unknown proportion of pedophilic sex offenders in each of the samples in this Cochrane review. Further to this, two studies looked at the effect of behavioral interventions for anomolous sexual behavior. In one of these studies [3], the majority of the men in the sample were exhibitionists or gay (15 out of 20). In the other study, 24 of 30 men in the sample had paraphilias other than pedophilia[4]. In both these studies, the data for just the pedophilic sex offenders are not disaggregated and presented on their own (though I've skimmed through the results, but didn't see disaggregated results), so we don't know how effective these treatments were for pedophilic interest. Taken as a whole, this Cochrane Review can't actually tell us anything about the treatment of pedophilia itself and I would re-iterate that when we look at the details, I wonder whether it fits on a page devoted to pedophilia. And I just noticed you noted that this sentiment is included in the treatment section; as I point out below, making changes to the treatment section might be possible.
Instead, I think using this Cochrane Review conflates sexual offending and paraphilias (and oddly, even homosexuality), in general, with pedophilia, and probably of more value, the review leaves us no more informed as to the effectiveness of these treatments for pedophilia. Given this, do you think it should be removed to the Child Sex Abuse page? I hope the above made it clear that the devil is really in the details with this area of research. Happily, there are other review articles of treatment studies, recent ones too, that we could rely on. In addition, I know of one review article that will likely be out in the next 8-12 months. Also, I do think that this kind of slippage in language can be avoided and doing so might be a worthy aim of editing of this page. This might be another area of the Pedophilia page to work on: updating the treatment section somewhat to include only/mostly research that specifically includes only/mostly pedophilic individuals.
And last, my original suggestion, and one that I repeated above, is that there is a burgeoning literature that is not focused on criminal or clinical samples, so it might be high time to start including that literature in this page. This might help somewhat to ameliorate the issue you noted: that most of the research is focused on criminal/clinical samples, which is less and less accurate as more and more research on non-clinical/forensic samples is being published. Phew, that was a lot of writing, but I hope I've made some of my ideas and criticism clearer.Ian V. McPhail (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Ian V. McPhail, I thought that you might break up my comment. Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Interleaving replies, I ask that you don't break up my comments. As for civility, I don't see that I have been uncivil to you. Stating that you are unfamiliar with WP:MEDRS and that "you and others who insist on using primary sources instead of secondary or tertiary sources, including any review articles that might be available, do not help your case" are just statements of fact.
I understand what you mean about wording, Ian V. McPhail. But the wording you use does not trump what wording the literature as a whole uses, whether the literature uses it a lot, sometimes, or sparingly. There is no need to go with "sexual offenders against children" instead of "child sex offenders." I've already noted that the term child molester is not preferred. I have no issue with using "child sex offender" in its place, although I view it as an unnecessary change. And I do usually use "child sexual abuse" in the place of "child molestation." Also keep the WP:Conflict of interest guideline in mind, like James Cantor does when editing Wikipedia, since you are at times speaking of your own research. I've already stated that the Cochrane Review source and its material can be removed since the source is not specifically about offending pedophiles...unless the source is clear that it's studying pedophiles and non-pedophiles. I haven't read it, so I don't know. If you don't see that it's about pedophiles at all, whether it uses "pedophile" or some wording that's clear that it's talking about pedophiles as well, we can go ahead and remove it. But you also need to keep in mind that, like the Wikipedia article notes, "Little is known about [pedophiles who do not molest children] because most studies of pedophilia use criminal or clinical samples, which may not be representative of pedophiles in general." And "Most categorize their participants by behavior rather than erotic age preference, which makes it difficult to know the specific treatment outcome for pedophiles." Again, there is nothing we can do about this but follow the literature. Read WP:Due weight. We are not going to give undue weight to non-offending pedophiles, when they are barely studied. Furthermore, we only have their word that they have not offended anyway.
You stated that the effectiveness of sexual offender treatment programs in reducing sexual recidivism "are general treatment programs where the admission criterion is having been convicted of a sexual offence. These programs are not for pedophilic individuals, or even pedophilic sexual offenders, even though it is likely there is some unknown proportion of pedophilic sex offenders in each of the samples in this Cochrane review." But like you yourself stated "it is likely there is some unknown proportion of pedophilic sex offenders in each of the samples." And as mentioned by Michael Seto, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), including relapse prevention, is used to treat pedophiles. We know that most of the research on pedophiles is on offending pedophiles (meaning those who have commited child sexual abuse). Seto states that the evidence for cognitive behavioral therapy is mixed.
As for "a burgeoning literature that is not focused on criminal or clinical samples, so it might be high time to start including that literature in this page," I repeat that I am open to including that information, but we need to try sticking to good academic book sources on the matter or reviews we can find on PubMed or the TRIP database, or some other trusted source. If we are to use primary sources, we should try to make it sparingly. And there is no problem with waiting until secondary or tertiary sources are available. But, yes, you can go ahead and list a bit of the primary research here on the talk page and we can consider including it while we wait for secondary or tertiary sources to become available. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I will start a section on the Talk page that is a list of references. And just so I'm clear, Flyer22, are you the moderator of this wikipedia page? As in, do you need to approve changes? Ian V. McPhail (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Some (mainly pedophiles) view me as the gatekeeper, yes, LOL. But I don't own this Wikipedia article. No one does. Decisions on Wikipedia are based on following the rules and/or WP:Consensus. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Following the rules is important for reasons noted at WP:Policies and guidelines, and WP:Consensus is important for a collaborative project such as this and to help avoid WP:Edit warring (which an editor can be WP:Blocked for). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
One last thing about primary sources. The articles I will be adding are scientific articles from peer-reviewed journals, so I believe in the main, they are reliable sources. And I was reading through the Sperm Whale wikipedia page and noticed it has 238 references in total. The Pedophilia page currently has 158. Surely the Pedophilia page deserves the same reference allotment as the page on Sperm Whales... Ian V. McPhail (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
That's not the way that Wikipedia works. Whale articles are not medical articles, although certain non-human animal articles or articles that are primarily about non-human animals, such as Rabies, can be a medical article and fall within WP:Med's scope. Per WP:Primary sources, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Wikipedia articles are supposed to "usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources." But there are certain types of articles that will rely on primary sources more than others. Wikipedia has a stricter "avoid primary sources" take when it comes to medical articles, which is the main reason I've pointed you to WP:MEDRS. As seen by clicking on this link, I also pointed you to WP:MEDRS years ago (in 2015), and James Cantor advised you on WP:COI. Cantor also tends to point to and use primary sources, but he is at least aware of following WP:COI. Peer review, as I think you know, is not the same thing as literature review. MEDRS prefers literature reviews and the other types of sources it states as ideal for medical topics. I suggest you look at the literature reviews on pedophilia, starting with the aforementioned PubMed and TRIP database links I linked to above, and propose some material from those sources be added to the article. Per the WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress essay I linked to above, I also suggest you wait until certain aspects regarding pedophilia that you are looking to add are covered in the type of sources that WP:MEDRS prefers. Also, while pointing to other articles doing something similar or the same thing can be a valid argument, it can also be invalid. Not only is it the case that what works for one Wikipedia article might not or cannot work for another Wikipedia article, certain Wikipedia articles can be out of step with Wikipedia's rules. For example, some of our articles are completely unsourced. I will look at the sources you listed and pay to look at the WP:PAYWALL ones since I don't feel like contacting people for access, but I can't promise that I will agree to add more primary sources to the article. Like I stated, I will be aiming to replace the primary sources that I can replace. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Filtered edits

