This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jokestress (talk | contribs) at 22:41, 23 September 2010 (→Abstain: citation rate). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:41, 23 September 2010 by Jokestress (talk | contribs) (→Abstain: citation rate)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 | Per the Misplaced Pages:Child protection policy, editors who attempt to use Misplaced Pages to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships, or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be indefinitely blocked. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pedophilia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 10 days  |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pedophilia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 10 days |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
The "actual definition" of pedophilia
Since the editors here were instrumental in stopping a "POV fork" that discussed the conceptualizations of this phenomenon which have been systematically excluded from this article, let's start discussing the "actual definition" mentioned in the thread above (as opposed to the narrow mental disorder on which the article is based now). Since many of you voted against Wikiposter's excellent proposed summary, I am going to quote at length from a terminological summary in the published literature:
Research in the field of sexual abuse is so underdeveloped that disagreement exists even over what to call the phenomenon itself. Although much of the research on victims has called the phenomenon sexual abuse, the research on offenders has tended to call it child molesting or pedophilia. The term pedophilia has some utility because it suggests an internal predisposition that is independent of an actual offense. But, unfortunately, even the meaning of pedophilia itself is a matter of some controversy, with different theorists and investigators defining it in different ways. Some have used it in what might be called an "inclusive" fashion, considering pedophilia as any sexual contact with or interest in a child, however transitory this behavior (see, for example, Mohr, Turner, & Jerry, 1964; Friedman 1959). Others (for example, American Psychiatric Association, 1980) have reserved the term to mean only the condition of persons having an enduring and exclusive sexual interest in children (called "fixated" offenders by Groth, 1979, or "sexual preference mediated" offenders by Howells, 1981).
In this review, in which we will be using all three terms—sexual abuse, child molesting, and pedophilia—we will use the term pedophilia in its broader "inclusive" definition, taking into account the behavior of any individual who has had sexual contact with children, including incest offenders. We favor this definition of the term because the other definition reflects a particular theory about pedophilia, one that has some empirical support, but is far from being fully substantiated. Moreover, the other restrictive definition makes pedophilia a complex psychological condition to deduce, requiring detailed analysis of an individual’s history and motivation. We favor being able to define the category by some more readily ascertainable behavioral criteria, which is easier to do with the broader definition.
The concepts of sexual abuse and child molesting are not entirely equivalent to pedophilia, even in its broader definition. Although sexual abuse and child molesting are actual behaviors, pedophilia is essentially a state in which an individual is predisposed to use children for his or her sexual gratification. Sexual abuse and child molesting are evidence of the existence of that state.
Specifically, we define pedophilia as occurring when an adult has a conscious sexual interest in prepubertal children. We infer that sexual interest from one of two behaviors: (1) the adult has had some sexual contact with a child (meaning that he or she touched the child or had the child touch him or her with the purpose of becoming sexually aroused), or (2) the adult has masturbated to sexual fantasies involving children.
Source: Araji S, Finkelhor D (1993). Abusers: A review of the research. In A sourcebook on child sexual abuse, pp. 89-90. SAGE, ISBN 9780803927490
Emphasis mine. I propose we use this as a basis of the "actual definition" of pedophilia (sexual interest in children) if editors are going to prohibit a separate umbrella article to discuss the phenomenon, which we usually do here. The APA/ICD consensus definitions are all well and good, but we are supposed to cover all significant POVs on how to conceptualize adult sexual interest in children. The overemphasis on two trade groups (especially calling their competitors' definitions "misuse") is a violation of WP:NPOV. Oh, and before someone claims this person is not an "expert," the author is David Finkelhor, a noted sociologist who studies adult sexual interest in children and sex crimes against children. Jokestress (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- As I stated above, "We've been over this time and time again, the actual definition of pedophilia is not 'adult sexual interest in children,' and for good reason, seeing as 'adult sexual interest in children' covers more than pedophilia." We all went over this in the Afd for Adult sexual interest in children, which even had its title changed because of the fact that "adult sexual interest in children" does not always or necessarily equate to pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Copying and pasting replies isn't going to make the problem go away. Right now the lede says pedophilia is a mental/psychiatric disorder, but you're also claiming we need to cover the entire phenomenon of sexual interest in children here, rather than in a separate article. You can't have it both ways. Either we cover all definitions here without favoring a specific POV, or we limit this article to defining the mental disorder. The above definition is not "misuse of terminology." Our policy is verifiability, not truth. Where do you propose we put the well-sourced definition above (which is much closer to the way almost everyone describes the phenomenon)? Since we have nowhere to discuss the phenomenon but here now, we need to include all definitions without favoring one with WP:UNDUE weight. Jokestress (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Constantly repeating what has already been extensively addressed is not going to make us suddenly agree with your view. We cover enough of the phenomenon of sexual interest in children here. This article is not for an in-depth analysis of all that. It is for pedophilia, and not all sexual interest in children (children often covering 17 and under) is pedophilia, no matter how much you try to say that it is. This was covered in the AfD, and everyone was clear, except for you, about what pedophilia truly is. Everyone else was simply trying to decide if we should have an article covering pedophilia and the sexual interest in children outside of pedophilia. Society often calling any sexual interest in someone under 18 "pedophilia" does not make it pedophilia. Miley Cyrus's boyfriend is not a pedophile. It is misuse of terminology if not referring to prepubescent children and the sexual preference for them. There is no problem here. This article notes how "almost everyone" (in America, that is) usually uses the term. Making clear that such use is inaccurate is not POV; it is accuracy. Just because it is not Misplaced Pages's job to report the truth, it does not mean we should lie or stray away from the truth. It's just like most people thinking that someone who eats fish is a vegetarian; because of this, we should note such misuse in the lead and point out what vegetarianism truly is. We do that.
- Copying and pasting replies isn't going to make the problem go away. Right now the lede says pedophilia is a mental/psychiatric disorder, but you're also claiming we need to cover the entire phenomenon of sexual interest in children here, rather than in a separate article. You can't have it both ways. Either we cover all definitions here without favoring a specific POV, or we limit this article to defining the mental disorder. The above definition is not "misuse of terminology." Our policy is verifiability, not truth. Where do you propose we put the well-sourced definition above (which is much closer to the way almost everyone describes the phenomenon)? Since we have nowhere to discuss the phenomenon but here now, we need to include all definitions without favoring one with WP:UNDUE weight. Jokestress (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have stated pretty much all I can state on this matter. Maybe some other usual editor of this article would be willing to keep debating this with you. I'm not. Flyer22 (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- I still don't think you are understanding what I'm getting at. You keep bringing up some vague personal definition you think I am trying to include, something involving teenagers. I am talking about reliably sourced definitions used in various disciplines. We'll do them one at a time, starting with the easy ones. Where should we place the definition above: "We define pedophilia as occurring when an adult has a conscious sexual interest in prepubertal children." This is not a "misuse" of terms. It is one of many definitions currently in use. Where do you think it should be included in this article, since you refuse to have an article on the general phenomenon? Once we figure that out, we'll do the next dozen or so "actual" definitions. Jokestress (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- I understand what you are getting at; you have brought it up countless times. You believe that all sexual interest in prepubescent children should be referred to as pedophilia. I am simply saying that your definition -- sexual interest in children -- is vague, as it does not specify what type of children. "Children" refers to more than prepubescent children! That's why I keep bringing up pubescents and post-pubescents (I thought you understood that part of my argument by now). Pedophilia is not simply defined as the sexual interest in children because "children" covers more than prepubescent and the most accurate definition of pedophilia is the preference...or else all child molesters would be diagnosed as pedophiles. How many times do I have to "say" it? The line "We define pedophilia as occurring when an adult has a conscious sexual interest in prepubertal children." is already addressed in the lead. We call it a "misuse" because it is clear that not all people who have thought about a prepubescent child in a sexual way or child molesters are pedophiles. This is why pedophilia, in the medical field, is generally defined by the preference; it is defined that way for good reason. I am not for your definition being called pedophilia in this article at all. But, look, it already is; the Diagnosis section clearly goes over "exclusive" and "non-exclusive" pedophiles. And I was actually for an article on the "general phenomenon"...as long as it did not call all sexual interest in children "pedophilia." Yes, when I hear of a man having sexually abused a prepubescent child, I, like a lot of other people, are quick to call him a pedophile. But I, unlike most of those other people, also know there is a chance that he is not one.
- I still don't think you are understanding what I'm getting at. You keep bringing up some vague personal definition you think I am trying to include, something involving teenagers. I am talking about reliably sourced definitions used in various disciplines. We'll do them one at a time, starting with the easy ones. Where should we place the definition above: "We define pedophilia as occurring when an adult has a conscious sexual interest in prepubertal children." This is not a "misuse" of terms. It is one of many definitions currently in use. Where do you think it should be included in this article, since you refuse to have an article on the general phenomenon? Once we figure that out, we'll do the next dozen or so "actual" definitions. Jokestress (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have stated pretty much all I can state on this matter. Maybe some other usual editor of this article would be willing to keep debating this with you. I'm not. Flyer22 (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Your initial problem with this article was us calling pedophilia a mental disorder. Let me remind you that we are only calling the preference a mental disorder. Sexual interest in prepubescent children outside of pedophilia is not being called a mental disorder, though still not relayed as normal either; thus, you have nothing to worry about there. Flyer22 (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- If it will help move things forward, let me state my views for the record: I consider "pedophilia" an iatrogenic artifact, the medicalization of a social problem. I don't feel anything should be referred to as "pedophilia," as it mis-frames the concept within the problematic taxonomy of "paraphilia," which is a holdover from eugenic ideology about "degeneracy." Further, I consider the concept of mental illness/disorder to be the same thing: a metaphorical disease model used to medicalize behavior that annoys or offends others. That said, the term "pedophilia" should absolutely be covered on this project, just as we cover hystero-epilepsy, the vapours, and other psychological fads.
