Talk:Pedophilia

Edit request on 18 August 2013

See also

• Child sexuality
• age of consent
• Teenage pregnancy
• Prevalence of teenage pregnancy

...

• Virtuous Pedophiles

95.73.36.224 (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The ultimate is a redirect, I cant see what the 1st four have to do with the subject of this article, to my mind there is no connection. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Virtuous Pedophiles, which is on my WP:Watchlist, was an article. But SqueakBox made it a redirect soon after the IP's request. I don't much care if Virtuous Pedophiles is an article or not, but it should be removed from the See also section if it's going to remain a redirect. And, SqueakBox, I take it that you started back up watching this article after this discussion between us at the Age of consent reform article? Or have you always remained watching it while having stepped back from the subject on Wikipedia for some time? Either way, welcome back. Flyer22 (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I actually didnt use my watchlist for any articles for years until recently (last month or two). Pigsonthewing has afd'd Virtuous Pedophiles after another user challenged my redirect action. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Similarly, I went about two years without using a WP:Watchlist until this year (see User talk:Flyer22/Archive 11#Thank you!, and I've mentioned elsewhere on my talk page before then that I had abandoned my watchlist). And, yes, I saw that Pigsonthewing nominated that article for deletion after James Cantor contested the notability tag and redirect. Flyer22 (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Number of pedophiles among child molesters

I noticed, that the number of pedophilic offenders in Hall & Hall study is possibly misquoted. There are two citations in the study, one is Abel GG, Harlow N. The Abel and Harlow child molestation prevention study. Hall & Hall study claims 88 % of offenders are pedophiles, but it the Abel study, the number is related to number of victims molested by pedophiles. The number of pedophilic offenders is about 65 % based on the Abel study.

Does anyone have more resources? We have one study, that says 7 % identified themselves as exclusive and one study, that say 88 % (or 65 %?) of offenders are pedophiles, but I found for example claim of Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem: "For instance, it is a fact that real pedophiles account for only 20% of sexual abusers." http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4959361&Language=E&Mode=1 I've also seen somewhere a resource claiming it's about 50 %, but I don't remember which one and only the abstract of the cited study was freely available, which didn't contain such claim. But the numbers I've found differs significantly, so I don't think one study is enough here.

Also I think it would be good to add a note what definition of pedophilia is used, the numbers can differ based on the definition used. Lunruj (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Similar comments were brought up at the Child sexual abuse talk page. See 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. As for definitions, we can if the sources note what their definitions are. But scholarly sources on the topic of pedophilia are usually speaking of prepubescent children, whether they define pedophilia as an exclusive or primary sexual attraction to them or not. Flyer22 (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems that more people agree, that there's a misquotation in the Mayo Clinic report. So I think it should be either replaced with the number in the original study and changing the source to the original study or removed. But I can't edit semi-protected arcticles. Lunruj (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

Edit request on 28 September 2013

Reason: Consensus through talk page discussion is needed.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please summarize and add the following to biological section of pedophilia In the biological section of pedophilia, it states that pedophile men hava lower IQ, are left handed, have lower heigth, lower education level, etc. It should be noted and emphasized that this are averages, meaning that many pedophiles have high IQ, are not left handed, are taller, have high education level, etc. The above is mainly based on research conducted by canadian homosexual psychologist James Cantor and protegee Blanchart on a small group of prissoners (mostly) who actually raped several children, so it is describing an average of people who comitted an act, contrary to what is stated at the top of the article that it is only about desire. These research are of questionable quality as well. For example, lower height found is only 1 inch, which may be statistically insignificant for larger sample groups. How does this compare with philipines or chinesse, whose average height is 20 cm lower than canadians? Are canadian prissoners of pedophilia (from the referenced research by James Cantor) way taller than heterosexual chiness? How about chinesse pedophiles, are they shorter than chinesse non-pedophiles? Does it relate two how female in your environment see you (lower height) thus this trait being more psychological than biological? Also, a lot of left handed people are not pedophiles, have higher IQs, etc. The above patterns in people may describe biological differences, but these differences are not necessarily causation of pedophilia, as is implied. If pedophiles may have less testosterone, then how come most pedophiles (but not all) are men? Earlier research conducted on pedophilia found no statistical difference on IQ levels of pedophiles (http://www.jaapl.org/content/13/1/17.full.pdf), contradicting the canadian team research, who found only a 10 point difference, which is really minimal and not significant according to several IQ experts. The validity of IQ tests have also come into question as na effective way of measuring intelligence (see wikipedia article). There is also a link between homosexuality and pedophilia which should be addressed. While most homosexuals claim that there is no connection between the two, research has shown that there is a 70% chance that homosexual couples sexualy abuse the children they have adopted (http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF08L46.pdf) Research bias (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. If you are asking for an edit request, you need to provide the exact edit you want made. RudolfRed (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 October 2013

