Talk:Pedophilia

Legality

I think it might be useful to mention that sexual relations between legal adults and children is presently illegal in most countries in the world and among the hardest punished crimes in many. It might also be useful to have a section on the historical development of a legal framework around pedophilia on a global scale.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrong article. I think you may be looking for child sexual abuse and Laws regarding child sexual abuse.Legitimus (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is the wrong article to mention this no. That is why I suggested it here. Presently there is not link between this article and the two articles that you mention even though there is a direct and fairly obvious connection between them. The article definition itself mentions that there are special definitions of pedophilia within law enforcement - these definitions ad their motivations are as relevant to the general topic as the psychiatric definitions. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Maunus, the historical development of a legal framework around pedophilia on a global scale could fit in the In forensic psychology and law enforcement section. You want to start filling that section in? And there is a link between this article and Child sexual abuse. We have a whole section on it, and also speak of it in the General views section.

There are various "definitions" of pedophilia, but experts are clear that any definition outside of the medical definition is inaccurate. This is why we start out with the medical definition first, because not all adult sexual interest in children is pedophilia. Currently, most editors are for the medical definition coming first, and we have been over it time and time again. Here are the reasons given:

1. Myself (for what I just stated)
2. Stevertigo[1][2]
3. Legitimus[3]
4. James Cantor/James Cantor[4]
5. Jack-A-Roe[5]
6. SqueakBox[6]
7. Herostratus[7]
8. Nick Levinson[8]

There is no need to say, "Pedophilia describes adult sexual interest in children" for the lead-in, since we specify the different uses of the term immediately. The current lead-in is neutral, as to not start out with the common use or medical definition first. We list the range first, then go into the medical definition and then the others. "Adult sexual interest in children" also neglects 16 and 17-year-old adolescents (no matter that they are biological adults, and technically count as adults).

As for "sexual relations between legal adults and children," do you mean 18/19-year-olds and people below the age of consent? If so, how is it not clear that an 18/19-year-old cannot engage in sex with a 12-year-old unless the age of consent is set that low? Flyer22 (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Maunus, you have forced me to once again redesign the lead, while keeping the medical definition first. The typical medical definition of pedophilia comes first (sexual preference for prepubescent children), the DSM is tackled by itself in the second paragraph, and "common use" in the third, while origins, causes, and forensic psychology and law enforcement come last. But if anyone objects to these changes, the previous lead may be reinstated. Try to remember that stuff like leads and things have already been discussed extensively at articles such as these. Heated debates have been had here, compromises have been made and will continue to be made. Even the smallest change at this article can result in a big discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, you do not have to redesign the lead again, other editors are very capable of doing so themselves. The fact that you take it up to yourself that you have to redisgn it is just another example of ownership that is asserted on the article. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with ownership. Do you have to start this up again, really? It has to do with being familiar with past discussions and redesigning the lead accordingly to those discussions. For example, Maunus was clearly not aware of the fact that most editors are for the medical definition coming first. If I am at the article, I am going to tweak the lead according to what consensus and past concerns were/are, which is exactly what I did (including your concern about "early pubescent" being as high in the lead as possible, without overtaking the general "prepubescent" medical definition), as the edit history shows. If you wanted to tweak Maunus's edits, you could have done so. But Maunus's edits did need tweaking. If it was about ownership with me, I would not be willing to listen to or work with anyone but Legitimus and the other usual editors here (neglecting you and Jokestress). Your constant sniping at me when I am only acting in accordance to Wikipedia policy and guidelines is exactly what Legitimus was talking about regarding you and civility. Maunus wanted an exact definition first, and I left it that way...but in respect to what we have all been over time and time again. Flyer22 (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Maunus' lede was an improvement, yet it was unilaterally reverted by the current owner of this article. Jokestress (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

My reasons for reverting Maunus are above. And, anyway, the current lead is partially Manus's doing as well, including the lead-in. Flyer22 (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• I support the revert of Maunus' version of the lede. I don't doubt that edit was a good faith effort to improve the article, but it introduced as the main definition an unsourced generalization of the term as "adult sexual interest in children" that has been rejected by consensus more than a few times.
• There are other less precise uses of the term - they are explained in the article, as they should be, with due weight for alternate uses. Even the law enforcement uses of the term are known to be imprecise, as stated in the law enforcement sources, having developed as a sort of colloquial shorthand. In statues and court cases, the term is generally not used, as those documents focus on actions and not feelings.
• There is no problem with ownership on this article. These issues have been discussed many times in various forums, with participation of many editors. The article has developed based on consensus in those multiple discussions and the extensive talk page archives. The article presents the topic as a medical condition because that is the mainstream academic use of the term. There is no broad discussion among scholars of the existence of a form of adult sexual interest in prepubescent children that could be somehow healthy and not requiring a diagnosis as a disorder. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

RE Legal use of the term and laws about it: I am not aware of any statutory laws of any nation that use the word "pedophilia." It's possible I've just not heard of any, so let me know of there is. I also am not aware of any statutory laws that govern an attraction/preference or what have you. All laws surrounding this subject are about child sexual abuse, the act itself, or about child pornography. Law enforcement is separate from law itself, and as Jack-A-Roe pointed it, it's more of a shorthand among investigators, not a precise term. Note in the law enforcement section, I listed several illegal actions as a sort of "translation" for what such organizations actually mean when they say "pedophilia."Legitimus (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat off-topic: Rind in here and child sexual abuse

I also feel this section is off-topic because it is specifically about CSA, which needs to remain as distinct as possible. There's too much overlap and I want to avoid muddling the two topics any worse that society is already doing through linguistic laziness. Plus this article is already very long. Perhaps we can instead incorporate wikilink references to the CSA and Laws Regarding CSA articles.Legitimus (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

