Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Pedophilia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Female paedophiles

Someone keeps reverting my addition, even though I have source material added. --88.108.95.211 12:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.fortunecity.com/millennium/kirkwall/1067/female_paedophiles.htm - source

Youre citing a book called "Fight Active Paedophiles" which perhaps is not the best possible source in the area. The information is not far from the "truth" though so I can't bother to make a proper cite on this. Voice of Britain 15:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your source does not support your assertion. Jillium 19:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick question Jillium - why are you so against any reference about female paedophiles that do exist?--88.108.95.211 20:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you stopped beating your wife? Jillium 22:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Female pedophiles do exist. It's unpleasant but they do. Even a preliminary google search shows that. 18.51.1.250 23:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

'Unpleasant,' no. And I just meant to imply that I'm not against 'references about female paedophiles' -- 88.108.95.211 just hasn't given any. Jillium 23:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding females

I believe in Paraphilias and gender identity disorders by E.S. Person (1989) (in this book), 5% of his female college sample self-reported sexual fantasies about 'significantly younger' persons. If anyone cares and wants to verify ... Jillium 22:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Missunderstood research

There is no conflict since the data studies different type of subjects. The section is only missleading. Voice of Britain 20:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree, although we should include those studies so that we can disambiguate actual pedophilia from the child molesters which some researchers use to represent them. Giving any credit to these studies will undermine the definition set out in our introduction. At the very most, we should point ou that these studies are correct, if put in line with our 'colloquial' definition. --Jim Burton 17:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

These conclusions are in conflict with those of other researchers, who have found that pedophiles exhibit "many psychiatric features beyond deviant sexual desire, including high rates of comorbid axis I disorders (affective disorders, substance use disorders, impulse control disorders, other paraphilias) as well as severe axis II psychopathology (especially antisocial and Cluster C personality disorders)."ref name="cohen2002" Cohen, L.J. & Galynker, I.I. (2002): "Clinical features of pedophilia and implications for treatment.", Journal of Psychiatric Practice/ref Beyond his criticism of clinical and forensic studies, Vogt 2006 replies to this that many, if not most studies diagnose pedophilia merely on the grounds of offenses instead of going through the effort of distinguishing the three categories of offenders via psychological examination and analysis.ref name="vogt2006" /

So are you two saying that the problem with this text is with the first clause of the first sentence, the one which asserts a conflict? If so, let's just trim it to say , "Other researchers have found that..." -Will Beback · † · 22:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the papers Cohen cites studied child sex offenders, not paedophiles in general. Perhaps it could be noted that pathology tends to occur more often in samples of paedophilic sex offenders than in samples of nonoffending paedophiles? (I don't see why, though.) Jillium 00:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you telling me that a paper entitled "Clinical features of pedophilia and implications for treatment" isn't about pedophilia? -Will Beback · † · 00:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It cites research that attempts to study paedophilia in sex offenders. The studies found abnormal levels of pathology in sex offenders who happened to be diagnosed as paedophiles. Prison samples are not representative of the general population. Jillium 00:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's published in a peer-review journal, what some call the "gold standard" of sources. If there are other sources or articles which dispute the findings then we can add those to rebut it. But it wouldn't be appropriate to remove it just because anonymous non-experts feel it used faulty methodology. -Will Beback · † · 06:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You are again looking for a conflict where there is none. The source is not bad, the science in it is not bad, the methodology is not bad, but it has limits in how much you can generalize the results to normal pedophiles. This is not an non-expert opinion, it is common knowledge to all professionals in the field. I can provide citations for this fact, but it should be extremely obvious for anyone with a basic understanding of research. Voice of Britain 09:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If the study is good then include it with a note that the results may not apply to every one who is diagnosed as a pedophile. -Will Beback · † · 16:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It belongs at the child sexual abuse article under #Offenders. Jillium 16:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No, this article is fine as it is a reliable source on the topic. Not using the article is based on your personal opinion. That is more of a problem than including the research. FloNight 17:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Again... since they studied fixated sex offenders, not general paedophiles, their paper is only relevant at Child sexual abuse#Offenders (i.e. the actual topic). The research they cite does not show "comorbidity" is typical in paedophiles. Jillium 17:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The study is about pedophiles. If you want to find where they define their study sample and give us a summary that'd be OK too. But it doesn't make sense to claim that a peer--reviewed study of pedophiles has no place in an article about pedophilia. -Will Beback · † · 03:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The research cited in this article in the section "Extent of Occurrence", though it might be the only research avaible about the extent of peadophilic feelings in the general population - I don't know - is woefully inadequate. Asking 200 people their sexual orientation and then extrapolating this to the rest of the population is insufficient. To my mind the sample at best could be said to show that around 13 out of 193 male undergraduates at the university of southern california in 1988 would have sex (or were willing to say they would have sex) with a child if they could get off scotfree. Considering the sense of humour young men often exhibit when faced with this subject, I fail to see how anyone can take this research seriously. Caveats should be added! 14:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)195.22.151.244Robert Cambridge

