Talk:Pedophilia

media/common use

The common/media (use of the term) paragraph at the beginning, belongs in the misuse (of the clinical term) section. You're just repeating yourself. Also, putting it at the start, and outside the right (misuse of clinical terminology) section, gives it some sort of factual relevance - when there is no factual relevance. It's just the misuse/incorrect use of a clinical term.

Please be careful with this. Many people with Anxiety disorders and OCD visit pages like this, to research these things (as part of their Obsessive/compulsion rituals). For such reasons, medical/clinical articles need to be clinically accurate.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

You are violating WP:Consensus and WP:Lead with your repeated reverts:[1][2][3][4]. That paragraph has been placed third in the lead, not at the beginning. And like I've stated to you in my reverts of your edits, this article (topic in general) is not only a medical topic. The lead is supposed to sufficiently summarize the most prominent/controversial parts of the article, per WP:Lead. That paragraph is not only a summary of that section you put it in. It's a summary of different parts of the article. It's summarizing the fact that, in common usage, pedophilia often means any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse, the fact that "[t]his common use application also extends to the sexual interest in and sexual contact with pubescent or post-pubescent minors," and the fact that "[r]esearchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided because although people who commit child sexual abuse commonly exhibit the disorder, some offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia and these standards pertain to prepubescents. Additionally, not all pedophiles actually commit such abuse." Those are important details that should be in the lead, all of it. That paragraph is tackling the topic of medical accuracy, which you are trying to deprive readers of. It is not misinforming readers, but informing them/clearing up their misconceptions. Thanks to your edit, if it were to stay (it won't), a lot of them will keep on using the term inaccurately, since (according to statistics gathered by Wikipedia), most of our readers don't read past the lead. Yes, a lot of our articles tackle misconceptions in the lead, especially if those misconceptions are as prominent as the misuse of the term pedophilia. But this is not simply about tackling misconceptions, as I've already pointed out. Your edit also duplicates information in the section you put it. As you are clearly a newbie (meaning your sporadic editing, not the fact that you've been editing Wikipedia as Cjmooney9 since 2010) who does not understand Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines, I suggest you read Wikipedia: Policies and guidelines, and learn to follow the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle essay. Your WP:Edit warring this important material out of the lead is most unfortunate. And if you continue to edit war it out of the lead (which I've stated because someone else will revert you), that will eventually lead to you being blocked. Flyer22 (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. I am happy to discuss.

Firstly, I don't see any consensus on here. In fact it doesn't seem to have been discussed at all.

Secondly, I agree that this is not only a medical topic. But is a primarily clinical article. The subject does also appears as part of discussion in popular culture. But if you wish to discuss the area of media inaccuracy and misuse of the term, then please put it under a section named thus. Or create an article about it. You've decided to put the entire section, in the introduction, of a primarily clinical article. I have no idea why. This gives the implication that this opinion is also clinical. It's not. And unless either the point is clearly made within the paragraph, or it appears under it's own section, it remains ambiguous.

Thirdly, I don't think the paragraph is that clear at all. There's far too little clinical knowledge displayed here. And it's very ambiguous.

Fourthly, I did not create a misuse section. The section already existed in the article. That is my entire point. You are attempting to have the entire misuse/inaccuracy section, in the introduction. Making up more than 50% of the introduction in fact. And then it's being repeated again in the correct section. The subject should be approached in the correct section.

A small section about misuse of the term in the introduction is fine. However, you seem convinced that 50% of the entire introduction of a (primarily) clinical article, should refer to this. Again, it's a primarily clinical article.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Cjmooney9, you don't see discussion because it has been archived long ago after said discussions were concluded. There are pages and pages about this matter that have come and gone (see archive links at the top of this page). Second, the misuse paragraph is 1/5 the lead, not half.

I happen to be quite familiar with patients who have the OCD subtype where they obsess about having deviant sexualities (it's called Primarily Obsessional OCD) but I am not finding it a plausible concern, nor a notably large enough population to accommodate, that we would need to remove this material from the lead completely. Indeed I fail to see why this section would affect such a person. The one matter I will give you is that the paragraph in question should more forcefully express how wrong the popular usage is, in the way Schizophrenia is often confounded with dissociative identity disorder, which it most certainly is not. Legitimus (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2013‎ (UTC)

