Jump to content

Talk:Paraphilic infantilism/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

i) The majority of infantilists are heterosexual males

(The discussion of vii, "There is a ratio of ~10-20 males per female AB/DL," involves acceptance of the AB/DL terminology. The discussion regarding that terminology was derailed due a few editors' determination to use CAMH sources. That terminology is also involved with MissionNPOVible's items ii, v, vi, and viii. iii, iv, and vii have already been discussed. iii and vii discussions have also been derailed due a few editors' determination to use CAMH sources. However, a tacit consensus for iv might have been reached.)

A) Mostly male

  • DSM pg 568 gives a 20 males to female ratio (5%), and pg 572 defines masochism under the heading of masochism. (Those seeking to dismiss the DSM have argued that the DSM defines it as only a practice among masochists, but this would not affect the demographic similaries. )
  • Dr. Speaker's 1986 dissertation observed 26:1 (pg 78) or 4%.
  • Dave's 2001 survey gave 7%
  • <original research> My own survey showed that the AB/DL population was around 8% female. (Note that the 7% and 8% values included paraphilic infantilists and non-paraphilic AB/DLs. For example, the wives of paraphilic infantilists who developed an interest in being an AB/DL would be included in the 7% and 8% values, but not the 20:1 ratio. </original research>
  • Brame pg. 138: "Infantilism is primarily a male phenomenon and is practiced by straight and gay men."
  • Brame pg. 142: (quoting the DPF founder regarding DPF membership) "Upwards of 95 percent [of our members] are male... A fair percentage of the dominant women that we're getting are professional; a few are the wives of infantilists." Upwards of 95% male would mean downwards of 5% female.

B) Mostly heterosexual

  • Dr. Speaker's 1986 dissertation observed 20 primarily heterosexual (62%), 6 primarily homosexual, and 6 bisexual (pg 78).
  • Dave's 2001 survey gave 66% straight, 14% bisexual, 10% gay, etc.
  • <original research> My own survey [http://understanding.infantilism.org/surveys/survey1_abdls_etc_part1.php#7 showed that the surveyees reported being 58% heterosexual, 13% bi, leaning toward heterosexual, etc. Since this survey included three 'bi' options, a slight decrease in the percentage that selected heterosexual or straight is to be expected.</original research>
  • Brame pg. 142: (quoting the DPF founder regarding DPF membership) "We're about two-thirds straight and one third gay. [This is] a little heavier than average on gay, because we were originally a gay organization."

Accept, reword, add refs, stonewall until a CAMH ref is included? BitterGrey (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The DSM is out, your own survey is out. Speaker's dissertation interviewed a very small number of men making generalization inappropriate. Brame could be attributed as "Brame estimated that in his own group was primarily heterosexual" but it's questionable whether we should use such a source to make a broad generalization based on a single group. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Please see my point above about checking sources before claiming to know about them[1]. Dr. Gloria Brame is not a "he." BitterGrey (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
There is Hickey, however. I only have his statement on snippet view in google books; but the book is widely available and worth checking out as he has a whole chapter on infantilism.FiachraByrne (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll see if I can track down a copy. According to snippet view, the pages listed for "homosexual" and "heterosexual" don't seem to overlap with the infantilism chapter. This might mean that, like the DSM, the sex ratio data is discussed separately by category, or it might mean nothing. What are your thoughts on the references listed? BitterGrey (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
On Hickey, that's the opening of the section on infantilism so he's obviously directly addressing their specific demographics. What his sources are for his statements are as of yet a mystery.
If I'm not mistaken Speaker's dissertation was for an M.A.? If so, unless it's been widely discussed in the academic literature, it ain't rs even if accurate. We can't include the survey as it isn't rs. Your own research isn't rs. Brame refers to the demographics for an organisation. It can be presented with appropriate caveats and context (as you've included above). The DSM is trickier but I actually think it can be used in this instance if properly constructed and if you don't present it, as before, as if it were specifically talking about infantilism. So therefore we could say that while "there is no reliable data" (that we're aware of, that meets RS, or that we have access to) "on the specific demographics of infantilists. However, the DSM states that paraphilics are mostly men..." etc. It's not synth, I think, if you're not presenting it as a conclusion but merely as the best indication. It's also common sense but it is pushing the source. The real objection for me to the previous use of the DSM is where it is presented as talking specifically about infantilism or diaperism when it doesn't (aside from section on masochism). Again, to be clear, this would have to be presented, in my opinion, as a general observations about paraphilics rather than a specific one about infantilists or diaper fetishists. However, this suggestion may contravene proper use of sources?FiachraByrne (talk) 05:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
(Dr.) Speaker's dissertation was for his doctorate, and as such is an RS. Speaker also wrote a thesis, which was for his Masters. As for the DSM, in this case it doesn't matter whether one asserts that it classifies infantilism as a type of masochism or an independent paraphilia, since they are both mostly male. BitterGrey (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The clue was in the "Dr." Good, then he is a RS (although as with the case studies, are his own findings not a primary source?). However, if he's giving a demographic breakdown of his sample, we'd have to give proper context (how many in sample, how selected, etc). Does he discuss any other literature on this subject? Also, does he engage with or criticise ETLE theory? FiachraByrne (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The dissertation's bibliography has 53 items listed. Neither the main ETLE theory (regarding transvestism) nor its fringe application to infantilism were mentioned. BitterGrey (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
An unpublished dissertation gets considerably less weight than research published by university press. Merely because a dissertation has been published does not mean that it is automatically mainstream. A good question would be how many times has it been cited? That's usually one of the metrics used to determine impact. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean total, or just among the articles already cited in the Wikipedia article? BitterGrey (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
An unpublished dissertation would not get undue weight compared to scholarly sources, though it can be cited with care. In the event of a contradiction between it and other sources, I would lean towards the other sources. The number of citations a source gets (google scholar has a "cited by" feature, e.g. [2]) is one measure of a source's impact. The number of times a source is cited on wikipedia is quite meaningless. Citing an unpublished dissertation extensively on a wikipedia article would only be valid if there were some evidence it was taken seriously in the greater literature, if there were virtually no other sources to draw upon, or if it were used repeatedly to verify noncontroversial definitions and other basic information. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Google books preview for Brame

I've found a copy of Brame et al. on google books that allows for a lengthy preview, including the sections on infantilism:

  • Brame, GG (1996). Different Loving: An Exploration of the World of Sexual Dominance and Submission. Random House of Canada. ISBN 0679769560. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

I've adjusted the main page to use it instead of the version cited before, since it allows much easier verification. Having a google account (gmail, google blogs, etc.) may allow you to preview more of the text since it's normally based on how many people you share your IP address with. Ideally we should work from this copy, and realistically the only issues should arise if there is a disparity between the different editions. If so, we can work it out on a case-by-case basis. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I've got no preview and I've got a google mail account. I presume it's a licensing issue for outside U.S.?FiachraByrne (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm in Canada, perhaps it's a UK issue. Are you logged into your gmail account while trying to view them? Can you see anything at all, but just can't access a specific page range? There are a half-dozen different editions, you may have some luck trawling through google books and see if one of them turns up with a preview. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Call me old-fashioned, but it is a good book to have. I trust you are saving screencaps of all refs you're getting off Google. I wouldn't be surprised if Google changed what pages it offered every now and then. BitterGrey (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
The only time it should be an issue is if there is a disagreement. If that's the case, we'll work with what we have. If worst comes too it, I can probably get it via interlibrary loan. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
How widespread is the practice of Wikipedians modifying or deleting citations to references they don't have, and so implicitly, haven't read? BitterGrey (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Case studies

In order to cite specific cases as examples of what is wrong with the infantilism literature, we need a secondary source saying "X case does not apply because it's infantilism with confounding issues". If such sources exist, they can be cited. However, we should never hold up a series of case studies and say "these do not apply because they inappropriately contain confounds. In particular, we shouldn't say "e.g." without a source making that comparison for us. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Other articles that turn up in infantilism literature surveys may actually be cases of other conditions (e.g. epilepsy PMID 13202455), or have other atypical factors (e.g. severe head injuries,PMID 2279218 hormonal treatment[3] etc).

So I'd only be able to refer to a case as atypical if the author wrote something along the lines of 'no similar case report has been documented' or something like that? BitterGrey (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Case studies you have to be careful with in general. The only reason I am willing to support their inclusion is because there's so little scholarly literature in general. You can't say "X study is an example of Y" unless there is a source saying it is so. Claiming Mitchell et al. 1954 is actually an example of another condition would require Mitchell to make that claim. Pandita does give brief summaries of what literature exists, and that is what I have cited on the main page.
Specifically, if a case study says "no similar case has been documented", that's the limit to what you could say (and in that case, why say it at all because you'd basically be saying "In X year, one case study was reported in which an individual with paraphilic infantilism and Y condition were reported, though it is unlike any other case ever reported." Unless there's a damned good reason to highlight that case study, you're better off leaving it out. You can cite the actual publication for its literature review and discussion, just not the individual aspects of the case unless the author specifically attempts to generalize to a larger group. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
So you have gotten a copy of Mitchell since you wrote "Mitchell is from 1954 and I don't have a copy"[4] BitterGrey (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Nope. Can you provide me a relevant quote from Mitchell that says "This paper is not about infantilism, it's about epilepsy"? And for that matter, was it a literature survey or a case report? What would be nice is an actual reliable source stating "much of the literature is not about infantilism specifically but its appearance as a comorbidity with other conditions". But again, that needs an explicit source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
So you admit that you just edit warred again regarding a source you weren't familiar with?
By the way, Mitchel writes that his is a case of an "...unusual association of this fetish with temporal lobe epilepsy..." (pg 626) Additionally, you don't seem to have recognized the quote from Pandita above (pg 768). Perhaps if you spent more time checking references, there wouldn't be so much arguing.
Even if Mitchell hadn't described his case as atypical, it would be clear to any unbiased reader. "The patient would stare at the [safety] pin for a minute and then appear glassy-eyed. Next he would make a humming noise for a few seconds and for a few further seconds [make] sucking movements with his lips. Finally he stood immoble and unresponsive for two minutes. Recovery was immediate. Just before some attacks, his right pupil would dilate." (pg 627) BitterGrey (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Therefore what relevance does the article have to the page, and why are we citing it? Does Mitchell say "this case is not an example of infantilism, it is an example of epilepsy"? If an unbiased reader has to read the article itself and then draw the conclusion is atypical, we shouldn't be citing it as an atypical case - the source must draw the conclusion itself. Pandita starts on page 767, page 766 is another article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
If desired, you can always kick this question to the original research noticeboard. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
It is relevant because those who aren't familiar with Mitchell will think there is a connection with epilepsy, because it is so often cited. Even the version of the article you've been fighting for includes "Some case studies have been published that associate paraphilic infantilism with temporal lobe epilepsy"[5][6].BitterGrey (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
The full quote is "Some case studies have been published that associate paraphilic infantilism with temporal lobe epilepsy, though it is unclear if there is a relationship" PMID 2279218. I made a point of including the part following the comma, since it clearly states that a hypothesis has been posited, but not confirmed. The full quote from Pandita is:

Some paraphilics have, concurrently with their diagnosis of paraphilia, also a diagnosis of epilepsy. However, the relationship between paraphilia and epilepsy has not yet been fully resolved, although there are a few published cases of paraphilia associated with temporal lobe epilepsy.