- Now that we have that out of the way, my opinion is irrelevant as far as article content. The problem here (which is relevant) is the sloppy way in which we cover the reliable sources which discuss this topic. There is a phenomenon, and there are a number of ways to describe that phenomenon. One of those is the term "pedophilia." The term "pedophilia" has many definitions, one of which describes a mental disorder. The other uses are not a "misuse of terminology," they are competing definitions proposed/used by other experts, other fields, and the lay public. The reason we should distinguish the phenomenon from the term is because this semantic problem is discussed at length in reliable sources. The phenomenon exists. That is different than saying "pedophilia exists," which is reification. That is why we have extensive precedent on this project for separate articles for phenomena and the terms which describe them. Finkelhor's definition is not a "misuse." It is a use. Just because one editor here works with a bunch of guys who are pushing a specific definition for the therm "pedophilia" does not mean they have a monopoly on how to define "pedophilia." Just because you agree with their definition does not make it the only one. We need to include ALL definitions, giving appropriate weight for each. We need to specify who uses it how and who uses it where. This is standard practice on this project. An example is intelligence, another vaguely defined concept with a lot of definitions in use. The only reason this specific topic gets special treatment is because everyone is so paranoid that anyone pointing out how sloppy this article is must be here to "promote pedophilia." It's the cudgel you all wield to shut down any changes to the article you WP:OWN.
- Now, where shall we include Finkelhor so his definition is not characterized as "misuse"? Jokestress (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've already said most of all I have to say on the matter. Do not feel like repeating myself, as it seems you just don't get it. I'll leave you to the others...if they even care to comment anymore. Flyer22 (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Your initial problem with this article was us calling pedophilia a mental disorder. Let me remind you that we are only calling the preference a mental disorder. Sexual interest in prepubescent children outside of pedophilia is not being called a mental disorder, though still not relayed as normal either; thus, you have nothing to worry about there. Flyer22 (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Merging sections on definitions
I propose we merge the sections "Etymology and history" and "Misuse of terminology" under the heading "Etymology and definitions" at the start of the article. This will allow us to cover the many ways the term is used right at the onset without undue weight on one trade group's consensus definition. Per Flyer22's example, this is what we do on Vegetarianism, and per my example, this is what we do on Intelligence. This will give us a place to discuss all operating definitions used in reliable sources, such as the Finkelhor above. Jokestress (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- I meant to say earlier that I would kind of be okay with you putting Finkelhor's definition in the Diagnosis section, since the non-typical way pedophilia is defined by experts is also there. You need to make certain that Finkelhor truly defines pedophilia that way, though. There are plenty of experts who may say pedophilia is the "sexual interest in children" as a quick explanation without specifying "preference"...even though they believe it should only be defined by the preference. There have been times when I simply said "interest"...but I have usually hit myself on the head afterwards (in response to not having been specific enough). With putting Finkelhor in the Diagnosis section, I am also worried about us just putting random definitions/opinions in that section...when they are not authoritative.
- As for defining pedophilia as a sexual preference first and foremost, as we do in the lead, that is not undo weight. It is the way the term originated/was first defined in the medical/psychological field, thanks to Richard von Krafft-Ebing, and it is the way the ICD-10 and DSM define the term as well. Now before you say the DSM does not say "preference," I point out that what the DSM is describing is a preference; they are not describing an "occasional" or "sometimes" feeling. And I actually would be okay with merging the sections "Etymology and history" and "Misuse of terminology" under the heading "Etymology and definitions"...as long as the subheadings stay intact (after all, some of the things in the misuse section are without a doubt misuses)...and if weren't for the fact that the Diagnosis section also covers definitions, or the fact that I feel that the "Misuse of terminology" section is something that belongs in the "Legal and social issues" part of this article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Since no one else has objected or commented in the past few days, I am going to implement this now. Jokestress (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Reads ok to me. Nice work.Legitimus (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- I partially object. And I already explained why. Just because other editors do not reply to you, it does not mean consensus has been achieved. The Misuse of terminology section was there for good reason. I will try to compromise, however, and go ahead and look over everything you did. Flyer22 (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I left all your edits in, except for the change of the Misuse of terminology section. It is more so a social issue, and we will not have it under "definitions" as if people are completely valid in calling the act..."pedophilia" when it very well may not be. And especially in regards to pubescent and post-pubescent individuals. You are more than welcome to add other opinions from experts in the field under Other uses, though. I will also go ahead and add the FBI's definitions there as well. Flyer22 (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Other uses and actual definitions are not "misuse of terminology." Verifiability, not truth. If you feel the DSM is the One True Definition™ (even though it changes every time), that's great, but the Wiktionary entry and any dictionary will easily demonstrate that other uses are not "misuses." They are other uses. Since we are forced to cover all uses here per consensus, that's what's going to have to happen until we have consensus to split out the mental disorder into a separate article. You enthusiastically voted for that, so here we are. Jokestress (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Everything in the Misuse of terminology section is a misuse...unless you are saying that the act of sexually abusing a prepubescent child is always pedophilia, and that the act of engaging in sex with pubescent and post-pubescent minors is pedophilia as well. This is verifiability and truth. Nowhere does Misplaced Pages say we should not provide truth. Misplaced Pages strives for accuracy, in fact... The Misuse of terminology section is accurate, and I even tweaked it for what you consider neutrality. I did not enthusiastically vote for a separate article on the mental dsiorder. I voted for an article discussing the actual definition, which is the mental disorder, and backed up an article on the act and how people carelessly use the term to refer to a sexual interest in pubescent and post-pubescent minors. There in that AfD, you said I kept confusing the act. No, it seems you keep confusing the act. The act is not pedophilia, no matter how many people try to define it that way. Pedophilia is about what goes on in the mind. And the common usage of describing every attraction under 18 as "pedophilia" is not "pedophilia" either. You looked at the Vegetarianism article. Then take a close look at its lead; we are clearly saying pescetarianism is not true vegetarianism. Just because some people define pescetarianism as vegetarianism...it does not mean they are correct. It would be undue weight to have a section saying that such a definition is perfectly valid. Ironically, I was originally for that article welcoming pescetarianism as valid vegetarianism. But people pointed to the most authoritative source for the term -- the Vegetarian Society. That's what we do here as well, we list the most authoritative sources...and they say pedophilia is a sexual preference for prepubescent children. The Wiktionary is not a reliable source. And the dictionary cannot be used as an authoritative source here either; the dictionary does not even generally specify "prepubescent." That is a mistake, since "child" generally means 17 and under. If we go by the dictionary's definition, which has been discussed here before, then pedophilia would include a sexual attraction to adult bodies as well. Nope, that is not pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- You enthusiastically voted to have all POVs and definitions about this phenomenon covered in this one article, so here we are. That's what we are going to do until it's decided that we need an article specifically about the mental disorder. That means that the mental disorder is only one of many definitions we will be discussing. And it's not the "correct" definition. We need to cover all uses without favoring the one you like best. Jokestress (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Not what I voted for. Go back and read what I said and voted for. And stop telling me that's what we are going to do, as if you have some authority to decide what is best for this article. There's a reason "your article" was voted down. The stuff you want covered is already covered here and at the Child sexual abuse article. You want a bit more covered here on the sexual interest in prepubescent children outside of pedophilia? Fine. But, since you like to state what we will be covering here, let me be clear about this: We will not have an article half on the medical term and half on various other ways people use the term. That is not what this article is for. It is not for UNDUE WEIGHT. Yes, the correct definition is the sexual preference for prepubescent children -- the mental disorder. Just as the correct definition for Anorexia nervosa is "an eating disorder characterized by refusal to maintain a healthy body weight, and an obsessive fear of gaining weight due to a distorted self image..." Your problem is that you don't like pedophilia being called a mental disorder. Stop pretending as though you are sincerely worried about presenting everyone else's POV of the term, which includes the hugely inaccurate "definitions" included in the Misuse of terminology section. Uh, because, yes, they are misuses. Flyer22 (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Anorexia nervosa is a perfect example. We have an article on the mental disorder, and separate articles for each of the other definitions. Because of the topic, those other articles are not considered "promoting anorexia." Unfortunately, some editors have decided that this topic is a special case that does not follow precedent. Since we don't have that option here, we have to cover all of it in this article for now. You continue to misstate my POV. I (and others, including experts) think the term "pedophilia" should be deprecated because it has lost utility. There is no agreement among experts on what it means and how it should be used. Furthermore, it misframes the phenomenon within a eugenic ideology. I'll be getting into all those definitional concerns shortly. In the meantime, you need to assume good faith and focus on content. My personal POV is not relevant. However, my POV that all POVs should be fairly represented is not only relevant, it is policy. Jokestress (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- What other definitions of Anorexia nervosa are you speaking of? There are no articles around here claiming that such a disorder is not a disorder...is my point. There is a bit of disagreement among experts about what pedophilia means, but most consider it a mental disorder -- a sexual preference for prepubescent children. I have not misinterpreted you at all; I simply went back to your first post to this talk page. I only assume good faith when I have reason to. Flyer22 (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Let's see. There's Anorexia nervosa (differential diagnoses) and Anorexia (symptom) and Anorexia mirabilis and Eating disorder and Eating disorder not otherwise specified, just for all the medicalized definitions experts use to describe these phenomena. There's also Pro-ana for those who disagree with the characterization of this as a mental disorder. People like Thomas Szasz have weighed in specifically on the notion of pathologizing "anorexia" as a form of social control (e.g. Foucault's ungovernable person). Yet for Pedophilia, we have to cover everything in this one article. My attempt to split this out in order to cover all aspects of the phenomenon was declared "promoting pedophilia." So we need to discuss the lay definitions, the definitions (note plural) used in mental health, and the philosophical concerns about these "expert" definitions. Jokestress (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- I said, "What other definitions of Anorexia nervosa are you speaking of?" The Anorexia nervosa (differential diagnoses) article is still speaking of the disorder. The Anorexia (symptom) article is not necessarily about the eating disorder, and the Anorexia mirabilis article is about stressing its difference from the disorder. The Eating disorder article speaks for itself, which includes Anorexia nervosa. Two of those articles are not covered in the Anorexia nervosa article....because they aren't Anorexia nervosa. And the belief that Anorexia nervosa is not a disorder is a fringe belief, typically held by those with the eating disorder themselves. The same goes for pedophilia. Even the general public you seem so eager to defend consider it a mental disorder. Thus...here we go again, with your trying to say we should take the "mental disorder" out of pedophilia. You have only yourself to blame for being seen as promoting pedophilia. There is no Pedophilia (sexual act), Pedophilia (lay person use), and you already know