Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:27, 26 December 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pedophilia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Template:Vital article

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q: Why does this article characterize pedophilia as a mental or psychiatric disorder? A: Fundamentally, Misplaced Pages articles need to reflect the consensus expressed in the best-available reliable sources. Those sources characterize pedophilia as a mental or psychiatric disorder, so this article must as well. Those sources state that a mental disorder is a mental or behavioral pattern or anomaly that causes distress, disability or a strong impulse to harm oneself or others. Because pedophilia creates a strong impulse to have sexual relations with prepubertal children (an act which is innately harmful), and people with the disorder that avoid doing so often suffer great distress, it is considered to be a mental disorder. This is what differentiates it from other types of sexual attractions or orientations that do not innately lead to harm or distress. Q: Why isn't ______ point of view about pedophilia represented in this article? A: Information on Misplaced Pages must rely first and foremost on reliable sources that can be independently verified. Sources come in many forms but some are clearly better than others. Peer-reviewed journal articles, major published manuals and textbooks are considered very reliable, while personal blog posts or anonymous forums are often nearly worthless and almost never acceptable. This article in particular is about a topic in the area of medicine, and so requires a much higher standard of source than, say, an article about a fictional television program. Another key matter in excluding some material is the concept of fringe theories; sources that represent extremely minor and often flawed views of a topic that are plainly contradicted by more rigorous and reliable sources. For pedophilia in particular there are many fringe points of view that exist, but few have any scientific backing verifiable by reliable sources, and many are outright discredited for questionable relevance or due to the author(s) clearly having ulterior motives, i.e. being a pedophile themselves attempting to justify or normalize their behavior. Q: Why doesn't this article talk about pedophilia during historical periods of time (e.g. Ancient Greece or Rome, Muhammad)? A: Covering this particular sub-topic is highly problematic for several reasons. The term "pedophilia" itself did not exist until the 19th century, and was coined specifically to refer to a mental illness with set criteria. While the condition no doubt existed prior to that, there was no way to categorize or name it, and thus no reliable source exists labeling any historical person as having "pedophilia." Labeling a historical person based on sexual behavior alone, especially a single recorded perpetration, is also problematic because not all child sexual abusers are pedophiles. The person's internal mental "drive" to engage in such behavior is a key component in diagnosis, something that is almost always missing from historical accounts. A third problem is that the vast majority of such recorded instances in history that people often think of actually would not qualify, because the "child" victim was at or past puberty, whereas, medically, pedophilia usually only refers to prepubescent children.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Pedophilia. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Pedophilia at the Reference desk.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine: Psychiatry Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Pedophilia Article Watch (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Pedophilia Article WatchWikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchTemplate:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchPedophilia Article Watch Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Pedophilia. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Per the Misplaced Pages:Child protection policy, editors who attempt to use Misplaced Pages to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships, or who identify themselves as paedophiles, will be indefinitely blocked.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pedophilia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Reliable source showing more pedophiles are homosexual

This source appears to prove there are in fact more homosexual pedophiles than heterosexual: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756

Since this is a controversial topic for now I will not edit the info into the main article. Someone maybe who has a better way to insert the proper text into the article should do it, and who also has a better sense of grammar (as you can see I'm not the best at it).

The most important information that stands out is the following - the disparity proving there are more homosexuals who are also pedophiles:

"the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles among the general population is approximately 20:1"

"the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1"

DMSMD (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it proves anything conclusively. It's a difficult subject and it's not like physics where an experiment can be found to be universally reproducible and thus proof (to the extent that anything outside of pure math can be "proven") of some objective truth.

They used phallometric tests and I don't know if those are universally accepted (I'm not saying they're not, I just don't know), and the test subjects were "various groups of sex offenders against children" and I don't know if that projects to the general population (maybe it does; I don't know).

I'm not saying it's not a good study. I wouldn't be surprised if it's true -- if the percentage of child sex convictions is such that 33% of the offenders are preying on male children, which the abstract says is an established fact, that'd consistent with the study's results (although there may be other, entirely unrelated, reasons for that 33% figure).

So it belongs in IMO. It is the National Center for Biotechnology Information which I don't know who they are but they sound OK. I wouldn't use to ref a straight statement of fact ("About 10% of male pedophiles prefer male children, double the percentage of male homosexuals in the general population") but just describe the study, and throw in that the population studied was sex offenders ("A study by the American National Center for Biotechnology Information showed that about 10% of male child sex offenders prefer male victims") or something like that -- somebody else could probably write it better. Herostratus (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

For those interested, I wrote a comprehensive review of exactly those statistics. It is available open access from the UToronto site: http://individual.utoronto.ca/james_cantor/blog1.html.
— James Cantor (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

e/c...This is a 22 year old primary source. Thinking in this subject area has changed significantly over time. I disagree strongly with the proposed content based on the source, or really any use of it here. If this study produced useful results, they should appear in up to date secondary sources produced by authoritative bodies. Those sources should be used, not this. Zad68 14:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... it does seem that ifit were to be used it might belong more in Child sexual abuse than here... the population studied were all sex offenders, and I don't know what how close is the overlap between child molesters and pedophiles (and that is also contentious and not really known or really possible to know, I guess). It is one study and it is getting long in the tooth, but for scientific stuff like papers you're not always going to get a good secondary source summarizing all the research I guess. We do use scientific and academic papers to source statements here sometimes, but yeah we have to be judicious and for contentious areas such as this one we want to be conservative here.

As to Cantor's summary, hmmmm... I guess it says that a statement like "ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles" is not too meaningful... you can't really be both, since the hetero/homosexual dichotomy which is (somewhat) useful for most people doesn't really apply to pedophiles. Not saying Cantor's right be he makes a case that looks reasonable on the surface at any rate. OK let's leave it out. Herostratus (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with the source I provided? Seems pretty clear to me, the text says: "the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles among the general population is approximately 20:1" "the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1" I am just a layperson but there seems to be a lot of psychobabble going on here to obfuscate the obvious (which the source proves), that there are more homosexual pedophiles than heterosexual pedophiles. Again, I knew this would be controversial and realize it's not politically correct but that doesn't mean it's not accurate. The information should be added to the article if it is reliably sourced which I always thought was the standard for Misplaced Pages. DMSMD (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I see PMID 17135125 is a much more recent review article that argues against this "proportionality argument" the primary source is making. Zad68 02:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Zad68 I tried to view the full article but when I click "download full text" I get a message saying "Sorry, you do not have access to this article". Could someone who has access to the full article please publish the data/text here on WP that debunks the so-called "proportionality argument"? DMSMD (talk) 03:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Could Zad68, Herostratus, or James Cantor (who seems to be the most knowledgeable person on this topic) succinctly explain why the data from that reliable source should not be inserted into the article? I'm somewhat confused on this issue, thanks. DMSMD (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Someone proposing an addition needs to succinctly explain why text should be added to an article. Why would a primary source on a 22-year old study with an inconclusive conclusion be helpful? My "inconclusive" refers to the fact that it is hard to work out what the significance of the result is. Dropping raw numbers into an article is rarely helpful unless recording unequivocal facts such as the average temperature at a certain location. Johnuniq (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

DMSMD succinctly the main reason is: There are up to date secondary sources, such a review article in a MEDLINE-indexed journal, that provide conclusions regarding this topic, and when we have an up to date high quality secondary source, we use that in preference to an outdated primary source. The primary source you are bringing is part of the data set available to the authors writing the review article and the fact that the authors came to a conclusion counter to how the primary source was pointing indicates that the primary source is of poor quality or utility or has been superseded by stronger sources published since then. Suggest you read Cantor's essay he linked and also user:Jytdog/Why MEDRS?. If after you read both of those discussions thoroughly you still have questions feel free to ask. But do read those discussions first. Zad68 03:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistencies and other problems with the definition

There appears to be an inconsistency in the WHO definitions of Pedophilia. The link in the classification box (in the top right of the page) to ICD-10 F65.4 links to:

   http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en#/F65.4  

Here the definition is: “A sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age.” This page calls itself: “ICD-10 Version:2010,” which I presume means the publication date is sometime in 2010. However, the definition stated in footnote 2 (also for ICD-10 F65.4) links to a different place:

   http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/GRNBOOK.pdf

Here the text, dated 1993, is quite different.

A. The general criteria for F65 Disorders of sexual preference must be met.

B. A persistent or a predominant preference for sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children.

C. The person is at least 16 years old and at least five years older than the child or children in B.

This latter definition looks to me to be a more clinical definition, whereas the former one could perhaps be a commonplace definition. Nevertheless, the former definition is significantly more encompassing in that it allows for the inclusion of children who are post-pubescent. There are either two WHO definitions for F65.4, or, it would seem, that the definition in footnote 2 is out of date. If the latter is the case then presumably the definition in the footnote should be changed.

Both WHO sources classify Pedophilia under “Mental and behavioural disorders” rather than as a “psychiatric disorder” as stated in the first sentence of the article. I wonder if this might not be a better as “mental or behavioral disorder,” perhaps “mental disorder,” especially given the title of the page it links to.

There also seems to be a mistake in the definition in the second paragraph, where it claims:

The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) defines it as a "disorder of adult personality and behaviour" in which there is a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age.

Footnote 5 also links to:

      http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en#/F65.4  

If this is the correct link, the condition of been an “adult” seems to have been added, and the qualification “usually” has been omitted.

