Talk:Pedophilia - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Herostratus (talk | contribs) at 16:26, 27 March 2012 (Reverted 1 edit by Robo37 (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Johnuniq. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:26, 27 March 2012 by Herostratus (talk | contribs) (Reverted 1 edit by Robo37 (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Johnuniq. (TW))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

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

This 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.

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 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.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

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

	Psychology portal 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.

Sexology and sexuality High‑importance

	Human sexuality portal 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

Sociology

	Society portal 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating 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

	Law portal 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.

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.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

Re: revert by User:WLU of revision 465534144 by User:Edifyingdiscourse

Good catch WLU. The image with the following caption:

Under modern diagnostic criteria Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, would have been diagnosed as a pedophile for marrying a young girl called Aisha when she was 6.

totally does not belong in the article. (). I just wanted to additionally point out the relevant Misplaced Pages guidelines regarding its removal. It's not just because it is potentially (as WLU put it) "horribly unnecessarily negative and pejorative", but it is WP:Original research, and even if it were sourced it would be WP:SYNTH. Just thought I'd mention it here in case Edifyingdiscourse is looking for why their edit was removed or anyone else was thinking of re-adding it. MsBatfish (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. And from what I read in a few sources, Muhammad is said to have not engaged in sexual intercourse with this girl until she was able to bear children, aka pubescent, which would technically make him not a pedophile...if he was not significantly sexually attracted to this girl at the time their marriage was initiated. Remember, pedophilia is about the sexual preference for prepubescent children or those who look prepubescent (which is why researchers are thinking of merging hebephilia with pedophilia to create the new category of "pedohebephilic disorder"). So even if Muhammad had been sexually attracted to this girl while she was prepubescent, he would have needed to have a significant sexual attraction to prepubescent girls in order to technically fit the definition of a pedophile. Legitimus and myself actually discussed something along these lines at Talk:Child sexual abuse/Archive 8#Is indecent exposure child sexual abuse?, a discussion which evolved into the topic of child marriage. Flyer22 (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point. In addition, regardless of what any editor personally thinks about the subject, it is original research to say that Muhammad was a pedophile unless a reliable source specifically stated that. And even then we would have to say "_____ speculates such and such". One can't say that just because one source says that Muhammed may have had a child wife (who he may or may not have had sex with before she reached puberty) that therefore he was a pedophile. MsBatfish (talk) 07:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. And pedophilia certainly isn't based on marriage. Saying that he "would have been diagnosed as a pedophile for marrying a young girl" is just a no. Flyer22 (talk) 09:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It is worth noting that this specific matter is more political than scientific. The story of Aisha is a major talking point among American "Muslim bashers," as a way to denigrate the religion as a whole. Now what I am about to say is also original research I suppose, but I feel it is worth bringing up as a look from the other side: Aisha was 18, not 6. The way my Persian Muslim colleague explained it to me is the the Quran doesn't say anywhere she was 6. That comes from a third-party source, and was intended a sort of artistic metaphor for Aisha's "purity" and virginity (the numbers 6 and 9 have some kind of symbolic meaning). My colleague then pointed to several sources indicating the year of her death and age at that time, as well as the year of the marriage, from which it could be calculated that she was approximately 17 or 18. It is worth noting that he said he was offended this angle of the matter is so heavily downplayed in English Misplaced Pages, given how wildly accepted it is among educated Muslims, but surmises it is because the sources are all in Arabic or Farsi.Legitimus (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting and enlightening, Legitimus. Thanks for that. Flyer22 (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"Some people think X was a pedophile" is a pretty terrible inclusion on pretty much any page, not to mention we could pick from hundreds of historical figures who married, had sex with or raped someone who we would consider age inappropriate. Really, I think this is a WP:UCS deletion. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 00:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

@Legitimus, i disagree with your assertion that Aisha was 18. The "third party soure" you speak about are actually Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim which are considred essential and the most authentic book after the Quran by Sunni muslims as well as other denominations. In fact, if you disbelieve in these books, you are no longer considered Muslim by the Orthodox Muslims. Pass a Method talk 11:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion RFC

An editor asked me to seek consensus for this edit which he removed before i was finished providing more references. Do you support or oppose the edit? Pass a Method talk 11:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Why jump right into an RFC rather than discuss the edit on the talk page? It's a little premature. Nformation 11:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

PassaMethod, you didn't necessarily need an RfC, but I can see why you added one since I stated that including your text would not go over well here at the talk page.

