Talk:Paraphilic infantilism

CAMH Sources

Those looking over that page might notice that a few articles are heavily cited, even though they are given little weight elsewhere. This isn't was a consensus development, but the result of a determination of an editor to specifically cite CAMH sources: two papers written by four authors, all at the same facility, CAMH. For brevity, we'll call the papers F&B (Freund and Blanchard) and C,B,&B (Cantor, Blanchard, and Barbaree). This determination would also have driven the removal of references to the DSM, since the APA's established, consensus view as expressed in the DSM was in conflict with some of CAMH's conclusions. A number of the CAMH conclusions disagree with basic observations. This is why they have been largely disregarded as fringe theories in academia.

These fringe theories include:

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

The DSM clearly has a section on fetishes. Few would argue that fetishes exist. WLU has already taken it upon himself to strip away all references to the DSM's sections on fetishism or general paraphilias from the diaper fetishism article[1].

<original research>In an AB/DL community survey, 24% of surveyees reported that they either don't roleplay or don't roleplay as a baby or child. When asked about a sense of being a baby, 21% considered it merely OK in games, scenes, and fantasies. 17% percent reported considering it 'Tolerable,' and 15% that it 'Must be absent.' </original research>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of three examples mentioned for support in F&B, one wanted to be a boy of 10, and the other two were unspecified. This fringe view does not even hold true of the author's examples.)

<original research> My own survey showed that 61% of surveyees reported that they don't enjoy being a baby girl or being dressed as one.</original research>

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

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

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

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

4: Also regarding fringe theory C; The text of F&B was so ambiguous that WLU thought "Freund & Blanchard explicitly states that the sexual focus is only superficially similar and discusses what distinguishes a pedophile from an infantilist (which they term masochistic gynaephile)."[2] until it was pointed out to him that his reading of F&B differed from the one presented in C, B. &B[3].

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

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

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

8: CAMH has editor(s?) on it's payroll promoting themselves and CAMH interests on Wikipedia. Only one of these is (or at least was) open about his financial conflict of interest, and then only after it was discovered by another editor[4]. Relevant to this article, he argued for removing references to the DSM from this article and suggested his own writings and an alternative [5]. This opened the door for his own writing to be cited in this article NINE times, even though it conflicted with the established consensus opinion, expressed in the DSM.

Alternatives to the promotion of all of this fringe, uncertainly, and baggage, have been proposed and ignored. BitterGrey (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Your own unpublished studies are unreliable.

Your own opinion is only as good as anyone who agrees with your points. To date I don't believe anyone has.

Several editors have agreed that the DSM doesn't discuss infantilism in the sense used on this page.

Bringing up Cantor's own editing history on wikipedia is meaningless since he's not responsible for any of the recent changes.

Claiming something is a fringe theory doesn't make it a fringe theory. There is a paucity of research on paraphilic infantilism so we can essentially use whatever is scholarly and available to expand the page. To demonstrate something is a fringe theory, it requires you to demonstrate that other experts, not editors, disagree with it or criticize it for being overused.

You're misapplying wikpedia policies. WP:NEO applies to new articles. The use of homonyms in an article is allowable if supported by reliable sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Since you are the one edit warring to include the fringe theory, the burden to find independent sources is on you. Per the Fringe theories guideline: "Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way.." That is a direct quote. I strongly suspect you would have added any non-CAMH sources to support your pet fringe theory if you had any. Why would you withhold them if you had them?

Stop pointing fingers. Stop making false accusations[6]. Time to put up or shut up. BitterGrey (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

How do you know it is a fringe theory? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If you can't find even one non-CAMH source that supports or even seriously discusses the CAMH theory, it is a fringe theory. Clearly, you can't, so clearly, it is. BitterGrey (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

There's very little research, publications and general scientific literature on paraphilic infantilism. There are no real alternatives, or even a mainstream orthodoxy on it. There is no "mainstream view" that CAMH is "fringe" to that I'm aware of. These are peer reviewed works published in mainstream journals, or by mainstream publishing houses - respected venues that are considered quite orthodox. They are works by scholars writing in their own areas of expertise. They definitely meet the criteria for being reliable sources. There has been no criticisms raised in any reliable publishing venues that I've seen. A theory like satanic ritual abuse is clearly fringe, and there are lots of texts that point out it is not a real thing, it's a moral panic - "moral panic" is the orthodoxy, "killing babies for the devil" is the fringe theory; the former clearly outweigh the latter in both respectability of sources and number of texts that take this view. The same for parental alienation syndrome - there are a minority of participants who promote it, and a large, large number of legal and psychiatric scholars who criticize it. Where are the critical sources for CAMH's publications?

It doesn't look like these documents and theories meet the criteria to be a fringe theory. It looks like you personally disagree with what they say, and thus wish them removed. That is not appropriate. And even if they were a fringe theory, removal is not appropriate. Instead, we would briefly summarize what they said, then immediately after point to the criticisms made in other, more respected and more voluminous sources. Fringe theories are not labelled as such because of editor beliefs, they are labelled as such by other sources. WP:FRINGE pretty clearly states that reliability and peer reviews are thresholds that fringe theories generally fall below. The publications you are removing pass those thresholds. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The DSM, the consensus document of the American Psychiatric Association, categorizes infantilism as a type of masochism (pg 572 in 4TR). Given how long you've been edit warring over the DSM, I'd suggest reading it. If you'd like to fix those other articles, be my guest. Now stop trying to divert the discussion.

Claiming that there is "very little research" doesn't justify pushing your version here. Do you have independent sources or not? If not, the fringe theory doesn't belong here. BitterGrey (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I have read the pages of the DSM, I have photocopies of all 6 relevant pages and infantilism only appears once as a behaviour of masochism. That aspect is dealt with on the main page. As numerous editors have said - the DSM doesn't discuss infantilism that way. Saying it does doesn't make it so. This was discussed and addressed here. Myself, WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs), FiachraByrne (talk · contribs), James Cantor (talk · contribs) and FuFoFuEd (talk · contribs) disagreed with you. Nobody agreed with you.

Claiming something is a fringe theory doesn't make it so. Fringe theories are demonstrated by reliable sources being critical of the theories. If it is genuinely a fringe theory, please present reliable sources that criticize it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Six pages? In February you were edit warring to cite fourty seven pages[7]. Were you wrong then, wrong now, or both times?

Stop trying to distract from the fact that you don't have any independent sources to support the fringe theory you are pushing. As I've clearly stated, there is a consensus view, published by the APA, which contradicts your fringe theory. Longtime buddies and editors with conflicts of interest are not a substitute for independent sources. Gangs are not a substitute for independent sources. Votestacking is not a substitute for independent sources. Claiming support from others who aren't supporting you is not a substitute for independent sources. As the edit history clearly shows, you are the ONLY ONE pushing this fringe view here.

Per the Fringe theories guideline: "Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way.." You don't have independent sources for the fringe theory you are trying to push, so it should go. BitterGrey (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

What source contains this view published by the APA?

"Independent" means not published by the subjects themselves (i.e. not self-published). Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree is published by Oxford University Press. Freund & Blanchard is published in the peer-reviewed British Journal of Psychiatry. All of the sources are thus independent and bear the imprimatur of the publisher, the de facto approval of the editorial and peer reviewers, particularly in the absence of a withdrawal or criticism by other scholars. This is why the publications and opinions expressed therein are not considered fringe theories. I have attributed the opinion more specifically to Blanchard, Freund, Cantor & Howard [8] as it is a proposed theory rather than the general consensus. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective." Blanchard et al is not independent from Blanchard et al.

