Talk:Paraphilic infantilism

Repeated reversion of all significant changes, demonstrating a sense of ownership

This morning's revert was yet another demonstration of WLU's sense of ownership over this article.

1. [1]: 14 revisions, 10 users. WLU's version enforced by WLU: All significant changes reverted. His lack of familiarity with one questioned reference is made clear by the fact that he never noticed that its title wasn't "...As Studen Bk Aqa A." That is, until another editor pointed it out. Clearly, other editors know the sources better, but WLU can't trust them to edit WLU's article.
2. [2]: 22 revisions, 12 users. WLU's version enforced by WLU: All significant changes reverted. He did switch to the American spelling of "behaviours" after reflexively reverting my doing so [3].

I suspect WLU will try to claim FiachraByrne's support, but her last relevant edit was to revert him[4]. Next he might claim grassroots support, after including this article on a list of "socking" resources. Of course, if non-sockpuppet/meatpuppet support were really present, such a list wouldn't be needed. What WLU really needs to do is read the sources and let others edit. BitterGrey (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

WLU, after replacing the original heading of this section [5] with a meaningless one ("editing"), wrote on my talk page: "do not replace the original heading" [6]". Claiming his own heading as the original heading, not to be replaced, is a further demonstration of his sense of ownership. BitterGrey (talk) 03:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Instead of discussing his edits, WLU called this discussion "uncivil and tainting any discussion" at Wikiquette assistance [7]. When his assumption of ill will was shown false, he had to retract his accusation[8][9]. BitterGrey (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

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[10].

<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)."[11] until it was pointed out to him that his reading of F&B differed from the one presented in C, B. &B[12].

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[13]. Relevant to this article, he argued for removing references to the DSM from this article and suggested his own writings and an alternative [14]. 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[15]. 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[16]. 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 [17] 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.[18] 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)

Direct CAMH involvement

WLU recently made the following comment: "...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..."[19]

This, of course, is simply untrue. The first refers to an RSN discussion, now archived[20]. Cantor became involved in that discussion[21][22]. Of course, he argued against the DSM and offered his own publication as an alternative. He never mentioned that there was a conflict between the DSM and his employer, CAMH. (In the DSM, the APA categorizes infantilism under masochism. CAMH, or at least a few of Cantor's coworkers there, categorized it as a type of pedophilia.) After that exchange and the one at AN/I[23], Cantor's article went from being cited zero times in this article to being cited NINE (9) times - more than any other reference.

Prior to this growth opportunity, Cantor had himself used the DSM to define infantilism on Wikipedia[24].

Cantor et al's publication is the only one connecting the fringe theory by his coworkers Fruend and Blanchard to infantilism. Fruend and Blanchard did not mention infantilism when defining their fringe theory.

Cantor's involvement was instrumental in this conflict, enabling WLU to push the fringe theory of Cantor's coworkers. WLU might have conveniently forgotten this. If WLU wishes, I can detail where the remainder of those "several editors" made it clear that they hadn't read even the relevant pages of the DSM. BitterGrey (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

When was the last edit Cantor made to the main page? How much has Cantor contributed as an editor to the current page? Since the entire article was essentially rewritten top to bottom by myself, FB and you, Cantor's contributions and motivations are meaningless. You're also discounting and ignoring the other editors who agreed that the DSM's discussion of infantilism doesn't substantially apply to this page (as well as the fact that the DSM is mentioned).

Sources matter, the motivation of other editors do not. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering when you'd bring up the "other editors." In contrast to the others, Cantor actually seemed to have read the relevant sections of the DSM. To avoid naming names of people who might have hoped to get disinvolved in your war, I'll just mention one; you. WLU wrote "I've read them all [pg 572 and other pages of the DSM], paraphilic infantilism doesn't appear."[25]. Have you read even that one page of the DSM? It does quite clearly define infantilism. Perhaps you are confusing it with the article that defines the fringe theory you are pushing, which doesn't use the word "infantilism" at all.

On the subject of letting others (some of whom have already demonstrated a lack of support for your version) have the option of disinvolving themselves from your edit war, please stop votestacking. Also, please stop claiming support based on some ancient discussion: consensus can change.

As I pointed out, there was a time when Cantor himself added references to the DSM, as a reliable definition of infantilism.[26]

As for the article being rewritten by the three of us, you've just repeatedly reverted each and every substantial change back to your personal version.

..And back to the main point of this thread. You made a statement which is false. Either accept that you were wrong (Again) or defend your statement. How often does the strategy of posting cruft en masse work? BitterGrey (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Votestacking

WLU, please stop prodding others in hopes of getting a gang together (eg, one person, three pokes: [27][28][29]). I realize that all your "me and my gang vs. you and nobody agrees with you" claims seem silly since no one is voluntarily supporting you. However, this is not an excuse for votestacking. Wikipedia should be driven by sources, real (not votestacked) consensus, and policy.

The policy you are trying to dodge is the one that is intended to maintain a neutral point of view by holding that an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Given the odds that you will again accuse me of distorting or misunderstanding, I'll include the exact quote: "Fringe theory in a nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea." Or more specific to the CAMH fringe theory you are pushing "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.."

