Talk:Pedophilia

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jack-A-Roe (talk | contribs) at 06:04, 13 December 2010 (→‎edits explained: cm). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Legality

I think it might be useful to mention that sexual relations between legal adults and children is presently illegal in most countries in the world and among the hardest punished crimes in many. It might also be useful to have a section on the historical development of a legal framework around pedophilia on a global scale.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong article. I think you may be looking for child sexual abuse and Laws regarding child sexual abuse.Legitimus (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is the wrong article to mention this no. That is why I suggested it here. Presently there is not link between this article and the two articles that you mention even though there is a direct and fairly obvious connection between them. The article definition itself mentions that there are special definitions of pedophilia within law enforcement - these definitions ad their motivations are as relevant to the general topic as the psychiatric definitions. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maunus, the historical development of a legal framework around pedophilia on a global scale could fit in the In forensic psychology and law enforcement section. You want to start filling that section in? And there is a link between this article and Child sexual abuse. We have a whole section on it, and also speak of it in the General views section.
There are various "definitions" of pedophilia, but experts are clear that any definition outside of the medical definition is inaccurate. This is why we start out with the medical definition first, because not all adult sexual interest in children is pedophilia. Currently, most editors are for the medical definition coming first, and we have been over it time and time again. Here are the reasons given:
  1. Myself (for what I just stated)
  2. Stevertigo[1][2]
  3. Legitimus[3]
  4. James Cantor/James Cantor[4]
  5. Jack-A-Roe[5]
  6. SqueakBox[6]
  7. Herostratus[7]
  8. Nick Levinson[8]
There is no need to say, "Pedophilia describes adult sexual interest in children" for the lead-in, since we specify the different uses of the term immediately. The current lead-in is neutral, as to not start out with the common use or medical definition first. We list the range first, then go into the medical definition and then the others. "Adult sexual interest in children" also neglects 16 and 17-year-old adolescents (no matter that they are biological adults, and technically count as adults).
As for "sexual relations between legal adults and children," do you mean 18/19-year-olds and people below the age of consent? If so, how is it not clear that an 18/19-year-old cannot engage in sex with a 12-year-old unless the age of consent is set that low? Flyer22 (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Maunus, you have forced me to once again redesign the lead, while keeping the medical definition first. The typical medical definition of pedophilia comes first (sexual preference for prepubescent children), the DSM is tackled by itself in the second paragraph, and "common use" in the third, while origins, causes, and forensic psychology and law enforcement come last. But if anyone objects to these changes, the previous lead may be reinstated. Try to remember that stuff like leads and things have already been discussed extensively at articles such as these. Heated debates have been had here, compromises have been made and will continue to be made. Even the smallest change at this article can result in a big discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you do not have to redesign the lead again, other editors are very capable of doing so themselves. The fact that you take it up to yourself that you have to redisgn it is just another example of ownership that is asserted on the article. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with ownership. Do you have to start this up again, really? It has to do with being familiar with past discussions and redesigning the lead accordingly to those discussions. For example, Maunus was clearly not aware of the fact that most editors are for the medical definition coming first. If I am at the article, I am going to tweak the lead according to what consensus and past concerns were/are, which is exactly what I did (including your concern about "early pubescent" being as high in the lead as possible, without overtaking the general "prepubescent" medical definition), as the edit history shows. If you wanted to tweak Maunus's edits, you could have done so. But Maunus's edits did need tweaking. If it was about ownership with me, I would not be willing to listen to or work with anyone but Legitimus and the other usual editors here (neglecting you and Jokestress). Your constant sniping at me when I am only acting in accordance to Wikipedia policy and guidelines is exactly what Legitimus was talking about regarding you and civility. Maunus wanted an exact definition first, and I left it that way...but in respect to what we have all been over time and time again. Flyer22 (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maunus' lede was an improvement, yet it was unilaterally reverted by the current owner of this article. Jokestress (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My reasons for reverting Maunus are above. And, anyway, the current lead is partially Manus's doing as well, including the lead-in. Flyer22 (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the revert of Maunus' version of the lede. I don't doubt that edit was a good faith effort to improve the article, but it introduced as the main definition an unsourced generalization of the term as "adult sexual interest in children" that has been rejected by consensus more than a few times.
  • There are other less precise uses of the term - they are explained in the article, as they should be, with due weight for alternate uses. Even the law enforcement uses of the term are known to be imprecise, as stated in the law enforcement sources, having developed as a sort of colloquial shorthand. In statues and court cases, the term is generally not used, as those documents focus on actions and not feelings.
  • There is no problem with ownership on this article. These issues have been discussed many times in various forums, with participation of many editors. The article has developed based on consensus in those multiple discussions and the extensive talk page archives. The article presents the topic as a medical condition because that is the mainstream academic use of the term. There is no broad discussion among scholars of the existence of a form of adult sexual interest in prepubescent children that could be somehow healthy and not requiring a diagnosis as a disorder. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RE Legal use of the term and laws about it: I am not aware of any statutory laws of any nation that use the word "pedophilia." It's possible I've just not heard of any, so let me know of there is. I also am not aware of any statutory laws that govern an attraction/preference or what have you. All laws surrounding this subject are about child sexual abuse, the act itself, or about child pornography. Law enforcement is separate from law itself, and as Jack-A-Roe pointed it, it's more of a shorthand among investigators, not a precise term. Note in the law enforcement section, I listed several illegal actions as a sort of "translation" for what such organizations actually mean when they say "pedophilia."Legitimus (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat off-topic: Rind in here and child sexual abuse