That diff is a bit iffy. We do want some material in here that justifies pedophilia as a mental disorder due to harm to others (rather than just "authorities say so"). So, something needs to be said about why CSA is harm (besides the self-evident language). On the other hand, the discussion of Rind et al and what came of that is WP:UNDUE in this article. Just put a simple summary along the lines: "the scientific consensus is that CSA causes harm because besides the physical harm the abused children have such-and-such problems with higher likelihood", ergo pedophilia is a disorder. Actually, you may even be able to use the "crank" Berlin source from the next section for the latter part of the argument. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's off-topic. It may go on a little long about child sexual abuse, but that (child sexual abuse) is in relation to the harm pedophilia can cause. The lead-in starts off saying "pedophilia and child sexual abuse," as to distinguish, and right below that, we clear up in another section the misuses of the term. I'm okay with it being shortened, just not as short as Jack trimmed it (to that one sentence). After all, that section is about society's views on pedophilia. It should report on why society fears/hates pedophilia -- child sexual abuse is the main reason for that. There needs to be something there about it and why society feels children cannot consent to sex. I know the caution of having Rind in this article, but it's only a criticism of his work. If it's felt that he is better left out, I am fine with that. Flyer22 (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok I can go with some mention about CSA for that reason (that is, why it is so reviled). But I agree with Tijfo, let's leave Rind out because it will confuse the issue in such a short paragraph.Legitimus (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go ahead and remove Rind. Tijfo098 will probably further tweak that section. Flyer22 (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright. I left Rind in only as a source to controversy surrounding researchers who concluded that child sexual abuse may not cause harm, but I left specific mention of Rind out. Is this okay? Flyer22 (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Good tweak, Legitimus. We'll see what Jack has to say about the current, revised text -- whether he feels more about pedophilia should be said or what. But, really, it is the child sexual abuse that the public largely comments on. Researchers usually comment on both -- the disorder and the act. Flyer22 (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Rind et al does not belong in this article for many reasons: that paper is specifically about CSA, not pedophilia; it is known to be a flawed paper based on flawed methodology; it presents a fringe theory of non-harmful CSA that has been repeatedly rejected by academia and society and it's mention provides undue weight for those fringe ideas.

Equally fringe and inappropriate for this article is Levine's book. It's about teens, not children, and not about adults being sexually involved with children. The book addresses Levine's ideas about young teens access to sexual activity in general (mainly with each other, or with older teens). It's not about pedophilia and does not belong in this article.

Kinsey's abhorrent reports of abusive sexual experiments on young children also doesn't belong here. His report did not address what was going on in the mind or feelings of the person who committed those crimes, it simply described in detail a series of acts of child abuse. Again, this one is also not about pedophilia and does not belong in this article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Good points. Regarding Kinsey in particular, his conclusions were based entirely on the diary and self-report of a single pedophile who had molested hundreds of children over several decades (Kinsey lied in his actual report about where he got his data). Kinsey relied on this one person no only to draw conclusions about pedophiles, but also for his far-fetched assertions about harmfulness to children. It is of course is not surprising that a pedophile is going to say his victims enjoyed it and were not harmed.Legitimus (talk) 10:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Jack and Legitimus, good points. I know all of that. But what of the reasons people hate pedophiles? How else to demonstrate society's general view of pedophilia if we don't report on child sexual abuse in relation to pedophilia? Underage teens are still considered children, and people often consider an adult engaging in sex with one as child sexual abuse as well (other times as statutory rape). As stated above, it is the child sexual abuse that the public largely comments on. In Legitimus's words "that is, why it is so reviled." Child sexual abuse has everything to do with pedophilia when it comes to prepubescent children, disregarding the fact that not all child sexual abusers are pedophiles. My point is, "What is the point of the General views section if we don't report on the reasons people hate pedophilia -- which is child sexual abuse, the suggestion that a child could consent to sex, etc. etc.?" Flyer22 (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I know Jack removed the "General views" title. But I still feel that the Societal views section is lacking without more information on how the general public feels about pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Flyer, I don't disagree with the idea of including a section about the views of society about pedophilia. But it has to be mainstream views, not those fringe views that were listed there previously. It would require finding reliable academic sources that explain and provide context for society's views about pedophilia. The main way society expresses its unambiguous disapproval on this topic in very clear and direct terms by making the actions of child sexual abuse illegal. But that's about actions and not feelings or mental conditions. Also it's not needed in this section because there are already other sections about laws and child moestation, and in the linked child sexual abuse article and the article on laws prohibiting child sexual abuse. In order to include a section on the general views of society about pedophilia, we need reliable sources that discuss that issue specifically (and not from a fringe view), and so far, we don't have those. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What about sources such as these, which is still in the section I attempted to create? It "criticises the justifications that are given by paedophiles for having sex with children. Part of this criticism is a brief analysis of 'sexual desire' and 'erotic'. Next, the question is raised whether paedophile activities can ever be morally permissible. Using the principles of mutual consent and non-exploitation as touchstone, the question is answered in the negative."... It discusses child sexual abuse in relation to pedophilia...and morality. As for the fringe views, that was to demonstrate society's outrage about things relating to pedophilia or what they perceive as related to pedophilia. For example, with Levine's book, people felt she was dismissive of child sexual abuse...as that TIME link shows. I made a point to acknowledge that the book was "to promote teenagers' sexual health." The point is...some of the public didn't take it that way. Rind's and Kinsey's views were to show how society will never tolerate sexual acts on prepubescent children; my text was criticism of their views. But I understand why you feel Rind and Kinsey shouldn't be in this article (Rind has been removed from this article time and time again, I know that), and I am okay with that. My main point was that pedophilia, and society's hatred of pedophilia, cannot be discussed without discussing child sexual abuse. Sure, we already have a section on Child sexual abuse in this article, but that's about the research on it in relation to pedophilia, not the general public's views on any of it (other than assuming that all child sexual abusers are pedophiles). And I'm not saying we should have a big section on this topic, since it would no doubt mostly be about the act.

Again, would sources like the one I offered above suffice to explain society's general views of pedophilia? Flyer22 (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

SVP civil commitment laws

I've added a section on that. What country do you guys live in? Do you ever watch the news? Tijfo098 (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Development

Here's the full text of that section from the Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law, ISBN 9781412951890 p. 549:

“ Pedophilia can be described as a sexual preference that is phenomenologically similar to heterosexual or homosexual orientation, in that it emerges prior to or during puberty; is stable over time; and directs the person’s sexuality in terms of his thoughts, fantasies, urges, arousal, and behavior. Retrospective studies indicate that some adult sex offenders admit to pedophilia when they were adolescents, and the average age of onset of paraphilic behavior among adolescent sex offenders is around 11 or 12 years. Some pedophiles have reported being aware of their sexual interest in children from a very early age, just as other individuals report being aware of their opposite-sex or same sex attractions early in life. ”

The (possibly crank according to the vote here) Fred Berlin also says:

“ The psychiatric profession still correctly considers pedophilia to be a mental disorder. However, like heterosexuality and homosexuality (orientations that differ from one another on the basis of differences in sexual attraction), pedophilia, too, can be thought of as a sexual orientation that is different from others on the basis of age of attraction. As with other sexual orientations, irrespective of the relative contributions of genetics and environment, maturing individuals discover the nature of their own attractions; such attractions are not the consequence of a volitional decision. Historically, untold numbers of human beings have been both demonized and vilified simply because their sexual makeups differ from the norm.

In the case of pedophilia, society must insist, for good reason, that persons who are sexually attracted to children are forbidden from acting on these attractions. As with alcoholism, such persons need to have access to effective treatments that can enable them to successfully resist succumbing to unacceptable temptations. However, just as has been the case historically with homosexuality, society is currently addressing the matter of pedophilia with a balance that is far more heavily weighted on the side of criminal justice solutions than on the side of mental health solutions.

