Talk:Paraphilic infantilism

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paraphilic infantilism article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Paraphilic infantilism has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Adding references to 'Origins' section.

Note: My "talk" entry below was made after I had attempted to rewrite the Origin section more in alignment with Wiki policy, but user: James Cantor had just deleted the section. He had also apparently deleted the same section several times before in an edit war with an earlier editor. Note by Scott P. (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The need for references is understood. As I stated above, I really was hoping that someone else would step in to help with this. I will add two references per week. Seeing as this section was left standing for 2 years without any references, I would hope that a few more weeks with only partial referencing might be tolerated. I have just added one reference, and will add another by the end of the day.
Thanks,
Scott P. (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: user: James Cantor's "talk" entry below was made after his having again promptly deleted the Origin section. Apparently he was not willing to wait until I had completed inserting my references for the day as I had promised. Note by Scott P. (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that there exist few, if any, sources on this topic. That does not, however, permit the sourcing standards to drop just so that there is something to be said on the mainpage. The WP thing to do is not to say anything until such RS's emerge. The source to John Money does not solve the problem. To say that an unsourced theory is consistent with John Money's theory doesn't help. It is OR unless an RS says that the etiological theory is consistent with Money's. A WP editor saying so is not sufficient (even if the WP editor is correct).

— James Cantor (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Allowing a section regarding the 'Origins of AB/DL' on this page, and reference standards therein

An editing war seems to have erupted regarding two questions:

1. Should a section regarding the 'Origins of paraphilic infantilism' be permitted in this article?
2. If this section is allowed, then what reference standards should apply in this section?

Any leading comments by editors who have not recently contributed to this article would be appreciated. Thanks,

Scott P. (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

All editors can opin as they like, of course, but no one has argued against having an origins section or against having referenced anecdotal information in that section. The problems (to my eye) are about having anunreferenced origins section and having unreferenced anecdotal information in that section. That John Money thought that the paraphilia started by age 8 is not at all a sufficent basis to use Money as the source to support the entire (unsourced) theory.

The main question, to me, is whether the single source contained in this edit is sufficient to justify all of the other text added to the mainpage in that edit.

That said, an RfC is a good idea; and I also believe that the input from new editors would be helpful.

— James Cantor (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The Money Lovemap theory states that nearly all humans have the fundamentals of their Lovemaps fully developed by the age of 8. By pointing out the consistency between Money's theory, and the developmental experiences of most AB/DL's and by referencing Money's writings on this, seems to me to be at least the beginning of referencing this section of the article. Obviously some further reference will be needed to substantiate the reports of the early onset of the thought patterns, and I will grant you that. I hope we get some fresh perspectives here too.

Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor (but who has given input on RfC's and discussion connected to this), and who has no interest in the topic, if Money did not address this issue specifically, then to use this to justify a whole section about this topic, rather than as a mention about his view of paraphilias generally, would be WP:OR. It is unfortunate if no verifiable sources can be found to justify the section(s), but unless there is a consensus to waive that for the article, and it is challenged, then the onus is on the inserting editor to verify the accuracy. Would the challenger and the inserting editor be prepared to work towards producing a compromise consensus version which used sources where available in a way that gave some leeway in retaining useful unsourced material?Mish (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

MishMich, have you or have you not checked the reference yourself?BitterGrey (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

(Outdenting) I regret that, contrary to wikipedia policy, no assumptions of good faith were made when Scott P. offered a schedule for finding additional references[1] nor was there any acceptance that wikipedia is a work in progress. His offer was ignored. The material was redeleted along with the new reference that he added. This suggests that this week's edit war between James Cantor and Scott P., like last week's edit war between James Cantor and myself, was driven by some other desire. References were merely the justification.

Technically, WP:V doesn't quantify how many references are needed. Similarly, the guidlines about references are equally open to interpretation. WP:3RR does specify a quantity - four or more reverts - which James Cantor has already violated[2] regarding this issue.

As for MishMich, two weeks ago he rushed to support James Cantor regarding three self-promotional ELs[3], only checking those ELs himself several hours later[4]. This suggests that he is nowhere near as uninvolved as he claims[5].