why. All this stuff was not put into its own article for very valid reasons, and not simply because people saw it as POV fork. Those same reasons apply to this medical article. If it wasn't good enough for its own article, it certainly is not good enough to cloud and muddy this one. We need to discuss the lay definitions? We already do! We call them wrong because they are! There is no reason we should discuss those uses in greater detail. As I said below: WP:Undue says: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public." What the general public believes -- that pedophilia generally means the act and applies to anything under 18 -- should not dominate here. That goes for reliable mainstream sources calling Mark Foley a pedophile. The general belief that he is one...does not mean we should give people the impression they are right about that. The simple fact is...they aren't. Flyer22 (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've taken this discussion to Misplaced Pages:RFC to get a wider view on this yet again. Flyer22 (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- I said, "What other definitions of Anorexia nervosa are you speaking of?" The Anorexia nervosa (differential diagnoses) article is still speaking of the disorder. The Anorexia (symptom) article is not necessarily about the eating disorder, and the Anorexia mirabilis article is about stressing its difference from the disorder. The Eating disorder article speaks for itself, which includes Anorexia nervosa. Two of those articles are not covered in the Anorexia nervosa article....because they aren't Anorexia nervosa. And the belief that Anorexia nervosa is not a disorder is a fringe belief, typically held by those with the eating disorder themselves. The same goes for pedophilia. Even the general public you seem so eager to defend consider it a mental disorder. Thus...here we go again, with your trying to say we should take the "mental disorder" out of pedophilia. You have only yourself to blame for being seen as promoting pedophilia. There is no Pedophilia (sexual act), Pedophilia (lay person use), and you already know why. All this stuff was not put into its own article for very valid reasons, and not simply because people saw it as POV fork. Those same reasons apply to this medical article. If it wasn't good enough for its own article, it certainly is not good enough to cloud and muddy this one. We need to discuss the lay definitions? We already do! We call them wrong because they are! There is no reason we should discuss those uses in greater detail. As I said below: WP:Undue says: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public." What the general public believes -- that pedophilia generally means the act and applies to anything under 18 -- should not dominate here. That goes for reliable mainstream sources calling Mark Foley a pedophile. The general belief that he is one...does not mean we should give people the impression they are right about that. The simple fact is...they aren't. Flyer22 (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Let's see. There's Anorexia nervosa (differential diagnoses) and Anorexia (symptom) and Anorexia mirabilis and Eating disorder and Eating disorder not otherwise specified, just for all the medicalized definitions experts use to describe these phenomena. There's also Pro-ana for those who disagree with the characterization of this as a mental disorder. People like Thomas Szasz have weighed in specifically on the notion of pathologizing "anorexia" as a form of social control (e.g. Foucault's ungovernable person). Yet for Pedophilia, we have to cover everything in this one article. My attempt to split this out in order to cover all aspects of the phenomenon was declared "promoting pedophilia." So we need to discuss the lay definitions, the definitions (note plural) used in mental health, and the philosophical concerns about these "expert" definitions. Jokestress (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- What other definitions of Anorexia nervosa are you speaking of? There are no articles around here claiming that such a disorder is not a disorder...is my point. There is a bit of disagreement among experts about what pedophilia means, but most consider it a mental disorder -- a sexual preference for prepubescent children. I have not misinterpreted you at all; I simply went back to your first post to this talk page. I only assume good faith when I have reason to. Flyer22 (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Anorexia nervosa is a perfect example. We have an article on the mental disorder, and separate articles for each of the other definitions. Because of the topic, those other articles are not considered "promoting anorexia." Unfortunately, some editors have decided that this topic is a special case that does not follow precedent. Since we don't have that option here, we have to cover all of it in this article for now. You continue to misstate my POV. I (and others, including experts) think the term "pedophilia" should be deprecated because it has lost utility. There is no agreement among experts on what it means and how it should be used. Furthermore, it misframes the phenomenon within a eugenic ideology. I'll be getting into all those definitional concerns shortly. In the meantime, you need to assume good faith and focus on content. My personal POV is not relevant. However, my POV that all POVs should be fairly represented is not only relevant, it is policy. Jokestress (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Not what I voted for. Go back and read what I said and voted for. And stop telling me that's what we are going to do, as if you have some authority to decide what is best for this article. There's a reason "your article" was voted down. The stuff you want covered is already covered here and at the Child sexual abuse article. You want a bit more covered here on the sexual interest in prepubescent children outside of pedophilia? Fine. But, since you like to state what we will be covering here, let me be clear about this: We will not have an article half on the medical term and half on various other ways people use the term. That is not what this article is for. It is not for UNDUE WEIGHT. Yes, the correct definition is the sexual preference for prepubescent children -- the mental disorder. Just as the correct definition for Anorexia nervosa is "an eating disorder characterized by refusal to maintain a healthy body weight, and an obsessive fear of gaining weight due to a distorted self image..." Your problem is that you don't like pedophilia being called a mental disorder. Stop pretending as though you are sincerely worried about presenting everyone else's POV of the term, which includes the hugely inaccurate "definitions" included in the Misuse of terminology section. Uh, because, yes, they are misuses. Flyer22 (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- You enthusiastically voted to have all POVs and definitions about this phenomenon covered in this one article, so here we are. That's what we are going to do until it's decided that we need an article specifically about the mental disorder. That means that the mental disorder is only one of many definitions we will be discussing. And it's not the "correct" definition. We need to cover all uses without favoring the one you like best. Jokestress (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Everything in the Misuse of terminology section is a misuse...unless you are saying that the act of sexually abusing a prepubescent child is always pedophilia, and that the act of engaging in sex with pubescent and post-pubescent minors is pedophilia as well. This is verifiability and truth. Nowhere does Misplaced Pages say we should not provide truth. Misplaced Pages strives for accuracy, in fact... The Misuse of terminology section is accurate, and I even tweaked it for what you consider neutrality. I did not enthusiastically vote for a separate article on the mental dsiorder. I voted for an article discussing the actual definition, which is the mental disorder, and backed up an article on the act and how people carelessly use the term to refer to a sexual interest in pubescent and post-pubescent minors. There in that AfD, you said I kept confusing the act. No, it seems you keep confusing the act. The act is not pedophilia, no matter how many people try to define it that way. Pedophilia is about what goes on in the mind. And the common usage of describing every attraction under 18 as "pedophilia" is not "pedophilia" either. You looked at the Vegetarianism article. Then take a close look at its lead; we are clearly saying pescetarianism is not true vegetarianism. Just because some people define pescetarianism as vegetarianism...it does not mean they are correct. It would be undue weight to have a section saying that such a definition is perfectly valid. Ironically, I was originally for that article welcoming pescetarianism as valid vegetarianism. But people pointed to the most authoritative source for the term -- the Vegetarian Society. That's what we do here as well, we list the most authoritative sources...and they say pedophilia is a sexual preference for prepubescent children. The Wiktionary is not a reliable source. And the dictionary cannot be used as an authoritative source here either; the dictionary does not even generally specify "prepubescent." That is a mistake, since "child" generally means 17 and under. If we go by the dictionary's definition, which has been discussed here before, then pedophilia would include a sexual attraction to adult bodies as well. Nope, that is not pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Other uses and actual definitions are not "misuse of terminology." Verifiability, not truth. If you feel the DSM is the One True Definition™ (even though it changes every time), that's great, but the Wiktionary entry and any dictionary will easily demonstrate that other uses are not "misuses." They are other uses. Since we are forced to cover all uses here per consensus, that's what's going to have to happen until we have consensus to split out the mental disorder into a separate article. You enthusiastically voted for that, so here we are. Jokestress (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I left all your edits in, except for the change of the Misuse of terminology section. It is more so a social issue, and we will not have it under "definitions" as if people are completely valid in calling the act..."pedophilia" when it very well may not be. And especially in regards to pubescent and post-pubescent individuals. You are more than welcome to add other opinions from experts in the field under Other uses, though. I will also go ahead and add the FBI's definitions there as well. Flyer22 (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- I partially object. And I already explained why. Just because other editors do not reply to you, it does not mean consensus has been achieved. The Misuse of terminology section was there for good reason. I will try to compromise, however, and go ahead and look over everything you did. Flyer22 (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Reads ok to me. Nice work.Legitimus (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Since no one else has objected or commented in the past few days, I am going to implement this now. Jokestress (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Note on identifying as paedophile
We need a note at the top of this page saying that anyone who identifies as a paedophile or who engages in paedophile advocacy will be indeathed per Misplaced Pages:Child protection. There was an incident in which one editor asked another if he was a paedophile, presumably knowing that if he answered yes, he would be banned. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Killing them seems a bit extreme! :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Just added a warning at the top. Jokestress (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm confused, if a person identifies themselves as a paedophile, they will be banned, even if they specifically state they know it is wrong to act on their attractions, and would never do so? Even considering how emotive/sensitive a subject this is, that's still wrong and it's a slippery slope, as you can apply any arguments in support of that against a very very wide range of things. (I agree with the policy regarding advocation of paedophilia though; obviously that warrants a ban) There's a fuckload of very good arguments against this on the policy talk page, which I won't go into here, just link: Wikipedia_talk:Child_protection - Arfed (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree this policy (based on a 35-year-old moral panic) is a slippery slope, but as we saw in the recent AfD, this is not a topic where most people can be objective or unemotional. I feel under the circumstances that it's best to warn any contributor that any deviation from consensus is generally proscribed and subject to a special set of rules that apply only to this topic. Any reliably-sourced POV that varies from mainstream opinion gets branded as "promoting pedophilia," and any editor pointing this out by citing reliable sources can count on the same accusations against them personally. Those interested in getting this policy reviewed should do so at Wikipedia_talk:Child_protection and should make no mention of their reasons for involving themselves in this topic, particularly if their sexual interests have any connection with this subject. Jokestress (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Next step on definitions