Reason: Consensus through talk page discussion is needed.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In the Causes and Biological Section Please chnage the following sentence: "Although what causes pedophilia is not yet known, beginning in 2002, researchers began reporting a series of findings linking pedophilia with brain structure and function: Pedophilic men have lower IQs,[76][77][78] poorer scores on memory tests,[77] greater rates of non-right-handedness,[76][77][79][80] greater rates of school grade failure over and above the IQ differences,[81] lesser physical height,[82] greater probability of having suffered childhood head injuries resulting in unconsciousness,[65][83] and several differences in MRI-detected brain structures.[84][85][86]" To read as follows: "Although what causes pedophilia is not yet known, beginning in 2002, a Canadian research team began reporting a series of findings on a subset of inmates and heterogenous groups attempting to link pedophilia with brain structure and function. In their research, they found that pedophilic men, on average, have IQs which are 10 points lower than the IQ mean,[76][77][78] poorer scores on memory tests,[77] greater rates of non-right-handedness,[76][77][79][80] greater rates of school grade failure over and above the IQ differences,[81] slightly lesser physical height by one inch than the average male height,[82] greater probability of having suffered childhood head injuries resulting in unconsciousness,[65][83] and several differences in MRI-detected brain structures, all compared to male Canadian control groups and statistics.[84][85][86]" Then following this sentence, please add: "However, the above findings contradict earlier research reviewed in (http://www.jaapl.org/content/13/1/17.full.pdf), where no correlations were found with senility, IQ or mental retardation, and tetosterone levels where between normal and high." Research bias (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Because I am the RW author of most of those studies, I prefer to let the discussion be led by others. I would recommend great caution in evaluating the edit request, however. The claims/description provided by User:Research bias contain several factual inaccuracies, subtle POV language, and SYNTH. For example, the conclusion that pedophilia is associated with lower mean IQ is based on meta-analysis, a formal technique for gathering all data ever reported; it is not the result from my team only or "a subset of inmates...". Regarding the final sentence suggested in the edit request: Science moves forward, not backwards. That is, newer, more comprehensive findings are supposed to replace 30 years older, much smaller, and less comprehensive studies. Etc.— James Cantor (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC) I'm already highly suspicious of these edit requests for several reasons. For one, a username like "Research bias" suggests a tendency towards denial of mainstream scientific findings that disagree with their own political/religious doctrines. Of particular note was the last thread contains several factual errors such as claiming all the pedophilic sample were inmates, when in fact many were clinical referrals. But what really sealed was the ludicrous linking of homosexuality to pedophilia and using a link from the Family Research Council, a well-known right-wing Christian political organization with very well documented bias to the point they are listed as a hate-group. The request here seems to serve little purpose other than undermining the source material, particularly the requested addition of a 30 year old obsolete study.Legitimus (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.. Marking this as answered until there is consensus on the change. RudolfRed (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 October 2013