”

So, given that another encyclopedia thought this type of information relevant, I've added it to the article here. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Stedman's Medical Dictionary

Is an example of "common usage"? Seems like a medical text; granted it might be a poor-quality one. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. But, really, using any dictionary is usually contradictory in this case, since they usually define a child as between birth and puberty (prepubescent). I was still going for how "children" is used without any qualifier and pedophilia in reference to child sexual abuse as well as attraction, when it comes to common use. Feel free to replace it, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Notes

I'm not sure how it would be put in, but under the "psychopathology" section I strongly think it should be noted that most studies like that use child abusers as "paedophiles" because most won't come out normally. Therefore if you are interviewing a bunch of rapists of COURSE you are going to find higher levels of sociopathy etc. and that the data is going to be naturally skewed. I understand if it's not that encyclopedic exactly, but as I say I strongly feel that it should be noted, or mentioned in some capacity.--Person012345 (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It does say that. The fourth paragraph of that section says exactly what you are talking about.Legitimus (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I completely missed it somehow.--Person012345 (talk) 09:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

edits explained

Child sexual abuse is different matter (related perhaps in see also, but not the same content). Sine the subject is different adn reflected as such in a seperate article it certainly cant lead into this one where the lead reflects the content of this article. A wikilink in the article or see also is certainly more appropriate than bolding it.

As the definition in the article itself suggests (and the lead reflects the article) the word means someone else. Sure its come to evolve into the current definition and that is the focus of the lead, but to exclude cited fact from the article is pov and undue weight on other factors as if representating simply 1 side. It clearly by definition is not only about sex, even if todays usage is as such. this is an encyclopaedia and hence covers everythign not just novel usages. (that would be a dictionary)Lihaas (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Pedophilia as "child friendship" in the lead, original research, etc.

As I stated to Lihaas on his or her talk page, "'Child sexual abuse' is in the distinguish tag because that is the act, while pedophilia is about the mental (what goes on in the mind) in relation to the act. Child sexual abuse is a common aspect of pedophilia, and is largely what pedophilia is about, yes, but they are not the same thing. Some child sexual abusers are not even pedophiles, as the article makes clear.

Also, describing pedophilia as 'child friendship' in the lead is highly controversial, as many pedophiles actually describe the relationship that way and believe it to only be about friendship and that they are not hurting the child. This is why I reverted you.

As for your OR and synthesis concerns, I did not mean to revert that, and it would be best that you bring that up (what you meant by that) on the talk page." Flyer22 (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You just stated you did not mean to remove the tags and yet you removed it AGAIN. Is that not a doublestandard taht you admitted to? My explanation is given on the page in the hidden tags and was right in the beginning "synthesis here, need to quote the relevant passage" I dont believe the content was written in a manner that comes from the source and would like to read it, hence the tag of possible OR

Your reverts also changed the subheading without explanation related to that where you mention the lead and revert EVERYTHING.

read my content above about the alternate to bolding the term child sexual abuse. Its better than a blanet revert.

Your comment that "child friendship" is controversial because they refer it to themselves is frankly not relevant to this position. This is an encyclopaeida not taking EITHER sides. What they believe is irrelevant, as i explained the phrase is VERBATIM taken from the passage that defines what it means and the lead must reflect the article.

About about child sexual abuse being part of the act is a POV concern of the editors, that is not what the phrase is about. As i already said it is fair game to refer to the sexual content that it has not come to mean, but that is again not the inherent form of the phrase. "paedo" means child as in paediatrician, "phile" mean to like as in bibliophile, anglophile, indophile, etc. Is that definitional controversial? it is cited on this page itself.Lihaas (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You could have added your tags back without readding everything else. I reverted you again, because you again added everything back. Your tags are back now, without everything else.

What is wrong with the subheading having "disease models" in it? That section is about the disease models, more than it is about simply history of pedophilia.

"Child friendship" is not a common meaning of pedophilia, no matter its origin. And given its use by pedophiles as the definition of pedophilia, it certainly should not be in the lead as the de facto meaning. We have an Etymology section for that. If you want it in the lead, you will need to gain WP:Consensus, but I doubt it will come first in the lead even if you do manage to gain favor.

What I said about child sexual abuse is not simply about our POV. We have distinguish tags for a reason on Wikipedia; nothing wrong with distinguishing here.

And you still have not explained your OR tags well. Hebephilia, for example, is viewed by those researchers as overlapping with pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thats fine in the interim.

Nothing wrong with the disease models, but its not a subsection of etymelogy. I then removed it as a nother section instead of subsection, im fine with adding it back just not as a subsection but section on its own

its not a de facto meaning but a de jure meaning as has been cited on the talk page and mentioned here. Maybe not the first sentence but somewhere in the elad to reflect the article that does in fact state the words meaning verbatim.

Youre not distinguishing your opening in the lead, distinguish tags are above the article which you may find some wordign for either there, see also, or merged in the article as not bold, bold is not used to distinguish but clarify the meaning of which article is being read, that article is not a redirect to this page and hance not an equivalent term. if Dr. X and Y have correltated paedophilia to abuse then that is the opinion of the doctor which is fair game to cited in the article, not to lead a definition in the first setnence.

well id like like to see the text being referenced here because it seems dubious synthesis to me the way its written. Sourced should leave no doubt as to what is said.Lihaas (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You have a point about the Etymology section. It used to be called Etymology and definitions. The Etymology section by itself is way too short, so it could be combined with the history part as Etymology and history of disease models. Would that work for you? If so, I have no problem with your changing it to that.

I meant to change my de facto mention above, but it's too late now. Anyway, the point is...I cannot see any reason that "child friendship" should be in the lead. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the most significant parts of the topic. "Child friendship" is not what this article significantly or even mostly talks about. If you want it in the lead, you will need consensus for it...since the current lead has already been thoroughly worked out.

We are distinguishing the opening in the lead. The lead talks about child sexual abuse. All we do is point the reader to the bigger/main article on child sexual abuse, and so that they can somewhat grasp the point that pedophilia and child sexual abuse are not necessarily the same thing. Flyer22 (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I dont thin etymelogy goes with history one such reason is that having "ands" in the subject forces to much content into it, although i do agree its too short. Lets' hold on this then because we near to a conclusion. If somemore can be found on etymelogy (and i will look tomorrow) then would 2 section be okay?

I think it is significant precisely for the fact that it includes a less narrow scope and is not attributable to recent changes per the {{recentism}} tag. Im fine with moving it away from the first sentence, but somewhere towards the end perhaps of a large lead is appropriate to reflect already cited content.