I also feel this section is off-topic because it is specifically about CSA, which needs to remain as distinct as possible. There's too much overlap and I want to avoid muddling the two topics any worse that society is already doing through linguistic laziness. Plus this article is already very long. Perhaps we can instead incorporate wikilink references to the CSA and Laws Regarding CSA articles.Legitimus (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That diff is a bit iffy. We do want some material in here that justifies pedophilia as a mental disorder due to harm to others (rather than just "authorities say so"). So, something needs to be said about why CSA is harm (besides the self-evident language). On the other hand, the discussion of Rind et al and what came of that is WP:UNDUE in this article. Just put a simple summary along the lines: "the scientific consensus is that CSA causes harm because besides the physical harm the abused children have such-and-such problems with higher likelihood", ergo pedophilia is a disorder. Actually, you may even be able to use the "crank" Berlin source from the next section for the latter part of the argument. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it's off-topic. It may go on a little long about child sexual abuse, but that (child sexual abuse) is in relation to the harm pedophilia can cause. The lead-in starts off saying "pedophilia and child sexual abuse," as to distinguish, and right below that, we clear up in another section the misuses of the term. I'm okay with it being shortened, just not as short as Jack trimmed it (to that one sentence). After all, that section is about society's views on pedophilia. It should report on why society fears/hates pedophilia -- child sexual abuse is the main reason for that. There needs to be something there about it and why society feels children cannot consent to sex. I know the caution of having Rind in this article, but it's only a criticism of his work. If it's felt that he is better left out, I am fine with that. Flyer22 (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I can go with some mention about CSA for that reason (that is, why it is so reviled). But I agree with Tijfo, let's leave Rind out because it will confuse the issue in such a short paragraph.Legitimus (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll go ahead and remove Rind. Tijfo098 will probably further tweak that section. Flyer22 (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I left Rind in only as a source to controversy surrounding researchers who concluded that child sexual abuse may not cause harm, but I left specific mention of Rind out. Is this okay? Flyer22 (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good tweak, Legitimus. We'll see what Jack has to say about the current, revised text -- whether he feels more about pedophilia should be said or what. But, really, it is the child sexual abuse that the public largely comments on. Researchers usually comment on both -- the disorder and the act. Flyer22 (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rind et al does not belong in this article for many reasons: that paper is specifically about CSA, not pedophilia; it is known to be a flawed paper based on flawed methodology; it presents a fringe theory of non-harmful CSA that has been repeatedly rejected by academia and society and it's mention provides undue weight for those fringe ideas.
Equally fringe and inappropriate for this article is Levine's book. It's about teens, not children, and not about adults being sexually involved with children. The book addresses Levine's ideas about young teens access to sexual activity in general (mainly with each other, or with older teens). It's not about pedophilia and does not belong in this article.
Kinsey's abhorrent reports of abusive sexual experiments on young children also doesn't belong here. His report did not address what was going on in the mind or feelings of the person who committed those crimes, it simply described in detail a series of acts of child abuse. Again, this one is also not about pedophilia and does not belong in this article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. Regarding Kinsey in particular, his conclusions were based entirely on the diary and self-report of a single pedophile who had molested hundreds of children over several decades (Kinsey lied in his actual report about where he got his data). Kinsey relied on this one person no only to draw conclusions about pedophiles, but also for his far-fetched assertions about harmfulness to children. It is of course is not surprising that a pedophile is going to say his victims enjoyed it and were not harmed.Legitimus (talk) 10:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jack and Legitimus, good points. I know all of that. But what of the reasons people hate pedophiles? How else to demonstrate society's general view of pedophilia if we don't report on child sexual abuse in relation to pedophilia? Underage teens are still considered children, and people often consider an adult engaging in sex with one as child sexual abuse as well (other times as statutory rape). As stated above, it is the child sexual abuse that the public largely comments on. In Legitimus's words "that is, why it is so reviled." Child sexual abuse has everything to do with pedophilia when it comes to prepubescent children, disregarding the fact that not all child sexual abusers are pedophiles. My point is, "What is the point of the General views section if we don't report on the reasons people hate pedophilia -- which is child sexual abuse, the suggestion that a child could consent to sex, etc. etc.?" Flyer22 (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I know Jack removed the "General views" title. But I still feel that the Societal views section is lacking without more information on how the general public feels about pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer, I don't disagree with the idea of including a section about the views of society about pedophilia. But it has to be mainstream views, not those fringe views that were listed there previously. It would require finding reliable academic sources that explain and provide context for society's views about pedophilia. The main way society expresses its unambiguous disapproval on this topic in very clear and direct terms by making the actions of child sexual abuse illegal. But that's about actions and not feelings or mental conditions. Also it's not needed in this section because there are already other sections about laws and child moestation, and in the linked child sexual abuse article and the article on laws prohibiting child sexual abuse. In order to include a section on the general views of society about pedophilia, we need reliable sources that discuss that issue specifically (and not from a fringe view), and so far, we don't have those. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about sources such as these, which is still in the section I attempted to create? It "criticises the justifications that are given by paedophiles for having sex with children. Part of this criticism is a brief analysis of 'sexual desire' and 'erotic'. Next, the question is raised whether paedophile activities can ever be morally permissible. Using the principles of mutual consent and non-exploitation as touchstone, the question is answered in the negative."... It discusses child sexual abuse in relation to pedophilia...and morality. As for the fringe views, that was to demonstrate society's outrage about things relating to pedophilia or what they perceive as related to pedophilia. For example, with Levine's book, people felt she was dismissive of child sexual abuse...as that TIME link shows. I made a point to acknowledge that the book was "to promote teenagers' sexual health." The point is...some of the public didn't take it that way. Rind's and Kinsey's views were to show how society will never tolerate sexual acts on prepubescent children; my text was criticism of their views. But I understand why you feel Rind and Kinsey shouldn't be in this article (Rind has been removed from this article time and time again, I know that), and I am okay with that. My main point was that pedophilia, and society's hatred of pedophilia, cannot be discussed without discussing child sexual abuse. Sure, we already have a section on Child sexual abuse in this article, but that's about the research on it in relation to pedophilia, not the general public's views on any of it (other than assuming that all child sexual abusers are pedophiles). And I'm not saying we should have a big section on this topic, since it would no doubt mostly be about the act.
Again, would sources like the one I offered above suffice to explain society's general views of pedophilia? Flyer22 (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SVP civil commitment laws