I think my summary of the article is adequate, what do you think is missing? There have indeed been some individuals who hypothesized a link. That link has not been confirmed. That's the state of the literature to date, unless we are missing other sources. The most important issue is that Pandita makes the case explicitly, not me or any other editor. Given that it's presented as an unconfirmed hypothesis, it's certainly not undue weight. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
This is the only other reference I can find to epilepsy and infantilism. It is probably atypical, but then again I would imagine that all of the case reports are atypical in one way or another.
  • Abstract: A 24-year-old right-handed man is described, who suffered grand-mal seizures since he was 18 months old. During childhood he preferred girls' games and company. At 10 years of age he began to dress in female clothes and wished to live as a woman. At 15 years of age he began to dress as a baby, wanting to evolve into a sophisticated woman. Examination showed the presence of constructional dyspraxia, and a partial left homonymous hemianopia. His CT head scan showed right cerebral hemiatrophy.
  • Pettit, I.I. (1980-08-23). "Tempral lobe epilepsy with diaper fetishism and gender dysphoria". The Medical Journal of Australia. 2 (4): 208–9. PMID 7432289. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
FiachraByrne (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Does the literature review and discussion make any generalizations or make any commentary on the literature as a whole? I still think citing specific case studies as case studies rather than literature reviews or generalizations of the discussion is a bad idea. Naturally, any generalizations might work. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

@FiachraByrne: Well, no two cases will be exactly alike, but some are much more atypical than others. I can't say I'm happy that the current text takes a statement about unspecified paraphilias, rooted in a epileptic "fetishes" for a safety pin and hair, respectively, and applies it specifically to paraphilic infantilism. BitterGrey (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Which source currently used on the page discusses safety pins or hair as an epileptic fetish? Since Mitchell 1954 is not cited at all, I know it's not that one. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 03:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

@WLU. I dunno, I just have the abstract. It's unlikely that I'll be able to get a print copy before about mid-Sept. @Bittergrey. That's true but what I mean is that lacking a non-clinical and non-offender population survey published in an rs it's impossible to say what is or is not typical. In point of fact it would appear that outside of paedophilia and transexualism the academic research on the paraphilias has been limited as we're dealing with a largely "uncaptured" population. In that regard I came across an interesting phd dissertation today that attempts to capture sexual deviation in the general population. Bowman, Jason (2010). "Sexual deviance amongst non-sex offenders: A social learning analysis". Florida: University of Florida. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) I only have access to the first chapter which critiques studies on paraphilias limited to clinical/offender pops, but I think adult babies are discussed to some extent in the body of the text. It might be worth checking out.FiachraByrne (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

@WLU, I'm not sure how to interpret your question, "Which source currently used on the page discusses safety pins or hair as an epileptic fetish?" You are the one warring to cite it (Pandita), so you should know. In the interests of good faith, I'll spell it out. The version I proposed, and that we discussed above, cited Mitchell(epilepsy/safety pin) as an example of epilepsy often cited as a diaper fetish, even though it only mentions a safety (or diaper) pin and seizure-related activities. That version also cited Pandita (head injury) as an example of a head injury, reported under the title "paraphilic infantilism..." Your version cites Pandita (head injury) to support a comment about epileptic paraphilic infantilism. Pandita's actual comment specifies neither paraphilic infantilism nor general applicability to all paraphilias. Pandita (head injury) was discussing Mitchell(epilepsy/safety pin) and Ball ("A case of hair fetishism, transvestism and organic cerebral disorder"). I shouldn't have to explain this to you. It is your responsibility to read and understand the sources you are citing.
@FiachraByrne; True. If patients with X don't come in for treatment for X, then all patients seen with X will have come in for some other condition, Y, or have been arrested for Z. That dissertation looks interesting: I'll see if I can find it somewhere. I hope the author's parents are rich, since there isn't much money in researching the safe and legal paraphilias. BitterGrey (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm citing Pandita for it's literature review and general discussion of infantilism, not for it's specific discussion of a specific case. At no point have I mentioned the details of Pandita's individual case study. You seem to be calling for the exclusion of sources that mention safety pins and hair? There's no reason to do this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Please point us to where exactly, in the context of the epilepsy comments, Pandita states that his comments on epilepsy apply to paraphilic infantilism. BitterGrey (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Oops, re-reading it, it does appear that the quote is generally about paraphilias rather than infantilism specifically. I'll remove it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Differential diagnoses

I'd like some clarification regarding why the text "The DSM includes some guidelines for differential diagnoses[1]" was quickly deleted. BitterGrey (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you post a link to the diff?FiachraByrne (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Probably here and here.
As for why, for the exact same reason references to the DSM were removed before - though it may be true that the DSM does include information on differential diagnosis, there's nothing specific to paraphilic infantilism. The page isn't about the DSM. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Weren't the previous DSM discussions about either the length & detail of the infantilism text on page 572 or a disagreement about which paraphilia paraphilic infantilism should be grouped as? That is, something specific as opposed to some general anti-DSM referendum? The same text on differential diagnoses of paraphilias would still apply irrespective if the diaper wearing was due to retardation, masochism, fetishism, kinkiness, etc. BitterGrey (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
As has been stated many times, and on many boards, the DSM does not say anything specific about infantilism as a paraphilia. There should be a single mention of infantilism sourced to the DSM, discussing how it appears as a behaviour in masochists. That's it. You should re-read the previous DSM discussions, because apparently you did not grasp the fundamental objection to it as a source. It has nothing to do with the DSM being a bad or low-quality source, or some sort of anti-DSM sentiment. It has to do with infantilism being mentioned only once, and not as a specific paraphilia. As this is not a general article about paraphilias, extrapolating from the DSM, which doesn't mention paraphilias, to say something specific about this paraphilia, would be original research. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 03:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
So basically you are citing those past debates to generally exclude any and all mention of the DSM, except for the one you added. Please note that the text we are discussing states only that "The DSM includes some guidelines for differential diagnoses." This is true irrespective of whether you accept the DSM's definition of paraphilic infantilism or not. These guidelines are in the section titled "Differential Diagnosis" in the paraphilias section, pgs 568-569.
Above, you admit to inserting the word "infantilism" into Pandita's comment (based on epileptic safety pin and hair "fetishes")[7]. Here, you are rejecting a general comment about the DSM supported by a citation to the DSM's general section on paraphilias because it doesn't use that specific word. In that edit, you both deleted a general comment citing a general paraphilia section, and inserted a specific comment citing a quote that might have only applied to two other, very specific and very different paraphilias[8]. This seems inconsistent at best. BitterGrey (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
@Bittergrey, I think it's ok to post that if you phrase it in such a way that it is clear that the DSM is making a statement about differential diagnosis in the paraphilias generally rather than addressing infantilism directly. FiachraByrne (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll review my hardcopy of the DSM when I get home tonight, but right now I don't see the value in noting that the DSM includes information on differential diagnosis.
Based on Bittergrey's comments I reviewed Pandita again and he is correct, the statement about paraphilias being related to epilepsy is a general one, not one related specifically to infantilism. I've removed it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
@Bittergrey. Can you expand on what you wanted to say about infantilism and differential diagnosis? FiachraByrne (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

A few foreign language articles

Unlikely to ever be used on the English language wiki, but you never know:

  • Oğuz, Nihan N (2005). "Bir Olgu Nedeniyle Bebek Bezi Fetişizmi. [A case of diaper fetishism]". Türk psikiyatri dergisi = Turkish journal of psychiatry. 16 (2): 133–138. ISSN 1300-2163. PMID 15981151. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Knecht, T T (1993). "[Pedophilia and diaper fetishism in a man with Klinefelter syndrome]". Psychiatrische Praxis. 20 (5): 191–192. ISSN 0303-4259. PMID 8248445.
  • Prokop, H H (1963). "[On diaper fetishism]". Zeitschrift für Psychotherapie und medizinische Psychologie. 13: 229–239. ISSN 0044-3417. PMID 14121837.

FiachraByrne (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:NOENG, the sources can be used but disputes will almost certainly have to be resolved by an editor who reads the language in question. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Any objections to a popular culture section? There's an E.R. episode according to Pate and Gabbard and Jerry Springer the Opera of course. Anything else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FiachraByrne (talk • contribs) 20:24, August 23, 2011

In general, I think that would fall under WP:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. In most cases, we wouldn't have RSs to make any meaningful comments about the shows/operas/etc.
The ER episode is an exception, at least now that the "Adult Baby Syndrome" name has become established. Pate doesn't claim to have coined this phrase: It is from the ER episode. I'm not sure where the ER writers got it from. My hunch is that it sounds medical and was easier for actors to say than "paraphilic infantilism." We could mention this in a section contrasting paraphilic infantilism from (non-paraphilic) adult baby syndrome. (Pate's patent didn't have the 'distress and impairment' listed in the first paragraph of the DSM's section differential diagnoses of paraphilias and also as Criterion B at the definition of paraphilic infantilism.)BitterGrey (talk) 05:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I generally dislike pop culture sections. Simple mentions never rate it for me. WP:IPC discusses it, and if you look at the "good mentions" section, the common thread is "X said something, and it had a notable impact on Y real world event" - and has sources. Other pages include Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trivia sections) and Wikipedia:Handling trivia. IMO a better approach is always to mention it in the trivia-citing article (in this case, ER and Jerry Springer) rather than having it here. The best way to include it on a page like this would be to thread it into the article if possible, but it's not always possible. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed sentences

I removed the following sentences.