Again, please actually read the DSM, pg 572 of 4th TR ed. You will clearly see infantilism defined under the heading of masochism, not pedophilia as claimed by the fringe theory. BitterGrey (talk) 06:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:IS is about self-published and primary sources as they apply to people, businesses and cities discussing themselves in a self-promoting manner. It doesn't apply to scholarly sources. The DSM has been discussed repeatedly. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:IS is about INDEPENDENT sources, thus the title "Independent Sources.", which Blanchard et al and Blanchard et al are not. Blanchard in particular has an interested perspective in how Blanchard's fringe theory is described. Feel free to point out any policy, guideline, or essay that supports your position. I've quoted a number of policies. Perhaps it is you whom no one agrees with. The DSM simply and clearly contradicts the fringe view you are pushing. Since you continue to ask about it as if you had no familiarity with it (eg "What source contains this view published by the APA?"), I continue to mention it, hoping that you will actually read it after all theses months. BitterGrey (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Independent sources are those subject to independent scrutiny (i.e. peer review) and publication. This is met by any article published in a peer reviewed journal or a scholarly press book as all of Blanchard, Freund, Cantor and Barbaree's works cited here are. Blanchard may indeed have an interest in how his theory is published and summarized, but that doesn't mean he has control over publication - if his ideas were not considered respected or supported, the peer review process or editor would not publish it. Quoting a policy doesn't mean it applies correctly. I've posted a notice at the reliable sources noticeboard.

The DSM issue was discussed and closed, for the second time I will point to it: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_103#Lack_of_references_in_the_DSM. If you are claiming the APA source that portrays the "consensus view" on paraphilic infantilism is the DSM, you are wrong and your interpretation has never been supported by any other editor.

Blanchard, Freund, Cantor and Barbaree's works are not fringe theories. You have provided no reliable sources to substantiate this assertion, merely your own opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

WLU wriote "If you are claiming the APA source that portrays the "consensus view" on paraphilic infantilism is the DSM, you are wrong and your interpretation has never been supported by any other editor." So James Cantor is now no longer an editor? He did use the DSM in that way.[9] BitterGrey (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are bringing up a single edit on a different page by an editor from three years ago as if it had any bearing on this discussion. Particularly when that editor has not ventured an explicit opinion here. You may however, be interested in his more recent opinion here. So drop it then? Even assuming he didn't make a simple error in citation three years ago, his opinion now is obviously different. And irrelevant. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

To promote that CAMH theory as anything other than a fringe view in opposition to the widely published consensus, you need to get the DSM dismissed as irrelevant. That edit shows that even an editor on the CAMH payroll thought the DSM WAS relevant. As for that quote, you might actually want to read it. He mentions categorizing infantilism as "paraphilia NOS (not otherwise specified)", NOT pedophilia. The fringe theory that you are pushing categorizes it as a type of pedophilia. Not even the person you are quoting agrees with you. Perhaps you are the one who should "drop it"? BitterGrey (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No, this edit shows that James Cantor doesn't think the DSM's mention of the word "infantilism" is relevant, and Blanchard and Freund distinguish pedophilia from paraphilic infantilism. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

So you are arguing that Cantor is inconsistent, first using the DSM to define infantilism and then waffling and citing his own new text? Not the best position, given that CB&B is the only source you are claiming for support that doesn't require WP:SYNTH in equating some particular neologism off a list and infantilism. F&B doesn't even use the word 'infantilism' once. BitterGrey (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

RS/N summary

Some relevant quotes from a now-archived discussion[10] about these sources.

• AerobicFox:"This source has a variety of WP:REDFLAGs, the preface of this textbook states "it is aimed primarily at graduate students taking a first course in adultpsychopathology ... chapter authors were given considerable latitude"(emph mine). The chapter author of this particular chapter, Ray Blanchard, sources this theory to his own published work in 1993."[11].
• Fifelfoo:"MEDRS applies. Freund 1993 is a PRIMARY in terms of medical research, it is the first proposal of a theory, and therefore unreliable. Cantor 2009 would be a secondary, but I consider it tainted by association with an author who proposes the theory. Cantor 2009 can be used if independent secondary studies published in appropriate medical forums attest to the uptake of this medical theory. Until someone can demonstrate this, the text should be removed from the article as unverifiable due to failing to meet MEDRS."[12]
• (Elinruby also commented, but stated not having examined the sources.)

The discussion itself was stretched out to twelve thousand words, perhaps expecting that fatigue would prevent others from becoming involved in the article, or doing more than just expressing their concerns on the noticeboard. Sadly, this effect was apparently achieved. BitterGrey (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(diff to longtime supporter who didn't comment at RS/N, added by WLU)[13]

• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_29#paraphilic_infantilism
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_29#Paraphilic infantilism (shorter)
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_29#"mosochistic gynephiles","autoinfantophilia/autopedophilia", and "autoerotic pedophilia"

That's an extremely selective summary. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU, thanks for demonstrating that my summary of the RS/N (the reliable sources noticeboard) discussion was impartial. Had I left out anything that supported your position, you would have linked directly to it. As it is, you just threw up links to entire discussions at the fringe theories noticeboard, including one extremely partial diff. Are you aware that Wikipedia has multiple noticeboards, and that the fringe theories noticeboard is not the reliable sources noticeboard? BitterGrey (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

These sources were questioned in yet another RSN discussion, but there were no specific comments on the applicability of the sources.BitterGrey (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Adult baby.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Adult baby.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing ownership issues

While I'm neutral about a recent edit by an IP[14], I would have tended to keep it as a good faith edit, and to encourage new contributors. (Well, after removing the one extra coma for a coma-separated list, or switching the other comas to semicolons, that is.) WLU's version of the article could benefit from improvements by others: Improvements which won't occur if he continues to demonstrate a sense of ownership by reverting changes by others. This has been brought up before[15]. WLU's only response was to make accusations on another board, accusations that he then need to retract because they were based on assumptions of ill will[16][17].)

WLU's given motivation for quickly reverting back to his own version, "they'd be diaper lovers, not infantilists", is not valid. The nearby link to diaper lovers redirects to the diaper fetish article, which defines it as "a sexual fetish." Those who "enjoy the diapers in a non-sexual way, and do not identify as adult babies" would then not be simply grouped as diaper fetishists.

WLU, I believe it is time you stepped back and let others edit. BitterGrey (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The IP made an edit without a source and the nearest source to it [18] doesn't verify the text. I removed it per WP:PROVEIT. I've never seen this "fifth type" mentioned in the sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU, you wrote then that you removed it because "they'd be diaper lovers, not infantilists"[19], with no mention of WP:PROVEIT. Yesterday you wrote that the reversion was due to categorization, and today you write that it was due to sourcing. So is the reason you gave initially untrue? Or is the reason you are giving now - or both reasons - untrue? What is the real reason you reverted back to your own version? WP:AGF doesn't apply when an editor is offering multiple, contradictory justifications for his actions. We can't assume your good faith. You reverted another editor's good-faith edit and are now waffling on your justification. Again, I believe it is time you stepped back and let others edit. BitterGrey (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note a previously archived discussion about WLU's ownership issues.BitterGrey (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Fruend and Blanchard's Paedophilia article doesn't belong here