I've added a section on that. What country do you guys live in? Do you ever watch the news? Tijfo098 (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Development

Here's the full text of that section from the Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law, ISBN 9781412951890 p. 549:


The (possibly crank according to the vote here) Fred Berlin also says:


So, given that another encyclopedia thought this type of information relevant, I've added it to the article here. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stedman's Medical Dictionary

Is an example of "common usage"? Seems like a medical text; granted it might be a poor-quality one. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But, really, using any dictionary is usually contradictory in this case, since they usually define a child as between birth and puberty (prepubescent). I was still going for how "children" is used without any qualifier and pedophilia in reference to child sexual abuse as well as attraction, when it comes to common use. Feel free to replace it, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

I'm not sure how it would be put in, but under the "psychopathology" section I strongly think it should be noted that most studies like that use child abusers as "paedophiles" because most won't come out normally. Therefore if you are interviewing a bunch of rapists of COURSE you are going to find higher levels of sociopathy etc. and that the data is going to be naturally skewed. I understand if it's not that encyclopedic exactly, but as I say I strongly feel that it should be noted, or mentioned in some capacity.--Person012345 (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does say that. The fourth paragraph of that section says exactly what you are talking about.Legitimus (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I completely missed it somehow.--Person012345 (talk) 09:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edits explained

Child sexual abuse is different matter (related perhaps in see also, but not the same content). Sine the subject is different adn reflected as such in a seperate article it certainly cant lead into this one where the lead reflects the content of this article. A wikilink in the article or see also is certainly more appropriate than bolding it.