  1. In one published case of extrapolating from too small a sample size, a desire similar to paraphilic infantilism was described as most often occurring in women.[2]
  2. A review of several case studies noted a common history of sexual abuse.[3]
  1. ^ American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (IV-TR ed.). American Psychiatric Pub. pp. 568-569568. ISBN 0890420254.
  2. ^ Allen, C (1969). A Textbook of Psychosexual Disorders. Oxford Medical Publications. p. 290. ISBN 0-19-264414-9.
  3. ^ Kise, K.; Nguyen, M. (2011). "Adult Baby Syndrome and Gender Identity Disorder". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 40 (5): 857–859. doi:10.1007/s10508-011-9783-8.
  1. I guess the point is how wildly wrong medical studies of infantilism can be. I just don't think it sits well in the paragraph currently. Any suggestions on how to rework this?
  2. Just moving this one out for a minute until some kind of context can be built for it. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the first sentence is a useful and necessary perspective, supported by a published source. (However, since that source is only citing the one source, it is third-hand primary.) In a hundred years, we might look back on today's sexology as being as primitive as we think the sexology of 1910 was from today's perspective. I see no reason why we can't make space for it in the paragraph, except that it makes theories based on an even smaller sample size seem fringey. BitterGrey (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
It just seemed to jar a bit when I read it first. It would be good to get some better context for flow. Obviously, put it back if you wish - its removal was mostly aesthetic.FiachraByrne (talk) 04:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Regards 1, I'd be really, really curious to see what the actual source says. First, it looks like commentary, as in the source said "PI occurs most often in women" but we're citing it as "their sample is wrong when it says..." Second, I'd be really, really surprised if there were an extra citation the page was missing. And on a methodological note, it's possible in the 60s and 70s women were more common as paraphilic infantilists because of different gender roles. I've wanted to remove that sentence for a long, long time but am reluctant since I don't have the source. I would be very surprised if the source actually supported that wording. Regards 2, it would be nice for them to have a bit more justification, but if the source says it, it's OK in my mind. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
@WLU. My very, very, extremely last comment as PhD is due. Re. 2) and child abuse. I thought it didn't flow. I think following the current paragraph on medical aspects we could put in whatever we have and is citable in regard to epidemiological data and that that observation would fit there. Any objections to the images by the way? There is one more of woman in black latex diapers on wikicommons (thighs and torso photo) which could be included. Good luck and be civil. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I was going to replace it in "causes" but that suggests child abuse caused paraphilic infantilism when the source doesn't justify this. I've put it into the other conditions section for lack of a better place. I think I'd prefer to replace the current image of a guy in a PVC diaper with the one you've linked to above (adjusted it to display as a thumbnail) because it lacks a face, which is pretty distracting. Overall not great images, it'd be nice to have people dressed as babies instead - the current images are better suited to diaper fetishism which is only a single, "optional" aspect of PI. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

CAMH Sources

The bulk of the above discussions have been crippled by the determination of two editors, WLU and FiachraByrne, to specifically cite CAMH sources: two papers written by four authors, all at the same facility, CAMH. For brevity, we'll call the papers F&B (Freund and Blanchard) and C,B,&B (Cantor, Blanchard, and Barbaree). This determination might have played a role in the drive to largely eliminate references to the DSM which, as detailed below, is in conflict with CAMH at multiple points. This determination is unnecessary at best, since an uncontrovercial source, "Adult Baby Syndrome" by Pate and Gabbard, covers most of the same sources, but does so without introducing fringe theories unsupported outside of CAMH. Additionally, Pate's paper is in accordance with the DSM, not in conflict with it.

These fringe theories include:

A) Everyone expressing a sexual interest in diapers, but who doesn't want to be a baby, either has an incomplete form of infantilism or is hiding their desire to be a baby. (C,B,&B pg 531) That is, diaper fetishes do not exist.

WLU has already taken it upon himself to strip away all references to the DSM's sections on fetishism or general paraphilias from the diaper fetishism article[9].
<original research>In an AB/DL community survey, 24% of surveyees reported that they either don't roleplay or don't roleplay as a baby or child. When asked about a sense of being a baby, 21% considered it merely OK in games, scenes, and fantasies. 17% percent reported considering it 'Tolerable,' and 15% that it 'Must be absent.' </original research>

B) Female gynephiles don't exist.(F&B 588) That is, women who prefer women - lesbians - do not exist.

While the prevalence of lesbianism might be debated, there seems to be a clear consensus that they exist.

C) Infantilism is an autoerotic form of pedophilia (C,B,&B pg 531).

The DSM, the widely available and widely adopted document expressing the consensus opinion of the American Psychological Association, groups pedophilia in section 302.2, pg 571. It also defines paraphilic infantilism as a type of masochism, section 302.83 pg 572. Thus, infantilism is not a form of pedophilia. Supporting sources already mentioned include Mattoon, pg 207; Brame, pg 137; Holmes, pg 81. This fringe theory appears to be only accepted by that one facility, CAMH.

With additional synthesis from WLU, that "masochistic qynephile"=infantilist, the fringe theories also include:

D) Infantilists ("masochistic qynephiles") are all heterosexual males or homosexual females (qyne = woman, wife). Homosexual male infantilists do not occurr.

<original research> My own survey showed that 10% of surveyees reported being homosexual.</original research>

E) All infantilists will (if complete) want to be baby girls. A pedophilic masochistic qynephile with the "erotic target location error" hypothesized would desire to be the erotic target of a pedophilic qynephile; a little girl. (pedo- child, gyne- woman, wife)

Of three examples mentioned for support in F&B, one wanted to be a boy of 10, and the other two were unspecified. This fringe view does not even hold true of the author's examples.)
<original research> My own survey showed that 61% of surveyees reported that they don't enjoy being a baby girl or being dressed as one.</original research>

These fringe theories, and the papers advocating them, should not be included.

1: Per the Fringe theories guideline: "Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." Since this is not an article on these fringe theories but on paraphilic infantilism, the fringe theories may only be mentioned if connected by independent sources. C, B, B, and F are all colleagues: C, B(lanchard), &B is not independent of F&B(lanchard).

2: Without fudging the sources, mentioning fringe theory B would involve "pedophilia," an emotionally charged word. per MOS, "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." One facility represented by four people, two sources is not "widely used."

3: Regarding fringe theory C, the C,B,&B paper only cites the one paper by F&B. As detailed in the essay on "Party and Person," first-party work without meta-analysis of multiple primary sources is itself just a primary source, and so C,B,&B is primary in this regard.

4: Also regarding fringe theory C; The text of F&B was so ambiguous that WLU thought "Freund & Blanchard explicitly states that the sexual focus is only superficially similar and discusses what distinguishes a pedophile from an infantilist (which they term masochistic gynaephile)."[10] until it was pointed out to him that his reading of F&B differed from the one presented in C, B. &B[11].

5: F&B is structured around novel categories labeled with neologisms. Neologisms should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last. In particular, it does not use the term "paraphilic infantilism." Attempts to use C,B,&B to conclude that one or more specific neologisms is infantilism are WP:original research, since C,B,&B doesn't state which neologism(s) was intended to replace paraphilic infantilism, and so mean(s) the same thing. The assumption that it was the category that is least out-of-line from the DSM ("masochistic qynephile") is just that - an assumption.

6: C,B,&B cites Malitz and Tuchman & Lachman to support "There have also been reports of individuals ... who express no desire to seem like an infant (Malitz, 1966, Tuchman & Lachman, 1964)" However, they both mentioned regression. Malitz: "Dynamically the patient's diaper [fetish] appeared to symbolize a regression to infancy in order to reclaim the attention and love of his mother and to undo his displacement in her affections by his sister's birth." Tuchman & Lachman conclude "The regressive quality and symbolism of the behavior pattern suggest a schizophrenic mechanism." When challenged on this point, James Cantor commented only on the typography on the challenge, not the sexology. (Pate comments that neither Malitz's nor Tuchman & Lachman's patient's said they wanted to be a baby. While both authors mentioned regressive themes, neither documented the patient saying that he wanted to be a baby.)

7: C,B,&B intermixes psychosexual infantilism (Stekel) and paraphilic infantilism (Pate, etc.). Most cases of psychosexual infantilism did not involve either diapers or babyhood. While reasonable before the publication of DSM IIIR, modern sources should observe this distinction. IIIR was the first to include a definition of paraphilic infantilism, and was published in 1987.