I wonder if the first paragraph is a bit misleading for two reasons. Firstly it tries to provide a definition that is related to the age of the child. This is problematic because such age-related definitions differ from one jurisdiction to another. (For example, the Misplaced Pages page for childhood claims the legal definition of a child varies from 15 to 21, and age of consent presents an even wider scope.) So it would appear the age related components of the first paragraph cannot be correct generally. The second reason is that the definition here is a medical definition. Without questioning that this is probably the most important definition, I do think the first sentence of the second paragraph (“Pedophilia has a range of definitions, as found in psychiatry, psychology, the vernacular, and law enforcement.”) would make a much better beginning to the article because it makes clear that the word does not have a single consistent meaning. (The entry in the Wiktionary link at the end of the page seems to agree with this contention.)

Having stated that: “Pedophilia has a range of definitions ...” (in the second paragraph), the third paragraph seems to contradict this point: “In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often incorrectly used to mean any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse.” If this statement is correct then perhaps the claim of there being a “vernacular” definition should be omitted or qualified in some way. Alternately, perhaps the line should read: “In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often used to mean any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse; however, this is not consistent with the medical use of the term.” In any case, I wonder if this point is too specifically medical to warrant being placed early in the introduction, especially as the psychological, vernacular, and law enforcement definitions have not yet been presented.

Also, without wanting to refute the point, I think the phrase “many child sexual abuse offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia” deserves a more precise definition of what “many” means in this case. I don’t have access to the cited literature (and even if I did I don’t consider myself to be qualified to summarize them), but the use of “many” is a little worrying, again because it comes in the introduction. The text quoted for footnote 14 seems to talking of “some” rather than “many,” which seems to make the assertion seem a little contentious. If this is the case then perhaps this issue should be placed in a less prominent position (which it actually is already).

In general the whole of the introduction seems to mostly favor a medical definition. If this were a medical encyclopedia then this would seem wholly appropriate; however, assuming that it is a general encyclopedia I wonder if this is sufficiently neutral. I do not personally object to the predominance of the medical definition, but it is not consistent with the claim in the second paragraph that: “Pedophilia has a range of definitions, as found in psychiatry, psychology, the vernacular, and law enforcement.” Moreover, I suspect that the majority of people would disagree with any medical-like definition in favor of one that presented it has being some combination of immoral, unnatural, perverted, blasphemous, and so on. While I agree with none of these adjectives, I do think that labeling non-medical definitions as “incorrect” (as happens in several places in the main article) might be seen as dismissing most commonly accepted definitions. Rather them calling them incorrect, it might be better to say they disagree with accepted medical definitions.173.228.91.3 (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, IP. As you may have seen, we went over the definition aspect in the #Definition section above. And as stated there, we addressed the definition aspect times before on this talk page. If you are the same person who started that section, I stand by my statement there. If you are not that person, I stand by my statement there. As for the ICD-10, it defines pedophilia in both ways; despite its use of "usually" in the second citation you pointed to (which is a brief online definition), it has never included attraction to post-pubescents as pedophilia, considering that including such would be far off from any medical definition of pedophilia. As you noted above, the ICD-10 states: "A sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age." I stated in the Definition section above, "Also take notice that the lead covers 'early pubertal age' as well since there is physical overlap there with regard to the prepubescent and pubescent stages; see the Hebephilia article for more detail." The second sentence currently has the ICD-10 definition that only uses the word prepubescent because that sentence is focusing on prepubescents, not the rare medical definition of pedophilia that includes early pubescents. But, as long as the source is focusing on prepubescents and not on early pubescents, I don't mind the ICD-10 source there being replaced by a different source (especially since it's dated to 1993 and medical sources on Misplaced Pages should be up-to-date when they can be). Regarding the rest: Psychiatric disorder, you will notice, redirects to the Mental disorder article; they are the same thing. And the ICD-10 supports "adult," more specifically those 16 years of age or older, regarding people who can be diagnosed with pedophilia. If it did not, then pedophilia could be taken to apply to, for example, a 12-year-old pubescent boy who is sexually attracted to a 10-year-old prepubescent girl. We've had people question at this talk page before whether children, as in prepubescent children, can be pedophiles.

You stated: "I wonder if the first paragraph is a bit misleading for two reasons. Firstly it tries to provide a definition that is related to the age of the child. This is problematic because such age-related definitions differ from one jurisdiction to another. (For example, the Misplaced Pages page for childhood claims the legal definition of a child varies from 15 to 21, and age of consent presents an even wider scope.)" Again, refer to the Definition section above. Pedophilia, as accurately defined (and, yes, the medical definition is the accurate definition), is not based on age of consent or age of majority. If it was, then this would mean that a person has a mental disorder (in this case, pedophilia) in one state or country, but not in another state or country, which is silly. Furthermore, pedophilia (a mental matter) is not prosecuted; child sexual abuse is prosecuted. So pedophilia is not truly a legal matter, despite the terminology that some law enforcement people use.

As for beginning the definition of pedophilia with a vague meaning, that is a no. Per WP:LEADSENTENCE, the lead sentence should have a clear definition, unless the topic is not clearly definable. Pedophilia is clearly definable. Considering that the definition of pedophilia is usually consistent in medical literature, and has far more range in common usage, we should either tweak or get rid of the "Pedophilia has a range of definitions, as found in psychiatry, psychology, the vernacular, and law enforcement." sentence.

As for the "often incorrectly" bit, that was recently added by an editor, which resulted in the following discussion: "Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 18#media/common use; as seen in that discussion, the reason that I disagreed with the "incorrectly" part is because it's not supported by the sources for that line, and is already sufficiently covered by the rest of that paragraph; so I have removed it again. You stated that "psychological, vernacular, and law enforcement definitions have not yet been presented." The lead does present psychological definitions of pedophilia; psychological definitions, like psychiatric definitions, tie into medical definitions of pedophilia. And the lead addresses the law, what is meant by legal aspects (not truly legal definitions) of the term. The "media/common use" discussion also shows how "many" got added regarding the "many child sexual abuse offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia" text; I initially objected to "many" (which was originally "some"), but since child sexual abuse includes prepubescents, pubescents and post-pubescents as victims, stating that "many child sexual abuse offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia" is accurate. The lower body of the article, meaning past the lead, also addresses child sexual abuse vs. pedophilia.

Regarding your statement that "In general the whole of the introduction seems to mostly favor a medical definition."... Well, that is reflective of the article as a whole. Per WP:Lead, the lead should summarize the article. And aside from a layman view of pedophilia (including people tossing around the term pedophile willy-nilly), the vast majority of the pedophilia topic is a medical topic. This article should follow Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS) and Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles (WP:MEDMOS). In the article, we give WP:Due weight to non-medical definitions of pedophilia, but we are not going to have this article present non-medical definitions as prominently as the medical view. Flyer22 (talk) 08:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your most interesting reply. I am not the person who posted here before, and I don’t really have much of an axe to grind here. I mainly posted because I did not fully understand the information presented.

If I understand you correctly, the WHO provides both a simple definition and more technical definition for ICD-10. This is understandable, but is very regrettable (IMHO) when the definitions are not compatible. This is especially true for a term such as Pedophilia which does not enjoy a commonly accepted definition (at least between technical and non-technical people), so it might be very helpful if the article pointed this out somewhere. If I understand the situation correctly, and, for example, we applied the recent case of the now deceased British TV presenter Jimmy Saville to the simple WHO definition the answer would be yes, but if we applied the more technical definition the answer would be no. (Saville, it seems, was mostly interested in mid-teenage girls (legally children), who would generally be capable of bearing children (post-pubescent).) This situation is not helped by the fact that a poll of the British people would, I feel sure, produce a near 100% yes result (that he was a Pedophile), and a cursory inquiry to ICD-10 would appear to confirm this; however, on a more in depth inquiry, to the same authority, this would be found to be incorrect ("overturned on appeal,” as it were).

Without wanting to appear critical in any way (because I do think the article is basically very good ) I don’t follow your assertion that “... has never included attraction to post-pubescents as pedophilia, considering that including such would be far off from any medical definition of pedophilia.” The problem is that it does not tell us this on the simple WHO page, or here. Perhaps there is an introduction page where it says something along the lines of “the online guide is a simplification of the full definition, and in some cases this can lead one to construe the exact opposite of the meaning we had in mind.” Anyway, it would be just great if the Misplaced Pages were to help with such difficulties.

You point out that you use the term “early pubertal age.” It appears first in in the second paragraph (“The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) defines it as a "disorder of adult personality and behaviour" in which there is a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age.”), but this is not what footnote 5 says. I grant you do mention this later referring it to footnote 30, (I’ve not read this paper) but it then appears a third time referring again to footnote five. This situation is not helped by the term not existing in the Misplaced Pages, so it is hard to understand the difference between “early pubertal age,” and post-pubescent (especially as teenage girls can either have children or they cannot, making a third category unclear).

As I say, I do hope this is not sounding over critical, but I do think the information in the introduction is particularly important, especially when a contentious term such as this is involved. If a neophyte (such as me) come here and finds an explanation with a footnote reference that does not appear to support the explanation (as in the second paragraph), how can this be understood?