As the definition in the article itself suggests (and the lead reflects the article) the word means someone else. Sure its come to evolve into the current definition and that is the focus of the lead, but to exclude cited fact from the article is pov and undue weight on other factors as if representating simply 1 side. It clearly by definition is not only about sex, even if todays usage is as such. this is an encyclopaedia and hence covers everythign not just novel usages. (that would be a dictionary)Lihaas (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophilia as "child friendship" in the lead, original research, etc.

As I stated to Lihaas on his or her talk page, "'Child sexual abuse' is in the distinguish tag because that is the act, while pedophilia is about the mental (what goes on in the mind) in relation to the act. Child sexual abuse is a common aspect of pedophilia, and is largely what pedophilia is about, yes, but they are not the same thing. Some child sexual abusers are not even pedophiles, as the article makes clear.
Also, describing pedophilia as 'child friendship' in the lead is highly controversial, as many pedophiles actually describe the relationship that way and believe it to only be about friendship and that they are not hurting the child. This is why I reverted you.
As for your OR and synthesis concerns, I did not mean to revert that, and it would be best that you bring that up (what you meant by that) on the talk page." Flyer22 (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You just stated you did not mean to remove the tags and yet you removed it AGAIN. Is that not a doublestandard taht you admitted to? My explanation is given on the page in the hidden tags and was right in the beginning "synthesis here, need to quote the relevant passage" I dont believe the content was written in a manner that comes from the source and would like to read it, hence the tag of possible OR
Your reverts also changed the subheading without explanation related to that where you mention the lead and revert EVERYTHING.
read my content above about the alternate to bolding the term child sexual abuse. Its better than a blanet revert.
Your comment that "child friendship" is controversial because they refer it to themselves is frankly not relevant to this position. This is an encyclopaeida not taking EITHER sides. What they believe is irrelevant, as i explained the phrase is VERBATIM taken from the passage that defines what it means and the lead must reflect the article.
About about child sexual abuse being part of the act is a POV concern of the editors, that is not what the phrase is about. As i already said it is fair game to refer to the sexual content that it has not come to mean, but that is again not the inherent form of the phrase. "paedo" means child as in paediatrician, "phile" mean to like as in bibliophile, anglophile, indophile, etc. Is that definitional controversial? it is cited on this page itself.Lihaas (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could have added your tags back without readding everything else. I reverted you again, because you again added everything back. Your tags are back now, without everything else.
What is wrong with the subheading having "disease models" in it? That section is about the disease models, more than it is about simply history of pedophilia.
"Child friendship" is not a common meaning of pedophilia, no matter its origin. And given its use by pedophiles as the definition of pedophilia, it certainly should not be in the lead as the de facto meaning. We have an Etymology section for that. If you want it in the lead, you will need to gain WP:Consensus, but I doubt it will come first in the lead even if you do manage to gain favor.
What I said about child sexual abuse is not simply about our POV. We have distinguish tags for a reason on Wikipedia; nothing wrong with distinguishing here.
And you still have not explained your OR tags well. Hebephilia, for example, is viewed by those researchers as overlapping with pedophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thats fine in the interim.
Nothing wrong with the disease models, but its not a subsection of etymelogy. I then removed it as a nother section instead of subsection, im fine with adding it back just not as a subsection but section on its own
its not a de facto meaning but a de jure meaning as has been cited on the talk page and mentioned here. Maybe not the first sentence but somewhere in the elad to reflect the article that does in fact state the words meaning verbatim.
Youre not distinguishing your opening in the lead, distinguish tags are above the article which you may find some wordign for either there, see also, or merged in the article as not bold, bold is not used to distinguish but clarify the meaning of which article is being read, that article is not a redirect to this page and hance not an equivalent term. if Dr. X and Y have correltated paedophilia to abuse then that is the opinion of the doctor which is fair game to cited in the article, not to lead a definition in the first setnence.
well id like like to see the text being referenced here because it seems dubious synthesis to me the way its written. Sourced should leave no doubt as to what is said.Lihaas (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point about the Etymology section. It used to be called Etymology and definitions. The Etymology section by itself is way too short, so it could be combined with the history part as Etymology and history of disease models. Would that work for you? If so, I have no problem with your changing it to that.