The following comments were stopped by the edit filter on November 17. As things have moved along, I won't try to re-thread them into the middle of the discussion, but I'll put them here in any case. Refactor if needed. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Posted 00:05, 17 November 2018
Sounds like it would be a useful addition.
Discussing research on neurological differences between non-offending and offending pedophiles might be valuable. This type of research promises an improved understanding of both pedophilia and child sexual offending behavior as assembling samples from non-offending pedophilic and hebephilic populations for this type of research becomes easier. Dr. Boris Schiffer's recent study on this topic had very interesting results.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28509903
Schiffer, B. et al. (2017). Gray matter anomalies in pedophiles with and without a history of child sexual offending. Translational psychiatry, 7, 10.1038/tp.2017.96.
The subject of autopedophilia, meanwhile, seems like a poor fit for a section on non-offending pedophiles. Recent research on autopedophilia, including Hsu's paper, has improved understanding of pedophilia within the scientific community, but I don't know of any research correlating ETIIs with offending behavior or lack thereof. Maybe a discussion of autopedophilia would be more appropriately introduced in another section.
I also agree that advocacy and clinical organizations specific to non-offending pedophiles would be worth mentioning. FilledWithNoise (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted 19:05, 17 November 2018
I am newer to Wikipedia and contributing here, but I wanted to chime in. Please forgive my ignorance about sources.
Excluding a non-offending pedophile section of some kind does not seem wise, given that there is a very brief mention about Virtuous Pedophiles, but no expansion on who they are: Non-offending pedophiles, advocating for better support to be available for pedophiles to remain law-abiding. Perhaps a quote from their website is in order during that mention? If a new section on the pedophilia page is not in order, then certainly a separate page, linked from the pedophilia article ('see also' section), would be in order, discussing the current and ongoing research into non-forensic pedophiles.
Reasoning: Just as there are pedophile groups that advocate sexual abuse is acceptable, there are those who advocate the opposite - Virtuous Pedophiles is just one example. These should be recognized to avoid the sort of bias and stigma already present in much of society that pedophiles are those who have or want to abuse children. This bias is also visible in many of the sources listed - 72 of the 158 existing references directly mention sex abuse/offending, when the very beginning of the article states that child molestation and pedophilia are not the same thing. Along that same line of bias, Ian McPhail mentions research into men. I question if a proposed new section on non-forensic pedophiles can remain unbiased if studies on pedophilic women are not included, and research on such is hard to find. There also seems to be a lack of representation of transgender pedophiles as well.
Speaking of sourcing, 112 does not belong: Wikipedia has its own page about the quackery of Gene Abel. "Pedophilia and child molestation." final paragraph lists many tropes that do not appear to be backed by recent science (1985 and 1995 are not recent), while the same section acknowledges that "Little is known about this population because most studies of pedophilia use criminal or clinical samples, which may not be representative of pedophiles in general.". Of the references listed, only a dozen or so appear to be exclusively a primary source while many are a mixture of primary/secondary. TNF 13 (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
What I stated about sourcing and having such a section on its own stands. There would be redundancy and WP:Undue weight issues with having such a section on its own because non-offending pedophile material would belong in other sections in the article, not just the "Non-offending pedophilia" section, just as offending pedophile material belongs in more than one section in the article and we can't validly have the article divided into an "Offending pedophilia" section and a "Non-offending pedophilia" section. And because little is known about the non-offending pedophile population. It's not really bias; it's just a matter of what the research has shown thus far. If we go by the research, it does seem that most pedophiles do offend. But even if we state that the literature is biased, see WP:BIASED. Creating a Non-offending pedophilia article would be a WP:Content fork violation. There is clearly not much that can be stated about the topic, and WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing on it is lacking.
Mention of pedophilic women is obviously barely included because researchers are very clear that pedophilia rarely exists in women. In fact, researchers, such as Seto and Cantor, have been clear that paraphilias in general are rare among women. Cantor and I have made this very clear at Talk:Paraphilia, where we get the occasional complaint about the lack of female coverage, as seen here and here. On that same note, it is well known that most child sexual abusers (of prepubescent children rather than the statutory rape cases, although men lead in statutory rape cases as well) are men. Even with talk of female pedophiles and female child sexual abusers likely being underreported/underrepresented, researchers are clear that there still cannot be any doubt that there are significantly fewer female pedophiles and female child sexual abusers than there are male pedophiles and male child sexual abusers. It is not as though women are just so good at not getting caught. It is rather that women simply are not offending as much as men are. Virtuous Pedophiles is mentioned in the section it should be mentioned in. Their beliefs are noted in that section; so I don't see that anything else on them needs to be mentioned in the section. And there "is a lack of representation of transgender pedophiles as well" because of the lack of data/prevalence data on them and the research therefore not being focused on them. But if it were focused on them, make no mistake about it...there would be controversial research, such as Blanchard's transsexualism typology, because Blanchard and others would no doubt focus on the assigned sex of the transgender individuals. I've discussed this topic with some researchers over the years. Transgender women would be viewed as distinct from cisgender women and this would be due to biological aspects that Blanchard and others would comment on. Cisgender and transgender women, as well as cisgender and transgender men, would be compared, in part, because there are so few cisgender women who are pedophiles. Researchers would observe and comment on the prevalence of pedophilia in trans women and trans men, the differences, and why they think that there are these differences among cisgender and transgender pedophiles. The researchers would attribute these differences more so to biology than to societal aspects, because that is what pedophilia (in the scientific sense) is more so attributed to.
As for the "According to Abel, Mittleman, and Becker (1985) and Ward et al. (1995), there are generally large distinctions between the characteristics of pedophilic and non-pedophilic molesters" content, well, that text is focused on pedophilic and non-pedophilic child sexual abusers, not offending pedophiles and non-offending pedophiles. And the paragraph is not just sourced to that old research. But, yes, I will be removing old sources from the article, except for sources in the "History," "Law and forensic psychology" and "Society and culture" sections, since these sections generally are not subject to WP:MEDRS. See WP:MEDDATE. As for "Of the references listed, only a dozen or so appear to be exclusively a primary source while many are a mixture of primary/secondary," I'm not sure if you mean the article or what Ian V. McPhail has pointed to, but Ian V. McPhail's list below came after your above post, and the recent discussion at Talk:Child abuse shows that what is a review article can be misinterpreted.
Because I've gotten emails about this from watchers of this article who are concerned about new accounts suddenly popping up after Ian V. McPhail's posts, I must also state the following: Suspicious "new editors" are watched with much scrutiny and heavily at this article because of past disruption from pedophiles and pro-child sexual abuser editors. Certain administrators, WP:CheckUsers included, are also watching. What I stated about bringing WP:Med editors into this is very real, just like I recently did at the Child abuse article's talk page. They will not tolerate poor sourcing (and that includes barely tolerating primary sources), and for good reason. If any account that is deemed suspicious feels emboldened by Ian McPhail's recent posting, don't. Any disruption as this article (whether it be poor sourcing, WP:Undue weight material, or similar) will be dealt with swiftly. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22. I wonder, this suggestion is a bit of a larger or longer-term goal, but could the content on the Pedophilia page be somehow re-organized to accommodate these distinctions that you have brought up (i.e., there are differences between pedophilic and non-pedophilic sex offenders against children) and that TNF 13 brought up (i.e., that there are differences between non-offending and offending pedophilic individuals). Assuming of course that there is enough data available to section out these two issues and that doing so does not give undue weight, as you've brought up. The Pedophilia page has a forensic section, but I wonder if a section like this might also zero in on the distinction you raised and could be called (something like) "Characteristics of offending pedophilic individuals" and the distinction TNF 13 brought up could be captured in a section called "Correlates of offending in pedophilia" or something. These could be a subsections in the forensic section, in the Signs and Symptoms section, or the Pedophilia and child molestation section seems like a good candidate too. Such sections might also provide some detail about the features of non-offending individuals as well.
I don't think this is a pressing issue, or at least it is not as pressing an issue as including new research on the main page. But it might be a longer term goal, if other editors think it worthwhile.
I am also wondering, are there other editors out there that want to lend a hand in tackling the research that I am linking to below? I'm just getting started and will be adding in more references in my spare time (which of course, there is not a lot of these days). Ian V. McPhail (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
As you know, there is little research on non-offending pedophiles at this point in time. So a section title like "Characteristics of offending pedophilic individuals" can lead one to wonder where such a section is on non-offending pedophiles. Again, there is not enough data, including solid data, for a "Characteristics of non-offending pedophilic individuals" section. A "Characteristics of offending pedophilic individuals" section also makes it seem as though offending pedophilic individuals are the exception, when the research so far indicates that they are the rule. And your suggestion of such headings would mean dividing more than one section in an "offending pedophile" and "non-offending pedophile" way. That just is not necessary; it's overkill. And we try to avoid creating sections for a little bit of material, which is also noted at MOS:Paragraphs. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Going back to the sources you are listing below, per what I stated above, it is best that you don't focus so much on including primary sources. The primary sources are unlikely to be included; so that means that there are more sources for people to look at, when most of the sources will not be included in the article. So, really, it's cluttering the section. I appreciate you including non-primary sources in the section, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Flyer22, okay, let's see what the list below comes to and then go from there. If you want to start with and focus on the secondary sources, that is fine. I'm sure there are a few more available, I just need to dig into my reference lists a bit more, which I will do over the coming months.
I also want to bring up WP:OWN, as it seems like you are being somewhat possessive about the content on the Pedophilia page. This is fine to a point, but I hope that as the reference list builds below, we can work towards writing some new content and then including it on the main page, instead of blocking progress for this page, which really does need an update. My suggestions are in keeping with WP:BOLD, we should be a bit bold in including new science on this page, even if we need to include some primary sources, which I am going to keep adding in. There is good science being done and the public deserves to have this information available to them. Ian V. McPhail (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I should add that you have done a very good job laying out the pitfalls to avoid (which have been good to temper my tendency to move forward quickly), other issues to consider within the larger context of Wikipedia as a knowledge sharing project, and the responsibilities of editors, especially the responsibilities that come with editing medical pages. I hope that we can have reasonable and meaningful differences of opinion on some of these issue, which I think we do, but also work together. You've said you are willing to take a look at some of the resources I am posting below, which I am thankful for: it means I don't have to do all the editing by myself! Ian V. McPhail (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Considering that I stated to you above that I "don't own this Wikipedia article. No one does. Decisions on Wikipedia are based on following the rules and/or WP:Consensus" and "following the rules is important for reasons noted at WP:Policies and guidelines, and WP:Consensus is important for a collaborative project such as this and to help avoid WP:Edit warring (which an editor can be WP:Blocked for)," I do not need to be pointed to WP:OWN. I'm the one who pointed you to it. When I state that "the primary sources are unlikely to be included," it is because of what I've gone over with you, and I mean it. Do I need to start pinging editors like Doc James for you to see what I mean? He will have no qualms about reverting primary research. I have been listening to you. You should listen to me about how this site works. Being WP:Bold is one thing, but adding material you know is likely to be contested is another. Furthermore, as noted at WP:Bold, when it comes to contentious topics like this, potential additions should ideally be discussed first. That helps build consensus and avoids edit warring. If you want other experienced Wikipedia editors to comment, they will state the same thing that I've stated to you. If you are going to go by newbies or supposed newbies' views because those views align with your own, then that tells me that you are only interested in having things your way and not how Wikipedia works. If you insist on adding primary sources, I will bring WP:Med into this. Yes, I stated that I am willing to consider primary sources, but I also stated "there is no problem with waiting until secondary or tertiary sources are available." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Using high quality secondary sources is always the starting point for improvements. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

____

References

  1. ^ Cohen, L., Ndukwe, N., Yaseen, Z., & Galynker, I. (2018). Comparison of self-identified minor-attracted persons who have and have not successfully refrained from sexual activity with children. Journal of sex & marital therapy, 44(3), 217-230.
  2. ^ Cantor, J.M. & McPhail, I.V. Curr Sex Health Rep (2016) 8: 121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-016-0076-z
  3. ^ McConaghy N, Armstrong MS, Blaszczynski A. Expectancy, covert sensitization and imaginal desensitization in compulsive sexuality. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 1985;72:176–87.
  4. ^ McConaghy, N., Blaszczynski, A., & Kidson, W. (1988). Treatment of sex offenders with imaginal desensitization and/or medroxyprogesterone. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 77(2), 199-206.

Recent empirical research to add to Pedophilia page

Below are new(ish) articles that have been published in peer-review scientific journals. Some of the articles are review articles, so likely meet the secondary resource criteria, most are primary sources, but all focus on pedophilia and advancing the understanding of pedophilia. When available, I will provide a web address to an open-access full-test version of the paper so that other Wiki editors who do not have access via an institutional library service can access the articles. As well, for some of the articles I will write a short blurb underneath about the topic of the paper and how the main findings might fit into the Wiki Pedophilia page. My initial thoughts are that other editors (if you are out there) can use the talk page to present the text for how they would incorporate an articles findings into the Pedophilia page AND what section of the page they think the new information fits under. We can then come to some consensus about how to include the description into the Pedophilia page. Of course this is only a suggestion for how to proceed. Last, I will be including at least one reference that I am an author on, mainly because it is relevant. Ian V. McPhail (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I should add, that let's try to keep the below list in alphabetical order. Which means other editors will be entering text between what I have entered below. If there is a better way to keep this all organized, and follows Wikipedia's rule on not splitting up other editors' text, I'm open. Ian V. McPhail (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


Bailey, J. M., Bernhard, P. A., & Hsu, K. J. (2016). An Internet study of men sexually attracted to children: Correlates of sexual offending against children. Journal of abnormal psychology, 125(7), 989.