Yeah. There are a lot of questions about this section. Just because a study is done by an academic does not mean that its actually valid or that we have to be complete poodles about it. Here's an interesting quote: "given the probable social undesirability of such admissions, [one could] hypothesize that the actual rates ... were even higher" uh well given that quote one could question the validity of the entire study, as the authors are flat-out admitting that their rates are probably wrong; their assumption that they error on the low side seems wrongheaded, for as pointed out for all we know the respondents were pulling these guys' leg and the real rate is is actually lower. "...probable social undesirability..." should not be an issue if the study is done properly. In short, Briere and Runtz sound like a couple of clowns who should be selling shoes.

As for the rest... did it not occur to any of these people that college students are a very poor population to use? Notwithstanding that it's hella less work to get a bunch of kids of who are standing around in the hall (we exagerrate, but you know what we mean) than an actually valid sample. How about asking a bunch of guys who have children of their own about this, hm? Might get a different result, yes? In addition to which, college students are themselves minors or pretty close to it. Sheesh.

Sorry. Didn't mean to denigrate your study, there, Mr Briere and Mr Runtz. :/

Hall's study at least used adults - but as pointed out, only 80 of them. Is this a valid sample size? Seems dubious; each single respondent represents 1.25% of the whole... at this point I just don't have confidence in any of these guys.

On top of which, what does any of this have to do with the price of eggs? No one is suggesting that any of these people are regressed. Look, guys will fuck a watermelon. This is true, and especially of young men. So what? Does this show a high incidence of "watermelonophilia"? No. Only the tiny percent who are obsessed with watermelons to the point that it interferes with their life (and you know who you are) are of interest. News flash, College guys will screw anything, film at 11.

I'm trying to come up with a good reason why this entire section shouldn't be scrapped. Yes? Herostratus 17:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Pedophilia (disambiguation)

I'm going to put an {{otheruses}} tag on the article and link it to a disambiguation page which will distinguish pedophilia from pederasty, ephebophilia, and other child-attraction disorders. A lot of Wikipedians are confused, so I think this'll be good. If you have other ideas, user talk me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Awesimo (talk • contribs).

That wouldn't be appropriate. Disambiguation pages exist to point readers to the correct article when there are more than one with similar names. To differentiate among related concepts you should add a section to this article. -Will Beback · † · 19:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Current Version:

Pedophilia or pædophilia (see spelling differences) is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent or peripubescent children. A person with this attraction is called a pedophile or paedophile.

Here is the version that I prefer:

Pedophilia or paedophilia describes a preferential or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent or peripubescent children. A person with this attraction is called a pedophile or paedophile. In addition to this, western medicine generally classifies pedophilia as a paraphilia.