Now that the definitions are all in one section, I propose that we structure the definitions to reconcile with the wiktionary definition. That way we are not making this about the numerous biomedical definitions used in mental health, but the "actual" definition we have been discussing above. By structuring it from oldest and most general senses to the many narrow definitions proposed and used in mental health, we will be giving this the required balance and NPOV. If the article ever gets unwieldy, we can revisit a separate article for the mental disorder (which is WAY over-represented in the article right now). Jokestress (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Disagree. And you know you and I disagree on what "the actual" definition is. What lay people think it is...is not how it will generally be defined here. Most of your changes have been accepted, and I would say it is better left at that. Flyer22 (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- All you have to do is provide a reliable source for this "actual definition" I keep hearing about. I have a laundry list of actual definitions we will be including over the next several weeks. I am doing them one at a time. If you want a "misuse" section, that should probably go under all the disease model stuff. It's only a "misuse" under those specific circumstances. This article has huge problems, and I think we can all work together to rectify them. That means making proposals and compromises that reflect reliable sources, not just defending the status quo because it matches one understanding of this phenomenon. Jokestress (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- A reliable source for the actual definition is in the article, plenty -- the sexual preference for prepubescent children. You have a laundry list of misuses...if they are anything similar to what is in the Misuse of terminology section, and we will not be including those as accurate definitions. They will either go in the Other uses section or the Misuse of terminology section, because this article should focus on the most authoritative sources. I am not for the Misuse section going under all the "disease model stuff," and have already explained why. It is only a misuse under those specific circumstances, you say? Oh, so a man who prefers 17 to 18-year-olds is a pedophile because someone incorrectly uses the term? Nope, that's not how it works. This article has huge problems, according to you, and your "solutions" have generally been shot down for a reason. Not because of WP:OWN. Furthermore, you seriously need to gain WP:Consensus before making such huge changes on such a controversial article as this one in the future. Flyer22 (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- All you have to do is provide a reliable source for this "actual definition" I keep hearing about. I have a laundry list of actual definitions we will be including over the next several weeks. I am doing them one at a time. If you want a "misuse" section, that should probably go under all the disease model stuff. It's only a "misuse" under those specific circumstances. This article has huge problems, and I think we can all work together to rectify them. That means making proposals and compromises that reflect reliable sources, not just defending the status quo because it matches one understanding of this phenomenon. Jokestress (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that we should get towards a more general definition of this term. -- Kim van der Linde 20:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Getting towards a "more general definition" of the term would be getting away from the true definition. Is there a true definition? Of course there is. Otherwise, everything would count as pedophilia -- the act, the sexual interest in pubescents and post-pubescents, everything. This article is about the psychiatric disorder first and foremost, as it should be. We should not be giving undue weight to all these other definitions that cause nothing but harm. There are men who may have sexually abused a prepubescent child but are not pedophiles. Sexual interest in pubescents and postpubescents is not pedophilia. We should be clear about all of this. Not say, "Oh, you consider Mark Foley a pedophile? Then you are correct." Flyer22 (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- You are missing the point. A medical operationalization of a term is NOT the general term. What is the GENERAL definition? As for undue weight, the current article obviously has a lot of WP:UNDUE issues by medicalizing a general term. -- Kim van der Linde 21:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- I am not missing the point. My point is that this article should not hugely focus on the more general term -- which includes a sexual attraction to everything under 18. That is not pedophilia, no matter how generally applied. This article mainly focues on the medical term because this is more so a medical article, and "a sexual preference for prepubescent children" is the accurate definition of the term. That is not undue weight. We certainly don't need people coming to Misplaced Pages to learn about what this is, and then leaving here thinking that all of these "definitions" are perfectly valid. I also point out that we don't do this for most medical and legal articles here either. We don't present all or even most of the POVs about rape outside of its legal definition. The Sociobiological theories of rape section, for example, is small, for very valid reasons, and not because it has its own article. The Rape article focuses on the legal definition first and foremost...and mostly, just as this article should focus on the medical definition first and foremost...and mostly. Flyer22 (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I do not understand why you think I think the general term of pedophilia included everything below 18, so I would appreciate if you would not assume things I am not saying. Secondly, I am glad you agree with me that we should clarify the general use of the term immediately just like in the rape article, which immediately focuses on the legal term AND the general use of the term, within the first two sentences. -- Kim van der Linde 22:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- What else would I assume? That's what the general definition is/what it includes. The term pedophilia is often thrown around by the general public to refer to a sexual interest in pubescent and post-pubescent teenagers. Surely, you have seen that with the Mark Foley case...and with the recent Roman Polanski case. You said the "general term." What else was I to assume? And as for this article clarifying the general use of the term, we already do that; it's right there in the lead. Yes, we say that experts advise against such improper use. Because they generally do, and we don't want people thinking that all those things are indeed pedophilia. I see no reason it should come early in the lead, however, which would only confuse people about the term's true meaning. The medical definition comes first in the lead, then the other uses. But we did have a different lead before, which started off saying "In the medical field," "In law enforcement," "In common use," etc. I could link to that lead if you want.
- Well, I do not understand why you think I think the general term of pedophilia included everything below 18, so I would appreciate if you would not assume things I am not saying. Secondly, I am glad you agree with me that we should clarify the general use of the term immediately just like in the rape article, which immediately focuses on the legal term AND the general use of the term, within the first two sentences. -- Kim van der Linde 22:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- I am not missing the point. My point is that this article should not hugely focus on the more general term -- which includes a sexual attraction to everything under 18. That is not pedophilia, no matter how generally applied. This article mainly focues on the medical term because this is more so a medical article, and "a sexual preference for prepubescent children" is the accurate definition of the term. That is not undue weight. We certainly don't need people coming to Misplaced Pages to learn about what this is, and then leaving here thinking that all of these "definitions" are perfectly valid. I also point out that we don't do this for most medical and legal articles here either. We don't present all or even most of the POVs about rape outside of its legal definition. The Sociobiological theories of rape section, for example, is small, for very valid reasons, and not because it has its own article. The Rape article focuses on the legal definition first and foremost...and mostly, just as this article should focus on the medical definition first and foremost...and mostly. Flyer22 (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- You are missing the point. A medical operationalization of a term is NOT the general term. What is the GENERAL definition? As for undue weight, the current article obviously has a lot of WP:UNDUE issues by medicalizing a general term. -- Kim van der Linde 21:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Getting towards a "more general definition" of the term would be getting away from the true definition. Is there a true definition? Of course there is. Otherwise, everything would count as pedophilia -- the act, the sexual interest in pubescents and post-pubescents, everything. This article is about the psychiatric disorder first and foremost, as it should be. We should not be giving undue weight to all these other definitions that cause nothing but harm. There are men who may have sexually abused a prepubescent child but are not pedophiles. Sexual interest in pubescents and postpubescents is not pedophilia. We should be clear about all of this. Not say, "Oh, you consider Mark Foley a pedophile? Then you are correct." Flyer22 (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- But as for having all these inaccurate definitions of this term taking up an equal portion of this article, I am speaking of what WP:Undue says: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public." What the general public believes -- that pedophilia generally means the act and applies to anything under 18 -- should not dominate here. That goes for reliable mainstream sources calling Mark Foley a pedophile. The general belief that he is one...does not mean we should give people the impression they are right about that. The simple fact is...they aren't. Flyer22 (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, here is the version of the more neutral lead, where we start off saying pedophilia has a range of definitions. Of course, we go into the medical/psychological definition first. This was the preferred lead, even by me, for quite some time. And I wouldn't mind going back to something like that. Then we evolved to this and finally to the current version to make the lead less cluttered and add-in a bit about its origin. Flyer22 (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, pedophilia is used in normal English to indicate a sexual interest in pre-pubescent children. Nothing more and nothing less. See the various dictionaries for various slightly different definitions. Yes, you are assuming a lot, and it is irritating because I had to respond in several replies just to get it through your head what I mean because you assume all kind of things. If it is not clear what someone means, ASK. So, I hope you stop assuming I include pubescent kids and sexual child abuse with different motivations such as power trips. Now that we have this out of the way. Let's take the example of rape to rewrite the lead of this article.
- Anyway, the current lead is a severe case of UNDUE, because of the pretty much exclusive focus on the medial operalization of the term at the cost of the general use of the term at the expense of the general use of the term. And that needs to be changed. -- Kim van der Linde 03:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, pedophilia is used in normal English to indicate a sexual interest in anything under 18, as noted by this expert and addressed in the lead and in the Misuse of terminology section. This was also evident from the Mark Foley and Roman Polanski cases; almost all of the media incorrectly labeled them pedophiles. Prime examples of misuse and normal use of the term. It has nothing to do with assumptions or anything else. Between you and I, I am not the one who often makes assumptions. And I need nothing drilled into my head to understand what you mean. You, on the other hand? May need to better consider my points. Twice I have even felt the need to point you to WP:CIVIL, as I feel your replies are sometimes rude and abrupt. I'm not here to frustrate you, and am willing to compromise. Why you seem to believe "normal use" of the word stops at prepubescents is beyond me. If that were the case, the Misuse of terminology section would not be there; it was put there through consensus because of the rampant misuse of the word regarding teenagers. The dictionary? All it says over and over again is the "sexual interest in children," almost always without specifying "prepubescent." I should know. The lead is not a case of WP:UNDUE. This is a medical article, about a medical term. Of course, the way the term is used medically is going to be covered the most. There is no way the lead can address all the things it needs to address about pedophilia in the medical sense in just one or two paragraphs...if that is what you are going for. And if so, what comes after that, two paragraphs focusing on how the public (in this case, the dictionary) uses the term to only refer to "the interest" rather than "the preference"? That would be WP:UNDUE. WP:UNDUE clearly says what the general public thinks is irrelevant in this case. We only address what they think in the lead because not only is what they think so widespread but also "off." This article's lead cannot be designed as lightly as the Rape article's lead without leaving out crucial information. We must address the fact that people who commit child sexual abuse commonly exhibit this disorder, but that some offenders do not not meet the clinical diagnosis standards. We must address that not all pedophiles commit the abuse. We must adress that "pedophilia" is used to refer to child sexual abuse itself, and to the sexual abuse of pubescent or post-pubescent minors, and that researchers are against these imprecise uses. We should note the term's origin, its causes, the forensic psychology and law enforcement uses, most pedophiles being men, media attention and social activism, and that there is no significant curative treatment for pedophilia. All of that should be in the lead. So unless you have a specific design for the lead leaving all of that in, I do not see any way the lead can adquately sum up all it needs to. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should touch on and summarize the most important aspects of the article, and should contain four paragraphs at the most. We did that. In fact, this lead was carefully designed.