Reason: Consensus through talk page discussion is needed.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please change the section on Causes and Biological Section as I stated before Please chnage the following sentence: "Although what causes pedophilia is not yet known, beginning in 2002, researchers began reporting a series of findings linking pedophilia with brain structure and function: Pedophilic men have lower IQs,[76][77][78] poorer scores on memory tests,[77] greater rates of non-right-handedness,[76][77][79][80] greater rates of school grade failure over and above the IQ differences,[81] lesser physical height,[82] greater probability of having suffered childhood head injuries resulting in unconsciousness,[65][83] and several differences in MRI-detected brain structures.[84][85][86]" To read as follows: "Although what causes pedophilia is not yet known, beginning in 2002, a Canadian research team began reporting a series of findings on a subset of inmates and heterogenous groups attempting to link pedophilia with brain structure and function. In their research, they found that pedophilic men, on average, have IQs which are 10 points lower than the IQ mean,[76][77][78] poorer scores on memory tests,[77] greater rates of non-right-handedness,[76][77][79][80] greater rates of school grade failure over and above the IQ differences,[81] slightly lesser physical height by one inch than the average male height,[82] greater probability of having suffered childhood head injuries resulting in unconsciousness,[65][83] and several differences in MRI-detected brain structures, all compared to male Canadian control groups and statistics.[84][85][86]" Then following this sentence, please add: "However, the above findings contradict earlier research reviewed in (http://www.jaapl.org/content/13/1/17.full.pdf), where no correlations were found with senility, IQ or mental retardation, and tetosterone levels where between normal and high." Reason for change: The way the research by Blanchard, Cantor et al is written on wikipedia implies that all pedophiles have lower IQs, have poorer scores on memory tests, lesser physical height, etc, while there are many pedophiles who have high IQs, score well on memory tests, are tall, are not left handed, etc. It is average results on an average of men (not even women) with a certain paraphilia. Their research was originally conducted mainly on inmates, then later on, after criticism, they moved on to supposedly heterogenous groups, as I stated and can be read on the cited articles. Cantor states on the wikipedia talk page that he has oftained "metadata" from all over the world. For example, how does he compare the probability of school failure in Congo with Canada? Are the two educational systems even comparable? Is there any "metadata" on head trauma injury on pedophiles from China? Pretty much all of this association of traits with pedophilia, as stated in wikipedia, is comming from two sources: the Canadian Research Team, and their associates in Germany for MRI scans. Of course these MRI scans where only conducted in Canada and Germany, and are averages. Cantor has no MRI "metadata" from all over the place. Head injuries and MRI studies, as stated in Wikipedia right now, don't explain why pedophiles are predominantely men, not women. A short left-handed girl who suffers a concussion, as opposed to a boy, is much less likely to develop pedophilia, hinting that there may be other factors which are much more relevant. As stated in the wikipedia article, the MRI studies "may suggest" that certain patterns are associated with pedophilia, which means they may also suggest something else which may or may not have a realation to pedophilia at all. There are plenty of neurological diseases where MRI or CAT scans are useless. Patients come with serious problems, much more serious than something as innocous as pedophilia, and nothing shows up on the scans. This is not to undermine their research, but to prevent the use of their research, as it has been too often, to generalize, discriminate, humilliate, diminish, stigmatize and undermine a whole subset of people who may not even be pedophiles. I sincerely hope this is not their intention. I believe the inclusion of 20-30 year old research is important. For example, Newton proposed his laws several hundred years ago. While more recent theories derived on Einstein's work are more complete, they don't invalidate Newton's mechanical system for most of everyday, real life applications. Thera are tens of thousands of examples like this in academia. In other words, the fact that research is 30 years old does not mean it is wrong; newer research is not correct just becuase it is new. Same for completeness. If 30 years from now, research is done contradicting the Canadian team, i wouldn't be surprised. So, for the sake of completeness, please include the earlier research I have stated, so that the general public has a better, more comprehensive and fair view of the matter at hand, from more research teams than just one or two. As it is written now, it is innacurate, flawed and biased towards one side of the coin. Research bias (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. RudolfRed (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard

The author of the above edit requests filed a case at WP:DRN, where I am a volunteer. The case is at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Pedophilia. I closed the case because, as it says at the top of the DRN page, "The dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before requesting help at DRN." I am also collapsing the requests; the collapse templates should be removed if the requester starts discussing them and seeking consensus. Note: I have no previous connection with this topic or the editors working on it. --22:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 October 2013