One alternative to all of this fringe, uncertainly, and baggage, is simply to cite Pate. Pate draws from the same sources but did not draw any of these fringe theories from them. Pate's "adult baby syndrome" is described in accordance with the DSM, not in conflict with it. Pate also has the benefit of being freely available online, so more Wikipedians can evaluate it; and has been evaluated by independent authors (sexologists have evaluated it). BitterGrey (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Just so there's no WP:SILENCE claimed here, I disagree with pretty much everything here and do not support its inclusion. My reasoning is listed in several sections above. As reliable sources directly discussing the topic of the page, they are applicable (bar, of course, the DSM which doesn't mention infantilism except as a behaviour). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I do wonder if things would have been different if you had reviewed the DSM before edit waring to modify the citations to it. Back in February, you fought to cite 47 pages of the DSM. Then this August, you gamed 3RR ([12][13][14][15] -28 hrs) to cite five pages of the DSM. Then, you concluded that it didn't mention paraphilic infantilism at all. Now, it apparently does mention paraphilic infantilism. Perhaps all of this fighting could have been avoided if you simply checked references first.
(Oh, and regarding the ref that you are now rewording, the sexologist Dr. Gloria Brame isn't a "he.")
Nonetheless, thanks for registering your DontLikeIt. BitterGrey (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
As an aside I should say that Mr Beakman from 3rd and Bird was, rather unwillingly and due to coercion from Muffin, engaging in some diaper wearing and adult baby role play today.
One could also that this "deadlock" has arisen from the intransigence of one editor, bittergrey, to accept sources that plainly meet rs criteria.
A theory is not fringe if it has appeared in a peer reviewed journal per WP:Fringe. ETLE is a point of contention and a subject of academic debate it is not fringe (whether it is correct or not is another and irrelevant issue).
There was 'no drive to eliminate the DSM'; rather, we objected to the way that it was used. We didn't think the text was supported by that source. You inferred statements about either AB or DL based upon your reading of the DSM when there is only one actual statement about infantilism in the DSM. You can't reasonably write an article on that basis. Representing this conflict over sources and content as a 'campaign to eliminate the DSM' (why?) demonstrates a considerable lack of good faith (WP:AGF). I might add that your constant insinuation that WLU is operating for some unstated motivation also betrays a lack of good faith. Interaction with you on these issues, given your engagement style has lead to an entrenchment of positions.
I agree with WLU's decision to remove those citations. They were inaccurate. Indeed, you yourself said that you gave WLU 'permission' to remove them.
In regard to the preference of Pate and Gabbard over Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree, it's not an issue as I would not argue for the removal of Pate and Gabbard. With a limited range of sources it doesn't make sense to exclude any secondary source written by specialists on paraphilias. It is clear why you don't want them included as you don't like them or their theories. That is insufficient grounds for their exclusion and irrelevant. It's irrelevant whether Pate/Gabbard's paper agrees or disagrees with the DSM. Acacemic psychiatrists often contest the DSM - at least in particular areas. In fact there's a notable movement within psychiatry - particularly those engaged genetic studies - to overturn perhaps the most important division within the nosological system of the DSM (dichotomy between bipolar and schizophrenia). CAMH can be in conflict with the DSM and still not be fringe. Also, your point rather ignores the fact that Blanchard - a fringe theorist in your analysis - is chairing the paraphilia workgroup for DSM-5. That is a considerable endorsement of his status as a major authority on the paraphilias and indicates that the American Psychiatric Association do not regard him as a fringe theorist.
A) Whether they're right or wrong is not the point. We're not here to evaluate how accurate their treatment of the secondary literature is or how coherent their theories are, but, basically, to paraphrase the secondary sources and arrange them into some sort of readable and logical narrative.
B) That this is misreading is besides the point, it's not our role here to offer novel interpretations of the secondary sources. If you can find a source critiquing their approach it can be added.
C) It's the American Psychiatric Association. As said before, sources aren't bound to agree with the DSM. That's their prerogative. The DSM does not contradict them, however. Incidentally, Money also suggests that diaper fetishists may also be "infantophiles" or "nepiophiles" [16].
Synthesis wasn't from WLU. CBB (2009) declared that the FB paper was about infantilism. I'd say Blanchard would be a pretty good source on the topic of his own paper.
D)Again, it doesn't matter if they're right or wrong and it's not for us to decide on that. If you want your research included, get in published in a peer reviewed journal.
E)Again, it doesn't matter if they're right or wrong and it's not for us to decide on that. If you want your research included, get in published in a peer reviewed journal.
1) As it's been published in a peer reviewed journal and perhaps the most prestigious academic press in the world, it is, per WP:Fringe, not a fringe theory.
2) It's part of academic discussion in a subject about sexual deviations. I don't see WP:Terrorism applying.
3) That article you link to is to be taken with discretion. It is not policy. Plus, it's peer reviewed which kills the argument that it's not a third party source WP:3PARTY.
4) I don't think that it's ambiguous but that doesn't matter. Just paraphrase the text. Other editors can evaluate and correct if there are misinterpretations or misreadings.
5) CB&B characterise that article as about infantilism. That is sufficient. They use novel terms in order to frame a general theory for the paraphilias. The inclusion of such terms for discussing their work may be appropriate.
6) Again, they may be wrong and misread the literature but it's not up to us to evaluate that.
7) Again, irrelevant. Whether they are right or wrong does not matter and your interpretation of the material in this manner is without purpose.
I see no reason to exclude CB&B which easily meets RS criteria. In fact the Oxford Textbook, given the academic press from which it is issued, is a superior source to Pate/Gabbard in terms of reliability as a source and irrespective of whether you disagree with their theories or their characterisation of the secondary literature.FiachraByrne (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, Bittergrey's referencing of WP:IDL is deeply ironic considering his own opposition to these rs.FiachraByrne (talk) 04:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • "D)Again, it doesn't matter if they're right or wrong..." "E)Again, it doesn't matter if they're right or wrong..." "6)Again, they may be wrong and misread the literature..." "7)Again, irrelevant. Whether they are right or wrong does not matter..." "...your constant insinuation that WLU is operating for some unstated motivation also betrays a lack of good faith."
If you'll review carefully, I made observations, not assumptions. For example, it seems that you have a particular determination to use these sources, irrespective of whether they are accurate or not.
  • "A theory is not fringe if it has appeared in a peer reviewed journal per WP:Fringe. ETLE is a point of contention and a subject of academic debate it is not fringe (whether it is correct or not is another and irrelevant issue)."
Erotic Target Location Errors among autogynephyles might be a point of contention, with independent sources discussing it critically. That is a separate article. For this article, WP:Fringe is quite explicit: "Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." (emphais added) The four CAMH authors can't be considered independent of eachother. No one outside of CAMH seems to think this fringe application of it worth mentioning. Pate reasonably could have cited F&B, but did not.
  • "There was 'no drive to eliminate the DSM'; rather, we objected to the way that it was used." "Representing this conflict over sources and content as a 'campaign to eliminate the DSM' (why?) demonstrates a considerable lack of good faith (WP:AGF)."
Again, you are accusing me of making assumptions. An example of a bad faith assumption is "Bittergrey's same misuse and mis-citation is indeed now appearing at diaper fetishism and the list of paraphilias page."[17] This assumption of ill will was shown laughably false when I pointed out who added the citation to the DSM on the list of paraphilias page[18]. For that to have been my present doing would have required a time machine and a mind control device.
Similarly, I note how your characterization of the diaper fetish article to WP:ANI toggled suddenly once vilifying me wasn't an option. Between 4:36 and 8:43 Aug 16, your description of the diaper fetish article went from having a "problem...the source does not support the content at present" to "fine now"[19], but there were no edits to the page between the two posts. At 6:17 Aug 16[20] I pointed out that the mess at that article was WLU's doing[21]. Another editor then added a 'Contradictory' tag to the "fine now" version.
I suppose that it is possible I'm the target here, instead of the DSM.
  • "You can't reasonably write an article on that basis."
If it can be said that I "wrote" this article, that would have been a half a decade ago. Many others have made changes since. I don't own it.
  • "Indeed, you yourself said that you gave WLU 'permission' to remove them."
(This is a reference to FiachraByrne's argument at ANI, asserting that my not having actively edit warred against WLU at the diaper fetish article gave him "permission.")
I regret that you hold this view. There are often edits that I don't agree with. Sometimes I stand my ground, and sometimes I just discuss. Discussing conflicts in hopes of avoiding edit conflicts is a respected practice among reasonable Wikipedians. I would like to think I'm not wasting my time trying to discuss this and reach a consensus.
  • "Interaction with you on these issues, given your engagement style has lead to an entrenchment of positions."
Would that be my practice of discussing some edits instead of fighting them? Checking references before edit warring over them? Not rolling over and playing dead?
  • "Also, your point rather ignores the fact that Blanchard - a fringe theorist in your analysis - is chairing the paraphilia workgroup for DSM-5."
Per the hebephilia article: "At the annual meeting of the American Association of Psychiatry and Law (AAPL) a group of forensic psychiatrists working with sex offenders made a symbolic vote on the inclusion of Pedohebephilia in DSM-5, with 2 votes for and 31 against. At the International Association for the Treatment of Sexual Offenders meeting in Oslo another vote was made with 1 vote for and 100 against." This doesn't show general support. Could it be that more established professionals weren't willing to work for free?
  • "A) Whether they're right or wrong is not the point. We're not here to evaluate how accurate their treatment of the secondary literature is or how coherent their theories are, but, basically, to paraphrase the secondary sources and arrange them into some sort of readable and logical narrative."
I think there is some confusion about primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. If a researcher runs an experiment and publishes a paper on it, that is a primary source. He might have just made it up. Publication might involve a review process, but the reviewer generally won't reproduce the experiment, re-interview the patients, etc. After independent researches repeat the experiment in their own labs, and publish, their results can be contrasted in a secondary source. In this case, F&B is primary: We have to assume he is accurately reporting his original research. Fringe theory A is new to C,B,&B, not citing any papers, so it is primary in that respect. (Fringe theory B is not mentioned in C,B,&B.) Regarding fringe theory C, C,B,&B cite only F&B, and so have no independent sources to contrast it with. Thus, again, it is primary.
  • "B)If you can find a source critiquing their approach it can be added."
If you'll review Fringe, you'll see that the lack of critique is part of the problem here.
  • "C) 'infantophiles' or 'nepiophiles' "
Still more neologisms. This would be so much easier if people adhered to DSM terminology instead of making up there own.
  • "Synthesis wasn't from WLU. CBB (2009) declared that the FB paper was about infantilism.""5) CB&B characterise that article as about infantilism."
Please specify exactly where CBB defines which group in the FB paper are the infantilists. Is it only one group? More than one? All?
  • "I'd say Blanchard would be a pretty good source on the topic of his own paper."
I'd say he was dependent.
  • "Incidentally, Bittergrey's referencing of WP:IDL is deeply ironic considering his own opposition to these rs."
Above, I've given a detailed description of my position with reference to Wikipedia policies, etc., quite the opposite from WP:IDL.BitterGrey (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • If you'll review carefully, I made observations, not assumptions. For example, it seems that you have a particular determination to use these sources, irrespective of whether they are accurate or not.
There's been no tenable argument presented for their exclusion. In the absence of such serious argument and particularly given the paucity of decent sources that discuss the topic in any level of depth it's absurd to exclude them. The point is that we're not in a reasonable position to define a given source as truthful and accurate or otherwise, nor is it our role to do so. We paraphrase, we don't opine. Therefore your "observations" as to the truth of the assertions in any given source are largely irrelevant. We can refer to other literature that presents other counter arguments but that's about it. Please see WP:NOTTRUTH.
Theories published by academics with serious publication records in mainstream academic journals or through prestigious university presses are not fringe. Your invocation of WP:Fringe is a misreading of that policy and what it is intended to police (i.e. pseudoscience).
  • Again, you are accusing me of making assumptions. An example of a bad faith assumption is "Bittergrey's same misuse and mis-citation is indeed now appearing at diaper fetishism and the list of paraphilias page."[22] This assumption of ill will was shown laughably false when I pointed out who added the citation to the DSM on the list of paraphilias page[23]. For that to have been my present doing would have required a time machine and a mind control device.
To which I replied, "LOL. Fair point." But I still held that it was an inappropriate source regardless of who had added it.
  • Similarly, I note how your characterization of the diaper fetish article to WP:ANI toggled suddenly once vilifying me wasn't an option. Between 4:36 and 8:43 Aug 16, your description of the diaper fetish article went from having a "problem...the source does not support the content at present" to "fine now"[24], but there were no edits to the page between the two posts. At 6:17 Aug 16[25] I pointed out that the mess at that article was WLU's doing[26]. Another editor then added a 'Contradictory' tag to the "fine now" version.
I suppose that it is possible I'm the target here, instead of the DSM.
This I find extremely disingenuous if rather typical. I also take great exception to the implicit accusation that I am targeting you.
If it can be said that I "wrote" this article, that would have been a half a decade ago. Many others have made changes since. I don't own it.
I glad to see that you're aware of that policy. "You" pl. not sing.
Would that be my practice of discussing some edits instead of fighting them? Checking references before edit warring over them? Not rolling over and playing dead?
That might be your characterisation. Others might differ.
Per the hebephilia article: "At the annual meeting of the American Association of Psychiatry and Law (AAPL) a group of forensic psychiatrists working with sex offenders made a symbolic vote on the inclusion of Pedohebephilia in DSM-5, with 2 votes for and 31 against. At the International Association for the Treatment of Sexual Offenders meeting in Oslo another vote was made with 1 vote for and 100 against." This doesn't show general support. Could it be that more established professionals weren't willing to work for free?
There's considerable status and power associated with that position. That Cantor's proposition was rejected still does not make him "fringe"; hebephilia may be a marginal and contentious concept that lacks any degree of consensus with forensic psychiatrists - that it is a legitimate subject of academic debate (and a vote) decrees that it is not fringe. Fringe views are not discussed in the literature barring as lampoon or to educate the broader public.
I think there is some confusion about primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. If a researcher runs an experiment and publishes a paper on it, that is a primary source. He might have just made it up. Publication might involve a review process, but the reviewer generally won't reproduce the experiment, re-interview the patients, etc. After independent researches repeat the experiment in their own labs, and publish, their results can be contrasted in a secondary source. In this case, F&B is primary: We have to assume he is accurately reporting his original research. Fringe theory A is new to C,B,&B, not citing any papers, so it is primary in that respect. (Fringe theory B is not mentioned in C,B,&B.) Regarding fringe theory C, C,B,&B cite only F&B, and so have no independent sources to contrast it with. Thus, again, it is primary.
Bizarre. Besides they're not fringe theories. Primary sources are not excluded in any case - one just can't base one's article on them per WP:Primary. Also, the vast majority of decent, peer reviewed articles on this topic are primary sources, often of very small samples (n=1). CB&B's article in the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology is self-evidently a literature review and hence a secondary source.
If you'll review Fringe, you'll see that the lack of critique is part of the problem here.
WP:Fringe does not apply to papers in respected peer reviewed journals and academic presses.
Still more neologisms. This would be so much easier if people adhered to DSM terminology instead of making up there own.
Pretty wide spread neologism.
Please specify exactly where CBB defines which group in the FB paper are the infantilists. Is it only one group? More than one? All?
Fair point. It is ambiguous. Ans: all infantilists; they do not differentiate or define. The question is what is an infantilist for F&B and CB&B?
"Freund and Blanchard (1993) referred to this characteristic [internalisation of target of attraction] as an erotic target location error. They hypothesized that erotic target location was a basic dimension of sexual attraction, independent of the nature of the erotic target (object) itself. They interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia." (CB&B, 2009:531)
They define infantilists as those who, "are sexually aroused by behaving or imaging themselves as children or infants." They refer to a further group who "wear diapers while masturbating" and state that it is unknown whether they are hiding imagery of self as baby from clinicians or whether they represent an incomplete form of infantilism as transvestites do of transexualism.
Ah. I think I see. This took a little while. But if you read their entire description of infantilism and its associated behaviours and desires they do not include any practices which might be considered masochistic. Also bear in mind Cantor's statement at the RSN that he had never come across a masochistic infantilist in his clinical experience. In my opinion - which is irrelevant but anyway - they are excluding masochists who happen to dress up and/or imagine themselves as babies as they do not see that as entailing an inversion of sexual targeting. Rather "masochistic gynaephiles" have, they assert, a different etiology whose resemblance to those with an ETLE is only "superficial" as their "abberant" self-image is derived from a desire for a relationship of submission to a dominant female. Hence, F&B's paper treats "masochistic gynaephiles" as distinct from infantilists proper. Implicitly, CB&B are advancing their own ETLE theory as a greater organising principle of the paraphilias than a categorisation based upon an attraction for any particular object or whatever.
However, all of that, my opinion above, is irrelevant. We'd need a source to make those points, if correct.
I'd say he was dependent.
I'd expect him to know what his paper was about.
Above, I've given a detailed description of my position with reference to Wikipedia policies, etc., quite the opposite from WP:IDL.BitterGrey (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
You certainly know policy.FiachraByrne (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