Well, the lead should not talk about the content of another article, certainly not that it gives the impress this article is abotu the content of that (which is the point of the bold text), if it is then the 2 articles should be merged. Again paedophilia is much more of a broad term than the limited constraints of sexual abuse. As said, i have no problem with having it in the lead but it shouldnt get undue weight, especially when a seperate article exists.

ive also added a tag to the article to get more debate here.Lihaas (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Etymology goes with history in plenty of Wikipedia articles. But if you can find more to add to the Etymology section, no, I do not object to it being its own section.

I've already given my reasons for "child friendship" not being in the lead, and have nothing more to say about it at the moment.

The lead should not talk about content of another article? Pedophilia has a lot to do with child sexual abuse. And WP:LEAD agrees that it should be talked about. The lead is not talking about the content of that article; it is talking about child sexual abuse in relation to pedophilia. Pedophilia is a broad term? All it covers is the mental disorder, child sexual abuse, and popular reference to any sexual interest in minors. That is as broad as it gets, and is why the lead covers all that.

You've added the wrong type of tag. This article is not slanted toward recent events in any way.

I ask that you stop reverting my heading for this discussion. Specific headings are useful for knowing what a discussion is about, and very helpful when looking for that discussion in the archives. As long as I am focusing on the content, and not the editor, there is nothing wrong with my heading. I hope you were not trying to bait me into WP:3RR. If you were, it should be noted that I was following WP:TALK, reverting your changes to a part of my comment (seeing as the title counts as part of my comment), and did not actually revert you more than three times after creating the title for my comment (as separate from yours). Your reverting it is also making me extremely upset, to the point that I don't want to discuss anything with you. It's best to agree to leave our headings alone; you won't touch mine, and I won't touch yours. Flyer22 (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Lihaas, looks like you have run into the owner of the page, who indeed tries to control every aspect of what can be changed, including talk page headers. As for the lead, it is very definitively biased towards one specific meaning, namely the medical operalization of the term. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Really, you are going to use your reply for that, for your usual insults and assertions after much, much discussion, instead of focusing on the matter at hand? Instead of commenting on whether or not pedophilia should be defined as "child friendship" in the lead? Can't say I'm surprised. Lihaas, however, was altering a part of my comment. I had every right to revert. And if Lihaas also reads the archives or looks over the article's edit history, Lihaas will know that I most certainly am not the only one who is responsible for the current lead, which presents BOTH medical and common use meaning of the term. People who have a problem with following or respecting WP:Consensus, as Kim does, will not find peace at Wikipedia.

In any case, I am actually working with Lihaas here, and shall continue to for as long as it takes to get this straight. Flyer22 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I wasn't talking to you. But now that you butted in, I will address you. Your whole sale reversion of everything including undisputed things is not acceptable and is a clear sign of ownership. Only after you were called on it, you reverted yourself on it. The edit warring about the title at this page is a another example of ownership. If it is not Flyer22's way. You invoke WP:TALK to justify your actions, but obviously fail to read the following: "To avoid disputes it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial." Well, it was changed back, so it was obviously controversial. But no, you kept edit warring on your own version. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No, first of all, with the bad blood between us, you already know you shouldn't send me a 3RR warning yourself, as it cannot help but be biased. Second of all, you were talking about me with the intention of provoking me.

Only after I was called on it, I reverted myself on it, you say? Uh...no...I pointed out on Lihaas's talk page and above that I did not mean to remove the OR tags, which is why I reinserted them. "Obviously controversial" is your POV. I see nothing controversial about the heading I decided to use for my reply. Nor do I see anything 3RR about reverting changes to something that is a part of my reply. Lihaas didn't like it as his or her heading; I made it my own.

What you should be focusing on is Lihaas's concern about an OR addition you made, the one about pedophilia overlapping hebephilia. Flyer22 (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you prefer I go to the noticeboard next time? Just let me know. As for my intentions, no, I had no interest in getting to you. I just warned another editor of your ownership behavior, which you even admit to in your reply above (I made it my own.). Which you also displayed nicely with the current edit war. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If you had no interest in "getting into it" with me, you would have refrained from insulting me yet again on this very talk page, as you always do (instead of focusing on the article's content, which is something you are supposed to do, especially as an administrator; I could go to the noticeboard about that). As if you did not know I would reply to your slander. If it was more about warning Lihaas of villainous Flyer22, you could have done so on his or her talk page.

Anyway, Lihaas, as I stated on your talk page, let's continue. Hopefully, editors who are interested in weighing in on the article's content regarding this matter will comment soon. Flyer22 (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I made my point towards Lihaas, and that you choose to respond was your choice. If you want to infer intent from that, I just explained it was not there.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

And no one familiar with our history is buying that. So, yes, go right back to editing your "Flyer22 owns the Pedophilia article" project page, which is nothing but slanting of what really happens here anyway. Lihaas and I will work this out on our own, or with editors interested more in improving the article than throwing out insults and holding grudges. Flyer22 (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you want to say with "Lihaas and I will work this out on our own" that I am not allowed to contribute? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Kim, you already just addressed Lihaas's concern over the Etymology and hebephilia parts with your recent edits. By not addressing it on the talk page, I of course figured you were not interested in tackling the raised issues. You have, and good. I care not if you continue to weigh in here on the talk page, as long as your comments are not insults directed at me. Flyer22 (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Good. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it may be time to go to a noticeboard about Flyer22's WP:OWN issues on this article. This is just the latest of many, many examples that demonstrate Flyer22's behavior won't change unless this ongoing matter is escalated. Jokestress (talk) 05:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no WP:OWN issues. If I do, then so do the editors who formed consensus with me against you and Kim each time. All I have done is follow WP:Consensus each and every damn time while you have complained about it each and every damn time and tried to game the system. My reverting Lihaas's edits to the lead is in accordance with Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Lihaas didn't even tag the article right when trying to bring wider discussion here. There are no WP:OWN issues to report about me. But whatever. I have my rebuttal case ready too if you want to go that route. You two will always focus on me first and foremost before focusing on what you should be focusing on -- the article content. You will not be banning me from this article, as you did Dr. James Cantor. But you can try. *Wink* Flyer22 (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no problem of ownership with Flyer22's edits on this article. She's participated collaboratively with many editors on this page over a long period and its content is the product of consensus both past and present. As can be seen above, in a situation that appeared tense at first, Flyer22 is yet again collaborating in a productive manner to work out the differences and improve the article. That said, this discussion has veered far off-topic, so, returning to the article content, I will enter a comment on the issue addressed in this section. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

To the questions brought up at the top of this section: I support the inclusion of the hatnote distinguishing the topic from Child sexual abuse, because the terms are different yet closely related. That is one of the primary uses of that type of hatnote. Regarding including "child friendship" in the lead as a definition of pedophilia, that is not at all appropriate. That can be included in the etymology section, if there are sources supporting it, but it is not a correct definition of the term as it is used in present day. The start of an article is where the most important central theme of the topic is presented. Supporting material such as how a term evolved into present day use is properly presented in later sections where it will not distract or confuse. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Response

In response to the above:

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a reason to keep it here. Etymology goes with the history of the term, not actions. As for an etymelogy/term expansion in the section mention of the word "paedophile" as differentiated from "paedophilia" could go there.

