Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 7

This page in Dutch

On nl.wikipedia.org there is a page on pedophilia that this page links to and vice versa. (nl:Pedofilie). What's interesting is that while en.wikipedia.org gives neutral information on pedophilia, the page in Dutch can be read as propaganda for pedophilia. It contains the butterfly symbol of a pedophiliac society, there's hardly any criticism, and there's a lot of information for pedophiles.

There is a page on this society on nl.wikipedia, which presents "four guidelines for responsible sex with children" as published by this society. The article does not contain one word of criticism on these guidelines. The aim of such guidelines is clear: pedophiles relieve their conscience and comfort themselves by telling each other that what they do is ok. Publishing guidelines is part of that strategy. The pedophilia page in Dutch links to the society article and vice versa.

I have tried to remove the articles, but with no luck. I made the mistake of wondering why some people are so eager to have pedophilia propaganda on wikipedia, after which I was blocked from wikipedia for some time. I saw that other users who changed those articles have been blocked also.

I recommend to check out the Dutch equivalent of this article, if you don't read Dutch run it through Google translation, and remove the link to that page from here. I'm willing to translate this page into Dutch as a substitute.

I am a co-founder and board member of Meldpunt, the Dutch equivalent of Cybertipline.

X10 09:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason for the Verenining MARTIJN to contain any criticism, as the purpose of Wikipedia isn't to disseminate pro- or anti- pedophile propaganda, but to provide encyclopedic articles. Furthermore, the article does provide information on the controversial nature of the organization. As you're new to Wikipedia, please take some time to look over WP:NOT and WP:NPOV; I'm sure they have a dutch equivalent. Please note also that this is not the correct place to discuss the dutch article, as this page is for discussing changes to the English version. You can find the respective talk pages at nl:Overleg:Vereniging_MARTIJN and nl:Overleg:Pedofilie. --CA387 15:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read NPOV then as all notable views should eb considered in an article and in this case that most definitely means criticism. I know what pro pedophile propaganda is but anti-pedophile propaganda? SqueakBox 16:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda is anything that attempts to influence the reader in one way or another, regardless of the truthfulness of its content. If we added "Hitler was a very bad person" to the Hitler article, chances are 99% of readers would agree with the statement, but it would be considered anti-Hitler propaganda as it attempts to influence the reader with stating of opinion, rather than presentation of facts. Anti-pedophile propaganda would be anything parallel to that.

From what I gather from X10's case, she's looking for stuff in the article's writing that criticizes the organization, rather than showing whatever notable criticism exists from outside sources—which the dutch article already does. --CA387 16:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have two points. One, the guidelines for safe sex with children are presented in the article on the martijn group as being "objective". One can read the article as stating that these are actually such guidelines. The reason for this martijn group to have these guidelines is that it reassures pedophiles that it's ok to abuse children. Thus, the article contributes to abuse of children.

Second, reading the article on pedophilia in English, it is exactly what I'd expect an article in wikipedia to be. It informs the reader on aspects of pedophilia. If you read the article in Dutch, it reads like it has been written by a pedophile. It does not provide fair information on pedophilia. The same is true for the article on this Martijn group.

So far, I have not seen any argument that goes against my case. Also, I have not been able to change one bit in one of the articles. I thought wikipedia was a joint effort, but apparently that's not the case. The reason I mention all this here is that I think the link from the english article on pedophilia to the Dutch article is questionable. If the maintainers of the english article are aware of the content of the dutch article, then it's up to them.

X10 19:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Btw, you say the article on this group already contains criticism. It doesn't. What it says is that there has been a neo nazi group claiming to criticize the group. I can only gues why of all criticisms, only the neo nazi one is mentioned.

The article doesn't need to criticize the group. But it shouldn't encourage child abuse either. X10 19:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I can gather from reading the article, it certainly needs work—especially in the field of in-line citations. However, as I said before, that's something you should take up with the Dutch Wikipedia, as I'm sure if any of us were to edit the article, it would probably come out worse! The link to the Dutch version on this page is merely to show that a sister-language version of this article exists, not to imply that it's necessarily a superlative one. --CA387 19:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