Now, if we could get some truly unbiased editors involved, then an environment of good faith might possibly be restored. In this current environment, it seems that any new contributions, no matter how well referenced, will be deleted thoughtlessly. BitterGrey (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Instead of responding to editors who respond to RfCs by discussing what they have said, you seem to only be capable of responding with personal attacks. Let me make this clear to you. I responded to an RfC on a project I participate in, and you liked what I said as I supported your position, and you did not attack me. Then I responded to another RfC on the same project, and you didn't like what I said, and you attacked my motives. Now, somebody posts another RfC on the same project, and I respond and you obviously don't like what I said, and you attack me again. I did not 'rush to support to James Cantor', I responded to an RfC. I can assure you, I have no brief for Cantor whatsoever, and have my own issues with him on a couple of matters - but my primary focus is on making sure we get things right. Now, this project doesn't get a lot of activity, so if RfCs get posted here, do not be surprised if editors involved with the project respond - that is what RfCs are posted for. You are explicitly attributing bad faith when there is none, and being uncivil in the process. I do not intend to be bullied out of responding to RfCs when they are lodged, so don't do it. I told you, I have no interest in paraphilic infantilism, so I am an unbiased editor.

I think it is very unfortunate that this section has only the one source, because I am sure that Wikipedia would be better with it rather than without it - but by being clear about the source and the material derived from it, you will ensure that the article is stronger and less vulnerable to challenges like the one Cantor is making. Believe me, I know this is not easy - some of the articles I have worked on can have every sentence challenged, which means working through an entire article to ensure that the accuracy of everything is verifiable from reliable sources. I am sympathetic, having worked on articles on Christianity and homosexuality where other editors may be Mormon fundamentalists, articles about LGBT people with neo-Nazi content, as well as responding to requests for assistance on articles on topics I am not familiar with, like pederasty. What I have found is that the way to work on this is rather than try and argue for maintaining poorly sourced material, to ensure that the material is unassailable because it conforms to the encyclopedia's policies and guidelines, enhances the article and improves the encyclopedia. That has nothing to with bias - and regardless of bias, if you do this, provided you do not breach WP:NPOV or WP:ORor WP:UNDUE the material should stand. But - it is hard work.

To answer your specific (and irrelevant) question - no, I do not have this book - and you should not expect an editor who responds to an RfC to have it. Reading the text you insert, I am relying on you as the editor to tell me what John Money says. This is why I said if John Money did not say this - I do not know whether he did or not, but Cantor seems to think he didn't - and the way you have cited him, it appears what he said relates to one sentence in one paragraph in the section. If what you have written all comes from that one source, then you need to guide me to that conclusion by citing him more than once for one sentence mid-way through one paragraph. An easy way for you to settle this is to quote what he did say below here, and if Cantor has the book he can confirm this - unless it is too long, in which a clear summary of what he did say would suffice, and Cantor can comment on whether that is accurate - then we can compare that with the text in the section(s) to see how far they match up, and that will start to assist making some progress on this matter. I have lots of papers by Money, and one book, but none that relate to this topic. All I am able to find by him are definitions of paraphilic infantilism (he seems to have been much more interested in infantilism in sex development than the paraphilia):

• "impersonating an infant and being treated as one by the partner - one of the stigmatic/eligibilic paraphilias"Gay, straight and in-Between
• "erotic fixation on acting like and being treated as an infant." The lovemap guidebook

So, what does he actually say? And forget the personal attacks, they won't work. Stick to the point of the RfC.Mish (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind adding diffs to all the negative comments you just made about me above? Using diffs is a matter of wikipedia policy. As for personal attacks not working for you, this might be because many unbiased editors have sense enough to ignore diffless negative statements. BitterGrey (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm contributing my opinion as an uninvolved editor. Since the unreferenced section was challenged, I think that references should be provided if the section is to be re-instated, and I suggest that no unreferenced statements be included in the section. The standards for references should be the same as for other medical/scientific articlesWP:MEDRS. References should mention the topic of paraphilic infantilism specifically, per WP:SYN. Secondary sources are preferred. Feel free to put a message on my talk page asking for my opinion again after you develop a referenced section, if there's still disagreement about the quality of the references, or earlier if you have questions e.g. about specific refs. In the above discussion, one reference seems to be mentioned (Money) but I didn't find enough information (e.g. title? date? type of publication? etc.) to make a decision about it; sorry if that info is included in the above and I missed it somehow. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It was included in text linked to in the comment that followed the RfC: [6] but it wasn't obvious - this is the source:

• Money, John: Love Maps - Clinical Concepts of Sexual/Erotic Health and Pathology, Paraphilia, and Gender Transpostition in Childhood, Adolescence, and Maturity, New York, Prometheus Books, 1986