-this study examines a number of correlates of offending in men with pedophilic interest Ian V. McPhail (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


Bailey, J. M., Hsu, K. J., & Bernhard, P. A. (2016). An Internet study of men sexually attracted to children: Sexual attraction patterns. Journal of abnormal psychology, 125(7), 976.

-characteristics of pedophilia/individuals of people with pedophilia Ian V. McPhail (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Text to add to main page --> In a large sample of men recruited online, pedophilic men were less attracted to adults than to children, were more likely to be attracted to females than males (regardless of age), and reported lower sexual experience and satisfaction with adult partners. They also found that 12.2% of this non-representative sample reported a conviction for a child pornography or contact sexual offense involving a child. Ian V. McPhail (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Text to add to main page [in the Development and sexual orientation subsection] --> Pedophilic interest is typically realized in early to mid-adolescence. Ian V. McPhail (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
NOTE: There are about 4-5 other papers that report this same data: that age of realizing one's attractions are directed towards young children is around mid-adolescence. However, the Bailey study has the largest sample and a better operationalization of age of onset. Also note that I have written a "review" of this research, but I won't use this reference, because I don't want to be accused of having a conflict of interest. Ian V. McPhail (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


Cantor, J. M., & McPhail, I. V. (2016). Non-offending pedophiles. Current Sexual Health Reports, 8(3), 121-128.

-this is already in the reference list. Review article covering prevalence rate of pedophilic interest; correlates of pedophilic interest; stigma towards pedophilic individuals Ian V. McPhail (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Full-text here


Cohen, L., Ndukwe, N., Yaseen, Z., & Galynker, I. (2018). Comparison of self-identified minor-attracted persons who have and have not successfully refrained from sexual activity with children. Journal of sex & marital therapy, 44(3), 217-230.

Compares people with pedophilia who have acted on their interests with those who have not acted on their interests on a wide range of variables Ian V. McPhail (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


Gerwinn, H., Wei, S., Tenbergen, G., Amelung, T., Fodisch, C., Pohl, A., . . . Kruger, T. H. C. (2018). Clinical characteristics associated with paedophilia and child sex offending: Differentiating sexual preference from offence status. European Psychiatry, 51, 74–85. doi:10.1016/j.eurpsy.2018.02.002

Compares people with pedophilia who have acted on their interests with those who have not acted on their interests on a wide range of variables Ian V. McPhail (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Full-text here


Hsu, K. J., & Bailey, J. M. (2017). Autopedophilia: erotic-target identity inversions in men sexually attracted to children. Psychological science, 28(1), 115-123.

Correlates/comorbidity; characteristics of individuals with pedophilia Ian V. McPhail (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Full-text here


Jahnke, S. (2018). The stigma of pedophilia: Clinical and forensic implications. European Psychologist, 23, 144 – 153

Review article covering research on the stigma directed towards pedophilic individuals. As a secondary source, this could be used as a reference instead of the few primary studies cited on the page. This article could likely be used to expand the section where stigma is discussed.
Full-text here Ian V. McPhail (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


Lett, T. A., Mohnke, S., Amelung, T., Brandl, E. J., Schiltz, K., Pohl, A., ... & Wittfoth, M. (2018). Multimodal neuroimaging measures and intelligence influence pedophile child sexual offense behavior. European Neuropsychopharmacology.

Compares people with pedophilia who have acted on their interests with those who have not acted on their interests on intelligence testing and fMRI Ian V. McPhail (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


Schiffer, B., Amelung, T., Pohl, A., Kaergel, C., Tenbergen, G., Gerwinn, H., ... & Marr, V. (2017). Gray matter anomalies in pedophiles with and without a history of child sexual offending. Translational psychiatry, 7(5), e1129.

Uses MRI to examine gray matter differences between pedophilic men who have NOT committed an offence and pedophilic men who have committed an offence.
Full-text here Ian V. McPhail (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


Schmidt, A. F., Mokros, A., & Banse, R. (2013). Is pedophilic sexual preference continuous? A taxometric analysis based on direct and indirect measures. Psychological assessment, 25(4), 1146.

This is an actual taxometric analysis study that provides evidence for the latent structure of pedophilic preference being categorical. I think this reference should be used instead of Ref #105: 105 has nothing to do with how people should be categorized. The specific text that should be edited or the reference changed is: "As child sexual abuse is not automatically an indicator that its perpetrator is a pedophile, offenders can be separated into two types: pedophilic and non-pedophilic"
Full-text here
Note as well that colleagues and I have also published a taxometric paper recently and found a slightly different result than Schmidt and colleagues. Ian V. McPhail (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Primary source https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=23815115 Best to go with the book below. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Seto, M. C. (2018). Pedophilia and sexual offending against children: Theory, assessment, and intervention (2nd edition). American Psychological Association.

Flyer22, if you wanted THE secondary resource, this is it! Michael Seto just released an updated second edition of his standard text in the area. Ian V. McPhail (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2018‎ (UTC)
Looks like a suitable book https://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4317491.aspx Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. The article already uses the 2008 version. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Turner, D., & Briken, P. (2018). Treatment of Paraphilic Disorders in Sexual Offenders or Men With a Risk of Sexual Offending With Luteinizing Hormone-Releasing Hormone Agonists: An Updated Systematic Review. The journal of sexual medicine, 15(1), 77-93.

Review article, secondary source, examining available data on LHRH medical treatments. This is one of the VERY FEW instances where the authors have identified treatment specific to individuals with pedophilic interests, instead of simply looking at treatment for sex offenders (and making the conflation that being a sex offender = being pedophilic).
Full-text here Ian V. McPhail (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Providing the PMID such as this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29289377 is also useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I need some time to look over the new material. Regarding the book or review material, it would also be helpful for Ian V. McPhail to note what he is looking to add to the article. Proposed text is also helpful. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Civility and making progress.

Hi, folks. I am very glad to see increasing interest on this page. Although I unfortunately cannot afford the time these days to participate regularly, I would be happy to share whatever information or input I can. I have a few reactions to the above thread(s).

  • Flyer: Please don't bite the newbies. Ian McPhail and Jeremy Malcom are real-world topic experts, openly editing under their own names. I know them both (Ian, mostly). I appreciate the many battles you have fought genuinely and legitimately keeping this page from pedophiles with agendas of their own---but that is not these folks. I also appreciate that new people coming on board at the same times looks like a sock. Not these.
  • Ian and Jeremy: A "sock" is nickname for someone who creates several accounts in order to create fake discussion to make it look like their belief is a consensus. There has been a problem with socks on this page in particular for a long time, and Flyer has been a legend in taking them out. She comes by her suspiciousness honestly.
  • Everyone: Flyer is a highly talented and experienced editor. Ian and Jeremy are highly knowledgeable topic experts. I believe this is a dream team for this and related pages. Let me recommend taking a breath and a reboot.
  • Flyer: I think you will engage the newbies better by pointing out how they can accomplish the general goal they are aiming for rather than simply indicating why they can't do whatever thing. You and I both can be directing them to the relevant policies until they catch on, but just listing a litany of procedural jargon isn't putting the best WP foot forward.
  • Everyone: I have some specific thoughts about nonoffender pedophiles, the applicability of MEDRS, and the use of primary/secondary sources. But I think I'd rather hold off on those specifics (perhaps each in its own talk section) until the above process issues can be discussed.

— James Cantor (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi James. Thanks for making some process comments about the conversations and where we might be getting stuck; must be the clinical psychologist in you. I am also glad to hear we have the makings of a dream team for doing some work on the Pedophilia page, it is exciting to think I can contribute meaningfully to wikipedia.
I, for one, am still stuck on the primary/secondary split, not because I don't understand the WP:MEDRS guideline or the distinction between primary/secondary/tertiary sources, but because I have some issues applying WP:MEDRS wholesale to the Pedophilia page. Maybe I can create a separate section so that we can discuss this issue and I can present my thoughts and reservations in order to move forward. This is not to say I am not willing to focus on secondary and tertiary sources, but I do want to make my case for including primary sources. Ian V. McPhail (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
James, it's always good to see you because of your knowledge of the research and helpfulness. We agree on many things regarding sexological and psychological topics. Like I told you via email, I'm aware that McPhail is familiar with you and that he's not a WP:Sock. I don't feel that I bit McPhail, although I was stern with him. I did bite the editor in the #not able to be cured section above, but that editor is not a newbie and is currently indefinitely blocked. That editor was a sock and is problematic. As for Jeremy Malcom, I don't see any editors named Jeremy Malcom here. Are you referring to an editor in the #Filtered edits section above? When you state that you "appreciate that new people coming on board at the same times looks like a sock. Not these.", are you stating that FilledWithNoise and TNF are researchers? I got emails about suspicious new accounts and so I added a paragraph on it in that section without directly calling those accounts socks or problematic. This talk page is not edited often. And so when we suddenly get new accounts popping up to the talk page, especially after a new post, it is a red flag (as it was in the "not able to be cured" case). In the case of non-offending pedophiles, this article/talk page has also been subject to editors wanting to make it seem as though most pedophiles do not commit child sexual abuse, when we know very little about non-offending pedophiles and researchers are taking their word for it that they haven't offended (although there is now a little bit of neurological research that also leads researchers to believe a pedophile's word that they haven't offended). As seen here at Talk:Relationship between child pornography and child sexual abuse, where you, Legitimus and I commented, Boilingorangejuice (who is indefinitely blocked, but keeps showing back up as a sock) is one of those editors. He is partly focused on the belief that child pornography, simulated or otherwise, is good for pedophiles and helps keep them from offending.
McPhail, I apologize if you felt bitten by me. It's clear that you felt I was being somewhat uncivil. My responses are due to the history of this article/talk page that James mentioned (although I knew you weren't a sock), and my having gravitated more toward the types of sources that WP:MEDRS suggests and is stern about over the years. I've grown more and more wary of primary source usage for medical/health topics, and for good reason (reasons you appear to be aware of). In this section at Talk:Sex differences in intelligence, you can see me discussing the issue with having an article such as that built on primary sources. For the Pedophilia article, I'd prefer that the focus not be on expanding the article with primary sources. I don't see that it needs to rely heavily on them. There is not much research on the persistent genital arousal disorder topic, but I was able to fix up and expand that article with academic book sources. The occasional use of a primary source is more acceptable to me. And I see that James is going over source usage with you at your talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Flyer22, Jeremy Malcolm is me. I lead Prostasia Foundation which is a new organization for the promotion of research into child sexual abuse prevention, and for advocacy to policymakers and companies based on that research. James is one of our advisors. Above I had suggested that I could help by adding information about research, advocacy, and clinical organizations that work with or support non-offending pedophiles. But I did feel like you were warning people off. I am not going to spend time writing content if it would just be reverted because you are going to be suspicious of my motives. Jeremy Malcolm (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Qirtaiba, your website states that you are have a PhD and are "a lawyer, human rights activist." It also states, "Prior to his work at Prostasia he held the position of Senior Global Policy Analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, defending digital privacy, free speech, and innovation. Before that he worked for Consumers International coordinating its global program Consumers in the Digital Age." Since it appears that you are not an expert on pedophilia or child sexual abuse, I take it that the expertise Cantor was speaking of regarding you is about legal and consumer aspects? I did see your comment above, but forgot about it. Your username is Qirtaiba, and that is the username I remembered seeing post. Using "Jeremy Malcolm" as a pipelink name can cause people to think it's your username; so you might consider going ahead and changing your username to that. As for "warning people off," I refer you back to my above post. Those aforementioned two "filtered edit" accounts are still suspicious, although suspicious accounts don't automatically equate to problematic accounts. When you posted at the WP:Child protection talk page, I did consider your post suspicious, but I also saw that you are no newbie. Anyway, if you are reverted by me, it will not be because of a suspicion of you. On a side note: Regarding this, although I appreciate you duplicating my signature when breaking up my comment, I still prefer that my comment is not broken up. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2019