My only point re: “Psychiatric disorder” vs “Mental disorder,” is the latter might be better because there is no page called “Psychiatric disorder” and there is one called “Mental disorder,” which seems to indicate a preference for the latter term.

The ICD-10 may identify a group people who are 16 years or over, but I don’t understand why you would substitute this for “adult,” when most places in the world (including the USA) the term “adult” does not mean 16 years or over? You also highlight the inappropriateness of a 12 year-old being labeled a Pedophile for being attracted to a 10 year-old. But the initial paragraph also implies that the attraction of an 18 year-old to a 14 year-old would also fail to meet the definition because the age gap is less than five years. This might be true medically, but I do think the fact this this would be illegal in many places (including in some parts of the USA) would be worth mentioning. All I am saying is that this age-related thing is minefield where the chances of being misunderstood are high, and that the concentration on the medical definition could be misleading.

I can’t argue the finer points of Misplaced Pages, because I do not know them, besides I am sure you are correct And I do, BYW, very much appreciate the work you and others have done here.173.228.91.3 (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You talk about how definitions can vary depending on context yet you seem to dismiss this construct when you talk about age of a pedophile. Adult can mean 3 different things: sexual maturity, legal maturity and social maturity. If you take legal maturity then it makes even less sense then the things you bring up about pedophilia. Because in many countries you can murder people for money before you can drink alcohol (joining army at 18, can drink at 21). Ofcourse there is problems between sexual maturity and actual adulthood (that is what we call adolescence), like empathy in boys. But this article is about sexuality (sexual disorder) and thus sexual maturity does fit in this context. Also reliable sources might seem to disagree because the debate is ongoing and hebephilia is a term that only recently started getting wider acceptance.193.40.25.254 (talk) 10:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Well I think you are supporting my point here (which I probably did not elucidate very well). This is (a) that the introduction is a not the best place to present complex information, which people may misunderstand given the small amount of space; and (b) for the same reason, the issue that these particular ages are from some (but presumably not all) medical authorities may not be clear, so a casual reader could think this was a universal opinion (which I assume is not the case), or worst still that it was legally significant. One other reason (now I think of it) is (c) that people may not read the full article and so one may not get the opportunity to offering a more nuanced explanation. To be clear, it is not that I think the information is wrong or that it should be removed; it is that it should appear in the article body where it can be expanded so the probability of a misunderstanding would be reduced. BTW I based my assertion on age of majority, but I agree that the situation is more complex than that.173.228.91.3 (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I have just now read IP 173.228.91.3's reply to me, after having repeatedly put the matter off, as seen here and here. I kept putting the matter off because I am not fond of long debates about pedophilia, especially with people who do not have as much knowledge on the subject as I do. While educating people can be a good thing, the reason that I feel the way that I do about not having long debates about pedophilia and what it encompasses is due to many past debates at this talk page or other Misplaced Pages talk pages about it, and because of trying to educate people about it off Misplaced Pages. In other words: I am burnt out on the subject, especially due to people not listening to solid reasoning. So if the IP returns to ask any more questions, I likely will not be answering them. But moving along... Take note that this reply is dated after the comments below. Regarding the ICD-10, I'm not sure what the IP is trying to state about a more simple definition and a more technical definition, or how the IP can take the ICD-10 definition to mean that it includes post-pubescents. Yes, one of the aforementioned WHO definitions does not mention "early pubertal," but "early pubertal" does not include mid-teenagers unless the mid teenager is just starting puberty; it is rare that a mid teenager would be starting puberty. An early pubescent usually does not look the same age as a post-pubescent (people can usually tell a 12-year-old or a 13-year-old apart from a 16 to 18-year-old); the Tanner scale is one of the texts that partly show why that's the case. It does not matter that both the 12-year-old pubescent girl and 16-year-old post-pubescent girl (who is a child or adult depending on the law or society) can have a child. Usually, one is clearly physically mature, and the other is not. This is also witnessed biologically in the case of birth, as early pubescents/early teenagers have significantly more pregnancy difficulties than mid or late teenagers who are pubescent or post-pubescent do; their reproductive organs are not as well-equipped for pregnancy as the reproductive organs of the older females are.

The IP said that the first ICD-10 mention is not entirely supported by its source. Yes, that source, while it does use the wording "prepubertal or early pubertal age," does not state "disorder of adult personality and behaviour"; therefore, I've gone ahead and removed "disorder of adult personality and behaviour" from the lead. The adult aspect is already clear from the first paragraph. As seen with that edit, I also altered the second paragraph of the lead away from "Pedophilia has a range of definitions, as found in psychiatry, psychology, the vernacular, and law enforcement." At the time of the IP's post, this is what footnote 30 was; I don't know what the IP means about footnote 30 when stating, "I grant you do mention this later referring it to footnote 30, (I’ve not read this paper) but it then appears a third time referring again to footnote five." If the IP meant this section by a "third time," that is sourced appropriately. As for use of the wording "disorder of adult personality and behaviour" meaning that 16-year-olds are adults, the wording was not stating that; however, the fact that 16-year-olds are biological adults who are typically post-pubescent (or close to post-pubescent) is why any sexual attraction they have to prepubescent children is treated very much the same as the sexual attraction to prepubescent children that older post-pubescents (people 18 years and older) might have. Whether one wants to consider 16-year-olds children, adults, or somewhere in between, they are far from prepubescent and should not be finding prepubescent children sexually attractive; pedophilia is characterized as an adult disorder, and the adolescent age range includes legal adults in addition to non-legal adults. As for "an 18 year-old to a 14 year-old" scenario, the main reason that is not pedophilia is because neither of them are prepubescent. Well, typically, a 14-year-old is not prepubescent. And if an 18-year-old is prepubescent, that is a very serious delayed puberty problem. The lead already addressees legal matters, and that the medical aspects are not tied to those...except for the child sexual abuse and civil commitment aspects. Flyer22 (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Pedophilia is Psychiactric, not medical. And is defined by DSM not WHO. I am sure there are various general definitions of it from other bodies, but they're not all relevant. Under some official definitions, those attracted to a 17-20 year old would be a pedophile.

Psychiatry/Mental illness is defined by DSM definitions. It's not a medical disorder

Cjmooney9 (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Psychiatry is a medical specialty. To be a psychiatrist, one one attend medical school and go through residency like any other physician. Anything psychiatric is also medical.

Pedophilia is defined in both the DSM and ICD. There is no official definition that would include attraction to 17-20 year olds and you have provided no source that even suggests that.Legitimus (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Pedophilia is defined by almost every medical body on the planet. I'm alarmed that you seem to think medical bodies like ICD and DSM IV have similar standings in the field. It's not the case at all. Only one has any relevancy.

The ICD definition went to DSM only last year, and was thoroughly rejected by the psychiatric profession, by a massive majority.

I assume ICD was recently given such prominencto support the wishes of the person who started the definition debate, to support his position. Politics needs to stay out it. I assure you, I can add legitimate medical definitions myself, that says a sexual attraction to a 17 year old is pedophilic. Of course that's ridiculous, but that is why you should stick to the expert industry definitions, and not general GP handbooks.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You haven't a clue as to what you are talking about on these matters, and I've replied below in the #definition section. Like I stated there, the ICD-10 has been in the article (including in the lead) for a long time. Flyer22 (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

People patrolling pages, trying to keep them exactly how they personally want them isn't in the spirit of Misplaced Pages. You constantly delete things, with no explanation. And constantly discount points people make, with no explanation. You haven't responded to anything I have said on DSM/ICD.

It's all true. You're trying to compare official psychiatric research to a GPs handbook. ICD definition was rejected overwhelmingly my phsychiatric profession at the last DSM. Considering Pedophilia is a psychiatric illness, I'd say this is pretty important!

People adding random, alternative definitions, for their own vanity is ridiculous

Cjmooney9 (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Mention pedophilia in specific cultures ?

I'm not sure, but it seems like we would need to discuss this. See http://thediplomat.com/2014/09/pakistani-director-tackles-child-abuse-in-pakistan/ 107.131.117.141 (talk) 09:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but not here. Please see Child sexual abuse. Remember, pedophilia is the desire, abuse is the act. That work is about abuse. The article is actually using the term wrong in the opening.Legitimus (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

article is getting a bit political

There is hardly any criticism of DSM in reality - 99.9% of researchers rely on it. Psychiatrists get a democratic vote on the definitions, so a vast majority support it. Yet the small minority of criticism has it's own section, giving it undue prevalence, and nothing to counter it. DSM exists, as a vast majority of academics/researchers/psychiatrists have voted for it to be that way, after all.

ICD is not used for diagnosis. It's a list of medical definitions, GPs user. It's not a psychiatric diagnois. It shouldn't be anywhere near the diagnosis/official/medical sections

If we need to highlight the minority of criticism of DSM it should be countered, and balanced

thanks

Cjmooney9 (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

definition

The addition of the ICD definition to the intro, just to placate the above user, makes it a bit farcical. You say "it has a range of definitions", then just list two definitions that are almost identical! It doesn't have a range of medical definitions - it has one.

I'm unsure of the motivations of wanting to give so much prevalence to a general, GP, handbook, definition, that is also factually wrong?