Per the above comment, "child friendship" is in the article adn sourced. See the EXACT definition of the term, i dont mind moving it from the first sentence, but it is valid enough to put somewhere in the lead. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or weblog or police force to be limited to how it is "used in the present day" Wikipedia is an encylopaedia that then deals with the term as a whole, and the meaning is thus of crucial importance.

Read my comment about child sexual abuse. Its okay to have it in the lead, but it is not what the article is about. The article is about paedophilia, not child sexual abuse which has its own, it is not even an alternate meaning/redirect requiring bold text. To say paedophilia is blanketly abuse is POV. age of consent laws around the world would qualify as paedophilia in one country and not the other where people are then not abused but voluntarily accede to it. To state again: paedophilia is a psychological/sociological phenemenom (? for lack of a better tem), not a criminal law.

Well, put another tag on as you see fit.

You were also refactoring my comments on the page, which started this discussion.Lihaas (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I am confused by your latter statement. You made a distinction between paedophilia and child sexual abuse, and yet you then used it like as though the two terms were synonymous ("would qualify as paedophilia in one country"), then stated it was a psychological phenomenon and not a criminal law. Just to be clear, "pedophilia" is the attraction, not an action. Would you concur with this? This confounding of these two concepts is a major problem and results in a ton of confusion during discourse and study of the subject.

Also let me also point out this issue before it comes up again: No age of consent law in any nation today allows a true pedophile (as defined by the DSM and ICD) to act on their impulses legally. For example, there is a widespread myth that Thailand has no age of consent and that it is a haven for pedophiles. Not true; the age of consent is 16 there. Enforcement simply isn't all that great. In Japan and Spain, the age is 12 and 13 respectively. This is at or above the statistical average age of puberty (also mentioned in the DSM) and therefore does not qualify as the target age for a true pedophile. Furthermore, the individual prefectures within these nations set the AOC at 16-18.Legitimus (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Lihaas, I was not citing other stuff exists. To me, Etymology and History go together nicely. And while we're on the subject of other stuff exists, many other other people seem to think so too...and this isn't a case where I would call it simple ignorance and incorrect formatting. The history of the disease models section, for example, is more about the history of the term than the actions of child sexual abuse. And I am not sure in what way you are distinguishing pedophilia from a pedophile. Pedophilia is the disorder, and a pedophile is a result of the disorder; that is why those things belong in the lead. As I said before, I see no reason, and no valid reason, that "child friendship" needs to go in the lead. I would also like to see reliable sources, as Jack brought up above, most definitely calling it "child friendship."

As for the other part of this most recent comment from you, Legitimus just tackled that.

And as for changing your comments -- your title -- I did that once on purpose and once accidentally (by accident after one of your reverts). After I did it on purpose, and saw you object, I made the heading my own (yes, I am not afraid to say "my own," as it is a part of MY comment). You, however, kept reverting my title, citing weird reasons for why a discussion title should not be specified to what it is about. But we are both over that now, and there is no reason to dwell on it further (for more than one apparent reason). Flyer22 (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if i wasnt clear, that is what i meant. I thought Japan was 14 though, this is more surprising. But i meant what is legal in japan would be contrued as paedophilia somewhere else, and by the logic of some even abuse, thats preciesly why the clarification of difference is needed. ie- since it is the attraction and not the action then abuse wouldnt be as abuse is the action.

For the etymelogy and history part im not saying its inherently off but history of disease diagnosis models (where calling it a disease is also pov but thats another matter im not concerned about) is not "history" of the term as in the etymelogy. Perhaps remove the "of disease models" and just label it history and then merge the two? or have "disease models" as a subsection of history?

Not distinguishing the two at all, just adding the grammatical phrase of the term and the person. (forget the word for it, like someone from say England is English)

As for child friendship ill just cite this page itself: "The word comes from the Greek: παιδοφιλία (paidophilía): Greek: παῖς (paîs), "child" and Greek: φιλία (philía), "friendship". Paidophilia was coined by Greek poets either as a substitute for "paiderastia" (pederasty).[28]" where the definition is as such. its already pov to be accusatory, an encyclopaedia isnt an advocacy or criminal/legal body.

So to see where se stand now: only the bolding of "child sexual abuse" and the definition is in question? We can go ahead and go ahead and corect the history part? Im making a WP:Bold change on that, see if it works for you?Lihaas (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Pardon, but you did it again. "what is legal in japan would be contrued as paedophilia somewhere else" is not a correct use of this term. Technically it's "what is legal in japan would be contrued as statutory rape somewhere else." It many interest many who read this talk page to know that Japan uses the DSM as their standard just like the US does. And per the DSM, it is only diagnosed as pedophilia if the patient is attracted to children who have not attained puberty (generally 12 and under). Diagnosis is not culturally relative when using this text. Law is relative (e.g. statutory rape and child sexual abuse). Social acceptance is relative (e.g. "robbing the cradle" "pervert" etc.). But the label of pedophilia is a standardized medical diagnosis, and it is the same across the board, in the US or Japan.

Also, I should point out that φιλία (philía) would probably be more accurately translated as "affinity" or "attraction" (either in a scientific manner like microaerophilia, or an emotional manner.) "Friendship" is a misleading way to phrase it, since microaerophile are not friends with low oxygen environments.Legitimus (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Lihaas I changed the title Definition to Etymology and definitions, since you have combined the two sections. Are you okay with this? If you would rather it go back to just being titled Definition, then I feel it should be plural (as in Definitions), since that section is dealing with more than one definition. As for the title "Disease models," that is not due to POV; that is due to the models actually being disease models. You already know I like specific titles or titles that describe sections as accurately as possible. "History" by itself does not work, because that section is not covering all the history of pedophilia; it is rather covering the history of that term. But then again, now that I think about it, the main title does now specify that these sections are more about the term. Thus...naming that subsection History is not too off the mark. "History of the term" works better for me than "History," though. "Disease models" was only recently added anyway. A constant inner battle I keep having is whether or not the Diagnostic criteria section should be a subsection of the section dealing with the term's history of disease models.