- Okay, here is the version of the more neutral lead, where we start off saying pedophilia has a range of definitions. Of course, we go into the medical/psychological definition first. This was the preferred lead, even by me, for quite some time. And I wouldn't mind going back to something like that. Then we evolved to this and finally to the current version to make the lead less cluttered and add-in a bit about its origin. Flyer22 (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- But as for having all these inaccurate definitions of this term taking up an equal portion of this article, I am speaking of what WP:Undue says: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public." What the general public believes -- that pedophilia generally means the act and applies to anything under 18 -- should not dominate here. That goes for reliable mainstream sources calling Mark Foley a pedophile. The general belief that he is one...does not mean we should give people the impression they are right about that. The simple fact is...they aren't. Flyer22 (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- I already gave you a link to a different lead-in for this article, which was also carefully designed, and starts out in a more neutral tone. You mention the Rape article's lead. Well, out of the three paragraphs for the Rape article's lead, it uses two paragraphs to focus on the legal aspects of the term. It only mentions the general use of the term once near the lead-in. This more neutral lead-in for this article does the same. But we go into more depth about the other uses. We touch on the medical definition first, then the other uses. Will that suffice for you? If so, we can only use that lead-in and a bit of the other stuff, because that version of the article's lead is more cluttered. If not, you need to give better detail about exactly what you want done with the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- I made a proposal for the new lead below. Flyer22 (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- I already gave you a link to a different lead-in for this article, which was also carefully designed, and starts out in a more neutral tone. You mention the Rape article's lead. Well, out of the three paragraphs for the Rape article's lead, it uses two paragraphs to focus on the legal aspects of the term. It only mentions the general use of the term once near the lead-in. This more neutral lead-in for this article does the same. But we go into more depth about the other uses. We touch on the medical definition first, then the other uses. Will that suffice for you? If so, we can only use that lead-in and a bit of the other stuff, because that version of the article's lead is more cluttered. If not, you need to give better detail about exactly what you want done with the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
RFC: WP:UNDUE to equally cover non-medical views of pedophilia in the Pedophilia article?
 |
|
I wasn't sure whether to put this in science or society, or even media/literature, since this is not only a social topic but a medical one as well. So, hopefully, an outside editor will put it in the right category if I got it wrong.
On the issue: In the medical field, pedophilia is generally defined as a sexual preference for prepubescent children. Generally, the term is used to refer to the sexual act itself (child sexual abuse) and to describe a sexual interest in anything under 18. For this article, one view believes the article should stick mostly to the medical definition and research about the preference versus non-preferencial offenders. The other view believes the article should give a little more or just as much weight to how the term is generally used. Question is: Would focusing a little more or just as much on the general definition be undue weight, and confuse people entirely about the definition? This discussion has been had a little above this RfC on the talk page, and a little above that at #Merging sections on definitions, and was even taken to AfD. Compromises have already been made. How much more compromising should be allowed, if any? Flyer22 (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- See discussion above. The lead of the current article is a severe case of WP:UNDUE because of the near exclusive focus on the medical operalization of the general term. -- Kim van der Linde 03:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, see the discussion above to see why I disagree with KimvdLinde. Flyer22 (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Proposals for new lead
We can use this section for design and WP:Consensus of the new lead. We do this every time we design a new lead for this article. We go over what needs to stay in the lead, and then someone provides a complete version of how they would like the lead to be worded. I have already stated above in the #Next step on definitions section what I feel needs to remain in the lead; such information has remained in the lead after every redesign for very valid reasons. Here is my proposal of the new lead:
Pedophilia (or paedophilia) has a range of definitions as found in psychiatry, psychology, the vernacular, and law enforcement. As a medical diagnosis, it is defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 and older) characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary). The child must be at least five years younger in the case of adolescent pedophiles. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), pedophilia is a paraphilia in which a person has intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children and on which feelings they have either acted or which cause distress or interpersonal difficulty.
In common usage, pedophilia means any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse, often termed "pedophilic behavior". For example, the Psychology Today Diagnosis Dictionary states, "Pedophilia is defined as the fantasy or act of sexual activity with prepubescent children." Common use of the term also extends to the sexual abuse of pubescent or post-pubescent minors. Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided, as people who commit child sexual abuse commonly exhibit the disorder, but some offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia, and the clinical diagnosis for pedophilia pertains to prepubescents. Additionally, not all pedophiles actually commit such abuse.
Pedophilia was first formally recognized and named in the late 19th century. A significant amount of research in the area has taken place since the 1980s. At present, the exact causes of pedophilia have not been conclusively established. Research suggests that pedophilia may be correlated with several different neurological abnormalities, and often co-exists with other personality disorders and psychological pathologies. In the contexts of forensic psychology and law enforcement, a variety of typologies have been suggested to categorize pedophiles according to behavior and motivations. Most pedophiles are men, although there are also women who exhibit the disorder, and the issue of pedophilia has been the subject of a great deal of media attention and social activism as it is stigmatized in much of the world.
No significant curative treatment for pedophilia has yet been developed. There are, however, certain therapies that can reduce the incidence of a person committing an abusive act on a child.
-Flyer22 (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Reject: The article lead (after some debate) is now quite well written. Your proposed alternate lead is weaker. Note you start off with a caveat about different definitions, but then re-post the medical definition (current) without specifying what 'other' definitions exist. I don't like article ledes that start off with 'definitions vary' type introductions (I call them nonce introductions), and I don't see how this type of language helps this article. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 17:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hey again, Stevertigo. It wasn't KimvdLinde who made the above proposal; it was me. I am glad to see another editor who helped design the current lead, though. I agree that it is best. But you can see that two editors above disagree. The proposal is weaker in stressing the medical sense, but is still doing its job. I start off with a caveat about different definitions, yes. But I go into all of them. The proposal says "in psychiatry, psychology, the vernacular, and law enforcement." I go over all those, starting with the medical definition first. "Various definitions" lead-ins help provide neutrality, such as with the Gender article. Though I agree that such a thing seems "off" regarding the Pedophilia article. It's not as though most people consider this not a mental disorder. Flyer22 (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- I understand. However I just looked at the article a few days ago and found its introduction section to be satisfactorily well written. An article lede should be straight to the point, and that's what the current version is. Introductions of the type " is " can't be improved upon in the way you suggest. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 17:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- The current lede is unacceptable. The one above is an improvement, but we are getting ahead of ourselves. The lede should reflect the article, which as it stands completely over-represents one definition of "pedophilia." There is a phenomenon of sexual interest in children. Among the terms for this phenomenon is "pedophilia." Among the definitions of "pedophilia" is a clinical diagnosis. Among the clinical diagnosis are competing diagnostic criteria. We need to cover all of that here (lest we have the dreaded "POV fork"), but we usually save the lede for last on these kinds of rewrites. Jokestress (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Of course I disagree that the current lead is unacceptable. But moving on: We are not getting ahead of ourselves; the lead should come first (as it is the starting point, after all). The proposed lead does reflect the article. The entire article need not be changed to what you say, however, for all the reasons already gone over above. What more do you propose we say about a sexual interest in prepubescent children? This article does not only cover the preference. It covers the preference, interest and act...as demonstrated by the Diagnosis section, the Psychopathology and personality traits section, and the Prevalence and child molestation section. You act as though it's only covering the preference. It's not. Whatever you want to add can go in those sections or the Other uses section, as long as there is no undue weight and your reporting is true and reliable. But pedophilia being about the preference/an enduring feeling is the authoritative definition of the term and should be most prevalent in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Per Stevertigo's comment, the first sentence should state what the article is about. Since this article has to be about the phenomenon and the term, we need to define the phenomenon, in my view:
- Pedophilia is sexual desire directed towards children.
- In behavior science, pedophilia describes adult sexual interest in children.
- Or we can do it as a term:
- Pedophilia is a term which describes adult sexual interest in children.
- Any similar simple declarative sentence proposals are fine. The above can be sourced to dictionaries, etc. Jokestress (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- To me, it's best to start off saying it "has a range of definitions" and then go into those definitions...as to be more neutral and not initially neglect the authoritative definition. We should also always stress "prepubescent," except for when speaking of how the term is generally applied. But the general definition should not come first in my view. The authoritative definition gets first place, as it does in most articles where there are different POVs of a term. We also have the distinguish tag which already stresses that "This article is about the sexual interest in prepubescent children" (it does not say "preference" at all, just "interest").
- Per Stevertigo's comment, the first sentence should state what the article is about. Since this article has to be about the phenomenon and the term, we need to define the phenomenon, in my view:
- Of course I disagree that the current lead is unacceptable. But moving on: We are not getting ahead of ourselves; the lead should come first (as it is the starting point, after all). The proposed lead does reflect the article. The entire article need not be changed to what you say, however, for all the reasons already gone over above. What more do you propose we say about a sexual interest in prepubescent children? This article does not only cover the preference. It covers the preference, interest and act...as demonstrated by the Diagnosis section, the Psychopathology and personality traits section, and the Prevalence and child molestation section. You act as though it's only covering the preference. It's not. Whatever you want to add can go in those sections or the Other uses section, as long as there is no undue weight and your reporting is true and reliable. But pedophilia being about the preference/an enduring feeling is the authoritative definition of the term and should be most prevalent in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- The current lede is unacceptable. The one above is an improvement, but we are getting ahead of ourselves. The lede should reflect the article, which as it stands completely over-represents one definition of "pedophilia." There is a phenomenon of sexual interest in children. Among the terms for this phenomenon is "pedophilia." Among the definitions of "pedophilia" is a clinical diagnosis. Among the clinical diagnosis are competing diagnostic criteria. We need to cover all of that here (lest we have the dreaded "POV fork"), but we usually save the lede for last on these kinds of rewrites. Jokestress (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- I understand. However I just looked at the article a few days ago and found its introduction section to be satisfactorily well written. An article lede should be straight to the point, and that's what the current version is. Introductions of the type " is " can't be improved upon in the way you suggest. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 17:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- I want to say, though, that I appreciate us moving forward and trying to work on compromises with each other. Your "merging of definitions" proposal turned out alright indeed. Flyer22 (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Often, definitions range from generic (Pedophilia is the sexual attraction by adults to children) to highly specific (DSM IV). So, instead of saying there are a bunch of definitions, start with a generic one, and then explain how more specific definitions are used in specific fields.
- I want to say, though, that I appreciate us moving forward and trying to work on compromises with each other. Your "merging of definitions" proposal turned out alright indeed. Flyer22 (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- If I were to rewrite the lead, I would write the first paragraph as follows:
Pedophilia (or paedophilia) is generally defined as the sexual attraction by adults to children. In general usage, this sometimes includes all minors, but appropriately includes only pre-pubescent children. As a medical diagnosis, it is defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 and older) characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary). The child must be at least five years younger in the case of adolescent pedophiles. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), pedophilia is a paraphilia in which a person has intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children and on which feelings they have either acted or which cause distress or interpersonal difficulty.