IDL is an argument for deletion discussions, it's got minimal relevance for pages not in AFD. The appropriate guideline to cite is WP:DE, and there's also a relevant essay.

If there is serious discussion over whether a source is fringe or not, we can ask at WP:FTN, though of course this will result in another long, tedious discussion. Of course, the result, as all these discussions have resulted, will be that the source is not fringe and can be cited without issue.

Linking to the policy isn't the same thing as properly understanding either the letter or the spirit.

FiachraByrne, I've been ignoring Bittergrey's constant claims of bias and his interpretations. Cuts down on the reading. Pointing out WP:KETTLE doesn't help, but it's obvious to pretty much everyone. I highly encourage you to ignore the irrelevant text and just focus on what is actually helpful. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU, I'm not sure how to feel about your explicitly stating that you are ignoring my comments. "Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith." The importance and relevance of AFG is clear in that, by your assumption that I'm somehow prejudiced, you are ignoring my input, and so are acting out of prejudice. Your assumption that I'm acting in ill will has lead you to act in ill will. In this and previous discussions, I've made extensive efforts to apply Wikipedia standards and to reach a compromise. These efforts were ignored. BitterGrey (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Characteristics: 2nd paragraph

This section lacks sources. Any suggestions? FiachraByrne (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, if a feature of this article has been instability we should aim to get everything nailed down by citations.FiachraByrne (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
It's been almost a week now. Is there any support forthcoming for this paragraph. I can't find any.FiachraByrne (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Contentious material