Regarding the "child friendship" part, I'm asking for reliable citations (one would do) that word it exactly as "child friendship," not us (the editors) putting those words together in that way. And as you can see from the article, someone has already asked that the text be verified. Flyer22 (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Legitimus so you are in agreement that is not abuse then and we can at least de-bold from the lead if not take it out altogether. Also for the term i used freindship only as a direct quote from the article, if you feel the other is better then im fine with that. the main issue was to have the definition in the lead as it is not only a legal matter. (which, as the age of consent mentions, in some countries pre-puberscent wedding do happen and i can only imagine that they would be consummated.

for the rest: its a bit awkward to have "and" in the title, but it seems okay now, not point arguing on and on. I wouldnt mind it being plural either way. i agree with what you say about the history part, and wouldnt mind the diagnostic being a subsection, though wed have to make sure the whole article then isnt virtually a subsection.Lihaas (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Lihaas, I think mentioning what pedophilia actually means, provided by good sources, is definitely something to be in the lead and would make it a bit less biased towards the medical operalization. I checked the age of consent laws and there are indeed a series of countries where the age of consent is 13 or younger, bringing them into the range of pedophilia that according to the DSM-IV is defined as 13 years and younger. (Lets not bring in the ICD-10 or the DSM-V proposals that have a higher age (14)). I think that is definitely something that will improve the articles lack of world-wide view on this. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so weve got some consent on that. We just need to figure where to merge in the lead and perahps use the other suggestiong of the definition above.

Now i think the issue is of over emphasising the "abuse" part. (which is more focused on the requisite article)

seems like a missed flyer22 last comment. The cite request was made by myself if i remember properly, but someone above suggested a better alternative. that could do. This says "child loving" which we can break up to show "paedo" = child and "philia" = loving?Lihaas (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Lihaas, I'd say "sort of" to that. Yes, the word "pedophilia" does not mean "abuse" and a person acting within the national laws of Japan would neither be perpetrating abuse nor would meet the criteria of having pedophilia. However, a person in Japan desiring to have sex with children age 6-8 is still a pedophile, and if they act on it, they have committed abuse. The concepts are connected, because pedophilia is a drive to carry out an act that is medically harmful and illegal in all but the most lawless and backwards of nations (which I would like to hear the names of, if anyone knows).

Look, abuse has to stay in the hatnote for no other reason that so many people are morons who think the two terms are synonymous. The very purpose of putting in there is to divide these two topics and reduce how they are confounded.

Regarding "philia," again it would do it a disservice to translate it as "love." The Greeks had many words for "love," all with different implications, so I think my aforementioned suggestion still stands, since it is based on the source (a classic Greek Lexicon) that was already there.Legitimus (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Lihaas, I think leaving the hatnote on abuse is a right thing to do. As for the other aspects, yes, lets see where we can add that properly.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think precisely because "readers are morons" and think its synanomous the distinction has to made. What we said above it that paedophilia is not the action, hence not abuse by itself only when pursued to such measures. Otherwise on its own its just a psychological aspect, and its not inherently about sex. As is other words "paedo-" or "-philia" would imply sex. Again im not saying to remove it altogether from the lead, it is now the main aspect and clearly warrants space even in the top of the lead, but not the first sentence with bold emphasis.

For the definition it seems weve got a new section below ill answer.(Lihaas (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)).

Lihaas, I'm going to, like I always say, Legitimus is right about what pedophilia is. Pedophilia is not based on the age of consent or pubescents and post-pubescents. If it were, then what is a pedophile in one state would not be a pedophile in another sate, which is just silly. For example, one would be a pedophile for taking up with a 17-year-old in one state, but not a pedophile for taking up with a 17-year-old in another state. And the DSM-V proposals are for merging pedophilia with hebephilia to cover the overlap; it doesn't suddenly make hebephilia the same thing as pedophilia. Pedophilia by itself would still be used to diagnose people (according to Dr. James Cantor, who is a researcher behind the new proposals, and has also helped out with editing this article). Legitimus is absolutely correct that a pedophile (a true pedophile) has no true (notice I said "true") interest in adult-like bodies. And a pubescent 14-year-old girl, with breasts and everything else that resembles a woman, is not something that would tempt a true pedophile. Some 14-year-old girls are even done with puberty (post-pubescent). Most are damn near close to done. When it comes to hebephilia in relation to pedophilia, I feel that it always applies more to boys, considering so many 11 to 14-year-old boys still look prepubescent, which is no doubt why Karen Franklin mentioned girls more than she did boys when objecting to hebephilia being categorized as a disorder. As for the general view of pedophilia -- any sexual interest in children or adolescent minors -- that has been gone over time and time again (recently especially), and is already mentioned in the lead. It just doesn't come first in the lead after much, much debate. But then again, you are not arguing for that coming first in the lead or having more representation in the lead than it already does, are you? Your issues here have been the child sexual abuse part of the hatnote, the "child friendship" wording and the Etymology section, and I must say that it has been nice working with you...despite our initial, minor problems with each other. The child sexual abuse hatnote issue seems to have new WP:Consensus for being there, but I am still open to hearing your arguments for its removal. And, oh...the "verification needed" tag for the "Child" and "friendship" part was already there before your edits. Flyer22 (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

thought wed already clarified the term being 13-in usage. Which we also did not saying disavows the term "paedophile" being used even in that range, but it disallows the term abuse being used which is the crux of confusion over emphasising both. again, as said below im not against using the term abuse in the lead even (let alone the article which is not in doubt that it should be there somewhere), but the emphasis on abuse (as mentioned below) obfuscates the fact that in some parts of the world it may still be "paedophilia" by any stretch of the imagination but is "not" abuse by legal method or otherwise. that gives the article slant towards certain euro-centirc perceptions. (although the FLDS would stil argue otherwise that it is volutnary) There was also some community on a French Polynesian Island that it was volutnary and only become anissue when 20th century french missions started there.

okay, my bad ;)(Lihaas (talk) 08:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)).

LOL, by speaking of the age of consent part, I wasn't speaking of the child sexual abuse part...unless you count the people feeling that an adult engaging in sex with someone under the age of consent is child sexual abuse. But, yes, all has been worked out between us now; glad we could do so. Flyer22 (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a few changes made, which i dont think are controversial as its just grammatical. I also asked ont he page if a term should be italicised for emphasis (but didnt do it yet)

Also this "Nepiophilia" was tagged as dubious. Really somethign like that needs an authoritative source. (who invented it? the term and/or the "action." i cant believe that exists. its not even theoretically possible?!)(Lihaas (talk) 11:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)).

Taking out mention of the inappropriateness of "child love" goes against the WP:Consensus reached below... So, yes, it is a controversial edit, more so due to what Legitimus, Jack and myself mentioned. That is why I will be reverting you on that. I already reverted you on the "common use" part of the lead, because mentioning that pedophilia is commonly applied to any sexual interest in children is a part of recent consensus, as well as long-standing consensus. And I am not seeing why you put the law tag on this talk page. We have already gone over that pedophilia is not based on the law. The law takes care of child sexual abusers who may be pedophiles, and people who have committed statutory rape. People are not sent to jail/prison for being a pedophile. The only way I see the law tag as being relevant is in relation to how law enforcement sometimes use the term pedophile, or how a pedophile may be sent to jail for the act of child sexual abuse. Flyer22 (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Common usage seems to have the added caveat, although that is still editoralising that it is "common usage." Id like to see the cite on that. Someone else has added the fact tag to the "inappropriate" part which is editoralising too.