This is because, unlike the current version, it does not approach the subject as if medical definitions are the ultimate truth. As well as being logically faulted and needlessly constrained to our point in time, the current introduction is ethnocentric. We must use an introduction that acknowledges the basic etymological meaning primarily, and the medical and colloquial constructions secondarily. --Jim♥Burton 08:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering the enormous amount of criticism that exists against the classification of pedophilia as a paraphilia I strongly agree. V.☢.B 10:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. 'Paraphilia' is a controversial concept. -Jillium 17:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the current version, SqueakBox 17:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you agree that a) Pedophilia as a paraphilia is only one interpretation, and b) Primarily defining pedophilia with only one interpretation is a needless practise when there is a common streak to which we can all agree (sexual attraction to prepubes)? --Jim♥Burton 23:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

What are our sources which say that pedophilia is not a paraphilia? The DSM defines it as one and they are very authoritative. While we can include other viewpints elsewhere in the article, the lede should be the most comprehensive and widely-held view. For that reason I think the language of the first version is more accurat4e and NPOV. The view that pedophilia is primarily a sexual attraction appears to be held by a minority. -Will Beback ·:· 23:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the vast majority of people agree that paedophilia is a sexual attraction, but many disagree with referring to it as a sexual orientation Tolerance01 22:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Will's last sentence is spot on, SqueakBox 23:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

- To give a few examples: Gisela Blelbtreu-Ehrenberg's 1988 study decried the concept of "paraphilia" as a shocking resurrection of the 18th and 19th centuries' idea of "moral madness." Green (2002) argues that paedophilia is not a mental disorder, and quotes Suppe (1984)'s commentary on the 'paraphilia' concept: "psychiatry has resorted to the codification of social mores while masquerading as an objective science." The absurdity of the concept of 'paraphilia' was discussed in Moser and Kleinplatz's "DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal." Moser also critiqued the concept in "Paraphilia - A Critique of a confused concept," published in New Directions in Sex Therapy.

- What? Paraphilias are, essentially, "deviant" sexual predilections. -Jillium 00:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Will, you seem to be claiming that I require a source to explain how pedophilia is not a paraphilia. I do not, for my version does not deny this - it just uses a primary definition that's compatible with paraphilia, some colloquial and all etymological meanings. You ask for "the most comprehensive and widely held view". I do not believe that the "comprehensivity" gained by classifying pedophilia primarily as a paraphilia is worth the loss, in terms of how widely held that view is. Most people in this world have no idea of what paraphilia is! As you say - "...we can include other viewpints elsewhere in the article", so why can't we use a general defintion that all the following viewpoints share, and then describe what different scientists and commentators have to say about it? --Jim♥Burton 00:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently only a few scientists oppose calling it a "paraphilia" so that's a minority viewpoint. I don't know why we'd make a special allusion to "western medicine". Does Chinese medicine have a different viewpoint? Do the majority of non-medical commentators view it as normal behavior? I'd say that "paraphilia" is the most neutral and polite term that we can use to properly express the majority viewpoint on this topic. -Will Beback ·:· 01:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Convenient that you'd mention China: Pedophilia from the Chinese Perspective -Jillium 01:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently only a few scientists oppose calling it a "paraphilia" so that's a minority viewpoint

Why should this article constrain itself to the medical community? Pedophilia is a social phenomenon as well.

I don't know why we'd make a special allusion to "western medicine". Does Chinese medicine have a different viewpoint?

Because medicine itself is not the be all and end all of pedophilia. Even within the medical community, there exist other classifications, and nonwestern holistic practise may not even recognise pedophilia - leaving it to the cultural commentators.

Do the majority of non-medical commentators view it as normal behavior?

Aside from pedophilia not being a behaviour, you focus on medicine as if it were the last word on this article. The majority of people, see pedophilia as a sexual preference for prepubescent children, and since that description does not conflict with professional or social opinions, it should be used as our primary definition. Paraphilia is an optional add on that belongs in the introduction. But to use it as our primary definition is overly specific, and biased; concluding in favour of 'professional opinion' before the first full stop!

I'd say that "paraphilia" is the most neutral and polite term that we can use to properly express the majority viewpoint on this topic.