I meant to change my de facto mention above, but it's too late now. Anyway, the point is...I cannot see any reason that "child friendship" should be in the lead. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the most significant parts of the topic. "Child friendship" is not what this article significantly or even mostly talks about. If you want it in the lead, you will need consensus for it...since the current lead has already been thoroughly worked out.
We are distinguishing the opening in the lead. The lead talks about child sexual abuse. All we do is point the reader to the bigger/main article on child sexual abuse, and so that they can somewhat grasp the point that pedophilia and child sexual abuse are not necessarily the same thing. Flyer22 (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont thin etymelogy goes with history one such reason is that having "ands" in the subject forces to much content into it, although i do agree its too short. Lets' hold on this then because we near to a conclusion. If somemore can be found on etymelogy (and i will look tomorrow) then would 2 section be okay?
I think it is significant precisely for the fact that it includes a less narrow scope and is not attributable to recent changes per the {{recentism}} tag. Im fine with moving it away from the first sentence, but somewhere towards the end perhaps of a large lead is appropriate to reflect already cited content.
Well, the lead should not talk about the content of another article, certainly not that it gives the impress this article is abotu the content of that (which is the point of the bold text), if it is then the 2 articles should be merged. Again paedophilia is much more of a broad term than the limited constraints of sexual abuse. As said, i have no problem with having it in the lead but it shouldnt get undue weight, especially when a seperate article exists.
ive also added a tag to the article to get more debate here.Lihaas (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Etymology goes with history in plenty of Wikipedia articles. But if you can find more to add to the Etymology section, no, I do not object to it being its own section.
I've already given my reasons for "child friendship" not being in the lead, and have nothing more to say about it at the moment.
The lead should not talk about content of another article? Pedophilia has a lot to do with child sexual abuse. And WP:LEAD agrees that it should be talked about. The lead is not talking about the content of that article; it is talking about child sexual abuse in relation to pedophilia. Pedophilia is a broad term? All it covers is the mental disorder, child sexual abuse, and popular reference to any sexual interest in minors. That is as broad as it gets, and is why the lead covers all that.
You've added the wrong type of tag. This article is not slanted toward recent events in any way.
I ask that you stop reverting my heading for this discussion. Specific headings are useful for knowing what a discussion is about, and very helpful when looking for that discussion in the archives. As long as I am focusing on the content, and not the editor, there is nothing wrong with my heading. I hope you were not trying to bait me into WP:3RR. If you were, it should be noted that I was following WP:TALK, reverting your changes to a part of my comment (seeing as the title counts as part of my comment), and did not actually revert you more than three times after creating the title for my comment (as separate from yours). Your reverting it is also making me extremely upset, to the point that I don't want to discuss anything with you. It's best to agree to leave our headings alone; you won't touch mine, and I won't touch yours. Flyer22 (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lihaas, looks like you have run into the owner of the page, who indeed tries to control every aspect of what can be changed, including talk page headers. As for the lead, it is very definitively biased towards one specific meaning, namely the medical operalization of the term. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really, you are going to use your reply for that, for your usual insults and assertions after much, much discussion, instead of focusing on the matter at hand? Instead of commenting on whether or not pedophilia should be defined as "child friendship" in the lead? Can't say I'm surprised. Lihaas, however, was altering a part of my comment. I had every right to revert. And if Lihaas also reads the archives or looks over the article's edit history, Lihaas will know that I most certainly am not the only one who is responsible for the current lead, which presents BOTH medical and common use meaning of the term. People who have a problem with following or respecting WP:Consensus, as Kim does, will not find peace at Wikipedia.
In any case, I am actually working with Lihaas here, and shall continue to for as long as it takes to get this straight. Flyer22 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I wasn't talking to you. But now that you butted in, I will address you. Your whole sale reversion of everything including undisputed things is not acceptable and is a clear sign of ownership. Only after you were called on it, you reverted yourself on it. The edit warring about the title at this page is a another example of ownership. If it is not Flyer22's way. You invoke WP:TALK to justify your actions, but obviously fail to read the following: "To avoid disputes it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial." Well, it was changed back, so it was obviously controversial. But no, you kept edit warring on your own version. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, first of all, with the bad blood between us, you already know you shouldn't send me a 3RR warning yourself, as it cannot help but be biased. Second of all, you were talking about me with the intention of provoking me.