Law tag is because the article deals with the legal aspect (although i wouldnt oppose removing the content to the requisite abuse page with the tag). See "In law and forensic psychology"

also, there was some legal case that reached the SC some tiem ago about fabricated child porn (ie- computer/drawing and no actual people). That should be mentioned in the section as such. I forget the ruling, i think the appeals court of the SC said that was legal.(Lihaas (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)).

There is no editorializing when it comes to the "common use" part. It is backed up by several sources showing that the way the term is used in the medical sense (sexual preference for prepubescent children) is not the way the term is generally used. It is often used to refer to child molesters (who may or may not be pedophiles) and statutory rapists. See the source for the "Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided" line. Also see the sources in the Child sexual abuse section which talk about how the term pedophilia is commonly confused with child molestation. And see the Fred Berlin source which specifically says that the term pedophilia generally applies to sexual activity/interest with/in minors (minor means any person under the age of majority, not just teenagers). We wouldn't have a Misuse of medical terminology section if the term was not commonly misused. As for the law tag on the talk page, I already stated that is likely the reason you added it. And I will take care of the "inappropriate" part, which was editorializing; it will be much easier to find reliable sources simply saying that "child love" is often only used by pedophiles these days. Flyer22 (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, per Wikipedia formatting, not everything in the lead needs to be sourced...as long as the same topic is sourced/covered elsewhere in the article. I ask that you look over the layout of Wikipedia articles more closely due to this fact, as well as due to the fact that not every line is going to have its source attributed immediately after it; the source may be a little ways over, as to not over-source. Also, plenty of sources, such as book sources without urls, are not going to be readily verifiable; this doesn't mean that the source is likely OR, a lie, or needs verification. It means that it is up to the reader to verify the source for themselves, since the source is provided to them after all. Flyer22 (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

okay cool. although having now thoroughly read that paragraph i feel it doesnt flow (only grammar wise, not content) as in "The current DSM-" jumps out of nowhere. Also to move that para below the "Pedophilia was first formally recognized " para. (and then moved the 2nd para "According to the " between the 2). It would also help the flow to mention either before or after the "common usage" part (although i suppose the first para covers that). One can also remove the "in the US" part for giving an over-emphasis to one part of the world, leave it in the article i think/

this should also be at least a GA. nom time?(Lihaas (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)).

"The current DSM" part was added by Tijfo098, and it flows to me because it is right after the DSM definition of pedophilia. It's also there to tackle early pubescents being a part of the pedophilia definition, which is something that has been recently heavily debated here. It gives more neutrality to the wider definition of pedophilia, even though such a definition is technically incorrect if applying to clearly pubescent individuals. The "in the US" part is likely there because we only know that to be true for the US. I'm not sure the common use paragraph should come last; As I stated before, most of the lead has been heavily debated. The current format is a result of those debates. The common use part comes as early as we can address it (though it used to come second, and second could/would work too) without giving undue weight to what are essentially incorrect uses of the term, according to experts in those fields anyway. We also didn't put it last, because common use is so prominent and there are editors here who wanted common use represented more thoroughly in the article, besides what is stated in the Child molestation section.

I wouldn't say the article is ready for GA; with the exception of the current citation needed tag, and maybe the verification needed tag, it seems to be. But I feel it needs a little more polish first. A polish in what? Just all over; nothing too specific in my mind right now, except taking care of the tags and an expansion of the section on law enforcement. Flyer22 (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

(to clear the indent) well ill be willing to expand and clean it if you do. i think youre more the expert but here and there i can help

fine ont he lead then, except the us thing because if we do get others (and at least w. europe is plausible) would we be listing it all? specifics are not really needed for a lead to summarise/paraphrase.Lihaas (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with you expanding this article. And it's the community's/public's article anyway, so I wouldn't be able to stop you regardless, LOL...unless the article was considered too huge and expanding it was seen as not wise due to WP:Consensus or if what you wanted to add was not relevant to this article, or has been banned before (through past discussions). So your expanding things would certainly be great. I'm just worried about the lead, due to what I stated above. The GA bit? It's something I would rather the regular editors be here for, such as Jack-A-Roe and Legitimus. Or even SqueakBox. Jack is fairly busy these days, and so am I (though not as busy as Jack). And the GA nomination process usually requires a lot of editing -- tweaking and changing things at the suggestion of the the GA reviewer; some of things suggested may be things that are the way they are through year after year of consensus. I'm just not up for the GA process right now. And I want to be fully available for that when the time comes. If you're okay with checking back in two months or maybe three in regards to nominating this article for GA, I'll be up for that (hopefully, I'll be a little freer).

Oh, and you kill me. Changing "common usage" to "popular usage." What do you have against the wording "common usage," LOL? It even goes with the followup "This common use application..." ...Oh well. I'm not too against it. I only ask that you don't change the followup to "This popular use application..." That part definitely sounds better without "popular" in it. Flyer22 (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool

i think im more free not than in 3 months, but id be willing to help on an expansion not being an expert on the subject (origin apart)(Lihaas (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)).

Etymology

The root of philia is φίλος, phílos, which means friendly love, affection or friendship. Not attraction or affinity. (the claim that the source says this is incorrect). It is different from romantic love, which has as a root amor, like in amorous. Scientific animal names are build often from the same words, like the term "Drosophila", meaning "dew-loving". Or Anglophile, which means English Loving. Phil, which has the same root, in general in English words means loving. So, I suggest we are going to follow that general usage, which is also how it is generally explained by other sources, such as http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pedophilia:

• 1905, from Gk. pais (gen. paidos) "child" (see pedo-) + philos "loving." First attested in Havelock Ellis.

-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. I confused a passage from another source. I would suggest friendly love to avoid confusion with romantic, which to English readers has strong tendency to be implied by the word "love" alone. The unsourced remark about poets coming up with the term as an alternate, I had nothing to do with. But, I found a great number of contradictory sources about it. Flaciere seemed to imply that "paidophilia," with the implication of "philia," was a completely platonic relationship in Ancient Greece, used for purposes of education (i.e. mentoring). Whereas others seemed to imply terms were interchangeable and that a sexual component was sometimes (but not always) involved. If anybody has a good source on this from a linguistic point of view, please post.Legitimus (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind pointing me to that source? I can agree with "friendly love" as avoiding the connotation with romantic love in this case seems to be valid. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Legitimus this is exactly what i was trying to say above. the sexual aspect maybe predominantly in use, expecially today, but it is not always the component.

Anyway, so "child" and love" will be at least 2 of the words to post on the article and lead. The question if im right now is which adjective to add to love? We have 2 sources right now and can await another and/or work these at least in the temp.(Lihaas (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)).