Pr-tentaculo (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

seems to be

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. aboideautalk 13:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Pedophilia as an unchangeable sexual orientation

I put some links in here for discussion. Maybe someone fels like writing up a new section for the article. This debate is going on internationally and should at least be mentioned in the article.

Link #1 - https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/health/2018/july/scholar-says-pedophilia-is-an-unchangeable-sexual-orientation-and-should-be-accepted-by-society

Link #2 - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51983497_Is_Pedophilia_a_Sexual_Orientation

Link #3 - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/paedophilia-sexual-orientation-straight-gay-criminal-psychologist-child-sex-abuse-a6965956.html

I will not write a new section myself since I know it will get deleted instantly. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Right, I don't know as new section would be called for here... for one thing, at least two of those sources are pretty low-grade for a medical article on a difficult subject... One has the headline "Scholar says..." but the article body indicates the person is a medical student giving a TED talk... one is from the International Academy of Sex Research which is generally a legit source. Can't access the article so not sure exactly what it says. Correctly summarizing technical articles like that takes skill and effort. The third says "Paedophilia is a sexual orientation like being straight or gay, according to a criminal psychologist" (OK so far) but then "But, writing on the Reddit networking website, the psychologist said...", Uh-oh.
It's not a nonsensical claim, but it's a complicated question, and one of semantics to some degree maybe... I'm skeptical that pedophilia is close enough to "like being straight or gay" for us to be able to say that, because nothing is exactly like anything, and analogies like that are probably overly simplistic. But I'd defer to the experts on that of course. Anyway, I guess any material would go in the "Diagnoses" section, maybe in the "Debate regarding criteria" section or a new subsection. But I'm not suggesting even that at this time, we want to be particularly careful here and would require several AAA-level sources, properly analyzed, I would think. Herostratus (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
This is one of those conversations this talk page has had several times over the years, and I think the main stumbling block is "What are we actually talking about?" I do not like to talk in riddles so I am going to lay this out plain, warts and all (this is not directed at any specific user). Essentially, the terms being used are massively laden with meanings beyond their dictionary and scientific definitions, especially in the United States and United Kingdom where they have social, forensic and civil rights implications. In addition, individuals who would best be described as "egosyntonic pedophiles" have a relatively well-understood and predictable thought pattern as well as a history of attempted social action consistent with it, including on this very wiki. One of the most common tactics of such individuals is attempting to use semantics (i.e. argumentum ad dictionarium) in a bizarre attempt to force social and legal acceptance of what is almost universally perceived as sexual exploitation/assault. This includes attempting to "ride the coattails" of LGBT rights progress, in this case through the use of the term "sexual orientation."
Seto, referenced above, even warns about this:

It is important to emphasize here that I am not equating these gender and age orientations. Homosexuality continues to be negatively sanctioned in a variety of ways, but social changes have occurred, including the legal rights of marriage or civil unions in Canada and several other countries, recognition of same-sex partner benefits, and the inclusion of sexual gender orientation in anti-discrimination policies and laws. In my opinion, these are signs of progress: I am generally opposed to discrimination, and I believe that mutually consenting sex between adults should not be subject to legal or other discrimination. Pedophilia, on the other hand, involves sex between an adult and a child who is not legally able to consent. There are substantial asymmetries in cognitive ability, psychosexual development, and autonomy that are not usually present in sexual interactions between consenting adults.

Seto further clarified that his goal was regarding more compassion and better treatment availability and techniques for "help-seeking pedophiles" as opposed to those that only end up in treatment through the criminal justice system. This focus would seem to indicate a view of the term "sexual orientation" that was intended to be scientific, while perhaps naively forgetting the social implications of using this term in a widespread manner about pedophiles. Those social implications are more numerous that Seto appears to be aware of: LGBT people in English-speaking countries identify heavily with the term "sexual orientation" and therefore using the same term for pedophiles is understandably offensive. Compounding this from the opposite end is anti-LGBT factions frequently like to compare homosexuality to pedophilia as being morally equivalent and equally repugnant. And finally to reinterate, the aforementioned egosyntonic pedophiles seek to abuse the term "sexual orientation" under the belief that it will force legal sanctions on their desired behavior to be repealed on civil rights grounds. It is based on these often covert and/or unspoken variables that I think it might be irresponsible for this article, primarily read by laypeople, to refer to it as a sexual orientation without some very high level, top quality scientific sources and extremely cautious phrasing.Legitimus (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Like Legitimus stated, we've been over this times before. Check the archives. There is no real debate among researchers about whether or not pedophilia is a sexual orientation. Researchers have compared it to a sexual orientation, and we already address that in the article with appropriate weight. Nothing more on it needs to be stated in the article. Researchers generally are not out there calling pedophilia a sexual orientation. "Sexual orientation" has a specific meaning in the literature, applying to sex/gender attraction...not to erotic age attraction. Pedophilia is not a part of that meaning. No authoritative source on sexual orientation calls pedophilia or any other paraphilia a sexual orientation. And we won't either, not in Wikipedia's voice. The most we have done is note that it has been compared to a sexual orientation and why. After another day or two, I will archive this section as to not attract more unnecessary discussion on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I looked at this discussion with some dread but the replies above are excellent and worth reading, thanks! In case there is any doubt, Wikipedia will not be leading the world by announcing whatever would suit some groups. Johnuniq (talk) 05:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

4 years is too much difference for a translation...

Did you notice the difference between the Spanish and the English version.of this ? When it says <<Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12,[3] criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age...>> it says 13 in the English version and 9 in the Spanish one. I think 4 years is too much difference. Caiablue (talk) 07:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

That line is attributed to the DSM criteria in both the English and Spanish. I have a copy of this book, and it says 13, not 9. If the Spanish version says 9, it has been vandalized.Legitimus (talk) 00:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Definition Errors in the Second Paragraph

1. it reads: "pedophilia is termed pedophilic disorder in the DSM-5".

Although the DSM-5 never used the term 'pedophilia', it implies it is the harmless paraphilia related to the Pedophilic disorder, that meaning it draws the line between pedophilia and pedophilic disorder. They tell it on page 816, where they explain that individuals meeting criterion A but not criterion B would have the paraphilia (in this case, pedophilia) but not the paraphilic disorder (pedophilic disorder). So although pedophilia is not termed anywhere on the DSM-5, it is not supposed to be interpreted as synonymous with 'pedophilic disorder', but rather something other than it. In the DSM-5, both pedophilia (paraphilic form) and pedophilic (paraphilic disorder form) disorders are equally forms of pedophilia, instead of only the pedophilic disorder.

It's also double misleading, because due to not specifying the mutual existence of the paraphilia and the paraphilic disorder and omitting the former, the sentence may imply to some readers that the DSM-5 says all pedophiles inevitably experience distress through their life due to their sexual orientation.


2. Second claim is unsourced.

It reads: "The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) defines it [pedophilia] as a 'sustained, focused, and intense pattern of sexual arousal—as manifested by persistent sexual thoughts, fantasies, urges, or behaviours—involving pre-pubertal children.'[6]"

That's the pedophilic disorder (according to the cited source), not 'pedophilia'. There is no evidence that the ICD-11 considers pedophilia the same as pedophilic disorder (in fact, they changed both the names and the definitions in the "pedophilic section" (F65.4 in ICD 10 and 6D32 on ICD-11), basically taking pedophilia out of the ICD-11 and replacing it with a more similar version of the DSM-5's pedophilic disorder). This most likely implies that the WHO joining the APA's boat in differentiating paraphilias from paraphilic disorders (it'd honestly be a little risky to believe this, but assuming they didn't would be even more risky, since it'd imply they don't recognize any form of pedophilia that doesn't involve personal distress). It seems like the writter saw the ICD using the term 'pedophilic disorder' and automatically thought it referred to the whole WHO's definition of pedophilia, which wouldn't be necessarily true.