No page number was attributed. Mish (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, MishMich. From the Wikipedia page about John Money it appears that there's controversy about his work. Therefore, while I think perhaps that book can be used as a reference, I suggest that at least one additional reference should also be found. (Either supporting Money's POV, or opposing it, or some refs that do each; ideally, find out what the POVs of many reliable sources is and determine due weight for each POV.) Here's a reference I just found via a google scholar search; it may or may not be relevant (I don't see the word "infantilism" in it): [7]Chapter 2 of Sex Offenders: Identification, Risk Assessment, Treatment, and Legal Issues Authors Fabian M. Saleh, Albert J. Grudzinskas, John M. Bradford, Paul Appelbaum, Daniel J. Brodsky Editors Fabian M. Saleh, Albert J. Grudzinskas, John M. Bradford, Daniel J. Brodsky Oxford University Press US, 2009 ISBN 0195177045, 9780195177046. When giving a book as a reference, page numbers should be given. By the way: consider possibly titling the section with a word such as "causes" or "development" or something instead of "origins", since I wondered whether "origins" meant origin of the theory or what. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig, I believe the second case you mentioned was reported separately in more detailhere. It isn't the typical etiology: he was being chemically treated for pedophilia when he developed a list of other interests, at age 46. It is notable that the author refers to it as "infantilism" and "'adult baby' syndrome," as opposed to paraphilic infantilism. This is notable since, unlike pedophilia, acting on infantilistic desires isn't enough to result in a diagnosis of paraphilic infantilism, since DSM's Criterion B differs for the two paraphilias. (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition-text revised. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association, 2000, pgs 572-573, 571-572)BitterGrey (talk) 02:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Question. Given that the side arguing for deletion has used siege language (e.g:"vulnerable","unassailable,"[8]) should those who are considering contributing to the article prepare to build an encyclopedia article, or a fortress? The set of references deleted from this article has already included the APA's DSM[9]. While trying to find background on Mich's linkless and diffless monologue above, I came across one article with 12 references dedicated to one sentence. Clearly, no wikipedia article can ever be considered "unassailable." BitterGrey (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Again you divert from discussion, and try to belittle and misrepresent. I have never said I am in favour of deletion - I am in favour of you providing sources for the material that you believe should be retained so that it does not get deleted. You seem reluctant to do that. I suggested you detail what Money said on this matter, so we can get an idea about this, but you have avoided this. Instead you bring up vandalism from two years ago, where well-sourced material was deleted. Then you reverted it. That is what I mean by unassailable - if the material is pertinent, non-synthetic, and properly sourced, it cannot be excluded (unless there is consensus for some reason why it is not appropriate). Anybody can delete material they don't like - but if such deletion amounts to little more than vandalism then it can be dealt with. If you are building an article that some people have issues with - then yes, you do have to build it like a fortress - and yes you will get people deleting stuff simply because they don't like it, and have to revert this. That is because of the way this encyclopedia is designed - open access means any half-wit can edit it. Why would I want to produce diffs to this article? I have no knowledge of its history - I am responding to a notice on sexuality/sexology that there was an RfC here, and came to see if I could assist in any way. As you don't seem to appreciate my suggestions, I will leave you to argue for inclusion of a poorly sourced section against policies and guidelines - and withdraw my advice that you need to find some sources, as you don't seem to want to find any. Mish (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

As clearly displayed above, the RFC was to maths, science, and technology[10], not to sexuality/sexology as you assert[11]. The diffs that I requested added to the statements that you were making about me were so that others could see what I wrote, as opposed to having to rely on your representation. They might have noticed that my comments are extensively diff'd, while yours are completely unsupported.

As for "you will get people deleting stuff simply because they don't like it, and [you] have to revert this"[12], I have to agree. Intent is often a factor. BitterGrey (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support inclusion with appropriate references The question at the RFC page is whether a section about PI's origin should be included, and if so, what kind of sources should be used. My answer is "Yes, and the 'usual' kinds of sources, as spelled out in the standard policies and guidelines" -- which is to say, that the majority of information in the this article should be adequately referenced by high-quality, non-controversial, scientific, secondary sources (such as textbooks, reference manuals, and scholarly papers), and that any minority views (e.g., John Money's) should be included with the best possible source that accurately represents the view. These sources (for both mainstream and dissident views) will always directly and specifically say what we assert in this article, including specifically naming this particular condition, and the section's contents should be limited to what is actually said in these sources.
  Since this is all so perfectly obvious from the policies, I can't really imagine why this question requires an RfC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we can't dismiss anything as perfectly obvious, not even that there was an (only one) RFC[13][14]. BitterGrey (talk) 05:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Following DGG's comment on the talk the page, I would support inclusion of a section on "etiology" (rather than "origins", using WP:RS where available, but if there has been insufficient coverage of the phenomenon in medical sources and the media, then the net be cast wider to include a consensus view derived from activist/support sites and publications. Mish (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Continued removal of references