F&B's "Erotic target location errors in male gender dysphorics, paedophiles, and fetishists." is about, according to the very first line "A clinical series of male paedophiles..." The article doesn't mention "infantilism" at all. In contrast, "paedophile" or "paedophilic" occur 16 times, including the title. The article claims to be about pedophiles, not infantilists. The DSM and many, many other sources clearly differentiate between infantilism and pedophilia. Unless part of some assertion that infantilism is a form of pedophilia - an exceptional claim not supported by any independent sources - F&B doesn't belong here. BitterGrey (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Since the only active editor who has ever argued for this source has made multiple edits([20][21][22]) to the article since this was posted, I think concluding consensus by silence reasonable. BitterGrey (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Now that F&B have been removed, let's discuss Dickey: This letter to the editor makes a similarly exceptional claim, of "autopedophilia," but uses entirely different terminology. It mentions neither infantilism nor F&B (even though Dickey and Blanchard of F&B work for the same facility). It refers to no other "autopedophilia" sources, and so is primary. Finally, as a letter to the editor, it isn't peer-reviewed. BitterGrey (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I just don't want to end up in another long, pointless argument. The claim is not exceptional and the sources are acceptable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Pointless arguments can be avoided by making points, WLU. For example, Aerobicfox of RSN wrote "Per WP:Exceptional claims require exceptional sources I would like better sourcing for this claim '...infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia' "[23] on Dec 6th, just before WLU flip-flopped the text to misrepresent the sources. BitterGrey (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU has now reverted[24] repeatedly[25], apparently opting for a pointless edit war instead of discussion.BitterGrey (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The claim isn't exceptional, since Freund & Blanchard are being used to clarify a distinction between pedophiles and PI (an uncontroversial claim, sexologists acknowledge that the two groups are different) and to posit an etiology when there is no widely-recognized etiology for the condition. I've repeatedly stated that "autoerotic form of pedophilia" isn't the same thing as "pedophilia", if I haven't convinced you yet then I suggest you reread any one of probably a dozen rebuttals of your similarly-repeated claim. You can find them here and here and here and here, and probably on this very talk page as well. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Please actually read my post or the article, WLU. You might also wish to highlight any points in those discussions that support your position, instead of linkspamming in hopes of frightening people off. Another at RSN wrote "Freund 1993 is a PRIMARY in terms of medical research, it is the first proposal of a theory, and therefore unreliable. Cantor 2009 would be a secondary, but I consider it tainted by association with an author who proposes the theory. Cantor 2009 can be used if independent secondary studies published in appropriate medical forums attest to the uptake of this medical theory. Until someone can demonstrate this, the text should be removed from the article as unverifiable due to failing to meet MEDRS."

Even past-supporter FiachraByrne didn't agree with WLU's reading of F&B: "They delineate a small sub-set of paedophiles who self-image as infants or children." This is why much of the text now being fought over was hidden from August to December. BitterGrey (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ludwigs2 Your argument against the source is more or less baseless - The source is not being misrepresented, and is not an unreputable source. You are yourself misrepresenting what they say in a passage that's not even being used in the article and trying to remove the source on those grounds. Ludwigs2 later edited the page to remove the NPOV tags [26].
• WhatamIdoing I'd guess that it's the usual problem for articles about unusual sexual traits: the editor with the trait in question does not want people reading the article to learn anything about theories that he personally disagrees with (and especially not anything that presents it neutrally, i.e., "So this one expert had this idea..." rather than "The following idea, which I hate, has been thoroughly discredited"). BitterGrey's complaints have all aimed at removing Freund and Blanchard's ideas about PI entirely from the article
• Elinruby I think you are better off replacing it with a summary that avoids the term. I can't comment on whether this is a fringe theory. However, I personally am inclined to trust anything published by the Oxford University Press or a peer-reviewed journal. Even if the book, which I have not examined, is intended to be an anthology of differing views, there's a presumption that these views have some claim to academic legitimacy. So I am not sure why quoting the book for what an author says in it would be wrong.
• AerobicFox's more recent comment (the above diff Bittergrey used is from December 6th, this is from December 16th) The sources used are reliable, although I'm largely indifferent now towards their weight considering the lack of resources on infantilism. I'm definitely against including more material, and would support some removal, but I don't really care if what's currently written stays.

The hyperfocus on the use of the word "pedophilia" while ignoring what the actual source intends is a blatant misrepresentation of the source. Freund & Blanchard use their case series to distinguish between pedophiles and infantilists, and Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree is a secondary source that also makes that distinction while clearly referencing infantilists explicitly. Claiming the DSM discusses infantilists at all is flatly wrong, which you know, and which the community has clearly stated is wrong, twice here and here. Why you think I'd change my mind when there's no evidence of that is beyond me. FiachraByrne's comment is distinguishing between two groups of infantilists - those who do so because of masochism and those who do so because of an erotic target location error. The full quote is:

CB&B refer to Freund and Blanchard's 1993 article and state that, "They hypothesized that erotic target location was a basic dimension of sexual attraction, independent of the nature of the erotic target (object) itself. They interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia" (p.531). It would seem clear that CB&B characterise infantilism as an "erotic identity disorder" (p.530). That they wish to apply this concept as a general one across the paraphilias is obvious from their parallel treatment of transexualism (autogynaephilia) and those who self-image as amputees. Similary F&B assert that errors in erotic targeting are a basic feature of the paraphilias. They delineate a small sub-set of paedophiles who self-image as infants or children. The term they use as an analogue to gender identity disorder is "age identity disorder" and they obviously see it as structurally very similar (irrespective of the object of attraction) to the former condition. In these autoerotic disorders, they conjecture, the object of attraction becomes inverted and attached to the self. They clearly distinguish this paraphilia from what they term "masochistic gynaephiles" who although they fantasise about themselves as infants or little boys do so in fantasies involving adult women. They speculate that this group is fundamentally different from the previous one although the fantasies are similar as one use the fantasy to increase distance and difference from their sexual object (women) and the other use it to collapse difference (infants/children). As CB&B refer to infantilism as an autoerotic form of paedophilia it would seem that they consider it distinct from similar behaviour with a putatively different aetiology that is essentially masochistic.

But really if you want to know what FiachraByrne thinks now and of the current page, you'll have to ask her.

If your argument is that F&B should be removed from the page, it essentially changes nothing - Cantor, Barbaree & Blanchard can be used to verify the exact same points as Freund & Blanchard's 1993 paper. The first use in the pedophilia section states that pedophiles are attracted to kids while infantilists are attracted to the idea of being kids. The second use is redundant to two other citations, one of which is Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree, a reliable source, and merely states that infantilism has been linked to autoeroticism and autogynephilia. So by all means, remove the sources and replace them with CBB, but there is no reason to change the text. And here is the long, pointless discussion I've been wanting to avoid, but what have you. Again, nothing changes. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU, one of those quotes is from someone who hasn't even read the sources. "...Even if the book, which I have not examined...[27]" Two others are friends or friends of friends. If you don't have any valid points to make, you could at least be less verbose about it. I notice that you are again trying to argue for your preferred sources by arguing against the DSM, even though the DSM actually mentions infantilism, unlike the sources you are warring to use. BitterGrey (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The overall point that can be taken from this is that the questions were not cleanly resolved (or even asked). Claiming that the only people who agree with me are friends is a fairly serious accusation of bad faith and cabalism, as well as ignoring the editing experience of those accounts and the substance of their specific comments.

I agree the DSM mentions infantilism, as a behaviour found in masochists. It is of course essentially irrelevant to this page, as indicated by the two lengthy noticeboard discussions, both of which resulted in a clear consensus that the DSM had virtually no bearing on this page, and certainly didn't discuss infantilism in detail. Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree does mention infantilism explicitly, as well as clearly linking Freund & Blanchard's 1993 paper to paraphilic infantilism. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

WAID has taken your side against me ever since you took her side against me in Feb 2011[28], and Ludwigs2 was supportive of her for admin[29]. I don't recall either of them showing a familiarity with the sources either. Now your turn: The RS/N post resulted in two comments by editors who were familiar with the sources. Other than the fact that they agree with me, why do you dismiss those? BitterGrey (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Many people have found your arguments unconvincing, for instance, nobody agreed with your assertion that the DSM defines paraphilic infantilism (it certainly doesn't distinguish between paraphilic infantilism and pedophilia, though Freund & Blanchard as well as Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree do). Nobody thought the link to the understanding infantilism website was worth including. As I've said before, WAID and I have a very similar understanding of the policies and guidelines but the same could be said of most experienced editors here. There's only so many times you can accuse people who agree with me of being biased by some sort of personal relationship before it starts looking like your interpretation is simply wrong.