Cjmooney9, you can check the archives for consensus about the lead; the lead has been thoroughly worked out, and what was there prior to your removal was there for the reasons I noted above. Though consensus can change, it has not changed on this. Your sloppy, damaging edit should be reverted for the reasons I've already made clear. The entire misuse section is not in the lead. Again, read what I stated above about that paragraph summarizing parts of the article; it is not only summarizing that section. If you read the article, you should see that. That paragraph is completely in compliance with WP:Lead. You call it repeating, when that is exactly what providing an adequate lead is about -- summarizing what is stated lower in the article. It is not a word-for-word repeat; it's a summary, just like the parts you chose not to remove or move are summaries. Per WP:Content fork, we will not be creating a separate article just to go over those aspects. Those aspects are not presented ambiguously; the paragraph makes perfectly clear that what it is talking about is common use and misuse of the term pedophilia and that this is not how experts on the topic define pedophilia. It also talks about the very important fact that child molestation does not necessarily equate to pedophilia and that pedophilia does not necessarily equate to child molestation. There additionally is not "far too little clinical knowledge displayed here" in this article. What is in this article, which is also a social topic, among other topics (see the WP:WikiProject tags on the top of the talk page), is most (the significant majority) of the clinical knowledge known about pedophilia. And, as the third paragraph, and not even the biggest paragraph, what you moved certainly did not "[make] up more than 50% of the introduction." Before your removal, and after what you removed is restored, this is how the lead reads: The first two parts of the introduction go over the medical definitions. The third part goes over the common use definition/common misconceptions. The fourth part goes over what has been known about pedophilia and what is currently known about it; it essentially summarizes the topic as a whole. All very important paragraphs for the lead. I can only consider your take/response on this matter to be due to your inexperience with the way Wikipedia is supposed to work, and due to your inexperience with the emphasis that experts put on not misusing the term pedophilia and not necessarily confusing pedophilia with child molestation. Flyer22 (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello all - firstly, please don't let my rather sloppy edit make everyone desperate to stick to the status quo. If something is odd and ambiguous, it's just odd and ambiguous. I've read it through, twice again, now, and I still don't follow it.

I do not have inexperience in clinical psychology. I'm probably considered an expert. And I still don't follow the paragraph!

And the problem I have is not the emphasis of that paedophilia is not child abuse (this is an important point), but the lack of emphasis that common/media use of the term paedophilia is not actual clinical, medical, scientific paedophila.

Reading the paragraph, it's large amounts of information, and quotes, about media common use, but all it actually says in response, to me, is that people who commit child offenses aren't always paedophiles. There's a tiny bit at the end with the disclaimer that "these standards pertain to prepubescents" but it's very hard to understand. And not clear at all.

I agree with the second comment. If you're going to talk about common use/media use, then please make it clear whose this opinion is, and that it's not clinical, scientific or medical. And make it clear how wrong it is, clinically.

Answering your question about POCD, it's about the 2nd most common form of OCD. Huge numbers of people are affected. They come to sites like this as part of their obsession/compulsion ritual. Reading about it (and realizing they're not)makes them feel better. It's imperative that what they do read, is accurate, and clear. I realize this is possibly seen as a niche, but I'd have thought the whole point of these articles is they're accurate and clear.

thanks Cjmooney9 (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I see that you want the paragraph tweaked. Okay, but would you at least defer to WP:Consensus and revert your edits until that text is tweaked (proposals worked out on this talk page)? I would be largely repeating myself if I further emphasized why that paragraph should be in the lead. Your alteration certainly should not remain while this discussion is going on. Remember that you've made the Misuse of terminology section significantly even more redundant. Because what you have altered is the WP:Consensus version, you are supposed to convince us of why that material should not be in the lead or should be significantly cut down. You have not convinced me of either. After having worked out this matter several times before, it's not surprising that you would not. But as Legitimus shares your point about further emphasizing the inaccuracy of the common use definition, I am slightly convinced to oblige you on this. In the meantime, do try to take the time to better understand the WP:Lead guideline. Flyer22 (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm taking this article off my WP:Watchlist for now, and for the first time ever. I have too many other things, including stressful things with regard to Wikipedia, to have to worry about. The last thing I need is to have to worry about a matter that I've worked out for the umpteenth time. And I certainly don't have any time, or the patience, to guide another editor on any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Have a blast. I'll check in on this article at a later date. Flyer22 (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes please learn how the rules of this wiki work first, Cjmooney9. If you ignore this and continue to just repeat yourself or edit-war, your account can be blocked from editing.

Now, as a show of good faith, let me offer a tweak. Here is what I propose: In popular usage, the word "pedophilia" is often incorrectly used to mean any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse. For example, The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary states, "Pedophilia is the act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children." This common use sometimes even conflates the sexual interest in and sexual contact with pubescent or post-pubescent minors. Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided because although people who commit child sexual abuse commonly exhibit the disorder, some offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia and these standards pertain to prepubescents. -Legitimus (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I found it difficult to see exactly what Legitimus had changed in the proposal above, but by using a file diff viewer, I have been able to work it out. For the benefit of others, here are the proposed changes:

1. First sentence, "In popular usage, pedophilia means any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse, often termed "pedophilic behavior"." changed to "In popular usage, the word "pedophilia" is often incorrectly used to mean any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse".
2. "This common use application also extends to the sexual interest in and sexual contact with pubescent or post-pubescent minors." changed to "This common use sometimes even conflates the sexual interest in and sexual contact with pubescent or post-pubescent minors."
3. The last sentence, "Additionally, not all pedophiles actually commit such abuse." removed.