- -- Kim van der Linde 22:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- That looks fine, but the first sentence uses a definition "sexual attraction by adults to children" that I don't see in books or papers. How about Pedophilia (or paedophilia) is generally defined as sexual attraction directed towards children. That's what my OED has, though some editions use "felt" instead of "directed." Further, since this attraction can occur in people who are not legally adults, it may be better to leave "adults" out of the most general sense. Otherwise we start getting close to "adult sexual interest in children," the most-used and best-sourced phrase which scares some editors. The revised first sentence can be sourced to published dictionaries, which seem preferable to the online freedictionary and m-w sources in the article. Jokestress (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- -- Kim van der Linde 22:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- I am fine with whatever general definition is best. -- Kim van der Linde 02:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think the above-suggested "sexual attraction directed towards children" is a good pick. While the absence of "adults" being mentioned worries me a bit (in that it there is possible confusion with the unrelated COCSA) I can live it with it since the rest of the lead makes the matter pretty clear. My only other suggestion is to reverse the position of the sentences "In general usage" with "As a medical diagnosis" because the latter is technically more correct. "In general usage" is ok to include in the lead, but it is still technically a pop culture muddling of the term. Similar to schizophrenia being used to mean split personalities and irony used in place of "coincidence," it might be popular but it's still wrong.Legitimus (talk) 12:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Still disagree with putting the general definition first. The general definition is the common use definition and is also not the authoritative definition. And as Legitimus said, it is "pop culture muddling of the term." The authoritative definition should come first, always in cases like this. If we are going to start off as going "straight to the point" about this definition, then it should be the one that most experts say is the correct definition. Keep in mind that we must not give undue weight to the general public's view of this term, as WP:UNDUE says. This is the case for most articles of a medical or psychological nature on Misplaced Pages. And we definitely should not leave out "adults." The fact that 16 and 17-year-olds can be pedophiles is covered by "late adolescents" and we specify 16 anyway. I still prefer my initial proposal, starting with the lead-in about its different definitions, but, to compromise again, here is my second proposal:
- I think the above-suggested "sexual attraction directed towards children" is a good pick. While the absence of "adults" being mentioned worries me a bit (in that it there is possible confusion with the unrelated COCSA) I can live it with it since the rest of the lead makes the matter pretty clear. My only other suggestion is to reverse the position of the sentences "In general usage" with "As a medical diagnosis" because the latter is technically more correct. "In general usage" is ok to include in the lead, but it is still technically a pop culture muddling of the term. Similar to schizophrenia being used to mean split personalities and irony used in place of "coincidence," it might be popular but it's still wrong.Legitimus (talk) 12:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Pedophilia (or paedophilia) encompasses a range of adult sexual interest in prepubertal children. As a medical diagnosis, it is defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 and older) characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary). The child must be at least five years younger in the case of adolescent pedophiles. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), pedophilia is a paraphilia in which a person has intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children and on which feelings they have either acted or which cause distress or interpersonal difficulty.
- And then the common usage definition will be dealt with in the second paragraph,
as demonstrated in my first propsosal.The first sentence states "interest" only and makes sure to note "prepubertal" as to stay close to the authoritative definition.
- And then the common usage definition will be dealt with in the second paragraph,
- On a side note: I don't feel comfortable implementing any new version without the thoughts of the usual editors (other than myself and Legitimus) commening on this, and will be contacting them to weigh in. Flyer22 (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, you yourself said that the general use is wider than pre-puberal children, so this lead is unacceptable. That is why I wrote it as I did it. -- Kim van der Linde 16:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, it's also been acknowledged, even by your version, that the general use is wrong. General use does not top authoritative use, especially on a medical or psychological article. It's that way on most medical or psychological articles here, if not all, and I see no reason it should be any different in this case. Going by your argument, we should not define the Vegetarianism article right off the bat as not including fish, since most people believe that, yes, it does include fish (so much so in fact that the Vegetarian Society felt they had to speak out against it). And the Rape article? Forget defining that right off the bat in legal terms, going by your argument. The Pedophilia article is more of a medical article. Not a "general public says this" article. This is why your version is unacceptable. People come to this article to learn what pedophilia is, not what it generally (and inaccurately) is thought of. Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. And, besides, the dictionary most likely does not stress "prepubescent" because they already usually stress that a child is someone "between birth and puberty."
- Well, you yourself said that the general use is wider than pre-puberal children, so this lead is unacceptable. That is why I wrote it as I did it. -- Kim van der Linde 16:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- On a side note: I don't feel comfortable implementing any new version without the thoughts of the usual editors (other than myself and Legitimus) commening on this, and will be contacting them to weigh in. Flyer22 (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Moving on... For the common usage definition, my second proposal is this (only a slight alteration):
In common usage, pedophilia means any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse, often termed "pedophilic behavior". For example, the The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary states, "Pedophilia is the act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children." This common use application also extends to the sexual interest and abuse of pubescent or post-pubescent minors. Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided, as people who commit child sexual abuse commonly exhibit the disorder, but some offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia, and the clinical diagnosis for pedophilia pertains to prepubescents. Additionally, not all pedophiles actually commit such abuse.
- For the above right there, I simply traded out the Psychology Today Diagnosis Dictionary with The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary and tweaked the bit after it a little. I did this because The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary does not stress "prepubescent" and gives a more accurate wording of how pedophilia is usually defined in dictionaries. But of course we could also use the OED in place there as well. Either way, my latest two proposals take away any perceived undue weight. Undue weight would be placing any more significance on the general use than my proposals already do. Flyer22 (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- ^ World Health Organization, International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems: ICD-10 Section F65.4: Paedophilia (online access via ICD-10 site map table of contents)
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
ICD10was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Blanchard2007was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
dsm4was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
faganJAMAwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "Pedophilia". Psychology Today Diagnosis Dictionary. Sussex Publishers, LLC. 7 September 2006.
Pedophilia is defined as the fantasy or act of sexual activity with prepubescent children.
- ^ Burgess, Ann Wolbert (1978). Sexual Assault of Children and Adolescents. Lexington Books. pp. 9–10, 24, 40. ISBN 0669018929.
the sexual misuse and abuse of children constitutes pedophilia
{{cite book}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - ^ "pedophilia". Encyclopædia Britannica.
- ^ Ames MA, Houston DA (1990). "Legal, social, and biological definitions of pedophilia". Arch Sex Behav. 19 (4): 333–42. doi:10.1007/BF01541928. PMID 2205170.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) - ^ Cite error: The named reference
lanning3ewas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Finkelhor, David (1986). A Sourcebook on Child Sexual Abuse: Sourcebook on Child Sexual Abuse. Sage Publications. p. 90. ISBN 0803927495.
{{cite book}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - ^ Cite error: The named reference
mayoclinicwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Edwards, M. (1997) "Treatment for Paedophiles; Treatment for Sex Offenders." Paedophile Policy and Prevention, Australian Institute of Criminology Research and Public Policy Series (12), 74-75.
- ^ Blaney, Paul H.; Millon, Theodore (2009). Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology (Oxford Series in Clinical Psychology) (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press, USA. p. 528. ISBN 0-19-537421-5.
Some cases of child molestation, especially those involving incest, are committed in the absence of any identifiable deviant erotic age preference.
- Beier, K. M., Ahlers, C. J., Goecker, D., Neutze, J., Mundt, I. A., Hupp, E., & Schaefer, G. A. (2009). Can pedophiles be reached for primary prevention of child sexual abuse? First results of the Berlin Prevention Project Dunkelfeld (PPD). The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 20, 851–867.
- "Pedophilia (Causes)". Psychology Today. Sussex Publishers, LLC. 7 September 2006.
- Goldman, Howard H. (2000). Review of General Psychiatry. McGraw-Hill Professional Psychiatry. p. 374. ISBN 0838584349.
- Ryan C. W. Hall, MD and Richard C. W. Hall, MD, PA, Mayo Clinic Proceedings A Profile of Pedophilia'.' Retrieved September 29, 2009.
- Cite error: The named reference
fullerJAMAwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/pedophilia
- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedophilia?show=0&t=1285195309
- ""pedophilia" (n.d.)". The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary.
The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|accesssdate=ignored (|access-date=suggested) (help) - Beier, K. M., Ahlers, C. J., Goecker, D., Neutze, J., Mundt, I. A., Hupp, E., & Schaefer, G. A. (2009). Can pedophiles be reached for primary prevention of child sexual abuse? First results of the Berlin Prevention Project Dunkelfeld (PPD). The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 20, 851–867.
Consensus: General use before authoritative use?
I've asked Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Psychology, and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine/Google Project to weigh in on this as well. Of course, if you are against the general use being put first, make a comment under the Oppose section and state why. If you are for the general use being put first, make a comment under the Support section and state why.
The proposals for the new lead are above.