Definition on ICD-10: https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/GRNBOOK.pdf Changed definition on ICD-11: https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/517058174

Overall, I say pedophilic disorder is a form of pedophilia, but not the only one. All people who have pedophilic disorder are pedophiles, but not all pedophiles are people who have pedophilic disorder. Saying that pedophilic disorder is pedophilia the way it is written in the page is fallacious because it omits the existence of the alternative form of pedophilia (the paraphilia, as opposed to the disease). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yukon21 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

We've already been over this more than once. Read the first listing for "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" above at the top of this talk page. Neither the DSM-5 nor the ICD-11, which you acknowledge you don't even know if they (the ICD-11) are distinguishing "pedophilia" from "pedophilic disorder," are going to be used to trump the standard medical definition/meaning of pedophilia. We are not going to give WP:Undue weight to "pedophilia not as a disorder." We are not going to have some WP:POVFORK where there is both a Pedophilia and Pedophilic disorder article. This goes for a number of medical articles, where, per WP:MEDORG, we don't prioritize a medical organization/medical authority's definition or statement over what the underlying medical literature states. Like WP:MEDORG makes clear, "The reliability of these sources ranges from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature." To the underlying medical literature, "pedophilic disorder" and "pedophilia" are one and the same; this is clear by recent reviews of the literature. The vast majority of the literature, old and new, aren't using the term "pedophilic disorder" when talking about pedophilia as a disorder and other issues or aspects that come with having pedophilia. And nowhere does the DSM-5 state or imply that "regular pedophilia" is harmless. "Regular pedophilia" is also very likely to result in child sexual abuse. A pedophile not being distressed about that doesn't make it any less harmless to the child. The "pedophilic disorder" aspect is covered in both the Development section and the Debate regarding criteria section, which states, in part, "Although proposals were discussed throughout the DSM-5 development process, diagnostic criteria ultimately remained the same as in DSM-IV TR" and that "[o]nly the disorder name will be changed from pedophilia to pedophilic disorder to maintain consistency with the chapter’s other listings."
Now, for the lead of this article, we could change "Pedophilia is termed pedophilic disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)" to "The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) includes pedophilic disorder"...which will help decrease the number of times we have to address pedophiles coming here talking about how their sexuality (what many of them view as a sexual orientation) is not a disorder. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
But it isn't a mental disorder in Saudi Arabia or several other countries (inside marriage, of course). Did you know that some US states do not have age limits for marriages? Nearly wrong, Parental consent is needed in Alabama and Utah at age 14, and in Nebraska and Oregon, the age is 17. The ages for males and females to marry differs in some states. In New Hampshire, the ages at which you may get married with parental consent are 14 for males and 13 for females. In Kansas and Massachusetts, the age for marriage with consent is 14 for males and 12 for females. Source: [1]. Apparently no age limits in several US states if she's pregnant. Of course, if such husbands cross the federal border they might land in jail. Some Saudi men give their wives a divorce as present for their sweet sixteen: there are lots of younger, poor girls just waiting to get married. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu, you are confusing pedophilia with age of consent and age of majority. Pedophilia is not to be conflated with such things. Or rather, you are confusing pedophilia with child marriage. It's not to be conflated with child marriage either. We also don't confuse it with child sexual abuse or statutory rape. The lead of the article, the Pedophilia and child molestation section, and the Misuse of medical terminology section are clear about not confusing such things. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Ok, agree. But it has to be spelled out very clearly that legal child marriages do not count as pedophilia. You see, those Saudi men may enter and dissolve marriages with pubescent girls according to their whims, so they may eat their cake and have it, too. If they go to most EU countries they would get prosecuted and their wives taken in orphanages/foster care. E.g., The Netherlands do not recognize their marriages and these count as felonies. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
If you are talking about an article addition, we don't need anything in the article about how child marriage is not pedophilia. Pedophilia is about what is going on mentally. A person with pedophilia may act on their sexual urges, but pedophilia technically is not the act (although the term is commonly used by the general public to mean the same thing as child sexual abuse or statutory rape). Otherwise, everyone who has sexually abused a prepubescent child would be considered a pedophile by experts in this field. The article is clear about that. And the topic of pedophilia focuses on sexual attraction to prepubescent -- not pubescent or post-pubescent -- individuals (although, yes, there is a hebephilia overlap). The article is also clear about that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Pedophilia is not a crime. The article is clear about that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
So, those men aren't mentally sick because (i) it's legal and ethical in their country, (ii) pedophilia isn't a crime and (iii) technically hebephilia is different from pedophilia. My argument was that since it does not contradict the morality of their country, it isn't a mental disorder. Same argument as made by Prof. David W. Martin: homosexuality was a mental disorder because it severely violated the US popular morality; it isn't a mental disorder because it no longer does so. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
To repeat, you are talking about a different topic than pedophilia. That is my issue with what you brought up. Among professionals (experts) in this area, pedophilia being considered a mental disorder is not about society not accepting pedophilia. It's certainly not about child marriage. It's not about age disparity in sexual relationships. Pedophilia is stigmatized, but not without very good reason. Homosexuality is no longer considered a mental disorder for reasons the scientific community has made clear. Many or most societies are doing what they can to become accepting, or more accepting, of homosexuality. Although many pedophiles want society to accept pedophilia as just some normal variation of human sexuality and often compare it to homosexuality in that both (unless transgender identity is involved; for example, a lesbian-identified trans woman who has a penis and is in a sexual relationship with a cisgender lesbian) do not produce children and that homosexuality was once considered a mental disorder, it is highly unlikely that society will ever accept pedophilia as just some normal variation of human sexuality. They certainly are not going to accept child sexual abuse. And one can debate what is abuse all they want to, but an adult being sexual with a 17-year-old (a person just one age below the widely accepted adult age of 18), for example, is not the same thing as an adult being sexual with a 7-year-old. That is why there is no state in the United States where age 7 is the age of consent, but a number of states in the United States have age 17 as the age of consent. And anyone who says "Well, pedophilia was acceptable to the Greeks" should refer to the third listing of "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" above at the top of this talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Forget about the Ancient Greeks, think of Iran and Saudi Arabia in 2019 AD: they have the complete opposite of Pedophilia is stigmatized, but not without very good reason. Homosexuality is no longer considered a mental disorder for reasons the scientific community has made clear. What do they have for homosexuals there? Death penalty? Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
What does the death penalty for homosexuality have to do with this topic? Nothing. Did I state that all of society accepts homosexuality? No. I was very clear that "many or most societies are doing what they can to become accepting, or more accepting, of homosexuality." And what individual societies think is not the same thing as what the scientific community thinks. And are you are saying that Saudi Arabia accepts pedophilia or child sexual abuse? Never mind. You have taken this thread away from what it is supposed to be about. We see each other at some porn articles and the Masturbation article, and I understand some points you make regarding those topics, but, Tgeorgescu, I don't think you understand this topic. Also, because of the pedophilia and homosexuality conflation, and the way that pedophiles use homosexuality to argue for acceptance of pedophilia, it's not a good idea to talk about pedophilia and homosexuality in the same breath. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I'll look for sources at another time. As I said, it was about what Prof. Martin said, I'll leave it at that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Look for sources on what? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
On the link between being a mental disorder and popular morality. Just mind that I have stayed away from speculations about the future and comparisons with the Antiquity. I don't have an axe to grind, I want nothing but the facts. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
In the "General" subsection of the Society and culture section, we already talk about stigma and morality. But the view that pedophilia is considered a mental disorder because of morality? I'm just going to repeat: "Among professionals (experts) in this area, pedophilia being considered a mental disorder is not about society not accepting pedophilia." Anything you want to add on the notion that pedophilia is only considered a mental disorder because of morality should be discussed on this talk page first. And the sources should be about actual pedophilia, not child sexual abuse, statutory rape, child marriage or anything else that is not specifically about pedophilia. If the source talks about child sexual abuse in addition to pedophilia, like the Michael Seto "Pedophilia and Sexual Offending Against Children" source does, that's fine. But if the source is conflating child sexual abuse with pedophilia, that's a no. We already know that morality plays a huge role in how society views child sexual abuse. These days, scientists' views about why something is a mental disorder is not about what the general public thinks. Yes, with regard to pedophilia, scientists and the general public agree on harm to children being involved, but there are other reasons why pedophilia is considered a mental disorder. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Let me draw the conclusion: Wikipedia has chosen for mainstream science. Fine, no problem with that. In large chunks of the world "homosexuality good, pedophilia bad" isn't seen as science, but as Western propaganda. Yup, now I understand those people who complain that acupuncture is pseudoscience according to Western science. You see, according to Chinese science, it isn't pseudoscience. I don't have a problem with Wikipedia's choice, but it has to be made explicit. Neither Wikipedia nor science operate in a moral void. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there an actionable proposal for an improvement to the article? Johnuniq (talk) 07:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: The dilemmas of global POV vs. scientific universalism are interesting, perhaps I will make it part of WP:ABIAS. For me it is just a stick against troublemakers. I used this discussion for becoming aware of our POV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not continuing this discussion with you. I do not think you are using the term pedophilia correctly. Your "Western propaganda" conclusion is incorrect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
And I do not need to be pinged to this talk page. The article/talk page is clearly on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Recently added cure material

OTTresearcher, regarding this text I reverted you on, it's a no per WP:MEDRS and WP:Due weight. Also see WP:Editorializing. Pinging Doc James, who might also have something to state about it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

User in question is already blocked so appears like it is dealt with. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Religion

Please add a section titled "Religion" and further subsections by religion e.g. "Islam", "Christianity" and so on. For example, any article on pedophilia comes across as an "apologists' article", "deliberate omission" or "omission under peer pressure brought on by the islamist lobby on wikipedia" if it does not incorporate muhammed and his underages wives, child abuse and sexcapades with young child-bride Aisha, permissible pedophilia/underage marriage/marital rape of children in islam, Bacha bazi, etc. 222.164.212.168 (talk) 05:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, it should be said that it isn't Christianity which has banned child marriages, it is secularism. Oh, by the way, some US states have no marriageable age limit. Neither the Bible, nor the Church Fathers, nor the Oral Torah condemn a 50 years old man who marries a 9 years old girl. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
No. Child sexual abuse is not pedophilia. And there currently isn't even a section in the Child sexual abuse article about religious views. And even if there were a section on it in that article, it would need to be well-sourced to say that these religions have endorsed child sexual abuse. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Less than 4 hours after the protection on the talk page is lifted, and this is what happens. Turn it back on Swarm?Legitimus (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Factually incorrect statement (at least for the Netherlands in a certain period)

From the articles: "The efforts of pedophile advocacy groups did not gain any public support" This is not true for the Netherlands in the 1970 and 1980s. I will add sources here on this talk page later. Andries (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Awaiting sources. Just want to note that "public support" is a nuanced phrase. It implies some level of main-stream acceptance. Legitimus (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2019‎ (UTC)
The articles says " any public support ". Andries (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Here is a good source, but in Dutch unfortunately, though google translate from Dutch to English has become quite good.
https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/hoe-het-archief-van-pedoclub-martijn-de-veranderde-tijdgeest-weerspiegelt~b8e45fdf/ The archive of Martijn.
Andries (talk)
From the article "Because it is now unimaginable, but until 1977 someone was a member in the Senate for that party who openly professed his preference for teenagers and fervently advocated the pedophile cause on TV. "
From the article: "To show the context: in 1979 left parties signed a petition against the criminalization of sex with minors. In 1987, a COC petition was signed by a broad spectrum of civil society organizations and cultural figures asking to allow sex with children under 16 if "the young person in question sought contact, or played an active role in the maintaining it or if there is no significant power difference '."
Andries (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Sexual attraction to teenagers (unless the teenagers are somehow prepubescent) is not pedophilia. We make that clear in this article. And "public support" in the article obviously isn't meant to represent some random public figure(s) supporting pedophile advocacy groups. If the solution to this challenge you have made is to change "public support" to "mainstream acceptance," we can do that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Fine with "mainstream acceptance", better than removing the disputed sentence completely or digression on a temporary Dutch exception. The latter could be done in a more specialized article. Andries (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Nepiophilia POV fork

I just reverted the Nepiophilia WP:POV fork that the Anon ducky (talk · contribs) account created. As seen, the Anon ducky account added text such as "Not to be confused with pedophilia, which is an attraction to prepubescent children who are past the stage of infancy."