Since there are people marking this article unreferenced on a phrase-by-phrase basis[15], references should not be arbitrarily merged merely to leave phrases unreferenced[16]. The continued removal of references suggests that the continuing series of deletions was never about references, but something else. If both sides would be honest about their objectives, perhaps we could work together to achieve them. My objective is to provide a reliable and meaningful encyclopedia article. BitterGrey (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"Origins/ Causes" section

I have now re-inserted the previous "Origins" section, and renamed it "Causes". While doing so, I have also inserted copious references. Scott P. (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted 2 to 1 AB to DL ratio without documentation

The intro had an undocumented statistic, claiming that the ratio of AB's to DL's is 2 to 1. This statistic was added in the edit: Ratio insertion. If this could first be properly documented, then re-inserted into the article, this would be helpful. Scott P. (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the statement was that about 1 in 3 ABs is also a DL. (It didn't state the number of DLs who weren't also ABs.) It had two refs:

• Section 10 - Into the Future Retrieved 2002 from http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Island/5861/ds3_s10.txt, now mirrored at http://web.archive.org/web/20010424192400/www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Island/5861/DS3_S10.txt
• Thomas John Speaker, Psychosexual Infantilism in Adults: The Eroticization of Regression. Columbia Pacific University. pg 93. Available from: DPF, Sausalito, CA 94965.

In the past, this text has only been challenged by those asserting an absolute separation between ABs and DLs or infantilism and fetishism. A third ref describes an AB/infantilist as having a diaper fetish. However, it doesn't discuss the ratios in the general AB/DL community.

• Pate J.E., Gabbard G.O. (2003). Adult baby syndrome Am J Psychiatry 160:1932–1936

BitterGrey (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bittergrey. Thanks for tracking down the archived version of the documentation. I've re-incorporated it into the intro paragraph. Too bad Geocities is no more. One wonders about the Web-Archive as well. That may not last forever either. I see that the Web-Archive has not archived the web for the last 4 years. I am hoping that somebody might download and save what is left of Dave's Diaper Survey in the Web-Archive sometime soon, so that should the Web-Archive take a dive someday, Dave's work wouldn't be entirely lost. I feel that his work was quite good and valuable, and hopefully will not be lost. Please also note that in the intro paragraph, I have attempted to interpret the survey results in as scientific of a manner as I could. I've intentionally subtracted all of the TB's from the results I reported on, trying to focus on the more stable adult community. Obviously the TB's should not be omitted all together, but I feel that any scientific study does best to focus on adults first, as teens are inherently difficult to closely study or to quantify. Perhaps once the phenomenon is better understood within the adult community, then future studies could focus more exclusively on the teen aspects of it. Again thanks for the links.

Scott P. (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome, Scottperry. Dave plans to get his website back up, but hasn't set a date. I've saved a copy and have offered to host it online. However, that link probably would have been deleted along with all other mention of infantilism.org. So for now, we need to make due with the web archive. BitterGrey (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, what are your thoughts on changing the language from "40%" to '4 in 10?' Technically, the trailing zero is significant (+/-0.5%). BitterGrey (talk) 05:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying AB vs: DL vs: Paraphilic Infantilism

It seems to me that there may be a muddling of terminology. The distinction between AB's and DL's seems clear enough. But whether or not DL is or is not a form of paraphilic infantilism seems to me to be muddled. I would suggest that because a diaper is something normally only worn by infants, that a DL ought to be considered as a subcategory of paraphilic infantilism. Attempting to separate DL's into a separate and basically mutually exclusive category seems to me to be counterproductive, very confusing, and contrary to the etymology of the term "paraphilic infantilism". Even though some psychologists and psychiatrists may sometimes seem to prefer to create a myriad of confusing, overlapping and even misleading diagnosis, I think that it would best serve us to try to place all diaper related behaviors and fantasies under the umbrella term "paraphilic infantilism". As far as I have been able to determine, the DSM only mentions infantilism, paraphilic infantilism, diaper fetishism and autonepiophilia in passing, without laying out any clear distinctions between these four, and without making any attempt to delineate the exact relationship between them. I assert that all of these things ought to be under the umbrella term of paraphilic infantilism because the terminology means essentially: A love of infantile things, and a diaper is an infantile thing, and the diaper seems to be central to nearly all of this.
Scott P. (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's address the paraphilas first, and then the people. According to the DSM, paraphilic infantilism is a type of masochism (302.83). In contrast, diaper fetishism would fall under fetishism (302.81). Masochism focuses on a change in role, loss of status, or loss of comfort. Fetishism involves a sexual desire for an object. The two are distinct but not mutually exclusive. Someone can have both, or have one without having the other.