Like I stated in my edit summary, non-human animals are not diagnosed with pedophilia. There is also the fact that your sources don't call it pedophilia by name, I don't think. But even if you find sources that do, there's still the matter of what I stated about the diagnosis of pedophilia. Besides only being diagnosed in humans, it is based on sexual preference...not the act of sexual abuse. And "sexual abuse" is another term that is usually not applied to non-human animals.

Still, maybe you can make a good case for including this material in the article...if you find reliable sources calling it pedophilia. The article does mention how the term pedophilia is misused. So maybe it could go in that section, to say that some scholars apply the term to non-human animals? Or as a subsection of that section? Hmm, we'll see what others think. Flyer22 (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason i did not discuss is bcause Flyer did not discuss. If he removes without really explaining, what am i suppose to say/discuss? He asked me to seek consensus, so i did. Also, you seemed quite rigid in your reply, so i thought a 3rd opinion was inevitable. Pass a Method talk 11:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

PassaMethod, I'm female and I explained why I reverted you in the edit summary; that type of edit was/is more of a revert and then discuss matter, per WP:BRD. I then suggested that you bring the matter to the talk page. Noformation is saying that starting an RfC discussion this soon is premature. Such a discussion is typically only used either after WP:Consensus has failed to be achieved or because an undesirable consensus has been achieved and outside views are wanted. Flyer22 (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The ambiguous response you gave me meant that there was nothing to discuss. It was mostly a opinion based reply. Also you made the removal so YOU should have started a discussion, not me. Pass a Method talk 11:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing ambiguous about "PassaMethod, a section like this needs discussion on the talk page first. Not only should a section like this not be placed so high, non-human animals are not diagnosed with pedophilia." And the only part of that reply that is opinionated is where I felt the section should be placed. The rest is based on fact/policy, as shown above. How do you get around the fact that pedophilia is only diagnosed in humans, is not based on sexual acts (as defined by most of the psychological/medical community anyway), and is not used as a term in your sources? If we are to include your text, it will need to specifically use the word "pedophilia" and will need to be placed in a section allowing for the term to be used this way. Just like we have an In law and forensic psychology section about how the term is often not used in the medical sense in that regard. Those are my points. All valid. I do not at all understand when you call my edit summaries vague or ambiguous; they are pretty straight-forward and there is only so much that can be stated in edit summaries. And, no, I didn't have to start the discussion because I removed the material. The WP:BURDEN lies with you. Flyer22 (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I meant your response on my talk page was ambiguous + opinionated. Pass a Method talk 12:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, when I made that comment, there wasn't much more to say after what I'd already stated in my edit summary. And just when I'd had an additional response ready, I saw that you had already started a discussion here...as I'd suggested. So I then replied here with most of what I was going to state on your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess there was a bit of confusion involved today. Next time i recommend stating what you said in your edit summary on the talk page too. I dont really pay much attention to edit summaries if someone made a talk page comment. Pass a Method talk 12:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC) Pass a Method talk