I could ask you the same question - you've ignored the input of many people who have disagreed with you, you completely gloss over Elinruby's comment, as well as AerobicFox's later comment. It's extremely difficult to tease out any consensus from any of those discussions since they are so clogged with irrelevant tangents - for instance, my motivation and alleged flipflopping. If you left out those accusations, discussions would be shorter, you would have more engagement from other editors and things would be a lot more civil. I make an effort to base discussions around policies, guidelines and sources rather than motivations. When I say "the policy on fringe theories suggests this is an alternative theoretical formulation, not pseudoscience" and your reply is that I'm biased and my comment should be ignored, you're completely ignoring the fact that I'm substantively discussing a policy, not any motivation.

Your comment about "familiarity with sources" is also problematic - knowing how to identify a reliable source is completely different from being familiar with its content. Determining whether a source is reliable based on its content rather than its author and publisher is a pretty big mistake. I can pretty quickly and easily determine whether a source is reliable or not without having read a word of it. Basing pages on reliable sources means sometimes we have to put up with page content we personally disagree with, so long as it is reliably sourced. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

According to two comments RSN already quoted, those sources aren't sufficiently reliable for the exceptional claim. Regarding your boast about determining a sources reliability without reading a word of it, I have to disagree. A tertiary discussion of Einstein's theory of relatively might be generally reliable, but not a reliable source for a particular topic that it doesn't discuss. F&B doesn't discuss infantilism, and so is irrelevant. You might wish to actually read it.BitterGrey (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course, Ludwigs2 and Elinruby both suggested that CB&B is reliable for the claims made. And F&B does discuss infantilism, even if it doesn't use the exact wording - CB&B is evidence of this. And, AerobicFox's December 6th comment is really rather irrelevant considering his December 16th comment makes it clear that ten days later he changed his mind and considered the sources sufficiently reliable - your selective citation of one opinion while ignoring the other is quote mining. Not to mention that we can replace the two uses of F&B with CB&B without issue but you didn't replace the citation, you removed the text. And, discussion with AerobicFox and other editors indicated they didn't understand the point being made - that the "autoerotic form of pedophilia" isn't the same thing as pedophilia, a point you don't even acknowledge. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is some nuance that nobody but you understands, WLU, that would be a great reason NOT to have it in a Wikipedia article, since if the sources don't explain it, it is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. BitterGrey (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

CB&B does explain all the points sourced to the F&B article you removed. Do you agree to replacing the text using CB&B instead of F&B? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

At RSN, WLU wrote One thing that everyone seems to miss here, is that "autoerotic pedophilia" is not the same thing as "pedophilia". If "everyone" who reads the sources "misses" their support for a particular point, that seems clear evidence that the point isn't adequately supported. Whether WP:SYNTH or WP:OR, it should go. WLU is still asserting that infantilism is a form of pedophilia, and edit waring to cite a paper based on "A clinical series of male paedophiles..." (F&B, first sentence) and no reference to infantilism to do it. BitterGrey (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, not everyone missed that. WhatamIdoing noticed it, Elinruby noticed it, and Ludwigs2 noticed it (in that he didn't argue for the removal of the source). We can get a request for comment if you'd like, it's not a particularly intuitive paper but it's pretty obvious what the overall purpose is.

Regards edit warring, I'm perfectly willing to cite CB&B since it's obviously about infantilism. If your objection is that the F&B paper doesn't use the term, we can use CB&B to cite the exact same ideas. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU, you are the one that wrote "everyone."[30]. If we discard F&B, then CB&B will be WP:PRIMARY at best, claiming that F&B is about infantilism even though F&B doesn't mention infantilism. F&B claim to be about pedophilia. exceptional claims require "multiple high-quality sources" - not one contradictory source.BitterGrey (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

CB&B will never be primary. If you claim CB&B is primary, then you misunderstand the policy. The claim that paraphilic infantilists do not want to have sex with children is not an exceptional claim, as several other sources corroborate it (Ardnt, 1991; Holmes & Holmes, 2008; Money, 1997 and of course, Freund & Blanchard and Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree simply make this point in a different way). Within the theory of erotic target location error, autoerotic pedophilia is at one end of a continuum, and pedophilia is at the other. An infantilist, theorized as having the autoerotic form of pedophilia, desires a transformed self, not a child sexual partner. A pedophile wants to rape children. The point is made in both sources.

Cantor, Blachard & Barbaree, using the term "infantilism", make the point that paraphilic infantilists are on the opposite end of the erotic target continuum as pedophiles and are therefore not pedophiles. Not an extreme claim, actually a distinguishing claim. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU, you've once again flip-flopped from actual content to a politically correct textbyte. If F&B doesn't mention infantilism, then CB&B's claim that F&B was about infantilism (in spite of not mentioning it) would be new to CB&B: That is, it would be PRIMARY. The extraordinary claim, which you seem to have suddenly forgotten in spite of including it even in the text you quoted at AN/3RR[31], is that infantilism is some form of pedophilia. F&B never mentions infantilism, only making frequent mention of being about pedophiles. BitterGrey (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this is why I consider engaging with you on a talk page to be virtually worthless. CB&B is not a primary source, and CB&B and F&B both make it clear that infantilists are not pedophiles. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU, please skip the ad-hominem attacks. You have the option of walking away any time you wish. I've supported my position with quotes from the sources and input from RSN. If this discussion seems pointless, it is because you haven't raised any to support your position. Like all but one of the other articles you have fought me at, you never showed any interest in this article before you started hounding me. Perhaps it is time you left me and these topics alone. BitterGrey (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You are also free to walk away. You've supported your position with selective quotes from other editors, partial summaries of noticeboard discussions and misrepresentations of sources (for instance, that the DSM discusses infantilism and that Freund & Blanchard think infantilists are pedophiles). And you've been ignoring the substance of my comments in favour of attacks on my motivations for as long as we've been interacting. So trust that I also find this frustrating, I find these pointless, sprawling, ugly discussions irritating, but my comments are not ad hominen, I consider them scrupulously accurate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

No, WLU, since you are chasing me around Wikipedia, I can't go away. BitterGrey (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Please note new RS/N discussion. BitterGrey (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to bring up my behaviour at the appropriate venue, it's irrelevant here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You're the one who brought up personal behaviors: "Yeah, this is why I [WLU] consider engaging with you [BitterGrey] on a talk page to be virtually worthless"[32]. BitterGrey (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Input regarding use of sources

Is the following text adequately sourced by the attached sources?

“ In 1993 sexologists Ray Blanchard and Kurt Freund published and discussed a series of case studies involving infantilists⁽¹⁾ and noted a distinction between them and pedophiles. While pedophiles were attracted to children (and objects related to childhood) due to the desire for a child sexual partner, infantilists imagined themselves as children and adopted the objects of childhood or infancy to increase the power difference between themselves and their preferred sexual partners of adult women, with whom they acted out masochistic fantasies.⁽²⁾ ”

“ An additional theory is that infantilism is an erotic identity disorder where the erotic fantasy is centered on the self rather than on a sexual partner and results from an erotic targeting location error where the erotic target was children yet becomes inverted. According to this model, proposed by Ray Blanchard and Kurt Freund in 1993, infantilism is a sexual attraction to the idea of the self being a child.⁽¹⁾ ”

• (1) Cantor J (2009). "Sexual Disorders". In Blaney PH & Millon T (ed.). Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology (2nd ed.). New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 531. ISBN 9780195374216. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• (2) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, as has been pointed out repeatedly, there are THREE affected locations. The third reads "...or as a form of autoeroticism analogous to Ray Blanchard's concept of autogynephilia as applied in certain cases of gender identity disorder.[Dickey][F&B][CB&B]..."

• Dickey, Robert (2007). "Commentary on "Adult Baby Syndrome" by Evcimen and Gratz (2006) (letter to the editor)". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 36: 131–2. doi:10.1007/s10508-006-9148-x.

