From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

Eyes at new I, Pedophile page?[edit]

Hi, folks. A documentary film about non-offending pedophiles came out recently, titled I, Pedophile. I have created a page for the film, and (because my work and I are in it) I have included the "connected contributor" template. For anyone interested: Do please review the page, and make whatever appropriate changes. I have also uploaded an image, which could be added to the main page. My vanity aside, I wasn't sure that I should post it to the main page myself, so I put the link on the talk page, so that others could (if desired). Thanks! — James Cantor (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I haven't seen the film, but am putting the article into my watchlist.Legitimus (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


Does anyone have any information on why pedophilic disorder is the only paraphilic disorder that doesn't have a remission specification in the DSM-5? Was that just a drafting error? It seems forensically significant.

Dave Carder (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe it has to do with involuntary commitment legislation whose aim is to keep certain prisoners indefinitely. If a paedophile 'patient' was found to be in remission then he could make a valid case for his release and society doesn't want that.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pedophilia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Latin American Farc, School of the Americas, Military Intelligence Community (OEA).[edit]

There is no mention here about the forms and manners that pedofilic forms and manners are forcefully created by the Military Intelligence Associations of the America's to satisfy a somewhat 'Arabic' context of theology (Roman/), where pedofilia is not considered a disorder.

There are documents that directly link the school of the America's (these days Southcom), with Latin American Intelligencia (Spanish/colombian/catholic-arabic), that had as underlying the creation of pedofelic, homosexual and other quote 'sexual' orientation in order to discredit an individual or group to arouse 'the economy' to take reprisals. (United States Methods in War fare propaganda that include both methodist and baptist propaganda specialists, including training sessions in the United States and abroad).

The neglect in that mention is what exactly? Omission, or oversight to not have to do anything against these 'intelligence operators'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia content is based on what we call reliable sources". What are the reliable sources on which we could base content about this? Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


Not a treatment so does not belong in that section. I guess the question is does this belong anywhere?

"Shin Takagi, founder of the company Trottla, manufactures life-like child sex dolls in the belief that doing so provides a safe and legal outlet for men expressing pedophilic desires.[1][2]"


  1. ^ Morin, Roc (January 11, 2016). "Can Child Dolls Keep Pedophiles from Offending?". The Atlantic. Retrieved May 27, 2017. Struggling to reconcile his attraction to children with a conviction that they should be protected, Takagi founded Trottla, a company that produces life-like child sex dolls. For more than a decade, Trottla has shipped anatomically-correct imitations of girls as young as five to clients around the world. “We should accept that there is no way to change someone’s fetishes,” Takagi insisted. “I am helping people express their desires, legally and ethically. It’s not worth living if you have to live with repressed desire.” 
  2. ^ Esposito, Brad (April 15, 2016). "These Child Sex Dolls Will Not Be Allowed Into Australia". Buzzfeed. Archived from the original on May 27, 2017. Takagi believes the sex dolls can help aid paedophiles in Australia by stopping them from acting on their desires. 

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The text was added on 28 May 2017. It should be removed unless a secondary source which also satisfies WP:MEDRS asserts that the dolls have some effect of encyclopedic interest. If notability were satisfied, an article could be created on the inventor or the company or the dolls. However other articles are not available for by-the-way mentions. Johnuniq (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
When it comes to the bit added by the PvOberstein account, I will note that one reason I object to the content is because certain editors (Tisane included) want it added. But I also object because it simply is not a treatment. It's a speculative treatment by the creator of the dolls, who also issue. And as for including it elsewhere in the article, it could go in the "General" subsection of the "Society and culture" section, but it is still a speculative treatment by the creator of the dolls. It's similar to the argument by some researchers that child pornography (whether real-life or simulated) has possibly helped pedophiles and child sexual abusers not commit child sexual abuse; there are counterarguments to that, however, and we have not yet included that child pornography aspect in this article. I wouldn't want us to include the child sex doll sentence that PvOberstein added without adding a counterargument to it. And it certainly does not need its own section; see MOS:Paragraphs. Furthermore, child sex doll material is currently included in the Sex doll article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: Per what I stated above, the PvOberstein account added the sentence to the Sex doll article...but with a counterargument. I haven't yet read the sources, but the "reinforcement" aspect is exactly what I was thinking of when thinking about this topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Infantophilia: get your story straight[edit]