Only after I was called on it, I reverted myself on it, you say? Uh...no...I pointed out on Lihaas's talk page and above that I did not mean to remove the OR tags, which is why I reinserted them. "Obviously controversial" is your POV. I see nothing controversial about the heading I decided to use for my reply. Nor do I see anything 3RR about reverting changes to something that is a part of my reply. Lihaas didn't like it as his or her heading; I made it my own.
What you should be focusing on is Lihaas's concern about an OR addition you made, the one about pedophilia overlapping hebephilia. Flyer22 (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you prefer I go to the noticeboard next time? Just let me know. As for my intentions, no, I had no interest in getting to you. I just warned another editor of your ownership behavior, which you even admit to in your reply above (I made it my own.). Which you also displayed nicely with the current edit war. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you had no interest in "getting into it" with me, you would have refrained from insulting me yet again on this very talk page, as you always do (instead of focusing on the article's content, which is something you are supposed to do, especially as an administrator; I could go to the noticeboard about that). As if you did not know I would reply to your slander. If it was more about warning Lihaas of villainous Flyer22, you could have done so on his or her talk page.
Anyway, Lihaas, as I stated on your talk page, let's continue. Hopefully, editors who are interested in weighing in on the article's content regarding this matter will comment soon. Flyer22 (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I made my point towards Lihaas, and that you choose to respond was your choice. If you want to infer intent from that, I just explained it was not there.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And no one familiar with our history is buying that. So, yes, go right back to editing your "Flyer22 owns the Pedophilia article" project page, which is nothing but slanting of what really happens here anyway. Lihaas and I will work this out on our own, or with editors interested more in improving the article than throwing out insults and holding grudges. Flyer22 (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to say with "Lihaas and I will work this out on our own" that I am not allowed to contribute? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kim, you already just addressed Lihaas's concern over the Etymology and hebephilia parts with your recent edits. By not addressing it on the talk page, I of course figured you were not interested in tackling the raised issues. You have, and good. I care not if you continue to weigh in here on the talk page, as long as your comments are not insults directed at me. Flyer22 (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it may be time to go to a noticeboard about Flyer22's WP:OWN issues on this article. This is just the latest of many, many examples that demonstrate Flyer22's behavior won't change unless this ongoing matter is escalated. Jokestress (talk) 05:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no WP:OWN issues. If I do, then so do the editors who formed consensus with me against you and Kim each time. All I have done is follow WP:Consensus each and every damn time while you have complained about it each and every damn time and tried to game the system. My reverting Lihaas's edits to the lead is in accordance with Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Lihaas didn't even tag the article right when trying to bring wider discussion here. There are no WP:OWN issues to report about me. But whatever. I have my rebuttal case ready too if you want to go that route. You two will always focus on me first and foremost before focusing on what you should be focusing on -- the article content. You will not be banning me from this article, as you did Dr. James Cantor. But you can try. *Wink* Flyer22 (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no problem of ownership with Flyer22's edits on this article. She's participated collaboratively with many editors on this page over a long period and its content is the product of consensus both past and present. As can be seen above, in a situation that appeared tense at first, Flyer22 is yet again collaborating in a productive manner to work out the differences and improve the article. That said, this discussion has veered far off-topic, so, returning to the article content, I will enter a comment on the issue addressed in this section. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the questions brought up at the top of this section: I support the inclusion of the hatnote distinguishing the topic from Child sexual abuse, because the terms are different yet closely related. That is one of the primary uses of that type of hatnote. Regarding including "child friendship" in the lead as a definition of pedophilia, that is not at all appropriate. That can be included in the etymology section, if there are sources supporting it, but it is not a correct definition of the term as it is used in present day. The start of an article is where the most important central theme of the topic is presented. Supporting material such as how a term evolved into present day use is properly presented in later sections where it will not distract or confuse. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedophilia&oldid=402097862"