Oppose
- As I stated before, "General use does not top authoritative use, especially on a medical or psychological article. It's that way on most medical or psychological articles here, if not all, and I see no reason it should be any different in this case."... I have already made compromises. Just because the general use by the public does not come first, it does not make the compromises any less so. My version gives more neutrality without initially straying away from the authoritative, precise definition of the term. Flyer22 (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- The general definition is based on ignorance and is innately flawed as it attempts to apply variable legal definitions to what is a scientific subject. I am merely tolerating it's inclusion in the lead as a compromise, but it does not trump medical usage.Legitimus (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Support
- Despite the weird wording as if general usage of the term is not authoritative, the issue at hand is that the term pedophilia has a general usage, authoritatively recorded in dictionaries etc. The question is whether the medical operalization of the term should be dominating the article at the cost of the general usage of the term. My answer is no, it should not. -- Kim van der Linde 18:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- KimvdLinde is right. There is no "authoritative" use, as Flyer22 continually misstates. From the Finkelhor above: "even the meaning of pedophilia itself is a matter of some controversy, with different theorists and investigators defining it in different ways." Authorities use both inclusive and exclusive definitions. We have citations that demonstrate this range of uses. We should start with inclusive (the broadest senses used in the literature), then move to narrow definitions proposed by others. The fixation here on the DSM/ICD definitions does not reflect how experts and the lay public use this term. It's classic WP:UNDUE based on a misrepresentation of this phenomenon and the many terms used to describe it. I'll keep repeating this: other definitions are not misuse; they are simply other uses. The DSM is not the be-all and end-all. There is growing sentiment that the whole DSM is garbage and should be eliminated. See "Time's up for psychiatry's bible," the recent editorial in New Scientist. Frankly, I am going to tag this NPOV if I continue to see claims about "misuse" and "authoritative" definitions. These falsehoods are easily disproven by quoting published experts. Jokestress (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. See the above discussions I have had with Jokestress about this. There is no controversy as to how pedophilia is defined among experts. Among experts, it is defined as a sexual preference or sexual interest in prepubescent children. And "preference" usually tops that. Finkelhor's statement about "even the meaning of pedophilia itself is a matter of some controversy, with different theorists and investigators defining it in different ways" does not trump how the term is generally defined by experts. Forgetting the DSM, this article has a whole slew of references that show "preference for prepubescent children" is the usual medical definition. And I will say this again, if it's not "sexual preference for or sexual interest in prepubescent children," it is most certainly a misuse. The act is not pedophilia, no matter how much it is commonly called such. Pedophilia is about what goes on in the mind, just like any other sexual interest. And sexual attraction or interest in teenagers is certainly not pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. So to sum up: David Finkelhor is quoted in a book stating the definition is "a matter of some controversy." Pseudonymous Misplaced Pages editor Flyer22 insists there is no controversy and provides no sources to back that claim up. I believe our policy is to ignore the irrelevant opinion of Flyer22 and go with the published sources. I don't even know why we are discussing this. Jokestress (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. You have yet to prove that defining pedophilia as a sexual preference for prepubescent children is a controversial definition among most experts. This article and its abundance of sources goes against your claim. One "expert" making a claim that there is "some controversy" is not sufficient to trump the medical definition being used first. And it is not up to me to prove anything anyway; WP:BURDEN lies with you. That is why we are discussing this. Flyer22 (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. If you are unwilling to acknowledge published sources which clearly state that there is controversy in relevant fields regarding the definition of pedophilia, and that a range of definitions have been proposed and used in published sources, we should probably escalate this to dispute resolution. Verifiability, not truth. If you have sources that state there is no controversy, please provide them. It is patently obvious by reading published sources that a wide range of definitions are in use, from inclusive to exclusive. We should discuss the controversy and describe the range of published definitions, per policy. Jokestress (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. I have already stated why your claim cannot trump the medical definition. This supposed controversy would be WP:UNDUE, unless the controversy is significant. Dictionaries defining pedophilia as a "sexual interest in children" when those same dictionaries also say that a "child" is "between birth and puberty" is not a controversy either. If anything, they agree with "prepubescent." And plenty of sources in this article state "preference." Again, the burden does not lie with me. If you want a controversy section in this article, that might be okay...as long it is clear that it is not bordering on WP:FRINGE. But that does not mean "the controversy" is significant enough to place the medical definition second. Flyer22 (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. If you are unwilling to acknowledge published sources which clearly state that there is controversy in relevant fields regarding the definition of pedophilia, and that a range of definitions have been proposed and used in published sources, we should probably escalate this to dispute resolution. Verifiability, not truth. If you have sources that state there is no controversy, please provide them. It is patently obvious by reading published sources that a wide range of definitions are in use, from inclusive to exclusive. We should discuss the controversy and describe the range of published definitions, per policy. Jokestress (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. You have yet to prove that defining pedophilia as a sexual preference for prepubescent children is a controversial definition among most experts. This article and its abundance of sources goes against your claim. One "expert" making a claim that there is "some controversy" is not sufficient to trump the medical definition being used first. And it is not up to me to prove anything anyway; WP:BURDEN lies with you. That is why we are discussing this. Flyer22 (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. So to sum up: David Finkelhor is quoted in a book stating the definition is "a matter of some controversy." Pseudonymous Misplaced Pages editor Flyer22 insists there is no controversy and provides no sources to back that claim up. I believe our policy is to ignore the irrelevant opinion of Flyer22 and go with the published sources. I don't even know why we are discussing this. Jokestress (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. See the above discussions I have had with Jokestress about this. There is no controversy as to how pedophilia is defined among experts. Among experts, it is defined as a sexual preference or sexual interest in prepubescent children. And "preference" usually tops that. Finkelhor's statement about "even the meaning of pedophilia itself is a matter of some controversy, with different theorists and investigators defining it in different ways" does not trump how the term is generally defined by experts. Forgetting the DSM, this article has a whole slew of references that show "preference for prepubescent children" is the usual medical definition. And I will say this again, if it's not "sexual preference for or sexual interest in prepubescent children," it is most certainly a misuse. The act is not pedophilia, no matter how much it is commonly called such. Pedophilia is about what goes on in the mind, just like any other sexual interest. And sexual attraction or interest in teenagers is certainly not pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Abstain
- Comment. Flyer22 asked if I would weight in on the proposed ledes, and I am happy to do so. However, because I have published such definitions myself, I think I should abstain from registering a vote.
- My main reaction to the discussion is that NPOV can be violated in two ways. The definition should, of course, follow from those “that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.” (That is, NPOV does not mean that all definitions must be handled equally; NPOV means that the existing RS’s should be reflected proportionally.)
- Although it is entirely true that the biomedical definition is not unanimous, it would be an error to exaggerate the prominence of the alternatives. The scholar.google engine, which searches all academic fields, finds 19,700 articles with the keyword “pedophilia.” The results, which are (mostly) sorted by citation rate, show that the great majority of top scholarship uses the biomedical definition. So although one can certainly pick out from the literature notable authors who used alternative definitions, these comprise only a small proportion of the existing scholarship. (Moreover, the evolution among scholars over recent decades has been for greater, not lesser, precision; the pubs that used alternative definitions are very often 20+ years out of date.)
- Wrt emphasis on lay-definitions, I think Legitmus put it best: “t is still technically a pop culture muddling of the term. Similar to schizophrenia being used to mean split personalities.”
- Comment. If we are going by citation rate, David Finkelhor is about five to ten times more influential than Cantor's colleagues regarding the definitions of pedophilia and child sexual abuse. Finkelhor's inclusive definition is widely adopted for good reasons. Jokestress (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Scope of article
Should the current pedophilia article cover all uses of the term, or should there be several articles covering the general use, the medical use etc?
- To expand, as it seems to be confusing: Should Pedophilia cover everything from the most general usage of the term "Sexual interest in children" to the specialized medical definitions, or should we have a general Pedophilia article that covers the "sexual interest in children" and a separate article covering the medical term (]?-- Kim van der Linde 19:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
One all encompassing article
- My favorite. -- Kim van der Linde 18:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Definitely for one all-encompassing article. Adult sexual interest in minors is the best way to go. And as I said before, I would be willing to help. Flyer22 (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- I am confused, one all encompassing article would be pedophilia covering ll uses of it. What I read here is that you want at least two separate articles, one about pedophilia the medical term, and one overview article.
- Not sure why you're confused. One all-encompassing article would not be about pedophilia (sexual preference for prepubescent children) only. It would be about pedophilia, any sexual interest in prepubescent children or underage adolescents, child sexual abuse, hebephilia and ephebophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- I am talking about pedophilia general usage vs medical operalization. Not about an umbrella article. -- Kim van der Linde 19:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- You said one all-encompassing article; that is an umbrella article and what I am agreeing to. There should not be an article titled Pedophilia (general usage) or anything like it. All it would consist of is dictionary definitions saying the same thing over and over again. Where would the studies be on this general usage that includes everything under 18? The studies and research all focus on prepubescent children. If it's early pubertal, that's hebephilia. Mid/late/post-pubertal, that's ephebophilia. There really is nothing more to say about how the term is generally applied, except that it is often used to describe a sexual attraction to all children. Flyer22 (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- I wrote: Should the current pedophilia article cover all uses of the term. I did not write Should we have an umbrella article covering all terminology related to sex with minors.-- Kim van der Linde 21:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Er, the title says "One all encompassing article." And the meaning is the same thing, really...except some uses of the term simply aren't pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- I wrote: Should the current pedophilia article cover all uses of the term. I did not write Should we have an umbrella article covering all terminology related to sex with minors.-- Kim van der Linde 21:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- You said one all-encompassing article; that is an umbrella article and what I am agreeing to. There should not be an article titled Pedophilia (general usage) or anything like it. All it would consist of is dictionary definitions saying the same thing over and over again. Where would the studies be on this general usage that includes everything under 18? The studies and research all focus on prepubescent children. If it's early pubertal, that's hebephilia. Mid/late/post-pubertal, that's ephebophilia. There really is nothing more to say about how the term is generally applied, except that it is often used to describe a sexual attraction to all children. Flyer22 (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- I am talking about pedophilia general usage vs medical operalization. Not about an umbrella article. -- Kim van der Linde 19:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure why you're confused. One all-encompassing article would not be about pedophilia (sexual preference for prepubescent children) only. It would be about pedophilia, any sexual interest in prepubescent children or underage adolescents, child sexual abuse, hebephilia and ephebophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- I am confused, one all encompassing article would be pedophilia covering ll uses of it. What I read here is that you want at least two separate articles, one about pedophilia the medical term, and one overview article.
- I am fine with an all-encompassing article with a broader name. If we do that, we should merge hebephilia and ephebophilia and pedohebephilia and pedohebephebophilia and pseudopedohebephebophilia and whatever else the "experts" have discovered and coined this month. The new article will be scalable as they create additional diseases. Jokestress (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Separate articles
Scope of this article
Ok, in the discussions above, one topic pops up all the time, and that is that there seems to be disagreement about the scope of this article. Regularly, I am told that this article is about the medical term. That would be okay with me, if there would be an article that would cover the more general term. So, I think the community has to decide one thing. Either this is a specialized article (Pedophilia (paraphilia)), and there is a serious need for a general article (Pedophilia), or this is a general article covering everything. -- Kim van der Linde 18:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- This article already covers everything. As I asked Jokestress, "What more do you propose we say about a sexual interest in prepubescent children?" This article does not only cover the preference. It covers the preference, interest and act. It definitely needs to mainly focus on prepubescent children, or else it would be extremely far away from pedophilia, and would need to be titled Adult sexual interest in minors. It also focuses on "prepubescent" because that is how the term is studied. It is not studied as anything but that. Interest vs preference is well-covered in this article. If it's felt that more is needed, we can add it, but definitely not dictionary sources. The the act, however? Child sexual abuse is for that.