For my own part, I agree with (1): it provides clarity that this is an incorrect use of a word. Wikipedia articles are mostly about the subject matter encompassed by each article title, not the word or words used in the title, but in this case we are discussing a popular misuse of a technical term, so it is good to make that clear. I agree with (2) as well: I was unsure what was meant by a "common use application" – either use of the word, or application of the word, not both at once. I'm not sure we need "even" in the new version: we have said that this is a misuse, and "sometimes conflates" is enough, I think. I'm not sure what is wrong with the sentence in (3). Is this not the final part of the disjunction between the two uses (clinical and popular), and so worth mentioning? It could be reduced to ", and not all pedophiles actually commit such abuse." and tagged onto the preceeding sentence for less emphasis.

For the larger point, I think that it is important, both in the lead and the body of this article, that we cover all significant aspects of this subject - clinical, social, psychological, popular. This is the top-level article on the topic. I'm not sure if there are any others yet, but per WP:SPLITOUT, if it were to get much larger, then aspects of the topic may end up in sub-articles. Even should that happen, it will still be important that this parent article covers all aspects of the topic. --Nigelj (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Nigelj glad you agree with most of these. Regarding (2) I am fine not using the word "even." Not necessary. Regarding (3) I actually was not sure why it is relevant to popular usage. The problem in popular usage is over-use of "pedophilia" to things it does not apply to, and the "some offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards" sentence is supposed to dispel that. The remark that not all pedophiles commit abuse is dispelling a misconception that is never stated.Legitimus (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought that the common misconceptions inherent in the 'everyday' use of the term (which are trying to document and dispel here) are (a) all sexual abusers of children are pedophiles and (b) all pedophiles sexually abuse children, as well as (c) any sexual interest in people under 16 (or 18, or whatever) is pedophilia. --Nigelj (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

(b) is a common misconception about pedophilia, but not a misuse of the term. Further, it is not mentioned as being a misconception in the first place in the lead. Actually I don't see a source stating it's even a common misconception (that is, that all medically diagnosed pedophiles abuse children).Legitimus (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I see the distinction. Fine. Thanks for the explanation. --Nigelj (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: For documentation in this section, Widsith removed "incorrectly". Unlike Widsith, I would not state that most of those sources don't feel that their use of the term is incorrect; they simply don't know that it is incorrect, or, other times, don't care and want to use a term that the public is generally familiar with vs. an obscure but accurate term. And there's also the fact of sensationalism. Furthermore, no non-medical (non-psychology/psychiatric) source is an authority on pedophilia. As for the rest of Legitimus's text, it's obviously fine. However, I thought the same as Nigelj about the word "even" not being needed. And as for keeping or not keeping "Additionally, not all pedophiles actually commit such abuse.", I would have preferred that remain in the lead, and there is no better place for it than in the paragraph it was placed in. However, it's not discussed lower in the article (not in a significant or even minor way), and so it is not WP:LEAD-compliant. Flyer22 (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Section break

I disagree with the point about the use of the word "incorrectly". If a person truly believed that water was a gas, as they knew little about science, it wouldn't mean they were correct or speaking about it correctly to their friends. It is incorrect.

Also, I felt the balance in one of the sentences was wrong so tweaked a few words.

Most clinical research shows that the majority of (total) child abuse is committed by none-pedophiles. A lot of the research you cite is studies into pre-pubescent child abuse - in which around 65% of perpetrators are pedophiles.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 09:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

With regard to your balance edit, wrong again, and reverted again. I was going to state, "And you are going to edit war again, aren't you?" But while I was typing up this reply earlier the previous hour while busy with matters off Wikipedia, you predictably did. And perhaps just as predictably, I reverted you. It's made very clear by the sources in the Pedophilia article and in this section above that it's very often that the word pedophilia is "used to mean any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse." It is hardly a "sometimes" matter. And with regard to "[m]ost clinical research show[ing] that the majority of child [sexual] abuse is committed by none-pedophiles", read the Pedophilia article; the sources quite clearly differ on that matter, and that matter has been discussed before on this talk page; see Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 17#Confusion of Pedophilia and Child Molestation, Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 17#Prevalence rates, Talk:Child sexual abuse/Archive 8#Error in Mayo Clinic article, pedophiles account for 65% of child molesters, not 88% and Talk:Child sexual abuse/Archive 8#Personal opinion about the Mayo Clinic reference and some comments. We should not put "many" when the "clinical research" reports differently on that topic. Where are your sources (appropriate sources, mind you) that state that "Most clinical research shows that the majority of child [sexual] abuse is committed by none-pedophiles"? Note: I left out the "total" add-in to your post. Also, the lead text you changed was not debating whether or not they are technically pedophiles; it was simply noting that "some offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia and these standards pertain to prepubescents." You added in to your comment above, "A lot of the research you cite is studies into pre-pubescent child abuse." Well, yeah, since pedophilia accurately concerns prepubescent children. Therefore, the appropriate action on your part should have been to change "although people who commit child sexual abuse" to "although people who have sexually abused prepubescent children" (or something like that), not to add-in "sometimes." This, re-adding "incorrectly," is not a compromise; everything you added in that edit is WP:Synthesis, which is against policy. It is also still edit warring. Flyer22 (talk) 12:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't plan to edit war. But if I truly believe something is wrong, I should change it.