Please note that all of these authors are colleagues at CAMH, and so all of these sources are dependent. BitterGrey (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Cross-posted requests for input to WP:PSYCH and WP:SEX.

I believe the sources are adequate; to be used exactly as they are currently would require a minor modification of the rules since reference (2) does not use the word "infantilism", but does define the key term "masochistic gynaephiles" as individuals who "habitually imagine themselves as little boys or babies" (Freund & Blanchard 1993, p. 561) - the definiton of paraphilic infantilists. Ray Blanchard is also a co-author of both the first (2009) and second (1993) sources. The 1993 source most clearly makes the distinction between pedophiles and paraphilic infantilists, making it most valuable in explicitly verifying the text. Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree can be used for a modified version of the above. The actual statement from Cantor et al (2008) page 531 is "erotic fantasies of persons with erotic identity disorders pertain less to any sexual partners and more to their transformed images of themselves; some authors refer to these paraphilias as autoerotic...[Freund and Blanchard] interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia." Within the theory of "erotic target location errors", that places pedophilia on opposite ends of a spectrum; on one end are pedophiles (who are sexually attracted to children and desire children as sexual partners). On the other end are paraphilic infantilists (who are sexually attracted to the idea of being, and being treated like an infant, and desire adult sexual partners who treat them like children). Both sources clearly distinguish pedophiles from paraphilic infantilists, even if their wording is unclear to those not familiar with the theory of erotic target location errors.

This has been discussed, at length, repeatedly, before (FTN, FTN2, FTN 3, RSN 1, and RSN 2, which started this morning and lead to this post at the suggestion of Kmhkmh). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As I stated in my above attempt at discussion, F&B's "Erotic target location errors in male gender dysphorics, paedophiles, and fetishists." is about, according to the very first line "A clinical series of male paedophiles..." The article doesn't mention "infantilism" at all. In contrast, "paedophile" or "paedophilic" occur 16 times, including the title. The article claims to be about pedophiles, not infantilists. The DSM and many, many other sources clearly differentiate between infantilism and pedophilia. Unless part of some assertion that infantilism is a form of pedophilia - an exceptional claim not supported by any independent sources - F&B doesn't belong here. This was the point of the discussion above. WLU, the only active editor who has ever argued for this source has made multiple edits([33][34][35]) to the article since this was posted, I believed concluding consensus by silence reasonable. However, WLU then edit warred to force his version of the article.

To summarize the past RSN discussion (the one where editors looked at the sources):

• AerobicFox:"Per WP:Exceptional claims require exceptional sources I would like better sourcing for this claim '...infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia'. This source has a variety of WP:REDFLAGs, the preface of this textbook states 'it is aimed primarily at graduate students taking a first course in adult psychopathology ... chapter authors were given considerable latitude"(emph mine). The chapter author of this particular chapter, Ray Blanchard, sources this theory to his own published work in 1993...'"
• Fifelfoo:"MEDRS applies. Freund 1993 is a PRIMARY in terms of medical research, it is the first proposal of a theory, and therefore unreliable. Cantor 2009 would be a secondary, but I consider it tainted by association with an author who proposes the theory. Cantor 2009 can be used if independent secondary studies published in appropriate medical forums attest to the uptake of this medical theory. Until someone can demonstrate this, the text should be removed from the article as unverifiable due to failing to meet MEDRS."
• (Elinruby also commented, but stated not having examined the sources.

The more recent RSN discussion degenerated into WLU making personal accusations against me, much as the above discussion did.

One more quote from past-WLU supporter FiachraByrne, regarding F&B "They delineate a small sub-set of paedophiles who self-image as infants or children." The largest of THREE sections of text being debated now was commented out from August to December because she didn't support that part of WLU's version. F&B was based on a sample of pedophiles.

As for myself:

A)Since F&B does't mention infantilism, it should be removed. To do otherwise would violate WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR. No reliable source defines "masochistic gynephiles" or any of F&B's other neologisms as infantilists. Please note that F&B (in 1993) could have used "infantilism" (in use since the 70's, and included in DSM IIIR in 1987). F&B could have used the established term - infantilism - but did not.

B) CB&B's claim regarding F&B - that F&B considered infantilism a form of pedophilia - is an exceptional claim without exceptional sources, and so should be removed. This is even more true given it's current, weasel-worded state that arguably contradicts the source. Furthermore, if we accept that F&B doesn't mention infantilism, CB&B's claim that it does would then be primary. Some other citations to CB&B might remain, but only those that properly represent the source.

C) Finally, Dickey's letter to the editor should go, since no remaining text that it is connected with is supported by a peer-reviewed source. It is cited only in the third section, conveniently omitted by WLU: "...or as a form of autoeroticism analogous to Ray Blanchard's concept of autogynephilia as applied in certain cases of gender identity disorder.[Dickey][F&B][CB&B]..." BitterGrey (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I highly urge any interested editors to read the full set of sections or ignore them completely. Bittergrey noticeably neglects to mention opinions that disagree with his:

• Ludwigs2 "Your argument against the source is more or less baseless - The source is not being misrepresented, and is not an unreputable source. You are yourself misrepresenting what they say in a passage that's not even being used in the article and trying to remove the source on those grounds. I'll remind you that Wikipeida is not censored - the fact that there is an interpretation of this source that might offend people is not in itself sufficient grounds for removing the source. You need to show that the source is being misrepresented or misused, and to date you've failed to do so."
• WhatamIdoing "I think this dispute comes down to BitterGrey's unwillingness to have the article accurately represent a theory that personally offends him."
• AerobicFox's statement 10 days after the one quoted above, "The sources used are reliable, although I'm largely indifferent now towards their weight considering the lack of resources on infantilism. I'm definitely against including more material, and would support some removal, but I don't really care if what's currently written stays."

The claim that the sources are not independent is flatly wrong, all are published in venues not controlled by the authors, making them all independent. The fact that Blanchard, who cowrote the chapter, cited the work in reference to infantilism, makes it obvious that the authors think Freund & Blanchard 1993 applies even if it doesn't use the word "infantilism". That the paper is relevant is particularly obvious since the definition of the key term "masochistic gynaephiles" is people "who habitually imagine themselves as little boys or babies in sexual fantasies involving adult women."

Regarding FiachraByrne's statement, though a small number of pedophiles may indeed imagine they are children, please note the discussion in the paper regarding masochistic gynaephiles (who again, are people "who habitually imagine themselves as little boys or babies in sexual fantasies involving adult women") are thus:

“ The above cases suggest a distinction between paedophiles with erotic imagery of themselves as children and masochistic gynaephiles with similar fantasies. This view is based on our analysis of the relationships between the infantile (or juvenile) self-imagery and the other elements of the total fantasy. With paedophiles, this imagery increases the subject's similarity to the sexual object (children). With masochistic gynaephiles, the same imagery increases the subject's difference from the sexual object (women), in particular, the difference between subject and object in power and control. This power differential, expressed in such fantasies by the imagined woman spanking or scolding the subject, is central to the masochistic arousal. A similar analysis can be applied to the fetish objects (usually nappies) used in masturbation by the two groups. With paedophiles, the fetish derives its power from its association with the sexual object, children. With masochistic gynaephiles,the fetish derives its power from association with the (fantasised) subject; it is an accoutrement to the role of the shamed, defenceless, punished little boy. In light of these differences, we believe that erotic fantasies of being a child probably have different aetiologies in the two groups. ”

Thus while there may be a small number of pedophiles who, like paraphilic infantilists, pretend they are children, this superficial similarity is belied by the fact that the etiology and underlying motivation is completely different - pedophiles and paraphilic infantilists are different.