Outside of the DSM, those who have these interests call themselves AB/DLs. Some ABs would be diagnosed with paraphilic infantilism if they met Criterion B. The interests and desires might be the same, but the diagnosis would hinge on "distress or impairment." Similarly, some DLs would be diagnosed with fetishism. Since infantilism and fetishism, as well as DL and AB, aren't mutually exclusive, some ABs might also be diagnosed with fetishism, as was the case with Dr. Pate's patient.

Perhaps we should continue the convention of using paraphilic infantilism and diaper fetishism to refer to the diagnoses, and AB, DL, or AB/DL to refer to the people who might or might not receive them?

BitterGrey (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously we need to stay within the guidelines of the DSM IV in the terminology we use. I am not certain that the DSM IV clarifies that diaper fetishism (DF) would or would not necessarily be a subcategory of paraphilic infantilism (PI), or that the masochistic component of PI is something that is not a component of DF therefore making DF not a subcategory of PI. Logically it just makes sense to me that it would be a subcategory, just as diapers are a subcategory of all things related to infancy.

If what you are saying is all there is to it, then it would appear that you may be correct. Still if that is the case, then I feel that the DSM IV may be doing a disservice to ABDL's by attempting to view a condition that seems to me to be essentially various gradiations of the same underlying condition and dynamic, and claiming that there are two significantly different dynamics at work, when I see only one, namely an over-reaction to probable parenting deficiencies or abuses surrounding infancy and diapers. I guess I'll have to hit the old DSM IV for a better answer on this one, unless you might happen to have any direct quotes from the DSM IV that might help to clarify the answer to this question. Thanks,

Scott P. (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

After a closer read of the DSM IV, nowhere does the DSM IV employ the term "paraphilic infantilism". If we are going to follow the DSM IV, we are limited to one of two routes:

1. Classify some of the behavior under "Sexual Masochism via Infantile Regression Fantasies" and some of the behavior as "Diaper Fetishism".
2. Classify generally all AB/DL behavior as a "Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified, DSM IV 302.9, and simply call it as we already have, "Paraphilic Infantilism (DSM IV 302.9)".

Scott P. (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

True, the DSM refers to the paraphlia simply as "infantilism" in section 302.83 (masochism). Fetishism is 302.81. The section structure seems pretty clear that neither is a subcategory of the other.

As for classifying AB/DLs who wouldn't be diagnosed with paraphilic infantilism and/or diaper fetishism as Paraphilia NOS, 302.9. This is a reasonable suggestion. However, in the current combative and unreasonable atmosphere, it might be best left as a thought for the discussion page.

BitterGrey (talk) 06:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

DSM Verifiability

Personally, I do not believe that the DSM has enough material about paraphilic infantilism to be of much use for this article. That is, I think the scientific literature on the topic will have to provide most of the RS's.— James Cantor (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The DSM is a consensus document of a major professional psychiatric organization, representing a large number of researchers and a substantial volume of research. It is also available in most US libraries. While I don't agree with everything it says, sources don't come any more verifiable than the DSM.

Additionally, if you would like editors to give any weight to your thoughts, please consider accepting accountability for your statements, as opposed to deleting[17] reasonable requests for support, clarification, or retraction of negative comments[18].

I believe that one is not several.

BitterGrey (talk) 06:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

First let me correct my earlier entry, after a closer reading of the DSM IV, I did find the actual word "infantilism" in the "Paraphilic Masochism" section. I apologize for not being thorough enough to find this earlier. Bittergrey, you are certainly correct that the DSM IV is generally considered, within the US mental health professional community, as almost the 'final authority' in all mental health disorders. Unfortunately in the case of infantilism, as I think we all know, the amount of scientific research done on the topic to date is extremely, extremely, thin. I think your own survey (which I just stumbled upon for the first time today) may be the first such survey ever done using standard statistical analysis! I think it goes without saying that the DSM IV, which came out in 1994, did not incorporate any such research in the decision of the revision committee to define infantilism as a type of masochism. This decision seems to me to be rather ill informed and arbitrary. It is like classifying transvestitism as strictly a fetish, when in fact it contains elements of gender identity disorder, and several other distinguishing thought and behavior patterns that are especially prevalent in it.

Why does transvestitism have its own diagnosis, while infantilism does not? In my opinion, this is for two simple reasons: First, because there are not nearly as many infantilists as there are transvestites, therefore it is a matter of economics of scale. Second, because due to these economics, there just has not yet been enough research done on infantilism for the DSM editorial commitees to be able to comfortably define it as a unique diagnosis. Hopefully in one of the next revisions of the DSM they will give infantilism its own unique diagnosis.