"Often" is meaningless in an encyclopedic article. I could say that "often pedophilia is not used to describe post pubescent children". In certain contexts (ie the media, newspapers)it is used with that definition. But the context was undefined. What you meant originally I think is that often, in some contexts, it's defined this way.

Most of the clinical research you have posted seems to back my point about the other change, having a quick look. As does most of the debate on the boards. For example The Mayo Clinic research, quoted above defines "children" as under 13 in the study. As in, it's a study of Pedophilic sexual molestation only. In which they found 88% were pedophiles. Many studies are like this - they say "children" but they also define what they mean by children. I believe this was originally used to verify that child molesters "were commonly pedophiles". Again, I can dig out some research, or perhaps someone else can comment, but I was under the impression that research shows that the majority of child molestation is opportunistic. Cjmooney9 (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Posting this as an example of one of the times you changed your "13:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)" reply. I don't care if you plan to edit war or not. Edit warring is obviously always your initial response to someone rejecting your edit, judging by your contributions. You always seem to think that your edit is supposed to stay until WP:Consensus is to remove it; for some reason, you still think that, despite having been told above that that's not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. And you have not proven that your edits are more accurate on this matter. You stated, "Most of the clinical research you have posted." What clinical research have I posted? How can it be called "most"? What the clinical research shows is that researchers are not generally sure whether or not most child molesters are pedophiles. Indeed, a lot of researchers don't believe that most people who sexually abuse prepubescent children are pedophiles. Go ahead; have more than "a quick look," including with regard to the discussions about the accuracy of the Mayo Clinic source (as recently as higher on this talk page, but then again, I see that you are now familiar with that section). And do look at/read what the Pedophilia article states on the prevalence subject. Because of all that, I haven't a clue as to what you are talking about on this matter. And the term often is not "meaningless in an encyclopedic article"; neither is commonly. If they were, they would not be needed in many of our WP:MED articles, something specifically stated in, or clearly supported by, the sources. They give appropriate context, just like you feel that the terms incorrectly and sometimes give appropriate context. However, you add such words without the correct context and against the WP:Synthesis policy. Either revert yourself...or give the correct context, like you are supposed to do. No, that is not what I meant with regard to the common use matter; I meant what I stated -- "it's very often that the word pedophilia is 'used to mean any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse.'" Besides being covered by many sources, it is quite easy to see that the general public has not a clue about how to correctly use the term pedophile or pedophilia. And "under 13" does not automatically equate to "prepubescent," especially with regard to girls (most girls are pubescent before age 13, usually showing breast development). Flyer22 (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. You're completely correct in saying that "under 13" isn't necessarily pre pubescent. What I mean is "child abuse" in the US refers to any sexual activity with a child up to the age of 18 years of age. And 16 years of age in Europe. So a study of 0-13 is not a study of child abuse. It's a study of very particular child abuse. I will pull up some research, but if you check any information sites on the subject, they have general stats, and most child abuse is by people who can not possibly be diagnosed as pedophiles. As it's usually against teenagers, in an opportunistic way. So when the article says it's common for pedophiles to be involved in child abuse cases, it's not an accurate choice of words. It's common for them to be involved in child abuse against pre-pubescent targets. But it's actually uncommon for general child abuse. A more neutral choice of words is necessary in my opinion.

As for "often", I just don't agree. It's often said that global warming is a hoax, in the media and by the public. That's the common use. I can verify this millions of times. But it's often said by people who don't know much about environmental science. At the same time, classic global warming theory is often used by people that do know a bit more. Some context is needed. I'm not saying it has to be one way or the other, but surely there can be some common ground.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Cjmooney9, I told you what should have been done about the child abuse part; I stated "the appropriate action on your part should have been to change 'although people who commit child sexual abuse' to 'although people who have sexually abused prepubescent children' (or something like that), not to add-in "sometimes." That stated, even though "sometimes" is likely WP:Synthesis, it's not problematic (or else some other Wikipedian who watches this article would have reverted you) and it may be more accurate...considering that, to reiterate, researchers are not generally sure about whether or not most child molesters are pedophiles. The use of "many" in place of "some" for "many offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards" is still a bit concerning; this is because, not only is it likely not supported by the sources you have attributed it to (meaning that it is WP:Synthesis), a lot of people take "many" to mean "most" or may otherwise think that "many" in this case means that most people who sexually abuse prepubescent children aren't pedophiles; it is likely true that they are not, but, again, "researchers are not generally sure about whether or not most child molesters are pedophiles." It's difficult to come by statistics on pedophilia, for the reasons named in the "Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 17#Prevalence rates" discussion. And use of "incorrectly" is WP:Synthesis, unless supported by the sources you have attributed it to; I don't think it is supported by them.

