Talk:Paraphilic infantilism

motivation for recent deletions

Those wondering why WLU is suddenly deleting from this article[1][2] should note that it coincides with the most recent round of attempts to suppress my comments on an unrelated topic (e.g. [3][4]...), summarized here[5]. To complicate any possible assumptions of good faith, WLU has already made accusations of wikihounding[6].

If there is interest in discussing that topic, it should be reopened at Conflicts of interest (medicine). The discussion there was "nuked" from wiki space by WLU, who then specifically re-raised the topic in user space[7]. Originally, the issue only involved WhatamIdoing. WLU was personally invited by WhatamIdoing, due to his essay expressing sympathetic views[8]. BitterGrey (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

2010 and 2011 have actually been relatively slow as far as this category of incivility is concerned, at least for this article. This is probably because two waves of deletions in 2009, both also triggered by events on other articles, didn't leave much to delete.

• On 17 July 2009, a series of deletions[9][10][11] started, coincident with a 12-16 July 2009 debate[12] on Sexology. That editor went on to violate 3RR[13][14][15][16].

• In 29 January 2009, there was a prior mass deletion[17] coincident with a debate starting on 28 January 2009[18] at diaper fetish. The debate made it's way to AN/I and wrapped up with the 30 Jan revelation that the admin accusing me of persistently inserting links to my own website wasn't aware of which website was mine[19]. ( http://understanding.infantilism.org in case you are wondering, and I wasn't inserting links to it.)

Perhaps this article is the default target for attacking me since it is the one that I've spent the most time finding references for. After how it was treated, there was little motivation to invest that quality of time into Wikipedia. Why pour my life into a resource that is actually competing with my own website, just to give them more to delete? BitterGrey (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed the external links because in my opinion they did not meet with any criteria found in WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE but several criteria in WP:ELNO (as listed in my edit summary, 2, 4, 10 and 11). I reviewed the archives and found a section discussing the external links (here) which seemed to indicate at least two other editors agreed. So after looking for something at DMOZ as a possible replacement and finding none, I removed them. Both links were added by what look like throwaway accounts with no appreciation for external links (understandinginfantalism by Science Dog in 2 out of his/her five contributions, and the forum by an anonymous account representing one of only two contributions. In neither case is there any effort to adhere to our guidelines for external links.

As for the books, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should have informative further reading. Nancy Friday's book is about sexual fantasies which if I recall correctly does include a small number of fantasies about paraphilic infantilism but is neither scholarly, nor strongly related to the topic, I removed it. Different loving has a preview which suggests it has perhaps 20 pages in a 560 page book by Random House on the topic. I would suggest using it as a reference rather than a further reading, as that's not the point of the book. The ToyBag Guide to Age Play and Power Exchange Books' Resource Series: Age Play are both extremely short and appear focused on age play in general, not paraphilic infantalism specifically. In addition, neither are from scholarly press, and both appear to specialize in BDSM titles rather than scholarly works. In my opinion they are not good further reading titles (WP:FURTHER isn't very helpful here), but if there is disagreement it could be resolved through a request for comment or because there are only two editors, a third opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

WLU, given your edit description when deleting one of my comments, "I can just delete this without reading it"[20], you really should be more brief. The golden rule applies even at Wikipedia. On the subject of brevity, one "book" cited four times in sexology is only 34 pages long[21]. (It is a club history, and states that it is quasi-self-published on page iv. ) This is one third as long as those "extremely short" books. wp:Further_reading doesn't mention size as a criteria for exclusion anyway.

As for the external links, there we both have a conflict of interest: I operate one of the websites, and you clearly have something against me. BitterGrey (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There are no length limitations set for the citations of sources. Further reading is (in my opinion) meant for lengthy discussions of the topic of the article and should thus be both lengthy and scholarly while citations are meant to verify content and length matters less than reliability. In addition, in most cases issues in other wikipedia pages can't be used as examples of how things should be done. Since this is a wiki and anyone can edit it, other pages are poor examples since those examples may have been recently added as vandalism, or represent inappropriate additions that do not comply with the policies and guidelines. That which is why we must refer to the policies and guidelines. If, based on this discussion, you feel Bullough, 1989 is an inappropriate link for the sexology page, please remove it from that page. I admit the further reading section is more questionable than the external links which is why I suggested a 3O or RFC. Either is acceptable to me, and if we go that route I will make my case for why the books I removed should, in my opinion, not be included. I fail to see the need for multiple books each with a short section on the topic in the further reading section, particularly when there is a single scholarly source that can reasonably be assumed to include a scholarly treatment.

If you believe that a website should be included, please make your case according to WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE as that is the standard applied to external links. Neither website was scholarly (ELNO2), both essentially promoted a website rather than add encyclopedic content (by their very nature, ELNO4), one was a forum (ELNO10) and one was a personal web page (ELNO11). That is the reason I removed them, please indicate any reason why they should be returned per ELYES and ELMAYBE. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Scope and detail. wp:ELYES #3 applies: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." DSM 4 included clinically significant distress and impairment among the criteria, excluding all who have the same desires as those who meet the DSM 4 criteria for paraphilic infantilism but haven't suffered clinically significant distress or impairment. Reportedly, this will be adjusted in DSM5. Additionally, there is much detail in the EL which, if included in this article, would make it excessively long.

ELNO2 actually reads "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material" with no mention of looking academic. Might I ask which specific, deceptive factual inaccuracies you are referring to? BitterGrey (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

...Seems this discussion wasn't enough to make WLU happy. The deleting has resumed[22]. BitterGrey (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If either of these external links are advocacy sites, they are not neutral. If either is a personal website, they would not be considered accurate or reliable. "Accuracy" on wikipedia is akin to reliability, and reliability is determined by the expertise of the author and reputation of the publisher. Sports Illustrated publishing sports statistics would apply, a personal website would not. By being a personal website rather than say, an academic website or another publisher with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, they do not meet the criteria for ELYES. Unless the author is a recognized expert on the topic, with multiple reliable sources that cite it, or highlight it as a good source of information, there's no way to demonstrate that it's accurate or appropriate. Being a member of the community and/or personal experience is not sufficient. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"If either of these external links are advocacy sites, they are not neutral." This is a circular argument. WLU wishes to dismiss them, so they are not neutral. Being non-neutral, they must be advocacy sites. He has already made up his mind, so there is little point in discussing it. He has now moved on to removing references anyway. He's thinking about deleting more, possibly including more references. Apparently he hopes that someone else will contribute something more to delete. BitterGrey (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I've separated out the sections again and changed this section's name back. These are two separate issues - the removal of external links/further reading, and reworking the citations. I've already cited this section by name and retitling it breaks that link. The original title was not a good choice since it was somewhat pointy as it attempted to imply a motivation when it's a very basic discussion of policy and as WP:TPO says, "It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate". If you're really concerned over the previous heading being important, then it is within your rights to change it back but please include the {{formerly}} or {{anchor}} template for navigation purposes.

I believe I'm well within the norms and expectations of the community, and kicking it to ELN will hopefully build consensus on this. It's quite routine in my experience to remove personal, advocacy and web fora pages. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the section back to it's original header. Please don't change it again. BitterGrey (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

As you like, I've adjusted the ELN section accordingly.

An advocacy site attempts to advocate for something; in other words, it is not an effort to objectively summarize the "something" in question. Advocacy sites are attempts to acquire resources - material, emotional, social, etc. - for those advocating for that something and are therefore motivated to present their topic in a biased manner. I'm not dismissing them, it's the same reason we in most cases don't link to a fundraising organization's website for a medical condition.

At this point I would prefer to wait for external input from the ELN. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This issue has been raised at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Paraphilic infantilism. I am deliberately focussing on the ELNO-based reasons for removing the external links as they are the only ones germane to this discussion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want the history involved, why do you keep bringing up the two-year-old discussion from the archive[23][24]? Also, an unbiased editor would not just focus/presume wp:elno, but consider wp:el as a whole.BitterGrey (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That's the point of having archives, and it's actually akin to a best practice to review archives for evidence of a previous consensus. The fact that that section seems to support my point that other editors consider it an inappropriate external link is evidence that it may very well be inappropriate. That's a fairly weak consensus, but it's still relevant, hence my linking to it at ELN. I'm somewhat baffled that anyone would question this since it seems rather obvious - citing previous work and discussion is natural to essentially any substantive discussion. I rarely consider ELYES or ELMAYBE because most external links fairly clearly fail to meet them or fall into ELNO. EL deliberately insists on a minimal number of external links, and as it says at WP:ELPOINTS (#3), a lack of links is not a reason to include them. In my opinion it is quite apparent that the UI site clearly doesn't meet any ELYES criteria, and I also see falling under several ELNO points as well because the material is of uncertain factual accuracy, it essentially promotes the site itself, and essentially the entire site is based on the work of a single person. See my recent lengthy discussion of substantive points for the details. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

<a name=1013></a>

References

(This discussion was part of Talk:Paraphilic_infantilism#motivation_for_recent_deletions. It has is not separate from the broader context. BitterGrey (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I've spent some time reworking the citations. I did take out some unsourced text I considered more dubious (which is permitted per WP:PROVEIT, it is up to the replacing editor to find reliable sources to verify the content) but generally did not remove very much information. I'm concerned about citations 10-13 in the Paraphilic infantilism in medicine section since they seem to be "examples" rather than "citations". It is not appropriate to cite four sources as examples of "many published cases [being] only tangentially related" as that would be a synthesis of primary source used to "prove" a point. These sources should all say within them, explicitly, that the paraphilic infantilism aspects are tangential to the overall case, in order to be used this way. I'd like to look them all up and review them but doubt I'll have time in the coming days so for now at least I'll be leaving them in. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

(The following comment was removed from its original context without my consent.BitterGrey (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC))

Currently, the deletions have resulted in a 27% reduction in length and a 35% reduction in the number of references. BitterGrey (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that numerous references were repeated - for instance, currently there are 17 "named" references but 34 citations (the DSM is cited 10 times for insance, but there is only one "reference" to them, the first in the reflist). The page before I started editing had 26 "named" references and 44 citations, but many of those citations were sub-par. 5 was an "informal survey" and therefore not a reliable source. 26 was understanding.infantalism which isn't a reliable source either. Several sources for the same line were combined into a single citation - for instance in the lead, 1 and 8 were both to the DSM so I combined them into a single reference to the DSM (and removed the first reference to 8 in the third paragraph because it was also to the DSM - thus three citations were actually to a single reference). The total number of reference is not really important, it is how they are used, with reference to the policies and guidelines. Simply adding more low-quality, unreliable sources makes the page worse, not better. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The page numbers are both helpful and necessary. For example, you've replaced all the specific references to DSM with just the one citation, leaving the reader no way of knowing which section is being cited. This denies the reader information that was in the article before. Additionally, it fuels future rounds of deletion, since a point that was supported by section C might not be mentioned at all by sections A or B. Of course, this might be the goal.BitterGrey (talk)

The DSM citation is to the chapter "Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders", spanning pages 535 to 582, not the entire book. It's akin to citing an entire journal article rather than a specific page number, you don't need to narrow it down to a single page when the actual citation could be read in a single sitting. The DSM citations used previously were to pages 572-573, 568, 569-570 and 571-572 (and both 12 and 13 shouldn't really be used here since they are both rererences to pedophilia - what is needed is a reference to paraphilic infantilism being unrelated to pedophilia, this is once again a WP:SYNTH issue though one easily fixed through reference to any citation that says the two are unrelated). Strictly speaking, I could have used a page range of 568-573 rather than the whole section, but the whole section gives good context and makes sense given the topic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

So you are asserting that readers should have to wade through forty-seven pages, when only one or two of them might be relevant to a particular section of text referenced, just because you want the article to have small number of references? BitterGrey (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a better idea to keep the page references at the whole chapter, but feel free to limit it to just the five if you really think it improves the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't suppose I could trouble you to put the page number information just deleted from the article back in, could I? BitterGrey (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it as an important point, so no, I see no reason to include it. Are you specifically barred from editing the page due to a page ban? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping you'd clean up the mess you left. BitterGrey (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider it a mess and don't see the need to correct it. I always prefer citing a whole chapter to a sampling of pages when it is a single chapter on a specific subject found within a larger edited volume. I do think the previous version with it's many duplicated sources and varying citation styles was a mess though, that's why I edited essentially all of them into citation templates and condensed ref name tags. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

<a name=1014></a>

Article wide tags.

The article is currently without any specific tags in the body, but the article-wide tags applied in 2009 remain. Since then, the article has gone through two mass deletions (40% and 27%). AGF would hold that these deletions focused on the sections that required tagging. Based on this, I think it reasonable to question or remove the tags. BitterGrey (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No comments so far. Since there is no rush I'll wait another month or so. BitterGrey (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Book titles removed, again.

Per Wikipedia guidelines, "Citations for books typically include: name of the author(s), title of the book in italics, volume when appropriate, city of publication is optional, name of the publisher, year of publication, chapter or page number(s) where appropriate, ISBN where available ".

Furthermore, "All of the citations within each Wikipedia article should follow a consistent style." ..."Do not change the citation style used in an article merely for personal preference or cosmetic reasons. If you think the existing citation system is inappropriate for the specific needs of the article, gain consensus for a change on the talk page before changing it. This article uses APA style citations, and the APA example for books by one author is "Sheril, R. D. (1956). The terrifying future: Contemplating color television. San Diego, CA: Halstead". Please note the title and publisher.

WLU, you have now twice removed titles and publisher information from two books[25][26], resulting in an inconsistent style (all the other citations have titles, etc.) and removing useful information. These changes have not been discussed, much less supported by a consensus. Would you please explain why? BitterGrey (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not switching between parenthetical and footnotes. Parenthetical looks like this (Smith, 2000). Footnotes look like this.^[1] I'm eliminating duplicate citations by splitting the references and footnotes into separate sections, the refinement discussed here. The information is not removed, if you click on the author's last name in the footnote you will see it links to the full reference. This allows the same reference to be linked to multiple inline citations. The alternative is multiple lengthy citations to the same book whenever you cite a different page. See also WP:IBID and WP:SFN. The edits I made have the advantage of including hyperlinks to the full citation, though otherwise it's substantially identical. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

To the contrary, you ARE removing information. Five sentences were deleted in that edit[27]. Additionally, the previous version directed readers to the specific, relevant subsections. Your version removes this information. For example, you are asking them to weed through the forty-seven pages of the DSM, when only one or two might be relevant to the point being referenced. Neither of those style guides require the removal of this information, nor even the change in style that you are pushing. We've been through all this before. Feel free to share why it is such an issue now. BitterGrey (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a completely separate issue. This section was removed because there was no indication Brazelton specifically linked toilet training to daiper fetishism. If it actually does, please provide a quote to verify. These sentences were removed per WP:PROVEIT. This sentence was a simple move since it didn't fit in the section it was in. If you can find a better place for it, then please feel feee. This is the edit where I compacted the citations. No information was removed. Your justification of "per prior discussion" doesn't work. All page numbers are retained, the DSM goes from being three different references to different pages in the same set of five pages, to a single reference to the full five-page range. Quite reasonable. And as I've referenced here, I'm not switching between citations, I'm shortening footnotes per the guidelines. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that I've replaced the short footnotes, this time using the {{sfn}} template. It's substantively the same as using a cite ID tag but uses a template which is neat. Either is fine in my mind. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

And again you've deleted page number information[28]. You are now at 3RR: [29][30][31] The ability to check references is important to me, so I think it is important to have specific page information in the article. If you'd like to share why this is so important all of a sudden, perhaps we can make some progress toward a mutually acceptable middle ground. BitterGrey (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any page number information removed, none whatsoever, can you be more specific? Also, you've undone my shortened footnotes which you have failed to justify. Please clarify why you are undoing the reference improvements. Finally, if we continue to disagree, how do you wish to resolve it? What form of dispute resolution would you prefer? My preference would be a simple third opinion.

You've also asked "why now" and my reply is my reasons don't matter, only my references to policy. Are there any policy-based objections to my changes? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It is possible that you didn't realize you had deleted text from the article when arguing that your version was "substantially identical," just as you didn't realize that your previous edit war here was with a bot, and don't realize that you are removing page number information now. If my previous explanations were unclear, I can explain it again.

In a bit over three hours, you've gone from uninvolved to 3RR after deleting 22% of the article[32]. This clearly suggests a strong motivation, not an arbitrary formatting choice. Last time around, you accused me of many things, including asking an admin for advice (which I thought was permitted per Wikipedia guidelines). This time, I thought I'd give you every opportunity to share a good-faith rationale for you sudden, strong motivation. BitterGrey (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Your previous explanations are unclear. What information did I remove that is not justified? Keeping in mind, "removing text" is completely justified if it is unsourced, per WP:PROVEIT. Otherwise, your commentary is not clear enough to see exactly what I did that was inappropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

In the "substantially identical" edit[33], you deleted five sentences that had five references among them. I'm aware that an editor can chant proveit no matter how many references are cited. This too does not explain why these deletions are so important to you all of a sudden. I know you objected to my previous comments about why your last round of edits occurred. Now you are chanting proveit as a justification for removing citations. The same factors that I suspected were causal then are again present. Were I to have forecast a behavior pattern that confirmed my comments, this would be it. If there is a good-faith reason, please share it with us.

As for middle ground, please note that I haven't reverted most of the deletions you made in this present outburst[34]. I would strongly prefer to keep the reference details, however. They are small, don't take up that much space on the page, and as references, they are inherently referenced. I can see no good-faith reason why someone would edit-war to remove them.BitterGrey (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide me a quote of the sentences I deleted, or even the first three words? I simply can't see any in the edit you provide.

An editor can not claim PROVEIT as a justification if a source is provided. The only time I removed text as unsourced/PROVEIT was this one, which your reverts have yet to replace.

I've removed no reference details, I turned three references to a six-page range of the DSM (pages 568, 569-70 and 572-3) into a single reference to the full six-page range (568-573). As far as I can tell, the text and citations to the DSM are exactly the same, it's just 9 citations instead of 15. For example, in the current version the block of text starting with "Although there is no typical..." is referenced to pages 572-3 (footnote 2) and 569-70 (footnote 7); by collapsing to one citation of the five pages it's becomes one reference to 568-73. Ditto for the lead, everything in the first paragraph after "DLs and ABs differ in..." is now cited to that same page range, once - one citation instead of five.