The first sentence should not be expressing any particular viewpoint, when a common strand that runs through all viewpoints will suffice. My version does not neglect the paraphilic option, mentioning it in the third sentence. --Jim♥Burton 01:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the source, but Ng doesn't say what the medical or legal status of pedophilia is in modern China. Regarding you other points, the scientific community is the one that studies "-philias" scientifically. Their work is sometiems called the "gold standard" of sources. We should include what non-scientists say about pedophilia, but it's less likely to be authoritative or neutral and so doesn't necessarily belong in the intro. As to what pedophilia "is", according to the DSM it is a behavior. You say that, "The majority of people, see pedophilia as a sexual preference for prepubescent children...". How do we know this? -Will Beback ·:· 02:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Until we know more about different cultures we should use Jim Burtons version since it only states what we know and doesn't resort to speculation. And considering the nature of classifications, they should be not be considered as god given laws (DSM is clear on this aswell) but rather cultural dependent guidelines for professionals, nothing else. Voice of Britain 08:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Would that mean that scientific views are less important than cultural perceptions? I think that scientific reference works are one step higher than mere journals, seeking to reflect a consensus among the community. If we want to fall back on cultural perceptions to describe pedophilia we';; be less neutral. Unfortunately we don't have access to God-given truths beyond conflicting religious texts. While we ahoud mention those God-given laws at some point in the article, the lead paragraph is not the ideal place to do so. Medical science has determined that pedophilia is a malady, and we'd be expressing a POV if we failed to describe it that consensus view. -Will Beback ·:· 08:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If there where any consensus in the medical community on this point then I would agree. Since there is not, we should use Jim Burtons version. V.☢.B 09:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "near-consensus" would be more accurate. Like global warming, where there are a few scientists who dispute the prevailing view. Anyway, let's see if a consensus builds for this proposed change. -Will Beback ·:· 10:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If we look at the recent discussion on the Green article, there isn't even "near-consensus" and almost all of scientist had issues with the DSM-diagnosis of pedophilia. There is also lots of published criticism from a quite large amount of researcher in total. Not to mention that those who work with pedophilia professionally often doesn't use the DSM diagnosis in its current form. You could almost say there is consensus against it. V.☢.B 12:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Y 3:2 N, so far, but I'm in no rush at all. --Jim♥Burton 11:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the DSM, behaviour can be used to diagnose pedophilia, but on the whole, it remains a mental condition. I am quite sure in my assumption that the majority of people believe that pedophilia is (at least primarily) an attraction to children. The reason why I want this and nothing else in the first sentence is because it is the most agreeable point concerning pedophilia, and it satisfies the etymology without going any further; unlike notions of behaviour or paraphilia. To neglect this 'paraphilia' judgement in the first sentence is not POV, since my (rightfully) spartan primary definition neglects a lot of scientific and social consensus, so that it can agree with all of them whilst staying etymologically correct. On the other hand, not to mention the consensus of paraphilia within the intro would be POV, as is using any one consensus that goes beyond the meanings of "pedo = child" / "phile = philia" as the primary definition --Jim♥Burton 11:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favor of the change. As a general principle, I think definitions should be as self-contained and value-neutral as possible, because commonly agreed upon definitions are necessary for communication to take place at all. This is not to say that I'm a relativist; I just think that moral judgements and categorizations should be stated explicitly, not packed into the definition of words. Also, I looked up the Wikipedia articles for the other paraphilias (exhibitionism, voyeurism, sadism and masochism, fetishism), and none of them is defined in terms of paraphilia. BrianH123 17:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Now I've got 4:2, I'll wait a while before putting it through (unless someone else wants to). I know for a fact that there will be attempts to remove the new version despite the other being favoured (in fact I'm writing this to give my hypothesis the kiss of death - hopefully). Jim♥Burton 03:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy and we have to stick to NPOV etc. Your hypothesis is a bad faith assumption. Please dont engage in such bad faith assumptions, SqueakBox 03:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, do you have a response to my point that the Wikipedia articles for the other paraphilias (exhibitionism, voyeurism, sadism and masochism, fetishism) don't define their topics as paraphilias? Why should this article be different? Let's engage on the arguments, not throw around accusations of bad faith. BrianH123 00:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is a good marker of how realistic an edit is, though. And no, I am not assuming bad faith regarding anyone. The types who will remove this piece of literature after a consensus in favour are good faith editors, and I suspect that of those who are currently active on this article, we only have one Jim♥Burton 07:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Only one good faith editor? What does that make the rest of us? Votes rarely achieve consensus, they just indicate responses to narrow questions. The best way to achieve consensus here may be to find a compromise of some sort. Pedophilia is a paraphilia according to the "generally accepted medical definition", but there are other definitions, including colloquial usage. We need to give the common usage the primary position, but there's room for all viewpoints. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 08:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me address each of your points: The etymological meaning may not be primary because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The only use of the word that is encyclopedic is the western medical definition of the disease. The dictionary and colloquial uses are mentioned for comparison and clarification. Any logical faults in the medical definition need to be taken up with the two medical groups that set the definition. Timewise if either of the two medical groups drop the disease from their list we can use the past tense. The term is a western medical term therefore we must be ethnocentric and give it a western medical definition. If you have some tradition or practice outside of western culture that looks like paedophilia then you can discuss on that article's talk page whether to be ethnocentric and call it pedophilia. --Gbleem 08:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In contrast to the generally accepted medical definition...