You stated "but if you check any information sites on the subject, they have general stats, and most child abuse is by people who can not possibly be diagnosed as pedophiles." First, we are talking about child sexual abuse, so it's best that you make that clear by stating exactly that and not "child abuse." Secondly, like we both stated, when considering to diagnose a person with pedophilia, the research concerns prepubescent children (usually anyway); this is because researchers generally know that sexual attraction to a 17-year-old, for example, is not pedophilia; furthermore, the terms child sexual abuse and child molestation most commonly refer to prepubescent children, and child sexual abuse (child molestation) is generally a more serious crime than statutory rape (which usually concerns clearly pubescent or post-pubescent minors). Lastly, the sites you speak of (general sites out there about child sexual abuse and/or pedophilia) generally do not count as WP:Reliable sources for medical content; what counts in that regard is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS-compliant sources). So all in all, I consider your abuse arguments with regard to research to be weak.

As for "often", we'll have to agree to disagree, because, like I stated, the same can be said of other words. My main point on the "often" matter is that "often" is more accurate than stating "sometimes" for the line "In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often incorrectly used to mean any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse." Common ground, a good compromise on this matter, would be to use "commonly" in place of "often." Flyer22 (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your point about changing it to "although people who have sexually abused prepubescent children are commonly pedophiles'"

However, you've changed argument a little bit.

"Many offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards" was only added as the current version states, to paraphrase, that most child sex offenders are pedophiles. Most are in fact not. As discussed child sex abuse is defined, as either 0-18 or 0-16. With the majority of offenders offending against teenagers. Statutory rape basically. So I think the whole sentence needs to be re-worded to something like the above. The Child Abuse article, actually has it right already, with a good sentence on this, so maybe it can just be the same?

In regards to your second point, I agree with your general point about people commonly assuming child sex abuse refers to pre-pubescent child abuse, but officially it very much is 0-18 or 0-16. And it has it's own research. As I said, most papers define age ranges, so not to have these problems with the definition of "children". This is part of my argument -many people who read "child sex abuse" will assume it is actually anyone under the age of consent. The wikipedia article for child sex abuse says this as well. So it needs to be clearer what the article is actually referring to and consistent.

cheers

Cjmooney9 (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Cjmooney9, I'm not sure what you mean by "changed argument a little bit." The current version of the article does not state that most child sex offenders are pedophiles, either before or after your latest edits to the article. The reason it does not is already addressed by me above. And "commonly" did not imply "most." Either way, I don't understand your need to stress that we are speaking of prepubescent children. This is already very clear by the lead; it clearly defines what we mean by "pedophilia" and that the term is also used inaccurately. The only parts of this article that relate to people as old as 16 is when speaking of the fact that 16-year-olds can also be pedophiles and when relaying text in the In law section.

The part you are referring to with regard to the Child sexual abuse article is not much different than what the lead of the Pedophilia article stated, and it is something that I tweaked months ago (meaning the line in the Child sexual abuse article). It uses the word some, just like this article used to, with regard to offenders not meeting the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia. However, it uses the word prepubescent as well, so I can see what you mean about wanting the Pedophilia article's lead to be similar. Still, once again, "when considering to diagnose a person with pedophilia, the research concerns prepubescent children (usually anyway); this is because researchers generally know that sexual attraction to a 17-year-old, for example, is not pedophilia"; this fact is why your need to stress that the sex offenders being considered are being considered with regard to prepubescent children makes little sense to me. Because the article clearly defines what pedophilia is in the medical sense, the article already makes clear that the sex offenders being considered with regard to child sexual abuse are being considered with regard to prepubescent children. We even state "and these standards pertain to prepubescents." So of course the offenders who are not sexually interested in prepubescent children do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia; of course we are excluding those offenders. It's because of that, that this change I made just minutes ago to the Child sexual abuse article is likely not necessary. That stated, I made this tweak that we have both agreed on for the Pedophilia article (the prepubescent mention). I didn't add back "commonly" because of the aforementioned debate concerning whether or not most offenders who have sexually abused prepubescent children are pedophiles. And I didn't change "many" back to "some" for "many child sexual abuse offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia and these standards pertain to prepubescents." because, when taking into account the aforementioned "Pedophile or not a pedophile?" debate, as well as the fact that child sexual abuse cases can refer to sexual offenses committed by adults against pubescent and/or post-pubescent minors, "many" is more accurate and the rest of the line specifies the prepubescent focus.

With regard to "people commonly assuming child sex abuse to pre-pubescent child [sexual] abuse"... No, I was not only referring to what people commonly think. I was more so referring to law; this is something that the Statutory rape article makes clear (though it currently needs to be better sourced). A 23-year-old man who has had sex with a 17-year-old girl who is under the age of consent, for example, usually will not be charged with "child rape" or "child sexual abuse"; sexual offenses against prepubescent children are treated far more seriously than an adult engaging in sex with a post-pubescent minor and therefore sexual offenses against prepubescent children are always labeled "child rape," "child sexual abuse" or "child molestation" (or something that quite clearly stresses that the minor is very much a child). That 23-year-old man would mostly likely be charged with statutory rape, though it would typically be called something different under the law. Whatever it is called, it typically would not be called "child rape," "child sexual abuse" or "child molestation" by the law; the general public would be more likely to call it such. And 0-18? For the vast majority of the world, including in the United States and United Kingdom, a person who is age 18 is not a child (but rather an adult), and many parts of the world define a 16 or 17-year-old as an adult. Flyer22 (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The previous version said it was common for child sex offenders to be pedophiles. This was my original concern with it. The citation for this was studies of pedophilic child sex offenders, not studies of total child sex offenders. As in, the citation was actually saying that it is common for offenders in pre pubescent pedophile cases to be clinical pedophiles, but that many don't fit the clincal criteria.