I do not think this section needs to be included because in short it is apples to oranges. Like most psychological principles, the study and classification of this disorder is based on the human mind and human physiology. These animals have different physiological processes involved (physical growth and sexual maturity), and there are parts of there psychology we will never truly understand until some person invents a mind-reading technology that works on animals. It just falls too far outside the subject. Not to mention that animal behavior is a popular talking point for people attempting to further an agenda. There is a possible home for this information though in Animal sexual behaviour.Legitimus (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Erm, I would tend not to think it's a good passage. We don't know the inner lives of animals, so we with animals we can only described so-called "pedophilic behavior", which is really a misnomer and which I think the article tries to clear this up although there is some discussion of "child molestation". Whether any animal behavior can be described as "child molestation" I don't know, but animal behaviors are not generally described as "burglary" or "assault and battery" or "wire fraud" I don't think, so maybe not. Anyway it is getting a bit far afield and I would be skeptical that we can extrapolate much useful information from animal behavior, particularly insect behavior. And unless it's show that we can, I don't see why it belongs in the article. Herostratus (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Jours apres lunes

I suppose the fashion industry is becoming more lenient as time passes. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/french-company-sells-lingerie-year-olds/story?id=14324742#.TvHnl1ZLPE8 Gravitoweak (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This is tangentially related to this article's subject matter at best. Even if there was hard evidence that the designer of the clothing or the editors in charge of approving designs are attracted to children under 12, this would not be of any note in regards to this subject. There are several other articles that may apply, but again this is a news item, not a study.Legitimus (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Biased article

This article is written from a victimologist perspectice. It is not written with a Neutral Point of View. Can anything be done given that the article is essentially controlled by a very small number of individuals who ban anyone who opposes them? Cataconia (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality is demonstrated through the presentation of reliable sources. It is not asserted. If you have reliable sources that verify a relevant point, present them. Otherwise you're wasting everyone's time. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 20:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

As we all know, it doesn't work like that anymore in this article. The source will need to be approved by a few self appointed censors who, if they like it, will allow the edit to remain. If they do not, they will remove it regardless of how reliable and relevant it is. We all know this to be the case, why pretend any longer? Cataconia (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Besides, neutrality requires more than reliable sources. If you handpick the sources to fit a certain view, the article will be biased but with reliable resources. This article is a perfect example of that. Cataconia (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Until you demonstrate an understanding of WP:UNDUE, there's no point continuing this conversation. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 22:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, why debate when you can just ban any opposition. Does anyone of you actually understand the science well enough to make a UNDUE judgment. Nope. Cataconia (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have specific changes you'd like to make to the article based on what WP considers reliable sources? If not then there's nothing to discuss, WP is not a forum for general discussion of the topic or for editors to WP:SOAPBOX. Nformation 23:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

If I had, would they be allowed? No. It's not that people haven't tried adding reliable sources that doesn't completely conform to a very specific world-view that has the grips of this article. Where are they now? The sources are gone and the users are banned for made up reasons. The system has collapsed. Cataconia (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, unless you have specific changes to the article based on reliable sources you are wasting your time and the time of other editors. You're welcome to your opinions but wikipedia is not the place to express them, maybe consider WP:Alternative outlets. Nformation 23:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Would they be allowed? Cataconia (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

How can I possibly evaluate a source if I don't know what it is? Nformation 00:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Those who did what you said, where are they now? Banned. I'm looking for options. Cataconia (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

So obviously you know that those sources are not allowed here because they likely advocate pedophilia; there's your answer. Closing this thread, feel free to start a new one if you're willing to abide by WP:TALK. Nformation 01:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Advocate pedophilia? Have you gone mad? We are talking about mainstream research published in mainstream journals, Cataconia (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