I'm pretty sure your 3O request is malformed, the description isn't neutral and you're mis-stating the actual dispute. Also, as I've tried to make clear above, you appear to believe I'm still citing a full chapter of the DSM when I'm only citing the relevant five pages. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"I've removed no reference details" is untrue. For example, this edit[35] replaced "DLs and ABs differ in self-image and the focus of attention.[2][7]" with "DLs and ABs differ in self-image and the focus of attention." (unreferenced) Given how eager people have been (and continue to be) to delete material from this article, it is important to keep the citations specific and detailed. Some times it has even been necessary to cite references in mid-sentence to prevent deletion. Why is removing this detail so important to you? BitterGrey (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I had wondered if that was the issue. The entire paragraph was referenced to the six page range of the DSM-IV TR. There is now a single citation for the entire paragraph. Compare the text, I replaced the ref tags <ref name = DSM_inf/> (pages 569-70) and <ref name=DSM_fetish/> (pages 572-3) with a single reference to the six pages I mnetioned above, 568-73 (ditto <ref name=DSM_568> in the paragraph previous to the one we're discussing). Essentially, instead of having three different references (<ref name=DSM_568>, page 568, <ref name = DSM_inf/>, pages 569-70 and <ref name=DSM_fetish/>, pages 572-3) there was a single reference <ref name = DSM/>, pages 568-573. And instead of citing every single sentence in the paragraph, there's a single citation to just the DSM pages 568-573. No loss of text, no loss of citation. So nothing was deleted. Given that, can we revert to the abbreviated version with the {{sfn}} tags for neater citations? No-one is challenging any of the text sourced to the DSM. If you'd prefer, we could use the SFN template to replace the DSM and put the full DSM citation in the references section like I did with Stekel and Money. I don't see much added value, but it serves the same purpose. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

<a name=1015></a>

Senseless Slow-Motion Edit War

WLU, please stop this senseless edit war with Yobot (yes, a bot). You have now twice moved the disambiguation link to after the maintenance tags[36][37]. Yobot responded by twice moving the disambig link back, before the tags[38][39], where it was before you became involved with this article. I believe Yobot is correct because...

A) the Manual of Style clearly states "Disambiguation links should be the first elements of the page, before any maintenance tags"

B) Were Yobot incorrect, the same error would have been made on thousands of other articles, and been noticed before now. (Yobot has made some 1,358,751 edits.) BitterGrey (talk) 05:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC) <a name=1016></a>

Malitz

Now I remember why I didn't cite Malitz: "Dynamically the patient's diaper [fetish] appeared to symbolize a regression to infancy in order to reclaim the attention and love of his mother and to undo his displacement in her affections by his sister's birth." James, I seem to have missed how this applies to the text being supported. Would you mind pointing it out? BitterGrey (talk) 06:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The text being supported was "Diaper lovers typically do not imagine themselves as babies. Rather, they more often see themselves as adults who are drawn to wearing diapers." The case reported by Malitz was just that; he was interested in using the diapers but expressed no desire to be treated like an infant. That Malitz (a psychoanalyst) interpreted the case to be a symbolic return to infancy does not suggest that the case had any actual erotic interest in being treated like an infant.

— James Cantor (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

<a name=1017></a>

Others have had some time to weigh in, but haven't. It is true that, after dismissing Malitz' regressive interpretation and the maternal imagery he uses to support his interpretation, we are left with a account that is free of regressive and maternal themes. Of course, it also leaves us with an argument from silence. However, unless someone disagrees with the supported text, the amount of support that the RS offers isn't really important. BitterGrey (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Relevance of "self-imposed psychological regression"?

I'm not sure that this new section is relevant to this page. Although there will be psychoanalytic writer who probably declare a causal connection between these, toilet training per se seems rather off topic to me.— James Cantor (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

<original research> Actually, overly early, overly late, overly harsh, or insufficiently motivated toilet training aren't rare explanations to be given by AB/DLs. Given how common overly early, overly late, overly harsh, or insufficiently motivated toilet training is, this isn't surprising. The difficulties in exploring this include A) the accurate quantification necessary to meaningfully comment on the presence of the non-rare explanation set relative to the non-rare condition set, B) that AB/DLs generally don't remember their potty training well. The best I've been able to do is to contrast AB/DLs who were in diapers later in life with those who were taken out of them within the usual age ranges. To the layperson, Figure #6 is the most 'squigly' but I consider it the most telling: Basically, it shows that AB/DLs still in diapers reported an onset age distribution similar to that of other AB/DLs. This suggests that getting taken out of diapers is at most one factor among many, not the key causal factor. The other contrasts can be explained by noting that a population of would-be AB/DLs didn't feel the desire to be in diapers because they still were in diapers.</original research>

One option to consider is restoring the text "Regression is a broad term with many meanings. ABs regress, but those who regress aren't necessarily ABs" that I added it in 2006[40]. Since Brazelton was studying infants, not infantilists, he was probably referring to general regression instead of the specific AB/DL practice. Currently, this article doesn't contrast the general and specific usage of the word.

Since Wikipedia policy is "Verifiability, not truth," the etiology with references might end up remaining, while equally frequent etiologies without references might not. (Please note that the assertion that any one cause is dominant is itself an assertion.) Most other articles haven't applied this as <POV adverb> as it has been applied here, requiring only that contested points have references. BitterGrey (talk) 02:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Archiving | Assisted by Citation bot r364

I've set up Misza bot to archive the old posts. It'll always ensure there's a couple heading that remain but will cull out the ones older than 30 days.

I've also compacted the archives - they were 6 archives that weren't topic-based, and none were particularly large. Generally an archive is around 250K and these were more in the 60K range for the most part. For some reason I'm not getting a "this is longer than X K" warning so I'm only guessing at the size. There's really no point in having a half-dozen small archives when it just means the servers have to do more work. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I've disabled Miszabot. This talk page doesn't get enough traffic to require automated archiving. However - and most importantly - the discussion from the last round is relevant in this round. Same deletions, same deleter. I'm sure WLU would like to make this seem like a new issue and suppress a pattern that strongly confirms my observations from last time. Again, WLU, if you have a good faith reason for WP:GAMING 3RRR[41][42][43][44] to avoid waiting for a third opinion, let's hear it. BitterGrey (talk) 02:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I am entitled to three reverts within a 24 hour period like all editors. In addition, the issues are separate like the edits are separate- the DSM is irrelevant but for one sentence, so its removal is totally unrelated to the formatting of the Money and Stekel citations, the only thing relevant to the 3O now. I removed the DSM because it failed verification, and it still does. The only exception is the note that some masochists do wear diapers and enjoy being treated as infants, but that's primarily an issue of masochists rather than a generalization that can be applied to all paraphilic infantilists. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

So you agree that archiving was just one tactic in the broader conflict? If I left a trail as clear as the one you left, I'd try to hide it too. By the way, thanks for justifying those anchor tags that I added. Otherwise they might have seemed silly. BitterGrey (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

DSM references

The current references to the DSM all use google books anchors for page 535 despite referencing pages 568-73. Also, a search for "infantilism" turns up only a single mention on what appears to be a single page (572, see [45]). I'm going to try to get my hands on a copy over the next week or so and see if the text the DSM is used to justify is actually justified. I was a little surprised to see five full pages on the topic considering how rare I believe it is and how little research is done on it.

Also interesting, page 23 lists the paraphilias (where paraphilic infantilism is ostensibly discussed). It lists exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism, pedophilia sadism and masochism between pages 568-73. That seems like an awfully broad range of topics for paraphilic infantilism to be menitoned in. Is the page range being used to indicate that each topic does not address paraphilic infantilism (i.e. "pedophilia doesn't mention infanitlism therefore it's unrelated")? If so, I think that would fall into original research. Another possibility is the edition originally cited is different and thus the page range and discussion is different. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I've checked against a copy of the DSM-IV-TR and the only discussion of infantilism occurs under the heading of masochism. It is quite obvious that the discussion is regards masochists who are "forced" to wear infant's clothing and diapers. The figure of 1 in 20 for female to male is regarding masochists again, not infantilism in general. It only says of paraphilias in general that females are exceedingly rare, though women do still exhibit paraphilias in general. I'll be removing all references to the DSM as the entire page range is irrelevant as far as I can tell. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for so clearly demonstrating my point. The DSM isn't easy reading, so those who aren't really interested can easily miss important parts. Those who aren't really interested, and eager to delete, then end up deleting a lot of well-referenced material. For example, the sex ratios are discussed on the page that was referenced before you removed page details.

Also, thanks for demonstrating that this was never about formatting, contrary to your initial assertion, but the intent to remove citations and then tag or delete the newly unreferenced text as unreferenced. If you were seeking a peaceful resolution to this conflict why would you game 3RR and not wait for a third opinion? Would you care to discuss why you so urgently need to delete? BitterGrey (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The DSM doesn't discuss paraphilic infantilism, period. All references to it should be removed. I've got pages 568-573, I've read them all, paraphilic infantilism doesn't appear. I've verified the text (or absence of text), now can you point out, via quote, the section that justifies the text that used to be there? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU above: "I've read them all, paraphilic infantilism doesn't appear." Then minutes later: WLU@RSN "Page 572 does mention infantilism..the two are different paraphilias."[46]. Clearly both statements cannot be true. BitterGrey (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

See discussion at RS/NBitterGrey (talk) 04:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Sex Ratio

“ Except for Sexual Masochism, where the sex ratio is estimated to be 20 males for each female, the other Paraphilias are almost never diagnosed in females, although some cases have been reported. - DSM-IV-TR, p. 568 ”

“ 302.83 Sexual Masochism The paraphilic focus of Sexual Masochism involves the act (real, not simulated) of being humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer...Forced cross-ressing may be sought for its humiliating associations. The individual may have a desire to be treated as a helpless infant and clothed in diapers ("infantilism"). - DSM-IV-TR, p. 572 ”

That's what the DSM says about the sex ratio of sexual masochists, not paraphilic infantilists, and infantilism. The word infantilism does appear for one behaviour that some individuals who are sexual masochists engage in. If paraphilic infantilism only appears as a form of masochism, the page should redirect to masochism. Is paraphilic infantilism a form of masochism, the desire to be hurt and humiliated, or is it a sexualization of infancy? And if so, is there a suitable reference saying so? I see this as a fairly clear synthesis of material. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the 20:1 ratio in the DSM for masochism (and the various types of masochism, including infantilism) is widely accepted and reproducible:

• Dr. Speaker's 1986 dissertation observed 26:1 (pg 78).
• Dave's 2001 survey gave 7%.
• <original research> My own survey showed that the AB/DL population was around 8% female.

The 7% and 8% values included paraphilic infantilists and non-paraphilic AB/DLs. For example, the wives of paraphilic infantilists who developed an interest in being an AB/DL would be included in the 7% and 8% values, but not the 20:1 ratio. </original research> Feel free to cite those as well if you think more references are needed. I don't. BitterGrey (talk) 04:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Your survey is not reliable. Was Dr. Speaker's dissertation published in a peer reviewed journal or comparable publication? Ditto for Dave's survey. If the answer is no to both questions, then the best we could do would be to attribute the ratio to Speaker's dissertation with a statement of "A doctoral dissertation conducted by Speaker in 1986 found a sex ratio of 26 males for every female". It's not perfect, I'd rather a better citation, but the DSM is not appropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

3O

Hi, I saw this on the third opinion page, and having had a go at reading the various comments am now a tad confused as to what exactly the nature of the disagreement is...? Has it just been resolved above, or are there still outstanding issue? I'm a bit confused, so any clarity on this would be helpful, particularly as to the status of the DSM page range ref. MissionNPOVible (talk) 09:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The DSM doesn't contain any information on paraphilic infantilism, so that issue is moot. Now the sole issue is (for me anyway) about the use of {{sfn}} to replace the Money and Stekel. Compare these versions, focusing on Money and Stekel.

If you have any access to a copy of the DSM-IV-TR, it would be helpful if you could also check pages 568-573 for any reference to paraphilic infantilism, but that is not part of the 3O. The sole mention of infantilism is on page 572, within the context of masochism (see #DSM references above) but an actual copy of the book would be better as it illustrates my point pretty clearly. That's outside the scope of the 3O however, but Bittergrey will not let this point go otherwise. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

e/c Well I think that large templates that make editing more difficult should be avoided whenever possible, however this is a matter of editor preference and given I have no intention of editing this article it is perhaps unhelpful/improper of me to offer an opinion on that matter. I do have access to DSM IV-TR and can check tomorrow, but from my search of the google version it seems you are correct. So would you agree Bittergrey that those are the two main issues? I just noticed you've posted the DSM issue on the RSN. Is this really a matter of RS? The DSM is obviously a RS, I think your issue is that the information doesn't exist in the DSM. If this is true then an alternative RS should be found. MissionNPOVible (talk) 11:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the other editor is doing his best to obscure things. Originally, he hoped to have this dismissed as a mere formatting conflict[47]. WLU had reached 3RR before questioning the DSM. At the time, I was pretty sure he was just "consolidating" reference details so that more sentences would appear unreferenced, and therefore appear more deletable. This has been shown to be true. (He had already deleted most of the previously unreferenced text[48], so the references were in the way of further deletion.) Removing the details also makes it harder for others to check details. For example, in terms of sex ratio, the correct page was listed, but I'd understand people going to the wrong place first if they didn't now what that page was. (Since I've used the actual books, I don't rely on Google.)

Now that WLU has moved on to deleting the previously referenced text, he's claiming that it is some issue with the DSM. Perhaps with your involvement and with RSN, I'll be able to resolve this. That WLU isn't seeking a peaceful resolution is clear this round in that he didn't wait for a third opinion. It was also clear last round, when he picked an edit war with a bot[49] after his previous round of deletions[50].

Of course, I believe that the DSM is relevant and reliable. However, I do not believe that the relevance or reliability of the DSM is the real issue here. I have repeatedly asked WLU what the real issue is. BitterGrey (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The DSM is obviously reliable, but it is almost entirely irrelevant to this page. The sole exception would be the note that some masochists enjoy being treated like an infant and dressed in diapers, but that is a subset of masochism, you can't say everything that applies to masochism applies to paraphilic infantilism. That's the sole issue as far as I'm concerned regarding the DSM. Confirmation that the page range is irrelevant to the page would be welcome but it's beyond the scope of the 3O.

As far as the 3O goes, as far as I'm concerned it's whether we should use the {{sfn}} or not. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU, you might wish to retract statements like "I've read them all, paraphilic infantilism doesn't appear"[51]. I've spent enough time with multiple versions of the DSM to know that in IIIR and later it most certainly does. Please concede this, even if as just a show of good faith. There is no point arguing how much DSM has to say about infantilism while you are asserting that it does not mention it at all.

As for relegating MissionNPOVible's input to the rationale that you've already abandoned, that would be MissionNPOVible's decision, not yours.BitterGrey (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I stand by my statement. "Paraphilic infantilism" is indeed absent from the DSM. Infantilism does appear once, as an activity undertaken by masochists. You can't apply a single word in an unrelated section to apply to the entire section. You would need a source that says all infantilists are masochists and specifically that all the masochism sections of the DSM apply to all infantilists. Where would you like to request outside input? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

RSN discussion

This'll probably save time. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Lack_of_references_in_the_DSM WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

You guys are edit warring over content while it is being discussed at dispute resolution. Not a good thing. If you don't calm it down and discuss this on the talk page or dispute resolution forums I'll have to suggest that the page be fully protected until a consensus emerges on how to handle this. ThemFromSpace 16:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and protected the page for three days. Hopefully that will provide a pause which will allow editors to work towards consensus. If that is not possible then other dispute resolution steps should be taken.   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully we'll be able to resolve this, or at least find out what the real issue is. BitterGrey (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The real issue is that the DSM is not relevant for the most part. The DSM should be cited once, only to note that masochists will sometimes have a desire to be dressed in diapers and treated as an infant. Everything else discussed in the pages doesn't apply. I have read the pages, and find this to be self-evident. How do you want to resolve this? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU, you were already at 3RR before discussing the DSM. You even modified my third opinion request to claim this was a formatting conflict[52]. If you'd be willing to share what the problem really is, we might be able to resolve it and not have to go through this again in another three months. BitterGrey (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem now is that you believe the DSM discusses paraphilic infantilism when it doesn't. Does that mean you agree that Stekel and Money's references should use the {{sfn}} or similarly compact template? Since the DSM will be removed bar a single reference to page 572, it is a nonissue leaving only the {{sfn}} citation template. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

So the DSM has suddenly gone from "The real issue" (01:13) to "a nonissue" (02:00)? We would like to know what the real issue really is. There was clearly strong motivation fueling the edit war: Most editors wouldn't game 3RR over something trivial, like an arbitrary formatting option. The conflict won't really be solved until we address the real motivations. BitterGrey (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

OK can I just jump in here and try to get some clarity. What exactly is the DSM being cited for that is specifically relevant to paraphilic infantilism? What exactly is the DSM not providing sufficient evidence for, and are there other RS's that do provide the necessary verifiability? MissionNPOVible (talk) 09:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The DSM is cited in the current, protected version, as citations 2, 6 and 7. I would say that none of those apply, the only thing I would cite using the DSM would be that infantilism is a behaviour sometimes seen in masochists as part of their desire to be humiliated (or something similar). There are no other sources for these points. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, an excellent summary of the situation appears here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

MissionNPOVible, the section on infantilism (under the heading masochism) is being used for information about infantilism, the section on fetishism is being used for information about diaper fetishism (a fetish for diapers), and the section on sex ratios is being used for information about sex ratios. It is greatly fortunate that we still have reference details. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to differentiate between the three.

One change that is expected in DSM 5 is the inclusion of people who haven't suffered clinically significant distress or impairment. Until that change in terminology, infantilists and those with common interests (but maybe not clinically significant distress or impairment) are called ABs. Similarly, diaper fetishists with and without are called DLs. This terminology is widely used, but for obvious reasons, not in the DSM currently.

I'd recommend checking the truth for one's self. So far, no neutral party has gotten involved at RSN. WLU has merely been joined by two other editors fresh from the same conflict with me elsewhere on Wikipedia. (He has yet to provide any other reason why this, which he initially asserted was just a "disagreement about reference formatting", has become so complicated and urgent.

It would have been so much simpler if he had just stopped and waited for a third opinion. Of course, that might have meant dealing with the details of the DSM references, as is happening now. His edits show that he was hoping to consolidate, generalize, dismiss, and delete. At least now, after I stood up to keep the reference details in place, we can have a specific discussion, although he still has yet to share what the real issue is. BitterGrey (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the simple solution here is to provide additional RS's that supplement (and eventually replace?) the current DSM references. I think that once the additional refs are in place it would then be possible to start going through and removing any refs that are less appropriate/accurate - DSM or otherwise. Would anyone object to that approach? MissionNPOVible (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Bittergrey is right that I did comment on another editing issue. I'm not "aligned" as such in this and related conflicts and, as it happens, I would be happy for this article to reflect the actual state of play in the AB/DL community or communities rather than to fit it into a psychiatric category. Actually, I'd argue that decent sources from the AB/DL community should be used to construct a better article. In terms of detailing the activities of ABs and DLs publications from those within the community, particularly if it's been through an editorial process (i.e. not self-published) should not be controversial sources. In terms of the medical literature, it is very small and this might reflect the fact that the majority of "infantilists" do not suffer from psychosis, affective disorders or personality disorders and hence do not present at clinics in sufficient numbers for psychiatrists to construct them as an object of knowledge. In terms of the medical sources there are:

(1) Cantor's chapter (with Blanchford and Barbaree) in the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology. This is available from User:James Cantor. He emailed me a copy and it might be handy if everyone involved in this article got a copy. It's a review of the existing literature on the paraphilias. Aside from containing some useful information on the paraphilias generally, it dedicates about 250 words to "infantilism". It contains some details of reported behaviours associated with infantilism (wearing diapers, wishing to be rocked by a sexual partner, use of baby props, etc). Additionally it surveys all of the relevant medical literature on the subject (not much).