The Child Sex Abuse article states it's common for "pedophilic child sex abuse" to be committed by pedophiles, but that many don't fit the clinical criteria. This is accurate, and fair (studies show 80% of pedophilic child sex offences by pedophiles).

Sorry I just didn't think it was that clear at all. It's still a bit mixed up. The quote used, and citation, was and is referring to studies of pedophilic child sex abuse - that it's common for perpetrators in pedophile cases to be pedoplhiles (around 80%), but that the term shouldn't automatically be used, as many pedophilic child sex offenders do not meet the actual clinical criteria (around 20%).

To clarify my point - the quote used (and citation) is actually saying that a proportion of people in actual pedophilia cases cannot be diagnosed as clinical pedophiles - ie not all pre-pubescent child sex offenders, are clinical pedophiles.

Whereas this article is using it to say that although it's common for pedophiles to be involved in child sex abuse cases, many do not meet the clinical criteria.

The "many do not meet clinical criteria" and clinicians warning against blanket use of the term, refers to pedophile cases - ie a small proportion of offenders are opportunists and don't meet clinical criteria.

The following, in the other article, is the correct use of the quote:

"Some sources report that most offenders who sexually abuse prepubescent children are pedophiles,[18] but some offenders who have sexually abused prepubescent children do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia.[19][20]"

The clinician quote is a rebuttal of the use of the blanket term in actual pedophile/pre pubescent sex offences. Not total child sex offences.

Sorry for the long continued posts, and apologise if I am coming across as aggressive or patronising (this is just my unfortunate style of writing and not my intent!)

many thanks

Cjmooney9 (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I just read all of your latest reply minutes ago (yep, I took a long break from this discussion because I didn't feel like debating this matter any further); replying before this section is archived: You stated, "The previous version said it was common for child sex offenders to be pedophiles." I've already been over that. Some sources state that it is common for child sex offenders to be pedophiles. And when they state that, they obviously are not referring to "total child sex offenders." We've already addressed how the word child may be defined differently and that sexual attraction to clearly pubescent or post-pubescent people falls outside the (medical) definition of pedophilia. You are defining pedophilic broadly. The article is clear that not all people who have sexually abused a prepubescent child are pedophilic, if using the term pedophilic to mean a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children or even simply a genuine sexual attraction to them. Where is it supported in the article (or anywhere) that "many pedophilic child sex offenders do not meet the actual clinical criteria (around 20%)"? For one, 20% is not "many" to me. And you stated "the citation," but there is more than one citation that is used for the "although people who commit child sexual abuse" sentence; six different sources are used for that sentence. The Child sexual abuse article does not state "it's common for 'pedophilic child sex abuse' to be committed by pedophiles, but that many don't fit the clinical criteria." It states: "Some sources report that most offenders who sexually abuse prepubescent children are pedophiles." And that is not meant to be taken as "these people repeatedly sexually abuse prepubescent children"; it's meant to be taken as "have sexually abused" -- meaning "they have done it one or more times" (this includes situational offenders). And I'm going to go and add "have," and change "sexually abuse prepubescent children" to "sexually abused a prepubescent child" after this post. You stated, "Whereas this article is using it to say that although it's common for pedophiles to be involved in child sex abuse cases, many do not meet the clinical criteria." Well, we've been over that as well; the lead isn't like that anymore because you changed it. And the lead was never exactly like that; this is because it was never stating that "many pedophiles do not meet the clinical criteria." It was stating that many child sexual abusers (offenders) do not meet the clinical criteria; that's what it still states because you changed "some" to "many." You stated "a small proportion of offenders are opportunists and don't meet clinical criteria." Been over that as well; sources report differently on that topic.

Nope, you were not patronizing. Maybe if I sensed that you are correct on all what you stated above, I would have felt that you were being patronizing. You only come off as aggressive when you engage in the type of behavior I already noted above is problematic behavior for you to engage in. Flyer22 (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Definition yet again

SqueakBox, what problem do you have with the WP:Consensus lead version of the first sentence that you felt the need to change it? Is it the fact that it clearly states that 16-year-olds can be pedophiles as well? I disagree with your change to that first sentence, because pedophilia is first and foremost a medical term, at least if going by the most reliable sources on this topic -- WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, and it is also first and foremost a mental disorder. Per WP:LEADSENTENCE, "if the title is a specialised term, provide the context as early as possible. For example, instead of:

A trusted third party is an entity that facilitates interactions between two parties who both trust the third party.

write:

In cryptography, a trusted third party is an entity that facilitates interactions between two parties who both trust the third party."