I see no need to have a Nepiophilia Wikipedia article. According to some academic sources, nepiophilia is pedophilia. A subtype of it. Or they ponder it as this, essentially characterizing it as pedophilia focused on infants or toddlers. There are pedophiles who have age preferences. And when it comes down to it, a baby is still a prepubescent child. And as for "younger than 5 years old"? Researchers have no qualms about calling a man a pedophile when that man's only victim is a 4-year-old. In fact, the sources for nepiophilia usually focus on infants or babies older than that (as toddlers are commonly considered babies), not on children just a little under age 5. So a man claiming that he's not a pedophile because he's only sexually interested in those around age 4, as if those age 4 look so much older/definitely older than those age 5, is a dubious assertion. Anyway, on the other hand regarding sources, there are a few sources like this 2018 "Paedophiles, Child Abuse and the Internet. A Practical Guide to Identification, Action and Prevention" source, from CRC Press, speaking on a possible difference between nepiophilia and pedophilia; it states, "Research has been conducted which suggests a distinction between paedophilia and nepiophilia, as it is believed that paedophiles are rarely sexually aroused by babies or infants."

Even if one wants to argue that nepiophilia is WP:Notable and/or that there is enough material for it to have its own article, like the Anon ducky account argued, WP:No page applies. There still is not a lot of material out there on this specific topic, which is why the article that the Anon ducky account created was essentially a stub. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Good revert. I just looked and that content was definitely an unwarranted fork. And the few sources given did not demonstrate any distinctness or notability. Crossroads -talk- 03:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Krafft-Ebing and Kelly Richards Source

A user appears to be trying to "correct" the views of 19th Century doctor Richard von Krafft-Ebing under the "History" section. I'm sure it is evident to most readers that the history section is meant to illustrate the course of scientific understanding, not espouse the most accurate, current information. In any case, there is also an alleged matter of dispute if the Krafft-Ebing source supports the statement in the text. Here is the quotation from the source, on page 558 of the 1922 Rebrum translation (the original is in German):

"Practically speaking, acts of immorality committed on boys by men sexually inverted are of the greatest rarity."

"Sexual inversion" is an antiquated term for homosexuality.

The user wants to insert a source immediately after this part that is alleged to "disprove" it. The problem is that the source is actually regarding a different subject. The study by Kelly Richards [2] is regarding the gender of offenders vs the victims, not their sexual orientation. This is a common mistake, as same-sex perpetration isn't considered indicative of sexual orientation.Legitimus (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Legitimus is correct and I endorse his reverts. The material is not relevant to the context, and would not belong in the history section in any case. Also, we should use WP:Secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. Crossroads -talk- 05:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Legitimus Krafft-Ebing was a known homosexuality advocate. He did not do appropriate survey research on the matter and most of his writings are based on personal views. He cannot be counted as a credible source, as his sole purpose is to show homosexuals in a good light (not that I am against that) but his claims that homosexual pedophiles are rare and most pedophiles are women are dubious, taken out of context. I will like you to show the exact pages where his book says such thing. Further there are other research works but you seem to remove every research work that proves most pedophiles are men just to push your own pov, despite those works having more credibility and actually being based on surveys rather than a single worker's publication. Respected Person (talk) 06:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Krafft-Ebing worki is mainly on homosexuality, it just mentions some aspects on pedophilia, it is not a pedophilia research. Also the child molestation sources I gave considers and mentions pedophilia to the same extent Krafft-Ebing has. Also I have not removed Krafft-Ebing, but a source that has been disputed by multiple researchers should be named as such, you cannot base something based on one person's single view, and if something is disputed you have to mention it. But you act as if its the widely accepted norm. Your statement This is a common mistake, as same-sex perpetration isn't considered indicative of sexual orientation is purely based on personal judgement and seems WP:OR. Also Krafft-Ebing is a book for promoting homosexuality, it in no way was a research work on pedophilia, please find appropriate research work done on 19th Century pedophilia. This is history of pedophilia, not whether a homosexual or heterosexual is more likely to be pedophile. Respected Person (talk) 06:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Lots to unpack here. First off, the history section is about historical views, which are not necessarily held today. Secondly, nowhere do we say that Krafft-Ebing claimed that most pedophiles are women, just that he mentioned several such cases. And indeed, most pedophiles are men by a large margin, but not all. The article already makes this clear under "Pedophilia and child molestation". Thirdly, you are confusing the abuse of boys by men with homosexuality. Even though a boy and a man are both male, homosexuality almost always refers to sexuality between adult men (or women). Gay men experience androphilia, not pedophilia. Likewise, straight men experience gynephilia, and it's misleading to describe men molesting girls as "heterosexuality". Crossroads -talk- 06:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads this article is about pedophilia not sexual orientation, regardless see my statement below this:

User:Legitimus All right neglect what I said earlier, I have added a new demographic section to fit the research works that have conducted actual surveys and are appropriate, these works were done on pedophilia while krafft-Ebing was mainly based on homosexuality. Also when something is disputed it is appropriate to mention that they are disputed so I have mentioned Krafft-Ebing's publication as being disputed. The entries are separate matter please do not WP:EW undoing them. Demography is important and most research works point out men being the main perpetrators, even the article says so (including in lead section), so I have just stated facts on the new section with appropriate well published research on pedophilia sources. Respected Person (talk) 06:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads you undid entiirely differnet sections with well source without consensus, falsely accused me of edit war just to fit your personal views. You didn't event reply to the para above. History and demographics are totally different views. You want to report WP:EW fine, but what you did is vandalism, I will revert your edit it, but it wont break the three revert rule as I am undoing your work not taht of Legitimus. Go file dispute resolution before undoing. Respected Person (talk) 06:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

On second thought I can wait 24 hours, that will not break three revert rule Crossroads. Next time I expect you not to vandalize, and History and Demography are different issues, and falsely accusing an editor of WP:EW violates Wikipedia policy. Respected Person (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no need to debate this. I fail to see why the following should be in the History section: "According to research conducted in Australia by Kelly Richards on child sexual abuse, 35.1% of female victims were abused by another male relative and 16.4% of male victims were abused by another male relatives. Male relatives were found to be the most relevant predators in the case of both gender."
Even adding it to the Epidemiology section would be WP:Undue. I didn't much mind when you added it to the Child sexual abuse article, but WP:SCHOLARSHIP is clear about the type of sources we should be relying on for academic topics. As for WP:MEDRS? Per WP:MEDDATE, the WP:MEDRS guideline is very much relaxed when it comes to the History section. Even so, WP:Undue and WP:SCHOLARSHIP still apply.
This? It's WP:Synthesis. Unless the source speaks of Krafft-Ebing's findings being disputed, it's synthesis. And that additional "Other research works" text doesn't belong in that section either. The Epidemiology section is already clear that the vast majority of pedophiles and child sexual abusers are men.
This? Again, synthesis is not allowed, and we already have a "Demographics" section. It's called "Epidemiology."
As for the sexual orientation of pedophiles and child sexual abusers? Like I stated elsewhere on this site before, many or most men in child sexual abuse and statutory rape cases identify as heterosexual. Yes, that includes men who have sexually abused boys. Regarding what motivates child sexual abuse (a category that can cover minors who are not prepubescent and are out of the range of pedophilic interest), there are a variety of reasons (and the Pedophilia article touches on that). Research indicates that there are far more child sexual abusers and statutory rapists than there are pedophiles. And there are heterosexual and gay pedophiles and child sexual abusers, meaning that a heterosexual pedophile's sexual attraction is directed toward prepubescent girls because he is both heterosexual and a pedophile. Often, with child sexual abuse cases, though, the male child sexual abuser's reported sexual orientation does not align with the sex of the victim he targeted since so many of the men identify as heterosexual (regardless of what one thinks their sexual orientations are); this is indicated in the Typology section of the Child sexual abuse article, which Legitimus pointed to, and it is why I mentioned heterosexual-identified men having sexually abused boys. Can we add material on the demographics of heterosexual and gay pedophiles? Yes, but only with WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, and we have to make sure that the sources aren't confusing child sexual abuse with pedophilia. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
When replying to me, there is no need to WP:Ping me since this article/talk page is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Demography