This article is about infantilism, not "masochistic qynephiles" or whatever they are called in the fringe theory you are trying to push, by edit warring to include it in THREE PLACES in the article. It seems plainly clear that there are no independent sources - so your fringe theory does not meet criteria for inclusion defined by the guideline. BitterGrey (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the kind of note you would leave on someone's talk page, not on an article talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be hard to work with bitter when he has put so much sarcasm in many of the pages through the years. One time he had a lot of his personal research here and WLU fixed that. This is the first time it seems like that bitter does not own this page.Gogreenlight (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC).

Gogreenlight, if you didn't feel my 2009 response answered your 2009 concerns[30], you had the option of continuing that discussion or editing. Assume good faith is an important guideline. Perhaps we could have worked together to improve the article in the nearly three years since, but now you'll never know. As it is, this history just shows that no one else had a problem with the link in half a decade.

Anyway, unless you are proposing putting that link back in, there doesn't seem to be much point in discussing it now.

I am curious about your interest in the topic, Gogreenlight. You are clearly monitoring the article. (That is, unless you left Wikipedia for nearly three years and were invited back over email by someone who was hoping to votestack.) You have made only four edits[31], and only here, not anywhere else on Wikipedia. Sounds like a heavy investment just to monitor one link, waiting to cheer/gloat if someone else ever removed it. Might I have offended you somewhere else on the Internet or when you were logged in under some other name? BitterGrey (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

(The following is a prior reply to WLU.)

To be deleted with the edit note "or I can just delete this without reading it" like the last time? Had you engaged in discussion then - in February - we might have been able to resolve your vendetta before you expanded it to include this and other articles. It is clear from your lack of understanding of the fringe theory that you are pushing that you don't actually care about it.

Now stop trying to summon a gang to defend your personal version of the article, and let others edit. BitterGrey (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction

Blanchard's fringe theory, about which no independent source is available and about which not even two CAMH sources agree, is now being pushed by WLU as both paraphilic infantilism and some other condition. This is a contradiction. BitterGrey (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

What section are you talking about and what is the "other condition"? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That would be the other conditions section. Duh.BitterGrey (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"Other conditions" falls under the larger heading of "relation to other conditions". In other words, the larger section discusses how PI relates to masochism, pedophilia, diaper fetishism, cross-dressing and "other conditions", a catch-all category for those conditions. In other words, that section discusses possible links to conditions not already discussed. It is no more a contradiction than the section on pedophilia or masochism is a contradiction. In the former case, the relationship between PI and pedophilia is said to be minimal, but they are confused. In the latter case, there is a relationship for some infantilists. In the case discussed by Blanchard, it is saying PI is related to autoeroticism and gender identity disorder. The LTTE for the Archives of Sexual Behaviour discussed the link to sexual abuse. Blanchard is used to source two ideas - that PI is caused by an erotic target location error, and that it is related to gender identity disorder and autoeroticism. This isn't a contradiction, one is an etiology and the other an analogous condition. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Other conditions that are not paraphilic infantilism. Were it not for the policy against WP:SYNTH, some editor would need to decide whether the fringe theory WLU is trying to push is infantilism or some other condition (not infantilism). Either the material is unclear (in which case it should go) or WLU is including it in sections where it does not belong (in which case he should cease this edit war and go). BitterGrey (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the other conditions are not paraphilic infantilism. The section discusses how paraphilic infantilism relates and is related to other conditions. As in "PI isn't the same as sexual infantilism. Some people think PI is related to masochism; others do not. Some people think PI is pedophilia but they are wrong. Some people think PI is related to obsessive compulsive disorder, a cluster of symptoms related to a variety of psychiatric disorders or autoeroticism." The section doesn't say "paraphilic infantilism is masochism", only that it has been linked to it. "Other conditions" is a vague title that means we can gather several proposed relationships into a single section, instead of having three or more sections comprised of a single sentence each. The title can be changed, but this doesn't eliminate the fact that paraphilic infantilism has been linked to a variety of other psychiatric and nonpsychiatric conditions - including cross-dressing and diaper fetishism. If you think there is a better way to illustrate the proposed links between PI and conditions it has been associated with, please propose it. Unclear material from reliable sources needs to be clarified, not removed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

So is the result of that fringe theory paraphilic infantilism or not paraphilic infantilism? It is in contradictory sections. BitterGrey (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The theory of erotic target location error states that paraphilic infantilism is sexual attraction to the idea of the self being a child. The same article states that there are clear distinctions between paraphilic infantilism and pedophilia due to the erotic target location error. Since the article states quite clearly that paraphilic infantilism isn't pedophilia, there is no contradiction. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

CB&B:"...that is, infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia." So now you are contradicting the source, as well as making contradictory statements in the article. To resolve ambiguity without WP:SYNTH, we'd normally go to an independent source. In this case, there aren't any, so WP:FRINGE applies: The fringe theory that WLU is pushing in multiple, contradictory locations must go.BitterGrey (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2011 (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[32]. (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[33]. WLU replaced it[34]. 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[35]. 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 [36], [37]. I also support the inclusion of text that infantilism may come in masochistic and nonmasochistic varieties [38]. 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)