Talk:Paraphilic infantilism

CAMH Sources

Those looking over that page might notice that a few articles are heavily cited, even though they are given little weight elsewhere. This isn't was a consensus development, but the result of a determination of an editor 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 would also have driven the removal of references to the DSM, since the APA's established, consensus view as expressed in the DSM was in conflict with some of CAMH's conclusions. A number of the CAMH conclusions disagree with basic observations. This is why they have been largely disregarded as fringe theories in academia.

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.

The DSM clearly has a section on fetishes. Few would argue that fetishes 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[1].

<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 occur.

<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)."[2] until it was pointed out to him that his reading of F&B differed from the one presented in C, B. &B[3].

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 (defined by the DSM). 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.

8: CAMH has editor(s?) on it's payroll promoting themselves and CAMH interests on Wikipedia. Only one of these is (or at least was) open about his financial conflict of interest, and then only after it was discovered by another editor[4]. Relevant to this article, he argued for removing references to the DSM from this article and suggested his own writings and an alternative [5]. This opened the door for his own writing to be cited in this article NINE times, even though it conflicted with the established consensus opinion, expressed in the DSM.

Alternatives to the promotion of all of this fringe, uncertainly, and baggage, have been proposed and ignored. BitterGrey (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Your own unpublished studies are unreliable.

Your own opinion is only as good as anyone who agrees with your points. To date I don't believe anyone has.

Several editors have agreed that the DSM doesn't discuss infantilism in the sense used on this page.

Bringing up Cantor's own editing history on wikipedia is meaningless since he's not responsible for any of the recent changes.

Claiming something is a fringe theory doesn't make it a fringe theory. There is a paucity of research on paraphilic infantilism so we can essentially use whatever is scholarly and available to expand the page. To demonstrate something is a fringe theory, it requires you to demonstrate that other experts, not editors, disagree with it or criticize it for being overused.

You're misapplying wikpedia policies. WP:NEO applies to new articles. The use of homonyms in an article is allowable if supported by reliable sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Since you are the one edit warring to include the fringe theory, the burden to find independent sources is on you. 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.." That is a direct quote. I strongly suspect you would have added any non-CAMH sources to support your pet fringe theory if you had any. Why would you withhold them if you had them?

Stop pointing fingers. Stop making false accusations[6]. Time to put up or shut up. BitterGrey (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

How do you know it is a fringe theory? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If you can't find even one non-CAMH source that supports or even seriously discusses the CAMH theory, it is a fringe theory. Clearly, you can't, so clearly, it is. BitterGrey (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

There's very little research, publications and general scientific literature on paraphilic infantilism. There are no real alternatives, or even a mainstream orthodoxy on it. There is no "mainstream view" that CAMH is "fringe" to that I'm aware of. These are peer reviewed works published in mainstream journals, or by mainstream publishing houses - respected venues that are considered quite orthodox. They are works by scholars writing in their own areas of expertise. They definitely meet the criteria for being reliable sources. There has been no criticisms raised in any reliable publishing venues that I've seen. A theory like satanic ritual abuse is clearly fringe, and there are lots of texts that point out it is not a real thing, it's a moral panic - "moral panic" is the orthodoxy, "killing babies for the devil" is the fringe theory; the former clearly outweigh the latter in both respectability of sources and number of texts that take this view. The same for parental alienation syndrome - there are a minority of participants who promote it, and a large, large number of legal and psychiatric scholars who criticize it. Where are the critical sources for CAMH's publications?

It doesn't look like these documents and theories meet the criteria to be a fringe theory. It looks like you personally disagree with what they say, and thus wish them removed. That is not appropriate. And even if they were a fringe theory, removal is not appropriate. Instead, we would briefly summarize what they said, then immediately after point to the criticisms made in other, more respected and more voluminous sources. Fringe theories are not labelled as such because of editor beliefs, they are labelled as such by other sources. WP:FRINGE pretty clearly states that reliability and peer reviews are thresholds that fringe theories generally fall below. The publications you are removing pass those thresholds. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The DSM, the consensus document of the American Psychiatric Association, categorizes infantilism as a type of masochism (pg 572 in 4TR). Given how long you've been edit warring over the DSM, I'd suggest reading it. If you'd like to fix those other articles, be my guest. Now stop trying to divert the discussion.

Claiming that there is "very little research" doesn't justify pushing your version here. Do you have independent sources or not? If not, the fringe theory doesn't belong here. BitterGrey (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I have read the pages of the DSM, I have photocopies of all 6 relevant pages and infantilism only appears once as a behaviour of masochism. That aspect is dealt with on the main page. As numerous editors have said - the DSM doesn't discuss infantilism that way. Saying it does doesn't make it so. This was discussed and addressed here. Myself, WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs), FiachraByrne (talk · contribs), James Cantor (talk · contribs) and FuFoFuEd (talk · contribs) disagreed with you. Nobody agreed with you.