And what are you saying that these mainstream sources will say? That pedophilia is normal, a sexual orientation, that child sexual abuse is not abuse and is not harmful? This article is written the way it is because no mainstream psychological/medical sources present pedophilia in the way I just described. And what I just described is the only "neutrality" you could be talking about, since it is the exact opposite of what this article says (with the exception that pedophilia may be considered similar to a sexual orientation). You know exactly what we mean when we say "advocate pedophilia." You are obviously aware of what goes on at this article and talk page, so don't play clueless here. Flyer22 (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean, any source that does not conform to your point of view is "advocating pedophilia" and should be removed and the user who posted them should be banned. This is a complete corruption of what wikipedia stands for, This is might is right perspective, whoever has the banning powers decides what the article should look like. If I had the banning powers, I could say that your sources are promoting X and ban you, and you could do nothing about it. Today, you can be banned for posting a relevant mainstream scientific source into the article. Is this the wikipedia way? Cataconia (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're so convinced that you cannot do anything and cannot even name a source, why bother posting? If you post a link to an article in PubMed or APA PsycNET, nobody here is going to ban you.Legitimus (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The article is locked for some reason. Will take a few days. Cataconia (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this article semi-protected, which means that non-registered users (aka IP editors) and newly registered users cannot edit it, only post on the talk page. But that is actually for a completely different reason: This article is a giant magnet for joke/prank vandalism. It was protected for a year once, and less 24 hours after the protection wore off, random teenage boys were posting their friends and teachers names. So now it is permanent.Legitimus (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I meant post a link to PubMed or PsycNET here on the talk page, so we can see what you are talking about.Legitimus (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

(thread has been refactored, this sub-thread continues after the next outdent marker)

Fine, post the sources here. If they are truly mainstream scholarly sources then no problem. If they advocate pedophilia I'll send a message to arbcom and you know the next step. Nformation 02:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that you guys hold the view that any mainstream schorarly article that does not conform to your view is indeed promoting pedophilia or is used to promote pedophilia. The main problem with this is that there have been a schorarly debate for many decades where normal mainstream scientists have argued with each other on many of the finer points in this area, and this wiki-article does nothing to reflect this. It simply assumes that one side has won and that the other side should not be presented here. This is original research for starters, but I guess you won't be banning yourselfs anytime soon for that crime. Anyways, your fear of what media will say has completely destroyed the quality of these articles and has corrupted wikipedia to the point where it reads like pure propaganda. Cataconia (talk) 09:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

(thread has been refactored, the post below is a response to the post by Legitimus above made 16:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC))

If you're serious about adding to the page, then post here, on the talk page, the source you want to use and the change you want to make. It's very easy to debate abstracts - without any specifics you're just wasting everyone's time. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

That's alright, I will add them in the article in due time. They will be in line with wikipedia policies. Cataconia (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Based on your contribution history, I would suggest posting your suggestions here first or they'll probably be reverted as soon as someone else notices them. In addition, other editors can suggest changes, better sources, or state why the policies and guidelines prohibit the source or change. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 21:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I could do that, but I fail to see the point. I doubt anyone here knows more about the subject than me anyways, and you guys do not appear to have a history of going through that process before you post. Cataconia (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

@Cataconia: You are absolutely correct that this article is owned and controlled by about 6 editors. Mainstream opinions of legal and medical experts are dismissed as "fringe" or as "promoting" pedophilia. It's an intractable problem specific to this topic. Most editors give up on dealing with these six people, which is of course what they hope to achieve. I wish you the best in dealing with them. Jokestress (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It never ceases to surprise me how backwards the minds of pedophiles and those who support positive pedophilia/child rape arguments work. You are the ones supporting this material, continuously trying to get it into this article, and the six editors who block you every time are the corrupt ones? The higher-ups who ban you are the corrupt ones? Laughing my ass off. How is it not promoting pedophilia to say that pedophilia is as okay as heterosexuality and homosexuality and that adults engaging in sex acts with prepubescent children can result in as many positive effects as it can negative effects? And do enlighten us by telling us what "mainstream opinions of legal and medical experts" say that pedophilia is a normal mental process and that sexually abusing children isn't so bad? Even Rind et al. weren't mainstream and got their asses handed to them by the majority of psychologists and medical experts. What you are supporting are fringe views, per Misplaced Pages:Fringe. The majority of experts call pedophilia a mental disorder. The majority of experts deem adults engaging in sexual activity with prepubecent children, even pubescent ones, to be bad. This article is not being selective in its sources. It just so happens that the view that "pedophilia and adults performing sex acts on prepubescents equals bad" is the majority view. I don't even believe that there is a significant minority of researchers claiming otherwise. Or else sources of that nature would have been produced on this talk page by now. I don't know where you think being all secretive about these sources of yours is going to get you, when, if added to the article, we'll see them regardless, and when you're very likely to be reverted. So your criticism about this article, its protectors, and how this makes Misplaced Pages corrupt is laughable at best. Deeply disturbing at worst. Jokestress, how disgusting that you would support such garbage from a likely pedophile. If you're going to identify as a woman, you should at least think like one. In my interaction with pedophiles and child molesters, I haven't come across one woman supporting such garbage. Until now. Cataconia isn't even new, as evidenced by his knowledge of the inner workings here. Thank god we don't have you and those like you editing this article, for it would say that pedophilia is a normal variation of human sexuality and adults performing sex acts on prepubescents isn't something to be concerned about. I applaud the six "owners" of this article. And FYI: They aren't the only ones making sure that editors like you don't push your sickening POV here.