The demography section should be re-added, the reason was stated above discussion. Removing an entire section filled with valid statistics and reliable research work doesn't seem like a good thing at all. I can make semi protect edits but I will not without admin permission. You can check the removed part yourself, there is no valid reason at all why it was removed. As mentioned "demographic section was added to fit the research works that have conducted actual surveys and are appropriate, these works were done on pedophilia while krafft-Ebing was mainly based on homosexuality. Also when something is disputed it is appropriate to mention that they are disputed so I have mentioned Krafft-Ebing's publication as being disputed. The entries are separate matter please do not WP:EW undoing them. Demography is important and most research works point out men being the main perpetrators, even the article says so (including in lead section), so I have just stated facts on the new section with appropriate well published research on pedophilia sources." Blindly removing an entire section just to push personal views is what Crossroads. Anyway thats the last thing I say here. If you want to erase valid stats, and give misleading information, that is nothing new on Wikipedia. I rest my case. Respected Person (talk) 08:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Let me roll things back a bit by prefacing this with the fact that this article is unusual compared to most on Wikipedia because the subject matter is so evocative as well as being a medical subject. Sources used in the article are held to a very high standard (WP:MEDRS) and users new to the article who engage in certain overly-pushy behaviors can be subject to sanctions, up to and including having one's account permanently blocked. With that in mind, let me address the material that was proposed for the "demographic" section as well as the attempt to insert information regarding Krafft-Ebing.
The first issue that there is a very clear distinction between "Pedophilia" (a mental illness/attraction) and "Child Sexual Abuse (CSA)" (an action). While they are related, this relation is not what most non-professionals think. There are many people with pedophilia who have "insight," meaning they know their attraction is dysfunctional and also morally understand the harm to children, and so they do not act on their attraction. Similarly, there are those who do harm children sexually but do not actually have the pedophilia condition. Details about this are explained in the child sexual abuse article. Given that, here is an exploration of each source proposed (Note: I have access to full text):
  1. Kendall-Tackett et al, 1992 - While this is a peer-reviewed article, it is about child sexual abuse, not pedophilia. The word pedophilia doesn't even appear anywhere in it.
  2. Murray, 2000 - This source is better and addresses the concerns mentioned above. However the way it was referenced in the proposed paragraph is not clear what it's meant to be addressing. That is, the citation was placed immediately after a sentence that explicitly is talking about Kendall-Tackett.
  3. Richards, 2011 - It's not clear if this was peer-reviewed, though it seems fairly reliable. However, it actually supports my remarks above regarding the distinction between pedophilia and child sexual abuse, under "Misperception 1." Furthermore, it offers no data on demographics of pedophiles specifically, but rather is about CSA offenders.
  4. Kino International -Psychopathia Sexualis - This is a website dedicated to a dramatic film, not science or history. Further, the text doesn't contain anything supporting the assertion that Krafft-Ebing's work on pedophilia in particular was disputed per se. Even so, this is irrelevant: Krafft-Ebing's inclusion in this article is because he both coined the term itself and was the first person to ever try and study it scientifically. How accurate his declarations were isn't the point. It's that he was the first to study it. Sigmund Freud also was wrong about many things, but that doesn't mean that no one can ever record them for history's sake, nor does it mean that every time anyone writes them down, they have to immediately start quoting more current research. The majority of this article is devoted to current science; the history section is way down in it, strictly to record where the term comes from and what the earliest beliefs about it were.Legitimus (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2020‎ (UTC)
Well said. I commented in the #Krafft-Ebing and Kelly Richards Source section above. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
And I say "well said" to you and Legitimus. Per those comments, and what I said myself earlier, I see no reason to re-add any of the material being discussed. User:Respected Person needs to keep WP:IDHT in mind going forward. Crossroads -talk- 19:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Protected

I have fully protected the article until the current disagreement is resolved by discussion on this talk page, possibly with input from noticeboards. @Respected Person: I have not counted how many reverts you have done, but your suggestion at User talk:Respected Person#May 2020 that Crossroads should not leave an edit warring warning because you have not exceeded WP:3RR is mistaken (you might also check WP:INDENT). The warning is supposed to occur before 3RR is exceeded. Further, 3RR is not a human right available for every editor—persistent edit warring of any kind can be sanctioned. Bear in mind that it is very bold to persist when two established editors are reverting your edits—you need to engage with the discussion until some progress is made, see WP:DR. Do not use words like "vandalize" unless talking about edits which meet Wikipedia's definition, see WP:VAND. I don't have the time/energy at the moment to work out what edits might be promoting a WP:FRINGE opinion, but this topic is probably covered by discretionary sanctions and that requires extra caution when trying to introduce significant changes. Please ping me if any edit is required to the article (only to correct significant problems please, and only after agreement here), or to ping me if the dispute is settled either by agreement or with support from a noticeboard that the disputed changes should not occur. Johnuniq (talk) 07:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for stepping in. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if the talk page's protection will be changed when you lift the article's protection, but we should make sure that the talk page protection remains full-protected when you lift the article's protection. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I removed the full protection from the article. The situation now is that the article and this talk page are indefinitely semi-protected, as they were previously. It appears there is a consensus concerning the article and edit warring should not resume. Johnuniq (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of pedophile and pederast advocacy organizations which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Germany governmental pro-paedophila

https://www.dw.com/en/berlin-authorities-placed-children-with-pedophiles-for-30-years/a-53814208 

Helmut Kentler (1928-2008) was in a leading position at Berlin's center for educational research. He was convinced that sexual contact between adults and children was harmless. Berlin's child welfare offices and the governing Senate turned a blind eye or even approved of the placements.

etc.

I am not sure where to put it. Zezen (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs on this page simply because it's an article about an overall concept, not a place for examples. There have been millions of incidents and people associated with the topic, and so they could not possible all be included.Legitimus (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Also, that material is significantly more so about child sexual abuse. Seems like "pedophile" is being used as a synonym for "child sexual abuser" (as it often is). If the material discusses actual diagnosed pedophiles and/or the psychological condition (having pedophilia), that's different. Either way, I don't see that this material should be added to this article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Re: brain trauma

Just a follow up with regards to this revert. Not sure why you think Swaab is undue in this instance given his speciality in brain function. There are numerous cases in the literature but some are covered in other medical books, e.g. here and here. You wrote "Pedophilic urges is sometimes used in reference to people who are child sexual abusers but don't meet the clinical definition of pedophile". Not sure about that. I would take it to mean they gained a rapid sexual attraction to children, which is the case if you read the original papers, and the attraction disappeared after the tumour was removed. In once case the attraction reappeared when the tumour returned (and I don't think the man was happy about it either). I think the sentence I included was relatively measured since it said they were rare cases. What do you think? Sxologist (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I know the topic of pedophilia through and through; so I wouldn't state that the wording pedophilic urges is sometimes used in reference to people who are child sexual abusers but don't meet the clinical definition of pedophile if that never happened. I did not state that Swaab is undue in this instance. I stated, "Needs discussion on the WP:Due front. Dick Swaab is not an expert on this topic and begins the section talking about child sexual abuse, which is not the same [as] pedophilia." I was questioning how Swaab is using the term pedophilia, given that he begins by focusing on child sexual abuse and states that Catholic Church sexual abuse cases "show that, as a result of the taboo surrounding pedophilia, we have no idea how frequently such abuse actually occurs -- not just in the church but in general." The vast majority of the men involved in the Catholic Church sexual abuse cases are not pedophiles. That is made clear in this section of the Catholic Church sexual abuse cases article. The vast majority aren't hebephiles or ephebophiles either, since, like pedophilia, preference matters. As noted in this section of the Pedophilia article, being drawn to prepubescent children sexually does not automatically make one a pedophile. Michael C. Seto and other experts in this field are clear about that. There is such a thing as the situational offender. This type of offender, as noted in the aforementioned section of the Catholic Church sexual abuse cases article, may be indiscriminate. The urge to sexually abuse a prepubescent child given the chance situation exists for them and yet they will not be diagnosed as pedophiles since they are indiscriminate. That Swaab is a neuroscientist obviously doesn't mean that he's an expert on this topic and isn't prone to conflating child sexual abuse with pedophilia. He also speaks of the cause(s) of pedophilia with certainty when experts on the matter relay that they are not certain what causes it.
As for whether the aspect you cited should be included with different sources, this is where I will state "Not sure about that." Both the "Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Forensic Neuroscience Volumes 1-2" source and the "Biological Influences on Criminal Behavior" source you linked to are talking about the case of one man. Not multiple people. Swaab also talks about this man. And the "Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Forensic Neuroscience Volumes 1-2" source notes that the man "also started soliciting prostitutes." So after psychologically examining him, would experts on pedophilia diagnose him with pedophilia? Would they even consider it true pedophilia since it apparently went away and they are clear that pedophilia does not go away? On the other hand, since the man was sexually interested in prepubescent children and collected child pornography (a typical behavioral characteristic of pedophiles), this may provide insight into how pedophilia works (or can work, taking into account the possibility of more than one cause).
Obviously, you can ask for other opinions. Legitimus, James Cantor, and or Crossroads may consider it a worthwhile addition. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I am not particularly concerned as to whether it's added or not, you make a reasonable argument. Sxologist (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Let's hold off on adding it then, per above. Crossroads -talk- 19:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

"Pedophilia is a psychological disorder"

This is the same error as on the Chronophilia page, so I will post my comment from there: 

    The article says, "Pedophilia is a psychological disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children. According to the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), pedophilia is a paraphilia in which a person has intense sexual urges towards children, and experiences recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about children. Pedophilic disorder is further defined as psychological disorder in which a person meets the criteria for pedophilia above, and also either acts upon those urges, or else experiences distress or interpersonal difficulty as a consequence." As stated in the quote (and in the DSM-V as well as the ICD-11), in order for an individual to be considered to have pedophilic disorder, their pedophilic feelings must cause distress/impairment for them, or else they must have sexually offended. Pedophilia itself is not an entry in the DSM-V (manual of mental disorder); it is not itself labelled a disorder/illness of any sort by the DSM-V. So, an individual's being a pedophile does not imply that they are disordered. It is therefore in error that this page uses the DSM-V to assert that pedophilia itself is a psychological disorder. This must be fixed, but @Flyer22 Frozen keeps reverting my corrections.