Claiming something is a fringe theory doesn't make it so. Fringe theories are demonstrated by reliable sources being critical of the theories. If it is genuinely a fringe theory, please present reliable sources that criticize it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Six pages? In February you were edit warring to cite fourty seven pages[7]. Were you wrong then, wrong now, or both times?

Stop trying to distract from the fact that you don't have any independent sources to support the fringe theory you are pushing. As I've clearly stated, there is a consensus view, published by the APA, which contradicts your fringe theory. Longtime buddies and editors with conflicts of interest are not a substitute for independent sources. Gangs are not a substitute for independent sources. Votestacking is not a substitute for independent sources. Claiming support from others who aren't supporting you is not a substitute for independent sources. As the edit history clearly shows, you are the ONLY ONE pushing this fringe view here.

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.." You don't have independent sources for the fringe theory you are trying to push, so it should go. BitterGrey (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

What source contains this view published by the APA?

"Independent" means not published by the subjects themselves (i.e. not self-published). Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree is published by Oxford University Press. Freund & Blanchard is published in the peer-reviewed British Journal of Psychiatry. All of the sources are thus independent and bear the imprimatur of the publisher, the de facto approval of the editorial and peer reviewers, particularly in the absence of a withdrawal or criticism by other scholars. This is why the publications and opinions expressed therein are not considered fringe theories. I have attributed the opinion more specifically to Blanchard, Freund, Cantor & Howard [8] as it is a proposed theory rather than the general consensus. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective." Blanchard et al is not independent from Blanchard et al.

Again, please actually read the DSM, pg 572 of 4th TR ed. You will clearly see infantilism defined under the heading of masochism, not pedophilia as claimed by the fringe theory. BitterGrey (talk) 06:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:IS is about self-published and primary sources as they apply to people, businesses and cities discussing themselves in a self-promoting manner. It doesn't apply to scholarly sources. The DSM has been discussed repeatedly. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:IS is about INDEPENDENT sources, thus the title "Independent Sources.", which Blanchard et al and Blanchard et al are not. Blanchard in particular has an interested perspective in how Blanchard's fringe theory is described. Feel free to point out any policy, guideline, or essay that supports your position. I've quoted a number of policies. Perhaps it is you whom no one agrees with. The DSM simply and clearly contradicts the fringe view you are pushing. Since you continue to ask about it as if you had no familiarity with it (eg "What source contains this view published by the APA?"), I continue to mention it, hoping that you will actually read it after all theses months. BitterGrey (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Independent sources are those subject to independent scrutiny (i.e. peer review) and publication. This is met by any article published in a peer reviewed journal or a scholarly press book as all of Blanchard, Freund, Cantor and Barbaree's works cited here are. Blanchard may indeed have an interest in how his theory is published and summarized, but that doesn't mean he has control over publication - if his ideas were not considered respected or supported, the peer review process or editor would not publish it. Quoting a policy doesn't mean it applies correctly. I've posted a notice at the reliable sources noticeboard.

The DSM issue was discussed and closed, for the second time I will point to it: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_103#Lack_of_references_in_the_DSM. If you are claiming the APA source that portrays the "consensus view" on paraphilic infantilism is the DSM, you are wrong and your interpretation has never been supported by any other editor.

Blanchard, Freund, Cantor and Barbaree's works are not fringe theories. You have provided no reliable sources to substantiate this assertion, merely your own opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

WLU wriote "If you are claiming the APA source that portrays the "consensus view" on paraphilic infantilism is the DSM, you are wrong and your interpretation has never been supported by any other editor." So James Cantor is now no longer an editor? He did use the DSM in that way.[9] BitterGrey (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are bringing up a single edit on a different page by an editor from three years ago as if it had any bearing on this discussion. Particularly when that editor has not ventured an explicit opinion here. You may however, be interested in his more recent opinion here. So drop it then? Even assuming he didn't make a simple error in citation three years ago, his opinion now is obviously different. And irrelevant. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

To promote that CAMH theory as anything other than a fringe view in opposition to the widely published consensus, you need to get the DSM dismissed as irrelevant. That edit shows that even an editor on the CAMH payroll thought the DSM WAS relevant. As for that quote, you might actually want to read it. He mentions categorizing infantilism as "paraphilia NOS (not otherwise specified)", NOT pedophilia. The fringe theory that you are pushing categorizes it as a type of pedophilia. Not even the person you are quoting agrees with you. Perhaps you are the one who should "drop it"? BitterGrey (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No, this edit shows that James Cantor doesn't think the DSM's mention of the word "infantilism" is relevant, and Blanchard and Freund distinguish pedophilia from paraphilic infantilism. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