- You already know that I would be okay with an Adult sexual interest in minors article. We could all work on that together. My (or Legitimus, if he's interested) being trusted on these topics should help to squelch any thoughts that it is POV fork. Flyer22 (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- The claim that the article covers everything is patently false. if so, we would not have this discussion. -- Kim van der Linde 19:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's not a claim; the article is right here for everyone to see, covering the preference, interest and act. Sexual interest in pubescents and post-pubescents is not pedophilia, and there isn't a dictionary that says so. The dictionary says "children," yes, but it also usually specifies children to mean "between birth and puberty." We are having this discussion because two editors feel that the general definition should come first and cloud this article in other ways, despite what experts say. Flyer22 (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, sorry but it was you who argued the term was used more general to include all minors. Not me. If you read back, until then,. I was arguing to say it should start with sexual interest in pre-pubescent children. So, what do you actually think is the general public use of this term? -- Kim van der Linde 19:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- And again, how does general use top the medical use -- what experts say the term is? I argued that "pedophilia" is used to refer to sexual interest in all minors to prove a point -- the common use is wrong. We don't need people leaving this article thinking that their 17-year-old daughter's 19-year-old boyfriend is a pedophile simply because society loves to associate sexual attraction to underage, biological adults with pedophilia. There is nothing more we can say about the general use of this term. An all-encompassing article, however, would be covering more than true pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- So, you want this article to be about the medical operalization of the term? If so, I argue it should be moved to Pedophilia (Paraphilia) or a related term and the article about pedophilia as a general term. -- Kim van der Linde 21:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- I want this article to stay as it is -- about the preference, interest and act regarding prepubescents. We need no separate article for that. But regarding pubescents and post-pubescents? No, this article is not the place for that; the media can call that pedophilia all they want, but it's not. And dictionaries may stress "children," but they also stress children as being "between birth and puberty." The act is already largely covered in the Child sexual abuse article, but we must also cover some of the act here as well...because the act has to do with pedophilia (as in pedophiles who sexually abuse prepubescent children). It's just that it doesn't always equate to pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Good, than this article should be moved to Pedophilia (Paraphilia), and this page freed to be used for a discussion of the normal non-medical and medical use of the term. -- Kim van der Linde 21:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Nope. Because what you have in mind isn't pedophilia. Seems you've thrown out your "let's only stick to prepubescents" rule. Flyer22 (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Good, than this article should be moved to Pedophilia (Paraphilia), and this page freed to be used for a discussion of the normal non-medical and medical use of the term. -- Kim van der Linde 21:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- I want this article to stay as it is -- about the preference, interest and act regarding prepubescents. We need no separate article for that. But regarding pubescents and post-pubescents? No, this article is not the place for that; the media can call that pedophilia all they want, but it's not. And dictionaries may stress "children," but they also stress children as being "between birth and puberty." The act is already largely covered in the Child sexual abuse article, but we must also cover some of the act here as well...because the act has to do with pedophilia (as in pedophiles who sexually abuse prepubescent children). It's just that it doesn't always equate to pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- So, you want this article to be about the medical operalization of the term? If so, I argue it should be moved to Pedophilia (Paraphilia) or a related term and the article about pedophilia as a general term. -- Kim van der Linde 21:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- And again, how does general use top the medical use -- what experts say the term is? I argued that "pedophilia" is used to refer to sexual interest in all minors to prove a point -- the common use is wrong. We don't need people leaving this article thinking that their 17-year-old daughter's 19-year-old boyfriend is a pedophile simply because society loves to associate sexual attraction to underage, biological adults with pedophilia. There is nothing more we can say about the general use of this term. An all-encompassing article, however, would be covering more than true pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, sorry but it was you who argued the term was used more general to include all minors. Not me. If you read back, until then,. I was arguing to say it should start with sexual interest in pre-pubescent children. So, what do you actually think is the general public use of this term? -- Kim van der Linde 19:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's not a claim; the article is right here for everyone to see, covering the preference, interest and act. Sexual interest in pubescents and post-pubescents is not pedophilia, and there isn't a dictionary that says so. The dictionary says "children," yes, but it also usually specifies children to mean "between birth and puberty." We are having this discussion because two editors feel that the general definition should come first and cloud this article in other ways, despite what experts say. Flyer22 (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- The claim that the article covers everything is patently false. if so, we would not have this discussion. -- Kim van der Linde 19:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Frankly I don't really see what else one would want to say about this subject under this term. There are articles such as CSA and others that cover other aspects.
- Now I personally do not like the idea of Adult sexual interest in minors being an article. It would be a giant magnet for not only controversy, but legal liability as well. One thing you users who are newer to this subject may not realize is that several years ago, there were actual pedophiles and child molesters editing these articles. Initially they were tolerated with the intention of free speech and non-censorship, but it went pear-shaped fast. Some users were caught trolling underage users for sex, schemes to use Misplaced Pages as hidden propaganda tool were unmasked, popular organizations turned against Misplaced Pages as a "haven" for pedophiles and there were even accusations that the founders were complicit in this. Some pedophile editors were actually wanted criminals by the American FBI, and some were even tracked down and arrested. That is why you've probably seen a lot of opposition to many of these changes. Not saying any of these new proposals are promoting pedophilia in any way, but they may create risk factors, and those of us with history on these pages tend to be rather wary of things going south again.Legitimus (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yep. You already know I'm aware of all this. Was right there with you during a lot of those difficult times. Flyer22 (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- This is the "phenomenon vs. term" problem that happens on every sexuality article. Terms describe part or all of a phenomenon, but the terms themselves often frame the phenomenon for use within a specific conceptualization. The "___philia" terms emerged from eugenic models of psychopathology. We've gone from a half dozen or so paraphilias to something like 500 in the last 50 years. It's a problem discussed at length in philosophy of science. Some articles will always be magnets for bad behavior: race, sex, religion, etc. Misplaced Pages is not censored, and we have drastic measures in place to handle problematic editors who may show up. Frankly, I think the best thing would be if these topics were limited to editors who use their real names. But that's another topic. In the meantime, a general article with an inclusive title is the best option until the time we need to split out sections into their own articles due to length. Adult sexual interest in minors is fine with me. We have a lot of uncovered material that needs a place to live on the project. Jokestress (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, we can keep living in the past, and let fear guide how we approach this article, or we can look actually see if we can make these articles better beyond the medical operalization of the term. -- Kim van der Linde 19:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- As I stated above, there really is nothing more to say about how the term is generally applied, except that it is often used to describe a sexual attraction to all children (meaning non-prepubescents as well). An all-encompassing article would be covering more than how the term is generally applied. Flyer22 (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- If we go ahead and start the Adult sexual interest in minors article, should I be the one to start it? Given the recent deletion of Adult sexual interest in prepubescent children, editors would probably look at Jokestress as trying to push POV. Unless KimvdLinde wants to start it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, I first want clarity about the scope of this article. -- Kim van der Linde 21:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure what more clarity you need. Even Jokestress has been clear about what this article would encompass. Flyer22 (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I am of the opinion that this article should be about the term in all it usages, and you seem to be of the opinion that it should be limited to the medical operalization of the term only. And I do not see agreement on this. -- Kim van der Linde 21:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, I am of the opinion that this article should be limited to the sexual preference, sexual interest, and sexual acts related to prepubescent children. Everything relating to pedophilia. Sexual interest in everything under 18 is not pedophilia and is not for this article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I am of the opinion that this article should be about the term in all it usages, and you seem to be of the opinion that it should be limited to the medical operalization of the term only. And I do not see agreement on this. -- Kim van der Linde 21:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure what more clarity you need. Even Jokestress has been clear about what this article would encompass. Flyer22 (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, I first want clarity about the scope of this article. -- Kim van der Linde 21:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- If we go ahead and start the Adult sexual interest in minors article, should I be the one to start it? Given the recent deletion of Adult sexual interest in prepubescent children, editors would probably look at Jokestress as trying to push POV. Unless KimvdLinde wants to start it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- As I stated above, there really is nothing more to say about how the term is generally applied, except that it is often used to describe a sexual attraction to all children (meaning non-prepubescents as well). An all-encompassing article would be covering more than how the term is generally applied. Flyer22 (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yep. You already know I'm aware of all this. Was right there with you during a lot of those difficult times. Flyer22 (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Requested move
 | It has been proposed in this section that Pedophilia be renamed and moved to Pedophilia (paraphilia. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move |
Pedophilia → Pedophilia (paraphilia — Ok, in the past days, it has become clear that this article is about the medical operalization of the term pedophilia. Because of that, I suggest this page is moved to Pedophilia (paraphilia) to reflect the narrow scope, and to free the page for a discussion about the general term pedophilia as used in society, law enforcement, medical corner, etc. -- Kim van der Linde 21:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom, maybe we can finally start moving forward with these pages. -- Kim van der Linde 21:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Support This has been my assertion since my first post here. Jokestress (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. See lengthy discussion above. I would also like to note that not all the usual editors of this article have weighed in yet on this discusion. This article is about the preference, interest and act regarding prepubescent children. It is largely defined as only pertaining to prepubescents. Even the dictionary sources stress that a child is a person "between birth and puberty," aiding in the "prepubescent" definition of the term. To have an article titled "pedophilia" and have it not be about prepubescent children would only be an article muddying the term and lending to confusion (i.e cases such as Mark Foley). Flyer22 (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if you read what I wrote above, I was under the impression that it was only about pre-pubescent kids, but it was you who showed me I was in error. -- Kim van der Linde 22:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if you read what I wrote above, I am clear that it is largely defined as only pertaining to prepubescents, as in most literature and medical sources. The common use (pertaining to everything under 18) is simply a common use; not an accurate definition, just as the source I showed in that discussion states. Flyer22 (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - what other kinds of pedophilia are there except the paraphilic kind? And if the defintion differs slightly in accord with different fields, creating different articles violates WP:FORK. I don't understand what Kim's problem is with the current setup, and why he is changing his tactics from proposing a new lede to proposing a name change. I'd hate to jump to assumptions. Kim appears to be confusing the issue of terminology and the issue of topic.
Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- There are a lot of people with an unhealthy sexual attraction to pre-pubescent kids, who do not fit the formal DSM-IV definition of a pedophile. All those people are not covered at current. PS, I am a girl. -- Kim van der Linde 22:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Furthermore, there are critiques of the use of "pedophilia" as a diagnostic term: Studer (2006), Boer (2000), Chenier (2008), Green (2002). It has lost its utility because of the controversy about how to use it. We need a place to cover the phenomenon and a place for this specific term. Some editors freaked out when I created an article about the phenomenon, but the problem remains. Jokestress (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- This article does cover people with an unhealthy sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children who do not fit the formal DSM-IV definition of a pedophile. This is covered in the Etymology and definitions section (specifically the Diagnosis sub-section) and the Prevalence and child molestation section. And judging by the sources in this article, the general medical community does not seem to be under any controversy about how this term is used. Flyer22 (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class psychology articles
- Mid-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
- High-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
- WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
- Misplaced Pages requests for comment
- Requested moves