Meanwhile here at Wikipedia, I feel that we would be doing a disservice to all concerned parties if we were to allow what I believe are the shortcomings of the DSM to dictate to us such nonsense as the implied notions of the DSM that there is not a single dynamic at work amongst the ABDL community, but rather two separate diagnosis and dynamics. One who might approach ABDL's after only having read the DSM, would tend to believe that the ABDL copmmunity is really two distinct groups or communities, that may just happen to have a small overlapping group shared amongst them. This is nonsense, as I think we all know. So, until the DSM is able to come to terms with the realities of the AB/DL community, I think that Wikipedia might do best to work to keep a single article under the header 'Infantilism' as it once was before, and to devote a properly documented subsection to clarify the relationship between infantilism and the manner in which the DSM addresses the issues and diagnoses that deal with it.

Scott P. (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is another possible future for the diagnosis. One explanation for the removal of homosexuality from the DSM was that the distress and impairment were cultural. The marginalization and stigmatization were part of the homosexual experience, but not a direct result of homosexuality. Thus, while it might be a paraphilia, it wasn't really a disorder. Infantilism might follow a similar path.

Thanks for noticing the surveys. In the past, when they were relevant to the discussion, I would link to specific survey results from the talk page, marked by <original research> tags. Recently, I've been hesitant to, given the current atmosphere here.

BitterGrey (talk) 01:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The answer to the question about whether or not society's general receptivity towards infantilists will ever increase, to me seems uncertain at best. But one can always hope for greater tolerance for those who are seen as 'different', however long it may take to evolve.

Regarding the possibility of re-merging the two articles about infantilism, I'm hoping that you might be able to be tolerant of that? Scott P. (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm open to the idea, however we would need to do it 1) for the right reasons, and 2) after confirming that the diaper fetish article's culture was willing to adapt to this article's culture. Infantilism and diaper fetishism might one day share the same article, but they aren't the same. Specifically with regards to the DSM, infantilism is a masochism (302.83), while diaper fetishism is a fetishism (302.81). While there is much commonality, they are different diagnoses.

The article cultures are also remarkably different. The infantilism article had two edit wars last month, and one the month before. One 2006 edit war at paraphilic infantilism resulted in ongoing off-wiki harassment. (I'm the target, by the way.) I forget when the last edit war at diaper fetishism was.

BitterGrey (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"True infantilism"

Why there is no article about the so called "true infantilism"? A psychological condition that is in the same relation to paraphilic infantilism as transsexualism is to transvestism (in that order). 83.4.192.181 (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That neologism was made up by one individual to avoid using the proper terminology for her condition(s). During a 2006 on-wiki debate, she claimed that discussions about it were too personal. She also began threatening to 'out' a Wikipedia editor. All references to the neologism were removed at her request. BitterGrey (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Neologism for what? Browse a bit ADISC and you will clearly see that there is at least one more mental disorder other than paraphilic infantilism (or any other paraphillia) which has only some themes in common with paraphilic infantilism (like wearing diapers or using pacifiers). I'm not saying that "true infantilism" is a good name for it. 83.7.210.112 (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree that there are other conditions that have common themes with paraphilic infantilism. These other conditions would be discussed in articles using the proper terminology. For example, someone with dissociative identity disorder might have a child or infantile alter. He or she might appear regressed like the person with infantilism. However, the conditions aren't that hard to differentiate: The person with paraphilic infantilism will typically have a complete memory of what happened while regressed while the person with DID might have partial or no memory of what happened in one alter while in another.

Even within paraphilic infantilism, there is a range of interests. For example, some experience it sexually while others do not. I tend to think the sexual component is commonly overemphasized in print.

AB/DL groups, such as ADISC, include people with paraphilic infantilism, people with diaper fetishism, people with other conditions driving an interest in diapers and/or babyhood, and others who are simply interested in diapers and/or babyhood without any particular condition. BitterGrey (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

How something can be paraphillic (a paraphillia) and not experienced sexually. If the second is true (and it is) we have at least two different types of infantilism. You've said that there are "people with other conditions driving interest in diapers and/or babyhood". Which other conditions cause interest in diapers and/or babyhood?

And you have not answered my question: for what "true infantilism" neologism is for? She also coined one more term: "advanced baby". What about this?