That is one reason why "As a medical diagnosis" fits coming first in this case. Your version removes first defining this topic in the medical field, that it is a disorder and that it is about adults (or rather late adolescents and adults) having this disorder. Yet it still currently uses the words "diagnostic criteria" and "disorder" in the first sentence without context, and has the linked "psychiatric disorder" mentioned in the second sentence somewhat out of context. I would be all for beginning by stating that "Pedophilia or paedophilia is a mental disorder," but the wording "As a medical diagnosis" was added as a compromise for the few people stating that calling pedophilia a mental disorder is non-neutral or puts heavy emphasis on the medical aspect; so "As a medical diagnosis" was added to make it clear that it is the medical field that calls pedophilia a mental disorder. The first and second paragraphs are set up to focus on how the term is medically defined. The common (non-medical) use of the term comes after that. All that stated, your version does flow better; it just needs tweaking, in my opinion. The only reason that I didn't revert your change to the first sentence is because I know that you very likely would have reverted instead of simply bringing this matter to the talk page to discuss it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

My issue has been that we need to define pedophilia before stating the medical definition, for readability. I am here in this edit purely trying to make the article read better, I am not carrying an agenda about the content itself, for example that 16 year olds can be pedophiles sounds fine to me (its not like I make the definition, we leave to the experts whom we record through reliable sources) nor am I doubting that it is a medical term though we arent a medical encyclopedia and must assume our readers are medical laypersons with no background in medicine (much like me) and so what they will want to read first is a simple layperson definition of pedophilia, and I have tried to do that without altering the content in any way. Too often consensus edits can read badly because they are consensus and my concern here and now is that the opening reads well, and for me this means putting the layperson definition first.♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Per what I stated above, we are defining pedophilia by stating the medical definition first. That is the authoritative/accurate definition of pedophilia; this is something you agree with, or at least have agreed with in the past; see Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 15#Consensus: General use before authoritative use?. Your change has not removed the medical definition coming first; it has removed the context that goes with that definition, which is "As a medical diagnosis," and placed it second. Per WP:LEADSENTENCE, we should give that context as early as possible. The layperson (common use) definition of pedophilia is not first, nor should it come first, because laypeople generally define pedophilia as adult sexual attraction to any minor (any person under 18)...as the lead and lower body of the article notes. The layperson (common use) definition comes after the medical definitions, as it should. Again, your first sentence does not note that pedophilia is a mental disorder, yet speaks of "diagnostic criteria" and "disorder," which makes it sloppy. Like I stated, it also does not note that pedophilia is a late adolescent/adult sexual attraction.

As a compromise, I suggest we go back to even older wording for the first sentence: "Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children." Or perhaps "late adolescent" in place of "older adolescent," though RJR3333 (who is now indefinitely blocked) replaced "late adolescents" with "older adolescents" for one version of the first sentence. It might also be good to keep the "generally age 11 years or younger, though specific diagnostic criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13" text as a part of the first sentence (though that's kind of run-on sentence territory if not placed in parentheses), or it can be added to the "As a medical diagnosis" sentence that currently comes second. Flyer22 (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Per what I've stated above in this section, and per there having been no objections, I have implemented my above proposal, as seen here and here. It is still likely best that "16 years of age or older" remain in the first sentence; I state that because the age range of the adolescent is not specified by "older adolescent" or "late adolescent." Still, it is specified in the second sentence. Hopefully, there are not any readers who will only read the first sentence. And if there are, I'm sure that they are the significant minority (as compared to the majority that reads at least a little more of the lead). The prepubescent age range should definitely stay in the lead, per Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 17#Age range, and should perhaps stay in the first sentence. The wording "typically characterized" had been used in the first sentence by me because of the ICD-10 including "early pubertal" in its definition of pedophilia. However, most of the medical community (by a vast margin) does not state "prepubescent and early pubescent" when defining pedophilia, and so we should not give WP:Undue weight to that definition by having it in the first sentence. Flyer22 (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

For me the only issue here is to have a definition that is well written, I am happy to go for what you want if we can write it well, we are doing the article a disservice, though, by having a badly written open sentence, first impressions♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