Wikipedia has varying and inconsistent definitions of Nepiophilia, also called Infantophilia. In the article List_of_paraphilias, Nepiophilia/Infantophilia is rather clearly defined as an orientation toward people ″five years old or younger″. However, in the article Chronophilia, it is defined as attraction to people ″ages 0–3″. This article, Pedophilia, defines the perimeters as including ″ages 0–3 or those under age 5″, in other words, those four years old or younger. In an attempt to bring consistency to Wikipedia, I did try and edit the page. I chose to edit it so that it would say ″five years old and under″. This edit was reverted, with the citation that ″Wikipedia is not a reliable source″. Since my edit was reverted, we have three different Wikipedia articles (not including any others that reference Nepiophilia or Infantophilia) which delineate Infantophilia three different ways. In the list of sexual fetishes, it's described as attraction to those five years old or younger, in the Chronophilia page, it's described as attraction to those three years old or younger, in the Pedophilia page, it's described as those four years old or younger. I would be thankful if someone would bring all three Wikipedia articles into agreement. I would do it myself, but my edits will just get reverted. DarkApollo (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)DarkApollo

You are a Wikipedia editor, like everyone else here. It is "our" story. The only thing that matters are what reliable sources say. What sources say what? Jytdog (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Mind the accusatory tone, DarkApollo. I doubt anyone did that on purpose, considering different editors work on different articles and the term is not widely accepted. It's also an appalling subject that not a lot of people probably want to look into .
So I did a little digging to figure out why the definition is inconsistent. In this article (pedophilia) there are two sources for the definition, Laws et al (a book) and Hall & Hall (Mayo Clinic). "Laws et al" defines the term as "sexual preference for infants" but does not provide a numerical age. Hall defines it as younger than 5 years, but I noted Hall is itself quoting an earlier paper by Greenberg from 1995 titled "Infantophilia - a new subcategory of pedophilia? a preliminary study." The List_of_paraphilias article quotes this same paper (Greenburg) as it's source. The Chronophilia article uses Laws et al as it's source.
It is interesting to note that both Hall and Laws list Greenburg as a reference, an do not actually study the concept, but merely make brief mention of it. I also noted that only Laws et al uses the term "Nepiophilia," and it's not clear where they got that term. No source I can find uses the 0-3 age range. I did however find a rather interesting book source titled "Understanding and Addressing Adult Sexual Attraction to Children" by Dr. Sarah D. Goode (a sociologist) that had this to say:

Nepiophilia (with or without the connotation of diapers) does seems to be used with in the paedophile community. However, these terms do not appear to be listed in the DSM or ICD, and most online references to the terms are circular, bringing the reader back to a disputed Wikipedia article on ' lnfantophilia' (Wikipedia 2008). This article was flagged , as from January 2008, as needing to be expanded, linked and verified by the use of citations; in other words, as being insufficiently scientific to comply with Wikipedia's standards as an online encyclopedia. Thus it is possible, interestingly, that these terms have been adopted, not from the medical establishment (other than possibly the work of John Money), but primarily from the paedophile community itself, where they are sometimes taken as a self-definition.

Based on this, I think it's reasonable to remove the 0-3 parts from articles. I am not certain about what to do with the Nepiophilia term. On the one hand, it's quote in two reliable books, but on the other, it appears it may have never been recognized scientifically.Legitimus (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Legitimus. I am really impressed with your findings and in such a short time. It's fascinating that ″nepiophilia″ doesn't even originate from the medical or psychiatric establishments. I think Dr. Goode is correct in her observation, as such I don't think the term ″nepiophilia″ should be used. I will use ″infantophilia″ henceforth. If you and other editors agree with me, we should consider jettisoning the word ″nepiophilia″ from this article and the other two. It's something to consider. Because attraction the those under age 18 (going by legal standards, or under 14, going by the DSM-V standards) is such a sensitive (and life ending/ruining) subject matter, I think it's incumbent on us to rely on medical and psychiatric sources. And ″nepiophilia″ seems to be invented kink terminology without a source. Again, thank you for your impressive ability and contribution to return to and use original sources. DarkApollo (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)DarkApollo
I argue to retain mention of infantophilia/nepiophilia, precisely because of what Legitimus has stated. By this, I mean that two reliable sources noted by Legitimus comment on this, and what the quoted text states is perhaps something we should note in the Definitions section. Either way, I don't think it can be validly argued that pedophilia does not include sexual attraction to babies and toddlers. Babies and toddlers are prepubescent children and some pedophiles have an age range preference. Some prefer those around age 5; others prefer those around age 8 or older. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I did find one early reference to the term "nepiophilia" in a scholarly source. It us used by Dr. John Money in his entry in the 1990 book Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions, where it states:

The chronophilias are named according to the developmental age of the eligible partner, which approximates the sexuoerotic age of the chronologically adult chronophile. If the eligible partner is an infant, "infantophilia"* is the diagnostic term. If it is essential that the infant be wearing diapers, however, the Greek-derived term for the diapered infant, "nepiophilia"*,applies. (Look twice at those who come to a masquerade party in diapers!)

It's not clear where Money came up with the term or it's peculiar (and uncorroborated) definition, and the text shows clear signs this was the early days of paraphilia research. Greenburg (which solely uses "infantophilia") on the other hand is a strong source as they studied actual pedophiles, trying to learn what made these sub-types different.
I don't think either of these terms should be removed, as they have been covered in scholarly sources, even if one might have had dubious origins, it's a term people might come across or come searching for.Legitimus (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog, I agree with what you wrote. ″The only thing that matters are what reliable sources say. What sources say what?″ This is what I also wanted to know. @Legitimus has provided the answer to that, I think. I started this talk because I want the highest quality standards for Wikipedia, that means (to me) being as factual and using the most reliable and respectable sources. Having three Wikipedia articles that vary, with the example I provided, is not good and can and should be remedied. That was partly my point here.

@Flyer22 Reborn, I didn't say that ″pedophilia does not include sexual attraction to babies and toddlers″ or argue that infants and toddlers are not prepubescent children. Nor did I intend to argue that ″some pedophiles″ are not attracted to this age range. Rather, I wanted to clear up the defining age range characteristic and, according to what @Legitimus, nepiophilia seems to be used without qualification. I see the warning label at the top of the Talk page, ″This is not a forum for general discussion about Pedophilia.″ I don't think I've violated that by seeking clarification on what is infantophilia and nepiophilia, and what do they include?

@Legitimus wrote, ″I don't think either of these terms should be removed″. I was only going to argue for the removal of nepiophilia, on the grounds that it has no basis of use, outside of perhaps kink or niche communities. But if you don't think ″nepiophilia″ should be expunged, than I guess that's it. Although, it may be helpful to point out, in the body of the articles, that infantophilia is the term used by professionals and specialists. Likewise, I thought infantophilia would include age 5. It's not a purely arbitrary numeric delineation. Despite the name infant-philia, it seems to center on toddlers, persons aged 12 to 36 months. Age 5 is usually included as ″Play age″ or early childhood. Take a look at the Human_development_(biology) article. You'll see that, developmentally, infants are newborns (0 days old) to 1 years of age, toddlers are 1-3 years of age, play age or early childhood is 3-5 years in age, prepubescence (schoolboys/schoolgirls and ″tweens″) are 6-11 in age, and adolescence are 12-19 in age.

In any case, thanks to all three of you for participating in this discussion.DarkApollo (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't state that you stated such. I was simply noting my thoughts on the matter after you stated "Because attraction the those under age 18 (going by legal standards, or under 14, going by the DSM-V standards) is such a sensitive (and life ending/ruining) subject matter, I think it's incumbent on us to rely on medical and psychiatric sources." In the article, we rely on medical/psychiatric sources for the aspects that we should rely on them. Some other things, such as legal matters, are supported by other types of academic sources. A Definitions section, much like a Society and culture section, commonly gets more leeway in our medical articles; see WP:MEDDATE and WP:MEDMOS#Sections for some leeway we allow in medical articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)