Pedophilia is psychiatric, and governed/diagnosed by DSM. I could find you official, general medical definitions, from other bodies, that define it as an attraction to anyone under the age of 18.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 12:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The ICD-10 (which is by the World Health Organization) has been in the lead for a long time, including since the last time you and I discussed the lead in 2013/early 2014. And it should be there since it reaches farther than the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) demographic-wise, and defines pedophilia somewhat differently than the DSM. Mentioning both is fine per this section of Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS). I and others have already been over the common use matter with you, now seen at Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 18#media/common use. That there are medical and popular culture definitions of pedophilia is a fact, no matter that you, I and others consider the popular culture definition a misuse of the term pedophilia. The misuse matter is already made explicitly clear in the article. And, yes, in the Pedophilia article, we should include how the term pedophilia is defined among laypeople and law enforcement. I am not having another excessively long debate with you about these matters, especially since your "prepubescent" arguments remind me not so much of a respect for the clinical definition of pedophilia, but rather as a defense for hebephiles to state that they are not pedophiles, when, in fact, there is significant overlap between those two philias...and a pedophile can find a pubescent who looks prepubescent sexually attractive.

I am fed up with you coming back to this article every few months or several months to add WP:Synthesis to the article, along with your WP:Edit warring. This time, if you continue such behavior, I will take you right to the WP:Edit warring noticeboard or to WP:ANI. If the WP:Original research noticeboard were not slow, I'd take you there. You were reverted here by Valenciano. And what was your first instinct, from that point? To revert back to an edit that is not supported by the sources and does not make sense. Like Valenciano stated, "there are no children over the age of 18, so this adds nothing." The phrasing "children under 18," which is sometimes used by sources (such as medicine commercials), is flawed because of that. The "18" part of the sentence "In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often used to mean any sexual interest in children under the age of 18, or the act of child sexual abuse." adds nothing. It is fine as: "In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often used to mean any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse." It does not need your WP:Synthesis of "incorrectly" that was taken out months ago. The lead is already clear about what is inaccurate usage of the term pedophilia without resorting to that. This and this are WP:Synthesis additions (more so that first one), and they are unneeded. And there is no serious medical source that defines pedophilia as "an attraction to anyone under the age of 18." When it comes to the medical definition, the emphasis is on prepubescent children. And you know that, despite the fact that you contradict yourself with your pedophilia arguments and don't seem to understand pedophilia as well as you claim to or attempt to imply. Like I stated, if you keep up this reverting, things will not end well for you regarding this article at all this time. Flyer22 (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Really, you're getting a bit too political. I'm quoting science at you to protect hebephiles!? No, I'm just quoting science at you! As it's an article on science, that is wrong.

Pedophilia is a primary attraction to prepubescent children. Not a sole attraction. It means they greatly prefer small children, and hence they are their primary source of their fantasy. They can in theory be attracted to adult women as well, to a much lesser extent. Many pedophiles are married. They have the ability to have sex with an adult women, they just don't fantasize about it.

Hebephilia is a primary attraction to pubescent children. As with above, they can also be attracted to other age ranges, to a lesser extent. Younger and older. Again, they fantasize about pubescent children, primarily, which creates their diagnosis.

There is no crossover, scientifically. As science, and the hebephile diagnosis, does not say that a hebephile doesn't also find prepubescent children attractive, to a lesser extent. It only says that their primary/main source of fantasy is pubescent children.

Please do go to the warring board if you wish. I am sick of you ignoring/deleting people's valid points, as they don't match your own POV. Every time I come here, more science is missing.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, you barely know what you are talking about on this matter. For example, stating, "Pedophilia is a primary attraction to prepubescent children. Not a sole attraction." Pedophilia is commonly defined by experts and by medical sources as an exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. More loosely, it is defined as exclusive or primary sexual attraction to prepubescent children; see Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 18#Start paragraph comments, where I stated, "No, when it comes to sexual attraction, 'primarily' or 'exclusively' is what separates pedophiles from situational offenders (see Child sexual abuse#Typology) or some other 'not necessarily a pedophile' child sexual abuser; the fact that a pedophile's sexual attraction to prepubescents is so intense is exactly why pedophilia is deemed 'incurable.' Pedophiles generally have a difficult time finding non-prepubescents sexually attractive and they generally cannot be romantically/sexually satisfied by adults. Their sexual focus is usually on prepubescent children. If people who are primarily sexually attracted to adults, but occasionally use or have used a prepubescent child for sexual gratification, were routinely deemed pedophiles by mental health professionals, getting pedophiles to be with someone their own age would be a lot easier...obviously because they would rather not be with prepubescent children in a sexual way."

Legitimus, who is also very knowledgeable on this subject, agreed, stating, "I'm afraid this is true, Cybrepilot. They have to be primarily or exclusively interested in children to meet the criteria. I recently read a journal of a true pedophile. While fully aware of the wrongness of his attraction and a dedicated non-offender, he nevertheless has an exclusive attraction. He is literally incapable of achieving erection with an adult woman. It's a miserable existence to say the least. That is not to say that 'situational offenders' get off the hook. It's just that, by the medical criteria, they do not qualify as 'pedophiles.' They certainly do qualify child sexual abusers of course. Granted, I fall into a camp that anyone who ever does anything sexual with a prepubescent child has something very, very wrong with their brain, and I daresay is still very much mentally ill (even if that illness is simply psychopathy). Normal adults find even the thought of doing such a thing nauseating (thus why it is so despised). I liken it to such things as borderline personality disorder, where a person might not meet the full diagnostic criteria, but still are considered to have 'borderline traits' that are still destructive."

To assert that I know nothing about pedophilia and/or hebephilia is silly. Yes, there is a significant overlap between those philias, which is made clear in the Pedophilia article and in the Hebephilia article. And if we are going to speak in terms of guarding, I have been guarding the Pedophilia article for much longer than two years. As for reporting you: As noted on my user talk page, I will indeed report you at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard soon. Flyer22 (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

This is going to be a very hard debate as we're actually agreeing here, and we're still arguing. Even your own article is saying it's defined as a "primary or exclusive attraction". Primary or exclusive. You're also right in saying it's an extreme attraction, that they don't move away from, and often don't want to get away from - pedophiles are diagnosed by their fantasies. Which, by definition, means they enjoy it. Why would they stop doing something they enjoy. This is the psychosis that defines them. Enjoying doing terrible things. Much like a serial killer.

I'm also getting confused with your argument. As you were/are arguing there is both crossover between pedophile/hebophile, and also that it is impossible for a pedophile to find a pubescent child attractive? How can there be a crossover then? You're agreeing with me - a pedophile is defined by that primary/sole attraction.

Please do report though. This article needs some independent assistance.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to get into an extensive debate with you again; I told you that above. You confuse matters on this topic, and that, combined with your WP:Edit warring, frustrates me. For example, I never stated that it is impossible for a pedophile to find a pubescent child sexually attractive. If I thought that, I would not have used the words "primarily or exclusively" in my "15:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)" post above, and I might have qualified that post with "true pedophile" since (as noted in the Pedophilia article) "true pedophile" more commonly means "exclusive pedophile." And before that, I stated above, "a pedophile can find a pubescent who looks prepubescent sexually attractive." The keywords there are "looks prepubescent"; that is where the overlap comes in. Chronophilias are about being primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to the looks of a particular age group. Many early pubescents, especially early pubescent boys, look prepubescent. And there are some people, especially boys, who are prepubescent at age 13, which is why the DSM extends the prepubertal age range to 13 for pedophilia even though, these days, it is an age that is not usually prepubescent. The "looks prepubescent" aspect is also why I think that the ICD-10 includes "early pubertal age" for pedophilia. Of course a pedophile is going to be sexually attracted to a person who looks prepubescent and has no noticeable adult-like body (granted, there are pedophiles who have an age preference; for example, preferring a 5-year-old to a 10-year-old).

As for independent assistance, I don't think you want the kind of independent assistance, you will get at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard. Flyer22 (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Saying under 18 is way too controversial given most laws of consent are lower than 18; eg in my country an adult of any age can sleep with someone who is 16 and they dont get labelled pedophiles and would likely sue if they were labelled as such. There is no need to add this sentence, its too problematic and hasnt even been added with a couple of iron-clad sources which to say the least is what would be required. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I actually agree with you. I originally wanted to add a small part saying that the common/media definition was technically incorrect (pedophillia being a primary attraction to prepubescent children). However, the person who monitors this page daily, kept deleting it.

So I decided to just write what the common/media definition actually is, so readers can figure it out it's incorrect themselves. I greatly prefer just having a bit saying the media/common definition is technically incorrect, but it keeps getting deleted. The point I'm trying to make is the media/common definition is controversial, scientifically, and completely incorrect, so on a factual/scientific reference page, maybe we should mention that quickly.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly stated to you by more than just me, the article is already clear that the popular definition is incorrect (medically incorrect at least). It states that in the lead, and at other parts in the article, including the Misuse of medical terminology section. This article does not need your WP:Synthesis. Flyer22 (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Provide sources for your assertions. --NeilN 15:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

In the UK the Daily Mail say would likely label someone pedophile for attraction to a 15 yr old but not to a 16 yr old. Please bring some sources here and we can discuss how or if to add them. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

And this is unneeded redundancy, already covered by the first paragraph, both in terms of primary sexual attraction and in terms of "prepubescent children at least five years younger" than the older person. Flyer22 (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Haven't we demonstrated a consensus/solution and you're still edit warring?