CA387, it's good you mention NPOV. It's true that I'm new here, I only first created my wikipedia account in 2005. But I have read the NPOV article both in English and in Dutch, and I couldn't agree more with both (they're different). It says that if there's conflicting views, both should be presented fairly. I agree. But conflicting views is not the issue here. I'm arguing that the current text is potentially harmful to children and I have seen no argument against that. I would be very happy if the article in Dutch would be an objective article similar to the one in English. Currently, it is certainly not an objective article. X10 20:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Being blocked for calling some information propaganda seems extreme to me. Any suggestions I have for arguments are useless if they will block you. They may have already labeled you, but if you make your arguements based on editorial principles you should be able to get support from others. Purhaps you could translate some of the reasons given on the talk pages for some of our edits. Does the Dutch WP have any kind of arbitration system? --Gbleem 08:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you base your argument then on NPOV, rather than your opinion of it being "harmful to children". Wikipedia is not censored, so if you want to change the article you should do it with the rationale of conforming to Wikipedia guidelines. Hope this helps. --CA387 15:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am assuming that X10 is being truthful (I don't read Dutch), therefore I have removed the link to the Dutch page. Per WP:NOT EVIL and per Wikipedia is WP:NOT a how-to guide -- especially not for child abuse. Herostratus 17:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read the Dutch article, or at least put it into a translator, before jumping to conclusions. Also, an essay is a page that is not actionable, so please do not use them for reasoning behind edits. --CA387 01:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Mohammad

Why cannot I add "Mohammad" as a bullet to the "See Also" section? Mohammad married Aisha when Aisha was 5 or 6 years old. This is, by all definitions, pedophilia. Is there some kind of silent consensus here that Mohammad's pedophilia cannot even be mentioned? I see that PC is at work, as always. Tauphon 15:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved your text to the bottom where it should go. I'm guessing no one noticed it because we usually look at the bottom for new stuff. Here is why we can't add "Mohammad" to this article. First, the medical determination requires an examination by a professional. This is not possible. Sometimes modern people try to make a guess about a historical person using available data, but there is little usable data in this case and in cases where data is available the accuracy such retrospective analysis is questionable. Using the colloquial definition we run into the same issues of available data. For example this could have been a ceremonial marriage or the ages could be the result of a misinterpretation. --Gbleem 08:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Aisha. Muhammad clearly doesn't belong on this page Nil Einne 18:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well you would need impeccable sourcing for us to even consider adding him, so do bring sources here, SqueakBox 18:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The definition is modern, but if we wanted to apply it retroactively, a large percentage of the ancient world might have been considered pedophiles. The Bible doesn't mention anyone's age at marriage, but the Talmud clarifies things by specifying, for example, that wives who are less than 12 years old should use birth control, since pregnancy might kill them. If a male's brother died, he was expected to marry (and have children with) his brother's widow, and there is discussion of this obligation still holding in a case where the bridegroom-to-be is 9. And these views were hardly unique to the Middle East. Listing people from the fairly distant past would be as meaningless as adding thousands of names to a list of slaveowners. Context is everything.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Poindexter Propellerhead (talk • contribs) 04:22, May 20, 2007 (UTC) added by DPeterson^talk 21:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a mental illness in accordance with the DSM-IV definition.

It is not clear what the pronoun "it" is referring to. If "it" refers to pedophilia defined medically as a disease then the statement might belong in the first paragraph where the medical definition is presented. However, the first paragraph is not the place for comparing and contrasting the different medical definitions, and if it were I would not pick only one. --Gbleem 09:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I did some looking and the paraphilia article and maybe we do need to be more explicit that the first paragraph of this article refers to the medical definition. --Gbleem 09:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"It" would be the subject of the article. The intro seems like a good spot to give a basic medical definition. We already mention the contrast between the "generally accepted medical definition" and colloquial usage. What other medical definitions do we want to compare and contrast definitions? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 10:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The subject of the article is medically defined pedophilia but your sentence with the word "it" was in a paragraph about the colloquial use of the term. --Gbleem 09:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved Will Beback's line up to the first paragraph and changed Pedophilia to "it". Here "it" refers to the medical definition.

We already have a section on how the DSM and ICD classify pedophilia. I think we can summarize it by saying in the intro:

• Pedophilia is described as a mental disorder by standard diagnosis manuals, including the DSM IV and ICD-10.

That gives a NPOV rendition of the material already in the "Diagnosis" section. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 11:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The DSM and ICD are the most widely used definitions of mental illness. Pedophilia is a mental illness, by definition. Therefore, the line belongs in the introduction and is also NPOV and has verifiable sources to support the stmt. DPeterson^talk 13:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• So what, exactly is the relevance of "...and child sexual abuse is also illegal." in a section on the definition of pedophilia? Also, the sentence is a vague since it doesn't define child, abuse or the nation in which it is illegal. Additionally, the first part of the sentence should start with "According to the DSM" instead of how it does now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chunky Rice (talk • contribs) June 3 18:11 (UTC)

• To note that the condition is both a mental illness and illegal...both are NPOV, factual statements, which are verifiable. "In accordance with the DSM..."is also acceptable English. However, we can see what other editors think.
• What is your objection (point to a policy that supports it's exclusion). DPeterson^talk 20:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have NPOV concerns with both the phrasing and the appropriateness of the statement in the context of the larger section. There's no reason to be talking about the illegality of child sexual abuse in that section. It's not relevant. We could have a sentence about how it's illegal to kill a child after a sexual assault, too. That would be factually correct, but it would be NPOV to have it here.Chunky Rice 21:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• regarding the first part of the sentence, my concern is not about whether or not it is grammatically correct, but rather where the emphasis is placed.Chunky Rice 21:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Of course it is relevent that a behavior is illegal! Let's see what others think. DPeterson^talk 22:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the text to read:

• Child sexual abuse, whether perpetrated by a clinically diagnosed pedophile or a situational offender, is illegal in most jurisdictions.

And moved it up a paragraph so that it is part of the discussion of clinical versus common usage. The point that I think is important is that the medical diagnosis does not matter to the law. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Will, I support your recent edits and am comfortble with those improvements. DPeterson^talk 00:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me, SqueakBox 00:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Works for me.Chunky Rice 00:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent deletion of "incidence" sections

I agree, all that material was largely based on one college student sample and represented Undue influence regarding the ciation. Nice job deleting that section. DPeterson^talk 00:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Rem criticism of treatment section

This section was a tautology, in a sense. To say that the "only" problem evident among pedophiles and Pedophilia is their attraction to children, and so there really is no problem or mental illness is absurd. The "only" problem with many murderers is that they killed one person. The "only" problem with a child with ADHD is are problems with attention. Listen, if other editors disagree with me here, pls say so and if that is the consensus, then the section will have to go back, despite my objection. DPeterson^talk 01:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You have my agreement, and your rationale makes a lot of sense. -Jmh123 01:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Now, I don't want to equate pedophilia to homosexuality, but isn't that criticism very similar to the one used when they removed homosexuality from the DSM? My feeling is that unless we're going to take the position that pedophilia is bad (which I think is against Wikipedia's NPOV policy), the argument is sound. -Chunky Rice 01:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the section is written with a pretty clear POV in mind--that being that there is no real illness associated with pedophilia. The difference between homosexuality and pedophilia is that some pedophiles are led to commit crimes because of their attractions. While homosexual acts have been considered criminal, and still are, unfortunately, in some states, these are victimless crimes, and rarely prosecuted these days. Not so with child sexual abuse. Perhaps you can think of a way to rewrite the section so that it is NPOV? -Jmh123 01:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Aren't all criticism sections inherently POV? I mean, they exist to present the counter-pov to the main article. I'm not sure how you would write one that wasn't. However, including a section doesn't make the article POV, and excluding valid criticisms does. -Chunky Rice 06:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point. The section on "treatment" seems to indicate that there isn't really any effective treatment for this condition...so what is to criticize, except that, maybe, more resources ($$$) should go to developing effective treatments? DPeterson^talk 02:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There was just a news piece on some new treatment claimed to be effective. I'll dig it up. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 04:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My reading of the section indicates that argument is that pedophilia in of itself is not a pathology and therefore, any treatment is inappropriate. -Chunky Rice 06:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

While pedophilia may not be regarded a pathology in some circles, it is currently treated as one by legal establishments, notably in both the U.S. and U.K. The use of sex offender registries, and more recently of extended incarceration after completion of prison terms, have become widespread. They are predicated on the belief that some sex offenders, and some child sex offenders in particular, have a high incidence of repeat violations and are a threat to society. There are currently many people who are locked up basically because the legal and medical systems have determined them to be pedophiles. In some cases their only hope of freedom is treatment of some kind. We should have a section or at least a full paragrpoh on that issue.

Furthermore, we have the example of the efforts by the Catholic Church to provide treatment to its priests who had exhibited pedophilic tendencies. Their level of succes should be summarized; I'm sure there must be some sources on the topic. It'd be worth a short paragraph at least. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 07:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

To start with, I've put the section back, as it should be before consensus is reached. If a consensus against keeping it is reached, then maybe we should move the text to an easily accesible location, so that it can be combed through. Nevertheless, I oppose the removal of this section. The secton seems to adequately explain all of the doubts that have been raised over the treatment of pedophiles. Its size owes to the fact that much of the literature reflects doubtfully on the ability to treat. (f a b i a n) 15:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

By definition it is a mental illness per DSM. Most editors want the section out, so until there is consensus, it should remain out. DPeterson^talk 22:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

1)I'm not sure what your point is re: the DSM. 2) I really don't see the consensus that you claim exists. -Chunky Rice 22:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A point was raised about Pedophilia not being a mental illness or that being disputed...By defintion it is per the DSM. I think more editors want the section out is what I meant. DPeterson^talk 22:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I find your argument to be pretty weak. It seems like you're saying that no critism of the DSM is valid. Can't the DSM be wrong? It has been before. The mere fact that the DSM says something doesn't make it immune from criticism. Looking at this dicussion, it looks to me that there are 3 editors in favor or removal and 2 in favor of keeping. That's not consensus. -Chunky Rice 22:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed it again. It appeared to me to give excess attention to a fringe viewpoint. We should try to cover the material is a less didactic manner. Much of this article appears intended to justify pedophilia, rather than to simply describe it. We shouldn't seek to attack or defend it, but just to summarize neutrally what reliable sources have written. It is possible to skew NPOV by devoting excessive space to minority viewpoints. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 22:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Will's comments. In addition, the DSM is a current reliable and veriafialbe and reputable source. An individual, such as Chunky Rice, may wish it wrong or think is can be, but that would constitute OR. DPeterson^talk 00:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are you making this personal? You have no idea what my personal opinion is. I have only argued for the inclusion of the published criticism of others. I really don't understand why you think the DSM is immune from criticism. It is not original research to cite someone elses research. I really don't understand your position. It doesn't seem to be based on Wikipedia policy. -Chunky Rice 00:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I was merely reflecting your comment, "Can't the DSM be wrong? It has been before. The mere fact that the DSM says something doesn't make it immune from criticism." I meant no harm or personal attack and am sorry if you misinterpreted my comments. If you have specific reputable and verifiable citations and sources that refute the 'specific' lines and quotes from the DSM in this article, by all means, bring them on for us to take a look at. DPeterson^talk 00:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I don't really understand what was wrong with the cited criticism that were deleted. Isn't that what they did? -Chunky Rice 01:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I want to make it clear that I have no agenda to push in this article. I just have it on my watchlist because it's a frequent vandalism target. I just feel like the changes you have made have been detrimental to the quality of the article. -Chunky Rice 01:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

crime and motivation

"However, regardless of motivation, child sexual abuse is a crime, and pedophilia is a mental illness." I added a comma to this sentence, but it still looks funny to me. Does the phrase "regardless of motivation" apply to "child sexual abuse is a crime" only or to both phrases?

Pedophilia is a mental illness except when the term is used in the colloquial sense to refer to criminals. I'm not sure the sentence makes things clearer.--Gbleem 08:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of motivation refers to sexual abuse. Maybe the "," after "crime" is not needed? DPeterson^talk 22:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My question was rhetorical. We can all only guess what the sentence means. Regardless of what the author intended, the sentence as it stands is unclear. --Gbleem 07:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I still think the whole thing should be removed as irrelevant. We already have two mentions in the article that child sexual abuse is a crime. Further, the "mental illness" part needs the "according to the DSM" qualifier, or should be removed altogether. We don't need to re-emphasize these points at the end of every single paragraph. It feels like POV pushing to me. What is the purpose, other than to say "It doesn't matter why they do it, it's still bad."?-Chunky Rice 22:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should decide on whether to keep the sentence until it has been fixed. --Gbleem 07:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at it again and I don't see anyway to rewrite the sentence so that it clarifies the point of the paragraph. --Gbleem 08:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree...Maybe the best thing would be to poll the other editors and see if there is a consensus. DPeterson^talk 23:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate on your position with more than "I disagree?" I've tried to explain my reasoning. I would appreciate it if you would respond to the points I've raised.. -Chunky Rice 23:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've explained mine above in other sections, I won't repeat myself, except to say that the facts are that it is a mental illness and illegal and that is notable. DPeterson^talk 00:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Notable enough for inclusion in the article? Sure. But why do we need three separate mentions of it in three separate sections? Excessive. Further, I find your pushing of the DSM as some sort of gospel to be questionable. -Chunky Rice 23:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

See my comments above re the DSM. It's inclusion belongs in each section and is relevant and related the the preceeding material it follows. Now, if you suggest removing the material preceeding the DSM references, then the DSM references would probably also need to be edited. DPeterson^talk 00:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it needs fixing, but just chopping out that sentence isn't the solution. No time to analyze it thoroughly, but it needs more work than that. I agree that the writing and presentation could be improved. -Jmh123 08:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I revised a bit, keeping the focus on pedophilia, rather than going into depth about the nature of child sexual offenders in general, since that is not the topic here. The point that not all sexual offenders are pedophiles is clearly made. The statement about percentages was referenced only in-line, without specific citations to support the data that was cited. Wogan's studies, while interesting, are not contextualized in a thorough review of research in this area, and pertain to the nature of sex offenders rather than pedophiles. I also removed the sentence that was an attempt to balance the POV, which hopefully I have done. -Jmh123 19:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Question on treatment citation

The line

A hospital in Berlin, Germany reported success using role-play therapy and medicine. The pedophiles were better able to control their urges once they understood the child's view.[52][53]

is sourced with a news story and not an empirical journal. Do other editors think that is noteworthy enough to warrant it's inclusion? Consider this an informal within article RfC. DPeterson^talk 23:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who added that. I think it's verifiable that the clinic has made this claim, and that it was the result of an actual study. Whether a claim of an effective treatment is worth mentioning is another matter. I'm not sure why we'd require it to have been published in an empirical journal. (Though I presume they'll publish in one eventually). ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, here's a link to the institute conducting the study: [1] They are part of Charité, called "the largest university hospital in Europe". ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's essentially a detailed press release about the study, in English. "Prevention of Child Molestation in the Dunkelfeld" ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

this project should definitely be included. it is the most public campaign to prevent child sexual abuse before it occurs that i am aware of. (billboards, commercials, etc.) here is the official website of the project with more information. ~[[kinda]] 00:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Citizendium: Nonexclusive pedophiles

Citizendium now also has a live article on pedophilia at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Pedophilia. What strikes me after reading it is our first sentence now. We define pedophilia as exclusively or primarily attracted to children. Both Norbert de Jonge and Marthijn Uittenbogaard stated on TV that they are luckily also attracted to adults. Need we rephrase our definition to "strongly or even exclusively" to reflect the lower occurence of 7% of exclusives?

Interesting point. DSM-III required that the attraction to pre-pubescents be "repeatedly preferred or exclusive;" DSM-IV lets the diagnostician specify whether it's exclusive or non-exclusive. I'm thinking that our first sentence is based, at least in part, on the older definition. Does anyone know of a reason (based in the current, standardized definitions) why exclusivity should be retained as a criterion? Poindexter Propellerhead 13:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The DSM-IV is the criteria to use. DPeterson^talk 22:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"peripubescent" -> "early pubescent"

I'm inclined to change "peripubescent" to "early pubescent" in the lead, because I don't think anybody knows what "peripubescent" means. Dybryd 08:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That is ok with me. DPeterson^talk 12:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Combined article

This looks just terrific. Great work all. The article now captures the full gamut of issues and material in one place. DPeterson^talk 18:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I immediately noticed how pro pedophilia the anti pedophile section is. Strange but fixeable, SqueakBox 18:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, me too. But at least all the material is in one place so that it can all be edited within context. I've made a few minor changes...more to follow. DPeterson^talk 21:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Did I miss something? I seem to have been mistakenly under the impression that it was still under debate as to whether or not this material should be merged into the "Pedophilia" article (based on the discussion taking place at "Pro-Pedophile Activisim"). Could someone here please explain ... Welland R 12:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well keep debating, nobody is short circuiting that, and my actionw as absolutely not intended to stifle debate, SqueakBox 16:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That was evident to me. DPeterson^talk 17:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You didn't miss anything, and you are not mistaken. I've expressed my disapproval of this out-of-process action, but it falls on deaf ears. -Jmh123 19:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus to merge.--Flamgirlant 23:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)