OK. I've introduced what has proven to be the most contentious material, to some at least. It's at the end of the section on classification. I've tried to do it in way and with language that is sensitive to everyone's concerns. Thus, it is an accurate if attenuated account of their position that avoids, I hope, any emotive language or misreadings and I have avoided, I think, giving it undue weight. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The reasons not to cite F&B and CB&B have already been described in detail. Those concerns have NOT been addressed in the text added to the article, which was posted without discussion. FiachraByrne, please let me know if edit warring is necessary to avoid again being misunderstood as having given "permission[27]."
Taking them sequentially: Were exactly does CB&B state that paraphilic infantilism practices have "been observed to be secretive or closeted behaviors." Please keep in mind that the general comment regarding the DSM was deleted in only eight minutes[28][29]. It is plainly obvious that the DSM has a differential diagnosis section, relevant to the paraphilias. It is actually quite good. However, it was very quickly deleted: "there's nothing specific to paraphilic infantilism"[30]. This is after all references to pages of the DSM that didn't explicitly mention both diapers and infantilism were deleted from both the paraphilic infantilism and the diaper fetishism articles. In the list of paraphilias article, even the reference to the page that did mention both diapers and infantilism was deleted. BitterGrey (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Secretive and closeted. Hi I didn't think that that one would be contentious. CB&B don't. Their text supports the statement about secretive behaviour among paraphilics. The other clause - even when harmless as with infantilism - was supposed to be supported by the Pretlow article but I cited Pate instead. Anyhow, I've fixed that and shifted the references slightly so it's clearer in regard to the support for each statement.
In regard to the CAMH sources the reasons were spurious. I think, at least in the long run, someone will put them in and I don't see there being a very good case to resist that. They're rs etc. I tried, as I said, to put them in a way that would be sensitive to people's possible concerns. I think, perhaps, we could send the issue of CAMH to RSN for some guidance?
What do you think of the other changes? FiachraByrne (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I'll be offline for a few days unavoidably, so you can duke it out with WLU. I should be back by the weekend. Good luck with the article. FiachraByrne (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
To avoid my having to "duke it out with WLU." Would you mind removing references to F&B, CB&B, etc., until we have had a chance to discuss them? BitterGrey (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't see this until now. I can't stay online and I see you've removed it. As I said I'll have time to discuss it on the weekend. (Incidentally, you might reinsert the Pate cite as support for the point about OCD?) Bye FiachraByrne (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The reasons not to cite Cantor et al. have never been legitimate, and basically came down to Bittergrey not liking it. That's not a reason. I have seen no source-based criticisms of the idea, and there's simply not a large enough evidence base to claim that it's the losing side of a debate between two ideas. Claiming it's fringe doesn't make it fringe. Based on FiachraByrne's placement, and my replacement of the section, there is obviously no consensus on removing them and definite consensus on keeping them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
WLU:"I've been ignoring BitterGrey's constant claims of bias and his interpretations. Cuts down on the reading.[31]" This quote would suggest you never really gave much thought to my points, but dismissed them due to some pre-existing decision.
Now, please tell us were CB&B writes that paraphilic infantilism is secretive, so no meaningful prevalence data exists. Keep in mind that the need to reject points not supported by quotes specific to paraphilic infantilism is your assertion, not mine. Your reason for deleting the general comment about the DSM's differential diagnosis section after only eight minutes was "there's nothing specific to paraphilic infantilism". Now, if it only applied to sources that opposed certain favored authors, but not to those favored authors, that would be a bias.
As for consensus, note that when asked to support a similar text, FiachraByrne conceded "CB&B don't". BitterGrey (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Since so many of your posts consist of accusing me of bad faith and posting irrelevant diffs rather than actual citations or references to policies and guidelines, I'm not sure what sort of response you expected. If all I did was ignore your points with the statement "you're a diaper fetishist so we can ignore you" and never posted a single policy, guideline or reference, I'd expect to be ignored as well. The reason I continually cite policies and sources is because, in addition to being good practice, it is easily demonstrated that I'm editing according to community norms and scholarly sources rather than the bad faith and grudge you continuously accuse me of. If you stopped accusing me of simply doing this out of spite, and cite reliable sources instead, I'd pay a lot more attention to your points.
CB&B state on pages 535-6:
Emphasis added, twice. They don't say paraphilic infantilism specifically or list the infantilisms discussed, but they do make a statement explicitly about all paraphilias in the chapter and they're making a negative claim - no data exists. If such data does exist, then feel free to present it.
The comparison to the DSM is also inappropriate, since the mention of infantilism is in the context of a behaviour within a separate disorder. It's like saying "People in offices work on computers, answer phones, eat lunch and drink coffee. My mom drinks coffee at home. Therefore she works in an office." In the Venn diagram, you have two overlapping circles of behaviours - paraphilic infantilists (A) and sadomasochists (B). The overlap is "wearing diapers". That doesn't mean you can generalize from one circle to the other. Not all adult babies wear diapers, not all masochists wear diapers. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex
CB&B only mentions infantilism on pg 531, not on 535-6. I'm still waiting for that quote. Repeating that any separate mention in the DSM is meaningless while asserting that a separate mention in CB&B is citable simply underlines the differences in how you treat the sources. BitterGrey (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, they discuss infantilism as a paraphilia on page 531 and on page 535-6 they make the statement that covers all paraphilias. I've provided the relevant quote. The page could be updated to say "no paraphilias, including infantilism" if you'd like. If you don't see the difference between the use of two sources, then we may have to seek outside input. I see it as clear and unambiguous. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The DSM's differential diagnosis section (pgs 568-569 - the citation deleted in eight minutes) similarly applied to all paraphilias, and you may wish to note the exceptions CB&B makes on page 536, where it gives prevalence numbers for transvestic fetishism, exhibitionism, and voyeurism (2.8%, 3.1%, and 7.8% respectively). These were paraphilias last I checked. Given the details presented for masochism, could infantilism also be an exception? How do you know without engaging in original research? BitterGrey (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Your edit to insert the DSM material consisted of stating the DSM has guidelines on differential diagnosis. I do not see the merit in including this as it is akin to saying "diapers are sometimes white" or "sometimes people sit in chairs". Noting that the DSM contains information on differential diagnosis isn't informative unless there is a clear indication of how it applies to the page. It may be worth noting some of the DSM's comments on paraphilias like "clinically significant distress" and distinguishing paraphilic infantilism as a habitual form of sexual focus from temporary changes in sexual habits due to other conditions like schizophrenia, dementia and others - "The DSM distinguishes between paraphilias and non-paraphilic sexual interest based on degree of exclusivity, and excludes temporary changes in sexual behaviour due to transitory mental illness." It would be far, far better to have a source make this statement for us though, and this again goes back to the idea of renaming the page to be infantilism (sexuality) or something else that removes "parphilia" from the title.
I did note the exceptions in Cantor et al. If it had included infantilism, I would have added those numbers. Since they don't, they are irrelevant to this page.
By the way, that "eight minutes" comment is an example of why I end up skimming your posts. It doesn't matter if it's eight minutes or eight months, if an editor objects to your inclusion, you have to resolve it with reference to policies, guidelines and sources. If you want me to take your talk page comments more seriously, leave out the editorializing and blame-casting. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
As I think I've said to WLU and Bittergrey before on your or my talk pages, I think the current reading of the Freund and Blanchard article is incorrect. I think that they interpret masochism as a paraphilia which is distinct from "true" infantilism where in the former instance the wearing of baby clothes is incidental to the creation of a dominant/submissive erotic exchange. Here is my reasoning. A) CB&B describe infantilists as individuals who are "sexually aroused by behaving or imaging themselves as children or infants" (p.531) While they go on to describe a a range of behaviours which they see as emblematic of infantilism but they do not include any behaviours that could be perceived as masochistic. At the end of this section they refer to reports of diaper fetishists who assert that they do not want to seem like infants but they speculate that they may be either hiding such self-imaging as a baby from clinicians or that theirs' is an incomplete form of infantilism as tranvestitism is an incomplete form of transexualism. On the same page (p.531) CB&B refer to Freund and Blanchard's 1993 article and state that, "They hypothesized that erotic target location was a basic dimension of sexual attraction, independent of the nature of the erotic target (object) itself. They interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia" (p.531). It would seem clear that CB&B characterise infantilism as an "erotic identity disorder" (p.530). That they wish to apply this concept as a general one across the paraphilias is obvious from their parallel treatment of transexualism (autogynaephilia) and those who self-image as amputees. Similary F&B assert that errors in erotic targeting are a basic feature of the paraphilias. They delineate a small sub-set of paedophiles who self-image as infants or children. The term they use as an analogue to gender identity disorder is "age identity disorder" and they obviously see it as structurally very similar (irrespective of the object of attraction) to the former condition. In these autoerotic disorders, they conjecture, the object of attraction becomes inverted and attached to the self. They clearly distinguish this paraphilia from what they term "masochistic gynaephiles" who although they fantasise about themselves as infants or little boys do so in fantasies involving adult women. They speculate that this group is fundamentally different from the previous one although the fantasies are similar as one use the fantasy to increase distance and difference from their sexual object (women) and the other use it to collapse difference (infants/children). As CB&B refer to infantilism as an autoerotic form of paedophilia it would seem that they consider it distinct from similar behaviour with a putatively different aetiology that is essentially masochistic. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
@WLU: I'm still waiting for the quote that explicitly mentions paraphilic infantilism supporting As paraphilias tend to be secretive behaviour(sic), no meaningful prevalence data exists for infantilism. I believe I've already clearly shown that not explicitly mentioning paraphilic infantilism was the reason you gave to remove almost all references to the DSM from this and related articles, even the sections that apply to all paraphilias, and that I have also clearly shown that the quote you tried to use does not apply to all paraphilias.
@WLU Re: infantilism (sexuality). I notice that to prepare for this, you've already had to modify a citation in another article[32], as well as remove the text "'sexual infantilism' is also used medically as a synonym for delayed puberty" (cited to Greenspan and Hickey) from this one[33]. Since I only added Hickey, it would seem that two of the three of us think that text is supportable.
@FiachraByrne: I respect that you initially set this aside as something to think about. It is interesting, but has the potential to complicate conversations. You might be right about the current reading (which I assume is WLUs?) not being right. Most clearly, it mentions infantilism while F&B used other terms. As for myself, I tend to rely on Occams_razor in the absence of testability. Etiologically, it is simpler to say that infantilists are infantilists for some unknown reason. The alternative is to say that infantilists are first pedophiles for some unknown reason, and through a hypothetical transform which also occurs for some unknown reason, they become infantilists. BitterGrey (talk) 23:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I attempted a fix on the statement of prevalence data re paraphilias.
@Bittergrey: yes that's WLU's reading. Naturally, I think my reading is correct - but then I would, wouldn't I? As to the truth of the theory, I dunno but it is just a theory. I do think they've hit on an interesting observation based upon clinical observation (if mostly of other paraphilias, which is a real problem). It's etiological significance would be a whole other matter but they do see these as developmental "disorders" (deviations surely?) hence Cantor's emphasis on differences in height and handedness for paedophilia (and also homosexuality). As an aside, they don't assign any particular moral value to the existence of a paraphilia as they conceive of their development, correctly I guess, as essentially lying outside of the individual's control. Thus, for instance, no moral charge is presumed for being a paedophile (i.e. having an attraction to children) whereas a moral and legal charge is obviously appropriate against paedophilic behaviours. The other point is that the impulse toward internal or external attraction might be primary over the nature of the object of attraction. But given that there is no known mechanism for the differential formation of sexual attraction it is, as you indicate, rather moot. Obviously, the current approach of largely differentiating amongst the paraphilias based upon the object of attraction is pretty redundant in terms of knowledge production or classification (excluding sadism and masochism, of course, as categories which seem organised around the recreation of a particular emotional response). It's a bit like older classifications of mental illness where individual delusional states or practices were designated as specific illnesses (religious insanity, erotomania, masturbatory insanity, etc). So it makes sense to search for more fundamental categories of analysis, I think, but I'm not sure how useful the whole "disorder" model is anyway. Anyhow, the basis for inclusion of any aetiological theory in this article should not be as to whether it is correct but rather as to whether it exists in a reasonable rs. So we can go back on that argument roundabout once more.FiachraByrne (talk) 01:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, have you seen this? FiachraByrne (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Reworded same point. Now waiting for the quote that explicitly mentions paraphilic infantilism supporting the previous text In regard to the paraphilias generally it has been argued that the secretive nature of these practices has militated against the production of meaningful prevalence data. CB&B simply doesn't say this about infantilism.
Re: F&B. On the subject of testability: If their hypothesis was wrong, how would they or we know? If it isn't testable, it isn't really a theory.
Re: Cantor. The presentations I've seen from him contrasted homosexuality with the other paraphilias, which were all lumped together. It reminds me of the time he tried to convince those watching the paraphilia talk page that homosexuality was never a paraphilia.. (The trick is this: The DSM only officially adopted the term "paraphilia" in DSM III, the version following their removal of homosexuality. Other sources had listed homosexuality as a paraphilia for decades.)
Re: blog10.html. He didn't call it "autopedophilia" there, like he does in his other presentations. At the time, I interpreted it as an attempt to set up an "I'll-scratch-your-back-if-you-scratch-mine" relationship. The attempt ended when I opposed his addition of multiple ELs to websites he was involved with professionally to an article. Within a week, he and a friend had deleted 34% of the paraphilic infantilism article[34]. BitterGrey (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

To bed now.

  • "CB&B simply doesn't say this about infantilism." No it doesn't say that about infantilism specifically, but neither does the statement in the article. The statement is about the paraphilias generally which is precisely what they refer to in their text. The only specific reference to infantilism and secretiveness is provided by Pretlow.
  • Testable theory? Welcome to psychiatry! It's a theory that could justify a research direction perhaps but the most interesting part is the clinical observation upon which it is based. You're right, though, they're nowhere near constructing a falsifiable theory. There's nothing like enough data to do it. Really, they need to go out into the general population more. There have been some such epidemiological surveys.
  • Fairly ahistorical, then again, there is no pure science. Even if he thinks it was improperly considered as a paraphilia, it still merits discussion, I think.
  • Hmmm. I sure it pissed you off but someone was bound to do that. Vast chunks of the old article were unsourced!
  • It's not my business, but I can't help but feel that, despite the divergent interests and perspectives, there's been an opportunity missed here on both sides ... Anyway, I doubt that that is rectifiable. Goodnight. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I've re-edited the medical aspects section and re-titled it "Research on infantilism" - the main thing is it involved a "therefore", a clear WP:SYNTH. The rest of this I'll have to think about over the next day or so - I'll just note that our own theorizing isn't acceptable, we have to stick to the sources. I still think the prevalence comment from Cantor is clearly acceptable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
re CB&B: "No it doesn't say that about infantilism specifically"[35]. re DSM "there's nothing specific to paraphilic infantilism"[36]. A CAMH source is being included even though it doesn't meet the criteria used to exclude a DSM source. This would seem a clear double-standard.
re testability: That is why independence is important. Without testability, any facility can claim some radical new discovery. The only measure of substance or truth would then be independent acceptance, which in this case, hasn't happened. All the authors that have been mentioned to show that F&B's theory is not fringe work for CAMH, possibly reporting directly to either F or B. That isn't independent.
Now, if we are done with the diversions, please share some specific quote supporting that text, or permit me to remove the unsupported text. BitterGrey (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
That's quote mining FB's words and ignoring the fact that both FB and I have said it's perfectly acceptable to apply Cantor et al.'s statement to infantilists, since they speficially state they are making a blanket statement about all paraphilias discussed. The prevalence data they do present is acknowledged as imperfect; it's the best they can come up with for some specific paraphilias. Your statements about the DSM still assume that merely because the word infantilism appears, all masochists are infantilists and all infantilists are masochists. The two sources clearly differ in the applicability of their more generic statements. We deal with novel, contentious or unconfirmed statements by attributing them to specific people, and using "may/might/perhaps/is thought by". If we don't incorporate these sorts of untested ideas using this kind of language, we are precluded from making any statement about any topic that is not perfectly understood - and that's all social sciences and humanities to start with. If you really want to claim Cantor's ideas are fringe, you need a reliable source making the case for you. Your opinion is not sufficient. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll take the change from just Cantor to Cantor et al as a concession that the text was wrong in that respect as well.
To quote WLU's reason for excluding a general statement cited to the DSM (that the DSM had guidelines for differential diagnosis) "there's nothing specific to paraphilic infantilism". Applying this standard to the text currently being discussed requires that the source be specific to infantilism. Now, WLU, for the Nth time, where in FB&B is it written that paraphilic infantilism is a secretive practice and this has prevented meaningful prevalence data from being collected? As I've already pointed out, the "all" statement you quote-mined before is followed by multiple exceptions, and so clearly does not apply to all. BitterGrey (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean CB&B? I've already quoted it above. Claiming that it doesn't exist or you didn't hear my previous explanations doesn't make it cease to exist. Applying your logic, we could say that Cantor et al's statement above would apply to paraphilias discussed in their chapter except for transvestic fetishism, exhibitionism, and voyeurism. In that case, we're still fine because they still discuss infantilism. If you've got a problem with the use of the DSM and CB&B, take it to a noticeboard because you're not getting any consensus here no matter how many times you repeat yourself. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
The text you quoted above was "Owing to their usually secretive nature, no meaningful prevalence or incidence data are available for any of the paraphilias." As I've already pointed out, it does not mention paraphilic infantilism specifically, and does not apply to all paraphilias. Not specifically and explicitly mentioning infantilism was the reason you gave for excluding all but one sentence of the DSM. I appreciate that you have now accepted my point that a few exceptions are discussed, which would indicate the FB&B quote does not apply to each and every paraphilia. If the text claims somewhere that those are the only three exceptions, feel free and encouraged to show us where.
As for ignoring differing opinions: WLU wrote "I've been ignoring Bittergrey's constant claims of bias and his interpretations. Cuts down on the reading." On his talk page, he justifies this with a position best summarized as 'the only good Indian is a dead Indian': "...he'll either stop editing and his problems go away, or he'll end up blocked or banned.". Were the real problem one of my editing practices, I would have the option of changing my practices and the problem would go away. WLU doesn't see this as an option, which would suggest that the real problem is not my editing practices.
By the way, is this the "some podunk little nonsense article" that you've been "fucking around on" WLU?
Now, if you have a quote from FB&B that supports the text to the same standards you set for the DSM, please share it with us. BitterGrey (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I've said everything I can say on this topic. You either know the answers to your question already, or your questions are irrelevant to this page. If I haven't convinced you of my point to date, you either need to re-read my posts or seek outside input. There's only so many times I can repeat myself so either you don't understand, fundamentally disagree, or you refuse to hear the point. No matter the reason, I have nothing further to contribute to this thread.
FB, I will re-read Freund and Blanchard and think about your points when I've got the time to give it the attention it deserves. In the meantime, I've hidden the text. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