Hey, Lihaas, I replied again in the Response section above. I still don't feel that it should go in the lead, but if WP:Consensus is for it, I won't try to object. My only objection would be it coming first in the lead. If you have to place it anywhere, I would say it should go in the lead's final paragraph, which talks about the term's origin already. Flyer22 (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel "child" and "love" (or "friendship") do not belong in the lead (that is, they should stay just in the history/etymology section) because it is far to literal and the meaning is now far removed from these ancient Greek roots. Think about the likes of hypochondriasis; the word in Greek literally means "relating to the upper abdomen" or "beneath the breast bone cartilage." We wouldn't put that in the lead because it's rather unimportant compared when you're trying to sum up the article text, and is somewhat irrelevant to how one would describe the condition right now in the times we live in.

One thing I should point out is that the term "child love" is a talking point of pedophile propaganda movements and pedophilic individuals a way to euphemize and obfuscate their intentions and behavior. Using such a line in such a prominent location risks being interpreted the wrong way.Legitimus (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the lead should become far more nuanced and less focused on the medical operalization of this term. As such, I think the development of the term should be briefly mentioned in the lead.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Legitimus, the pedophile propaganda part is the main reason (likely the only reason) I objected (and still object) to "child friendship" (or "child love") being in the lead (especially as the lead-in definition), as noted above. You and I have been through pedophiles trying to inject such language into the lead before, not that I'm suggesting Lihaas is a pedophile. But since control over this article keeps being addressed, as well as perceived paranoia on our parts, I'm not even going to argue this request much this time. Leaving it up to WP:Consensus without much argument from me. Flyer22 (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You make a good point. The long hard road may have made Flyer and myself a little cautious. Perhaps sentence 2 of the lead? If it where similar to, for example, the lead of Coprolalia.Legitimus (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I like that idea, anf I think in this case, we could immediately add a sentence that many nowadays consider that inappropriate proving a direct inroad to changes over time with regard to this topic. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course I would still rather it not be in the lead, but the suggestion sounds good. A good compromise indeed. And I was definitely thinking about a line regarding its inappropriateness these days. Flyer22 (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with flyer that we can take the info out of the first sentence but put it somewhere in the lead.

Again, Wikipedia's intentions is not as some new-age dictionary, but precisely to incorporate various meanings, and thus if the article were to only encompass the modern context then it would be {{recentism}}, if it were to be controlled on the basis of "paedophilia advocacy" which i havent heard of anywhere outside the west (As weve discussed above) then it would be {{globalize}}

And im also fine with somethign along what KimvdLinde suggested to incorporate the evolution of the term and then mentions something abotu abuse (perhaps as it already is, we dont need to change anything) in the lead itself just without undue emphasis.

just took out the "this literal meaning" as the phrase already deals with the root word and the next sentence deals with what its come to mean.(Lihaas (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)).

Still, your removal of the inappropriateness of "child love" goes against the agreement formed here. It's there for a very valid reason, already gone over just a little above. This was/is our compromise with you. Flyer22 (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I didnt remove "child love" anyhoo, see above.(Lihaas (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)).

I didn't say you removed "child love." Of course you wouldn't; you're the one who wants it there; the main one anyway. I said you removed the line about the inappropriateness of child love. And as I stated above, I will take care of it, because it is no secret to people who have studied every aspect of pedophilia (including relations to it, such as pedophile chat rooms) and organizations such as Perverted Justice that pedophiles generally use that wording. Flyer22 (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I read an interesting (though quite amateur) study about the "first stage" and the legal aspect of starting with scantily-clad (which would not technically be illegal) and then moving on. Could probably mention something here in the diagnosis part but i dont the source.

also, if you are from the us, have you hard about that case in which fabricated child porn (ie- comp. generated images/drawings) were ruled upon by the court? although thats probably for said article instead.Lihaas (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that animation showcasing child porn is a no-no as well. Some people have a huge problem with lolicon. I'm not sure on the specifics of anime or drawings featuring child porn, but it is child porn imagery all the same, which some pedophiles can become sexually aroused by. Might be worth a mention in the Diagnosis section. Flyer22 (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

last i heard at least one of the courts said it was okay because (to paraphrase) there werent actual children harmed, but we expected it to be appealed anyways ;)

Japan recently (and i mean this month or last month) cracked down on that too. should we put it here on the child pron article?Lihaas (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean lolicon? If so, lolicon is dealing with pubescents and post-pubescents, not prepubescents, but then again...child porn can include pubescents and post-pubescents as well (so long as they are underage). Not to mention, lolicon deals with dressing girls up to look younger than they are -- to look prepubescent. I would ask the people who normally edit the Child porn article first. In other words, it should be brought up on the talk page there before any edits are made on that front, in my opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

There's already an article about this -- Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors -- found at the top of the Controversy section of the Lolicon article as well. Flyer22 (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Eureka! Found it, apparently Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition partially answered the query i sought.(Lihaas (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)).

Lihaas, what are you doing with edits like this? What you cited as POV is not POV at all. It is a fact, as attributed to pedophiles. The general public doesn't do this, doesn't sport these "brands," doesn't say "child love" or "child lover." Furthermore, the sentences made no sense after your edits. This is why Legitimus reverted you on that. And as for this line:

The term has a range of definitions as found in psychiatry, psychology, the vernacular, and law enforcement.

All of that is already sourced. We go over all these definitions with sources already; therefore, that line needs no source. I don't understand your edits sometimes. Flyer22 (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from BigStripyKitty, 4 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} replace"This article is primarily about the sexual interest in prepubescent children. For the sexual act, see Child sexual abuse. For the primary sexual interest in 11–14 year old pubescents, see Hebephilia. For mid-to-late adolescents (15-19), see Ephebophilia." at top of article with

This article is primarily about the sexual interest in prepubescent children. For the sexual act, see Child sexual abuse. For the primary sexual interest in prepubescents, see Pedophilia. For the primary sexual interest in 11–14 year old pubescents, see Hebephilia. For mid-to-late adolescents (15-19), see Ephebophilia.

BigStripyKitty (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Your proposed edit doesn't make sense, as it is self-referential, linking to itself in its hatnote. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Split into/merged with Pedophilia (psychiatry), Paedophilia (sexology), sexual Child abuse and replaces with disambiguation links

this article is full of Misuse of medical terminology. The words "pedophile" and "pedophilia" to refer to sexual child abuse, preferat for prepubecnt sexual partners. and for violation of statutory rape laws

Already have [[[sexual Child abuse]], Pedophilia (psychiatry), Paedophilia (sexology)

• opps Vejvančický deleted Pedophilia (psychiatry), Paedophilia (sexology) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigStripyKitty (talk • contribs) 13:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Everyone go home

This page is now officially redundant. Make your edits to the main article!