Sincerely, one of the birdies from Perverted-Justice. 72.159.131.3 (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You confuse ethical questions with factual ones. No one is claiming sex with children is good, nor that such ethical questions should even be mentioned in this article. You (and I assume most others here) seem to completely have misunderstood what the core-problem with the article is. What we are dealing with is not a fringe theory but a alternate theory which is completely OK by wikipedias standards:

"4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted. For instance, the theory of continental drift was heavily criticized because there was no known mechanism for continents to move. When such a mechanism was discovered, it became mainstream as plate tectonics."

The alternate theories that ought to be in the article belong to a significant minority and should be Wikipedias own standard be presented in the article. So far, all criticism from you guys have completely failed to understand the scientific issues involved and have been attacking straw-men. Cataconia (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Though I am tempted to remove the entirety of the outrageous personal attacks by the IP editor above, I will leave them for now because they are an excellent expression of the prevailing attitude that keeps this article from reflecting the full range of scientific and legal literature. Jokestress (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong all the way around, Cataconia. First of all, adults performing sex acts on prepubescent children is not just an ethical issue. It is factually classified as abnormal and as a source of significant psychological harm for the child, which is supported by the abundance of references in this article. You claim that you are not advocating that sex with prepubescent children may be okay? That pedophilia is not a mental disorder? C'omn, you questioned us calling it a mental disorder in a post that was removed from the talk page! What are you proposing be added to this article, if not those things? Why so vague and secretive? What else could you possibly be talking about? We aren't stupid, just so you know. So you can take your vague suggestions/hints and vague assertions of bias and direct it elsewhere, off Misplaced Pages. You confuse psychological and medical consensus with being non-neutral and biased. You even had the gall to say that there is no consensus that pedophilia is a mental disorder, when, in fact, there is. This article is a product of that consensus. Including your "significant minority" isn't going to change that. So to scream "bias" or "problematic" in this case is absolutely ludicrous. I doubt that there is a significant minority claiming that pedophilia is mentally normative or that "adult-child sex," as pedophiles like to call it, is not (or may not always be) psychologically harmful. Especially since you haven't displayed any reliable sources to support those claims. We don't have to present ours. They're in the article. And make no mistake about it, your view is fringe.

But trying to talk sense with people like you is uselees. So you keep it up with your vague comments about what you want to add to this article and how the article is biased because it dares to report the consensus view, with no fringe views included. As if vagueness will save you from being blocked/banned. 72.159.131.3 (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2012 (

"Pedohebephilic" no longer in the proposed revisjon, reference to same in article is outdated

The current DSM-5 draft proposes to add hebephilia to the diagnostic criteria, and to consequently rename it pedohebephilic disorder to cover the physical development overlap between pedophilia and hebephilia.

Untrue as of November 18, 2011.