So you are arguing that Cantor is inconsistent, first using the DSM to define infantilism and then waffling and citing his own new text? Not the best position, given that CB&B is the only source you are claiming for support that doesn't require WP:SYNTH in equating some particular neologism off a list and infantilism. F&B doesn't even use the word 'infantilism' once. BitterGrey (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

RS/N summary

Some relevant quotes from a now-archived discussion[10] about these sources.

• AerobicFox:"This source has a variety of WP:REDFLAGs, the preface of this textbook states "it is aimed primarily at graduate students taking a first course in adultpsychopathology ... chapter authors were given considerable latitude"(emph mine). The chapter author of this particular chapter, Ray Blanchard, sources this theory to his own published work in 1993."[11].
• Fifelfoo:"MEDRS applies. Freund 1993 is a PRIMARY in terms of medical research, it is the first proposal of a theory, and therefore unreliable. Cantor 2009 would be a secondary, but I consider it tainted by association with an author who proposes the theory. Cantor 2009 can be used if independent secondary studies published in appropriate medical forums attest to the uptake of this medical theory. Until someone can demonstrate this, the text should be removed from the article as unverifiable due to failing to meet MEDRS."[12]
• (Elinruby also commented, but stated not having examined the sources.)

The discussion itself was stretched out to twelve thousand words, perhaps expecting that fatigue would prevent others from becoming involved in the article, or doing more than just expressing their concerns on the noticeboard. Sadly, this effect was apparently achieved. BitterGrey (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(diff to longtime supporter who didn't comment at RS/N, added by WLU)[13]

• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_29#paraphilic_infantilism
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_29#Paraphilic infantilism (shorter)
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_29#"mosochistic gynephiles","autoinfantophilia/autopedophilia", and "autoerotic pedophilia"

That's an extremely selective summary. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU, thanks for demonstrating that my summary of the RS/N (the reliable sources noticeboard) discussion was impartial. Had I left out anything that supported your position, you would have linked directly to it. As it is, you just threw up links to entire discussions at the fringe theories noticeboard, including one extremely partial diff. Are you aware that Wikipedia has multiple noticeboards, and that the fringe theories noticeboard is not the reliable sources noticeboard? BitterGrey (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight

It is claimed that citing Blanchard, Freund, Cantor and Barbaree's works is undue weight to appear three times. There is no consensus on what causes or contributes to paraphilic infantilism that I am aware of, merely a small number of theories. The DSM certainly does not (see discussion). Three sections have been tagged:

Within the supersection of "Relation to other conditions":

Paraphilic infantilism#Pedophilia - In this section, Blanchard and Freund are cited to make a distinction between pedophilia and paraphilic infantilism. This is two sentences, clearly attributed.

Paraphilic infantilism#Other conditions - In this section, a single sentence fragment is used to indicate some authors believe that PI is a form of autoeroticism akin to autogynaephilia. There are three sources, one of which is a letter to the editor not written by any of the four authors cited above. This clearly suggests that the theory has some respect and thus is not a fringe theory.

Within the supersection of "Causes":

Paraphilic infantilism#Erotic location target error - This is the place where Blanchard et al. get the most text as one of three proposed causes for PI. It is two sentences long, and there is an illegitimate citation of the DSM despite outside input noting it is not appropriate (noted above, but let's link again: discussion).

In none of these three cases is the citation lengthy. In the first and third it is attributed as an opinion. There does not seem to be any scholarly consensus for the cause, or relationship between PI and any other disorders. In all cases, alternatives are discussed which are of approximately the same length. All the sources are peer reviewed articles or a chapter in a scholarly book. In no case has any of the theories or links been criticized in the scholarly literature that I am aware of, and no such critical sources have been presented. Particluarly when there is a lack of discussion of PI overall (noted in references 12, 6 and 15) this is not undue weight. The sources are used for different purposes (in the first two sections to distinguish between PI and pedophilia and a proposed link to autoeroticism respectively; in the third section it proposes an etiology). Given the expertise of the scholars writing (all sexologists who study and publish on paraphilias), the reliability of the sources (Oxford University Press and the British Journal of Psychiatry), and the lack of a generally accepted etiology or link to other disorders in the psychiatric/psychological community in general, this is not undue weight. It is appropriate weight given to proposed explanations by experts publishing in respected venues. I propose the undue weight and contradiction tags be removed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an article about infantilism, not the type of inverted pedophilia that Freund and Blanchard discuss. In their article, they never referred to the inverted pedophilia as infantilism.