Are folks now arguing that there is no "generally accepted medical definition" of pedophilia? -Will Beback ·:· 23:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that there is - as a preferential sexual attraction to prepubes and a paraphilia. This is shown in the DSM and other med lit. The actual sentence that you quote refers to the 'preferential attraction to prepubes' component. I will write a new version, since the implied meaning is 100% etymological and 50% medical. Jim♥Burton 00:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That didn't last. I've removed the opening clause of the sentence as it's not really necessary. - ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This page should be restricted...

...to registered users, IMO. Half the edits seem to be vandalism, and a good chunk of these are by unregistered users. Jim♥Burton 04:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you think this is bad you should see "Monroe Doctrine". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is a particularly sensitive case, since we often see personal details and phone numbers being posted to Pedophilia along with the usual "conan salmon isa the very big peado in nantwich avoide him at all costs" type stuff. Getting them to register isn't asking much and should save some time. Jim♥Burton 09:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I sympathize, as I've reverted my share of vandalism, but it's not going to happen. Wikipedia articles are only protected for limitied periods of time in response to particular problems. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirects from Alternative Terms for Pedophile

After reviewing the Wikipedia redirects from other names used in reference to pedophiles, there seems to be an inconsistency. While "boylover" and "childlover" redirect to the "Pro-pedophile activism" page, "girllover" and "pedosexual" redirect to the article on "Pedophilia." Shouldn't all these terms redirect to the same article, since they're all used with the same connotation? What's more, the article on Pro-pedophile activism states that these are all terms that pedophile activists often use, in order to avoid the stigma associated with the word "pedophile." I think that all these terms should be redirected to "Pro-pedophile activism," because that is where they are discussed. Besides, these are not legally recognized terms for the condition of pedophilia.

Please voice your opinion on this matter. Homologeo 21:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Im not sure what law would make those "legally recognized terms for the condition of pedophilia". However they should be consistent. While "girllover" etc are promoted by pedophile activists they are intended as euphemisms of "pedophile", not as euphemisms for "pedophile activist". For that reason I'd suggest that redirect to "Pedophilia" may be more appropriate. We already mention them in this article under "related terms". ·:·Will Beback ·:· 22:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Will Beback. If the term refers to a pedophile or pedophilia, even if it is used pretty much only by pro-pedophile activists, it should redirect to pedophilia. If the term refers to pro-pedophile activism or activists, it should redirect to pro-pedophile activism. All 4 terms refer to pedophiles or the more general "pedophiles plus Ephebophiles."

Personally, I'd like to see the following redirects: Childlover, girllover, boylover, pedosexual, along with their variants like child-lover, child-love, childlove, etc. redirected to Pedophilia. I would then make it clear in the Related Terms section that boylover and girllover are gender-specific. I would also make it clear that GirlLover is typically used up through early puberty, not for teenagers with fully-developed breasts. On the other hand, boylover is used up through the local age of consent. A 30 year old man who desires sex with a 15 year old boy is typically a boylover, the same man who desires a well-developed 15 year old girl is simply robbing the cradle.