This page is protected, so I cannot fix the inaccuracy (nor would @Flyer22 Frozen likely allow me to, for whatever reason). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miripog (talk • contribs) 19:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

This matter is already addressed in detail under the article section "Debate regarding criteria". Also, you have misread the matter of Criteria B. It states "acted on these sexual urges," not sexually offended. An individual can act on their urges without breaking the law. This includes masturbation without the use of child pornography, or the use of "simulated" pornography in jurisdictions where this is not an offense. Absent that and distress would raise questions about whether the individual actually meets Criteria A all, or is merely psychotic or has an anxiety disorder causing them to fear they meet Criteria A.Legitimus (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
The lead sentence of the Pedophilia article is somewhat different than what is currently in the Chronophilia article. But as made clear here, here and here, there is no error in calling pedophilia a mental, psychological or psychiatric disorder and we will not be removing that aspect from the lead sentence. Not at this point in time. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Legitimus, that is irrelevant because it is still entirely possible to have a feeling and completely abstain from any action related to it. If it is possible to be a pedophile and not be disordered, then pedophilia is not a disorder. @Flyer22 Frozen, you can't use the DSM as a source for a claim the DSM does not back up. Therefore, there exists an unsubstantiated claim in this article. You are giving undue weight to an a claim that can only be assumed false due to not being proven anywhere credible. This is a denial of reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miripog (talk • contribs) 17:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but your attempt at equivocation in order to force the statement that "pedophilia isn't a disorder" isn't likely to gain traction here.Legitimus (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Article subject and common meaning

Reading this, it appears that the article subject is a very narrow technical thing of being attracted to prepubescent children, rather than the more common notion of "pedophilia" referring to attraction to minors per se. I understand that there is a hatnote atop the page to distinguish it from other narrow technical things, but I think that this serving as a summary style article on disorders involving attraction to minors might be a better structure given the common language use of the term (which also appears to be the way the term is used in List of pedophile advocacy organizations and Anti-pedophile activism). We also refer to the common use of the term as "misuse" in wikivoice, which feels a bit odd considering the overwhelming use of the term and also the sourcing for the claim including a press release by the... USCCB. Is there a particular policy reason that the article is structured the way it is now? — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

This is on purpose. This is a medical (psychiatric) topic, and as such is subject to WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS, and to defining the topic as those sources do. WP:MEDTITLE in particular may be of interest. Medical sources define the topic as laid out in this article, and this has to overrule the casual use of the term as an equivalent to "child sexual abuse/abuser" that appears in the popular media. Ping Legitimus as he has expertise in mental health and has done good work on this topic for many years. Crossroads -talk- 07:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Crossroads covered the reason fairly well. This article in particular has needed to be held to a very high standard for technical and academic sourcing because it is such a difficult and treacherous subject that could easily spiral off into uselessness, confusion and error if poorer quality sourcing were permitted. Furthermore, Wikipedia is under no obligation to reflect "common use" of words, and I would contend the "commoness" in this case is unproven and debatable. While I am aware of the need for balancing of linguistic description and linguistic prescription, people often forget that the latter is not automatically a "bad" thing to be avoided. Some enforcement of correct usage is necessary, especially with medical terms. I myself was surprised to have been mistaken on meanings of terms on several occasions after finding Wikipedia articles on those subjects (and verifying their sources), and we even have an incredibly popular and well-respected article on things lots of people get wrong.Legitimus (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads and Legitimus: That makes sense; thank you. I'm personally a hardcore linguistic descriptionist and I'd content that the "commonness" in this case is pretty well established (see typical dictionary definitons), but the MED-related restrictions make sense. It seems like the term "pedophile" itself might be a potential candidate for a WP:WORDISSUBJECT article that's separate from the article whose subject is the psychosexual disorder, though I personally have no desire to write an article that covers the history of that term in-depth for the reason that I'd like to keep my sanity. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

December 13 comment

As https://blog.ted.com/tedx-talk-under-review/ says "This field of science is developing, and the definition of the condition is just one of many points that are in debate across the global scientific community (and even in standard reference works)."

So this should really be a disambiguation page. TheLittleAmericanMonkey (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

That in no way follows, a TED blog is not an WP:RS, and on this topic we follow the WP:MEDRS. Crossroads -talk- 04:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Pedosexuality

In my mothertongue, Dutch, sometimes a distinction is made between pedophilia (loving kids) and pedosexuality (feeling sexually atrtacted to kids). Granted, usually pedophilia refers to sexual attraction to kids in Dutch as well, but i do wonder if the word pedosexuality should be mentioned here at all. As a non-native speaker i won't boldly add it myself in such a sensitive subject. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 16:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

While the etymological roots are comprehensible, the term "pedosexual" would be considered highly obscure and unusual in English. Yes, there are a few English language sources that use it, but it's never caught on in academic circles and I dare say most English-speakers have probably not heard it before. As shown in the History section of this article, sometimes medical professionals try to coin new terms for things (for varying reasons, including egotism) but those terms never end up catching on.Legitimus (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for explaining! PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 19:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

"Pedocriminality" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Pedocriminality and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 6#Pedocriminality until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Crossroads -talk- 04:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

MAPS

I am here to mention the inclusion of Minor-attracted people/person, which is basically the Twitter term for pedophile ::::

Lol thanks for mentioning it. In turn, I am here to mention tuna salad. Isthistwisted (talk) 08:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

clarifying evolutionary perspectives

Hello @Crossroads !

Please help me clarify the issue of fringe theory.

As far as I understand, If somewhat labeled as a fringe theory, then the most prominent theory must be mentioned. And even It is legitimate to describe in Wiki articles alternative scientific theories with suitable proportion to the main view, isn't? Though I haven't found a more reliable theory than those described in "Pedophilia biosocial dimensions". Can you show examples of a mainstream theories regarding evolutionary processes underlying pedophilia? Azureham (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Azureham: Please have a look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). On Wikipedia we prefer using up-to-date, high quality secondary sources such as review articles for biomedical information. The Feierman book is a collection of papers from a 1987 ISHE symposium hosted by the Congregation of the Servants of the Paraclete in Jemez Springs, New Mexico.[3] This is a primary and outdated source.
I also have misgivings about the involvement of the Servants of the Paraclete. The congregation ran an unlicensed treatment facility for Catholic priests accused of sexual misconduct.[4] The place had a reputation for covering up abuse and sending perpetrators back to active ministry.[5] Feierman, who worked there, falsely claimed that the facility had a 0% recidivism rate.[6] gnu57 15:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree with this, and to add on, the idea that pedophilia has any evolutionary significance is absent from recent, reliable sources. Psychologists, psychiatrists, anthropologists, and evolutionary psychologists all ignore it and do not consider it to have any explanatory virtue. Therefore, we do the same. The view of experts, rather, is that pedophilia is a disorder of the mind. Crossroads -talk- 21:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
@Genericusername57@Crossroads, Thanks for your answers !
I have considered your remarks. But I'm a bit confused about the requirements.
Below are my thoughts on the remarks.
1.Reputation of Feierman.
This is very sad information you have given about Feierman’s false claim. Such a lie is criminal and against science. Although it has nothing to do with the scientific value of research published in this book. de Waal and Eibl Eibesfeldt are highly reliable researchers in human ethology. Their research has value independently of Feierman’s reputation.
2.Evolutionary explanation versus disorder.
I think this opposition is a mistake. Postulating a phenomenon as a mental disorder does not negate the need for an evolutionary explanation.  Any behavior, both normal and disordered, has neurobiological, motivational, developmental, social, and evolutionary causes. Those are different aspects of a whole phenomena.
Please, have a look
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychiatry
3.Academic consensus and scientific attention.
As far as I know, there is no academic consensus on any type of causes of pedophilia. We can now describe only some of the findings regarding the causes. If most scientists do not address evolutionary explanations, it is because their attention is directed to other aspects of causes, not due to absence of evolutionary causes. (There are no scientists who directly claim that the evolutionary explanations are not applicable to the case of pedophilia. Such a claim would be nonsense.) And although there is not much scientific attention to the study of evolutionary causes, there are authors who mention this aspect and refer to some of the hypotheses I have cited and find some evidence for them. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00645/full
“A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.” Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources
Due to the absence of consensus which directly contradicts a hypothesis, I think the most prominent hypothesis deserves mention in proportion to the available evidence.
4.Primary sources and medical reviews.
I see that primary researchers, not just reviews and meta-analyses, are widely used in the whole article and in particular in the Causes paragraph. If we write statements about the treatment of pedophilic disorder, then we must strongly stick to requirements for medical data and refer to reviews. But we are addressing ethology and evolution here, not medicine. In this case, reviews are desirable, but if they are absent, they are not strictly required.
5. Outdated research
As far as I understand, there is no criterion for how many years must pass for the source to become obsolete. The point is the relative modernity of the sources.
Please let me know if I got something wrong.
At the same time I agree with you that my paragraph is a large block of material based almost on a single primary source. (“Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided.” Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources). So I agree, that it doesn't look appropriate enough now.
If I rewrite the material in a brief form with focus on later sources referring to the hypotheses mentioned, would that be more appropriate? Azureham (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
As this is a psychiatric disorder, WP:MEDRS applies to the entirety of the topic. Regarding age of sources, WP:MEDDATE applies. Speculations about evolutionary history are not a part of the explanatory framework among relevant experts in psychology and related fields. Evolutionary psychologists and anthropologists also generally do not view pedophilia as having any evolutionary significance in human evolution. Modern scholarly encyclopedic works in psychology do not include these ideas, and hence neither do we. Crossroads -talk- 06:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, thank you for your guidance about secondary sources. I think I got the point, so I will try an additional search on the topic.
Yet, in order to avoid overgeneralization, could you please specify sources, authors or search methods from which you conclude. And I think we should avoid equating evolutionary significance and evolutionary antecedents. The adaptive functions may or may not occur, but some evolutionary antecedents always exist. Azureham (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I have found that at least two modern scholarly encyclopedias include some evolutionary hypotheses of pedophilia. Do you consider them reliable?
Evolutionary Psychiatry. A new beginning. By Anthony Stevens, John Price (2016) [7]
Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science 1st ed. 2021 (Edition by Todd K. Shackelford, Viviana A. Weekes-Shackelford) [8] Azureham (talk) 08:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
As far as I can tell neither of these works are by recognized academic experts in pedophilia. It remains true that most works on evolutionary psychology don't venture into this. The latter doesn't even seem to have an entry for it. Ultimately this doesn't seem too convincing as far as WP:DUE and amounts to speculation on their part. That may result in hypotheses for them to test, but that isn't WP:MEDRS results that we should be including. Crossroads -talk- 02:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Please provide what sources you rely on to draw such conclusions. I'm wondering how you define who is an expert and what is the most works. We should not use Wikipedia:Weasel words
Consider that other phenomena have an evolutionary explanation, such as homosexuality or depression. And not every scientific entry on the topic of homosexuality or depression mentions evolutionary explanations. This is not a sign of the failure of the evolutionary explanation. Also, for example, the Eibl-Eibesfeldt hypothesis does have some evidence, and not just a speculation. Azureham (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedophilia/Archive_21&oldid=1151299353"