Jump to content

Talk:Pedophilia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KTKonkel (talk | contribs) at 14:37, 13 April 2018 (→Impact on Children: based on feedback on the talk page we clarified the difference between non-offending pedophilia and behavioralized-pedophilia). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Template:Highly sensitive


Image reverted

I reverted the Setabepiw3547747 account on the pederasty image since this medical article does not need an image to illustrate what pedophilia is, and since pedophilia cannot be illustrated, and since pederasty is not pedophilia. Setabepiw3547747 should perhaps read Talk:Pedophilia/FAQ. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, the "Why doesn't this article talk about pedophilia during historical periods of time (e.g. Ancient Greece or Rome, Muhammad)?" portion of Talk:Pedophilia/FAQ. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Similar reverted

Garfield7380 account, the above applies to you as well. Do not make problematic edits like this again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moving "mental disorder" out of the lead sentence, etc.

I reverted these recent changes by Rebroad. The main reason that I reverted is because Rebroad removed "a psychiatric disorder" out of the lead sentence and replaced it with the vague "is the condition" wording. He then moved the disorder aspect to the second paragraph with the qualifier "is considered to be." These edits violate WP:Due weight and WP:Weasel wording. There is a WP:Due weight violation because the literature on pedophilia/pedophilia disorder overwhelmingly classifies it as a disorder. There is no middle ground; by this, I mean that there are not many psychologists and psychiatrists stating that it's normal or a simply variation of sexuality. If experts are not calling it a mental disorder, they are calling it a disorder of sexual preference. Although it has been compared to sexual orientation, it is not considered a sexual orientation in the traditional sense or by any authoritative medical source. It has only been compared to sexual orientation in terms of development and how stable it is. It is usually pedophiles, child molesters and sympathizers who call pedophilia a sexual orientation. And, in the past at this article, it has been pedophiles, child molesters and sympathizers who have consistently tried to remove "is a mental disorder" and/or "is psychiatric disorder" from the lead sentence or from the lead altogether. Using the "is considered to be" wording is WP:Weasel wording because it begs the "By whom?" question and can lead to a Template:By whom tag. Whom in this case is the medical literature, and that is what we should be following...without any qualifier.

Rebroad also changed "and the literature indicates the existence of pedophiles who do not molest children" to "and people with the disorder sometimes exhibit child sexual abuse." This aspect of the lead was also extensively discussed before. As has been noted before, we do not know how many pedophiles do not molest children. So stating "sometimes" gives the implication that only some or few pedophiles molest children. For all we know, it could be the case that most pedophiles molest children or even that all of them have at one point or another. All we know is that, per the claims of some pedophiles, it may be that some pedophiles do not molest children. So acknowledging that the literature indicates the existence of pedophiles who do not molest children is more accurate than stating that people who have pedophilia "sometimes exhibit child sexual abuse." Furthermore, "sometimes exhibit child sexual abuse" can be taken to mean that a pedophile sometimes commits child sexual abuse, but not other times. I could support adding "and the literature indicates that some pedophiles do not molest children." And even though I question "some," I could also support adding "and some pedophiles do not molest children." This is only because we do state lower in the article that some pedophiles do not molest children (even though it could be argued that it is more accurate to relay that some pedophiles state they have not molested children).

Thoughts? I'll alert WP:Med to this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

agree w/ Flyer22 reverts[1]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, before I add "some," I'd like to see which of the sources actually use the word some in this regard. I assume that the Michael Seto "Pedophilia and Sexual Offending Against Children" source that KateWishing used to improve parts of this article uses the word. I know that sources use the wording "not all pedophiles are child molesters," which is very similar to the wording I used for the lead until I changed it (followup edit here) to what it currently states because of a complaint from a now indefinitely blocked (sock) account. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a body (in this example psychiatrists) deem something to be a "disorder", does not make it so. It needs to be NPOV and therefore it needs to be made clear who is saying this. As far as I know, Wikipedia isn't by definition, what is said according to psychiatrists. Only under these circumstances are the reverts appropriate, IMHO. Disorder by definition is based upon systemic bias, and Wikipedia has a policy on avoiding systemic bias. --Rebroad (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for the purpose of Wikipedia it does, and we have to consider it. It might not "make it so" according to you, but we can't consider that. Systemic bias has nothing to do with how much weight we assign to each opinion, but about the fact that some sources aren't used because they are about topics that people aren't interested in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rebroad, do read the WP:Due weight policy, which is an aspect of the WP:Neutral policy. You should know by now that neutrality on Wikipedia is not the same thing as neutrality in common discourse. Pedophilia is deemed a disorder by the medical community, plain and simple. If you want to challenge that, then perhaps you should consider becoming a prominent psychiatrist and challenging the majority. But your opinion would be WP:Fringe. And not only does WP:Systemic bias have nothing to do with this matter, WP:Systemic bias is a WP:Essay. It is not a policy or guideline. We are not going to give WP:False balance on this issue just because some pedophiles, child molesters and sympathizers disagree with pedophilia being called a mental/psychiatric disorder.
I have reverted you again because not only is your "sometimes exhibit" wording unsourced, it is problematic. I noted above my issues with the wording, including that "sometimes exhibit child sexual abuse" can be taken to mean that a pedophile sometimes commits child sexual abuse, but not other times, which is not what the sources are stating. You have not validated "sometimes exhibit" at all. You have offered no sources that use "sometimes" or "some." And if you do offer sources, they should be WP:MEDRS-compliant. Meanwhile, I have pointed to sources that use "not all pedophiles are child molesters." I will not tolerate problematic editing at this article whatsoever. And that includes your WP:Edit warring. So if you continue to edit problematically (including edit warring) at this article, inserting your POV, I will take the matter straight to WP:ANI. This is one topic where I am not at all willing to consistently debate an editor's beliefs about the topic; I've been through that enough over the years. Also do see the FAQ at the top of the talk page for why we characterize pedophilia as a mental/psychiatric disorder. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I've gone with "and some pedophiles do not molest children." Followup edit here. I'm going to make a point of reading this source and seeing what wording it uses. Same goes for similar sources. So far, regarding solid sources, I've come across "not all" rather than "some." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed other "sometimes exhibit" wording as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Flyer that the lead should state pedophilia is a disorder, because most reliable sources say so. As she explained, the proposed "sometimes exhibit" wording is misleading. I like the current "some pedophiles do not molest children". I don't have the Seto book at hand right now to check, but this 2016 review concludes "A non-trivial number of non-offending pedophiles exist, and recent research is providing some initial understanding of them." KateWishing (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kate. I see that you replaced the source as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Treatment" and "Development and sexual orientation" sections

As seen here, here and here, there is a recent dispute over wording used in these two sections. So far, the dispute involves Rupert loup, KateWishing and myself. Considering how much I hate it when people compare pedophilia to homosexuality, and especially when pedophiles and child molesters compare them, I understand why Rupert loup removed the following: "Fred Berlin, founder of the Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic, believes that pedophilia may be no easier to alter than homosexuality or heterosexuality."

As seen times before on this talk page, including in the section immediately above this one, I also hate when pedophiles and child molesters call pedophilia a sexual orientation. But since some researchers have compared it to a sexual orientation to highlight how strong the attraction is and that it might be innate or at least a complex combination of biology and environment that emerges before or during puberty, and considering that the section notes that pedophilic acts cause harm and that the American Psychiatric Association is clear that it is not a sexual orientation, I feel that the following should stay: "For these reasons, pedophilia has been described as a disorder of sexual preference, phenomenologically similar to a heterosexual or homosexual sexual orientation. These observations, however, do not exclude pedophilia from the group of mental disorders because pedophilic acts cause harm, and mental health professionals can sometimes help pedophiles to refrain from harming children."

That's two different pieces of text. Since the one I support retaining already notes "phenomenologically similar to a heterosexual or homosexual sexual orientation," and since Rupert loup reworded the Fred Berlina part to state "Pedophilia may be difficult to alter," and KateWishing tweaked it, I don't see that we need to keep the Fred Berlin quote. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Pedophilia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2018

This is missing any information regarding the impact of pedophilia on children. This page is entirely about the perpetrator and has no information about how perpetration impacts children or families or society. Once you've added this new section, our team of scientists will begin to expand it.

Please add the following:

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The suggested section conflates childhood sexual abuse and pedophilia, which are not considered synonymous by some authorities, as Legitimus and this article itself note. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Impact on Children

Pedophilia when acted upon has grave consequences for victims[1][2]. Behaviorized-pedophilia, as one type of child sexual abuse, is one of ten childhood traumas included in the Adverse Childhood Experiences study. From Dr. Melissa Merrick, et al. groundbreaking MANOVA analysis, "while the impact of ACEs varied depending on the outcome, sexual abuse remained a significant predictor across the board, further highlighting the severity of child sexual abuse on adult outcomes."[3] KTKonkel (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/VS69.pdf
  2. ^ http://pages.uoregon.edu/dynamic/jjf/articles/science05.htm
  3. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28419887
Please see the article Child sexual abuse for information on the abusive acts and the impact. "Pedophilia" is really about the perpetrator and their mental state, but there is a very irritating misconception that this term refers to the act of abuse itself. This is fundamentally incorrect and is even addressed in the article here.Legitimus (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think more importantly the content is promotional for the Mellisa Merrick which is just distasteful and violates the WP:PROMO policy in any case. Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The HRSA CoIN has added a section on the impact on children. We intend to expand this section a bit and welcome your assistance and/or feedback. We plan to add sections on the impact of pedophilia on health across the lifespan, neuropathic and physiological consequences of being a victim of pedophilia, and evidence-based strategies to heal.

Since we are scientists in the US, most of our data will come from the US. We would be very grateful if scientists and statisticians from around the world would add their data to this page. We hope that through comparison and sharing of emerging models and promising practices, we might be able to turn the trajectories of the co-occurring epidemics of suicide, violence, untreated mental illness and addiction. KTKonkel (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KTKonkel, per above, pedophilia (regardless of some sources misusing the term pedophilia) is a mental issue; it's about what goes on in the mind. Child sexual abuse is an act, and has been committed by many non-pedophiles. Keep in mind that the "child sexual abuse" category can also encompass statutory rape matters in which the minor is not prepubescent, while pedophilia is mainly about a focus on prepubertal children. You are conflating pedophilia with child sexual abuse. The HRSA CoIN source you cited above is not even doing that. And the initial sources you cited above are mainly about child sexual abuse, not pedophilia or pedophiles. We do not tolerate WP:Synthesis (read that policy). We already have a "Pedophilia and child molestation" section in the article explaining the topics' relation to each other and how they affect children. What you are wanting to add is solely about the impact of child sexual abuse. This is not the Child sexual abuse article. You've already been pointed to that article above. That is where content like yours should go. But your material should not be essay-like (see WP:Tone) or based on what websites like HRSA CoIN state. Do adhere to WP:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), also known as WP:MEDRS, when it comes to sourcing pedophilia or child sexual abuse material. As for the rest, adding only U.S.-based material calls into question a Template:Globalize issue. And Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy; see WP:Advocacy. If you add the material you are looking to add to the Pedophilia article, you will be reverted. If you add essay-like and/or poorly sourced and/or WP:Undue weight material to the Child sexual abuse article, you will be reverted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedophilia&oldid=836237466"