Now called simply "Pedophilic Disorder", see http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=186# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.39.108 (talk) 07:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. I also wonder if, because of things like this, we should generally avoid integration of specifics from the DSM-5 development process. It's still very much a work in progress.Legitimus (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Having seen this section an hour earlier, I was just coming to tweak the text...but I see that Legitimus already took care of it. The proposal is still the same; it's just a change in name. Somehow, I missed the name change in early January of this year when tweaking the lead. I did check the source again back then, but the name change didn't register. Flyer22 (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Missing section on harm

Where is the section of scientific evidences about harm to children? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.187.93.89 (talk) 07:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

See child sexual abuse, it has plenty. Remember, pedophilia is the drive, sexual abuse is the act.Legitimus (talk) 10:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Sharp increase in number of sexually abused children

Has there been a sharp increase in the incidence, or at least the reported incidence, of sexually abused children? The JAMA Special Communication about pedophilia, which is currently used as a source on five different places in the article states the following:

“ The Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-3), which addressed only those cases involving parents, parent substitutes, adults, or nonparental teenagers in a caretaking relationship with the child, estimated that the number of sexually abused children rose 125% from 133 600 reported cases in 1986 to 300 200 in 1993. ”

— Sedlak AJ, Broadhurst DD., Executive Summary of the Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect. Washington, DC: US Dept of Health and Human Services; Administration for Children and Families; Administration on Children, Youth and Families; National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect; 1996.

Yet, in the section on Prevalence and child molestation there's no mention of this development? Is this information not corroborated, or is there some other reason why this development isn't mentioned in the present article? (Or is it mentioned somewhere else in the article and I have simply missed it?)

I also find this section commingling the two quite disparate topics of prevalence of pedophilia on the one hand and child molestation on the other to be an odd mixture. Shouldn't they be separate? Perhaps the title should be "Prevalence of pedophilia and child molestation"?

If the intended focus of this section is prevalence, then discussing numbers for both pedophilia and child sexual abuse would be relevant. In this context the correlation between the two should be discussed. Then specifically discussing the prevalence of pedophilia over time could be discussed with reference to the quote above. __meco (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

They should not be separate. Not only is not much known about the prevalence of pedophilia, and therefore a section on it would be very small, unless, like some sources say, the majority of child molesters are pedophiles (which could tell us the prevalence of pedophilia), the section is discussing the link between pedophilia and child molestation, and how one may be independent of the other. It's not confusing the two; it's noting the confusion between the two and how there is sometimes a link and a lack of one other times. This is best covered in one section. As for the title, it's clear to me that the "prevalence" part is referring to pedophilia since it is followed by "and child molestation." But I see that you are saying that this section is also discussing the prevalence of child molestation and that this should also be represented in the heading. Well, like I stated, the prevalence of child molestation is sometimes equated with the prevalence of pedophilia because so many child molesters do have a sexual preference for prepubescent children, but I suppose this is one of those times where Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Section headings allows the article title in a section heading.

As for the information you feel should be in this article: Well, there isn't a lot of things being added to this article these days because everything readers need (note: I stated "need") to know about pedophilia is already in the article. It could actually be WP:GA already, with some copyediting and the removal of the bullet-point, trivial In culture section. The article is more about pedophilia (the mental disorder) than it is about the act of child sexual abuse, and we leave most of the information about child sexual abuse to the Child sexual abuse article. But I don't mind the piece of information you cite being in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I see a problem with adding it. Then we would have to make a choice between simply adding it, without commenting on how these figures relate to pedophilia, or we add it and make a commentary, except that would be original synthesis unless we can pin that discussion down to one of the existing or new sources. __meco (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

If you find a place where it fits in the above discussed section, I don't view it as problematic to include it there without discussing how it may or may not relate to pedophilia. But, yes, it is best that it go in the Child sexual abuse article if we're not going to tie it to pedophilia in some way. Flyer22 (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Categories: