Talk:Pedophilia

edits explained

Child sexual abuse is different matter (related perhaps in see also, but not the same content). Sine the subject is different adn reflected as such in a seperate article it certainly cant lead into this one where the lead reflects the content of this article. A wikilink in the article or see also is certainly more appropriate than bolding it.

As the definition in the article itself suggests (and the lead reflects the article) the word means someone else. Sure its come to evolve into the current definition and that is the focus of the lead, but to exclude cited fact from the article is pov and undue weight on other factors as if representating simply 1 side. It clearly by definition is not only about sex, even if todays usage is as such. this is an encyclopaedia and hence covers everythign not just novel usages. (that would be a dictionary)Lihaas (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Pedophilia as "child friendship" in the lead, original research, etc.

As I stated to Lihaas on his or her talk page, "'Child sexual abuse' is in the distinguish tag because that is the act, while pedophilia is about the mental (what goes on in the mind) in relation to the act. Child sexual abuse is a common aspect of pedophilia, and is largely what pedophilia is about, yes, but they are not the same thing. Some child sexual abusers are not even pedophiles, as the article makes clear.

Also, describing pedophilia as 'child friendship' in the lead is highly controversial, as many pedophiles actually describe the relationship that way and believe it to only be about friendship and that they are not hurting the child. This is why I reverted you.

As for your OR and synthesis concerns, I did not mean to revert that, and it would be best that you bring that up (what you meant by that) on the talk page." Flyer22 (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You just stated you did not mean to remove the tags and yet you removed it AGAIN. Is that not a doublestandard taht you admitted to? My explanation is given on the page in the hidden tags and was right in the beginning "synthesis here, need to quote the relevant passage" I dont believe the content was written in a manner that comes from the source and would like to read it, hence the tag of possible OR

Your reverts also changed the subheading without explanation related to that where you mention the lead and revert EVERYTHING.

read my content above about the alternate to bolding the term child sexual abuse. Its better than a blanet revert.

Your comment that "child friendship" is controversial because they refer it to themselves is frankly not relevant to this position. This is an encyclopaeida not taking EITHER sides. What they believe is irrelevant, as i explained the phrase is VERBATIM taken from the passage that defines what it means and the lead must reflect the article.

About about child sexual abuse being part of the act is a POV concern of the editors, that is not what the phrase is about. As i already said it is fair game to refer to the sexual content that it has not come to mean, but that is again not the inherent form of the phrase. "paedo" means child as in paediatrician, "phile" mean to like as in bibliophile, anglophile, indophile, etc. Is that definitional controversial? it is cited on this page itself.Lihaas (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You could have added your tags back without readding everything else. I reverted you again, because you again added everything back. Your tags are back now, without everything else.

What is wrong with the subheading having "disease models" in it? That section is about the disease models, more than it is about simply history of pedophilia.

"Child friendship" is not a common meaning of pedophilia, no matter its origin. And given its use by pedophiles as the definition of pedophilia, it certainly should not be in the lead as the de facto meaning. We have an Etymology section for that. If you want it in the lead, you will need to gain WP:Consensus, but I doubt it will come first in the lead even if you do manage to gain favor.

What I said about child sexual abuse is not simply about our POV. We have distinguish tags for a reason on Wikipedia; nothing wrong with distinguishing here.

And you still have not explained your OR tags well. Hebephilia, for example, is viewed by those researchers as overlapping with pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thats fine in the interim.

Nothing wrong with the disease models, but its not a subsection of etymelogy. I then removed it as a nother section instead of subsection, im fine with adding it back just not as a subsection but section on its own

its not a de facto meaning but a de jure meaning as has been cited on the talk page and mentioned here. Maybe not the first sentence but somewhere in the elad to reflect the article that does in fact state the words meaning verbatim.

Youre not distinguishing your opening in the lead, distinguish tags are above the article which you may find some wordign for either there, see also, or merged in the article as not bold, bold is not used to distinguish but clarify the meaning of which article is being read, that article is not a redirect to this page and hance not an equivalent term. if Dr. X and Y have correltated paedophilia to abuse then that is the opinion of the doctor which is fair game to cited in the article, not to lead a definition in the first setnence.

well id like like to see the text being referenced here because it seems dubious synthesis to me the way its written. Sourced should leave no doubt as to what is said.Lihaas (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You have a point about the Etymology section. It used to be called Etymology and definitions. The Etymology section by itself is way too short, so it could be combined with the history part as Etymology and history of disease models. Would that work for you? If so, I have no problem with your changing it to that.

I meant to change my de facto mention above, but it's too late now. Anyway, the point is...I cannot see any reason that "child friendship" should be in the lead. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the most significant parts of the topic. "Child friendship" is not what this article significantly or even mostly talks about. If you want it in the lead, you will need consensus for it...since the current lead has already been thoroughly worked out.

We are distinguishing the opening in the lead. The lead talks about child sexual abuse. All we do is point the reader to the bigger/main article on child sexual abuse, and so that they can somewhat grasp the point that pedophilia and child sexual abuse are not necessarily the same thing. Flyer22 (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I dont thin etymelogy goes with history one such reason is that having "ands" in the subject forces to much content into it, although i do agree its too short. Lets' hold on this then because we near to a conclusion. If somemore can be found on etymelogy (and i will look tomorrow) then would 2 section be okay?

I think it is significant precisely for the fact that it includes a less narrow scope and is not attributable to recent changes per the {{recentism}} tag. Im fine with moving it away from the first sentence, but somewhere towards the end perhaps of a large lead is appropriate to reflect already cited content.

Well, the lead should not talk about the content of another article, certainly not that it gives the impress this article is abotu the content of that (which is the point of the bold text), if it is then the 2 articles should be merged. Again paedophilia is much more of a broad term than the limited constraints of sexual abuse. As said, i have no problem with having it in the lead but it shouldnt get undue weight, especially when a seperate article exists.

ive also added a tag to the article to get more debate here.Lihaas (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Etymology goes with history in plenty of Wikipedia articles. But if you can find more to add to the Etymology section, no, I do not object to it being its own section.

I've already given my reasons for "child friendship" not being in the lead, and have nothing more to say about it at the moment.

The lead should not talk about content of another article? Pedophilia has a lot to do with child sexual abuse. And WP:LEAD agrees that it should be talked about. The lead is not talking about the content of that article; it is talking about child sexual abuse in relation to pedophilia. Pedophilia is a broad term? All it covers is the mental disorder, child sexual abuse, and popular reference to any sexual interest in minors. That is as broad as it gets, and is why the lead covers all that.

You've added the wrong type of tag. This article is not slanted toward recent events in any way.

I ask that you stop reverting my heading for this discussion. Specific headings are useful for knowing what a discussion is about, and very helpful when looking for that discussion in the archives. As long as I am focusing on the content, and not the editor, there is nothing wrong with my heading. I hope you were not trying to bait me into WP:3RR. If you were, it should be noted that I was following WP:TALK, reverting your changes to a part of my comment (seeing as the title counts as part of my comment), and did not actually revert you more than three times after creating the title for my comment (as separate from yours). Your reverting it is also making me extremely upset, to the point that I don't want to discuss anything with you. It's best to agree to leave our headings alone; you won't touch mine, and I won't touch yours. Flyer22 (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Lihaas, looks like you have run into the owner of the page, who indeed tries to control every aspect of what can be changed, including talk page headers. As for the lead, it is very definitively biased towards one specific meaning, namely the medical operalization of the term. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Really, you are going to use your reply for that, for your usual insults and assertions after much, much discussion, instead of focusing on the matter at hand? Instead of commenting on whether or not pedophilia should be defined as "child friendship" in the lead? Can't say I'm surprised. Lihaas, however, was altering a part of my comment. I had every right to revert. And if Lihaas also reads the archives or looks over the article's edit history, Lihaas will know that I most certainly am not the only one who is responsible for the current lead, which presents BOTH medical and common use meaning of the term. People who have a problem with following or respecting WP:Consensus, as Kim does, will not find peace at Wikipedia.

In any case, I am actually working with Lihaas here, and shall continue to for as long as it takes to get this straight. Flyer22 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I wasn't talking to you. But now that you butted in, I will address you. Your whole sale reversion of everything including undisputed things is not acceptable and is a clear sign of ownership. Only after you were called on it, you reverted yourself on it. The edit warring about the title at this page is a another example of ownership. If it is not Flyer22's way. You invoke WP:TALK to justify your actions, but obviously fail to read the following: "To avoid disputes it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial." Well, it was changed back, so it was obviously controversial. But no, you kept edit warring on your own version. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No, first of all, with the bad blood between us, you already know you shouldn't send me a 3RR warning yourself, as it cannot help but be biased. Second of all, you were talking about me with the intention of provoking me.

Only after I was called on it, I reverted myself on it, you say? Uh...no...I pointed out on Lihaas's talk page and above that I did not mean to remove the OR tags, which is why I reinserted them. "Obviously controversial" is your POV. I see nothing controversial about the heading I decided to use for my reply. Nor do I see anything 3RR about reverting changes to something that is a part of my reply. Lihaas didn't like it as his or her heading; I made it my own.

What you should be focusing on is Lihaas's concern about an OR addition you made, the one about pedophilia overlapping hebephilia. Flyer22 (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you prefer I go to the noticeboard next time? Just let me know. As for my intentions, no, I had no interest in getting to you. I just warned another editor of your ownership behavior, which you even admit to in your reply above (I made it my own.). Which you also displayed nicely with the current edit war. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If you had no interest in "getting into it" with me, you would have refrained from insulting me yet again on this very talk page, as you always do (instead of focusing on the article's content, which is something you are supposed to do, especially as an administrator; I could go to the noticeboard about that). As if you did not know I would reply to your slander. If it was more about warning Lihaas of villainous Flyer22, you could have done so on his or her talk page.

Anyway, Lihaas, as I stated on your talk page, let's continue. Hopefully, editors who are interested in weighing in on the article's content regarding this matter will comment soon. Flyer22 (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I made my point towards Lihaas, and that you choose to respond was your choice. If you want to infer intent from that, I just explained it was not there.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

And no one familiar with our history is buying that. So, yes, go right back to editing your "Flyer22 owns the Pedophilia article" project page, which is nothing but slanting of what really happens here anyway. Lihaas and I will work this out on our own, or with editors interested more in improving the article than throwing out insults and holding grudges. Flyer22 (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you want to say with "Lihaas and I will work this out on our own" that I am not allowed to contribute? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Kim, you already just addressed Lihaas's concern over the Etymology and hebephilia parts with your recent edits. By not addressing it on the talk page, I of course figured you were not interested in tackling the raised issues. You have, and good. I care not if you continue to weigh in here on the talk page, as long as your comments are not insults directed at me. Flyer22 (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Good. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it may be time to go to a noticeboard about Flyer22's WP:OWN issues on this article. This is just the latest of many, many examples that demonstrate Flyer22's behavior won't change unless this ongoing matter is escalated. Jokestress (talk) 05:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no WP:OWN issues. If I do, then so do the editors who formed consensus with me against you and Kim each time. All I have done is follow WP:Consensus each and every damn time while you have complained about it each and every damn time and tried to game the system. My reverting Lihaas's edits to the lead is in accordance with Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Lihaas didn't even tag the article right when trying to bring wider discussion here. There are no WP:OWN issues to report about me. But whatever. I have my rebuttal case ready too if you want to go that route. You two will always focus on me first and foremost before focusing on what you should be focusing on -- the article content. You will not be banning me from this article, as you did Dr. James Cantor. But you can try. *Wink* Flyer22 (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no problem of ownership with Flyer22's edits on this article. She's participated collaboratively with many editors on this page over a long period and its content is the product of consensus both past and present. As can be seen above, in a situation that appeared tense at first, Flyer22 is yet again collaborating in a productive manner to work out the differences and improve the article. That said, this discussion has veered far off-topic, so, returning to the article content, I will enter a comment on the issue addressed in this section. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

To the questions brought up at the top of this section: I support the inclusion of the hatnote distinguishing the topic from Child sexual abuse, because the terms are different yet closely related. That is one of the primary uses of that type of hatnote. Regarding including "child friendship" in the lead as a definition of pedophilia, that is not at all appropriate. That can be included in the etymology section, if there are sources supporting it, but it is not a correct definition of the term as it is used in present day. The start of an article is where the most important central theme of the topic is presented. Supporting material such as how a term evolved into present day use is properly presented in later sections where it will not distract or confuse. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Response

In response to the above:

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a reason to keep it here. Etymology goes with the history of the term, not actions. As for an etymelogy/term expansion in the section mention of the word "paedophile" as differentiated from "paedophilia" could go there.

Per the above comment, "child friendship" is in the article adn sourced. See the EXACT definition of the term, i dont mind moving it from the first sentence, but it is valid enough to put somewhere in the lead. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or weblog or police force to be limited to how it is "used in the present day" Wikipedia is an encylopaedia that then deals with the term as a whole, and the meaning is thus of crucial importance.

Read my comment about child sexual abuse. Its okay to have it in the lead, but it is not what the article is about. The article is about paedophilia, not child sexual abuse which has its own, it is not even an alternate meaning/redirect requiring bold text. To say paedophilia is blanketly abuse is POV. age of consent laws around the world would qualify as paedophilia in one country and not the other where people are then not abused but voluntarily accede to it. To state again: paedophilia is a psychological/sociological phenemenom (? for lack of a better tem), not a criminal law.

Well, put another tag on as you see fit.

You were also refactoring my comments on the page, which started this discussion.Lihaas (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I am confused by your latter statement. You made a distinction between paedophilia and child sexual abuse, and yet you then used it like as though the two terms were synonymous ("would qualify as paedophilia in one country"), then stated it was a psychological phenomenon and not a criminal law. Just to be clear, "pedophilia" is the attraction, not an action. Would you concur with this? This confounding of these two concepts is a major problem and results in a ton of confusion during discourse and study of the subject.

Also let me also point out this issue before it comes up again: No age of consent law in any nation today allows a true pedophile (as defined by the DSM and ICD) to act on their impulses legally. For example, there is a widespread myth that Thailand has no age of consent and that it is a haven for pedophiles. Not true; the age of consent is 16 there. Enforcement simply isn't all that great. In Japan and Spain, the age is 12 and 13 respectively. This is at or above the statistical average age of puberty (also mentioned in the DSM) and therefore does not qualify as the target age for a true pedophile. Furthermore, the individual prefectures within these nations set the AOC at 16-18.Legitimus (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Lihaas, I was not citing other stuff exists. To me, Etymology and History go together nicely. And while we're on the subject of other stuff exists, many other other people seem to think so too...and this isn't a case where I would call it simple ignorance and incorrect formatting. The history of the disease models section, for example, is more about the history of the term than the actions of child sexual abuse. And I am not sure in what way you are distinguishing pedophilia from a pedophile. Pedophilia is the disorder, and a pedophile is a result of the disorder; that is why those things belong in the lead. As I said before, I see no reason, and no valid reason, that "child friendship" needs to go in the lead. I would also like to see reliable sources, as Jack brought up above, most definitely calling it "child friendship."

As for the other part of this most recent comment from you, Legitimus just tackled that.

And as for changing your comments -- your title -- I did that once on purpose and once accidentally (by accident after one of your reverts). After I did it on purpose, and saw you object, I made the heading my own (yes, I am not afraid to say "my own," as it is a part of MY comment). You, however, kept reverting my title, citing weird reasons for why a discussion title should not be specified to what it is about. But we are both over that now, and there is no reason to dwell on it further (for more than one apparent reason). Flyer22 (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if i wasnt clear, that is what i meant. I thought Japan was 14 though, this is more surprising. But i meant what is legal in japan would be contrued as paedophilia somewhere else, and by the logic of some even abuse, thats preciesly why the clarification of difference is needed. ie- since it is the attraction and not the action then abuse wouldnt be as abuse is the action.

For the etymelogy and history part im not saying its inherently off but history of disease diagnosis models (where calling it a disease is also pov but thats another matter im not concerned about) is not "history" of the term as in the etymelogy. Perhaps remove the "of disease models" and just label it history and then merge the two? or have "disease models" as a subsection of history?

Not distinguishing the two at all, just adding the grammatical phrase of the term and the person. (forget the word for it, like someone from say England is English)

As for child friendship ill just cite this page itself: "The word comes from the Greek: παιδοφιλία (paidophilía): Greek: παῖς (paîs), "child" and Greek: φιλία (philía), "friendship". Paidophilia was coined by Greek poets either as a substitute for "paiderastia" (pederasty).[28]" where the definition is as such. its already pov to be accusatory, an encyclopaedia isnt an advocacy or criminal/legal body.

So to see where se stand now: only the bolding of "child sexual abuse" and the definition is in question? We can go ahead and go ahead and corect the history part? Im making a WP:Bold change on that, see if it works for you?Lihaas (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Pardon, but you did it again. "what is legal in japan would be contrued as paedophilia somewhere else" is not a correct use of this term. Technically it's "what is legal in japan would be contrued as statutory rape somewhere else." It many interest many who read this talk page to know that Japan uses the DSM as their standard just like the US does. And per the DSM, it is only diagnosed as pedophilia if the patient is attracted to children who have not attained puberty (generally 12 and under). Diagnosis is not culturally relative when using this text. Law is relative (e.g. statutory rape and child sexual abuse). Social acceptance is relative (e.g. "robbing the cradle" "pervert" etc.). But the label of pedophilia is a standardized medical diagnosis, and it is the same across the board, in the US or Japan.

Also, I should point out that φιλία (philía) would probably be more accurately translated as "affinity" or "attraction" (either in a scientific manner like microaerophilia, or an emotional manner.) "Friendship" is a misleading way to phrase it, since microaerophile are not friends with low oxygen environments.Legitimus (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Lihaas I changed the title Definition to Etymology and definitions, since you have combined the two sections. Are you okay with this? If you would rather it go back to just being titled Definition, then I feel it should be plural (as in Definitions), since that section is dealing with more than one definition. As for the title "Disease models," that is not due to POV; that is due to the models actually being disease models. You already know I like specific titles or titles that describe sections as accurately as possible. "History" by itself does not work, because that section is not covering all the history of pedophilia; it is rather covering the history of that term. But then again, now that I think about it, the main title does now specify that these sections are more about the term. Thus...naming that subsection History is not too off the mark. "History of the term" works better for me than "History," though. "Disease models" was only recently added anyway. A constant inner battle I keep having is whether or not the Diagnostic criteria section should be a subsection of the section dealing with the term's history of disease models.

Regarding the "child friendship" part, I'm asking for reliable citations (one would do) that word it exactly as "child friendship," not us (the editors) putting those words together in that way. And as you can see from the article, someone has already asked that the text be verified. Flyer22 (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Legitimus so you are in agreement that is not abuse then and we can at least de-bold from the lead if not take it out altogether. Also for the term i used freindship only as a direct quote from the article, if you feel the other is better then im fine with that. the main issue was to have the definition in the lead as it is not only a legal matter. (which, as the age of consent mentions, in some countries pre-puberscent wedding do happen and i can only imagine that they would be consummated.

for the rest: its a bit awkward to have "and" in the title, but it seems okay now, not point arguing on and on. I wouldnt mind it being plural either way. i agree with what you say about the history part, and wouldnt mind the diagnostic being a subsection, though wed have to make sure the whole article then isnt virtually a subsection.Lihaas (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Lihaas, I think mentioning what pedophilia actually means, provided by good sources, is definitely something to be in the lead and would make it a bit less biased towards the medical operalization. I checked the age of consent laws and there are indeed a series of countries where the age of consent is 13 or younger, bringing them into the range of pedophilia that according to the DSM-IV is defined as 13 years and younger. (Lets not bring in the ICD-10 or the DSM-V proposals that have a higher age (14)). I think that is definitely something that will improve the articles lack of world-wide view on this. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so weve got some consent on that. We just need to figure where to merge in the lead and perahps use the other suggestiong of the definition above.

Now i think the issue is of over emphasising the "abuse" part. (which is more focused on the requisite article)

seems like a missed flyer22 last comment. The cite request was made by myself if i remember properly, but someone above suggested a better alternative. that could do. This says "child loving" which we can break up to show "paedo" = child and "philia" = loving?Lihaas (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Lihaas, I'd say "sort of" to that. Yes, the word "pedophilia" does not mean "abuse" and a person acting within the national laws of Japan would neither be perpetrating abuse nor would meet the criteria of having pedophilia. However, a person in Japan desiring to have sex with children age 6-8 is still a pedophile, and if they act on it, they have committed abuse. The concepts are connected, because pedophilia is a drive to carry out an act that is medically harmful and illegal in all but the most lawless and backwards of nations (which I would like to hear the names of, if anyone knows).

Look, abuse has to stay in the hatnote for no other reason that so many people are morons who think the two terms are synonymous. The very purpose of putting in there is to divide these two topics and reduce how they are confounded.

Regarding "philia," again it would do it a disservice to translate it as "love." The Greeks had many words for "love," all with different implications, so I think my aforementioned suggestion still stands, since it is based on the source (a classic Greek Lexicon) that was already there.Legitimus (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Lihaas, I think leaving the hatnote on abuse is a right thing to do. As for the other aspects, yes, lets see where we can add that properly.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think precisely because "readers are morons" and think its synanomous the distinction has to made. What we said above it that paedophilia is not the action, hence not abuse by itself only when pursued to such measures. Otherwise on its own its just a psychological aspect, and its not inherently about sex. As is other words "paedo-" or "-philia" would imply sex. Again im not saying to remove it altogether from the lead, it is now the main aspect and clearly warrants space even in the top of the lead, but not the first sentence with bold emphasis.

For the definition it seems weve got a new section below ill answer.(Lihaas (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)).

Lihaas, I'm going to, like I always say, Legitimus is right about what pedophilia is. Pedophilia is not based on the age of consent or pubescents and post-pubescents. If it were, then what is a pedophile in one state would not be a pedophile in another sate, which is just silly. For example, one would be a pedophile for taking up with a 17-year-old in one state, but not a pedophile for taking up with a 17-year-old in another state. And the DSM-V proposals are for merging pedophilia with hebephilia to cover the overlap; it doesn't suddenly make hebephilia the same thing as pedophilia. Pedophilia by itself would still be used to diagnose people (according to Dr. James Cantor, who is a researcher behind the new proposals, and has also helped out with editing this article). Legitimus is absolutely correct that a pedophile (a true pedophile) has no true (notice I said "true") interest in adult-like bodies. And a pubescent 14-year-old girl, with breasts and everything else that resembles a woman, is not something that would tempt a true pedophile. Some 14-year-old girls are even done with puberty (post-pubescent). Most are damn near close to done. When it comes to hebephilia in relation to pedophilia, I feel that it always applies more to boys, considering so many 11 to 14-year-old boys still look prepubescent, which is no doubt why Karen Franklin mentioned girls more than she did boys when objecting to hebephilia being categorized as a disorder. As for the general view of pedophilia -- any sexual interest in children or adolescent minors -- that has been gone over time and time again (recently especially), and is already mentioned in the lead. It just doesn't come first in the lead after much, much debate. But then again, you are not arguing for that coming first in the lead or having more representation in the lead than it already does, are you? Your issues here have been the child sexual abuse part of the hatnote, the "child friendship" wording and the Etymology section, and I must say that it has been nice working with you...despite our initial, minor problems with each other. The child sexual abuse hatnote issue seems to have new WP:Consensus for being there, but I am still open to hearing your arguments for its removal. And, oh...the "verification needed" tag for the "Child" and "friendship" part was already there before your edits. Flyer22 (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

thought wed already clarified the term being 13-in usage. Which we also did not saying disavows the term "paedophile" being used even in that range, but it disallows the term abuse being used which is the crux of confusion over emphasising both. again, as said below im not against using the term abuse in the lead even (let alone the article which is not in doubt that it should be there somewhere), but the emphasis on abuse (as mentioned below) obfuscates the fact that in some parts of the world it may still be "paedophilia" by any stretch of the imagination but is "not" abuse by legal method or otherwise. that gives the article slant towards certain euro-centirc perceptions. (although the FLDS would stil argue otherwise that it is volutnary) There was also some community on a French Polynesian Island that it was volutnary and only become anissue when 20th century french missions started there.

okay, my bad ;)(Lihaas (talk) 08:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)).

LOL, by speaking of the age of consent part, I wasn't speaking of the child sexual abuse part...unless you count the people feeling that an adult engaging in sex with someone under the age of consent is child sexual abuse. But, yes, all has been worked out between us now; glad we could do so. Flyer22 (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a few changes made, which i dont think are controversial as its just grammatical. I also asked ont he page if a term should be italicised for emphasis (but didnt do it yet)

Also this "Nepiophilia" was tagged as dubious. Really somethign like that needs an authoritative source. (who invented it? the term and/or the "action." i cant believe that exists. its not even theoretically possible?!)(Lihaas (talk) 11:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)).

Taking out mention of the inappropriateness of "child love" goes against the WP:Consensus reached below... So, yes, it is a controversial edit, more so due to what Legitimus, Jack and myself mentioned. That is why I will be reverting you on that. I already reverted you on the "common use" part of the lead, because mentioning that pedophilia is commonly applied to any sexual interest in children is a part of recent consensus, as well as long-standing consensus. And I am not seeing why you put the law tag on this talk page. We have already gone over that pedophilia is not based on the law. The law takes care of child sexual abusers who may be pedophiles, and people who have committed statutory rape. People are not sent to jail/prison for being a pedophile. The only way I see the law tag as being relevant is in relation to how law enforcement sometimes use the term pedophile, or how a pedophile may be sent to jail for the act of child sexual abuse. Flyer22 (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Common usage seems to have the added caveat, although that is still editoralising that it is "common usage." Id like to see the cite on that. Someone else has added the fact tag to the "inappropriate" part which is editoralising too.

Law tag is because the article deals with the legal aspect (although i wouldnt oppose removing the content to the requisite abuse page with the tag). See "In law and forensic psychology"

also, there was some legal case that reached the SC some tiem ago about fabricated child porn (ie- computer/drawing and no actual people). That should be mentioned in the section as such. I forget the ruling, i think the appeals court of the SC said that was legal.(Lihaas (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)).

There is no editorializing when it comes to the "common use" part. It is backed up by several sources showing that the way the term is used in the medical sense (sexual preference for prepubescent children) is not the way the term is generally used. It is often used to refer to child molesters (who may or may not be pedophiles) and statutory rapists. See the source for the "Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided" line. Also see the sources in the Child sexual abuse section which talk about how the term pedophilia is commonly confused with child molestation. And see the Fred Berlin source which specifically says that the term pedophilia generally applies to sexual activity/interest with/in minors (minor means any person under the age of majority, not just teenagers). We wouldn't have a Misuse of medical terminology section if the term was not commonly misused. As for the law tag on the talk page, I already stated that is likely the reason you added it. And I will take care of the "inappropriate" part, which was editorializing; it will be much easier to find reliable sources simply saying that "child love" is often only used by pedophiles these days. Flyer22 (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, per Wikipedia formatting, not everything in the lead needs to be sourced...as long as the same topic is sourced/covered elsewhere in the article. I ask that you look over the layout of Wikipedia articles more closely due to this fact, as well as due to the fact that not every line is going to have its source attributed immediately after it; the source may be a little ways over, as to not over-source. Also, plenty of sources, such as book sources without urls, are not going to be readily verifiable; this doesn't mean that the source is likely OR, a lie, or needs verification. It means that it is up to the reader to verify the source for themselves, since the source is provided to them after all. Flyer22 (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

okay cool. although having now thoroughly read that paragraph i feel it doesnt flow (only grammar wise, not content) as in "The current DSM-" jumps out of nowhere. Also to move that para below the "Pedophilia was first formally recognized " para. (and then moved the 2nd para "According to the " between the 2). It would also help the flow to mention either before or after the "common usage" part (although i suppose the first para covers that). One can also remove the "in the US" part for giving an over-emphasis to one part of the world, leave it in the article i think/

this should also be at least a GA. nom time?(Lihaas (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)).

"The current DSM" part was added by Tijfo098, and it flows to me because it is right after the DSM definition of pedophilia. It's also there to tackle early pubescents being a part of the pedophilia definition, which is something that has been recently heavily debated here. It gives more neutrality to the wider definition of pedophilia, even though such a definition is technically incorrect if applying to clearly pubescent individuals. The "in the US" part is likely there because we only know that to be true for the US. I'm not sure the common use paragraph should come last; As I stated before, most of the lead has been heavily debated. The current format is a result of those debates. The common use part comes as early as we can address it (though it used to come second, and second could/would work too) without giving undue weight to what are essentially incorrect uses of the term, according to experts in those fields anyway. We also didn't put it last, because common use is so prominent and there are editors here who wanted common use represented more thoroughly in the article, besides what is stated in the Child molestation section.

I wouldn't say the article is ready for GA; with the exception of the current citation needed tag, and maybe the verification needed tag, it seems to be. But I feel it needs a little more polish first. A polish in what? Just all over; nothing too specific in my mind right now, except taking care of the tags and an expansion of the section on law enforcement. Flyer22 (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

(to clear the indent) well ill be willing to expand and clean it if you do. i think youre more the expert but here and there i can help

fine ont he lead then, except the us thing because if we do get others (and at least w. europe is plausible) would we be listing it all? specifics are not really needed for a lead to summarise/paraphrase.Lihaas (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with you expanding this article. And it's the community's/public's article anyway, so I wouldn't be able to stop you regardless, LOL...unless the article was considered too huge and expanding it was seen as not wise due to WP:Consensus or if what you wanted to add was not relevant to this article, or has been banned before (through past discussions). So your expanding things would certainly be great. I'm just worried about the lead, due to what I stated above. The GA bit? It's something I would rather the regular editors be here for, such as Jack-A-Roe and Legitimus. Or even SqueakBox. Jack is fairly busy these days, and so am I (though not as busy as Jack). And the GA nomination process usually requires a lot of editing -- tweaking and changing things at the suggestion of the the GA reviewer; some of things suggested may be things that are the way they are through year after year of consensus. I'm just not up for the GA process right now. And I want to be fully available for that when the time comes. If you're okay with checking back in two months or maybe three in regards to nominating this article for GA, I'll be up for that (hopefully, I'll be a little freer).

Oh, and you kill me. Changing "common usage" to "popular usage." What do you have against the wording "common usage," LOL? It even goes with the followup "This common use application..." ...Oh well. I'm not too against it. I only ask that you don't change the followup to "This popular use application..." That part definitely sounds better without "popular" in it. Flyer22 (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool

i think im more free not than in 3 months, but id be willing to help on an expansion not being an expert on the subject (origin apart)(Lihaas (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)).

Etymology, In popular culture, and other issues

Etymology and random matters

The root of philia is φίλος, phílos, which means friendly love, affection or friendship. Not attraction or affinity. (the claim that the source says this is incorrect). It is different from romantic love, which has as a root amor, like in amorous. Scientific animal names are build often from the same words, like the term "Drosophila", meaning "dew-loving". Or Anglophile, which means English Loving. Phil, which has the same root, in general in English words means loving. So, I suggest we are going to follow that general usage, which is also how it is generally explained by other sources, such as http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pedophilia:

• 1905, from Gk. pais (gen. paidos) "child" (see pedo-) + philos "loving." First attested in Havelock Ellis.

-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. I confused a passage from another source. I would suggest friendly love to avoid confusion with romantic, which to English readers has strong tendency to be implied by the word "love" alone. The unsourced remark about poets coming up with the term as an alternate, I had nothing to do with. But, I found a great number of contradictory sources about it. Flaciere seemed to imply that "paidophilia," with the implication of "philia," was a completely platonic relationship in Ancient Greece, used for purposes of education (i.e. mentoring). Whereas others seemed to imply terms were interchangeable and that a sexual component was sometimes (but not always) involved. If anybody has a good source on this from a linguistic point of view, please post.Legitimus (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind pointing me to that source? I can agree with "friendly love" as avoiding the connotation with romantic love in this case seems to be valid. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Legitimus this is exactly what i was trying to say above. the sexual aspect maybe predominantly in use, expecially today, but it is not always the component.

Anyway, so "child" and love" will be at least 2 of the words to post on the article and lead. The question if im right now is which adjective to add to love? We have 2 sources right now and can await another and/or work these at least in the temp.(Lihaas (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)).

Hey, Lihaas, I replied again in the Response section above. I still don't feel that it should go in the lead, but if WP:Consensus is for it, I won't try to object. My only objection would be it coming first in the lead. If you have to place it anywhere, I would say it should go in the lead's final paragraph, which talks about the term's origin already. Flyer22 (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel "child" and "love" (or "friendship") do not belong in the lead (that is, they should stay just in the history/etymology section) because it is far to literal and the meaning is now far removed from these ancient Greek roots. Think about the likes of hypochondriasis; the word in Greek literally means "relating to the upper abdomen" or "beneath the breast bone cartilage." We wouldn't put that in the lead because it's rather unimportant compared when you're trying to sum up the article text, and is somewhat irrelevant to how one would describe the condition right now in the times we live in.

One thing I should point out is that the term "child love" is a talking point of pedophile propaganda movements and pedophilic individuals a way to euphemize and obfuscate their intentions and behavior. Using such a line in such a prominent location risks being interpreted the wrong way.Legitimus (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the lead should become far more nuanced and less focused on the medical operalization of this term. As such, I think the development of the term should be briefly mentioned in the lead.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Legitimus, the pedophile propaganda part is the main reason (likely the only reason) I objected (and still object) to "child friendship" (or "child love") being in the lead (especially as the lead-in definition), as noted above. You and I have been through pedophiles trying to inject such language into the lead before, not that I'm suggesting Lihaas is a pedophile. But since control over this article keeps being addressed, as well as perceived paranoia on our parts, I'm not even going to argue this request much this time. Leaving it up to WP:Consensus without much argument from me. Flyer22 (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You make a good point. The long hard road may have made Flyer and myself a little cautious. Perhaps sentence 2 of the lead? If it where similar to, for example, the lead of Coprolalia.Legitimus (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I like that idea, anf I think in this case, we could immediately add a sentence that many nowadays consider that inappropriate proving a direct inroad to changes over time with regard to this topic. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course I would still rather it not be in the lead, but the suggestion sounds good. A good compromise indeed. And I was definitely thinking about a line regarding its inappropriateness these days. Flyer22 (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with flyer that we can take the info out of the first sentence but put it somewhere in the lead.

Again, Wikipedia's intentions is not as some new-age dictionary, but precisely to incorporate various meanings, and thus if the article were to only encompass the modern context then it would be {{recentism}}, if it were to be controlled on the basis of "paedophilia advocacy" which i havent heard of anywhere outside the west (As weve discussed above) then it would be {{globalize}}

And im also fine with somethign along what KimvdLinde suggested to incorporate the evolution of the term and then mentions something abotu abuse (perhaps as it already is, we dont need to change anything) in the lead itself just without undue emphasis.

just took out the "this literal meaning" as the phrase already deals with the root word and the next sentence deals with what its come to mean.(Lihaas (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)).

Still, your removal of the inappropriateness of "child love" goes against the agreement formed here. It's there for a very valid reason, already gone over just a little above. This was/is our compromise with you. Flyer22 (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I didnt remove "child love" anyhoo, see above.(Lihaas (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)).

I didn't say you removed "child love." Of course you wouldn't; you're the one who wants it there; the main one anyway. I said you removed the line about the inappropriateness of child love. And as I stated above, I will take care of it, because it is no secret to people who have studied every aspect of pedophilia (including relations to it, such as pedophile chat rooms) and organizations such as Perverted Justice that pedophiles generally use that wording. Flyer22 (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I read an interesting (though quite amateur) study about the "first stage" and the legal aspect of starting with scantily-clad (which would not technically be illegal) and then moving on. Could probably mention something here in the diagnosis part but i dont the source.

also, if you are from the us, have you hard about that case in which fabricated child porn (ie- comp. generated images/drawings) were ruled upon by the court? although thats probably for said article instead.Lihaas (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that animation showcasing child porn is a no-no as well. Some people have a huge problem with lolicon. I'm not sure on the specifics of anime or drawings featuring child porn, but it is child porn imagery all the same, which some pedophiles can become sexually aroused by. Might be worth a mention in the Diagnosis section. Flyer22 (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

last i heard at least one of the courts said it was okay because (to paraphrase) there werent actual children harmed, but we expected it to be appealed anyways ;)

Japan recently (and i mean this month or last month) cracked down on that too. should we put it here on the child pron article?Lihaas (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean lolicon? If so, lolicon is dealing with pubescents and post-pubescents, not prepubescents, but then again...child porn can include pubescents and post-pubescents as well (so long as they are underage). Not to mention, lolicon deals with dressing girls up to look younger than they are -- to look prepubescent. I would ask the people who normally edit the Child porn article first. In other words, it should be brought up on the talk page there before any edits are made on that front, in my opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

There's already an article about this -- Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors -- found at the top of the Controversy section of the Lolicon article as well. Flyer22 (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Eureka! Found it, apparently Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition partially answered the query i sought.(Lihaas (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)).

Lihaas, what are you doing with edits like this? What you cited as POV is not POV at all. It is a fact, as attributed to pedophiles. The general public doesn't do this, doesn't sport these "brands," doesn't say "child love" or "child lover." Furthermore, the sentences made no sense after your edits. This is why Legitimus reverted you on that. And as for this line:

The term has a range of definitions as found in psychiatry, psychology, the vernacular, and law enforcement.

All of that is already sourced. We go over all these definitions with sources already; therefore, that line needs no source. I don't understand your edits sometimes. Flyer22 (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

the OR tag you removed was from awhile back, the ref came in and the tag was left. no issues on that, just spotted in the mellee ;)

yeah, okay, i understand the "by paedophiles" part now.

the definitions are there, but the legal definition is not clarified in the lead in that it gives only reference to the us case (we cant list every country)

also, dont see why the lower section has to go, theres no hard-and-fast rule against [pop culture, it can even be exapanded.(Lihaas (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)).

It doesn't matter that we can't list every country. The point is that pedophilia has "a law enforcement definition." Therefore, it is not OR to say that it does. Flyer22 (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Other stuff

Legitimus removed the In popular culture section for a valid reason. Such sections are generally discouraged. From what I have seen, there is a hard-and-fast-rule against them -- they generally should not be included because they are trivial and can go on forever. Unless they are a key to a subject's notability, such as in the case of James Dean, they are removed by most editors. Either that, or they are included in some other way -- without the In popular culture title. In the case of this article (Pedophilia), I am not even sure that the first instance you added has to do with a pedophile (and I do mean a pedophile in the medical, true sense). 12-year-old girls are not generally prepubescent. That is more so pervert or hebephilia territory, typically anyway. I am worried about that section being too trivial and including any "underage person incident" as pedophilia. Just because the person is underage...it does not make it pedophilia. This article is clear about that. The only reason I didn't remove the In popular culture section some minutes ago is because you made a case for it here on the talk page this time and other editors may agree with you. But just to make another point, pedophilia in the media articles -- such as Pedophilia in literature (boys) -- have been deleted or redirected over and over again.

As for the Child pornography section? That makes more sense where I recently put it -- after the Prevalence and child molestation section, not all the way down, after everything else, right before the Societal views section. And, yes, I feel that the Prevalence and child molestation section should stay right where it is -- after the information concerning how/when pedophilia develops, the biological associations and personality traits.

As for overlinking in the case of FBI, see WP:REPEATLINK. I was going for this exception: where the later occurrence is a long way from the first. Flyer22 (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no strong opinions about the ordering of the sections at the moment (I don't currently have time to read it through to get a feel). However, regarding popular culture, there are two things: First, the WP manual of style does indeed have rules discouraging or at least limiting the use of popular culture sections. A pop culture section in an article like this is extremely risky because the subject is not only inflammatory, but highly misused. Even reputable public figures and respected journalists make fools of themselves by throwing the term around. And there is the ever-present problem if distinguishing the act from the attraction. The two examples offered are also off the mark, I feel. Lolita technically involves a peri-pubscent girl, and the protagonist seems to retain interest in her even after she completes puberty. Humbert is a predator (due to his behavior) and likely a hebophile, but not really a pedophile. The Virgin Killer album, I have not seen in many years, but if I recall correctly the subject is teenaged, not prepubescent. Further, that is child pornography, not pedophilia.Legitimus (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The Virgin Killer killer article states the girl as prepubescent in the lead, and, looking at the cover, the girl looks prepubescent to me (but even if she isn't, she looks it and I would say she would still be a target of true pedophiles because of this), which is why I changed it to "prepubescent" in this article. Perhaps she was one of those rare, prepubescent teenage girls? An instance of delayed puberty? If not, then I was definitely wrong to change it from "underage" to "prepubescent" and the Virgin Killer article needs to be corrected on the prepubescent issue as well. I did wonder how they had legally pulled off having a prepubescent girl pose for the cover. But a part of me also wondered if it was a drawing. Flyer22 (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. The Cover art section, which is sourced, says she was age 10. She looks like a budding pubescent, having looked at the picture a few more times, but I suppose there is no way to identify whether or not she was truly prepubescent at the time. I believe the whole point is that she looked prepubescent and was only 10, even though the average age for girls to hit puberty these days is 9 or 10. Flyer22 (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh ok. (I am not permitted to load that page or the image where I am right now) But still, it's child pornography, not relevant to pedophilia directly unless the person who made the album cover was a known pedophile. I'm worried about such a section rapidly degenerating, like if people started putting Michael Jackson or Mark Foley in there.Legitimus (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The cover of Virgin killer is not child pornography; the girl is not being abused or in a sexual pose. It's been determined not to be classified by pornography by several courts internationally from what I've heard; hence why we have the image on wikipedia without having legal / ethical problems with it. That makes it all the less relevant to the pedophilia article though; not quite sure why this is being discussed here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Giftiger wunsch. Thank you for continuing to weigh in. The Virgin Killer instance is being discussed here because, as stated above, we are not sure if it should really be an "in popular culture instance" of pedophilia (the same most definitely goes for the Lolita example), or that we should have an In popular culture section at all. For example, I'm pretty sure that all the "In the media" articles about pedophilia were redirected to Wikipedia:Child protection due to being seen as promoting pedophilia in a way -- showing pedophiles where to look to find material involving prepubescent (and sometimes peripubescent, as in "about to be" or "very early pubertal") children. Because of this, that's another reason I wonder how valid it is to have an In popular culture section in this article. But from what The Virgin Killer article states, it has related to pedophilia in some ways. So perhaps it should stay? Do you even feel we should have an In popular culture section in this article? Flyer22 (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see; I hadn't read the whole thread so I had missed the relevance, sorry about that. In general, "in popular culture" sections tend to be an excuse to collect trivia in a disjointed way. That seems to be the case here; anything deemed to be relevant would be better integrated elsewhere and in a more appropriate place. In particular, the relevance of Virgin killer to the article isn't actually explained in the article either. In what way was the virgin killer cover related to paeodphilia though? Was the album meant to be some sort of statement against paedophilia, or is the link a matter of previous controversy over whether or not the album cover should be considered child pornography? If the former, can we reliably source it? And is it significant enough to warrant mention in this article? If the latter, it would seem to have much greater relevance to Child pornography. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. LOL, I definitely didn't expect you read this whole section. Only the part relating to the In popular culture issue. But that's okay. You have offered really good and sound advice on this. And the latter part of your reply is surely a way to make the In popular culture section better if we keep it. Things relating to pedophilia in culture and media would better serve in the General aspect of the Societal views section, in my opinion. Not every instance, of course, just a summary of some of the most prominent ones. But I guess we'll see how this develops. Flyer22 (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from BigStripyKitty, 4 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} replace"This article is primarily about the sexual interest in prepubescent children. For the sexual act, see Child sexual abuse. For the primary sexual interest in 11–14 year old pubescents, see Hebephilia. For mid-to-late adolescents (15-19), see Ephebophilia." at top of article with

This article is primarily about the sexual interest in prepubescent children. For the sexual act, see Child sexual abuse. For the primary sexual interest in prepubescents, see Pedophilia. For the primary sexual interest in 11–14 year old pubescents, see Hebephilia. For mid-to-late adolescents (15-19), see Ephebophilia.

BigStripyKitty (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Your proposed edit doesn't make sense, as it is self-referential, linking to itself in its hatnote. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Split into/merged with Pedophilia (psychiatry), Paedophilia (sexology), sexual Child abuse and replaces with disambiguation links

this article is full of Misuse of medical terminology. The words "pedophile" and "pedophilia" to refer to sexual child abuse, preferat for prepubecnt sexual partners. and for violation of statutory rape laws

Already have [[[sexual Child abuse]], Pedophilia (psychiatry), Paedophilia (sexology)

• opps Vejvančický deleted Pedophilia (psychiatry), Paedophilia (sexology) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigStripyKitty (talk • contribs) 13:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Read the recent archived discussions for why this article is "full of misuse of medical terminology." It only includes the misuse issue in a few parts, and for valid reasons gone over ad nauseam. The quick answer is that some people define the word differently, in the same way that some people define sexual intercourse, virginity, and other terms differently. This doesn't mean there should be articles to cover each alternate definition of a term. Or even one alternate definition of a term. We generally cover the alternate definitions in one article, unless the alternate definition is significant, distinct enough to have its own article. In the case of pedophilia anyway, the different definitions, such as the one applying to child sexual abuse, are considered incorrect...by experts and some members of law enforcement (such as the FBI). Pedophilia (psychiatry)/Paedophilia (sexology) are pretty much the same thing. There is no significant distinction between the two. And having a different article on the same subject just to address the British spelling is not how things are done at Wikipedia either; that is why you were reverted by editors on that front. Flyer22 (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Splitting the article has been discussed previously, but most editors prefer to keep it compact in one singhle article, which because of that will cover the full breath of the topic. This is not a problem as far as I can tell. Limiting the article to a single aspect would indeed require to have multiple articles, but I doubt that you can find a consensus here to just do that.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It could probably benefit from a little tweaking and copyediting, but largely I agree. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 66.223.172.244, 4 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Article is redundant. Continents should be merged with

• Paedophilia (sexology), sexual preference of adults for prepubescent individuals
• Pedophilia (psychiatry), the medical diagnosis of pedophilia
• Child sexual abuse, the use of a child for sexual stimulation by an adult or older adolescent.

and this page should be a redirect to Pedophilia_(disambiguation) 66.223.172.244 (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

•  Not done per above; note also that logging out to make it appear that you are someone else is likely to get you blocked. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Not done You actions are tantamount to WP:EVADE and this will not be tolerated. Your block period has been reset and may be extended as a result of this.Legitimus (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  Legitimus, please note that this wasn't block evasion; this request was posted prior to BigStripyKitty's block. It's certainly not tolerated by WP:SOCK, however. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  Oops, missed the timestamps.Legitimus (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that previous definitions of pedophilia actually gave the cutoff year around 13, As such, the DSM V would move the goalposts by one year if hebephilia is defined as a preference for 11-14 year olds, and included in pedophilia. I propose adding this information to the main article.

Sources:

http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Pedophilia.html

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/Pedophilia?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=Pedophilia&sa=Search#922