Cjmooney9 (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

No, there's no consensus to add your poorly worded/sourced text. --NeilN 16:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The last three reverts of your edits weren't done by Flyer22, and I don't see any consensus for the most recent of your changes (the one I reverted). Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh my word. So you think using half a quote, to misconstrue it, to present a certain POV is ethically acceptable in any form of life?!

You don't want to use the entire quote as it completely changes it's point Cjmooney9 (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the full quote from ICD

This is your quote in the intro

"a disorder of adult personality and behaviour in which there is a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age."

this is the full quote.

"a disorder of adult personality and behaviour in which there is a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age. A person 16 years of age or older meets the definition if they have a persistent or predominant sexual preference for prepubescent children at least five years younger than them"

DSM and ICD diagnosis are basically the same. You don't want to include the full quote, as you want to infer there is some sort of debate between the two on the subject. Very misleading.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The very first paragraph of the article contains the sentence "A person who is diagnosed with pedophilia must be at least 16 years of age; adolescents must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child for the attraction to be diagnosed as pedophilia," as I said in my edit summary, and Flyer22 said above. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this was more silly redundancy; do go ahead and get WP:Blocked already, Cjmooney9. Flyer22 (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: Cjmooney9 has been blocked by

De728631 for 36 hours for WP:Edit warring. He'll be back at this article and talk page, however; I assure you. Flyer22 (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Also take note of the obvious WP:Sockpuppetry concerning Cjmooney9 at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard. Flyer22 (talk) 03:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Re User:KateWishing's edit on IQ's

Hi, folks. Although I have every reason to think it's meant sincerely, Kate's statement about pedo's actually having the same IQs as non-pedo's is not exactly what those studies say (or how they should be interpreted). Mostly, these studies used self-selected groups of volunteers instead of a representative cross-section. (I find the same lack of IQ difference when I study volunteers instead of representative samples.) I think any discussion should probably be had with minimal input from me, but I am happy to answer any questions or to back-channel copies of the articles Kate posted. For reference, here are their abstracts:

• Joyal, Plante-Beaulieu, & De Chanterac, A. (2014)

Abstract. Typically, neuropsychological studies of sex offenders have grouped together different types of individuals and different types of measures. This is why results have tended to be nonspecific and divergent across studies. Against this background, the authors undertook a review of the literature regarding the neuropsychology of sex offenders, taking into account subgroups based on criminological theories. They also conducted a meta-analysis of the data to demonstrate the cognitive heterogeneity of sex offenders statistically. Their main objective was to test the hypothesis to the effect that the neuropsychological deficits of sex offenders are not broad and generalized compared with specific subgroups of participants based on specific measures. In all, 23 neuropsychological studies reporting data on 1,756 participants were taken into consideration. As expected, a highly significant, broad, and heterogeneous overall effect size was found. Taking subgroups of participants and specific cognitive measures into account significantly improved homogeneity. Sex offenders against children tended to obtain lower scores than did sex offenders against adults on higher order executive functions, whereas sex offenders against adults tended to obtain results similar to those of non-sex offenders, with lower scores in verbal fluency and inhibition. However, it is concluded that neuropsychological data on sex offenders are still too scarce to confirm these trends or to test more precise hypotheses. For greater clinical relevance, future neuropsychological studies should consider specific subgroups of participants and measures to verify the presence of different cognitive profiles.

• Schiffer & Vonlaufen (2011)

Introduction. There is some evidence that child molesters show neuropsychological abnormalities which might reflect specific structural and/or functional brain alterations, but there are also inconsistencies in the existing findings which need to be clarified. Most of the different outcomes can either be explained by the fact that different types of child molesters were examined or by not having accounted for basically confounding factors such as age, education/ intelligence, or criminality.

Aim. The present study therefore sought to determine whether pedophilic and nonpedophilic child molesters, compared to relevant control groups, show different profiles of executive dysfunction when accounting for poten- tially confounding factors.

Methods. The performance of 30 child molesters (15 pedophilic and 15 nonpedophilic) and 33 age- and education- matched controls (16 nonsexual offenders and 17 healthy controls) was assessed regarding several neuropsychological functions.

Main Outcome Measures. Scores on different neurocognitive tests and semistructured diagnostical interviews.

Results. Results indicate that pedophilic child molesters exhibited less performance deficits in cognitive functioning than nonpedophilic child molesters. Compared to healthy controls and nonsexual offenders, the pedophilic child molesters only showed executive dysfunction concerning response inhibition, whereas the nonpedophilic child molesters revealed more severe dysfunction, especially on tasks associated with cognitive flexibility and verbal memory.

Conclusions. These results enhance our knowledge about executive dysfunction associated with criminality and/or pedophilia, as they suggest different profiles of impairment between groups. In summary, data suggest that nonpe- dophilic child molesters showed more severe cognitive deficits than pedophilic child molesters. However, as response inhibition is associated with prefrontal (i.e., orbitofrontal) functioning, the deficits observed in both child molester groups indicate dysfunction in the orbitofrontal cortex. This has to be further examined with functional imaging approaches in larger samples and a full-factorial approach which allows for a clear distinction between criminality and pedophilia in a factorial manner.

• Strassberg, Eastvold, Kenney, Wilson, & Suchy (2012)

Objective: Among men who commit sexual offenses against children, at least 2 distinct groups can be identified on the basis ofthe age ofthe primary targets oftheir sexual interest; pedophiles and nonpedophiles.

Method: In the present report, across 2 independent samples of both types of child molesters as well as controls, a total of 104 men (53 pedophilic and 51 nonpedophilic) who had sexually offended against a child age 13 or younger were compared to each other(and to 49 non-sex offender controls) on psychopathy as assessed by the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI).

Results: In both samples of child molesters, the nonpedophiles scored as significantly more psychopathic than the pedophiles.

Conclusions: These results provide further evidence of the importance of distinguishing between these groups of offenders.

— James Cantor (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see your basis for stating that it "is not exactly what those studies say". It is certainly the study author's interpretation of their own (and other's) results, not just mine. You are free to disagree with their sampling methodology, but the studies themselves all explicitly attempt to investigate the cognitive ability of pedophiles. Regarding Joyal (2014), it wasn't cited for the meta-analysis itself, but for its interpretation of multiple sources:

"The distinction between nonpedophilic child molesters and exclusive pedophile child molesters, for instance, could be crucial in neuropsychology because the latter seem to be less cognitively impaired (Eastvold et al., 2011; Schiffer & Vonlaufen, 2011; Suchy et al., 2009). Pedophilic child molesters might perform as well as controls (and better than nonpedophilic child molesters) on a wide variety of neuropsychological measures when mean IQ and other socioeconomic factors are similar (Schiffer & Vonlaufen, 2011). In fact, some pedophiles have higher IQ levels and more years of education compared with the general population (Langevin et al., 2000; Lothstein, 1999; Plante & Aldridge, 2005)."

My addition essentially rewords this. The other two studies also found normal IQ in their pedophilic sample and less cognitive impairment. KateWishing (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the quote above. In fact, I am the Editor of the journal in which they said it. (!) I am pointing out that their statement, which they wrote and meant to be hypothetical ("could be...", "might perform..." etc.), should not be said in a way as to contest what has actually been shown. It is also an error to describe the studies as explicitly attempting to investigate cognitive abilities. Strassberg, for example was examining psychopathy, not IQ; IQ was merely one of the background demographic measures (using a brief screen instead of a full IQ test) used to demonstrate that any differences in psychopathy were not attributable to differences in IQ.

That pointed out, I really do think this should be discussed by editors other than me.

— James Cantor (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It isn't hypothetical when the authors cite multiple studies that support exactly the inferences they are making. Rather, it is phrased tentatively. Look at the first sentence: "the latter seem to be less cognitively impaired". That isn't hypothetical at all. The second sentence is in the same vein. It cites a study that found pedophiles "perform as well as controls (and better than nonpedophilic child molesters) on a wide variety of neuropsychological measures". These are actual findings, not hypotheticals. Words like "might" and "seem" are there because it's too early to treat these findings as definitive. My "Other studies have found ", combined with the earlier mention of conflicting studies, is similarly tentative.

I should have said "cognitive impairments" instead of "cognitive abilities", but you can't deny that Schiffer & Vonlaufen were "explicitly attempting to investigate cognitive abilities", while Strassberg was investigating a different type of cognitive impairment. KateWishing (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I was reading these over myself. These are good sources, in my opinion. They are journal articles that deal with pedophiles specifically. But, we need to be careful what assertions in the article we attribute to them. Strassberg was definitely about psychopathology, not intelligence. Attempting to draw on its measures used strictly for screening is WP:Synthesis. But what we can do is attach Strassberg to a sentence about psychopathology in the article, just not IQ.

Schiffer seems ok but I feel that the findings need to be described in more detail, not just boiled down to a single measure (IQ). After all, Schiffer fond some deficits. Similar to what KateWishing just suggested, it should be phrased about lack of impairments.

Joyal concerns me a bit because the quotation appears to be from the background/introduction section of that paper, not its findings. This is inappropriate. Rather, we should use the source that Joyal is quoting. I plan to read Joyal in more detail once I get the full text if there is other useful information.