And take a look at this thread for example. It seems that there are some who are like a child trapped in an adult body. 83.7.210.112 (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, paraphilic infantilism is a range. Depending on how it is divided into types, there could be an infinite number of types. In my experience, I've found it more practical to discuss continua than discrete categories. These discrete categories generally depend on arbitrary divisions. For example, the ADISC discussion that you link to refers to teen babies (TBs), which are adult babies (ABs) who are under 18. In turn, adult babies are AB/DLs with an interest in roleplay, above some threshhold dividing AB and DL. The survey data doesn't show a division between AB and DL, so this threshhold would have to be arbitrarily set.

One basic rule I've found for separating paraphilic infantilism and diaper fetishism from the other conditions that might drive an interest in diapers and/or babyhood is this: If the direct symptoms are more severe than diaper rash, the driving condition is likely to be something more severe than paraphilic infantilism or diaper fetishism. <original research> While I don't have a complete list of all conditions that might cause an interest in diapers and/or babyhood, data on the prevalence of some other conditions among AB/DLs is available from my second AB/DL survey.</original research>

The second neologism, written about on 22 March 2006, might have been made-up in response to the first round of Wikipedia debates about the first neologism and about the acronym AB/DL, which concluded on 20 March 2006.

Sorry if it seems that I'm avoiding your questions. I'm trying to guide this discussion towards being about AB/DLs in general, as opposed to one individual's list of real and made-up diagnoses. BitterGrey (talk) 07:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

There might be different types of infantilism, but they may often coexist, so that's why you are observing a range. If not all of them are sexual in nature, then "paraphilic infantilism" is completely inappropriate name for the group. And I'm not talking about arbitrary divisions (like TB/AB or AB/DL). It seems that there are multiple fundamentally different causes resulting in strange behaviours collectively called AB/DL in the Internet slang. I know about a lot of mental disorders but don't know about any, which would be a likely cause of this strange behaviours. It is possible that there are for example three different types of infantilism: paraphilic infantilism, dual-role infantilism and people who are "childlike adults"; which are roughly equivalent to: fetishistic transvestism, dual-role transvestism and transsexualism; but instead of gender they are all about the age. But it seems that the whole subject is uncovered by the science.

When browsing the Internet I've found one more interesting community. 83.7.209.72 (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

In some ways, it is good that the subject is uncovered by science, given how much sexology takes place in prisons and morgues. BitterGrey (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

AB/DL Symbol

The quasi-universal symbol representing AB/DL.

I don't know where this symbol originated, so I didn't want to post it on the main article without a proper source citation. However, I have seen it in many places, and it is the generally recognized, de facto symbol for the AB/DL subculture. If someone can find where it originated, maybe it could be added to the article. One person told me she saw it as early as 2004 on the Daily Diapers web site.

I drew this image myself and release it into the public domain. Matt Whitlock (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: (again) I was informed that the symbol originated here: http://babypridestore.com/ However, there is also a claim that the symbol was created by Mommy Has and Baby Mako of www.hasmako.com (now defunct). Their symbol uses different colors and geometry than the one I created, so perhaps it should be recognized as the canonical standard in lieu of mine. I happen to think mine looks better, but that's just my opinion. Matt Whitlock (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Baby Mako is one of the three people operating babypridestore.com, so both claims might be true. The website also describes it as "given to the public domain and can be used by anyone for free" and offers an updated art kit. I think adding either version of the symbol to the article would be reasonable. BitterGrey (talk) 04:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Teen use?

Is there a basis of estimate of how often teens fake wetting or bedwetting in hopes of getting put back into diapers? I'd expect the attempt would result in endless visits to the urologist instead. The AB/DL community seems to consistently discourage this ruse. (e.g. [19]). If the practice is common, the section might be worth keeping, but should be made balanced by adding information about the prognosis and community position. BitterGrey (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Infantilism in popular culture

I think this article would benefit from a list, or at least a few examples, of infanitlism in popular culture. More and more frequently television shows are having entire episodes focused on this fetish, often portraying a misinformed view of what ABs are like. I can think of several tv shows which have featured ABs off the top of my head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.204.8 (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

A section on how the media presents infantilism, with examples, might be useful. One thing that is important to note is that the paraphilic infantilism article is considered medical turf. Roving gangs of sexologists demanding peer-reviewed articles from major medical journals to support the significance or possibly the mere existence of some TV episodes wouldn't be surprising. A separate article might be much more practical, analogous to the article BDSM_in_culture_and_media.