And as I've said many times - Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree do not say paraphilic infantilists are pedophiles. They say that paraphilic infantilists lie on opposite ends of a continuum, the same way they theorize acrotomophilia is on the opposite end of a continuum from apotemnophilia, and homosexuality is on the opposite end of a continuum from transsexualism. It's the same continuum in all cases - is the desired sexual object another person with the desired trait, or the desire for the self to be transformed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

To the contrary, WLU, you've edit warred to include the text "infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia."(quote is from the last altered section)[36][37][38][39][40][41] in the article. You flip-flopped on Dec 6th, during the RSN discussion. You grieved "One thing that everyone seems to miss here, is that "autoerotic pedophilia" is not the same thing as "pedophilia"." It seems more likely that "everyone [else]" understands correctly, and that you alone do not. If you are finally willing to accept that F&B's paper, based on "[a] clinical series of male paedophiles..." wasn't about infantilism, we can get rid of that source. F&B had the option of using the then-established term, infantilism, and chose not to. BitterGrey (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Does the page currently say that paraphilic infantilism is a form of pedophilia? Did I not say I wanted a different wording back in August, 2011? Did I not change the wording on December 7th? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As already noted, the text was weasel-worded to mean pretty much the opposite of what it meant before; the opposite of what the source says. The text should have been removed, as I have tried to. BitterGrey (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The sources are accurately summarized as distinguishing pedophiles from paraphilic infantilists, I don't know how anyone can read the sections and quotes I've included ("The above cases suggest a distinction between paedophiles with erotic imagery of themselves as children and masochistic gynaephiles with similar fantasies...we believe that erotic fantasies of being a child probably have different aetiologies in the two groups.") and come to the conclusion that Freund & Blanchard are saying paraphilic infantilists are pedophiles. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU, feel free to add your "masochistic gynaephiles" source to the "masochistic gynaephiles" article. This is the infantilism article. F&B had the option of using the then-established term of infantilism, but opted to use some other term instead, because they weren't writing about infantilism. BitterGrey (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Bittergrey, what is the definition of a masochistic gynaephile? What is the definition of a paraphilic infantilist? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll pass on the invitation for WP:OR. However, WLU, I am curious: Do you believe that infantilists are generally masochistic? BitterGrey (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

What I personally believe is irrelevant, but the sources suggest there are probably infantilists who are interested in it for its masochistic aspects, and others who are in it for other reasons. There's very little research on the topic.

I'm not asking you to actually engage in original research. I'm simply asking you to indicate you've read and understood the sources you are so critical of, by asking for something of substance from them. To whit, the definitions of masochistic gynaephiles and paraphilic infantilists. I'm not saying you should change the page to include the definitions, just that you summarize them. I think you're avoiding doing that because then it would be evidence that you are actually aware of the definitions being substantially identical and WP:IAR being justified. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

To quote a past WLU "But we can't use the DSM to state infantilism is part of masochism. ... the sexual fixations are different - for infantilists it is being treated and coddled like an infant; for masochists it is the humiliation of being forced to be treated like a baby. One is about being cared for, the other is about being humiliated." Clearly, if infantilists are generally not masochistic, equating infantilism with masochistic gynaephiles is wrong, in addition to being WP:OR. BitterGrey (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the definition of a masochistic gynaephile according to Freund & Blanchard, 1993? What is the definition of paraphilic infantilism? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Repeating the same invitation for WP:OR, WLU? Shouldn't you be busy trying to undermine WLU's position, since it contradicts your current WP:OR? Or we could skip all this and just remove the claims that aren't supported by sources on infantilism.BitterGrey (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Still dodging a question you know will undercut your position? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Answered below[42]. Answer below rejected. Question re-asked again, bringing the total to nine times[43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51]. (Again, since I'm not the one seeking to include text in the article, I'm not the one who has to provide sources, per WP:Burden.) BitterGrey (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Necessity of a second discussion

I question the necessity of this second discussion. As we've seen, it appears doomed to merely rehash what was already said in the prior discussion. The core issue is still that F&Bs "Erotic target location errors in male gender dysphorics, paedophiles, and fetishists." doesn't mention infantilism (or any synonym used by any other reliable source). Infantilism was formally defined six years prior (1987 vs 1993), so the authors could have used the established term - but chose not to. Perhaps the most basic question is whether we feel the need to, as WLU requests, ignore all rules to use this source. (He called it a "minor modification."[52]) We can discuss WP:SYNTH and WP:OR at great length, but that doesn't mean that their results should be used in articles. F&B's first sentence claims that it is based on "[a] clinical series of male paedophiles..." and we have no reason, short of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR, to question that. If we can't trust what an article says, we shouldn't be using it.

F&B claims to be about pedophilies, not infantilists. if we consider it reliable in this, we should not use it because it is not relevant. Alternatively, if we don't consider it reliable in this, we should not use it because it is not reliable.BitterGrey (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrong, on the point of what F&B says asthat source uses the term "masochistic gynaephiles" as a synonym, since the definition matches that of infantilism (a person sexually motivated to act like an infant) and a subsequent publication featuring Blanchard as a coauthor makes the link explicit.

Wrong on the core issue since F&B could be replaced with CB&B; if the issue was truly yor objection to a synthesis you would have accepted the replacement source. If you agree to leave the text as is and replace F&B with CB&B, I will consider the issue resolved and we never have to have this conversation again. I have presented this option in the past and you have yet to indicate if you find it acceptable.

Wrong on the number of discussions, since this is at least the sixth time this very point about these very sources has been debated. Each time you clog the discussion with repetitive misrepresentations, selective quotations and in some cases outright lies (for instance, that the DSM defines infantilism) and each time I point out how you are wrong. The last section to address issues of substance closed with Ludwigs2's comment Your argument against the source is more or less baseless - The source is not being misrepresented, and is not an unreputable source. You are yourself misrepresenting what they say in a passage that's not even being used in the article and trying to remove the source on those grounds. The section you started March 25th is little more than a revival of a closed issue in the hopes of getting a different answer. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Since F&B was writing about a sample of pedophiles, they might have been describing a pedophile who also role-played. They chose not to use the term infantilism, and we aren't in a position to second-guess them. You can copy and paste your buddy's claims (it was source_s_ in that discussion, by the way) as many times as you like, and this won't change. As for compromises, WLU, I'm the one who started a discussion: You ignored and then reverted until you hit 3RR, and then started your own revival discussion. As for clogging discussions, you are the one who fought to cite 47 pages of the DSM[53][54], then 5 pages (4RR/28 hours)[55][56][57][58], (and hijacking a 3O[59]), then zero (0) pages[60],[61][62][63], and then finally one (1) page [64] at the same article. You claimed to have read that source seven months into the conflict[65][66]. In contrast, I have held to and supported one (and only one) position per discussion. WLU, you can't accuse me of "clogging" the talk pages. BitterGrey (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

In addition to a sample of pedophiles, they also conducted case studies of masochistic gynaephiles. By focusing on solely the title of the article and the abstract, you are ignoring the parts of the article that discuss non-pedophiles, starting on page 561 with the statements "Progress in understanding erotic target location errors will require careful distinction between genuine phenomena of erotic target location and superficially similar paraphilic acts and fantasies that may have different aetiologies...The above cases suggest a distinction between paedophiles with erotic imagery of themselves as children and masochistic gynaephiles with similar fantasies." So clearly the article is not just about pedophiles, and does not say masochistic gynaephiles are pedophiles. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

So you are claiming that the abstract is incorrect? The basic, inescapable fact is that F&B could have used the established term of infantilism or one of many less-established synonyms, and yet did not. They even used the term "cisvest[it]ism", but not infantilism. They chose to assert that they were writing about something else, and we need to accept that. BitterGrey (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No, you are putting words in my mouth. Abstracts are incomplete, abbreviated summaries of the whole paper which is why we are urged to consider the whole paper, not just the abstract. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The whole rest of the paper doesn't mention infantilism or any established synonym either. WLU, are there any other parts you'd like us to ignore because they contradict your position? BitterGrey (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the definition of a masochistic gynaephile, according to that article? Does Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree use the term "masochistic gynaephile", or infantilist? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Since we are engaging in WP:SYNTH and WP:OR...