Please change the section on Causes and Biological Section as I stated before Please chnage the following sentence: "Although what causes pedophilia is not yet known, beginning in 2002, researchers began reporting a series of findings linking pedophilia with brain structure and function: Pedophilic men have lower IQs,[76][77][78] poorer scores on memory tests,[77] greater rates of non-right-handedness,[76][77][79][80] greater rates of school grade failure over and above the IQ differences,[81] lesser physical height,[82] greater probability of having suffered childhood head injuries resulting in unconsciousness,[65][83] and several differences in MRI-detected brain structures.[84][85][86]" To read as follows: "Although what causes pedophilia is not yet known, beginning in 2002, a Canadian research team began reporting a series of findings on a subset of inmates and heterogenous Canadian groups attempting to link pedophilia with brain structure and function. In their research, they found that pedophilic men, on average, have IQs which are 10 points lower than the IQ mean,[76][77][78] poorer scores on memory tests,[77] greater rates of non-right-handedness,[76][77][79][80] greater rates of school grade failure over and above the IQ differences,[81] slightly lesser physical height by one inch than the average male height,[82] greater probability of having suffered childhood head injuries resulting in unconsciousness,[65][83] and several differences in MRI-detected brain structures, all compared mostly to male Canadian control groups and statistics.[84][85][86]" Then following this sentence, please add: "However, the above findings contradict earlier research reviewed in (http://www.jaapl.org/content/13/1/17.full.pdf), where no correlations were found with senility, IQ or mental retardation, and tetosterone levels where between normal and high." Research bias (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Reason for change The research performed by the Canadian team, to the best of my knowledge, has not been fully veryfied by other research teams (left handedness, lower height by one inch, greater probability of childhood trauma, etc. MRI scans from Germany and Canada differ, where on small subset groups, and this is not stated in the article. As it is now, it is etnocentric and geacentric, and tt contradicts earlier research, as stated, so I think this is important to note. Previous answer by Cantor was arrogant at best, he did not want to accept research contradictory to his own (which may be cherry picked data, 50% of psychology research is). There is a strong correlation between homosexuality and child molestation, statistics don´t lie, but I will leave it for later. I would like another editor (not the previous one who sided with Cantor) to review this edit request. Research bias (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Stop making these requests until you get consensus on the change you're proposing. RudolfRed (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 October 2013

Please change "Another study, using structural MRI, shows that male pedophiles have a lower volume of white matter than a control group.[84] Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has shown that child molesters diagnosed with pedophilia have reduced activation of the hypothalamus as compared with non-pedophilic persons when viewing sexually arousing pictures of adults.[88] A 2008 functional neuroimaging study notes that central processing of sexual stimuli in heterosexual "paedophile forensic inpatients" may be altered by a disturbance in the prefrontal networks, which "may be associated with stimulus-controlled behaviours, such as sexual compulsive behaviours". The findings may also suggest "a dysfunction at the cognitive stage of sexual arousal processing".[89]" to " "In another study using structural MRI, no differences were observed on a particular male pedophile from control groups, but on a small sample group, a statistical group average of lower white matter was observed.[84] In contrast, in Germany, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has shown that a small sample of child molesters diagnosed with pedophilia have reduced activation of the hypothalamus as compared with non-pedophilic persons when viewing sexually arousing pictures of adults.[88] A 2008 functional neuroimaging study notes that central processing of sexual stimuli in heterosexual "paedophile forensic inpatients" may be altered by a disturbance in the prefrontal networks, which "may be associated with stimulus-controlled behaviours, such as sexual compulsive behaviours". The findings may also suggest "a dysfunction at the cognitive stage of sexual arousal processing".[89]"

Reason for change: No difference in white matter can be observed in one individual alone. It is a statistical average (reworked data) of a small sample of people compared to a small control group. Research bias (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

As I say, I think it would be more appropriate for other editors than me to lead the discussion. I would offer, however, that the suggested edit unnecessarily relies on a single primary source. A new meta-analysis of all existing fMRI data (available here) provides a superior encapsulation, however.— James Cantor (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: Have the discussions, reach a consensus with the other interested editors, then ask for the edit. Editors responding to the {{edit semi-protected}} template should never make edits which do not have either an implied consensus or an established, explicit consensus. (In practice, some number of the other interested editors will be auto-confirmed and they will be able to implement the agreed-upon changes.) Thanks, Celestra (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Eyes, please?