I would also have pedophilia and Ephebophilia cross-reference each other at the very beginning of the article, using something like and

What do you all think? Dfpc 04:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think to redirect these terms to pedophilia is much the best idea, and only to redirect spec ifically activist terms to the activist articles, SqueakBox 16:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Notice posted on Talk:Pro-pedophile activism#Proposed change for incoming redirects Boylover and Childlover away from Pro-pedophile activism to Pedophilia. Please welcome the newcomers. Dfpc 23:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the terms used by child love movement should not be directed at pedophilia. I've always advocated that this article be primarily about the medical concept. Where exactly the child love terms should be directed can be discussed somewhere else.--Gbleem 02:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to limit this article to the narrow medical definition. The concept of pedophilia has a wide usage in culture. The concepts of "girllover" and "boylover" are covered here already. There isn't enough to say to warrant separate articles on them. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 04:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Girllover and boylover are mentioned here but I wouldn't say they are covered here. Whether they require separate articles is another issue, but they are terms created within the pro-pediphile activism community and therefore should redirect to a pro-pedophile activism article. This article primarily covers the medical definition because that is the most encyclopedic use of the term. For clarification this article does mention the colloquial definition. --Gbleem 06:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of the terms, rather than the creators of the terms, would seem like the proper place to look for the discussion. "Girllovers" are not necessarily pro-pedophile activists, but they are pedophiles. I dispute that the narrow medical definition is the only meaning of "pedophile" which is encyclopedic. Another editor has pointed out that the Western medical view is not universal anyway. It's important to include all viewpoints: pro, anti, medical, cultural, legal, etc. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 08:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a western medical term. There can be no non-western definition. I'm not going to find an anthropological study that says the whatchamacalit tribe uses the term "pedophile" to refer to the shaman who makes magic bean paste. If the watchamacalit tribe has an adult having sex with children they probably wouldn't use the term pedophile for that either. They would probably have some special name for it in their own language that was conceptually different from the western medical definition for pedophilia and likely different from any of our colloquial definitions. The term "girllovers" is most thoroughly discussed in the activist article. Girllover should link to that article until there is a better place for the definition. Does the activist article say that all people who call themselves girllovers are activists? Calling oneself a girllover is not specifically mentioned in the DSM. --Gbleem 09:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The "girllover" material should be moved over here. Not all girllovers are activists, but all girllovers are pedophiles. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 10:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've only seen the term "girllover" used in relation to the activist movement. I'm interested to see your sources. --Gbleem 10:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And when used, to whom were they referring? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 10:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is to discuss "girllover" and related terms on the activist article talk page until there are enough verifiable sources to decide what exactly they are and where they go. Until there are verifiable sources to discuss, it can't be in this article. --Gbleem 10:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, until we can find a reliable source for the topic we should probably delete the discussions from both article along with the redirect. We don't have anything to say that we can verify. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 10:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't delete the discussion. That's not the wikipedia way. I'm going to change the redirects to go to the activism article. When the definition on the activism page is expanded we can reopen the issue. --Gbleem 11:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Wikipedia policy is that unsourced material may be removed. The "childlover" material had a "fact" request on it for nearly a year, then someone added a a link to a one-man wiki. When we find an adequate source we can add the material back. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 19:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Since all the alternative terms now redirect to Pedophilia, shouldn't this article include a section on them? Could someone who knows more about the subject add such a section. Something that would explain what these terms are and how they're used in reference to pedophiles. Although all the terms redirect here, the Pro-pedophile activism page still has more information about them. This needs to change if we are to keep the redirects as they are right now. Homologeo 21:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that terms like girllover and boylover are pediphile activism terms and that once you find some sources they will be back on the activism article. I was going to move all the redirects to the activism page but decided to wait a bit to give others a chance to say something. The best we could probably do is say they are terms found on activist websites. If we limit our remark to that then the websites themselves could be used as sources. --Gbleem 22:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

At the moment neither page contains any information on the terms because there are no reliable sources for them. And no, we can't use unreliable sources to show what unreliable sources contain because that'd be original research. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 22:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

An editor edited the intro with the comment:

changes to the first couple of paragraphs need to be discussed on the talk page. [1]

But I don't see any discussion of that revert. What's up? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The wording of the first two paragraphs was discussed a long time ago. The phrase "in contrast" was specifically added to address the concerns that the colloquial use of the term was being presented as equivalent to the medical definition. --Gbleem 06:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

boylove girllove

Didn't the activist article have a source? --Gbleem 20:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I see your explanation above. --Gbleem 20:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Flag unsourced material with {{Fact}} before deleting it