• "I have never met a professional who would diagnose paraphilic infantilism as masochism. In my experience, it is diagnosed as "paraphilia NOS (infantilism)". The erotic focus of masochism is the pain and humiliation, whereas the erotic focus of paraphilic infantilism is being treated as a baby. That is, people with paraphilic infantilism do not experience the interaction as humiliating, just erotic; whereas the masochists do not experience the interaction as being "mothered" (rather, they are obeying a dominatrix who is belittling them, which they do experience as erotic)." - James Cantor (The C of CB&B, a colleague of both F and B of F&B, and so most likely has met them).
• "But we can't use the DSM to state infantilism is part of masochism. ... the sexual fixations are different - for infantilists it is being treated and coddled like an infant; for masochists it is the humiliation of being forced to be treated like a baby. One is about being cared for, the other is about being humiliated." - WLU

So clearly neither WLU nor the authors consider infantilists generally masochistic (at least per AGF). Thus we should not equate infantilism with "masochistic gynaephilia". Of course, without RS's, we shouldn't be doing that anyway...BitterGrey (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Well thank the FSM that we're basing the article on sources, not on editor opinions! What do references 16, 26, 27 and 28 say about the subject?

What is the definition of a masochistic gynaephile according to Freund & Blanchard, 1993? What is the definition of paraphilic infantilism? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Linkspam aside, it is clear that not even WLU agrees with WLU's current attempt to equate infantilism and "masochistic gynaephilia," and that no RS's make this connection BitterGrey (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Still dodging a question you know will undercut your position? Still misrepresenting CB&B's use of F&B? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If you consider me an authority on this matter, feel free to add an EL to my website to the article. If you don't consider me an authority, why are you asking for my ruling? Since no RS's have been offered, and even your stated position (about infantilists not being masochistic) contradicts your stated position (about masochistic gynaephilia being equal to infantilism), there is nothing left to discuss. F&B doesn't mention infantilism according to F&B.BitterGrey (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This is why I went into this discussion thinking it was pointless. You know I don't consider your website reliable, you know my arguments for including F&B, and rather than seriously engaging in a substantive fashion you are playing word games, including pointless quotes and diffs and strategically ignoring a simple request because you know it illustrates the abusrdity of your position. All of which I expected. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex

Someone needs to chill and thank the FSM more often. As I wrote so long ago, WLU, you can avoid a pointless discussion by making points: You haven't. F&B don't mention infantilism or any established synonym of infantilism. No reliable source equates "masochistic gynaephilia" with infantilism. Quotes from you and James Cantor show that neither of you (previously) equated the two either. You had the WP:burden here, and you haven't produced. F&B, at least according to F&B, doesn't discuss infantilism, and so should not be cited. BitterGrey (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the definition of a masochistic gynaephile according to Freund & Blanchard, 1993? What is the definition of paraphilic infantilism? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU has now repeated that question eight times[67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74]. If I'm not an expert, my opinion doesn't mater. (I did quote WLU's past opinion because it contradicts his current assertion.) Since he is clearly not seeking my ruling as an expert, we can only conclude that he has nothing to offer. Usually he is more creative in his attempts at obscurity and discouragement through verbosity. BitterGrey (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

And 8 times you have refused to provide the answers, despite the simplicity of the question. Do you not have a copy of Freund & Blanchard? I can e-mail it to you. It requires no expertise to simply read a source and select a definition, and I am indeed manifestly uninterested in your expertise. Merely your literacy and honesty. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Since you clearly aren't interested in my opinion, I'll answer based on your opinion. Previously, you have asserted that infantilists are not generally masochistic: "the sexual fixations are different - for infantilists it is being treated and coddled like an infant; for masochists it is the humiliation of being forced to be treated like a baby. One is about being cared for, the other is about being humiliated.". This alone would rule out equating infantilism with "masochistic gynaephilia". Of course, that was in a discussion about excluding the DSM: "'Paraphilic infantilism' is indeed absent from the DSM....You would need a source that says all infantilists are masochists and specifically that all the masochism sections of the DSM apply to all infantilists. (Please note that unlike F&B, the DSM actually uses the term infantilism.) Additionally, WLU, if you accept that there are homosexual male infantilists, heterosexual female infantilists, or both, this would mean that infantilists weren't necessary gynephilic. Do you? If so, this would mean that infantilists would be "generally non-masochistic, not-necessarily gynephilic." This is quite different than "masochistic gynaephilia." We could go into more detail, but if they don't match, they don't match.

To paraphrase WLU, to include "masochistic gynaephilia" material we would need a source that says all infantilists were "masochistic gynaephilies" and that all the "masochistic gynaephilies" texts apply to paraphilic infantilism. Of course, if there were an RS that used both terms, WLU wouldn't be wasting so much space asking the same question over and over. BitterGrey (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the definition of masochistic gynaephiles in Freund & Blanchard? Rather than quoting what I've said in the past, why don't you answer my current question? But none of this matters, since the RSN pretty much supported the current version of the page. So I guess I'm done, I'll consider the independent input from the RSN have addressed this issue and closed it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Nine times.[75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83]... Not surprising that the consensus of RSN seems to have been "you should take your personal fight over content elsewhere...you should move the argument to special subject portal (psychology, medicine)"[84] with no discussion about relevance. WLU, if you are willing to let the unsupported and irrelevant material be removed, we can consider this matter closed. If not, the WP:burden is yours. BitterGrey (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Trying Again...

Given the last round of silence, the next step is to edit. Here is a step-by-step description of what I'm removing and why:

1) Two citations to Freund & Blanchard, 1993: The term infantilism was formally adopted by the APA in the DSM IIIR, in 1987. F&B choose not to use that term, or any established synonym, in their paper. The first line of the abstract describes it as being based on a sample of pedophiles. Thus, according to F&B, F&B isn't about infantilism. Counterarguments degenerated into an invitation for WP:OR, equating "masochistic gynephiles" with infantilism based on editor opinion. This invitation was repeated nine times[85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93]. These were answered with past quotes from the inviter showing that in other contexts, he held that infantilists were not generally masochistic:"the sexual fixations are different - for infantilists it is being treated and coddled like an infant; for masochists it is the humiliation of being forced to be treated like a baby. One is about being cared for, the other is about being humiliated.". That is, infantilists are not generally masochists, and so not generally "masochistic gynephilies." Please note that the inviter continues to reject the DSM's applicability to infantilism (eg. [94]), even though it actually uses the term infantilism and multiple independent sources refer to it as a source on infantilism. Neither of these are true of F&B.

2) Two citations to Cantor, Blanchard, and Barbaree, 2009: These are used in WP:SYNTH to apply specific comments in F&B regarding "masochistic gynephiles" to infantilists, even though CB&B never use the term "masochistic gynephiles." This synth is contradicted by an on-wiki comment by James Cantor: "I have never met a professional who would diagnose paraphilic infantilism as masochism. In my experience, it is diagnosed as 'paraphilia NOS (infantilism)'. The erotic focus of masochism is the pain and humiliation, whereas the erotic focus of paraphilic infantilism is being treated as a baby. That is, people with paraphilic infantilism do not experience the interaction as humiliating, just erotic; whereas the masochists do not experience the interaction as being "mothered" (rather, they are obeying a dominatrix who is belittling them, which they do experience as erotic)."

3) The paragraph previously supported only by #1 and #2.

4) One citation to Dickey, 2007: As a letter to the editor, this was never peer-reviewed.

5) The phrase previously supported only by #1, #2, and #4.