As the sections above show, the single purpose account has not gained any support for the repeatedly suggested changes. However, an IP account has nonetheless just instituted those same edits at James Cantor. Rather than address the errors and POVs in those changes myself, I'd prefer that someone else take a look and provide whatever input appropriate. Thanks.— James Cantor (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Replied on Talk page, but with explanation about these edit requests as well since they are related.Legitimus (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Eyes again, please?

This time at Virtuous pedophiles. An editor there has had difficulty establishing talkpage consensus for a series of mainpage edits. The editor previously AfD'd the article, but did not gain consensus for that either. At the failed AfD of the article, the editor expressed his opinion about the page as "a pro-pedophile rant," "not NPOV and I dont think, looking at the article, that we can make it NPOV." Despite the talkpage accusations against me from that editor, I have no COI about the group, other than I happen to respect what they are doing. Nonetheless, the page would benefit from input from folks other than me.— James Cantor (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

What has this got to do with the pedophilia article, or are you just canvassing? And which editor are you referring to? ie which of the thousands who didnt afd the Virtuous Pedophile article? Strikinmg your knowingly false claims is not impressive. You apparently think you are above responding to the very real COI charges but this isnt the place to discuss your COI activities anyway, this si the place to discuss the pedophile article. If you want to canvas you should go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, that, notn here, is the appropriate place. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Age limit of children

A pedophile for most people is someone attracted to children up to around 20 or 21. Boys are still children at 19, especially if they don't have facial hair. So puberty ends with full facial hair. 19 year old with no facial hair is pubescent or prepubescent. So-called ephebophiles are a subset of paedophiles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.252.81 (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

IP, none of what you stated is even remotely true. For example, most people think that sexual attraction, any attraction, to a 19, 20 or 21-year-old (all who are adults) is pedophilia? That is obviously false. As for facial hair, I made this statement today with regard to puberty and facial hair. And like I stated, "Continuing to physically mature does not equate to continuing to go through puberty. For example, many men don't start to grow facial hair until their early 20s; starting to grow facial hair at age 22 does not mean that the 22-year-old man is still going through puberty." Flyer22 (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Paediophilia is conventionally (and NPOV) defined by the kegal rulings of age of consent.

However, there is likely a sociological definition, but that opens a whole can of worms. But perhaps if there is literature we can use tht as definitionalLihaas (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The act of sexually abusing a child, which is related to but distinct from pedophilia, is defined by the legal rulings of age of consent/age of majority; I further addressed this in the #Broader scope section below. Flyer22 (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit suggestion regarding Treatment (not NPOV)

This phrase:

"Although pedophilia has yet no cure"

is not NPOV as it implies that one will be found at some point. Perhaps the wording below would be better;

"Although no cure has been found for pedophilia"

(192.0.204.205 (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC))

Firstly Im not sure you need to add cure, period. It is a phenemenoa that is age-old and at various points in history what is regarded negatively today has been viewed not so unvafavourably. GHeck, evfen today you have child marriage in some places that is at least quasi-legal (and marriage means consummation)Lihaas (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: Legitimus I already accepted the IP's request. Flyer22 (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Broader scope

This article seems to predominantly focus on the phenomenon as pornographic (and its legal requisites) in peacetime. I think it needs a broader scope to tackle/represent issues of paedophilia elsewhere. By this I mean war rape (see that talk page for what I am working on). As defined by "under 18," it occurs in virtually every such conflict where there is war rape (and my current case study is Latiam). But in some conflicts its worse with children even much younger than merely the legal definition. At the same time boys are also victims. Similarly (and I dont know if this qualifies) but there is also child perpetrated rape/sexual violence.

Id also like to add that sexual violence is not only rape/penetration, according to the literature in academia. Would those other mechanisms (?) not count as paedophilia too?Lihaas (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Lihaas, I'm not entirely sure where you are coming from on this matter...either here or on my talk page; pedophilia is not every sexual attraction/sexual act between an adult and someone under the age of consent/age of majority; not only have we gone over this before extensively on this talk page (including at a point in time with you), the article quite clearly addresses this. If pedophilia were defined by the age of consent/age of majority, then that would mean that a person has a mental disorder/is a pedophile in one state or country but not in another; it would mean that sexual attraction to a post-pubescent 17-year-old is pedophilia; it would mean that an 18-year-old adult who has sex with a 17-year-old minor, for example, is a pedophile. That is not what pedophilia is, and this article should not misrepresent pedophilia as such.

And as for this edit you made with regard to war rape, sexually abusing a child is not always about being sexually attracted to that child; this article addresses that. And it is especially true with regard to war rape, where rape is often used as a weapon instead of as a means to satisfy one's libido. Flyer22 (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Its late and Ill get to the first point later

But actually war rape ALSO @"satisfies"...it is in the literature. war rape then DOES INCLUDE PaedophiliaLihaas (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope, there is nothing to discuss on this matter between us because after years since I last clarified to you what pedophilia is and is not, you continue to confuse what it is. Refrain from trying to discuss this with me any further. Go to the archives of this talk page and read what has been made clear about what pedophilia is and is not, or, hey, read this Wikipedia article. And comprehend it. I know what the literature on pedophilia is -- the actual literature on it (meaning scholars who study the subject); if you knew, you would not still be confusing the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 02:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and a war rapist who happens to be a pedophile is not the same thing as your idea that rape of a child during war rape means pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Redefining pedophilia as "sexual orientation"?

Without comments but with emphasys added, here is the transcript of the top half of page 698 of the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition" (DSM-V) published by the American Psychiatric Association in Arlington, VA, 2013:

"The diagnostic criteria for PEDOPHILIC DISORDER are intended to apply both to individuals who freely disclose this paraphilia and to individuals who deny any sexual attraction to prepubertal children (generally age 13 years or younger), despite substantial objective evidence to the contrary. Examples of disclosing this paraphilia include candidly acknowledging an intense sexual interest in children and indicating that sexual interest in children is greater than or equal to sexual interest in physically mature individuals. If individuals also complain that their sexual attractions or preferences for children are causing psychosocial difficulties, they may be diagnosed with pedophilic disorder. HOWEVER, if they report an absence of feelings of guilt, shame, or anxiety about these impulses and are not functionally limited by their paraphilic impulses (according to self-report, objective assessment, or both), and their self-reported and legally recorded histories indicate that they have never acted on their impulses, then these individuals have a PEDOPHILIC SEXUAL ORIENTATION but not pedophilic disorder." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.247.171.150 (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 17#Development and Sexual Orientation and Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 18#Edit to reflect the DSM-V changes?. Flyer22 (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Etymological misapplication

The Greek root Anglicised as Phile does not cover sexual attraction or activity. The term was misapplied in the early and mid twentieth century. As Greek is a prescriptive language these errors cannot constitute valid applications.

The misapplied term paedofphile / Paedophilia needs to be removed from medical, scientific and legal use. If these disciplines wish to use words from other languages as definitive terms they need to have much greater respect for the historical context and idioms in which they were applied.

Until this travesty has been corrected, please can Wikipedia provide a disclaimer to the misapplication of the Greek root.

Science relies on pedantry for us to communicate with other scientist through time. This is why we are supposed to use dead prescriptive languages.

“You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means” from the Princess Bride, William Goldman

Robert J Price (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

We already say "As pedophilia denotes sexual attraction, the term's Greek meaning is not employed by medical authorities" and that's plenty sufficient I think. Herostratus (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Whether to keep the section Pedophilia#Distinguish from?

• Please discuss here whether to keep that new section. It was claimed "We don't include these type of sections in articles; see WP:LAYOUT; we also don't tell readers what is important to note.". But many men have been wrongly accused of paedophilia because of this sort of misunderstanding, and have suffered serious consequences thereby, as is known from newspaper reports. Wikipedia, ultimately, is an information source for the general public. There are "distinguish from" entries in many disambig pages. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Anthony Appleyard, with as long as you have been registered with Wikipedia, and considering that you are a Wikipedia administrator as well, it's difficult for me to believe that you do not know that this and this that I reverted you on is inappropriate text to be included in this article. It's just as difficult for me to believe that anyone has confused pedophilia with pediatrics. But either way, I suggest you become more familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as the WP:NOTREPOSITORY policy. This article is not a disambiguation page, and Wikipedia disambiguation pages usually distinguish without stating "distinguish from"; after all, because those pages are disambiguation pages, meaning that they are meant to distinguish, there is no need to add "distinguish from." Flyer22 (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I also don't like this spelling variation edit you made, considering that I view it as lead clutter and considering the way that you added it is not the standard way such text is added to Wikipedia articles, but I'll worry about that at a later date (such as whether or not to put it in a footnote or regulate it to the Etymology and definitions section). Also note that with regard to reverting each other on your Distinguish from section, it was on you to follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (WP:BRD) before it was on me to do so. Flyer22 (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

This is an article, not a dab. Challenged new text is generally not forced in before a discussion. The purpose of an article is to provide reliably sourced and encyclopedic information—protecting people is not Wikipedia's role. Further, no amount of dictionary information tacked on this article is going to make the slightest difference to the claimed problems. The only way to make a possible encyclopedic entry on this would be to find a couple of good secondary sources that make the points claimed in the OP. Johnuniq (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• "confused pedophilia with pediatrics" :: this confusion by uneducated people in the street who don't properly know what either word means, has happened and has been documented in reputable newspapers. People colloquially slang shorten "p(a)edophile" to "p(a)edo", and so uneducated people in the street guess wrong meanings for words whose spelling starts with "p(a)ed(o)-". OK, OK, sorry, I'll leave it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see the documentation that such confusion occurs. The vast majority of such alleged incidents I investigated turned out to be jokes and cartoons, some of which evolved into urban legends. The only real incident was able to find was a British pediatrician (a woman, mind you) had "paedo" spray-painted on her front door by teenage miscreants. And even in that case the evidence seemed to hint that the miscreants were trying to be funny rather than genuinely believing she was a pedophile.Legitimus (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Anthony Appleyard, I've seen pedophilia/podophilia confusion before; see Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 17#Major Error. However, I have never witnessed a person confusing the words pedophilia and pediatrics or pedophile and pediatrician; the spellings are completely different, even when shortened to "pedo" and "pedi" (or "pedia") and the pronunciations are completely different. That is why I can't understand how anyone would confuse these two terms. Same goes for comparing the term podiatry with pedophilia, though that confusion is more reasonable than the pediatrics example. Flyer22 (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• "were trying to be funny" :: if so, it was a joke in very bad taste and risking starting serious harassment against the victim. Currently here in England the word "paedophile/-ia" is very well known to the general public beyond the point of wearisomeness in the newspapers and the television news; not so the other words mentioned here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't doubt that it's horribly misused and abused in the UK. Heck I remember watching Peep Show where some pre-teen hooligans harass Mitchell's character by calling him "paedo." But similar to the doctor's story, the hooligans do not actually believe he is attracted to children; they're merely saying it to embarrass and upset him because they dislike him. I've not seen any evidence that people genuinely mix up the words and attack innocent people based on the words alone.Legitimus (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Treatment section problems

The sections "Pharmacological interventions" and "Limitations of treatment" are problematic. In the latter, there is really only one statement about any limitations, "but this method is not recommended ...", and the source is not reliable. Unless someone objects, I will combine these into a section titled "Castration", or perhaps "Chemical or physical castration" (other suggestions welcome), and reorganize it a bit. I'd like to incorporate some info from this source. Klortho (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with giving the section some adjustments. Do you need full-text copies of any sources?Legitimus (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, no. Klortho (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

history

this article needs a history section. i just read suetonius' 'the twelve caesars' and was looking for some info/understanding. i expected to find a reference to this disorder having existed among several roman emperors, and much more. an example would be the article on 'mental illness'; its history section provides at least some historical/broader perspective, preventing anyone's coming away with the impression that, say, mental illness as a general phenomenon suddenly sprang to life in the late 19th century. from this article, lacking any alternative info, one could get just that impression re pedophilia. 63.142.146.194 (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)