In the interest of closure, I propose that the specific and supported point "Infantilism is not well documented within the medical literature[6][14] and tends to be a closeted behavior[14]" remain. There has been no disagreement over the applicability and specificity of Pate and Petlow. The contested sentence after it says pretty much the same thing ("secretive practices" vs "closeted behavior", etc.) but uses a source that doesn't support the text. We should remove the unsupported second sentence and let the point be made by the supported first sentence. BitterGrey (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree to closing the discussion but disagree that the "contested sentence" says the same thing as the preceding sentence. Cantor stays, there's no reason to remove it and it directly supports a point with a high quality source. It adds the nuance that prevalence data (a specific form of research and information gathering which provides valuable information regarding the number of individuals in a population with a specific condition, disorder, disease or behaviour) is difficult to gather. Prevalence is a distinct concept from a lack of research in general; it is meant to answer the question "how many people do this". The point that we don't know this, and probably can't know this because people don't talk about it, is worth including. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
WLU, if you have direct support for that sentence, share it. Otherwise you'll just look like some disruptive edit warrior shouting "Cantor stays!" (Interestingly, not "secrecy stays," "prevalence stays," or even "CB&B stay," just "Cantor stays.") BitterGrey (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
(Also, the "nuance" that prevalence data is difficult to gather is already covered in the prevalence article.) BitterGrey (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless you are proposing a solution or way to settle our disagreements, I'm uninterested in continuing this conversation. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU, I already have proposed a solution. BitterGrey (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
As did I. So which solution should we choose? I suggest my solution. Just proposing a solution isn't enough - you need agreement on a solution. I didn't agree to yours. Hence, WP:DR. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't consider leaving unsupported, contested text in the article a solution. If you think the text is supported, please feel free to make your case. As for DR, last time I attempted it, you modified my request to claim that this was merely a "Disagreement about reference formatting". I think after all this, it is very clear that this is not a formatting issue.
If you aren't interested in continuing this conversation, don't. We'll remove the text and move on. The relevant substance of the contested sentence is already covered by the preceding, uncontested sentence anyway. BitterGrey (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
In this case, silence does not imply consent. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU, you're not being silent, you are repeatedly not providing support for your position, and using a great many words to not do so.

There have been small changes in your position, such as when you went from asserting that "all" means absolutely positively no exceptions (including Venn diagram so even the illiterate would know you were right[37]) to the concession that "all" meant absolutely positively only three exceptions[38]. The text you were claiming as applicable to "all" explicitly listed exceptions, as would have been clear to anyone who read and understood even just that one paragraph. Asserting infantilism was not another exception is original research not supported by the text.

This is reminiscent of the argument we had over Pandita, which after two thousands words of debate ended with you reading the text and admitting "Oops".

Prior to this your main beef was with the DSM. In February, you fought to cite 47 pages of it[39]. In early August, you gamed 3RR (28 hours-[40][41][42][43]) to cite five pages. Then, "After reviewing a hardcopy of the DSM..." you did a 180. "I've got pages 568-573, I've read them all, paraphilic infantilism doesn't appear." This position, absolutely positively no mention of infantilism, lasted several minutes. Your forum-shopping post to WP:RSN included the statement that there was absolutely positively only one exception...

WLU, you never got back to me about which Wikipedia article was the "some podunk little nonsense article" that you've been "fucking around on". The series of verbosely defended positions based on a lack of understanding of the source material would be consistent with this objective. BitterGrey (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The real problem with unsupported text in the article is the second paragraph under the heading of characteristics which has no citations and most of the paragraph detailing sissyboys.
CB&B states: 'Owing to their usually secretive nature, no meaningful prevalence or incidence data are available for any of the paraphilias.
Paraphilic infantilism article states: Infantilism is not well documented within the medical literature[6][14] and tends to be a closeted behavior.[14] Researchers James Cantor, Ray Blanchard and Howard Barbee have stated that paraphilias in general, including infantilism, are secretive practices and this has prevented meaningful prevalence data from being collected.[15]
I'd put the CB&B statement first. Remove the names of Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree (funny typo that); there's no need to name them on that kind of non-controversial point. I'd also remove the clause about paraphilic infantilism in that sentence and stick more closely to their actual wording (no useful prevalence data exists for any of the paraphilias due to their secretive nature). That way we establish the research status for paraphilias generally and then specify for infantilism. It also establishes that these features are not unique to infantilism. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
It would also be pleasant if everyone could just stick to content issues for a while. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I've been very bold and changed the text. Feel free to chastise ... FiachraByrne (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I've made some minor linking and order changes, otherwise it looks good to me. The reason I named CB&B in the first place was because it was apparently a controversial point requiring attribution. I don't consider it controversial, so no attribution is fine with me. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Here we go again.

CB&B then goes on to list some exceptions; 7.8% for voyeurism, etc. The assertion that infantilism isn't among these exceptions is original research. Furthermore, it provides no additional value, except for those seeking to plaster Wikipedia with CAMH references, after clearing away competing DSM references. As a reminder, the reason given for the removal of DSM references was "there's nothing specific to paraphilic infantilism". This was true even when the text being supported was general.

If there was anywhere in CB&B that was specific to paraphilic infantilism and that supports the 'lack of research' point, I see no reason why it wouldn't have been presented in the first six thousand words of discussion. This suggests that there is no support in the CAMH ref (CB&B) that matches the standard used to remove the DSM ref; that is, a double standard. If such a quote exists, why keep it a secret?

By the way, FiachraByrne, as is clear from your initial list of refs[44] and how your version of the article started[45], you've always put Cantor first.

And WLU, I'm still waiting for an answer about which Wikipedia article was the "some podunk little nonsense article" that you've been "fucking around on". BitterGrey (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Cantor first in an alphabeticised list of sources. Who wouldda thought?
By the way the fact that cite a single study for prevalence data of tranvestism, exhibitionism and voyeurism does not mean that meaningful data exists. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
re meaningless data: CB&B published prevalence data for those examples. Knowingly publishing meaningless data isn't a reason to include a source. Quite the opposite, in fact. If you succeed in discrediting CB&B as a source, that would be reason not to use it even if it did support the text.
re Alphabetization: Other lead authors presently cited or recently removed: Allen; American Psychiatric Association; Arndt; Baumeister; Becker; Brame... No, Cantor wasn't first due to alphabetization.
Please be aware the the burden to support a text falls on those seeking to include it. So far, you are doing a great job of making my case for me. BitterGrey (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Is this a discussion about what source should appear first in the research paragraph? Prevalence is a natural point to start the discussion. Cantor et al discuss prevalence. The real discussion is over whether the structure of the paragraph should change. I think it's fine. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
No, WLU, this is not and never was about formatting, contrary to your repeated attempts to imply otherwise.
@WLU: I'm still waiting for an answer regarding which Wikipedia article you were referring to in your profane statement of ill will.
@FiachraByrne: Regarding your comment that the presentation of data in CB&B "does not mean that meaningful data exists." Do you agree that sources that knowingly present meaningless data should not be used? Were I to suggest that CB&B presented unreliable information, that would be one thing. In this case, you are stating it: A) CB&B gives data for transvestism, etc., and B) you assert that just because CB&B presents data "does not mean that meaningful data exists", thus C) CB&B gives data that is not meaningful. This meaningless data would preclude it from being a reliable source.
Since neither you nor WLU have shared any quote from CB&B that supports the 'lack of research' into paraphilic infantilism point without engaging in original research, it seems clear that it does not exist. Additionally, given your assertion that the transvestism, etc. data is meaningless, it would seem reasonable to dismiss anything from that source as not meaningful and the source itself as not reliable. Way to go. You are making a great case for dismissing Cantor et al entirely. BitterGrey (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
@Bittergrey. No but I do agree that this presents an excellent and rather typical example of sophistry. If you read the source the only logical interpretation is that they're prefacing all of their latter remarks by alluding to the fact that no good prevalence data exists. They then present what is probably the best modern survey of its type. That is a responsible and normal way to present such data.
In regard to the other matter if you really want to believe that be my guest. I'm under no obligation to disprove phantoms to you. There were nine items on that bibliographical list. Cantor, the only one you seem capable of observing, at that time was first on an alphabeticised list of sources. Two edits later the DSM was added [46] and it headed the list. This does not mean that I then regarded the DSM as the most important academic reference for the article. The first text I added was sourced to Mattoon [47]. This does not mean I have an agenda to promote Mattoon. The next text I added was sourced to Wilson [48]. This does not mean I have an agenda to promote Wilson. The DSM, which I am purported to be seeking to exclude, was added to support text before any of the sources which you have personally attempted to declare verboten with increasingly hollow arguments [49]. However, this again does not mean that I regard the DSM as a more important source than others. It just so happened that they were added in that sequence. The addition of Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree as a source for text was the 59th edit I made of that page [50] where they were added as additional support to the common descriptions of infantilistic behaviour [51]. This does not mean, however, that I regard them as the 59th least important source for this article, although a substantial amount of text with supporting sources had already been added at that point [52]. I never added Brame because, as you know, I cannot access that text through Google Books.
Also, it is quite obvious from your own comments that you are deeply biased on this issue and seek to exclude Cantor as a source because you find the theory that infantilism is an autopaedophilia to be what you term "a great offensive fringe theory that has no place in wikipedia"[53]. Frankly you don't get to use wikipedia to police your preferred version of infantilism for public consumption. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:OR "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research". That is Wikipedia Policy. It means that if you want to make some claim about the prevalence or secrecy of infantilism, you need some reference that supports it. The CB&B paragraph on secrecy lists exceptions. The assertion that infantilism isn't among those exceptions is original research, not supported by the text.