(2) J.E. Pate and G.O. Gabbard (2003), 'Adult baby syndrome', American Journal of Psychiatry,160: 1932-1936. It's only based on one case and its not without its flaws but this is a really interesting paper. I can email anyone who wants it a copy of this paper. It details Pate's "treatment" of an adult baby. Pate was at that time a young and inexperienced clinician. Her client was a cop who used to arrive at their sessions dressed as a baby and appears to have used the meetings as a means of enacting his fantasies. Pate never gets a handle on him, but it's fascinating. Also of note is that while this adult baby had some social impairment (arguably due to the social unacceptability of his behaviour rather than anything intrinsic to his Adult Baby behaviour) he was competent at his job, financially secure and he discontinued his therapy only when it appears that it was no longer satisfying his role playing. The latter part of the article is written by Gabbard, who is the consultant psychiatrist. He discusses the literature - largely dismissing the 1960s studies of Malitz and Tuchman & Lachmann as detailing only partial instances of Adult Babies. He also gets into a bit of psychodynamic object relations theory which is of limited use. More relevant to the needs of this article he discusses the prevalence of Adult Babies on the web, that most of them do not perceive themselves as patients and enjoy their behaviour and role play.FiachraByrne (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

If what you say is right FB - and I'm not casting aspersions - it is starting to sound like this article could be a candidate for deletion on notability grounds. If there is so little by way of RS's available then it may not warrant a WP article. I wonder if that is part of the backdrop to this dispute... I'm inclined to harden my previous position and suggest that RS's need to be found to justify the existence of the article in the first instance, and then move on to what content they specifically support. If this is such a marginal area of the literature it may not justify a separate article and it might be better to merge it with another article, such as being an instance of Paraphilia. MissionNPOVible (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree and as it happens I've found some new material. I don't think that there's any question that it's a notable topic and it would easily survive an application for its deletion. Here are the three articles from the 1960s.

(3) Tuchman WW, Lachman JH (1964), 'An unusual perversion: the wearing of diapers and rubber pants in a 29-year-old male', Am J Psychiatry 120:1198–1199. I can't access this. Gabbard summarises this article as detailing the case of patient facing legal charges for molesting his young daughters. He wore rubber pants over a diaper and liked to urinate and masturbate in it. No indication of being an Adult Baby. Fetishtic and sexual relationship to diapers and rubber pants.

(4) Malitz S (1966), 'Another report on the wearing of diapers and rubber pants by an adult male', Am J Psychiatry, 122:1435–1437. I can't access this. Gabbard summarises this article as detailing the case of 20 yr old student who had been arrested for breaking and entering into a house. The reason he gave for this was that he had a compulsion to wear diapers and to defecate in them. Defecation was often accompanied by orgasm regardless of whether he masturbated. He also enjoyed wearing rubber pants over his diapers. He did not think of himself as a baby. Gabbard reasons that this cases demonstrates features of anti-social behaviour and of a fetishtistic or sexual relationship to diapers and rubber pants. Not an adult baby.

(5) Dinello FA (1967), 'Stages of treatment in the case of a diaper-wearing seventeen-year-old male', Am J Psychiatry, 124:94–96. I can't access this. Gabbard describes this case as involving a 17-year-old boy who wore diapers under his clothing, took a baby bottle and ate baby food. He masturbated while wearing his diaper. He gave up wearing diapers and started wearing women's clothes. Adult Baby.

(6) Bethell, M. F. (1974), 'A rare manifestation of fetishism', Archives of Sexual Behavior, 3,301-302. I can't access this. Cantor: involvement of baby props and behaviours and sexual excitement, masturbation and ejaculation

- Just found a few more accessible articles in the Archives of Sexual BehaviourFiachraByrne (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

- Just to counter the contention that this is a non-notable topic I'm going to list all other relevant scholarly articles and communications I've found on the topic.

(6) Croarkin, P., Nam, T., & Waldrep, D. (2004). Comment on adult baby syndrome [Letter to the Editor]. American Journal of Psychiatry, 161, 2141.

(7) Evcimen, H., & Gratz, S. (2006). Adult baby syndrome [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 115–116.

(8) Lehne, G. K.,& Money, J. (2003). Multiplex versus multiple taxonomy of paraphilia: Case example. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 15, 61–72.

(9) Pettit, I., & Barr, R. (1980). Temporal lobe epilepsy with diaper fetishism and gender dysphoria. Medical Journal of Australia, 2, 208–209.

(10) Kristina Kise and Mathew Nguyen (2011). Adult Baby Syndrome and Gender Identity Disorder. Archives of Sexual Behavior (epub. ahead of print addition)

(11) Robert, Dickey (2007). Commentary on “Adult Baby Syndrome” by Evcimen and Gratz (2006). Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36:131–132

FiachraByrne (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(12) Patriquin, Martin. Won't you be my baby? Maclean's; 3/5/2007, Vol. 120 Issue 8, p71-72, 2p, 1 Color Photograph [The article reports on adult daycare in Montreal, where adult men pay to be treated like a baby. Adult Baby Lovers and Diaper Lovers (ABDL) purports to be one of the first places in North America catering to grown men who find comfort and pleasure in reliving the helplessness of childhood. The owner of the daycare claims there is no sexual contact. Some say infantilism is a matter of degrees, while others argue it is a male-dominated submission fetish.]

FiachraByrne (talk) 02:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Books & Magazines

1. Mary Ann Mattoon Chicago 1992: The Transcendent Function: Individual and Collective Aspects, p. 207.
2. Melissa Hope Ditmore Encyclopedia of prostitution and sex work, Volume 1, p. 238 integrated WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex
3. Irving B. Weiner, W. Edward Craighead, The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology, Volume 3 - I don't think we can use this WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex
4. Frederick Kaufman, Our binkies our selves: the adult baby boom, p. 55 integrated WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex
5. Gloria G. Brame, Come hither: a commonsense guide to kinky sex, p. 174
6. Stacey Weiss, Secrets of a Phone Sex Operator, p.65
7. June Rathbone, Anatomy of masochism, p. 114
8. Christopher E. Forth, Ivan Crozier, Body parts: critical explorations in corporeality, p. 136
9. Gloria G. Brame, William Brame, William D. Brame, Jon Jacobs, Different loving: the world of sexual dominance and submission
10. Lorelei, The Mistress Manual: The Good Girl's Guide to Female Dominance
11. Barker, Paul Fantabulosa: a dictionary of Polari and gay slang

FiachraByrne (talk) 03:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm not adverse to the addition of references to the article. This conflict was to prevent the removal of reference information, with the intent to weaken the references as a prelude to deleting the once-referenced text. I think the value of my position has been demonstrated in that we can discuss specific pages in the DSM, instead of the forty-seven-page chapter[53].

I will, of course, continue assert that those articles only tangentially related to infantilism be discussed as such. For example, the patient described in "Epilepsy with fetishism relieved by temporal lobectomy" presented with epileptic symptoms, involving a safety pin but without mention of diapers or babyhood. (<original research> While half the mostly AB/DL responses to a 2008-2009 survey reported an interest in sadomasochism or power exchange, and two-thirds in baby-themed activities that involve restraint or punishment, only around 2% of AB/DLs reported having been diagnosed with epilepsy. </original research>

Additionally, Tuchman & Lachman conclude "The regressive quality and symbolism of the behavior pattern suggest a schizophrenic mechanism." I'm not aware of a reliable source that considers schizophrenia a paraphilia.

While we're on the topic, I'll point out that Malitz wrote "Dynamically the patient's diaper [fetish] appeared to symbolize a regression to infancy in order to reclaim the attention and love of his mother and to undo his displacement in her affections by his sister's birth." Regressing to infancy to reclaim maternal affection is inherently infantile. In Cantor's book, he cites Malitz, Tuchman, and Lachman to support the text "There have also been reports of individuals ... who express no desire to seem like an infant (Malitz, 1966, Tuchman & Lachman, 1964)" This is, at best, a seriously flawed interpretation of the sources.

Still, I'd be OK with citing the actual sources appropriately and in accordance with our conflict of interest policy. BitterGrey (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That quote of my chapter is incorrect. The whole quote is "There have also been reports of individuals who wear diapers while masturbating but express no desire to seem like an infant" (emphasis added). That same sentence continues, saying "it is not known if these individuals were hiding such imagery from their clinicians or if these individuals had an incomplete form of infantilism".

— James Cantor (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

So I point out that you cited a case of schizophrenia and a case of "regression to infancy...to reclaim the attention and love of his mother" to support that "There have also been reports of individuals who ... express no desire to seem like an infant" and your only counterargument is to point out that (at 2AM) I left out an ellipsis? I've added it, and it doesn't affect my point at all. Towards the goal of integrity, you should add the citations to your version. Of course, then people would be able to see that the obscuring continuation you added follows after the citations and after a semicolon.

Malitz' patient actually seems to have been quite open about the maternal and regressive themes in his fantasies.

For those not hoping to mash all paraphilias (excluding their own pet paraphilia, homosexuality) together into some "autosomething" neologism, it is so much simpler to accept separate conditions of infantilism and fetishism. ( Cantor's promoting his and his colleague's "autosomething" neologisms might have been one factor in his failed attempt to delete the Androphilia_and_gynephilia article. )

Fortunately, there is a widely accepted diagnostic standard that doesn't carelessly mash schizophrenia, infantilism, fetishes, etc. together; the DSM. BitterGrey (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

FiachraByrne & MissionNPOVible: Hope you two don't mind that I've been focusing on refs based on what points they might support or counter, instead of a big list of ones that mention infantilism. (I even dusted off my copy of Brame's older book, which interviewed a few of the more established members of the AB/DL community.) Let me know if there is a question about the old articles: I think I have copies of all the worthwhile ones mentioned above.

In general, it is best to assume that infantilism-related features are overemphasized in old articles. For example, Dinello's patient had "psychological and social retardation" as well as retarded physical growth (pg 132). His use of diapers might have been mainly for moral reasons: "He felt he was not able to achieve an orgasm by any means other than wearing diapers. This approach also satisfied him on religious grounds since he felt manipulative masturbation was morally wrong but orgasm achieved through the pressure of the diaper was not within his control." (pg 133) The diapers were traded for women's clothing and a girdle. "The girdle had the same masturbative effect as the diaper had." (pg 133) These were then replaced with a vacuum cleaner. It is an interesting case of diaper use (for a period of only about 29 months), but not even Dinello seems to have considered it a diaper fetish. BitterGrey (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I believe this page passes notability as well. I've integrated some of the above sources but I don't know if we'll be able to use all of them. Several are case studies or reports of individual experiences (either as adult babies or as sex workers who have worked with adult babies). I've included what I could write up so far. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

RS's to supplement DSM

Excellent FB - that settles the notability issue. So the question reverts back to the original one, which of these can be used as RS's for the statements currently attributed to the DSM? From what I can tell the following claims need to be sourced:

i) The majority of infantilists are heterosexual males

ii) DLs and ABs differ in self-image and the focus of attention

iii) Neither includes a sexual preference for children

iv) Desires and tastes of paraphilic infantilists vary around common themes of diapers and babyhood

v) AB is an interest in roleplaying as a baby or small child, called infantilism

vi) DL's focus on diapers as sexual fetish items

vii) Infantilism and diaper fetishism and should not be confused with basic paraphilias

viii) There is a ratio of ~10-20 males per female AB/DL

I imagine these should just about all be attributable to one or more of those sources... MissionNPOVible (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion

i) & viii) Probably. But if you're using the DSM to support this I think you would have to say that the AB/DL/Infantilism is regarded as either a paraphilia (DSM paraphilia unspecified - the refractory ward for all the other many paraphilias) or as a behaviour associated with another specific paraphilia that falls into a distinct DSM diagnostic category (Masochism). Then you can say that the DSM records that individuals with paraphilic behaviours are almost invariably men except for masochists where there is a higher proportion of women (20:1 according to the DSM but other sources put the ratio of females much higher I think). I'm not aware of any literature that says they're mostly heterosexual.

ii) We can source that but not from the DSM.

iii) This seems true. But getting a source that says that might be difficult particularly as I think some of the sources, almost all of which deal with individual cases, do record instances of sexual abuse by AB/DL people. Of course most AB/DL people do not present at clinics so one of the most frequent routes to a medical encounter is through legal transgressions. Therefore AB/DLs who engage in a criminal activity, particularly one in association with their paraphilia, are going to be way over-represented in the extremely small sample that have come under medical scrutiny. However, I think if the paraphilia is described as fully as possible it should be evident that there's no association between the behaviour and desires of AB/DL and sexual desire for children. Wait. Actually - I remember one source that said infantilism was the direct opposite of paedophilia (which actually makes sense). I'll try and find it.

iv) Supportable I think.

v) Supportable.

vi) I'd like bittergrey to elaborate on that.

vii) The article as it was constructed appeared to argue implicitly (and arguing implicitly was a real problem with the original article) that DL was fetish and AB was a sexual masochism. Or rather, it applied the general descriptions from the DSM of fetishism and sexual masochism and applied it to DL and AB respectively although the DSM only instanced infantilism as one mode of behaviour seeking humiliation by another. Some sources, following the DSM, discuss infantilism (rather than DL) as a form of masochism. Others treat it as a distinct paraphilia. Also, if diaper fetishism is a fetish it falls into one of the basic DSM categories. Now, if we want to treat DL in this way, first we need to get a decent source that says DL is fetish and fits the DSM criteria and then we could state that as a fetish DL shares the following traits in common with other fetishes and list them.FiachraByrne (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Mind a few questions to explore where we are and how far we have to go? It would be a shame to waste a lot of time making a case for things we already agree upon.

1) Do we accept the common terminology of 'adult baby(AB)' for an infantilist or someone with desires similar to an infantilism but might or might not be diagnosed as one due to Criterion B? (Having studied the broad diversity of AB/DLs, I can understand why Criterion B was diagnostically necessary, even though it did define all infantilists as having suffered clinically significant distress or impairment.) Similarly, do we accept 'diaper lover(DL)' for diaper fetishists with and without, and 'AB/DL' for the population as a whole? <original research> Around 40% of AB/DLs reported meeting Criterion B.</original research>

(Please note that this does not mean that ABs and DLs are equal or interchangeable, just that they generally have a lot in common.)

2) A number of the references above were in the article before but were deleted for one reason or another. My preference would be to only seek that history if it might be useful somehow (such as being able to copy and paste the old citations and convenience links). Are we in agreement about this?

3) Do we accept the DSM diagnostic criteria (the document's main intent)?

4) Do we have any objections to the words "costumes" or "props?"

5) Do we accept that a) since some/many of the AB/DL population doesn't meet Criterion B, b) most don't seek medical help(refs #3 and #9), c) this article hasn't been part of wikiproject medicine for a while; that some references will be outside the medical domain? (Yes, I'm aware that original research will need to be limited to the discussions back here.) BitterGrey (talk) 08:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

1. ) There's good support for the use of term AB as synonymous with infantilism. There's less support for the term Diaper Lover. They're both community terms, right? And doctors appear to have adopted the term AB (and thus made it "authoritative") but not so DL (although they describe some of the behaviours associated with it. Moreover, there's real confusion over how these terms are applied in the medical and other literature. Sometimes AB and DL are discussed as manifestations of the same underlying and distinct paraphilia. Sometimes DL is treated as an unrealised or partial instance of infantilism. Sometimes DL is treated as a fetish activity. Sometimes AB is treated as instance of masochism. I think it would be good, if sources are available, to get a handle on how the AB/DL community defines itself and then compare that to how the medical or other literature defines them. DSM as set up now is a bit stupid in regard to the description of the paraphilias - i.e. they only exist where a social, occupational or other impairment is present as a result of the paraphilia. It should not be a problem referencing the working group on paraphilias for DSM V and their contention (and supporting literature) that a distinction should be introduced between paraphilias and paraphilic disorders.
2. ) That's impossible to answer until it is produced. Copy and paste any deleted sections you want reinserted into this talk page and we can look at them I guess.
3. ) This troubles me given the use of the DSM in this article. I'd like you to explicitly state what you mean by this. Certainly we can get sources that treat infantilism or AB as a paraphilia (e.g. Cantor). We could then reference the general statements from the DSM on the paraphilias (e.g. AB or infantilism, while sometimes discussed in relation to broader categories of paraphilia (ref DSM) is commonly considered as a distinct paraphilia (ref Cantor, Blanchard, Barbara). Paraphilias occur almost invariable in men (ref DSM) etc ... But the DSM says nothing specific about AB or infantilism so it would, I think, have to be done in this way.
4. ) No. But as opposed to what?
5. ) This is the thing. Where you are discussing it as a medical condition you're going to have to use medical sources. So, if you're structuring the article around the DSM as providing the basic description of it as paraphilia it's going to be very hard to disregard medical opinion. Also, as I said, we can reference DSM V's proposal to distinguish between paraphilias and paraphilic disorders. In my opinion, one could discuss the medical literature - stating explicitly that this is how the medical literature has defined the condition and signalling where the medical literature is contradictory or incomplete. Then you could, in my opinion, look at how the community has defined itself, set up commercial establishments to fulfill the needs of AB/DL people etc. Again you would have to state explicitly that: members of the AB/DL community define themselves as ... Rather than stating that: AB/DL people are. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That's very interesting I know its bittergrey's own work but it's probably the largest survey of its kind, no? Now, I've only glanced at so I've not read the methodology in any depth, it's self-published (no editorial oversight or peer review), it's been conducted by an interested party, etc. Honestly, I don't mean this as a personal attack, I'd be a little troubled or should I say very cautious about using it given the way that the DSM was used in this article and indeed in the way that Cantor was quoted above. However, could not an editor other than Bittergrey reference this work if they clearly stated the nature and conditions of the research as I've outlined above? I'm not talking about structuring the article around it, but in using it as a primary source about the subject of this article to fill in detail where the broad categories have been established with secondary sources. I mean I would use blogs or other primary material occasionally in this way for some wiki articles and particularly for non-contentious claims. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(Starting from the bottom and working back)

re the article: Please note that this isn't my article. I've contributed most of the references and a lot of text, but much of the text has been rewritten or deleted since. There are times, such as the Malitz ref where I believed a change should be made but did not, to try to avoid conflict.

re the quote: The ellipsis I omitted at 2AM this morning has been added, and doesn't affect my point at all. I'm waiting for Cantor to synchronize his version with the actual text now, and maybe respond on the sexology instead of the typography.

re surveys: I'm providing my own survey results here to inform the discussion. Among reasonable editors, these results have sometimes been useful when discussing and resolving conflicts. Since I have now three sets of survey results to draw from, I can stay very close to the source data. I wouldn't be adverse to my survey results being cited in the article, but for obvious reasons, won't do it myself. As was the case with the recent sex ratio discussion, I also point to other surveys such as Dr. Speaker's doctoral dissertation and Dave's survey.

5) For simplicity, it might be best to use "infantilism" and "diaper fetishism" to refer to the medical conditions, and AB, DL, etc. to refer to the people/community/demographic. I wouldn't be adverse to mentioning that AB/DL was originally a community term. ADISC has an OK article with some definitions. An archive of DPF might also be available somewhere.

4) Let's just say that this article has a long history.

3) Basically that the diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia, infantilism, fetishism, etc. are different, and are, with some limitations, the criteria used to define those diagnoses, at least in the US.

2) Actually, my question related to prior uses of references or points that are being brought up here. Some might think this history important. I know going through it will involve a lot of wading. I think a lot of text could have been kept, but bringing that up now would just complicate this discussion further.

1) Accepting 'AB' is most important for the article. Unlike paraphilic infantilism, diaper fetish is in the common vocabulary. As a result, some use diaper fetish when referring to the paraphilia, and some use it in reference to the kink. To avoid perpetuating this confusion, would you contest our use of DL as a contrast to AB?

"vi) DL's focus on diapers as sexual fetish items"..."I'd like bittergrey to elaborate on that.": Sure. One difficult point in this article is contrasting infantilism and diaper fetishes, or AB and DL. One passage that usually gets missed on the way to the fetishism section is "The individual paraphilias can be distinguished based on differences in the characteristic paraphilic focus" (DSM 4TR, pg 569, first line). The first line in the fetishism section then reads "The paraphilic focus in Fetishism involves the use of nonliving objects (the 'fetish')." If #1 above is contested, we can reword this to "diaper fetishists focus on diapers as sexual fetish items." Worded this way, it seems kind of obvious. The intent was to highlight the differences in the focus, per the first quote. In one case, the focus is an object, and in another, the focus is one's self (or doing something with an object versus something being done to one's self or something he or she is doing to themselves). (The subject-object counterpart to masochism is sadism, where the focus is doing something to someone else.)

@MissionNPOVible, I do plan to get to the points you'd like supported. I'm just trying to measure the valley before trying to build a bridge. BitterGrey (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the points remaining in the article if sourced appropriately. My only issue is that the DSM does not source them but if the same info can be verified elsewhere, that's of course fine. If other sources can be used instead (and reliable sources, Bittergrey's work is not acceptable in my opinion, unless published in a peer reviewed volume, journal or notable and respected non-scholarly newspaper or magazine). The best article is one built from reliable sources where most sentences are referenced or attributable to a source. If that means a short article with lots of attribution, I much prefer that over a long article with plenty of poorly-sourced speculation and web-based, uncontrolled surveys. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU, I think we get the picture. Web pages are only RSs if diaper companies are selling hard copies. By the way, all should know that in the previous round (when WLU tried to replace DSM page references with DSM chapter references a few months ago, immediately after an argument with one of his friends whom I just recently had another argument with) he also took it upon himself to singlehandedly eradicate all mention of Understanding.infantilism.org from Wikipedia (eg [54][55][56]). WLU "...searched for it..." so he "...could remove any instance...".

Now if WLU would be so kind as to respond to the those questions I asked we might be able to make some progress. BitterGrey (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I've opened some new sections to discuss MissionNPOVible's points of concerns in detail. Ideally they'd have a four-part structure: 1) intended points 2) supporting refs 3) proposed wording 4) buy-in. Since I wasn't able to get buy-in on the AB,DL, and AB/DL terminology, I've started with that. It directly affects items ii, v, vi, and viii, so it might be best to put those off until after it is settled. Should we start the others as soon as possible, or stage them out? I'm hoping to build some inertia among those who are engaging in this conversation. However, I'd like to be able to discuss this before someone starts removing the citation details again. BitterGrey (talk) 03:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think this is a particularly high grade source, but it is a reliable third party that uses AB/DL terminology. If all else fails the following extract may prove a possible source for a few things. The book is 101 Things You Didn't Know about Sex By Eve Marx, and this comes from p.145 - I hope it's of some use:

From Google Books A person who engages in infantilistic play is called an adult baby or AB. There are categories within categories regarding adult babies or ABs. One in three ABs is also a diaper lover (DL) and these folks are collectively called AB/DLs. The majority of AB/DL's are heterosexual males. Another category is a sissy baby, usually a male AB/DL who throws a little gender play into his infantilism mix. This person might be a cross dresser who wants to wear little girl clothes or maybe a pink diaper cloth! An AB/DL masochist is someone who might want to be cross dressed by force. Infantilism is viewed by some mental health professionals as a relief from stress. Obviously they're not dangerous! They just have a deep-seated desire to be helpless and irresponsible because babies are not held responsible for anything, and it's not their fault when they crap or wet their pants!

MissionNPOVible (talk) 07:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• I also found something possibly relevant to vi) on pg.157 of the Brame book listed above by FB On Google Books relating to fetishised diapers. MissionNPOVible (talk) 10:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

MissionNPOVible, mind if I point you to those questions I asked? They might have gotten lost in the commentary. I'd like your input, but if you'd rather stay neutral, that is fine.BitterGrey (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I had integrated Marx (101 things...) but the edit protect hit before I could save it to the main page. I have no problem with it being used to clarify terminology, though it might require attribution. I don't really have a problem with the distinctions it makes, but I don't really consider it authoritative. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

infantilism and ABs, fetishism and DLs, AB/DLs

Since the paraphilia article simply lists AB/DL as the common term for infantilism, I'd think it wouldn't be an issue. However, since I wasn't able to get a strong buy-in here, I propose we discuss its introduction in a detailed manner. This would be an addition to the "medical aspects" paragraph. We should consider moving it up since we'd also like to use AB, DL, and AB/DL in the lead. Here are the points I think the new text should make, and some refs. Feel free to propose additional sources (preferably under the points, worksheet-style) or alternate wordings. BitterGrey (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I might be missing something but I can't see AB/DL listed as a common term for infantilism in that article?FiachraByrne (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Which article? BitterGrey (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• A)paraphilic infantilism is defined in the DSM, as a type of masochism.

1.DSM pg 572 "The individual may have a desire to be treated as a helpless infant and clothed in diapers ('infantilism')."

Good. But perhaps it would better to say that it is a subtype of masochism?FiachraByrne (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

IMO it's a behaviour of some masochists, not a subtype (at least within the context of the DSM). Other sources do muddy this unfortunately, but deal with them separate from the DSM. If a reliable citation can be found for this idea separate from the DSM, then obviously we can use that. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. I've modified the proposal. BitterGrey (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

2.Arndt, pg 394: "Infantilism is the achieving of erotic feelings by being treated as an infant. ... This paraphilia combines features of fetishism, transvestism, and masochism; it is mentioned as a form of sexual masochism in DSM-III-R."BitterGrey (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• B)this definition includes a criterion B, which not all who are interested in such things meet.

1.DSM pg 573 "Criterion B. The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." 2.<original research> Around 40% of AB/DLs reported meeting Criterion B.</original research>

As a matter of interest, how have you measured that they meet a clinical level of impairment or distress?FiachraByrne (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

They reported it in two questionsSurvey 1 Questions 19 & 20.BitterGrey (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

3. (mentions distress and impairment as criterion for rejecting diagnosis, but doesn't call it criterion B) 4.DSM pg 568 "Fantasies, behaviors, or objects are paraphilic only when they lead to clinically significant distress or impairment..." ( Criterion B, outside the context of a specific paraphilia. )

I think, however, we can refer to the sexual disorders workgroup (maybe not the right name) for DSM V and the literature that they cite in regard to the distinction between paraphilias and paraphilic disorder. That might put the impairment/distress issue to bed.FiachraByrne (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Better with an explicit reference, I think there's probably something in one of the articles or books but nothing springs to mind. This would be a good distinction to make. If a reliable source does a good job working through this, we could perhaps split or redirect the page - the main would be "adult baby" where it is discussed as a sexual fetish. Diaper lover would be identified as a sub-type, and paraphilic infantalism would be mentioned for when it causes distress. That seems to be the truest interpretation of the terminology, crippled as it is by a lack of good and thorough research base, but naturally we'd have to wait for better sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

DSM5 might be a moving target until it is printed. It might be best to stick with in-print sources.BitterGrey (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah - I see from his wiki that Blanchard headed up the paraphilia subgroup for DSM 5 and the distinction between paraphilia and paraphilic disorder is his. I still think it makes sense to cite this at some point in the article.FiachraByrne (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• C)diaper fetishism, or more generally fetishism, is defined by the DSM.

1. DSM pg 569-570 (fetishism section)

No. It is not. What you could do is something like: Diaper fetishism has been recognised as a distinct fetish [ref. Joe Blogs, p.93]. The DSM defines a fetish as ... [ref: DSM IV-TR pp 569-70]' Go from the specific to the general, in this instance, not the other way around.FiachraByrne (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I would rather not do this, as it's original research (specifically a synthesis) and I think it's a bad practice. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

@FiachraByrne - that seems reasonable. We wouldn't even need a ref that it was a distinct fetish, just that it is a fetish.BitterGrey (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• D)community term for those with infantilism-like interests is adult baby (AB).

1. <"Adult baby syndrome". The American journal of psychiatry 160 (11): 1932–6. PMID 14594737. http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/160/11/1932. ...> FiachraByrne (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
2. "Come hither: a commonsense guide to kinky sex" By Gloria G. Brame, p 174

Good.FiachraByrne (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• E)community term for those with diaper-fetish-like interests is diaper lover (DL).

1. 101 Things You Didn't Know about Sex By Eve Marx, and this comes from p.145[57]

I know I sourced this, but is there anything better? Might have to say that the term is not used by the medical practitioners and that it's an exclusively community term. Also, at least as indicated by Cantor, that some medical practitioner/psychologists have speculated that this could be an incomplete or unrealised form of infantilism.FiachraByrne (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you think the proposed text wrongly implies that this is a medical term? If so, we can adjust the proposed text. BitterGrey (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Nah. I just would have like a better source. I think I have one here: In some instances, ABS seems to represent a paraphilia.An online search reveals a number of websites regarding this, with those persons preferring to call themselves Diaper Lovers. It is often referred to as a diaper fetish in the scientific literature. DOI 10.1007/s10508-011-9783-8 I think that should cover it. I'm not very knowledgeable about this field but the more I look at it the less I think that paraphilia (dubious concept?) actually captures the full picture of what is going on here. I know we're doing this article at the moment, but I think that User:Bittergrey, at least, really wants to write an article about AB/DL rather than infantile paraphilia. There'd be the same problem of sources but potentially more leeway ...FiachraByrne (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I can certainly relate to wanting a better source. The Kise article looks interesting. As for the article being about the people instead of the conditions, it makes sense to discuss them together. The main reason I opened this discussion first is because the AB/DL terminology affected other points. BitterGrey (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Going to bed now but email me if you want the article. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• F) since two communities aren't separate, they are often called "AB/DLs".

1. Watson, J (2005-06-09). "Baby Man". Phoenix New Times. Retrieved 2011-02-28.
2. Taormino, T (2002-08-13). "Still in Diapers". The Village Voice. Retrieved 2007-05-08.
3. 101 Things You Didn't Know about Sex By Eve Marx, and this comes from p.145[58]

Good. But I'd argue we'd have to signal in the text when we're switching from medical or academic sources to journalistic accounts. Due to the nature of the sources we need to establish context.FiachraByrne (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Attribution seems the standard approach - X person publishing in Y source said... We're hamstrung by the lack of good sources and research, so we'll have to be careful. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

@FiachraByrne, well medical terms and sources to non-medical terms and sources. Do you think the proposed text does this adequately, or does it need to be adjusted?BitterGrey (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

PROPOSED WORDINGS:

• Medically, paraphilic infantilism is defined by the APA as a sub-type of masochism[A1]. This definition first appeared in DSM IIIR, in 1987[IIIR pg ?]. Similarly, the DSM also defines fetishism[C1]. As with all paraphilias, a medical diagnosis is only given if clinically significant distress or impairment is present[B4], often called "Criterion B"(eg [B1(same citation as A1)][C1]). The community term for those with infantilism-like interests is "adult baby (AB)"[D1][D2], and for those with diaper-fetish like interests, it is "diaper lover (DL)"[E1]. Since the two communities aren't separate, they are often collectively called AB/DLs[F1][F2][F3]. AB/DLs may or may not meet Crition B.

Thoughts? I was hoping that others would insert references, comment on the points, or propose wording. If people are OK with the result, please write so and then we can move on to the other items that use the AB/DL terminology.BitterGrey (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Even if all paraphilic infantilists were masochists, you still could not apply all information on masochists to all paraphilic infantilists as not all masochists may dress up as and desire being treated as babies. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

My only problem is with the line Similarly, the DSM also defines fetishism. It does of course, but you need another source before that establishing diaper lovers or whatever term as a fetish. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, if we're leading with the big classification systems it should probably be stated that infantilism does not appear in ICD-9 or ICD-10. Can we say that ourselves or do we need a secondary source to observe that for us?

Also after this I would move to the medical/academic literature, secondary or tertiary, that discusses infantilism in more detail. That means Cantor et al. then probably Pate. We need sources that survey the literature and we given the paucity of sources we have to use these.FiachraByrne (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we can WP:UCS regards the ICD-10, I just did searches for infantilism, infantilist, diaper, baby and got nothing. Leave the DSM out bar the reference to the behaviour of masochists. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

@FiachraByrne, noting your recurrent mention of Cantor and assuming good faith, I'll point out that that source defines infantilism as "an autoerotic form of pedophilia" (Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology pg 531, under the heading "Erotic Target Location and Location Errors.") In some presentations, he refers to it as "autopedophilia," analogous to other terms that have come out of his group, autoandrophilia and autogynephilia. The assertion that infantilism is a type of pedophilia is a greatly offensive fringe theory that has no place in Wikipedia. Please comment. BitterGrey (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether something is offensive or not is almost certainly irrelevant on wikipedia. If Cantor's opinion is not shared by a large number of people in the relvant fields, then we attribute it as a minority opinion. However, the dearth of sources and research means we must write the page based on what we can find. If Cantor is reliable, then it may have a place - probably if there are few other scholarly sources.

AGF applies to editors, not sources or viewpoints. Sources are parsed by their reliability, viewpoints by their degree of acceptance. If we have trouble finding scholarly sources, then any scholarly source should be cited. If other scholarly sources have criticized Cantor's work, then we juxtapose the two as "Cantor says X, Smith disagrees saying Y". It's not like we have a huge volume of literature to draw upon, which is a large part of the problem. But scholarly always trumps popular. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

@WLU, if you'll check, I think you'll find that I'm using AGF properly. I'd like FiachraByrne's thoughts on that aspect of that source. BitterGrey (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no good faith issue in asking that question, I think. I got the chapter from Cantor and I read it all but to be honest I zoned in on the section discussing infantilism as a paraphilia and I didn't really register the section erotic location errors. In my personal opinion while the phrase "infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia" may be unfortunate - even if it is semantically accurate (i.e. to love oneself as a child); although is infantilism directed at the self or outward or both (surely the later?) - and certainly I can appreciate that the theory that infantilism is the result of "misdirection" in erotic targets and that the proper target of erotic attraction should be children would be offensive to someone who is in the AB/DL community. As I think I've said before, I think that researchers of human subjects have responsibilities towards them and that these are not always fulfilled (which is not to say that science should be directed by political correctness but rather that researchers have to be really careful with the public articulation of their positions particularly when they are controversial). I also think that we have to include Cantor et al. as they are a good RS and simply stating that you don't like their theories or find them insulting is insufficient. There are two parts to their chapter which are relevant. 1) Where they give an oversight of the literature in terms of cases of AB. 2) Where they discuss Blanchard et al.'s theory regarding the etiology of infantilism. The first, I think, is less problematic as it's an overview of the literature. The second part is presented as a theory not as fact. It's not accurate to characterise this theory as "fringe" even if it is not mainstream. And, I think, people like Moser have countered it and he should certainly be cited as well in that regard (as WLU (talk · contribs) has stated). We have to report the literature, we can't ignore what we don't like. Cantor has to go in - in fact I'd include almost everything about infantilism from the medical literature.FiachraByrne (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

FiachraByrne, I find the phrase "Cantor has to go in" disturbing, especially given the topic we first debated. It isn't "if necessary, we'll use it" or "this might be a good reference to support that point", but "Cantor has to go in." It suggests a motivation. Is it possible that I'm misunderstanding you? BitterGrey (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

When I say "Cantor has to go in" what I mean is that there are few enough rs that we can use. His is recent, it's an Oxford publication, and he and his fellow authors are well published in the field. It's an obvious choice. You can't exclude stuff because you don't like it but you can look for sources to include that counter his arguments. As to ulterior motives I don't have any in regard to this or Cantor but I'll give you the background to how I arrived here. In the WPMED project of which I'm a member (although I'm not a doctor I'm doing - trying to do - a PhD on the history of psychiatry and psychiatric patients and this interest is revealed in most of the topics I post on) - there was a discussion about getting people with expertise to join wikipedia as editors. One of the people on the thread referenced Cantor and said something to the effect of "well given the treatment of someone of Cantor's status gets here, why would established academics bother editing". At that point I clicked to view Cantor's talk page and spent an hour or so reading the various exchanges. I might have read something at that time about the whole Bailey controversy as well. I also elected to watch Cantor's talk page. As a result of that I've been involved in three issues relating either directly or indirectly to Cantor. One, some months ago, related to, I think, the proper term to use for sex addiction for a self-help group as whether sexual addiction was a "real", or should I say scientifically established entity was in dispute. I proposed that the article should state that this self-help group defines its members as sex addicts as I thought that was a reasonable work-around to stating it as fact. That was accepted initially by everyone but then it went a bit pear-shaped although I had an interesting exchange with the guy on my talk page. I also posted one or two questions for Cantor on his page (differentiation between addiction and compulsion and something about why peer or self-help groups seek to medicalise their conditions - kind of relevant to this subject actually - which he answered in a civil and informative manner). I became active again on wikipedia recently and when looking at my watch list I saw the debate on Cantor's page about Peggy Kleinplatz. I got involved in that because the whole debate seemed so abundantly stupid as if people were interested in the quality of that article rather than conflict it would have been easy to establish the facts. Also, and as you know, I was honestly disturbed that you sent an email to his colleague that contained some "questionable" statements. That disturbed me because I would never like to see such behaviour directed at myself. This current one arose because, I think, because I was at that point watching the reliable sources page and I had a copy of the DSM when not many other people did. I thought and still think you were wrong in how you used it as a source. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not giving a detailed justification for my actions there. One of Cantor's admin friends was handing out bans liberally and singlehandedly (in violation of Wikipedia policy.) That admin friend was demanding that I and others not even mention Cantor by name. Obviously, this made the discussion remarkably one-sided. This also prevented me for pointing out that those comments were necessary to explain the email. However, in hindsight they could have been worded more politically.

As for the cause, you missed the step where WLU edit warred here to obscure all references to the DSM. This followed suddenly after the discussion where we first interacted. He clearly hadn't checked the DSM. Up until minutes before the RSN post, he still asserted that infantilism wasn't mentioned in the DSM at all; "I've read them all [the DSM pages cited], paraphilic infantilism doesn't appear."[59]. He was at 3RR here before checking the DSM.

The last time he tried this was in February[60]. That too immediately followed events on another page [61]. This pattern shows a clear motive.

Still, FiachraByrne, I would like to be able to assume that you are not here seeking revenge for Cantor. Statements like "Cantor has to go in" run contrary to that. Especially in light of the quote you added[62]. I had raised an issue with two cases that Cantor is misrepresenting[63]. The source you quoted matches my reading, and contradicts Cantor's. His is a fringe view at best. BitterGrey (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm here because I appear to be stuck here ... I'm trying to write an article on Gottlieb Burckhardt and I also recently made a {{Psychiatry|Portal}}(restoring w/o indent BitterGrey (talk) 05:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC))

... where have all the psychiatrists gone, incidentally. There seem to have been a few in 2009. Also, I seem to getting sucked into things like RSN on the Falklands ... In regard to Cantor, I don't know what I can say but I have no emotional involvement in seeking "revenge". You've acknowledged at least (I think) that you should have worded that email better and that was my main concern in that regard so from my point of view that is done. In regard to the DSM I'd probably like you to say that you "stretched" that source a tad. Regardless of which, on the question of sources for the article, it would be perverse to exclude Cantor. And excluding him because you don't like him or you've been in conflict with him is not supportable. You can't characterise Cantor or more pertinently Blanchford as fringe. They're cited hither and yon across the field. I would like to see the 1960s articles for myself but, regardless of that, Cantor et al.'s reading of those articles appears to be close to that of Pate and Gabbard. Even if it wasn't you'd still have to include them as they have stature and authority and they actually address paraphilic infantilism and provide literary review. Further, their text is an Oxford imprint. Oxford publications by definition are not fringe even if they are controversial. The bottom line is that if Cantor et al. are added they can't be deleted on any reasonable grounds. It doesn't matter to me in a personal sense that that should be the case but the article requires it. I'm sorry as I'm sure that that is hard to stomach but there are no reasonable grounds for their exclusion. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The 1960's articles are probably available at you university's library, although probably not digitally. I find it useful to be able to access the source, since so many later authors just read their own presumptions upon these cases. I assume you mean Blanchard? As for stature and authority, they were only listed as the most notable researchers (in another field) because Cantor wrote it so[64] while logging in under an undisclosed COI[65]. BitterGrey (talk) 05:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I know my own library and I will get them. Cantor probably shouldn't have put in his own citations to the article. However, he's fairly open about any COI now and from what I can see has voluntarily absented himself from a number of articles where COI could arise. He's also very far from being the only person editing articles in the paraphilia topics with a COI. Anyhow, I don't really want a conversation at the moment about Cantor the wikipedian. If there's a problem with him take a formal action such as arbcom. Also his and his colleagues authority as authors of rs is not determined by a wikipedia entry. Academic reputations are not normally made or lost in a forum such as this, nor should they be. Check their article and citations count [66] [67] [68]. If you want we can RSN it but I there's no reasonable argument for their exclusion. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Please check that link again. He was writing himself into the body of an article, "...other researchers, most notably Canadian sexologists James Cantor and Ray Blanchard and their colleagues...". In other places, Cantor has inserted citations to his own work (eg. [69]). In that instance, he was replacing a citation to rival researchers Moser and Kleinplatz with his own. As for arbcom, that might be necessary if he acts up again. So far, the diligence of individuals has managed to keep him in check.

"Confabulation, Memory Deficits, and Frontal Dysfunction" by James Cantor (of Boston University), et. al. doesn't look relevant. Narrowing the search to paraphilic infantilism gives much shorter lists, [70][71][72]. Even then, there don't seem to be any papers on infantilism. For example, Blanchard's article on transsexualism only mentions infantilism once, in an unreferenced list of other paraphilias.

The list includes International Encyclopedia of Sexuality, published by the Kinsey Institute, which looks useful. I had forgotten this one. It states observations, not speculations, and is a free download. It mentions "infantilism is fairly unique to the U.S and is growing in popularity." It also includes some old DPF subscriber stats, and includes some etiological quotes from the DPF founder. BitterGrey (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Cantor is a reliable source, the fact that he may have inserted it in violation of COI guidelines doesn't preclude other editors from citing it. Discussing the actions of another editor on another page wastes time and bandwidth. As non-COI editors, there are no policies or guidelines preventing any of us from adding an accurate summary of his work.

What page(s) mention infantilism in the Kinsey encyclopedia? The search feature doesn't work on that PDF. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, found it. Pages 1248-9/30-31 of the PDF. There's some useful stuff that could be integrated in the history section and if necessary some general descriptive stuff. However, it's mostly a description of a single city and set of practitioners, so it can't really be used for general statements. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU, given the events that preceded your both being here, and especially all the recent comments about what "must go in," you should respect the policies that apply to editors with a conflict of interest here, especially regarding Cantor. Foibles like the recent one at ANI[73] further bring your (plural) neutrality into question. I should point out that ANI is not a good place to make foibles like that.

As for the Kinsey encyclopedia, the search function works fine for me. BitterGrey (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a conflict of interest in citing Cantor. I will cite applicable parts of his work once the page is unlocked.

Does infantilism appear anywhere else in the Kinsesy source but those two pages? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No conditions, no qualifications, just "I will cite..." Even though he shows no indication of having seen a single infantilist, hasn't written a single paper on infantilism, and at best, takes artistic liberties with his sources. And you are asking us to believe that you are unbiased in this regards.BitterGrey (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Cantor, Blanchard, Barbaree are experts on the paraphilias. In fact, you don't have to rely on our judgement for that because it is confirmed by the fact that they were chosen to write the chapter on the paraphilias for the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology. That alone establishes their credentials. Added to that Blanchard is Chairing the paraphilia sub-working group on paraphilias for the DSM 5 and his articles have been cited more than 1800 times. Cantor is an editor of a journal (Sexual Abuse) in the field and sits on numerous editorial boards of journals in the field (Journal of Sexual Aggression, The Journal of Sex Research, and Archives of Sexual Behavior). Barbaree has also published widely. There's no question they'd easily pass an RSN. They're hardly the only source to be included in the article but I have yet to see any reasonable grounds for their exclusion. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

One does not need to be or have the subject of a page to write about it. In fact, that can arguably be a conflict of interest and since wikipedia is not therapy, it is important to ensure one's personal beliefs do not interfere with writing the encyclopedia. The obvious reason, and it's frankly amazing to me that I have to mention it, is that an individuals' experience may not be characteristic or representative, or they may be motivated to distort their experience for a variety of reasons. If a behaviour is genuinely representative of the relevant community at large, then it should be easy to find a reference to substantiate this. If no such reference can be found, then that is at least suggestive that the editor in question may not be accurately describing the overall community. Irrespective, Wikipedia requires text can be verified by reliable sources, in principle by any editor reviewing the source text. That text must be summarized accurately and not have undue weight placed on it. This is determined by reference to sources, quality of the source, weight within the scholarly community, not by the personal experiences of an editor. I will cite Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree because it is an obviously reliable source written by experts published by a respected scholarly publishing house. I will do so accurately and will listen if it is suggested I am mis-representing the source. In other words, I will edit as I always do. There is no reason to exclude the source and it's a waste of time to discuss what will ultimately be a small number of short citations. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

FiachraByrne, those comments could only establish _general_ reliability. While I question whether they are generally reliable, you also must make a case for _specific relevance_. DSM 4TR has all the characteristics of general reliability, much more so that the ones you are pushing, but you argued against the DSM exclusion anyway.

WLU, comments from you and FiachraByrne such as "I will cite Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree,..." reinforce the knowtion that pushing these sources upon Wikipedia was your primary motivation all along. What else would explain your double standards? BitterGrey (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The DSM is reliable. It's just irrelevant bar a single sentence. That's been the central point of numerous editors. Underline can be added by enclosing text between <u></u> tags, but don't use it in actual articles. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU, the basis for your argument argument against the DSM is that there is one sentence that specifically mentions infantilism. One source you are arguing for has zero sentences that mention infantilism. How is this not a double standard? BitterGrey (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Any chance we can set the CAMH-pushing aside and make some progress toward a consensus about this item? BitterGrey (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

vii) Infantilism and diaper fetishism and should not be confused with basic paraphilias

Here, a clearer, alternate wording should be able to resolve the problem. The whole sentence was "Many published cases are only tangentially related[14][15][16][17] to infantilism and diaper fetishism and should not be confused with the basic paraphilias.[6]" BitterGrey (talk) 03:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

14) ("He suggested that the onset of this disorder was when he was six years old, following an injury when he was kicked in the head by a horse; he was in a coma for six months.")

15) ("The patient would stare at the [safety] pin for a minute and then appear glassy-eyed. Next he would make a humming noise for a few seconds and for a few further seconds [make] sucking movements with his lips. Finally he stood immoble and unresponsive for two minutes. Recovery was immediate. Just before some attacks, his right pupil would dilate.")

16) ("This patient had a higher level of psychiatric morbidity than the patient of Drs. Pate and Gabbard, and some clinicians involved felt that his symptoms were best explained by an obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) spectrum illness.")

<original research>Survey data suggests that OCD is over-represented among AB/DLs, but still only present in a minority. The Wikipedia article has not been updated to reflect this. </original research>

17) Lehne, GK (2000). "The First Case of Paraphilia Treated with Depo-Provera: 40-Year Outcome". Journal of Sex Education and Therapy. 25 (4): 213–220. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) (Authors claim "mutation" of the paraphilia cannot be attributed to the unprecedented hormonal treatment they prescribed. A 65 year old has been in consultation with a sexologist for 40 years. He started crossdressing at 10, and had sexual contact with son at 30. The son was 6. After treatment with Depo-Provera, he resumed crossdressing at 36. He had a "paraphilic relapse" at 46. Among others, he had a new interest in infantilism. )

6) American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (IV-TR ed.). American Psychiatric Pub. pp. 568. ISBN 0890420254. ( DSM, the "differential diagnosis" section. "A paraphilia must be distinguished from the nonpathological use of sexual fantasies..." Various non-paraphilic pathologies are mentioned in the second paragraph. )

PROPOSED/ALTERNATE WORDINGS:

"Many published cases are only tangentially related (e.g. [14][15][16][17]) to infantilism and diaper fetishism, and these cases should not be confused with cases of infantilism and diaper fetishism.[6]" BitterGrey (talk) 03:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You would need a secondary source describing those citations as only tangentially related to infantilism and diaper fetishism. Rightly or wrongly, I'd imagine most of these sources are included in any literature review of the subject and should be include in the treatment of this wiki article. Also, before endorsing such a sentence, we'd have to see the sources you're seeking to characterise as tangential to the topic. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I've pasted in the refs from the article, and modified the above alternate wording to make it more clear that they are examples. Feel free to propose alternate wordings.BitterGrey (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Citing things as examples is original research. Pate & Goddard summarizes the literature as of 2003 which is a much, much better source and approach to include in my opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Would you like to propose an alternate wording? BitterGrey (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

"A 2002 case report by psychiatrists Jennifer Pate and Glen Goddard found little research on the topic, and they suggested the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders lacked a category that captured their patient's disorder." Remove the current "example" citations as original research. If we can't use the citation to say something general about paraphilic infantilism then we shouldn't be citing individual cases that discuss it. Pate & Goddard would also be useful to give general facts and information. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

pg 1936: "Mr. A’s statement that he wanted someone to make him be a baby evokes images of the sadomasochistic scenarios enacted by a dominatrix and her clients." infantilism was NOT rejected because of a lack of masochsim

pg 1932: "Unusual behaviors may escape psychiatric classification if they do not create subjective distress, do not distress others, and do not involve functional impairments or legal problems. Entire subcultures related to these behaviors may exist outside of the awareness of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals." That is, no distress or impairment.

DSM pg 568 "Fantasies, behaviors, or objects are paraphilic only when they lead to clinically significant distress or impairment..."

Obviously, paraphilia was rejected because Criterion B (distress or impairment) was not met, in accordance with the DSM, not in exception to it. (To head off the paraphilia NOS axe, I'll point out that pg 568 is in the general paraphilias section, and so applies to NOS as well.) I'll add this ref to the relevant point above.

To rephrase the point that we are discussing: Many Google scholar searches will turn up results that discuss cases of epilepsy, OCD, etc,. These should not be confused with infantilism or diaper fetishism. Would it be helpful if I added descriptions to the four references? I have copies and so don't know if they are in Google books. BitterGrey (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the issue is here. Personally, having provided as many general statements as possible I think it would be good to go into the individual cases whether you consider them tangential or not. The concept that will deal with epilepsy or OCD is comorbidity. There's no indication in the literature that epilepsy or OCD is connected to this paraphilia but when it's turned up clinically it's often been in the context of other disorders.FiachraByrne (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. I've been misreading things a bit here. The headings are the proposed sentences. OK. I don't think you can say this. The DSM instances it as a subtype of Masochism. There's probably a source that describes diaper lovers as fetishists. If that's the case these two could be classified as subtypes of the basic paraphilias (or am I missing something?). Of course, other sources refer to infantilism as a distinct paraphilia - classified as Paraphilia NOS. Looks to me that the sources won't allow us to make that statement. We need a more complicated statement to reflect the "reality" as contained in the sources.FiachraByrne (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

FiachraByrne, "basic paraphilias" was written to avoid using "infantilism and diaper fetishism" again in the sentence. The sentence could clearly be worded better. Any suggestions for isolating the "infantilism isn't epilepsy" (the intended point, which line up pretty well with your previous post) from the "infantilism isn't masochism" issue? BitterGrey (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm wrong on a point above. Infantilism has been treated as a paraphilia (e.g. Pate and Gabbard (2003)) and as connected to OCD (Croarkin, Nam,and Waldrep (2004)). Moreover Dickey (2006) has “autohebepedophilic dysphoria” (Blanchard school).

I think the most accurate statement I've read so far on the subject from the medical literature is that offered by Evcimen and Gratz: Adult Baby Syndrome is a recently described symptom cluster, which has not yet become part of any official psychiatric classification system. There have been only a fewcase reports in the literature,which presented either as a paraphilia or an obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) (Croarkin, Nam, & Waldrep, 2004; Dinello, 1967;Malitz, 1966; Pate & Gabbard, 2003; Tuchman & Lachman, 1964). These patients shared the common symptoms of wearing diapers, drinking milk out of a bottle, eating baby food, and wanting to become a baby. DOI: 10.1007/s10508-005-9002-6

What this whole discussion has made clear to me is that: 1) the "symptoms" or behaviours of infantilism or AB/DL are well described in the literature. 2) there is no consensus as to how categorise infantilism or AB/DL. 3) we shouldn't seek to present the medical literature as having reached consensus when none exists.FiachraByrne (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

One benefit to having separate terminology for the condition and the population is that we can express some otherwise troublesome points. The paraphilic conditions may have a set of symptoms or diagnostic criteria. There might be some hope of documenting these. The AB/DLs might try new things and develop new interests at any time. The result being more diverse and dynamic.

Thanks for the quote, by the way. It is good to know I'm not alone in asserting that some regressive aspects were mentioned by Malitz and Tuchman & Lachman, contrary to what one other author claims in his book[74]. BitterGrey (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, Cantor et al. are not alone in their characterisation. Gabbard and Pate (well Gabbard actually) follow much the same interpretation (PMID:14594737) (p. 1934):

Malitz (1) reported a case of a 20-year-old college student who was arrested by police for breaking into a house. He reported that the reason he broke into the house was because of a compulsion to wear diapers and defecate in them. Orgasm regularly accompanied defecation, even if he did not masturbate. He knew that the house in which he was caught would have diapers in it since there was a baby in the house. The patient also liked to wear rubber pants over the diaper. The patient did not, however, think of himself as a baby.

Tuchman and Lachman (2) reported on another patient with legal problems, in this case, for molesting his 4- and 6-year-old daughters. He would wear rubber pants over his diaper and enjoyed urinating and masturbating in it. This patient made no statement suggesting that he wanted to be a baby.

These two cases were both characterized as antisocial behavior, with a predominant emphasis on the fetishistic or sexual aspects of wearing diapers and rubber pants. Unlike Mr. A, neither patient had all of the characteristics of adult baby syndrome.

FiachraByrne (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Technically, they do differ. Malitz reported his patient's "...diaper perversion appeared to symbolize a regression to infancy in order to reclaim the attention and love of his mother and undo his displacement in her affections by his sister's birth." That is, there was a desire to be infantile expressed, but the patient didn't say that he thought of himself as a baby. Similarly, Tuchman & Lachman report a "...regressive quality and symbolism..." but not a statement of wanting to be a baby. Both in marked contrast to Pate's patient.

In practice, I'm less concerned about Pate's grounding for two reasons. 1) Most of the article focuses on one patient, so less of it hinges on the literature survey. 2) Deconstructing Pate's paper gives a title (correctly attributed to an episode of "ER") and a patient who didn't meet Criterion B so correctly wasn't diagnosed with a paraphilia. There was no new and fringey discovery that required much defending. I love the Indiana Jones quote. BitterGrey (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

"Some articles that turn up in infantilism literature surveys are actually cases of other conditions (e.g. epilepsy[15]), or have other atypical factors (e.g. severe head injuries[14], hormonal treatement[17], etc.). The DSM includes some guidelines for differential diagnoses[6]."

How about this alternative? BitterGrey (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This analyzes the literature to come up with a novel conclusion, making it original research. It's not saying "X says this about paraphilic infantilism^[1]", it's saying "X says this about paraphilic infantilism^[1] and it is wrong because of Y^{[citation needed]}." If there is a source that makes this point, it would be a valuable addition. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this a response to the reworded proposal? 15 explicitly describes itself as a case of epilepsy, even in the title, but does not mention anything that might be considered a conventional infantilism or diaper fetish, just that a safety (diaper) pin triggers the epileptic siezures. 14 explicitly mentions the severe head injury (""kicked in the head by a horse; he was in a coma for six months."). 17 is equally explicit, even mentioning "Depo-Provera" in the title. Finally, the section cited to support "the DSM includes some guidelines for differential diagnoses" is titled "Differential Diagnosis." The word "guideline" is not explicitly used and is negotiable. I'd be OK with rules, generalizations, examples, etc...

Also in light of the recent argument to use a paper on "masochistic gynaephiles" as a ref on infantilism, WLU's comment seems like a case of the pot calling the kettle black. BitterGrey (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You may want to note that in this edit, I hid the text where it states that most cases are only tangentially related. If Mitchell et al. 1954 is about epilepsy, not infantilism, it should simply be removed. Pandita-Gunawardena is cited in the case studies section right now, and I'd rather remove it since it's again about a single case study. Freund & Blanchard is a different matter since it talks about several case studies and offers a hypothesis. Mitchell is from 1954 and I don't have a copy so can't comment concretely but since it's a very old case study that I don't have a copy of, I'm reluctant to cite it. Croarkin et al. 2004 is a letter to the editor, it might work as a short attributed opinion. Lehne & Money 2000 is another case study and its use also depends. It always depends on the source, context and summary. But no matter what, the source makes the point, editorializing is never appropriate. Wikipedia editors decide what sources to use and how to use them, they do not comment or criticize. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU, whether you have access to the references or not is irrelevant, except that modifying or removing citations to sources you haven't checked is a violation of WP:AGF. Basically, it involves the assumption that the citing editor was being careless, deceptive, or both. This demonstration of ill will sets up a negative chain reaction by crippling other editors' ability to rightly AGF in you. For example, we had two separate edit wars regarding the DSM BEFORE you actually checked the DSM. Supporting the before-version-of-WLU based on AGF would mean opposing the after-version-of-WLU. This can spiral out of control. Do not modify citations you have not checked yourself. It is an action of bad faith, rooted in the assumption that some prior editor previously acted in bad faith. BitterGrey (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

iv) Desires and tastes of paraphilic infantilists vary around common themes of diapers and babyhood

• A basic paraphrase of the DSM definition

1. DSM pg 572 "The individual may have a desire to be treated as a helpless infant and clothed in diapers ('infantilism')."
2. Different loving: the world of sexual dominance and submission Gloria G. Brame, William Brame, William D. Brame, Jon Jacobs, pg 138 "infantilism is about losing control in a very primal manner."
3. Different loving: the world of sexual dominance and submission Gloria G. Brame, William Brame, William D. Brame, Jon Jacobs, pg 140 "while humiliation is a common interest, some adult babies wish to experience infancy without such D&S elements as humiliation, coercion, or punishment. Infantilists usually prefer gentle, teasing, nurturing experiences." (Although given that this book focuses mainly on D&S, the author might emphasize the contrasts with D&S.)
4. Anatomy of masochism By June Rathbone pg 114 - not sure if this ref is useful. The author emphasizes self-defeating behaviors, immaturity, lack of capability and control in a masochistic context, but doesn't seem to mention diapers.
5. The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology, Volume 3 By Irving B. Weiner, W. Edward Craighead pg 968 - "Where sadomasochism finds no outlet in sexual activity, it is likely to spill over from sexuality into personality in the form of rigidity, infantilism, hypocrisy, and passivity."-ditto.
6. Secrets of a Phone Sex Operator By Stacey Weiss p38 "ABDL-adult baby/diaper lover " "adult babies are by far my favorite callers. They are just so sweet and innocent. They want to pretend to the a baby and just be coddled, pampered, and really loved. They want to be held and have their diaper changed...Sometimes they do want to be played with sexually, but 80 percent of the time they don't. ...I'm not talking to them as if I'm molesting a child; I'm talking to them as if I'm talking to a grown man who wants to be a baby."
7. Chicago 1992: The Transcendent Function: Individual and Collective Aspects By Mary Ann Mattoon pg 207 "the obsession is the helpless child, alone in a crib or playpen, diapers wet or soiled, waiting and desiring to be bathed, held, loved, stroked, kissed, fondled. The fixation then moves to a literalizing and physicalizing. The adult then becomes a child, discarding adult clothing for diapers, plastic pants, made-to-order infant clothing."
8. Sex Crimes: Patterns and Behavior By Stephen T. Holmes, Ronald M. Holmes pg 81 - "Some adults are interested in sexual play in which they pretend to be helpless infants."

Should we reword, pass, or expand with additional references?

I think that that is fine. As a matter of interest, in your personal opinion which of these characterisations do you find most accurate?FiachraByrne (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The third citation would tailor well with the current use of the DSM and give a good contrast between paraphilic infantilists and masochists. I wouldn't cite any of the others - too much personal experience in dubiously reliable sources. Mattoon is far too focussed on a single, esoteric interpretation as well as a single case. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Short answer: I used "desires for diapers and/or babyhood" in the surveys, because a phrase was necessary to write the questions.

Long answer: There is a trade-off between detail and complexity. Since tastes vary, the more detailed a description is, the more of the population it will exclude. <original research> For example, not even liking diapers are a universal. </original research> A more complicated description can be more powerful, but at the obvious cost of being complicated. This also includes a risk of being misunderstood. For example, I'm told that masochists might experience being in bondage as liberating in a way. I can understand how, but also understand that it is difficult to convey to others. Processing the survey data gave me a renewed respect for the DSM's approach of aiming for one "mode" point roughly in the middle of the scatter, and describing it briefly.

Right answer: None, but the DSM is in the most libraries.BitterGrey (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

So are we all OK with using this point, without rewording, with refs 1-3? BitterGrey (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

iii) Neither includes a sexual preference for children

• Like leukemia and the ability to communicate with alien worlds, a sexual preference for children is not included among the symptoms of infantilism or diaper fetishism. The key difference is that it is not common to confuse infantilism or diaper fetishism with leukemia or the ability to communicate with alien worlds. (Complicating this further is that FiachraByrne's point about criminal subsamples is correct. Many sexologists have only been able to draw from the prison and morgue populations. This greatly distorted observations, and might be part of the reason why this point is important. Some psychiatrists have also been able to draw upon patients institutionalized for other reasons, but the association with epilepsy doesn't come up on talk shows as much as the association with pedophilia.)

1. DSM pg 572-573 (masochism section)
2. DSM pg 569-570 (fetishism section)
3. Chicago 1992: The Transcendent Function: Individual and Collective Aspects By Mary Ann Mattoon, pg 207 "these individuals are not pedophiliacs nor are they interested in sexualizing relationships with children." (pg 205 uses both "infantilism" and "adult baby", medical source)
4. Different loving: the world of sexual dominance and submission Gloria G. Brame, William Brame, William D. Brame, Jon Jacobs, pg 137 "Although infantilists are exclusively adults who roleplay with other adults, this interest is commonly mistaken for pedophilia. In fact, infantilists who recognize and accept their sexuality-and its possible roots in infantile trauma-tend to be acutely protective of real children."
5. Sex Crimes: Patterns and Behavior By Stephen T. Holmes, Ronald M. Holmes, pg 81 - "This form of paraphilia should not be confused with any form of sexual child abuse, pedophilia, incest, or other forms of child molestation."

Should we reword, pass, or expand with additional references?

Statement is fine. I'd scratch the two DSM references as they do not address this issue.FiachraByrne (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Scratch the DSM, Ardnt already sources the "common confusion", this should be expanded with the above citations to more clearly state that the two are unrelated. I wouldn't necessarily include the "acutely protective of real children" but would include a mention that it's exclusively adults with adults. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Since the DSM refs would be the Nationally recognized authority where the symptoms would be defined, I think they should be included. BitterGrey (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but as has been discussed at length, the DSM does not discuss infantilism as a separate paraphilia so it's use is quite restricted. There's no support for citing the DSM beyond it's reference to a behaviour of masochists. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The relevance is still there, whether the definition is considered a separate paraphilia or a sub-category of masochism. The DSM is still where most people will look to see what infantilism is and is not (short of Wikipedia, that is).BitterGrey (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if that is where most people would look to find out about it. And it's not really relevant because the DSM makes no general statement applicable to all paraphilias in regard to attraction to children.

The crux of the matter for me, and all other issues aside, the problem is in using a source, any source, incorrectly: that is where you cite it to support statements that the source does not make. The DSM in the pages you cite and elsewhere does not support the statement. FiachraByrne (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/FiarchraByrne. The DSM doesn't verify infantilism as a sub-category of masochism. Other sources may, and we can summarize it as a section specifically discussing masochism if we can find those sources. But we can't use the DSM to state infantilism is part of masochism. There does not appear to be a separate paraphilia of "infantilism" in the DSM. This doesn't surprise me, since the sexual fixations are different - for infantilists it is being treated and coddled like an infant; for masochists it is the humiliation of being forced to be treated like a baby. One is about being cared for, the other is about being humiliated. Though there is definitely blurry issues, I think there are sources that make this clear. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused here. I would have thought that Sexual Masochism was the only instance where "infantilism" is mentioned. That may be cohere or contradict the actual reality of infantilism but as far as the DSM is concerned that is the directly cited instance and there it most definitely is treated as part of the larger category of SM.FiachraByrne (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Infantilism is only mentioned as a behaviour of masochists in the DSM, but not as a subtype of masochism. This is my reading of the text and I had thought your interpretation was the same but perhaps I mis-interpreted. Other sources discuss the muddling of masochism and infantilism ([75]) which can be mentioned in the main page, but the DSM itself does not, in my opinion, classify infantilism as a subtype. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 05:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

In the DSM, infantilism only appears as a sub-type of sexual masochism. Notably, unlike the behaviors described, which are described with verbs, infantilism is defined with a specific noun: infantilism. BitterGrey (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it's a behaviour masochists engage in, or more accurately, have "forced" on them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU asked me to clarify my position on this on my talk page. The exchange is here. I don't think the sources support its characterisation as a subtype of masochism. It is referred to as a 'form' of or a 'variation' of it.FiachraByrne (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Since we are discussing this article's article topic, we should be discussing it here. Additionally, I've seen personal talk pages abused to exclude people from conversations too often. For example, last time I posted to WLU's talk page, he deleted it withe the note "I can just delete this without reading it". BitterGrey (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

FiachraByrne, I was fine with your suggestion of subtype[76] and adapted a proposed text accordingly, I would also be OK with "form" or "variation." However, unless we have some definite contrast between subtype/form/variation, it might not be worth debating.BitterGrey (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's probably a distinction without difference (at least no difference evident to me; can anyone enlighten me on this). However, if the term subtype is not used in the sources I'd prefer something like "form" or "variation". Obviously all this applies only insofar as the DSM discusses infantilism. We also have infantilism as a distinct paraphilia, as a form of OCD and in one instance related to OCD. Also, in reference to a comment on my talk page from WLU, I'd just like to say that, at least in terms of the medical literature, we shouldn't be trying to define what paraphilic infantilism is; rather we should be trying to describe in the first instance how the medical or other rs literature has attempted to define it. If there are contraditions and disagreements in that literature, and they're obviously is, we should just report it and leave at that.FiachraByrne (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, am I fooling myself or are we approaching some kind of consensus on things?

We can hope. There does seem to be some progress, as long as the promotion of certain related authors and the rejection of the DSM that the promotion of those authors requires isn't being discussed. BitterGrey (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

My draft on masochism below uses a large number of direct quotes as I can't think of a good way to summarize such brief mentions and I think the quotes are themselves fairly clear. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that text is highly obscure, and might be read as making the exact opposite point of the one we are discussing here. This point still should be made. It seems-well supported. The only disagreement seems to be whether to cite the DSM or not. BitterGrey (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The DSM shouldn't be cited, there are other sources that verify this point adequately. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

But do you agree that this is a worthwhile and supported point? BitterGrey (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there was every any effort to remove the distinction between pedophilia and infantilism. The page's current discussion of pedophilia is weak and sourced to a 45-year-old publication, it needs to be expanded and the referencing improved. Brame's Different loving is a weak source to cite. However, Holmes & Holmes Sex crimes is by a good publisher and an adequate source, and my library has a copy. Freund and Blanchard also make the point with greater detail that would be valuable. The DSM, of course, should not be cited for this point. Pages follow the sources, we don't use sources to justify pre-existing ideas. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Since you brought up motivations, the migration of past arguments is consistent with an intent to remove references to DSM to make way for references from CAMH authors (including Freund and Blanchard), who are pushing the fringe theory that infantilism as a type of pedophilia. This is in opposition the the DSM, which categorizes it as a type of masochism. So indirectly, yes, there was not only an effort to remove the distinction, but to group together.

Even if we don't consider motivations, the amount of effort dedicated to advocating CAMH sources above and below clearly show that there was substantial effort, and the effects of that effort is to promote CAMH over DSM and to remove the distinction. BitterGrey (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The one source I have written by Cantor discussing infantilism doesn't connect it with pedophilia. Freund & Blanchard explicitly states that the sexual focus is only superficially similar and discusses what distinguishes a pedophile from an infantilist (which they term masochistic gynaephile). You're arguing a straw man here since I don't think anyone has advocated for a statement equating pedophilia with infantilism. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

@WLU. Agreed and if included these sources should be used judiciously to avoid such a misreading. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Cantor: "They [Freund and Blanchard] interpreted infantilism ... as an autoerotic form of pedophilia." p531. So yes, WLU, it does. Furthermore, Cantor's reading of Freund and Blanchard is at odds with WLU's reading, so one or both of them isn't right. BitterGrey (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. Given "an autoerotic form of pedophilia" is a fairly loaded term that seems to imply, to the uneducated reader, that infantilists are pedophiles, I'd summarize that as "Freund and Blanchard theorize that infantilism is an erotic attraction to the idea of the self being an infant". Technically speaking it is correct, but the proper way to summarize F&B/Cantor's discussion of this topic is still to distinguish between pedophiles (attracted to children) and infantilists (attracted to the idea of themselves being children). Bittergrey's point underscores the importance of citing Cantor, Freund and Blanchard in the article, and fortunately Cantor makes the difference even clearer. In fact, given this fact I would argue we don't need Fruend and Blanchard at all, simply Cantor's summary of them - a secondary source a primary source. Excellent. Given Cantor's summary, can anyone else see a reason to cite F&B? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see my point above about checking sources[77]. This foible adds Cantor to the growing list of sources that WLU has argued about at length but was not familiar with. That the direction WLU is pushing in hasn't changed, even though the claimed motivation has been reversed, suggests that there is a true motivation independent of his claimed motivation. This is true both of his downplay of the DSM and promotion of the CAMH fringe viewpoint. WLU, if you would tell us what you really want, perhaps we can find a mutually acceptable compromise.

I agree that pedophilia is an emotionally loaded term, but it is the term Cantor, Freund, and Blanchard use. Watering down their fringe view to something less fringey (that they didn't write) misrepresents the source. BitterGrey (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

We should also note that per MOS, "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.". One facility represented in two sources is not "widely used." BitterGrey (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering the point I'm going to make with this source (just like I was going to make with Freund and Blanchard) is that infantilists are not pedophiles, I'm not sure who you are arguing with and why. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Bittergrey has a point and we shouldn't seek to ameliorate the hypothesis of Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree on infantilism? Just note it in the text and move on? If every inclusion or exclusion is going to be so contentious we should keep it to the simplest paraphrasing of whatever sources we have and not worry about impact. There's no point going in here with a preferred version of the article or AB/DL that will emerge. Just report the sources in the simplest terms possible.FiachraByrne (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

To summarize my points regarding the CAMH sources:

1. Rewording sources that state infantilism is a type of pedophilia to say something other than that would be to misrepresent the source. However, per the manual of style, using a value-laden term such as pedophilia should only be done if there is broad support. Only one facility, represented in only two sources, is not broad support. (If we accept WLU's initial reading of F&B as correct, then it would be only one source, and a mistaken one at that.) Thus we should not cite either F&B or C with respect to pedophilia.
2. F&B is written around new groupings defined by neologisms such as "masochistic gynaephiles". This makes using it at all problematic. None of these groupings can be reasonably mapped to infantilists. For example, equating infantilists with "masochistic gynaephiles" would require all infantilists to be either heterosexual males or homosexual females, since gynephilia is the love of women. Creating such mappings ourselves would be an act of original research.
3. F&B has serous flaws in terms of internal consistency. If erotic target location errors existed in pedophilic masochistic gynaephiles, they would envision themselves as the target of pedophilic gynaephilia; little girls. (pedo- child, gyne- female). The examples given either envisioned themselves as boys or were not specified. None of the examples cited supported the hypothesis being forwarded. Since this is a primary source, internal consistency is all we can evaluate it against.
4. F&B does not mention the word "infantilism" at all. This was the rationale given for stripping away most of the DSM refs.
5. C&B presents interpretations of the primary sources that deviates from those of multiple Wikipedians. Above we saw that WLU's reading of F&B[78] differed from Cantor's[79] by nearly a hundred-and-eighty-degrees. I've challenged Cantor on his reading for Malitz, Tuchman, and Lachman[80][81], and he has yet to do anything more than comment about my typography[82]. The issue of Malitz had come up previously[83]. A secondary source that doesn't reliably summarize the primary sources has no value.
6. C&B presents few relevant sources not already summarized by Pate's article. (Exceptions include Stekel, who's book on psychosexual infantilism is already cited in the article, Bethell, and F&B) Pate covers most of the same material, but does so without fringe theories. Pate, in contrast to FB&C has been free of conflict. He's been cited in this article for years. BitterGrey (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the page should point out that paraphilic infantilism is absolutely not pedophilia. I've made that point myself several times.

Regarding your point about "broad support within the sources", there are so few sources, we can pretty much represent all that present secondary conclusions. I've yet to see a scholarly source that discusses another scholarly source to criticize it. This topic appears to be pretty far below the radar of most researchers in the area.

Citing Freund & Blanchard is unnecessary because Cantor makes their points for us. Cantor will be very helpful. It doesn't matter if wikipedians agree with a source (also, I only see one disagreeing with him, myself and Fiarcha quite willing to cite him) the important thing is reliability and weight. There are so few scholarly sources, all can be cited. Your claim that Cantor doesn't reliably cite F&B doesn't hold water in my opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: "paraphilic infantilism is absolutely not pedophilia," C, F&B contain a fringe view contrary to this point.

Re: "so few sources" MOS is specific that value laden words such as pedophilia should not be used if supported only by few sources.

Re: "I only see one disagreeing with him": "Freund & Blanchard explicitly states that the sexual focus is only superficially similar and discusses what distinguishes a pedophile from an infantilist (which they term masochistic gynaephile)." WLU[84], when he thought "Cantor ... doesn't connect it with pedophilia". In truth Cantor writes "They [Freund and Blanchard] interpreted infantilism ... as an autoerotic form of pedophilia." p531. So yes, you did disagree with them.

Re: infantilist="masochistic gynaephile": This includes the assertion that all male infantilists are heterosexual, that no homosexual or bisexual infantilists exist. It appears that only the one paper, when used in wp:synthesis, asserts this. WLU, do you believe that all male infantilists are necessarily heterosexual? BitterGrey (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Also re: infantilist="masochistic gynaephile": F&B discuss multiple dissimilar groups. C&B mentions F&B discussing infantilism, but doesn't mention which group. WLU, what is your basis for asserting that "masochistic gynaephile" is the group C&B mentioned F&B discussing as infantilists?

Re: secondary source: Regarding the fringe theories such as "infantilism [is] an autoerotic form of pedophilia", they only appear in two papers, both written by Blanchard and colleagues at CAMH. The essay Secondary_does_not_mean_independent discusses how a first party can produce a secondary source thought meta-analysis of multiple primary sources. Since only one primary source is given, the Cantor/Blanchard/Barbaree source is not secondary.BitterGrey (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine

Is there a consensus for inclusion in WikiProject medicine? It will reduce the scope of the article, and exclude many of the sources being discussed. BitterGrey (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• oppose - Having been with the article since the last time it was within WikiProject medicine, I think that it unnecessarily limits the scope of the article. BitterGrey (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I should have talked about this before doing it. I'll revert it now until we can establish consensus.

• support as - I've done this really just for categorisation purposes as it would seem I'm the only person on wikipedia at the moment adding wp-med box for psychiatry; from my point of view it just adds it to a list of articles and gives it an importance and class rating. There's no intention to use this box as a means of imposing a Medical manual of style (which is only a recommendation anyway). Also, you've used a medical term 'paraphilia' and we are using a lot of medical sources. It falls within medicine and psychiatry undoubtedly but not exclusively so. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Please be aware that WP:med implies not just a different style guide, but a different standard for RSs:WP:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles). In particular, I seem to recall (Dr.) Brame's book being removed for this reason, although that was roughly half a decade ago. BitterGrey (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• oppose - wikiprojects do not reduce the scope of articles, they merely categorize them. MEDRS applies to medical claims in general, and do not apply to whole articles. Scholarly sources are always given more weight than popular.

However, I don't see paraphilic infantilism as a medical condition as it misses the "clinically significant distress" necessary for a diagnosis (I realize the page name incorporates "paraphilia" which more or less directly implies distress, but I would suggest renaming the page and including a section on medical/psychiatric aspects rather than including it). Most of the case studies, the majority of the medical literature I've seen to date, are complicated and I can't see much that can be generalized; I've yet to see anything that says "most people with paraphilic infantilism have comorbid disorders". I would suggest the psychology wikiproject might apply but sexology should definitely remain. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

"Fantasies, behaviors, or objects are paraphilic only when they lead to clinically significant distress or impairment...." pg 568, DSM. The DSM clearly states that without distress or impairment, it is not a paraphilia. This is true no matter how much you wish to disregard or relegate the DSM in favor of authors whom are not in line with it. It is the APA's consensus document, defining Nationally what a paraphilia ia. Thus paraphilic infantilism involves clinically significant distress or impairment. Dr. Pate's patient, for example, did not have clinically significant distress or impairment, and so was not diagnosed with paraphilic infantilism. BitterGrey (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

In which case this page should only be about infantalism as a mental illness and the sexual fetish is a different page. Or, as I suggest above, the page is moved to a title that lacks reference to paraphilia and discussion of infantilism as a mental illness is a minor subsection. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Masochism draft

I've created a draft of a separate section on masochism based on some sources FiachraByrne listed on his/her talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Masochism

The DSM states that masochists may have a "...desire to be treated as a helpless infant and clothed in diapers" and describes this as "infantilism"DSM572 and The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Psychiatry describes infantilism as a variation of sexual masochism. Sexologist John Money, in his book Lovemaps describes paraphilic infantilism as a possible "...adjunctive to masochistic discipline and humiliation."Lovemaps259. Psychologists D. Richard Laws and William O'Donohue state that "Although infantilism is classified as a sexual masochism in the DSM-IV and DSM-IV-TR, it is questionable whether the criteria for sexual masochism are always met. For example, if the infantile role playing does not involve feelings of humiliation and suffering, then the diagnosis of sexual masochism would not be appropriate and a diagnosis of infantilism as a paraphilia [not otherwise specified] is warranted."Laws&O'Donohue407 In a discussion of several case studies of adult males who fantasized about being infants, psychiatrists Kurt Freund and Ray Blanchard made

James Cantor, Ray Blanchard and Howard Barbaree in the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology classify infantilism as an erotic identity disorder, in which the sexual fantasies of infantilists are focused an altered image of themselves as an infant rather than a partner or object.Cantoretal2009 Blanchard and Kurt Freund discuss a series of case studies in which they make a distinction between pedophiles who imagined themselves as young children because "...this imagery increases the subject's similarity to the sexual object (children)" while what they termed "masochistic gynaephiles" (whom Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree refer to as infantilists) would imagine they were children to increase the power difference between their preferred sexual object of adult women spanking and scolding them. Freund and Blanchard make a similar distinction regarding the use of diapers, with pedophiles wearing them due to their association with children while masochistic gynaephiles associate them with the "role of the shamed, defenceless, punished little boy."Freund&Blanchard

Discussion

I'd prefer to be able to discuss your intended points individually, WLU. Overall, I'd need to oppose it since it is largely about pedophilia. Pedophilia is 302.2 and infantilism is a type/subtype/... of 302.83. They are different. It also severely lacks readability and fails to explain a number of loose ends. For example, why does "masochistic gynaephile" require a neologism, other than an author whom you are connected with can't claim to have coined 'male heterosexual masochist?' We might be able to use some parts, but we would need to discuss those parts individually, as we are discussing the other changes.BitterGrey (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The Freund and Blanchard summary is pretty long but because it makes a point of distinguishing between pedophilia and infantilism it's very much worth including. It could probably use some reworking (possibly split to a different section) but the text is quite specific and thus incorporates valuable detail that is grammatically difficult to summarize. The point they make about the erotic focus (children versus being a child getting scolded and humiliated) is a central distinction that I think merits highlighting. I can go either way regarding the use of masochistic gynaephiles versus paraphilic infantilists, but I would like to include it as an alternate term in the lead. Normally I prefer the reference to link explicitly to the topic at hand, but this is sufficiently obviously related to the topic that I think it avoids original research or synthesis. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

And where exactly is 'infantilism' mentioned in that paper? I know some nappy fetishes are mentioned, but according to the DSM, they are in different categories. BitterGrey (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Page 561, "...masochistic gynaephiles...habitually imagine themselves as little boys or babies in sexual fantasies involving adult women." Given that definition, I think it's worth including it in the page, though more questionable is contrast between pedophiles and masochistic gynaephiles. It may only be worth mentioning it as a single sub-type. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This page is about neither pedophiles nor "masochistic gynaephiles." After all the accusations you've made against me, you try and slip this tangle of WP:SYNTH through? BitterGrey (talk) 06:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Give the definition of masochistic gynaephiles, I believe we can use common sense and apply it to the page. Unlike the DSM, which casually mentions a single behaviour as one among many, the fundamental definition of masochistic gynaephiles involves behaving like a child (ironically for masochistic reasons). I was also very, very careful in my reading of the source to separate out the parts of the source that directly applied to the page, versus the use of the DSM which casually read into a variety of pages a large amount of text that wasn't there. However, it might be better placed elsewhere and could be shortened. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Being "very, very careful" with one's WP:SYNTH doesn't change the fact that it is a novel synthesis, not supported by the reference, driven by the determination to cite Cantor/Blanchard even when irrelevant.

The "common sense" argument can't be given by the person who just stripped all mention of the fetishism section of the DSM, and all general sections that might apply to fetishism, from the diaper fetish article, because "DSM does not cite anything except the appearance as part of masochism[85]". Common sense would be that people could have fetishes for items other than the six items listed ("Among the more common fetish objects are women's underpants, bras, stockings, shoes, boots, or other wearing apparel"), such as rubber, spandex, etc. WLU's arguments make no sense, and displays a double standard. It only makes sense if the true motive has always been to replace DSM with citations for fringe theories by Cantor/Blanchard. BitterGrey (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

But if that were truly the case than a single article on fetishism would be sufficient. One wouldn't need to elaborate on the infinite number of objects to which fetishism could be applied. All you'd have to say is that, "Diaper love is a fetish, please see the fetish article for further details". According to that logic to elaborate would be to engage in tautology. On RS it says "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research". The DSM is a suitable rs for talking about fetishism generally but it is not a suitable source for talking about this specific fetish and basing an article around it is ludicrous. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

@WLU I think it's a pretty good draft. However, personally I think it would be better to begin with a more detailed description of the behaviours and desires that make infantilism identifiable. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I see the masochism as a subsection simply because so many sources describe it as masochistic (which I personally think is either a mis-reading of the DSM or an aspect of a poorly-studied fetish which rarely appears in the scientific literature). I'm not sure of the placement, but it would be below the first section after the lead, which would discuss the core characteristics. I see the masochism angle as a wrinkle rather than a main focus, but we have to go where the sources take us. I like it because it says "yes, the DSM links this to masochism, but it's not quite exact". Another option is (if we can source it), one section discussing infantilism as a masochistic behaviour and another discussing it as a lifestyle. Again, sources limit us.

Could you also have a very careful read of the Fruend & Blanchard section and source? Though I disagree with Bittergrey's comments, he does underscore that we have to be quite careful in how we use it because the terminology is not exact. After thinking about it for the past day or so, it may not be worth including simply because it's inexact. I really, really like the distinction they make between pedophiles and masochistic gynaephiles ("I'm a child because I want to have sex with a child" versus "I'm a child so this woman can tell me how naughty I've been").

All this is making me think that we're missing sources for a key part of paraphilic infantilism, individuals who are in it purely for the eroticization of childhood rather than humiliation. If you have someone who simply dresses like a baby when there is no-one else around, that's not really masochism. If you have two people who behave like babies around each other, that's not either. I'm guessing we'll have to look into the non-scholarly literature for that, since the scholarly mostly focusses on psychiatric and criminal populations (i.e. people who get arrested, committed or treated). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

@FiachraByrne, per your "not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research" quote, the CAMH ref and text are WP:OR, because it indicates no relevance to infantilism. Yet you only apply this quote as an argument only against the DSM. As is easily confirmed, the DSM defines infantilism, while the CAMH ref cited here doesn't even use the word. This is a clear double standard.BitterGrey (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

What reference do you mean when you say "CAMH"? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Anything written by Cantor or Blanchard or by anyone employed at the centre where they work. FiachraByrne (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Freund and Blanchard (1993) is referred to as a text about infantilism by Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree (2008).FiachraByrne (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, p. 531. That actually seals it for me, I have no problem with Freund & Blanchard being used, though I still think we should be very careful about doing so. Excellent, that'll make a very good addition to the sections on how paraphilic infantilism is separate from pedophilia but related to masochism.

And of course, reliability is not determined by where a person works or their pre-existing conclusions. Both Cantor et al. and F&B are unarguably reliable and appropriate for the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

CAMH is a reference to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, a cluster of colleagues who frequently coauthor papers. As a result, they might be expected to be less than critical of each other's work. So far, it seems to be the only source for this fringe theory. BitterGrey (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

@WLU, I agree it would need to be handled with sensitivity - there's no indication from that text that those in the AB/DL category have a higher rate of paedophilic behaviour than any other population group, paraphilic or otherwise. Giving that section undue weight might insinuate that this was not the case. Also, while the theory is not, I think, fringe, neither is it mainstream and there are plenty of critics. However, as you indicate, the text has some of the clearest descriptions of masochistic behaviour in "infantilism". FiachraByrne (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

At best, this text is an obscure vehicle to promote the neologism, "masochistic gynaephiles". Equating this neologism with infantilism includes the assertion that infantilists are ALL either heterosexual men or homosexual women, since gynephilia is the love of women.

Furthermore, it does not mesh with the fringe view stretching erotic target location errors to explain infantilism. A pedophilic masochistic gynaephile with an erotic target location error would envision himself a _girl_ (pedo- child, gyne - woman). This is not true even of the cases reported, which include one who fantasized about being a boy of 10 and two who were unspecified. ( We can't get more details on the unspecified cases, since this is a primary source. ) This shows a serious failure either by the author, those engaging in the WP:SYNTHESIS necessary to use the paper in this way, or both.

Interestingly, not even a basic definition was reported correctly. Gynephilia is "The love of women; a sexual attraction to women, in general." Blanchard mistakenly defines it as "...males whose erotic targets are women." (p558) BitterGrey (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

i) The majority of infantilists are heterosexual males

(The discussion of vii, "There is a ratio of ~10-20 males per female AB/DL," involves acceptance of the AB/DL terminology. The discussion regarding that terminology was derailed due a few editors' determination to use CAMH sources. That terminology is also involved with MissionNPOVible's items ii, v, vi, and viii. iii, iv, and vii have already been discussed. iii and vii discussions have also been derailed due a few editors' determination to use CAMH sources. However, a tacit consensus for iv might have been reached.)

A) Mostly male

• DSM pg 568 gives a 20 males to female ratio (5%), and pg 572 defines masochism under the heading of masochism. (Those seeking to dismiss the DSM have argued that the DSM defines it as only a practice among masochists, but this would not affect the demographic similaries. )
• Dr. Speaker's 1986 dissertation observed 26:1 (pg 78) or 4%.
• Dave's 2001 survey gave 7%
• <original research> My own survey showed that the AB/DL population was around 8% female. (Note that the 7% and 8% values included paraphilic infantilists and non-paraphilic AB/DLs. For example, the wives of paraphilic infantilists who developed an interest in being an AB/DL would be included in the 7% and 8% values, but not the 20:1 ratio. </original research>
• Brame pg. 138: "Infantilism is primarily a male phenomenon and is practiced by straight and gay men."
• Brame pg. 142: (quoting the DPF founder regarding DPF membership) "Upwards of 95 percent [of our members] are male... A fair percentage of the dominant women that we're getting are professional; a few are the wives of infantilists." Upwards of 95% male would mean downwards of 5% female.

B) Mostly heterosexual

• Dr. Speaker's 1986 dissertation observed 20 primarily heterosexual (62%), 6 primarily homosexual, and 6 bisexual (pg 78).
• Dave's 2001 survey gave 66% straight, 14% bisexual, 10% gay, etc.
• <original research> My own survey [http://understanding.infantilism.org/surveys/survey1_abdls_etc_part1.php#7 showed that the surveyees reported being 58% heterosexual, 13% bi, leaning toward heterosexual, etc. Since this survey included three 'bi' options, a slight decrease in the percentage that selected heterosexual or straight is to be expected.</original research>
• Brame pg. 142: (quoting the DPF founder regarding DPF membership) "We're about two-thirds straight and one third gay. [This is] a little heavier than average on gay, because we were originally a gay organization."

Accept, reword, add refs, stonewall until a CAMH ref is included? BitterGrey (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The DSM is out, your own survey is out. Speaker's dissertation interviewed a very small number of men making generalization inappropriate. Brame could be attributed as "Brame estimated that in his own group was primarily heterosexual" but it's questionable whether we should use such a source to make a broad generalization based on a single group. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see my point above about checking sources before claiming to know about them[86]. Dr. Gloria Brame is not a "he." BitterGrey (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

There is Hickey, however. I only have his statement on snippet view in google books; but the book is widely available and worth checking out as he has a whole chapter on infantilism.FiachraByrne (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll see if I can track down a copy. According to snippet view, the pages listed for "homosexual" and "heterosexual" don't seem to overlap with the infantilism chapter. This might mean that, like the DSM, the sex ratio data is discussed separately by category, or it might mean nothing. What are your thoughts on the references listed? BitterGrey (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

On Hickey, that's the opening of the section on infantilism so he's obviously directly addressing their specific demographics. What his sources are for his statements are as of yet a mystery.

If I'm not mistaken Speaker's dissertation was for an M.A.? If so, unless it's been widely discussed in the academic literature, it ain't rs even if accurate. We can't include the survey as it isn't rs. Your own research isn't rs. Brame refers to the demographics for an organisation. It can be presented with appropriate caveats and context (as you've included above). The DSM is trickier but I actually think it can be used in this instance if properly constructed and if you don't present it, as before, as if it were specifically talking about infantilism. So therefore we could say that while "there is no reliable data" (that we're aware of, that meets RS, or that we have access to) "on the specific demographics of infantilists. However, the DSM states that paraphilics are mostly men..." etc. It's not synth, I think, if you're not presenting it as a conclusion but merely as the best indication. It's also common sense but it is pushing the source. The real objection for me to the previous use of the DSM is where it is presented as talking specifically about infantilism or diaperism when it doesn't (aside from section on masochism). Again, to be clear, this would have to be presented, in my opinion, as a general observations about paraphilics rather than a specific one about infantilists or diaper fetishists. However, this suggestion may contravene proper use of sources?FiachraByrne (talk) 05:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

(Dr.) Speaker's dissertation was for his doctorate, and as such is an RS. Speaker also wrote a thesis, which was for his Masters. As for the DSM, in this case it doesn't matter whether one asserts that it classifies infantilism as a type of masochism or an independent paraphilia, since they are both mostly male. BitterGrey (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The clue was in the "Dr." Good, then he is a RS (although as with the case studies, are his own findings not a primary source?). However, if he's giving a demographic breakdown of his sample, we'd have to give proper context (how many in sample, how selected, etc). Does he discuss any other literature on this subject? Also, does he engage with or criticise ETLE theory? FiachraByrne (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The dissertation's bibliography has 53 items listed. Neither the main ETLE theory (regarding transvestism) nor its fringe application to infantilism were mentioned. BitterGrey (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

CAMH Sources

The bulk of the above discussions have been crippled by the determination of two editors, WLU and FiachraByrne, to specifically cite CAMH sources: two papers written by four authors, all at the same facility, CAMH. For brevity, we'll call the papers F&B (Freund and Blanchard) and C,B,&B (Cantor, Blanchard, and Barbaree). This determination might have played a role in the drive to largely eliminate references to the DSM which, as detailed below, is in conflict with CAMH at multiple points. This determination is unnecessary at best, since an uncontrovercial source, "Adult Baby Syndrome" by Pate and Gabbard, covers most of the same sources, but does so without introducing fringe theories unsupported outside of CAMH. Additionally, Pate's paper is in accordance with the DSM, not in conflict with it.

These fringe theories include:

A) Everyone expressing a sexual interest in diapers, but who doesn't want to be a baby, either has an incomplete form of infantilism or is hiding their desire to be a baby. (C,B,&B pg 531) That is, diaper fetishes do not exist.

WLU has already taken it upon himself to strip away all references to the DSM's sections on fetishism or general paraphilias from the diaper fetishism article[87].

<original research>In an AB/DL community survey, 24% of surveyees reported that they either don't roleplay or don't roleplay as a baby or child. When asked about a sense of being a baby, 21% considered it merely OK in games, scenes, and fantasies. 17% percent reported considering it 'Tolerable,' and 15% that it 'Must be absent.' </original research>

B) Female gynephiles don't exist.(F&B 588) That is, women who prefer women - lesbians - do not exist.

While the prevalence of lesbianism might be debated, there seems to be a clear consensus that they exist.

C) Infantilism is an autoerotic form of pedophilia (C,B,&B pg 531).

The DSM, the widely available and widely adopted document expressing the consensus opinion of the American Psychological Association, groups pedophilia in section 302.2, pg 571. It also defines paraphilic infantilism as a type of masochism, section 302.83 pg 572. Thus, infantilism is not a form of pedophilia. Supporting sources already mentioned include Mattoon, pg 207; Brame, pg 137; Holmes, pg 81. This fringe theory appears to be only accepted by that one facility, CAMH.

With additional synthesis from WLU, that "masochistic qynephile"=infantilist, the fringe theories also include:

D) Infantilists ("masochistic qynephiles") are all heterosexual males or homosexual females (qyne = woman, wife). Homosexual male infantilists do not occurr.

<original research> My own survey showed that 10% of surveyees reported being homosexual.</original research>

E) All infantilists will (if complete) want to be baby girls. A pedophilic masochistic qynephile with the "erotic target location error" hypothesized would desire to be the erotic target of a pedophilic qynephile; a little girl. (pedo- child, gyne- woman, wife)

Of three examples mentioned for support in F&B, one wanted to be a boy of 10, and the other two were unspecified. This fringe view does not even hold true of the author's examples.)

<original research> My own survey showed that 61% of surveyees reported that they don't enjoy being a baby girl or being dressed as one.</original research>

These fringe theories, and the papers advocating them, should not be included.

1: Per the Fringe theories guideline: "Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." Since this is not an article on these fringe theories but on paraphilic infantilism, the fringe theories may only be mentioned if connected by independent sources. C, B, B, and F are all colleagues: C, B(lanchard), &B is not independent of F&B(lanchard).

2: Without fudging the sources, mentioning fringe theory B would involve "pedophilia," an emotionally charged word. per MOS, "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." One facility represented by four people, two sources is not "widely used."

3: Regarding fringe theory C, the C,B,&B paper only cites the one paper by F&B. As detailed in the essay on "Party and Person," first-party work without meta-analysis of multiple primary sources is itself just a primary source, and so C,B,&B is primary in this regard.

4: Also regarding fringe theory C; The text of F&B was so ambiguous that WLU thought "Freund & Blanchard explicitly states that the sexual focus is only superficially similar and discusses what distinguishes a pedophile from an infantilist (which they term masochistic gynaephile)."[88] until it was pointed out to him that his reading of F&B differed from the one presented in C, B. &B[89].

5: F&B is structured around novel categories labeled with neologisms. Neologisms should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last. In particular, it does not use the term "paraphilic infantilism." Attempts to use C,B,&B to conclude that one or more specific neologisms is infantilism are WP:original research, since C,B,&B doesn't state which neologism(s) was intended to replace paraphilic infantilism, and so mean(s) the same thing. The assumption that it was the category that is least out-of-line from the DSM ("masochistic qynephile") is just that - an assumption.

6: C,B,&B cites Malitz and Tuchman & Lachman to support "There have also been reports of individuals ... who express no desire to seem like an infant (Malitz, 1966, Tuchman & Lachman, 1964)" However, they both mentioned regression. Malitz: "Dynamically the patient's diaper [fetish] appeared to symbolize a regression to infancy in order to reclaim the attention and love of his mother and to undo his displacement in her affections by his sister's birth." Tuchman & Lachman conclude "The regressive quality and symbolism of the behavior pattern suggest a schizophrenic mechanism." When challenged on this point, James Cantor commented only on the typography on the challenge, not the sexology. (Pate comments that neither Malitz's nor Tuchman & Lachman's patient's said they wanted to be a baby. While both authors mentioned regressive themes, neither documented the patient saying that he wanted to be a baby.)

7: C,B,&B intermixes psychosexual infantilism (Stekel) and paraphilic infantilism (Pate, etc.). Most cases of psychosexual infantilism did not involve either diapers or babyhood. While reasonable before the publication of DSM IIIR, modern sources should observe this distinction. IIIR was the first to include a definition of paraphilic infantilism, and was published in 1987.

One alternative to all of this fringe, uncertainly, and baggage, is simply to cite Pate. Pate draws from the same sources but did not draw any of these fringe theories from them. Pate's "adult baby syndrome" is described in accordance with the DSM, not in conflict with it. Pate also has the benefit of being freely available online, so more Wikipedians can evaluate it; and has been evaluated by independent authors (sexologists have evaluated it). BitterGrey (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Just so there's no WP:SILENCE claimed here, I disagree with pretty much everything here and do not support its inclusion. My reasoning is listed in several sections above. As reliable sources directly discussing the topic of the page, they are applicable (bar, of course, the DSM which doesn't mention infantilism except as a behaviour). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I do wonder if things would have been different if you had reviewed the DSM before edit waring to modify the citations to it. Back in February, you fought to cite 47 pages of the DSM. Then this August, you gamed 3RR ([90][91][92][93] -28 hrs) to cite five pages of the DSM. Then, you concluded that it didn't mention paraphilic infantilism at all. Now, it apparently does mention paraphilic infantilism. Perhaps all of this fighting could have been avoided if you simply checked references first.

(Oh, and regarding the ref that you are now rewording, the sexologist Dr. Gloria Brame isn't a "he.")

Nonetheless, thanks for registering your DontLikeIt. BitterGrey (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

As an aside I should say that Mr Beakman from 3rd and Bird was, rather unwillingly and due to coercion from Muffin, engaging in some diaper wearing and adult baby role play today.

One could also that this "deadlock" has arisen from the intransigence of one editor, bittergrey, to accept sources that plainly meet rs criteria.

A theory is not fringe if it has appeared in a peer reviewed journal per WP:Fringe. ETLE is a point of contention and a subject of academic debate it is not fringe (whether it is correct or not is another and irrelevant issue).

There was 'no drive to eliminate the DSM'; rather, we objected to the way that it was used. We didn't think the text was supported by that source. You inferred statements about either AB or DL based upon your reading of the DSM when there is only one actual statement about infantilism in the DSM. You can't reasonably write an article on that basis. Representing this conflict over sources and content as a 'campaign to eliminate the DSM' (why?) demonstrates a considerable lack of good faith (WP:AGF). I might add that your constant insinuation that WLU is operating for some unstated motivation also betrays a lack of good faith. Interaction with you on these issues, given your engagement style has lead to an entrenchment of positions.

I agree with WLU's decision to remove those citations. They were inaccurate. Indeed, you yourself said that you gave WLU 'permission' to remove them.

In regard to the preference of Pate and Gabbard over Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree, it's not an issue as I would not argue for the removal of Pate and Gabbard. With a limited range of sources it doesn't make sense to exclude any secondary source written by specialists on paraphilias. It is clear why you don't want them included as you don't like them or their theories. That is insufficient grounds for their exclusion and irrelevant. It's irrelevant whether Pate/Gabbard's paper agrees or disagrees with the DSM. Acacemic psychiatrists often contest the DSM - at least in particular areas. In fact there's a notable movement within psychiatry - particularly those engaged genetic studies - to overturn perhaps the most important division within the nosological system of the DSM (dichotomy between bipolar and schizophrenia). CAMH can be in conflict with the DSM and still not be fringe. Also, your point rather ignores the fact that Blanchard - a fringe theorist in your analysis - is chairing the paraphilia workgroup for DSM-5. That is a considerable endorsement of his status as a major authority on the paraphilias and indicates that the American Psychiatric Association do not regard him as a fringe theorist.

A) Whether they're right or wrong is not the point. We're not here to evaluate how accurate their treatment of the secondary literature is or how coherent their theories are, but, basically, to paraphrase the secondary sources and arrange them into some sort of readable and logical narrative.

B) That this is misreading is besides the point, it's not our role here to offer novel interpretations of the secondary sources. If you can find a source critiquing their approach it can be added.

C) It's the American Psychiatric Association. As said before, sources aren't bound to agree with the DSM. That's their prerogative. The DSM does not contradict them, however. Incidentally, Money also suggests that diaper fetishists may also be "infantophiles" or "nepiophiles" [94].

Synthesis wasn't from WLU. CBB (2009) declared that the FB paper was about infantilism. I'd say Blanchard would be a pretty good source on the topic of his own paper.

D)Again, it doesn't matter if they're right or wrong and it's not for us to decide on that. If you want your research included, get in published in a peer reviewed journal.

E)Again, it doesn't matter if they're right or wrong and it's not for us to decide on that. If you want your research included, get in published in a peer reviewed journal.

1) As it's been published in a peer reviewed journal and perhaps the most prestigious academic press in the world, it is, per WP:Fringe, not a fringe theory.

2) It's part of academic discussion in a subject about sexual deviations. I don't see WP:Terrorism applying.

3) That article you link to is to be taken with discretion. It is not policy. Plus, it's peer reviewed which kills the argument that it's not a third party source WP:3PARTY.

4) I don't think that it's ambiguous but that doesn't matter. Just paraphrase the text. Other editors can evaluate and correct if there are misinterpretations or misreadings.

5) CB&B characterise that article as about infantilism. That is sufficient. They use novel terms in order to frame a general theory for the paraphilias. The inclusion of such terms for discussing their work may be appropriate.

6) Again, they may be wrong and misread the literature but it's not up to us to evaluate that.

7) Again, irrelevant. Whether they are right or wrong does not matter and your interpretation of the material in this manner is without purpose.

I see no reason to exclude CB&B which easily meets RS criteria. In fact the Oxford Textbook, given the academic press from which it is issued, is a superior source to Pate/Gabbard in terms of reliability as a source and irrespective of whether you disagree with their theories or their characterisation of the secondary literature.FiachraByrne (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, Bittergrey's referencing of WP:IDL is deeply ironic considering his own opposition to these rs.FiachraByrne (talk) 04:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• "D)Again, it doesn't matter if they're right or wrong..." "E)Again, it doesn't matter if they're right or wrong..." "6)Again, they may be wrong and misread the literature..." "7)Again, irrelevant. Whether they are right or wrong does not matter..." "...your constant insinuation that WLU is operating for some unstated motivation also betrays a lack of good faith."

If you'll review carefully, I made observations, not assumptions. For example, it seems that you have a particular determination to use these sources, irrespective of whether they are accurate or not.

• "A theory is not fringe if it has appeared in a peer reviewed journal per WP:Fringe. ETLE is a point of contention and a subject of academic debate it is not fringe (whether it is correct or not is another and irrelevant issue)."

Erotic Target Location Errors among autogynephyles might be a point of contention, with independent sources discussing it critically. That is a separate article. For this article, WP:Fringe is quite explicit: "Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." (emphais added) The four CAMH authors can't be considered independent of eachother. No one outside of CAMH seems to think this fringe application of it worth mentioning. Pate reasonably could have cited F&B, but did not.

• "There was 'no drive to eliminate the DSM'; rather, we objected to the way that it was used." "Representing this conflict over sources and content as a 'campaign to eliminate the DSM' (why?) demonstrates a considerable lack of good faith (WP:AGF)."

Again, you are accusing me of making assumptions. An example of a bad faith assumption is "Bittergrey's same misuse and mis-citation is indeed now appearing at diaper fetishism and the list of paraphilias page."[95] This assumption of ill will was shown laughably false when I pointed out who added the citation to the DSM on the list of paraphilias page[96]. For that to have been my present doing would have required a time machine and a mind control device.

Similarly, I note how your characterization of the diaper fetish article to WP:ANI toggled suddenly once vilifying me wasn't an option. Between 4:36 and 8:43 Aug 16, your description of the diaper fetish article went from having a "problem...the source does not support the content at present" to "fine now"[97], but there were no edits to the page between the two posts. At 6:17 Aug 16[98] I pointed out that the mess at that article was WLU's doing[99]. Another editor then added a 'Contradictory' tag to the "fine now" version.

I suppose that it is possible I'm the target here, instead of the DSM.

• "You can't reasonably write an article on that basis."

If it can be said that I "wrote" this article, that would have been a half a decade ago. Many others have made changes since. I don't own it.

• "Indeed, you yourself said that you gave WLU 'permission' to remove them."

(This is a reference to FiachraByrne's argument at ANI, asserting that my not having actively edit warred against WLU at the diaper fetish article gave him "permission.")

I regret that you hold this view. There are often edits that I don't agree with. Sometimes I stand my ground, and sometimes I just discuss. Discussing conflicts in hopes of avoiding edit conflicts is a respected practice among reasonable Wikipedians. I would like to think I'm not wasting my time trying to discuss this and reach a consensus.

• "Interaction with you on these issues, given your engagement style has lead to an entrenchment of positions."

Would that be my practice of discussing some edits instead of fighting them? Checking references before edit warring over them? Not rolling over and playing dead?

• "Also, your point rather ignores the fact that Blanchard - a fringe theorist in your analysis - is chairing the paraphilia workgroup for DSM-5."

Per the hebephilia article: "At the annual meeting of the American Association of Psychiatry and Law (AAPL) a group of forensic psychiatrists working with sex offenders made a symbolic vote on the inclusion of Pedohebephilia in DSM-5, with 2 votes for and 31 against. At the International Association for the Treatment of Sexual Offenders meeting in Oslo another vote was made with 1 vote for and 100 against." This doesn't show general support. Could it be that more established professionals weren't willing to work for free?

• "A) Whether they're right or wrong is not the point. We're not here to evaluate how accurate their treatment of the secondary literature is or how coherent their theories are, but, basically, to paraphrase the secondary sources and arrange them into some sort of readable and logical narrative."

I think there is some confusion about primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. If a researcher runs an experiment and publishes a paper on it, that is a primary source. He might have just made it up. Publication might involve a review process, but the reviewer generally won't reproduce the experiment, re-interview the patients, etc. After independent researches repeat the experiment in their own labs, and publish, their results can be contrasted in a secondary source. In this case, F&B is primary: We have to assume he is accurately reporting his original research. Fringe theory A is new to C,B,&B, not citing any papers, so it is primary in that respect. (Fringe theory B is not mentioned in C,B,&B.) Regarding fringe theory C, C,B,&B cite only F&B, and so have no independent sources to contrast it with. Thus, again, it is primary.

• "B)If you can find a source critiquing their approach it can be added."

If you'll review Fringe, you'll see that the lack of critique is part of the problem here.

• "C) 'infantophiles' or 'nepiophiles' "

Still more neologisms. This would be so much easier if people adhered to DSM terminology instead of making up there own.

• "Synthesis wasn't from WLU. CBB (2009) declared that the FB paper was about infantilism.""5) CB&B characterise that article as about infantilism."

Please specify exactly where CBB defines which group in the FB paper are the infantilists. Is it only one group? More than one? All?

• "I'd say Blanchard would be a pretty good source on the topic of his own paper."

I'd say he was dependent.

• "Incidentally, Bittergrey's referencing of WP:IDL is deeply ironic considering his own opposition to these rs."

Above, I've given a detailed description of my position with reference to Wikipedia policies, etc., quite the opposite from WP:IDL.BitterGrey (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• If you'll review carefully, I made observations, not assumptions. For example, it seems that you have a particular determination to use these sources, irrespective of whether they are accurate or not.

There's been no tenable argument presented for their exclusion. In the absence of such serious argument and particularly given the paucity of decent sources that discuss the topic in any level of depth it's absurd to exclude them. The point is that we're not in a reasonable position to define a given source as truthful and accurate or otherwise, nor is it our role to do so. We paraphrase, we don't opine. Therefore your "observations" as to the truth of the assertions in any given source are largely irrelevant. We can refer to other literature that presents other counter arguments but that's about it. Please see WP:NOTTRUTH.

• Erotic Target Location Errors among autogynephyles might be a point of contention, with independent sources discussing it critically. That is a separate article. For this article, WP:Fringe is quite explicit: "Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." (emphais added) The four CAMH authors can't be considered independent of eachother. No one outside of CAMH seems to think this fringe application of it worth mentioning. Pate reasonably could have cited F&B, but did not.

Theories published by academics with serious publication records in mainstream academic journals or through prestigious university presses are not fringe. Your invocation of WP:Fringe is a misreading of that policy and what it is intended to police (i.e. pseudoscience).

• Again, you are accusing me of making assumptions. An example of a bad faith assumption is "Bittergrey's same misuse and mis-citation is indeed now appearing at diaper fetishism and the list of paraphilias page."[100] This assumption of ill will was shown laughably false when I pointed out who added the citation to the DSM on the list of paraphilias page[101]. For that to have been my present doing would have required a time machine and a mind control device.

To which I replied, "LOL. Fair point." But I still held that it was an inappropriate source regardless of who had added it.

• Similarly, I note how your characterization of the diaper fetish article to WP:ANI toggled suddenly once vilifying me wasn't an option. Between 4:36 and 8:43 Aug 16, your description of the diaper fetish article went from having a "problem...the source does not support the content at present" to "fine now"[102], but there were no edits to the page between the two posts. At 6:17 Aug 16[103] I pointed out that the mess at that article was WLU's doing[104]. Another editor then added a 'Contradictory' tag to the "fine now" version.

I suppose that it is possible I'm the target here, instead of the DSM.

This I find extremely disingenuous if rather typical. I also take great exception to the implicit accusation that I am targeting you.

If it can be said that I "wrote" this article, that would have been a half a decade ago. Many others have made changes since. I don't own it.

I glad to see that you're aware of that policy. "You" pl. not sing.

Would that be my practice of discussing some edits instead of fighting them? Checking references before edit warring over them? Not rolling over and playing dead?

That might be your characterisation. Others might differ.

Per the hebephilia article: "At the annual meeting of the American Association of Psychiatry and Law (AAPL) a group of forensic psychiatrists working with sex offenders made a symbolic vote on the inclusion of Pedohebephilia in DSM-5, with 2 votes for and 31 against. At the International Association for the Treatment of Sexual Offenders meeting in Oslo another vote was made with 1 vote for and 100 against." This doesn't show general support. Could it be that more established professionals weren't willing to work for free?

There's considerable status and power associated with that position. That Cantor's proposition was rejected still does not make him "fringe"; hebephilia may be a marginal and contentious concept that lacks any degree of consensus with forensic psychiatrists - that it is a legitimate subject of academic debate (and a vote) decrees that it is not fringe. Fringe views are not discussed in the literature barring as lampoon or to educate the broader public.

I think there is some confusion about primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. If a researcher runs an experiment and publishes a paper on it, that is a primary source. He might have just made it up. Publication might involve a review process, but the reviewer generally won't reproduce the experiment, re-interview the patients, etc. After independent researches repeat the experiment in their own labs, and publish, their results can be contrasted in a secondary source. In this case, F&B is primary: We have to assume he is accurately reporting his original research. Fringe theory A is new to C,B,&B, not citing any papers, so it is primary in that respect. (Fringe theory B is not mentioned in C,B,&B.) Regarding fringe theory C, C,B,&B cite only F&B, and so have no independent sources to contrast it with. Thus, again, it is primary.

Bizarre. Besides they're not fringe theories. Primary sources are not excluded in any case - one just can't base one's article on them per WP:Primary. Also, the vast majority of decent, peer reviewed articles on this topic are primary sources, often of very small samples (n=1). CB&B's article in the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology is self-evidently a literature review and hence a secondary source.

If you'll review Fringe, you'll see that the lack of critique is part of the problem here.

WP:Fringe does not apply to papers in respected peer reviewed journals and academic presses.

Still more neologisms. This would be so much easier if people adhered to DSM terminology instead of making up there own.

Pretty wide spread neologism.

Please specify exactly where CBB defines which group in the FB paper are the infantilists. Is it only one group? More than one? All?

Fair point. It is ambiguous. Ans: all infantilists; they do not differentiate or define. The question is what is an infantilist for F&B and CB&B?

"Freund and Blanchard (1993) referred to this characteristic [internalisation of target of attraction] as an erotic target location error. They hypothesized that erotic target location was a basic dimension of sexual attraction, independent of the nature of the erotic target (object) itself. They interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia." (CB&B, 2009:531)

They define infantilists as those who, "are sexually aroused by behaving or imaging themselves as children or infants." They refer to a further group who "wear diapers while masturbating" and state that it is unknown whether they are hiding imagery of self as baby from clinicians or whether they represent an incomplete form of infantilism as transvestites do of transexualism.

Ah. I think I see. This took a little while. But if you read their entire description of infantilism and its associated behaviours and desires they do not include any practices which might be considered masochistic. Also bear in mind Cantor's statement at the RSN that he had never come across a masochistic infantilist in his clinical experience. In my opinion - which is irrelevant but anyway - they are excluding masochists who happen to dress up and/or imagine themselves as babies as they do not see that as entailing an inversion of sexual targeting. Rather "masochistic gynaephiles" have, they assert, a different etiology whose resemblance to those with an ETLE is only "superficial" as their "abberant" self-image is derived from a desire for a relationship of submission to a dominant female. Hence, F&B's paper treats "masochistic gynaephiles" as distinct from infantilists proper. Implicitly, CB&B are advancing their own ETLE theory as a greater organising principle of the paraphilias than a categorisation based upon an attraction for any particular object or whatever.

However, all of that, my opinion above, is irrelevant. We'd need a source to make those points, if correct.

I'd say he was dependent.

I'd expect him to know what his paper was about.

Above, I've given a detailed description of my position with reference to Wikipedia policies, etc., quite the opposite from WP:IDL.BitterGrey (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

You certainly know policy.FiachraByrne (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

IDL is an argument for deletion discussions, it's got minimal relevance for pages not in AFD. The appropriate guideline to cite is WP:DE, and there's also a relevant essay.

If there is serious discussion over whether a source is fringe or not, we can ask at WP:FTN, though of course this will result in another long, tedious discussion. Of course, the result, as all these discussions have resulted, will be that the source is not fringe and can be cited without issue.

Linking to the policy isn't the same thing as properly understanding either the letter or the spirit.

FiachraByrne, I've been ignoring Bittergrey's constant claims of bias and his interpretations. Cuts down on the reading. Pointing out WP:KETTLE doesn't help, but it's obvious to pretty much everyone. I highly encourage you to ignore the irrelevant text and just focus on what is actually helpful. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)