It would also permit a broader scope. The medical definition of infantilism requires misadjustment (Criterion B; DSM 4TR pg 573). In some ways, this is necessary, but it means that infantilism is circularly defined as a disorder, a source of distress or impairment. The separate article would be able to discuss well-adjusted AB/DLs who would be excluded by the medical definition. BitterGrey (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Main topic (again)

Although I'm probably beating a dead horse, I agree with User:Jack-A-Roe's recomendation on 19 July 2009 (now archived) to focus & rename this article on the subculture rather than the medical term. I did just that with muscle worship and sthenolagnia; you may want to look in the histories of those two to see how they looked before. Basically, when a kinky sexual practice results in very little or no impairment that would justify clinical diagnosis/intervention for a paraphilia (under DSM-IV), there's almost no serious medical or psychology literature on it. Ancient (as in older than 30yrs. or so) psychology texts, especially psychodynamic ones, hardly qualify as science today. So, having the article focused on the paraphilia seems plain wrong. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that per DSM IV terminology, only a minority (<original research> around 40% </original research>) of AB/DLs would be considered paraphilic infantilists because of the lack of direct distress or impairment. However, this is expected to change with DSM 5 terminology. Then, paraphilic infantilism will include both those with and without distress and impairment. (Again, nice addition to the paraphilia article explaining that, Tijo098.)

As for the dead horse, most of the material Jack-A-Roe was referring to was deleted back in 2009.

I am curious about why paraphilic infantilism is listed as a "see also" for muscle worship. Other than weight room jokes about baby fat, what do the two have in common? BitterGrey (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the sources has an account by a female wrestler/bodybuilder reporting that she thinks some of her clients are aroused by giving up control to someone physically stronger, e.g. those that like to be carried around; there are also some scenes along this line in the Muscle Worship Channel 5 documentary (you can watch it on youtube). Most if not all personal accounts of muscle worship practices are from the perspective of the dominator; I wasn't able to find any detailed real-life account of the feelings of a "schmoe", except for fantasy/erotic literature. I'm guessing some of those that like to feel like a baby might also enjoy the lack of control aspect, although I'm sure there are other feelings involved in "baby space". "See also"s are generally original research around here, when you can't find a source to state a connection that seems to exist (otherwise you can just state the connection explicitly it in text). If you think this one is too far fetched, I'll remove it. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. While some AB/DL fantasy stories involve giant/titan/bionic/etc. women, it usually serves as a way to explain how she can lift a grown man as if he were a baby. I can't recall any where the muscles served more of a role, but given the diversity of literature out there, there probably are a few. Of course, that would be a connection between the interests, not the articles. I don't foresee the infantilism article including sections on minor plot devices in AB/DL fiction. (In 2006, it had a section on major plot devices, now long since deleted.) Without such a section, the articles themselves won't have a discernable connection. Would you mind removing the listing in the "see also" section? BitterGrey (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

motivation for recent deletions

Those wondering why WLU is suddenly deleting from this article[20][21] should note that it coincides with the most recent round of attempts to suppress my comments on an unrelated topic (e.g. [22][23]...), summarized here[24]. To complicate any possible assumptions of good faith, WLU has already made accusations of wikihounding[25].

If there is interest in discussing that topic, it should be reopened at Conflicts of interest (medicine). The discussion there was "nuked" from wiki space by WLU, who then specifically re-raised the topic in user space[26]. Originally, the issue only involved WhatamIdoing. WLU was personally invited by WhatamIdoing, due to his essay expressing sympathetic views[27]. BitterGrey (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

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

• On 17 July 2009, a series of deletions[28][29][30] started, coincident with a 12-16 July 2009 debate[31] on Sexology. That editor went on to violate 3RR[32][33][34][35].

• In 29 January 2009, there was a prior mass deletion[36] coincident with a debate starting on 28 January 2009[37] at diaper fetish. The debate made it's way to AN/I and wrapped up with the 30 Jan revelation that the admin accusing me of persistently inserting links to my own website wasn't aware of which website was mine[38]. ( http://understanding.infantilism.org in case you are wondering, and I wasn't inserting links to it.)

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

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

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

WLU, given your edit description when deleting one of my comments, "I can just delete this without reading it"[39], you really should be more brief. The golden rule applies even at Wikipedia. On the subject of brevity, one "book" cited four times in sexology is only 34 pages long[40]. (It is a club history, and states that it is quasi-self-published on page iv. ) This is one third as long as those "extremely short" books. wp:Further_reading doesn't mention size as a criteria for exclusion anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

...Seems this discussion wasn't enough to make WLU happy. The deleting has resumed[41]. BitterGrey (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you don't want the history involved, why do you keep bringing up the two-year-old discussion from the archive[42][43]? Also, an unbiased editor would not just focus/presume wp:elno, but consider wp:el as a whole.BitterGrey (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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