6) One citation to Cantor, Blanchard, and Barbaree, 2009: In the paragraph on ETLE, the source reads "[Freund and Blanchard] interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia." Paul B at RSN commented "It's blindingly obvious that Blanchard believes that infantalism is an 'Autoerotic form of pedophilia'. WLU says that 'Autoerotic form of pedophilia' is not the same thing as 'pedophilia'. Well, yes it is. That's what 'a form of pedophilia' means. I think this theory is utterly idiotic..."[95]. This is also an exceptional claim, since no other RS claims that infantilism is pedophilia.

The paragraph removed in #3 is a good illustration of how problematic the sources are: F&B was previously used in Wikipedia to support text stating that infantilists _are not_ pedophiles. CB&B mention F&B as claiming that infantilists _are_ pedophiles. Per AGF, we can't assume that this is an intentional act of misrepresentation, but evidence that F&B is obscure, and indirectly that CB&B's comment on F&B isn't that certain. This might be why Dickey doesn't cite F&B, even though they all work for the same facility, CAMH. (In spite of this, there is no overlap in the terminology of Dickey, CB&B, and F&B.)

Even in Cantor's on-wiki comment, he wrote that "In my experience, it is diagnosed as 'paraphilia NOS (infantilism)'." ...not pedophilia. It is possible that the fringe theory that infantilists are pedophiles is only held by Blanchard, and then only recently. Fringe theories should be included in articles (other than those about the fringe theory itself) "only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." Additionally, Exceptional claims require "multiple, high-quality sources". This single, questionable source doesn't fit the bill.

7) The section previously supported only by #6. On Dec 6th, this section was weasel-worded to avoid removal due to the exceptional claim. However, the exceptional claim is in the only source, so removing it from the text would be a misrepresentation. Whether the text includes or does not include the exceptional claim, the end result is the same: The text should be removed. BitterGrey (talk) 02:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Every single one of these claims has been raised and rebutted before. This is nothing but tendentious editing, extreme failure to listen and the last in a long line of consistent attempts to keep asking the question until you get a response you agree with. Unbelievable. You can't even quote Paul B's full statements regarding your attempts to discredit these sources:

“ I have no idea what your bizarre "sky is purple" analogy is supposed to imply. If you published the statement in the peer reviewed "Oxford Companion to the Sky" it would not affect the book's status as a reliable source by Wikipedia's rules, and it certainly would not make it into a "primary source". It would simply be a case in which a technically reliable source contained an error. It happens regularly. This whole dispute seems to me to be built around deep disingenuousness. It's blindingly obvious that Blanchard believes that infantalism is an "Autoerotic form of pedophilia". WLU says that "Autoerotic form of pedophilia" is not the same thing as "pedophilia". Well, yes it is. That's what "a form of pedophilia" means. I think this theory is utterly idiotic, and I can well understand why Bittergrey finds it deeply offensive. But since I don't get published in peer reviewed medical/psychological journals my opinion is irrelevant. Bittergrey should just accept that a theory which he understandably finds offensive does exist in the literature, and stop wikilawyering to keep it out. The claim that a textbook is a primary source because it is "written by people directly involved" is particularly ludicrous. By this interepretation every peer reviewed work would be a primary source, since experts are obviously directly involved with the subject (the policy passage in fact refers to direct involvement in an event which is being described). WLU should admit that the theory does indeed state that infantalism is a form of paedophila, and recognise that infantalists will find this view offensive. The article should discuss the theory to the extent of the weight it has in the literature as a whole. ” — Paul B

“ Yes, I read the debate. Clearly F&B did not use that term, but equally clearly they had the phenomenon we now call "infantalism" in mind. That is specified in the later publication. Yes, they "all come from the same facilty". Clearly it is the specific theory of a particular researcher and his associates. I can see no logic to your suggestion that "CB&B" may be a "primary source" for this claim. It is in the nature of scholarly secondary sources that they sift through material and present models of it. That's what scholars do. It'as one of the very things that defines a secondary source. ” — Paul B

It's unbelievable to me that you would try to use an author's on-wiki comment as a rational to discredit their off-wiki work. I'll continue to revert, but I have nothing to add to this talk page beyond the thousands of words I've already put in. Nothing has changed in your argument, nothing is new. I'll instead spend my time putting together an AN or RFC/U posting since it is obvious that discussion, sources and outside input are not going to be enough to get you to stop. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 04:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU, you've been bluffing at an RFC/U posting since 23 March 2011 and a separate AN/I posting since 15 December 2011‎. You haven't because you know it will be clear to any objective reviewer that you've been hounding me all over Wikipedia for a year. You showed no real interest in this article or any of the others you've attacked me at before your hounding of me began.

You current position amounts to nothing more than new personal attacks on my sexuality[96][97][98] and honesty[99]. After the same invitation for WP:OR over and over and over[100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108], you wrote "...I guess I'm done..."[109] and "..."I'll continue to revert, but I have nothing to add to this talk page beyond the thousands of words I've already put in.[110]" Of course, ignoring my points is nothing new for you[111][112][113].

I don't expect you to stop until you have fulfilled your determination that I should be driven from Wikipedia[114][115]. Now, if you would like to discuss sources, do so. If you have nothing but OR and personal attacks to offer, please go away. BitterGrey (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

(The post I responded to was only 192 words long[116]. It was modified to 573 after I responded. WLU should probably learn to use quotation marks. BitterGrey (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC))

I have been watching this dispute. My view is that everything WLU has said is absolutely right and that everything Bittergrey has said is absolutely wrong. To Bittergrey I would ask: if you find WLU's alleged attacks on your sexuality to be offensive or distressing, why are you so eager to draw other editor's attention to them by linking to them? 203.118.187.209 (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Ownership overview

As we can see by contrasting a Sept 2011 version with an April 2012 version, we can see that almost all significant changes from WLU's version have been reverted by WLU.

• Winston Spencer changes from polyvinyl chloride to the more common and compact PVC[117], WLU reverts[118] (I intervened, and between us we were able to edit away from WLU's version in this small detail.)

• 108.88.120.64 makes a good-faith addition [119], WLU reverts[120]

• BitterGrey adds a cite to Ardnt and corrects thesis/dissertation error[121], WLU reverts [122]

• BitterGrey cites Ardnt & Speaker [123], WLU reverts [124]

• BitterGrey cites DSM to provide NPOV[125][126][127], WLU reverts [128][129][130].

• BitterGrey changes spelling of "behaviour" to behavior [131], WLU reverts [132] (WLU would latter flip-flop, suggesting didn't look at the edit before reverting).

• BitterGrey edited to make dependence of sole sources clear [133], WLU reverts[134]

• BitterGrey removed section on autonepiophila, including only the post-DSMIIIR def (not a fetish) without reference to the pre-DSMIIIR def (a diaper fetish). NPOV requires both or neither.[135]. WLU reverts [136]

• 71.237.90.48 removed citation to misspelled source "...Studen Bk Aqa A"[137], WLU reverts [138]

• 71.237.90.48 removed discussion specific to John Money, considering it UNDUE[139], WLU reverts[140]

• BitterGrey adjusts citations based on what the sources actually say[141], WLU reverts [142].

• 194.238.70.70 makes a good-faith addition[143], WLU reverts [144]

• ...

• Yobot (a BOT) corrects page formatting[145][146], WLU reverts[147][148]

WLU does permit some spelling corrections and the removal of images, but quickly and dogmatically reverts almost all significant changes, demonstrating an ongoing sense of ownership. This has discouraged other editors from contributing. Those that do engage in discussion (me) see their time wasted, because WLU doesn't consider the points raised - he just reverts.

WLU's sense of ownership has been discussed before[149][150]. WLU's only counterpoint was an accusation raised at wikiquette assistance, which he needed to retract when it became clear that he had not even looked at my edit[151].BitterGrey (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)