I definitely agree we need to be wary of and fully forthcoming about the selection criteria of each study. While this is a subject area with a rather limited pool to draw from and we have to take what we can get, we need to acknowledge in the text how those selection criteria may alter the meaning of the results. The authors themselves usually do so in the closing of their articles.Legitimus (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm open to separating Strassberg and providing more detail about Schiffer. Joyal seems like a good secondary source to me. We could just cite its sources directly, but WP:SECONDARY suggests that secondary sources are preferable to primary ones. The quote is from the Discussion section and not part of the main meta-analysis, but that doesn't make it unreliable.

Proposal: "Other studies have found that pedophiles are less cognitively impaired than non-pedophilic child molesters. A 2011 study found that pedophilic child molesters had deficits in response inhibition, but no deficits in IQ, memory or cognitive flexibility. Pedophiles have not been found to be psychopathic, unlike non-pedophilic child molesters." KateWishing (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with James and Legitimus that we need to be careful with the wording and get it right. I first noticed you here at the Child sexual abuse talk page, KateWishing. And you confuse me because you are a relatively new (or relatively inexperienced) Misplaced Pages editor (at least under your KateWishing account) who is very familiar with the ways of Misplaced Pages, including with knowing how to spot one of the WP:Sockpuppeteers who keeps popping back up. But whatever the case on that matter, it seems that Misplaced Pages can benefit from your knowledge on the topics you edit. I will wait to see what others have to state about your proposed wording before giving my opinion on it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not inexperienced, I just haven't bothered to log in much until recently. I familiarized myself with that editor a few months ago because he persistently vandalizes attachment-related articles. He's very easy to spot. KateWishing (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that we have a statement on psychopathy in the article that contradicts Strassberg:

Cohen et al. (2002), studying child sex offenders, states that pedophiles have impaired interpersonal functioning and elevated passive-aggressiveness, as well as impaired self-concept. Regarding disinhibitory traits, pedophiles demonstrate elevated psychopathy and propensity for cognitive distortions. According to the authors, pathologic personality traits in pedophiles lend support to a hypothesis that such pathology is related to both motivation for and failure to inhibit pedophilic behavior.

I would move the Strassberg reference into this section and rewrite it as:

Impaired self-concept and interpersonal functioning were reported in a sample of child sex offenders who met the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia by Cohen et al. (2002), which the authors suggested could contribute to motivation for pedophilic acts. The pedophilic offenders in the study had elevated psychopathy and cognitive distortions compared to healthy male controls. This was interpreted as underlying their failure to inhibit criminal behavior. A 2012 study found that non-pedophilic child molesters exhibited psychopathy, but pedophiles did not.

The other changes:

• clarify that the results of Cohen are one study
• disentangle which pathologies were related to "motivation" versus "failure to inhibit", in accordance with the abstract
• subsume passive-aggressiveness into "impaired interpersonal functioning", like the abstract ("impaired interpersonal functioning, specifically, reduced assertiveness and elevated passive-aggressiveness")

Also, I found clearer policy guidance regarding Joyal: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper." Since the entire paper was peer-reviewed and written by an expert, and its sources are accurately represented, I don't see any problem with citing its Discussion section instead of the primary sources. I included the full quote in the citation to avoid misinterpretation. KateWishing (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Any indication why these findings contradict each other? If I were a regular joe reading this article I would certainly want an explanation in the text.Legitimus (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to say because I can't access the full text of Cohen at the moment. One factor is probably that Strassberg diagnosed pedophilia using penile plethysmography and the SSPI, while Cohen simply used "the DSM-IV criteria". The DSM-IV criteria can be overbroad, especially if the clinician bases their diagnosis on persisting behaviors alone (without fantasies and urges). Also, an appropriate control group would have been non-pedophilic molesters rather than healthy community controls (although in Strassberg, pedophiles were less psychopathic than both the community and molester non-peds). Lastly, they are both small studies. Cohen only studied 20 pedophiles, and Strassberg 53. You would need a meta-analysis to make any real conclusion, but none exist. (There is at least one other study that found pedophilic molesters to be less psychopathic than non-pedophilic molesters.) KateWishing (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and point out that WP:SCHOLARSHIP is a guideline, not a policy; but, yes, we should generally use WP:Secondary sources instead of WP:Primary sources. However, as noted by Legitimus above, "this is a subject area with a rather limited pool to draw from and we have to take what we can get." And that statement is consistent with the WP:MEDDATE section of the WP:MEDRS guideline, which states, "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published." I suggest that, if you get no objections, you go ahead and implement your proposed changes. There have been no objections to your first proposal in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers. I agree that we're forced to use primary sources for this article, although some parts of it seem selective in what sources are used. I'd like to go through it all and verify that all our sources are correctly represented and reflective of the scientific consensus, with the help of others on the talk page. I'll post my proposed changes for discussion beforehand. KateWishing (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

For documentation on this talk page, here are the changes that KateWishing made per above. If there are any objections or proposals to improve that content, those thoughts should, of course, be noted here in this section or in a new section if needed. Flyer22 (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Legitimus that readers will want to understand the seeming contradiction. (As I said, the contradiction is from studies--including my own--reporting no differences between groups of volunteers, but a significant difference when using representative cross-samples.) I believe that problem would be resolved by implementing WP:MEDASSESS fully, rather than half-way. That is, KateWishing is correct about the preference for secondary sources, but the grand-daddy of secondary sources for claims like this one is meta-analysis, not narrative reviews. That is, there exist about 80 studies of IQ which vary in sample size and other features, and the most accurate way to evaluate their overall finding is not by citing a small subset of them, but by quantitatively analyzing the results of combing ALL the individual studies within the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis is preferred over citing small sets of individual studies because, as WP:MEDRS says: "small-scale, single studies make for weak evidence, and allow for easy cherry picking of data." The relevant meta-analysis of IQ spanned over 23,000 subjects (doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.4.555; PMID 16060802); the new studies being added to the mainpage, however, had ~40 subject-volunteers.

That said, because I wrote that meta-analysis, I do not want to sell the point over alerting y'all to it.

— James Cantor (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The only conclusive result of that meta-analysis was that low IQ is associated with sex offenses and victim age. The authors suggested that the victim age correlation could be explained by pedophilia, but it was not actually established, because the analysis did not examine the proportion of pedophiles in each sample or specifically consider pedophilia at all. (Notably, extrafamilial offenses and having male victims were not associated with IQ, even though those are also proxies of pedophilia.) We should include the authors' interpretation in our article, but not treat it like a definitive result of their meta-analysis.

The most powerful evidence for pedophilia's association with low IQ and memory problems is your other study. But it's a single study, not a meta-analysis. Why should we include it in our article while excluding studies with different findings? KateWishing (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is a comment about that meta-analysis and pedophilic IQ from Eastvold et al. (2011), one of the studies Joyal cites (not directly cited in our own article yet):

"Importantly, this study sample was remarkably similar to our previous sample (Suchy et al., 2009a, 2009b). In both samples, IQs and semantic knowledge (SK) were average, with PEDs’ IQ and SK being slightly (nonsignificantly) higher than those of NPEDs, in the context of approximately 13 years of education for both groups. The IQ and SK of child molesters in the present study were slightly higher than those of NSOs. This appears to contradict published reports documenting positive correlations between IQs and victim age (Blanchard et al., 2007; Cantor et al., 2004; Cantor, Blanchard, et al., 2005). However, such findings may be misleading and can likely be explained by the heterogeneity of study samples and inclusion of individuals with mental retardation. The only other reported comparison between pedophilic and nonpedophilic child molesters (Blanchard et al., 2007) found no IQ differences, consistent with our findings. Further examination of phallometrically defined non-mentally retarded pedophilic and nonpedophilic child molesters would likely continue to dispute relationships between pedophilia and lower IQs." KateWishing (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Clean up: Proposed lead changes

I will be relying on Michael Seto's book Pedophilia and Sexual Offending Against Children (2008) because it is the most authoritative and up-to-date secondary source available. For the lead, I removed several dubious references and sentences, added better references, and clarified the distinction between the disorder and the crime. Draft edit here. I will explain each of these changes (quoting the original version):

• "Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger. As a medical diagnosis, specific criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13."

  • moved ICD and DSM references to the first sentence, keeping another DSM reference for the second sentence, because it's the only one that supports a cut-off of 13
  • removed Psychiatric Times reference. This quotes the DSM-IV, but does not add anything about the definition of pedophilia. Redundant.
  • removed Britannica reference because it does not support the statement (it uses the vernacular definition)

• "Although pedophilia is defined in psychiatry and psychology, it may also be defined in law enforcement and by popular vernacular."

  This sentence is not very meaningful, does not relate to the rest of the paragraph, and is redundant with the more specific claims below ("In popular usage ..."). Removed.

• "In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often used to mean any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse."

  • removed Britannica, Psychology Today, and Burgess references because they do not discuss the popular usage of "pedophilia", they simply define it. SYNTH.
  • added Seto (2008) reference, based on:

    "Terms such as pedophile, child molester, sex offender, and sexual predator are often used interchangeably in public and professional discussions. Having pedophilia is not a crime, whereas having sexual contact with a child when one is an adult is. In this book, I repeatedly distinguish between what we know about pedophiles and what we know about individuals who have committed sexual offenses against children. Although these two groups overlap, they are not synonymous. 1 use the terms pedophile or pedophilia to refer to individuals who have a sexual preference for prepubescent children, whether or not they have acted on this preference. I use the term sex offender against children to refer to individuals who have engaged in sexual contact with a child, whether or not they are pedophiles." (p. vii)

• "For example, The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary states, "Pedophilia is the act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children.""