  • WLU's claim that FB&B was without exception was clearly shown to be false[54]: He took it out of context, and there are a few exceptions listed shortly after, in the same paragraph. His fallback position was to claim that there were three and only three exceptions[55], another assertion based on original research.
  • FiachraByrne's claim that those exceptions (and the data presented with them) aren't meaningful would mean that the FB&B presents data it doesn't consider sound, and thus the source itself isn't reliable. FB&B describes those numbers as "more sophisticated," as opposed to preliminary. If we dismiss those "sophisticated" results as untrustworthy, what grounds is there for asserting that anything else from FB&B is trustworthy? Her fallback position was to accuse me of being "deeply biased." This is odd for two reasons. First, if she will review this conversation, she'll find that the only call to eliminate Cantor as unmeaningful/not trustworthy/not reliable has come from her own argument. Second, because she and WLU are currently the ones forcing their preferred version on the public.
  • (FiachraByrne's inability to use CB&B in her personal version of the article sooner is more likely due to how little it has to say about infantilism.)

In the interest of closure, I'd like to re-propose using the sentence currently supported by Pate and Petlow: "Infantilism is not well documented within the medical literature and tends to be a closeted behavior." The contested sentence should be removed. It doesn't add any significant value to the article, and is still unsupported after eight thousand words of debate. This proposal was made two thousand words ago, and resulted in the burial of the uncontested text in favor of the contested text. This change was made by FiachraByrne, who is ironically accusing me of forcing my preferred version[56].BitterGrey (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No. I think your claims are spurious and I see no need to change.
CB&B are used to support this sentence in the article currently: "Meaningful information on the incidence or prevalence of any of the paraphilias are lacking due to the often clandestine nature of such practices".
The relevant text from CB&B reads: "Owing to their usually secretive nature, no meaningful prevalence or incidence data are available for any of the paraphilias"(pp 535-6, emphasis added). What follows (one study) is not listed as an exception because a single study, which they correctly report, is not the basis for any confident statement about prevalence or incidence data. Rather, their statement about the lack of reliable data provides context for the reading of that study. Any unbiased reading of that source could only come to the same conclusion. Moreover, it has the advantage of relying on what the authors actually said.
You fail to understand that the establishment of meaningful prevalence and incidence data cannot rest upon a single study. That does not mean that that study itself is unreliable but that it is insufficient in and of itself.
I could, of course, have added CB&B more extensively if I'd wished. That I didn't was a frankly misplaced attempt to account for your own sensitivities towards a text and theory that you find "greatly offensive" and wish to exclude from this article on those grounds - all the rest being demonstrably spurious. FiachraByrne (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
But you have made changes[57][58][59]. As for "spurious," I'm not the one who asserted a lack of need to change while suddenly making changes. This doesn't add up.
I'll again point out that per the MOS:"Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject...", that is, unless you'd now like to accuse the MOS of being deceptive too.
Again, as you seem to have forgotten, a general comment regarding the DSM was deleted in only eight minutes[60][61]. The deleted text was "the DSM includes some guidelines for differential diagnoses." It is plainly obvious that the DSM has a differential diagnosis section, relevant to the paraphilias. It is actually quite good. However, it was very quickly deleted: "there's nothing specific to paraphilic infantilism"[62]. Now you are pushing to cite one source that does not meet the standards applied to the DSM. Again, this clearly displays a second set of standards.
Now, if you have another source that states that prevalence data published in two different papers in two different journals (Archives of Sexual Behavior, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy) by only three authors (Langstrom & Seto 2006, Langstrom and Zucker 2005) is not "Meaningful", please share it with us. Otherwise, your assertion is both original research and contrary to the rationale used to remove all citations to the DSM, except for the one sentence that specifically and explicitly mentioned infantilism. (By the way, contrary to your claim to RSN[63] and ANI[64], the DSM mentions diapers too.) BitterGrey (talk) 06:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
"Still unsupported" is obviously untrue. Myself and FB both support inclusion of the text. You don't support it's inclusion, but you are not the only editor on the page. You're welcome to download the wikimedia software used to create wikipedia and create your own wiki on the topic, but this isn't your wiki or your page. There has indeed been 8,000 words of discussion and no unanimous support. In the interest of closure, I'd like to stop discussing the issue. Not everyone gets to be happy with the results of the page, that doesn't mean the page has to accommodate them.
If any of the above discussion is based on the order of the bibliography on FB's draft of the paraphilic infantilism, it's a complete waste of time to discuss and I won't bother justifying it with further discussion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Everyone seems rather obsessed about this issue. I posted almost a week ago that a paragraph in the characteristics section has no sources and no-one has yet replied.
Very obviously, when I stated that no changes were needed I was referring to that sentence. As to the rest of article it obviously needs a lot of work and given this process that will take a while. The item most in need of change is the structure of the article which, I think, needs a pretty complete overhaul. It's very choppy at the moment and the sequence of headings is quite illogical.
Re "autopaedophilia": It's a term from a current scientific theory that makes no moral claims about its subject but hypothesises a potential aetiological framework. WP:Terrorist does not not apply.
Checking the diffs for the DSM reference [65] the context in which you inserted that text reads like the DSM is saying something specifically about infantilism. It's not. It's saying something about the paraphilias. Hence, you should have written "The DSM includes some guidelines for the differential diagnosis of the paraphilias from other disorders". You could follow the example of how CB&B are currently used in the article to make a clearly indicated general statement about the paraphilias as a guideline or you could refer to the criticisms of the last RSN or this could just be a case and one among many on this page of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
It is absolutely not WP:OR to faithfully paraphrase a secondary source.
And it was WLU who first pointed out my inaccuracy in stating that that one sentence in the DSM which relates directly to infantilism did use the word "diaperism" which I immediately acknowledged. As I'm quite aware of that I'm not sure why you bring it up. Conversely you've never acknowledged quite how tenditious and inappropriate the use of the DSM was previously in this article. This again is part of clear pattern of behaviour. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Regards the unsourced characteristics section, we're only required to source stuff when it is contentious. If we all have no issue with the contents of that section, there is no urgent need to add citations. Naturally, it would be better if we sourced this (probably trivially easy to source) information, and I don't think continuously beating these very, very dead horses on the talk page helps. Shunning Bittergrey might, though naturally any useful suggestions about the page should be acknowledged. I have no problem ignoring the trivial, meaningless and obviously incorrect in favour of meaningful discussion, and I heartily endorse doing so. I think it has also reached the point where it is obvious that Bittergrey is "civilly" POV-pushing. In my mind, the best way to deal with this is WP:BRD when it affects the main page, and simply ignoring him otherwise. We've consistently commented on content, cited policies and guidelines, brought out sources, and the result has been a tremendous waste of time. I've no issue with continuing this discussion in his absence. It's obvious the value added by attempting to address his concerns is essentially zero. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
It is ironic that FiachraByrne's attempt to get some prevalence numbers dismissed as unreliable triggered her edits promoting CAMH's fringe theory. The prevalence numbers demonstrate an exception to the quote she and WLU are taking out of context, and so must be disregarded if they are to be able to use CB&B to support the text. The prevalence numbers are from apparently independent authors and have been published in separate journals. In contrast, the fringe theory is from dependent authors and cited to only the one article. So CB&B can be disregarded when disregarding it is necessary to cite CB&B in one place, but is still somehow reliable when reliability is necessary to cite CB&B in another place. It seems like a decision has to be made.
On the topic of decisions, the fringe theory is now mentioned both under "other conditions" and "causes." Is this due to ambiguity about whether the fringe theory relates to paraphilic infantilism or some other condition? Either way, it is a clear case of WP:UNDUE ("the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.") as well as WP:Fringe ("Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way.").
Re "It is absolutely not WP:OR to faithfully paraphrase a secondary source." CB&B explicity lists exceptions, the "paraphrase" is out of context and implies no exceptions. Since infantilism might be an exception also, this is relevant.
Re Context: The DSM-sourced text and the CB&B-sourced texts were both in the paraphilic infantilism article, and both did not explicitly state applicability to infantilism. Yet only one was quickly removed.
Re "'autopaedophilia': It's a term from a current scientific theory that makes no moral claims about its subject but hypothesises a potential aetiological framework.": Perhaps they are kinder to pedophiles and child molesters where FiachraByrne comes from.
Re: "...tenditious and inappropriate... This again is part of clear pattern of behaviour." An unfounded personal attack. When the third option (that I requested[66]) expressed some doubts, I opened discussions, hoping to explore them and build consensus one-by-one. The closest I came to success was here but that was deleted from the article within forty-five minutes[67][68].
As for shunning, had WLU and FiachraByrne done that at the start of this converstaion, I wouldn't be in such a strong position now. As it is, the stalwart few who wade through this conversation can see how their positions have changed. Originally the text had absolutely positively no exceptions[69]. Then it had absolutely positively only three exceptions[70]. Now the position is that it has a few meaningless exceptions[71] but that the presentation of meaningless data somehow dosen't make the source unreliable... In contrast, my position hasn't changed, although it has expanded to take advantage of mistake after mistake. BitterGrey (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems that WLU has given up trying to defend his position, and has simply taken up reverting any edit that I make, outside of simple spelling corrections. (Even among spelling corrections, one of two was reverted.) 05:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paraphilic_infantilism/Archive_5&oldid=791888138"