I just reverted a deletion less than a day old. Someone deleted material only because it was unsourced. It wasn't flagged ^{[citation needed]} which is probably why it stayed unsourced so long. Don't summarily delete unsourced material just because it's unsourced. If that's the only reason you are deleting it, mark it with the {{flag}} template and wait a few weeks. Better yet, improve the article by finding a source and adding it. Dfpc 00:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The nearly identical material in the activism article was marked with a {fact} tag for nearly a year before someone dug up an inadequate source. Sources are more than links, they are what we should be using to write the article. If something isn't sourced there's a good chance it was written off the top of someone's head. In any case, thanks for finding those sources. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 03:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

action as a definition Barbaree

Barbaree, H. E., and Seto, M. C. (1997). Pedophilia: Assessment and Treatment. Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment. 175-193.

I was looking at the new childlove source. I can't read the first one but the second one is definately using the term in the colloquial sense it is impossible to diagnose people who post on the internet. That takes me back to the Barbaree source near the beginning of the article. Could someone who has access to the book tell me more about his action based classification. --Gbleem 00:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Neologisms of the pedophile activist movement

I see above that a number of neologism such as "pedosexual" have been redirected to this page from the activism page. However, the terms are discussed in that article and not in this one, and since all have their origin as part of the pro-pedophile movement, that page is the more appropriate redirect. DanB†DanD 02:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Neologisms which are synonyms for pedophiles or pedophilia should redirect here, and they should be briefly mentioned here. Other "activist" terms should be redirected elsewhere. Which particular neologisms did you have in mind? I see incoming redirects from ~~Phebophilia~~, Pedosexuality, Boylover, Girllover, ~~Lolita Syndrome~~, Child Lover, Girl Moment (note change), Man boy love, plus many variations of the word Pedophile. Phebophilia should redirect to Ephebophilia, I'll change it shortly. I'm not sure about ~~Lolita Syndrome and Girl Movement~~. Girl Moment is used by activists to describe time spent with a girl. Boy Moment is the male analog. "Date" is a partial synonym. These terms could redirect here, to Pro-pedophile activism, or to Romance, or be deleted for lack of significance (note edit). The rest: Pedosexuality, Boylover, Girllover, Child Lover, and Man boy love, are all synonyms for pedophiles or pedophilia or the combination of pedophilia and ephebophilia or the combination of pedophiles and ephebophiles. Dfpc 03:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC) redirected Phebophilia and Lolita Syndrome to Ephebophilia where they belong Dfpc 03:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

They're not synonyms at all: all are political terms denoting identification with a particular activist movement, not a psychiatric diagnosis like pedophilia. DanB†DanD 03:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, just because it isn't used by the APA doesn't mean it's not a valid term. Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia not a medial encyclopedia. If you show me that a term is a near-synonym to "Pro-pedophile activism" then it should redirect to Pro-pedophile activism. Now, if you want to discuss whether terms like Boylover should be in Wikipedia at all that is a legitimate arguement. However, once the term exists, it should either have its own article or redirect to a synonym or near-synonym since one is available. Dfpc 03:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's work our way up from the sources. If the sources call these terms synonyms for pedophile activists then we can add that. Or whatever the sources say. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I said in an earlier post that I would direct these terms to the activism page. I waited to see what sources people would find. So far none of the sources seem to support that these terms are anything other than self reference terms. --Gbleem 06:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

removal of Boy-lover etc. from related terms

Removal of: *Boy-lover, Girl-lover, Child-lover, and Pedosexual, are terms of self-identification used by some pedophiles. These terms are clearly related to pedophilia. Removal is arbitrary and weakens the article. Unless someone convinces me that I'm wrong, I'm reverting. Dfpc 21:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose as this an extreme and unnotable minority belief and as we are not here to promote pedophilia but to write a neutral encyclopedia I can see no good reason to revert the removal of this provocative material, and if you do revert expect totally disputed and weasel word templates at the least, SqueakBox 21:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that it is an unnotable minority belief. If it were unnotable then nobody would take note of it. By the way, I'm surprised Pedophilia doesn't already have at least some neutrality-related tag. Dfpc 21:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Unnotable? It certainly meets up with the guidelines at WP:NOTE: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." --CA387 17:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Pedophiles are indeed a notable minority, their positive descriptions of themselves are clearly not. We could then equally add more notable insulting terms (perv etc) but I would oppose that too, SqueakBox 17:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

An offer of compromise: Creation of a page just for synonyms and near-synonyms of "pedophile" and "pedophilia." This page would include terms used primarily by pro-pedophile activists, regional terms, and terms used by the medical community. The page would be a "list" page like a disambiguation page, with a link or links to related articles. Unlike a disambiguation page, there's no need to follow the "one blue link" rule. For example, a term used in England might link to Pedophilia and Great Britain. In addition to terms "Boy-Lover" etc, it would include terms like "kiddie raper" and the like, provided those terms are in use. Dfpc 21:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need the slang terms in this article. Slang terms in general tend to be short lived and hard to varify. The existance of a terminology article separate from the activist article has no bearing on whether the two self reference terms belong in this article.--Gbleem 02:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but it's also a POV Fork, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. --CA387 17:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The girl lover and boy lover have been determined to be pedophile activist terms and they should link there. The girl lover and boy lover should be back in. --Gbleem 02:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we made that determination, but the terms don't need to be in two articles. Either here or pro-pedophile activism, but not both. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 04:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really want them in the is article for any other purpose than to point at the activism article Their definition should be discussed there. You are right they really don't need to be mentioned at all in the Pedophilia article. --Gbleem 11:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the deleted content unless someone can come up with a reason for deleting that has to do with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and not just merely "I really don't like them here". --CA387 17:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Good reasons have been given such as unotability and the fact that this isnt a pro pedophile article. I have removed the content and tagged the article as POV, SqueakBox 17:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but you haven't given any reason in accordance with WP:NOTE that shows that these are "unnotable" and don't belong here. --CA387 17:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Err, that's a double negative. Can you or anyone else prove the notability of these terms is the real question. And how would people feel about including terms pedophiles use to identify themselves alongside terms others use to identify pedophiles, including slurs (which we clearly have precedent in wikipedia to be able to use). NPOV would mean including both types of terms but IMO notability would indicate using neither, SqueakBox 17:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, whoever the author of the statement was seems to have already provided the statement's notability; it had around four sources. As far as my quote earlier, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.", this seems enough to have the deleted material restored. I agree with you that the article should not be pro-pedophilia, but the statement as it was doesn't really seem to violate this in any way: "Boy-lover, Girl-lover, Child-lover, and Pedosexual, are terms of self-identification used by some pedophiles, particularly pro-pedophile activists". In as far as all of them have basically the same meaning as pedophile to begin with—they all mean that you're attracted to children, after all—I can't really see it as a "slur". I can also see it violating POV if the article started out Pedophilia, or pedosexuality, is... As it stands now, though, I think we're doing more harm than good by deleting well-referenced material. --CA387 17:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There may be an argument to have these terms in the pro pediophile activism article but being referenced does not prove notability. We are dealing with a sickness, not those who wish to glorify that sickness (that is what the pro-pedophile article is for). Any slurs would likely be anti pedophile terms which in this article would need to go alongside pro terms for NPOV, SqueakBox 18:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that by looking through the article, the terms are notable but, as you said, out of place. I think we'd be better off devoting our energies to expending the article as a phenomenon in society, rather than debating about whether pedophilia is "good" or "bad", and putting the article in danger of becoming POV. I'll cede the point that the terms, as related more strongly to the pedophile activist movement, would be better off in that article. --CA387 18:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

IMO this and related articles already suffer from POV, SqueakBox 18:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems there are three issues here. First, are the terms notable? Second, should they defined and discussed in this article or some other article. Third, if discussed in another article should there be a mention of them in the pedophilia article that points to the other article? It seems there is a concensus that the terms are notable but should not be defined and discussed in this article. Does that seem good? The third issue is still waiting on a consensus? --Gbleem 09:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)