  As above, to use this as an "example" seems like WP:SYNTH because the source does not discuss popular usage. Anyway, it's overly specific for the lead and already covered by the preceding sentence.

• "This common use sometimes conflates the sexual interest in and sexual contact with pubescent or post-pubescent minors."

  This sentence itself is conflating the distinction between pedophilia and hebephilia with the distinction between pedophilia and child sex abuse. I clarified it to show both distinctions.

• "Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided because although people who commit child sexual abuse sometimes exhibit the disorder, many child sexual abuse offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia and these standards pertain to prepubescents."

  Removed Finkelhor reference, because it does not clearly support "people who commit child sexual abuse sometimes exhibit the disorder" (p. 90 is visible on Google Books) and we have better references for that anyway.

  Rephrased and noted that part of the reason is that not all pedophiles become child molesters, per these references:

  • Feelgood (2008): "People at risk of molestation behaviour are described most frequently either as "child molesters" or "paedophiles". The two terms represent the sociolegal and psychopathological conceptualizations of the phenomenon (Ames & Houston, 1990). The concepts overlap, e.g. a child molester can be a paedophile or vice versa, but they are not interchangeable. There are child molesters who do not have a strong, ongoing sexual interest in children (i.e. are not paedophilic) and there are also paedophiles who never molest (i.e. are not child molesters)."
  • Fagan (2002): "Terms such as "child sexual abuse," "incest," "child molestation," and "pederasty" are not equivalent to pedophilia. Terms that denote sex with minors are criminal actions; pedophilia is the sexual attraction to children and is a psychiatric disorder. Not all who sexually abuse minors are pedophilic. For example, some who sexually abuse children may opportunistically select minors simply because they are available. Sex with a minor is not, ipso facto, a determination of pedophilia. Also, not all individuals who fulfill the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia actually abuse children. Possessing such fantasies and being distressed by them is sufficient to meet diagnostic criteria. An individual with pedophilia is not a sexual offender unless he or she commits a legally proscribed act."
  • Seto (2008): quoted above
  • Seto (2009): "Pedophilia is often considered to be synonymous with sexual offending against children, on the intuitive assumptions that (a) anyone who is sexually interested in children would act upon that interest when an opportunity becomes available, and (b) no individuals would have sexual contact with a child unless they were sexually attracted to children. Yet even after thorough police and child welfare investigations, some pedophiles are found to have no history of sexual contacts with children."

• "Although mostly documented in men, there are also women who exhibit the disorder,"

  Removed Hall, which only discusses female sexual abuse, not pedophilia. Added Seto (2008), which has detailed case studies of women with pedophilic urges.

• "In the United States, following Kansas v. Hendricks, sex offenders who are diagnosed with certain mental disorders, particularly pedophilia, can be subject to indefinite civil commitment,"

  Replaced barely relevant newsletter reference with Seto (2008).

• "under various state laws (generically called SVP laws) and the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006."

  No need for this much detail about specific American laws in the lead. I moved it to the "Civil and legal commitment" section.

• "In the contexts of forensic psychology and law enforcement, a variety of typologies have been suggested to categorize pedophiles according to behavior and motivations."

  Removed. Doesn't seem meaningful without any detail on the typologies, and the source discusses typologies of child molester (situational vs preferential), not pedophile.

• "Research suggests that pedophilia may be correlated with several different neurological abnormalities, and often co-exists with other personality disorders and psychological pathologies."

  This is a bit strong, considering the body of research is inconsistent and based on sex offenders. Changed to "Some studies of pedophilia in child sex offenders have correlated it with various neurological abnormalities and psychological pathologies."

KateWishing (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I saw you make the changes in your sandbox (yeah, I looked at your contributions after seeing you pop up at the Michael Seto article and then I WP:Watchlisted your sandbox). Before you commented on your proposed changes to the lead, I was going to state a few things about them here on the talk page. To start off with your comments above, I'm not sure that calling Seto's Pedophilia and Sexual Offending Against Children 2008 book "the most authoritative and up-to-date secondary source available" is 100% accurate. Well, it's the "most authoritative" aspect I mainly object to. Seto is obviously one forensic psychologist/sexologist, just like James Cantor is one psychologist/sexologist, and these two don't always agree with each other. What makes Seto more authoritative than Cantor? I'd rather not heavily rely on one researcher's opinions or research regarding the topic of pedophilia, especially since opinions and research on the topic of pedophilia vary, with researchers generally in agreement about some things on the topic.

Regarding your proposed changes: As you can see, there was a hidden note there about the reference order concerning the first and second sentences. The references were there to support both the first and second sentences and to avoid WP:Citation overkill. Obviously, the references pertained to one line or the other, or both. And the Encyclopædia Britannica reference does note the medical definition of pedophilia, and it distinguishes misuse (the popular meaning) of the term pedophilia without directly calling it a misuse. But I'm fine with your reference changes. For some of the references you removed, they are used lower in the article, however. So it's a matter of deciding whether or not they are needed there, or whether or not we should discard them entirely. I am mostly fine with your proposed changes to the lead. But what I object to is the use of "sexual preference"; we use that term sparingly in this article because the term sexual preference is so wrapped up in the term sexual orientation, which is why it currently redirects to the Sexual orientation article, and because experts on pedophilia are generally in agreement that pedophilia is a primary or exclusive sexual attraction (as was noted at this talk page earlier this year). It's not so much that a pedophile simply prefers prepubescent children and can be perfectly sexually happy with an adult if they tried to be; it's that they genuinely cannot be sexually satisfied with an adult, and that this is obviously especially the case for exclusive pedophiles; the Experience of preference 2010 extensive discussion shows where WP:Consensus was formed to generally avoid sexual preference in place of attraction for this article. We settled on "primary or exclusive," and I reiterate that we've been using sexual preference sparingly. For this reason, I'd prefer that the "conflates the sexual preference (pedophilia)" part be changed to "conflates the disorder (pedophilia)" or to "conflates the attraction (pedophilia)," and that the "many child sexual abuse offenders do not have a sexual preference for preprepubescent children, and not all people with such a preference molest children." part be changed to "many child sexual abuse offenders are not pedophiles, and not all pedophiles molest children." On a side note: The "not all pedophiles molest children" aspect was in the lead before, right at the point you placed it at. You weren't aware of that? The media/common use discussion documents where it was reanalyzed; see Legitimus's "01:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)" comment ownward, ending at the "Section break" heading.

Regarding the "does not distinguish between attraction to prepubescent and pubescent minors" part. That should mention post-pubescents as well, like that part of the lead did before. It should be "does not distinguish between attraction to prepubescent and pubescent or post-pubescent minors." This is because people are usually post-pubescent at ages 15, 16 or 17, and these ages are usually under the age of majority, and adult sexual attraction to people in this age range is commonly confused with pedophilia. Confusion about what pedophilia is clearly extends beyond the commonly cited 11 to 14-year-old range for hebephilia. Flyer22 (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

"Authoritative" may have been the wrong word. All I meant is that I would be consulting Seto frequently, not ignoring all the other reliable sources. James Cantor would probably agree that his book is the best general summary of pedophilia research. Their publications agree on almost everything from what I've seen.

I wasn't aware of Legitimus's earlier comments. As the sources I added point out, the non-criminality of some pedophiles is relevant because the popular usage conflates their attraction with a crime. I'll add some more information about non-offending pedophiles later to make it LEAD-compliant.

I tried to address your concerns about preference and post-pubescence. KateWishing (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, Cantor's connection with Seto is known to Misplaced Pages. They agree a lot, but not always. My main point in that regard was to emphasize that experts have different opinions and research results concerning pedophilia. As for the tweaks you made at my suggestion, why use the wording "many child sexual abuse offenders are not primarily attracted to prepubescent children" instead of "many child sexual abuse offenders are not pedophiles"? I think it's best to be clear that many child sexual abuse offenders are not pedophiles. And as noted above, pedophilia can also be exclusive. So "primarily" leaves out that aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I changed it to your suggestion for now. I thought readers might misunderstand "many child sexual abuse offenders are not pedophiles" without an explanation of why they are not, i.e., they are not primarily attracted to children. By my definitions, exclusive pedophiles still have a primary attraction to children. One alternative would be to use phrasing similar to Feelgood (2008) above: "many child sexual abuse offenders do not have a strong sexual interest in children (i.e., are not pedophiles)". Not sure if that's too unwieldy. KateWishing (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought it likely that you also find it a little redundant to state "pedophiles" twice for that line. But I still feel that it's the better wording, so I'm fine with what we now have with that and the rest of the lead. Let's wait and see if others watching this talk page have anything to state about your proposed lead changes. Flyer22 (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I would comment on this, but with all this text, I can't tell what that lead changes are wanted. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I added a bit about non-offenders to expand on the lead, and further improved sourcing. Here are quotations from the sources I used for non-offenders (I'm trying not to spam the page too much):

KateWishing (talk) 06:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Done, so I can start on the next section. KateWishing (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Clean up: Prevalence and child molestation

Draft edit. I removed several dubious statements and replaced them with better sourced information. I'll explain the major changes:

• "As child sexual abuse is not automatically an indicator that its perpetrator is a pedophile, offenders might be separated into two types: Exclusive (i.e., "true pedophiles") and non-exclusive (or, in some cases, "non-pedophilic")."