SqueakBox, the current opening sentence is not much different than your version, except that it's more accurate/clearer (per what I've stated above). There is nothing badly written by stating "Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children." And if that began with "As a medical diagnosis," it wouldn't be bad writing either. The add-on part of "generally age 11 years or younger, though specific diagnostic criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13" is another matter, however, and does not need to be in the first sentence if it affects readability (not to mention that it can be argued as bad writing). It is important to stress in the first sentence that pedophilia is a mental disorder and that it is an adult/late adolescent sexual attraction, as discussed many times before at this talk page. Because some people (though such people are usually pedophiles) don't view pedophilia as a mental disorder and the DSM-5 seemingly thinks of pedophilia in a wider sense that can be divided as "pedophilia" and "pedophilic disorder," that is another reason it would be best to begin with "As a medical diagnosis," to make clear that we are referring to pedophilia in the medical sense when we state "mental disorder," "psychiatric disorder," "primary or exclusive sexual attraction," "prepubescent" and "diagnostic criteria." We have dealt with people (usually pedophiles) at this article objecting to us calling pedophilia a mental disorder. So the "As a medical diagnosis" wording for the first sentence was a compromise (not so much with the pedophiles) on that front (and a way of avoiding such discussion again), to make it clear to them that, medically, yes, pedophilia is a mental disorder. But, for that first sentence, I have left out "As a medical diagnosis" as a compromise with you. Again, I am okay with moving the "generally age 11 years or younger, though specific diagnostic criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13" text to the second sentence, but I see no issue with the first part of the first sentence (other than it not being clear what is meant by "older adolescent," and the fact that it perhaps opens us up wider to the "Pedophilia is not a mental disorder." complaints). Flyer22 (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: I changed the first sentence/rearranged the lead a bit so that the first sentence is not run-on and the lead flows better. Flyer22 (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hat note removal

The hat note says <quote>This article is primarily about the sexual interest in prepubescent children. For more in depth information on the sexual act, see Child sexual abuse. For the primary sexual interest in 11–14 year old pubescents, see Hebephilia. For the primary sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents (15–19), see Ephebophilia.</quote>

We already state what the article is about in the opening, we dont need that in the hat note too. We also cover both Hebephilia and Ephebophilia in the article itself and I have now linked to the child sex abuse article in the opening. So IMO the hat note is unnecessary and merelyy distracts the reader, the majority of whom wont have heard of Hebephilia and Ephebophilia before reading the article and if they dont know the names they can find them out when they read the article♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I was the one who originally added it. At that time, the lead didn't seem terrible clear on the matter and I had been encountering infuriating misuse of the word "pedophilia" itself left and right. You know, the usual stupidity of thinking it literally is the word for CSA or that it means being attracted to anyone under age 18. Based on the currently phrasing of the lead, I could go either way and am open to the opinions of other experienced editors in this area.Legitimus (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Legitimus, I think you added that WP:Hatnote when the lead was clear enough, but you added it to make it clearer that child sexual abuse does not automatically equate to pedophilia. I agreed with that addition, and added on to it (it's also been edited by others since then). The WP:Hatnote in this case helps people not only find the topic they might actually be looking for (child sexual abuse, hebephilia and/or ephebophilia), but also distinguishes these related terms right off the bat for readers. Keep in mind that, like WP:LEAD notes, many who read Wikipedia don't read past the lead. In fact, Wikipedia statistics report that most people who read Wikipedia don't read past the lead. So not having that WP:Hatnote up there is a disservice, I feel. However, I am not too hard-pressed to keep it up there. Flyer22 (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Already one downside to not having the aforementioned WP:Hatnote. There will likely be more editors who will overlook that these terms are already linked in the article and decide to place them in the See also section. There will also likely be the occasional editor who will add back such a WP:Hatnote. But, like I stated, "I am not too hard-pressed to keep [the WP:Hatnote] up there." Flyer22 (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: Actually, rethinking this, it is likely that I will re-add the WP:Hatnote (tweaked a bit or not) at some point...per what I stated above in this section. It's safe to state that far too many people are looking for those aforementioned other topics when they visit this article; we should help them find those topics from the start. Flyer22 (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Heading!

An article should start with a summary of the subject followed.

Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger, though specific diagnostic criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.[1][2][3][4] As a medical diagnosis, it is a psychiatric disorder in persons 16 years of age or older. An adolescent who is 16 years of age or older must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child before the attraction can be diagnosed as pedophilia.[1][2]

To quote in the summary is nonsense, hence has no meaning. Quoting rubbish also does not do the trick. I am not interested to read the references. However how absurd is it to quote this bullshit. 11 years,16 years, 222 years, 42 years, 499 years old. Bang!

This article sucks.

Check WIKI rules and you will see that the opening statements of this article are against all encyclopidia nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.101.167 (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

What Wiki rules? I named some Wiki rules in the #Definition yet again section above, where I suggested that it might be best to move the years information out of the first sentence. And by the #disorder? section you created above, coupled with other recent commentary on the disorder mention, I can see that I was absolutely right about leaving "As a medical diagnosis" in for the start of the first sentence; so I may very well add that back, and move the age criteria out of the first sentence. Flyer22 (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Noting here as well: I changed the first sentence/rearranged the lead a bit so that the first sentence is not run-on and the lead flows better. Flyer22 (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Pornography

How it is possible to conclude that "An extensive collection indicates a strong sexual preference for children"? The person may also have a extensive collection of adult porn. The size of a collection does not of itself indicate preference.

The ownership of a collection cannot be an indicator, much less the single best indicator "of what he or she wants to do". Passive viewing of photos and images, and acting on those preferences, are two very different things. I have a large collection of photographs of aircraft, but have no interest in flying! I would have thought that someone with a collection of pornographic photos of children may actually be less inclined to action than someone who pursues children but has no photos. After all, I doubt that many rapists keep large collections of violent adult porn.101.98.175.68 (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)