Wikipedia has a guideline to keep theories that have had neither critical review nor achieved broad acceptance - fringe theories - from being given undue weight. It sets the standard for inclusion: 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." The essay on independent sources gives detail: "An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective." Blanchard et all has a significant connection with Blanchard et all, and so is not independent. All five authors being cited are or were coworkers with Blanchard at CAMH.

That is, per Wikipedia guidelines, this fringe theory should not be mentioned at all, much less mentioned in three places, taking up 10% of the article. Only one of those sources even uses the word 'infantilism' at all. That one uses it only five times - as many times as it is used in this article in text dedicated to this fringe theory.

As for the DSM, if editors won't believe me or their own eyes (pg 572 4th ed TR), they should accept that even one of WLU's experts, James Cantor, used the DSM as a reliable source to define infantilism[14]. (Remember that WLU? This came up when you falsely accused me of putting up that citation myself. Have you ever accused me and been right?) The DSM does plainly and clearly define infantilism under the heading of masochism (not pedophilia). This widely published consensus document contradicts the fringe view being pushed here.

As for the letter to the editor, WLU omitted that it was written by Blanchard's coworker, Robert Dickey. (His CAMH email and snail mail address are clearly printed on the bottom of the page.) Notably, even though Blanchard might be the one signing Dickey's paychecks, Dickey STILL didn't cite Freund and Blanchard's paper. (He cites Blanchard's transsexualism theory, but not his inverted pedophilia theory. Exactly how many theories does Blanchard have?) Dickey also doesn't seem to use the word 'infantilism' at all.

Per Wikipedia guidelines, this fringe theory should not even be discussed for inclusion, much less included in multiple places. BitterGrey (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please stop citing Cantor's addition of the DSM to the list of paraphilias as if it mattered. For one thing, you keep claiming Cantor is too biased to be used as a source, but now you're citing him when it supports your position. For a second thing, that was a mistake as the DSM doesn't discuss infantilism, which I corrected and it has not been replaced. For a third, it is the source that matters, not who put it there. The DSM doesn't discuss paraphilic infantilism and it was removed and replaced. I agree that paraphilic infantilism is not pedophilia. I wrote the section that clearly states the two are not related. I've posted a reply making this clear. I don't think paraphilic infantilism is pedophilia, and I've reworded the section to remove the word "pedophilia" while keeping the intent. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Cantor used the DSM as an RS to define infantilism[15]. WLU replaced it[16]. Who is supposed to be the expert here? BitterGrey (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Cantor used the DSM, so what? It's not used currently, he hasn't replaced it, and Cantor is not the boss of wikipedia or arbiter of sources. Wikipedia is not based on expertise, it's based on reliable sources. In no case is anyone allowed to change a page based on their personal expertise - it's always based on the content of sources. I completely fail to see the relevance of continuing to post that diff anywhere on wikipedia. The worst thing that you can say is a single editor made an error in sourcing, and it was corrected. Continuing to bring it up serves absolutely no purpose and clarifies no sources that I can see. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

But he is the first-listed author in the only source even distantly connecting the fringe theory to infantilism. Either Cantor was competent or incompetent. If you believe he was competent, accept the relevance of the DSM as a widely published, medical, consensus document that lists infantilism under masochism, not pedophilia, thus contradicting the fringe theory. If you believe he was incompetent, biased, editing in bad faith, etc., you shouldn't be pushing this fringe theory, since it is only Cantor, Blanchard, et al that ties it to infantilism. Which do you believe?

I also notice that you have again deleted a reference to the DSM, making that section once again completely one-sided[17]. You've also made it appear that F&B connect their topic to paraphilic infantilism - they don't.BitterGrey (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you point to the wikipedia policy which states that the action of a wikipedia editor has any bearing on the reliability of a source? I believe we seek verifiability, not truth, and we verify using reliable sources. I believe the actions of an editor are completely irrelevant to the reliability of their publications. I also am quite certain that the DSM doesn't discuss paraphilic infantilism.

If paraphilic infantilism is pretending to be a baby, "masochistic gynaephiles who habitually imagine themselves as little boys or babies in sexual fantasies involving adult women" seems to apply - and this reference is used to discuss paraphilic infantilism in Cantor et al. 2008 - see page 531, second column, middle paragraph:

Freund and Blanchard (1993) referred to this characteristic as an erotic target location error...They interpret infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism as an autoerotic form of epdophilia.

So I could also use Cantor et al. 2008 to source this if that is your preference, since it is explicit on the link to infantilism. You lose the distinction between PI and pedophilia though - F&B is quite clear the two are different, pedophilia seeks the child as a sexual partner, paraphilic infantilists seek to act like children, with adult partners or alone. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Cantor et al. 2008 is already used, it is just listed as Cantor et al. 2009. You might wish to actually read these sources. My hope is that others will check the sources for themselves, since your handling of them leaves much to be desired. For example, why are you bringing up "masochistic gynaephiles" if asserting that infantilism is a type of pedophilia, not masochism? BitterGrey (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The google books page for the version linked gives the year as 2008. I have edited to make the distinction between PI and pedophilia clear [18], [19]. I also support the inclusion of text that infantilism may come in masochistic and nonmasochistic varieties [20]. I would also like others to verify and engage with the sources, but your consistent accusations of bad faith will reduce the number of editors willing to engage. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

WLU, please skip the accusations and claims of "subtle, nuanced issues" too mysterious for other editors to understand. The relevant Wikipedia policies are clear and simple. This is an article about infantilism, not whatever Freund and Blanchard discuss. In their article, they never referred to it as infantilism. The minimum standard for inclusion is set by 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." The essay on independent sources gives detail: "An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective." Blanchard et all has a significant connection with Blanchard et all, and so is not independent. All five authors being cited are or were coworkers with Blanchard at CAMH.

WLU, if you have any independent sources for this fringe theory, why don't you share them? If you don't, accept that Wikipedia guidelines don't permit the inclusion of that fringe theory - much less in multiple places in the article. BitterGrey (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Note discussion at Fringe Theories Noticeboard. BitterGrey (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Source

[21]

WLU, if you want to keep that fringe theory you have been pushing, you'll need sources that support FB&B that infantilism is autoerotic pedophilia. This source (already cited) says pretty much the opposite. However, if your sole intention was to share a link to yet another source that opposes that fringe theory, that is OK. Of course, there is a more expedient way to take care of that... BitterGrey (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and WLU, before you make any more accusations that I'm misrepresenting sources[22], be aware that that "misrepresentation" is almost exactly the text you have been edit warring for months to keep:"infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia" ([23][24][25][26][27][28]). The exact quote from CB&B (the only source connecting F&B to infantilism) is "They [F&B] interpreted ...infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia." To connect it to text saying something else would be to misrepresent it. However, violating WP:FRINGE also misrepresents the sources - as something other than a fringe theory without any independent sources; just F&B (Blanchard et al) and CB&B (Blanchard et al). BitterGrey (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Adult baby.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Adult baby.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing ownership issues

While I'm neutral about a recent edit by an IP[29], I would have tended to keep it as a good faith edit, and to encourage new contributors. (Well, after removing the one extra coma for a coma-separated list, or switching the other comas to semicolons, that is.) WLU's version of the article could benefit from improvements by others: Improvements which won't occur if he continues to demonstrate a sense of ownership by reverting changes by others. This has been brought up before[30]. WLU's only response was to make accusations on another board, accusations that he then need to retract because they were based on assumptions of ill will[31][32].)

WLU's given motivation for quickly reverting back to his own version, "they'd be diaper lovers, not infantilists", is not valid. The nearby link to diaper lovers redirects to the diaper fetish article, which defines it as "a sexual fetish." Those who "enjoy the diapers in a non-sexual way, and do not identify as adult babies" would then not be simply grouped as diaper fetishists.

WLU, I believe it is time you stepped back and let others edit. BitterGrey (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The IP made an edit without a source and the nearest source to it [33] doesn't verify the text. I removed it per WP:PROVEIT. I've never seen this "fifth type" mentioned in the sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU, you wrote then that you removed it because "they'd be diaper lovers, not infantilists"[34], with no mention of WP:PROVEIT. Yesterday you wrote that the reversion was due to categorization, and today you write that it was due to sourcing. So is the reason you gave initially untrue? Or is the reason you are giving now - or both reasons - untrue? What is the real reason you reverted back to your own version? WP:AGF doesn't apply when an editor is offering multiple, contradictory justifications for his actions. We can't assume your good faith. You reverted another editor's good-faith edit and are now waffling on your justification. Again, I believe it is time you stepped back and let others edit. BitterGrey (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note a previously archived discussion about WLU's ownership issues.BitterGrey (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Fruend and Blanchard's Paedophilia article doesn't belong here

F&B's "Erotic target location errors in male gender dysphorics, paedophiles, and fetishists." is about, according to the very first line "A clinical series of male paedophiles..." The article doesn't mention "infantilism" at all. In contrast, "paedophile" or "paedophilic" occur 16 times, including the title. The article claims to be about pedophiles, not infantilists. The DSM and many, many other sources clearly differentiate between infantilism and pedophilia. Unless part of some assertion that infantilism is a form of pedophilia - an exceptional claim not supported by any independent sources - F&B doesn't belong here. BitterGrey (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Since the only active editor who has ever argued for this source has made multiple edits([35][36][37]) to the article since this was posted, I think concluding consensus by silence reasonable. BitterGrey (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Now that F&B have been removed, let's discuss Dickey: This letter to the editor makes a similarly exceptional claim, of "autopedophilia," but uses entirely different terminology. It mentions neither infantilism nor F&B (even though Dickey and Blanchard of F&B work for the same facility). It refers to no other "autopedophilia" sources, and so is primary. Finally, as a letter to the editor, it isn't peer-reviewed. BitterGrey (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I just don't want to end up in another long, pointless argument. The claim is not exceptional and the sources are acceptable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Pointless arguments can be avoided by making points, WLU. For example, Aerobicfox of RSN wrote "Per WP:Exceptional claims require exceptional sources I would like better sourcing for this claim '...infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia' "[38] on Dec 6th, just before WLU flip-flopped the text to misrepresent the sources. BitterGrey (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU has now reverted[39] repeatedly[40], apparently opting for a pointless edit war instead of discussion.BitterGrey (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The claim isn't exceptional, since Freund & Blanchard are being used to clarify a distinction between pedophiles and PI (an uncontroversial claim, sexologists acknowledge that the two groups are different) and to posit an etiology when there is no widely-recognized etiology for the condition. I've repeatedly stated that "autoerotic form of pedophilia" isn't the same thing as "pedophilia", if I haven't convinced you yet then I suggest you reread any one of probably a dozen rebuttals of your similarly-repeated claim. You can find them here and here and here and here, and probably on this very talk page as well. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Please actually read my post or the article, WLU. You might also wish to highlight any points in those discussions that support your position, instead of linkspamming in hopes of frightening people off. Another at RSN wrote "Freund 1993 is a PRIMARY in terms of medical research, it is the first proposal of a theory, and therefore unreliable. Cantor 2009 would be a secondary, but I consider it tainted by association with an author who proposes the theory. Cantor 2009 can be used if independent secondary studies published in appropriate medical forums attest to the uptake of this medical theory. Until someone can demonstrate this, the text should be removed from the article as unverifiable due to failing to meet MEDRS."

Even past-supporter FiachraByrne didn't agree with WLU's reading of F&B: "They delineate a small sub-set of paedophiles who self-image as infants or children." This is why much of the text now being fought over was hidden from August to December. BitterGrey (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ludwigs2 Your argument against the source is more or less baseless - The source is not being misrepresented, and is not an unreputable source. You are yourself misrepresenting what they say in a passage that's not even being used in the article and trying to remove the source on those grounds. Ludwigs2 later edited the page to remove the NPOV tags [41].
• WhatamIdoing I'd guess that it's the usual problem for articles about unusual sexual traits: the editor with the trait in question does not want people reading the article to learn anything about theories that he personally disagrees with (and especially not anything that presents it neutrally, i.e., "So this one expert had this idea..." rather than "The following idea, which I hate, has been thoroughly discredited"). BitterGrey's complaints have all aimed at removing Freund and Blanchard's ideas about PI entirely from the article
• Elinruby I think you are better off replacing it with a summary that avoids the term. I can't comment on whether this is a fringe theory. However, I personally am inclined to trust anything published by the Oxford University Press or a peer-reviewed journal. Even if the book, which I have not examined, is intended to be an anthology of differing views, there's a presumption that these views have some claim to academic legitimacy. So I am not sure why quoting the book for what an author says in it would be wrong.
• AerobicFox's more recent comment (the above diff Bittergrey used is from December 6th, this is from December 16th) The sources used are reliable, although I'm largely indifferent now towards their weight considering the lack of resources on infantilism. I'm definitely against including more material, and would support some removal, but I don't really care if what's currently written stays.

The hyperfocus on the use of the word "pedophilia" while ignoring what the actual source intends is a blatant misrepresentation of the source. Freund & Blanchard use their case series to distinguish between pedophiles and infantilists, and Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree is a secondary source that also makes that distinction while clearly referencing infantilists explicitly. Claiming the DSM discusses infantilists at all is flatly wrong, which you know, and which the community has clearly stated is wrong, twice here and here. Why you think I'd change my mind when there's no evidence of that is beyond me. FiachraByrne's comment is distinguishing between two groups of infantilists - those who do so because of masochism and those who do so because of an erotic target location error. The full quote is:

CB&B refer to Freund and Blanchard's 1993 article and state that, "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" (p.531). It would seem clear that CB&B characterise infantilism as an "erotic identity disorder" (p.530). That they wish to apply this concept as a general one across the paraphilias is obvious from their parallel treatment of transexualism (autogynaephilia) and those who self-image as amputees. Similary F&B assert that errors in erotic targeting are a basic feature of the paraphilias. They delineate a small sub-set of paedophiles who self-image as infants or children. The term they use as an analogue to gender identity disorder is "age identity disorder" and they obviously see it as structurally very similar (irrespective of the object of attraction) to the former condition. In these autoerotic disorders, they conjecture, the object of attraction becomes inverted and attached to the self. They clearly distinguish this paraphilia from what they term "masochistic gynaephiles" who although they fantasise about themselves as infants or little boys do so in fantasies involving adult women. They speculate that this group is fundamentally different from the previous one although the fantasies are similar as one use the fantasy to increase distance and difference from their sexual object (women) and the other use it to collapse difference (infants/children). As CB&B refer to infantilism as an autoerotic form of paedophilia it would seem that they consider it distinct from similar behaviour with a putatively different aetiology that is essentially masochistic.

But really if you want to know what FiachraByrne thinks now and of the current page, you'll have to ask her.

If your argument is that F&B should be removed from the page, it essentially changes nothing - Cantor, Barbaree & Blanchard can be used to verify the exact same points as Freund & Blanchard's 1993 paper. The first use in the pedophilia section states that pedophiles are attracted to kids while infantilists are attracted to the idea of being kids. The second use is redundant to two other citations, one of which is Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree, a reliable source, and merely states that infantilism has been linked to autoeroticism and autogynephilia. So by all means, remove the sources and replace them with CBB, but there is no reason to change the text. And here is the long, pointless discussion I've been wanting to avoid, but what have you. Again, nothing changes. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU, one of those quotes is from someone who hasn't even read the sources. "...Even if the book, which I have not examined...[42]" Two others are friends or friends of friends. If you don't have any valid points to make, you could at least be less verbose about it. I notice that you are again trying to argue for your preferred sources by arguing against the DSM, even though the DSM actually mentions infantilism, unlike the sources you are warring to use. BitterGrey (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The overall point that can be taken from this is that the questions were not cleanly resolved (or even asked). Claiming that the only people who agree with me are friends is a fairly serious accusation of bad faith and cabalism, as well as ignoring the editing experience of those accounts and the substance of their specific comments.

I agree the DSM mentions infantilism, as a behaviour found in masochists. It is of course essentially irrelevant to this page, as indicated by the two lengthy noticeboard discussions, both of which resulted in a clear consensus that the DSM had virtually no bearing on this page, and certainly didn't discuss infantilism in detail. Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree does mention infantilism explicitly, as well as clearly linking Freund & Blanchard's 1993 paper to paraphilic infantilism. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

WAID has taken your side against me ever since you took her side against me in Feb 2011[43], and Ludwigs2 was supportive of her for admin[44]. I don't recall either of them showing a familiarity with the sources either. Now your turn: The RS/N post resulted in two comments by editors who were familiar with the sources. Other than the fact that they agree with me, why do you dismiss those? BitterGrey (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Many people have found your arguments unconvincing, for instance, nobody agreed with your assertion that the DSM defines paraphilic infantilism (it certainly doesn't distinguish between paraphilic infantilism and pedophilia, though Freund & Blanchard as well as Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree do). Nobody thought the link to the understanding infantilism website was worth including. As I've said before, WAID and I have a very similar understanding of the policies and guidelines but the same could be said of most experienced editors here. There's only so many times you can accuse people who agree with me of being biased by some sort of personal relationship before it starts looking like your interpretation is simply wrong.

I could ask you the same question - you've ignored the input of many people who have disagreed with you, you completely gloss over Elinruby's comment, as well as AerobicFox's later comment. It's extremely difficult to tease out any consensus from any of those discussions since they are so clogged with irrelevant tangents - for instance, my motivation and alleged flipflopping. If you left out those accusations, discussions would be shorter, you would have more engagement from other editors and things would be a lot more civil. I make an effort to base discussions around policies, guidelines and sources rather than motivations. When I say "the policy on fringe theories suggests this is an alternative theoretical formulation, not pseudoscience" and your reply is that I'm biased and my comment should be ignored, you're completely ignoring the fact that I'm substantively discussing a policy, not any motivation.

Your comment about "familiarity with sources" is also problematic - knowing how to identify a reliable source is completely different from being familiar with its content. Determining whether a source is reliable based on its content rather than its author and publisher is a pretty big mistake. I can pretty quickly and easily determine whether a source is reliable or not without having read a word of it. Basing pages on reliable sources means sometimes we have to put up with page content we personally disagree with, so long as it is reliably sourced. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

According to two comments RSN already quoted, those sources aren't sufficiently reliable for the exceptional claim. Regarding your boast about determining a sources reliability without reading a word of it, I have to disagree. A tertiary discussion of Einstein's theory of relatively might be generally reliable, but not a reliable source for a particular topic that it doesn't discuss. F&B doesn't discuss infantilism, and so is irrelevant. You might wish to actually read it.BitterGrey (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course, Ludwigs2 and Elinruby both suggested that CB&B is reliable for the claims made. And F&B does discuss infantilism, even if it doesn't use the exact wording - CB&B is evidence of this. And, AerobicFox's December 6th comment is really rather irrelevant considering his December 16th comment makes it clear that ten days later he changed his mind and considered the sources sufficiently reliable - your selective citation of one opinion while ignoring the other is quote mining. Not to mention that we can replace the two uses of F&B with CB&B without issue but you didn't replace the citation, you removed the text. And, discussion with AerobicFox and other editors indicated they didn't understand the point being made - that the "autoerotic form of pedophilia" isn't the same thing as pedophilia, a point you don't even acknowledge. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is some nuance that nobody but you understands, WLU, that would be a great reason NOT to have it in a Wikipedia article, since if the sources don't explain it, it is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. BitterGrey (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

CB&B does explain all the points sourced to the F&B article you removed. Do you agree to replacing the text using CB&B instead of F&B? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

At RSN, WLU wrote One thing that everyone seems to miss here, is that "autoerotic pedophilia" is not the same thing as "pedophilia". If "everyone" who reads the sources "misses" their support for a particular point, that seems clear evidence that the point isn't adequately supported. Whether WP:SYNTH or WP:OR, it should go. WLU is still asserting that infantilism is a form of pedophilia, and edit waring to cite a paper based on "A clinical series of male paedophiles..." (F&B, first sentence) and no reference to infantilism to do it. BitterGrey (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, not everyone missed that. WhatamIdoing noticed it, Elinruby noticed it, and Ludwigs2 noticed it (in that he didn't argue for the removal of the source). We can get a request for comment if you'd like, it's not a particularly intuitive paper but it's pretty obvious what the overall purpose is.

Regards edit warring, I'm perfectly willing to cite CB&B since it's obviously about infantilism. If your objection is that the F&B paper doesn't use the term, we can use CB&B to cite the exact same ideas. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU, you are the one that wrote "everyone."[45]. If we discard F&B, then CB&B will be WP:PRIMARY at best, claiming that F&B is about infantilism even though F&B doesn't mention infantilism. F&B claim to be about pedophilia. exceptional claims require "multiple high-quality sources" - not one contradictory source.BitterGrey (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

CB&B will never be primary. If you claim CB&B is primary, then you misunderstand the policy. The claim that paraphilic infantilists do not want to have sex with children is not an exceptional claim, as several other sources corroborate it (Ardnt, 1991; Holmes & Holmes, 2008; Money, 1997 and of course, Freund & Blanchard and Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree simply make this point in a different way). Within the theory of erotic target location error, autoerotic pedophilia is at one end of a continuum, and pedophilia is at the other. An infantilist, theorized as having the autoerotic form of pedophilia, desires a transformed self, not a child sexual partner. A pedophile wants to rape children. The point is made in both sources.

Cantor, Blachard & Barbaree, using the term "infantilism", make the point that paraphilic infantilists are on the opposite end of the erotic target continuum as pedophiles and are therefore not pedophiles. Not an extreme claim, actually a distinguishing claim. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU, you've once again flip-flopped from actual content to a politically correct textbyte. If F&B doesn't mention infantilism, then CB&B's claim that F&B was about infantilism (in spite of not mentioning it) would new to CB&B: That is, it would be PRIMARY. The extraordinary claim, which you seem to have suddenly forgotten in spite of including it even in the text you quoted at AN/3RR[46], is that infantilism is some form of pedophilia. F&B never mentions infantilism, only making frequent mention of being about pedophiles. BitterGrey (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this is why I consider engaging with you on a talk page to be virtually worthless. CB&B is not a primary source, and CB&B and F&B both make it clear that infantilists are not pedophiles. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)