  I've changed the typology to "pedophilic and non-pedophilic (or preferential and situational)", with references to match. "Exclusive" is confusing because most pedophiles are not exclusive, per the DSM's exclusive vs. non-exclusive typology. This exact confusion between the two typologies occurs in the next sentence, which I moved to a more appropriate section.

• "They state that approximately 95% of child sexual abuse incidents are committed by the 88% of child molestation offenders who meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia."

  I wrote a longer explanation, but a search reveals that consensus was already formed on the child sexual abuse talk page to remove this. In sum, the 88% figure is a blatant error by the Mayo Clinic author and not representive of the literature at large. I've replaced it with sources that are consistent with the 1/3 estimate James mentioned in that discussion.

• "A behavioral analysis report by the FBI states that a "high percentage of acquaintance child molesters are preferential sex offenders who have a true sexual preference for children (i.e., true pedophiles)"."

  The "" and "(i.e., true pedophiles)" parts are not from the source. In fact, it specifically says "No distinction is made here as to whether this preference is for prepubescent (pedophile) or pubescent (hebephile) children" after that line (p. 53). Removed since we have less vague sources now.

• "A review article in the British Journal of Psychiatry notes the overlap between extrafamilial and intrafamilial offenders. One study found that around half of the fathers and stepfathers in its sample who were referred for committing extrafamilial abuse had also been abusing their own children."

  Says nothing specific about pedophilia. Will move to the child sexual abuse article.

• "one study estimated that by the time of entry to treatment, nonincestuous pedophiles who molest boys had committed an average of 282 offenses against 150 victims."

  The use of the mean here is very misleading. The median number of victims of pedophilic molesters in this study (Abel 1987) was 1.3 for girl victims, and 4.4 for boy victims. Schaefer et al. (2010) states, "Although the data from Abel et al. (1987) does indicate a higher number of victims, the mean scores appear to have been skewed by very few extreme outliers. The median scores may be a better indication of the true size of victim number." All subsequent studies have reported far lower mean averages, comparable to Abel's median. I changed it to the medians.

• "Some child molesters—pedophiles or not—threaten their victims to stop them from reporting their actions. "

  Apart from being more appropriate on the child sexual abuse page, the source (DSM 5) contains nothing remotely resembling these claims. Removed.

KateWishing (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't know how accurate it is to state that most pedophiles are not exclusive, and we certainly cannot base such a statement solely on the DSM's exclusive vs. non-exclusive typology. Like I stated in the #Clean up: Proposed lead changes section above, experts on pedophilia are generally in agreement that pedophilia is a primary or exclusive sexual attraction. There are experts who refer to exclusive pedophiles as true pedophiles. But there's also the fact that the pedophiles who have a bit of sexual attraction to adults are essentially exclusive pedophiles because they cannot be sexually satisfied by adults (not for long anyway, if at all).

Regarding your proposed changes, seen here and here, I'm fine with most of them. I have a few questions, objections, and other statements. Why remove the "Most sexual offenders against children are male" part? We state this in the lead; I think it's only natural to state it in the Prevalence and child molestation section as well. Although research doesn't have much on female pedophiles, and the prevalence data on female pedophiles might be underestimated, it's like James and I agreed on in a discussion about paraphilias in females; it's rare that paraphilias are documented in females (girls or women). Perhaps you removed the "Most sexual offenders against children are male" part because you think that the section is clear enough that pedophilia is not found in women as much as it is found in men? And why change "female offenders may account for 0.4% to 4% of convicted sexual offenders" to "Females account for 0.4% to 4% of convicted sexual offenders"? Your change took away the uncertainty of "may" by making it an "is" matter.

As for the "According to a U.S. study on 2429 adult male sex offenders" part, I think that fits better in the Prevalence and child molestation section where it was, instead of in the ICD-10 and DSM section, since it is about prevalence.

Regarding the Mayo Clinic source, it's clear that complaints have been made regarding its prevalence information; see Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 18#Number of pedophiles among child molesters. What led you to the archives of the Child sexual abuse article regarding that, as opposed to the archives of the Pedophilia article regarding it? Or was it the archives of the Pedophilia article that led you to those archives of the Child sexual abuse article? After all, in the aforementioned Number of pedophiles among child molesters" discussion, I point to the Child sexual abuse article archives.

The FBI source is clear to distinguish the medical definition of pedophilia from the common use definition of pedophilia; for example, page 35 for its PDF format, states, "One problem is the fact the term pedophile has both a less precise lay definition and a more precise diagnostic definition. In the DSM-IV-TR pedophilia is classified as a paraphilia, one of the psychosexual disorders. It is important for investigators to understand the DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria for pedophilia require there be fantasies, urges, or behaviors that are recurrent, intense, and sexually arousing and all of which involve prepubescent children, generally age 13 or younger." But then, on page 37, it goes on to state, "For the purposes of this publication, when the term pedophile is used it will be defined as a significantly older individual who prefers to have sex with individuals legally considered to be children. Pedophiles are individuals whose erotic imagery and sexual fantasies focus on children. They do not settle for child victims, but, in fact, clearly prefer to have sex with children. The law, not puberty, will determine who is a child. The term, therefore, will be applied to those whose sexual behavior involves pubescent children as long as it is part of a true sexual preference and pattern of behavior and not just an isolated opportunity. As previously stated this is inconsistent with the strict diagnostic criteria for pedophilia in the DSM-IV-TR." So, yeah, I agree with not using that source for pedophilia prevalence information. We also need to tweak the In law and forensic psychology section regarding that source, since it currently states, "The FBI, however, makes a point of acknowledging sex offenders who have a true sexual preference for prepubescent children." As noted, the FBI source does acknowledge that, but it, or rather Kenneth Lanning, is clear about how he personally defines pedophile. The source is also dated to 2010, not 2001 (the Pedophilia article currently dates it to 2001). Regarding the "high percentage of acquaintance child molesters are preferential sex offenders who have a true sexual preference for children (i.e., true pedophiles)" part, MOS:QUOTE allows us to change a quote, usually with brackets, when it makes the text clearer, but adding in "" or "(i.e., true pedophiles)" is not clearer in this case because we know that the source is personally defining the term pedophile more broadly. That stated, maybe we are referring to a different page 53? I don't see the "high percentage of acquaintance child molesters are preferential sex offenders" line on page 53. But, surely, it's somewhere in the source; I don't think that the line was fabricated.

Michael Seto is already linked in the Debate regarding the DSM criteria section; so, per WP:Overlinking, we should delink him in the Prevalence and child molestation section. And perhaps only mention him by his last name after the Debate regarding the DSM criteria section. Likewise, we should delink the term child sexual abuse in the Prevalence and child molestation section.

For the "Situational offenders tend to offend at times of stress" paragraph: The "fewer, often familial victims" part seems to me like it should be "fewer, often familial, victims" or "fewer (often familial) victims"; I'm speaking of the comma placement, which was there before your proposed changes. For the "pedophilic offenders" part, you changed "often have a large number of victims who are frequently extrafamilial" to "sometimes have a large number of victims who are frequently extrafamilial." Why did you change "often" to "sometimes"? You also removed that they "are more inwardly driven to offend." Why did you remove that? They are more inwardly driven to offend. After all, they are the ones who have a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children and cannot be sexually satisfied by a post-pubescent person, or by anyone who looks sexually mature.

Regarding the "Some child molesters—pedophiles or not" paragraph, I'm not sure how the sourcing got mixed up there; I was the one who changed the sourcing for that paragraph to the DSM-5, but that's because it was previously supported by the DSM-IV-TR source and I was under the impression that the DSM-5 source did not make drastic changes regarding the DSM-IV-TR pedophilia aspects. I'd consulted Legitimus via email before updating parts of the article with the DSM-5 source, trading out the DSM-IV-TR sourcing for DSM-5 sourcing. Perhaps the "Some child molesters—pedophiles or not" paragraph was originally supported by a different reference or was meant to be supported by a different reference. Whatever the case, an obvious error happened there. I still think that, because pedophiles are often child sexual abusers, the section should mention something about the tactics they employ to sexually abuse children. Flyer22 (talk) 08:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Updated. I restored the "Most sexual offenders against children are male" part. I had removed it because it seemed implicit in the other statistics given.

I found the link to the child sexual abuse talk page from your comment in these archives.

I meant page 69 of the Lanning PDF, which is marked 53 in the text.

I changed "often large" to "sometimes large" because an average of 1.3/4.4 does not seem particularly large. I've changed it to "often larger" now, because it's indisputable that pedophilic molesters average more victims than non-pedophiles, if not a "large number".

I had omitted that pedophiles "are more inwardly driven to offend", along with its counterpart, that non-pedophiles "have a general preference for adult partners", because they seemed self-evident. I added it back for now. KateWishing (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class psychology articles
• Mid-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• B-Class psychiatry articles
• Mid-importance psychiatry articles
• Psychiatry task force articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• High-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• B-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles
• B-Class law articles
• Mid-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles