Jump to content

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 Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) at 06:01, 7 March 2017 (→‎Self-help groups section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Template:Highly sensitive


Molesters is an inaccurate noun choice

This is a dated, slang and derogatory term. We should be using "child sex abuser" "child sex offender" instead of "molester". The term molester does not carry an accurate description of the child sex abuser we are looking to represent. The primary definition of Molest via the Merriam-Webster dictionary is to "annoy, disturb, or persecute especially with hostile intent or injurious effect". This is a poor noun to use in the context of pedophilies that sexually assault children. Instead of using the verb molest we should use sexually abuse or sexually assault. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what this says: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/molest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4300:DB28:C9A5:11DD:5DC3:755 (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is what it says. Even with your link. Please view the "full definition" not the truncated "simple definition" that you are referencing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and uses full definitions not slang or partial simple definitions. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not going to be overly exercised that it's derogatory. The terms "murderer" and "nazi" and so on are also derogatory, but we still use them when accurate, and why not. If it's dated and/or slang that's a different matter, though. One thing that's not helpful is to look up just part of an idiom (and "child molester" is an idiom) and pick it apart, as you did with "molest". This is like saying "play means 'engage in activity for enjoyment and recreation rather than a serious or practical purpose'" so we should not use the term 'baseball player' since they are doing it as a job" and so on. You can do this with most any idiom and it's not usually helpful.
This doesn't mean that "child molester" isn't dated or slang or both. Certainly I can see benefits as wall as drawbacks to using the more formal "child sex abuser" or "child sex offender" instead. But we need data. And this Google Ngram indicates to me that "child molester" remains by far the most common term, although other data that contradicts that may exist. Herostratus (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome graph! And yes i am referring the term "child molester" not "molester" to make it clear. In the graph you have posted it is clear that the term child molester, while currently the most absolutely used term, has fallen in popularity while the terms "child sex offender" and "child sexual abuser" have each grown over 400% in the last few years. To me, this indicates a trend that academia and to a smaller proportion, news media is phasing out the term child molester for more accurate and formal terms for this type of individual. A child molester sounds like someone that tickles or harasses a child not quite the term we are looking for in the context of child sex abuse.Boilingorangejuice (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I get your point. And yes, Google Ngram is a great tool for getting data on questions like this -- spread the word! One problem is, I think that Google Ngrams would give equal weight to a serious academic or journalistic book and a throwaway scandal book or whatever. On the other hand, we don't give or want to give too much weight to "serious" sources over "popular" sources. If the ivory tower uses term X but the general public uses term Y, we should go with term Y -- we are a work for the general public. This is not an absolute. IMO some extra weight should be given to serious intellectual sources -- but only some. (We do want to avoid using fancy academic terms that the general public won't understand, but "child sex offender" and "child sexual abuser" are plain English.)
So anyway, yeah the graph might show a trend, but we don't want to get too far in front of trends. And the terms you favor are trending up, but from from a pretty low base (and if I smooth the graph enough -- here -- the slight downward dip for "child molester" disappears. OK that's probably cheating...). We are supposed to be followers, not setters, of current terminology. At the current rate, maybe in 20 or 30 years we can make this change. Herostratus (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting perspective. I guess we shall wait and see! Boilingorangejuice (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Interest

The documented discussions on the subject , ancient articles, scientific or press, have historical interest and could be cited . If deemed inappropriate by the fact that being a "medical article", this article may be subdivided to address the historical part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvorjik (talk • contribs)

See Talk:Pedophilia/FAQ. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Narrow definition

Why exactly is a high level of attraction to prepubescents necessary in order for it to be considered pedophilia, when very few adults are capable of ever experiencing any amount of such feelings at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuboll345 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tuboll345 (talk · contribs), the fact that so many people who have sexually abused prepubescents are not actually pedophiles conflicts with your assertion that "very few adults are capable of ever experiencing any amount of such feelings at all." There are those who have a genuine sexual attraction to prepubescents, and then there are those who can get sexual pleasure from a prepubescent without actually having a genuine sexual attraction to them. For the lack of a better comparison, think of how a man might have sex with a woman he does not find sexually attractive...but is still able to get sexual pleasure from that encounter. For those who turn to little children for sex, it's often that the adult is using the child as a sexual substitute. Some have pretended that the child was an adult while engaging in sex with the child. And then there are the ones who, according to some researchers, have a genuine sexual attraction to prepubescents and adults. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to those who have a genuine attraction to both prepubescents and adults, I find it rather confusing that there are sources which indicate the existence of such people, but then go on to suggest that such people are not pedophiles if their attraction to prepubescents is weaker than their attraction to adults. Like the main article saying that child molesters who are attracted to both children and adults are only considered pedophiles in the same vein as those who only like adults if the attraction to prepubescents is stronger than the attraction to adults, and then Simple Wikipedia referring to pedophiles who only like adults as exclusive pedophiles and those with a secondary attraction to adults as non-exclusive pedophiles, but then not having a name for adults who prefer other adults but also have some attraction to prepubescent children. So if there are adults who genuinely are attracted to both prepubescents and adults, then why aren't the ones who prefer adults also considered pedophiles if they also happen to have some real attraction to prepubescents? As far as I'm concerned, such an attraction is still unusual enough that it would make sense for it to warrant such a label. Tuboll345 (talk) 02:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tuboll345, to enough researchers, those who have a genuine sexual attraction to both prepubescents and adults are pedophiles. After all, the lead does state "primary or exclusive." This source that is noted at Talk:James Cantor, for example, states, "Although the majority of pedophiles are exclusively attracted to children, many are fortunate to have some attraction to men or women their own age. This is why many pedophiles are able to get married, have healthy sex lives, bear children, and even deny the reality of their attraction to children far into their adult lives."
Also at that talk page, you can see that I challenged part of that by stating, "I just looked at the second source (cbc.ca). A number of experts would debate [it ...] And by 'debate,' I mean that a number of experts on pedophilia usually don't think it's many that are 'fortunate to have some attraction to men or women their own age.' At least as far as genuine sexual attraction goes. We address the exclusive vs. non-exclusive aspect in the Pedophilia article (here and here), which also notes the definitional issue that comes along with it and the topic of child sexual abuse. I don't know of any reliable documentation of a true pedophile being able to have a satisfactory sex life with an adult; so I like that the article also relayed the following: 'Even when pedophiles do find adult partners to have a relationship with, they often are more strongly attracted to children than adults, and for obvious reasons.' So despite my concern about the source making it seem that pedophiles being sexually attracted to adults is common, the source does seem solid."
This is not like bisexuality, where being sexually attracted to both automatically gets someone titled "bisexual" (though, as noted in the Bisexuality article, what it means to be bisexual is also debated). The reason that it's common for experts to disregard those with a weak sexual attraction to prepubescent children as pedophiles is due to what I initially stated to you above. Simply put, either the experts don't believe that the sexual attraction is genuine or they don't believe that it's strong enough to warrant a diagnosis of pedophilia. When it comes to pedophilia, the sexual attraction is a big part of it. This is because pedophiles have a difficult time being sexually satisfied with an adult sexual partner and their sexual attraction to prepubescents is likely to lead to the sexual abuse of a child. Situational offenders and similar are also a worry, but it is usually easier to counsel such individuals, in the way of preventing harm to a child, because their primary sexual attraction is to adults and not to children. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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, please set the checked parameter below to true oder failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I placed some links to the Wikipedia entries about adolescence, puberty, and others, which were removed (by Flyer22 Reborn). The reason offered for their removal is that "people usually know what prepubescent means." And that the link to it "leads to the preadolescence article, and prepubescent and preadolescence [sic] are not necessarily the same thing." However, I would think it'd be trivially necessary for an encyclopaedic article about paedophilia to contain such links, which here are of evident and paramount importance. We cannot assume adequate knowledge on these subjects by someone looking up pedophilia in Wikipedia.
Moreover, the Wikipedia entry for preadolescence is quite clear and quite informative in its definitions:
"Preadolescence, also known as pre-teen or tween, is a stage of human development following early childhood and preceding adolescence. It commonly ends with the beginning of puberty, but may also be defined as ending with the start of the teenage years. ... The point at which a child becomes an adolescent is defined by the onset of puberty or by the beginning of the teenage stage. Adolescence is also viewed as ending with the teenage stage. However, in some individuals (particularly females), puberty begins in the preadolescence years, and adolescence may extend a few years beyond the teenage years in others (typically males). Studies indicate that the onset of puberty has been one year earlier with each generation since the 1950s."
In so many words, prepubescence and preadolescence are presented under the same title in Wikipedia, with the nuances in meaning offered therein. We should treat the terms as Wikipedia treats them, and the links should all be re-instated. Any opinions, please? -The Gnome (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The prepubescent link has been discussed before at this talk page; the discussion or discussions are somewhere in the archives, and involved thoughts about linking the term prepubescent, and where is the best place to redirect the term, meaning to either the Puberty article or to the Preadolescence article. While it currently redirects to the Preadolescence article, it is not the ideal choice; it is simply the best choice we currently have since there is not much to state about being pre-pubertal. Just as puberty and adolescence are not the same thing, neither is prepubescent and preadolescence. We want people to understand pre-puberty and puberty well enough at this article, which ensures them understanding pedophilia a lot better than they currently do. As this article notes, pedophilia is commonly misunderstood, to the point where the average person will call adult sexual attraction to a 17-year-old "pedophilia," despite the fact that a 17-year-old and an 18-year-old adult are usually biologically and mentally on the same level. Preadolescence, which can include pubertal children, is not what we mean when we state, "Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children." I do not think that the link would help our readers; I think it would only add to the confusion, which is why I oppose re-adding it to this article. Like I stated, people usually know what prepubertal means. And we do link the Puberty article in the Pedophilia article. The only way I might (MIGHT) support linking prepubertal at this article is if the lead and lower part of the Preadolescence article addressed the distinction between being prepubertal and preadolescent a lot better than it currently does. A Prepubertal section at that article might be a good idea, and then the term prepubertal could specifically link there. But, again, there is not much to state about being pre-pubertal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And the only reason the Preadolescence article even bothers to note that what it does regarding puberty and preadolescence is because of my edits to that article years ago. Looking at it, though, I need to change/update those sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Your response comes down to a personal opinion about what people do and don't know. On what basis do you assert that "people usually know" what all these terms that are relevant to pedophilia mean? You claim that what people "usually" know is not in the relevant Wikipedia articles! Would you care to reconsider this position? -The Gnome (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If my argument is based on personal opinion, then so is yours. It is your personal opinion that linking the term prepubescent is beneficial to our readers. My argument is that it's not because the place that the term redirects to is not about prepubescence. In what way is your argument based on any of our rules? As for what supports my argument, my argument is based on facts and what is best for Wikipedia readers...in addition to my personal opinion. I've been editing this article since 2007 and have been through many pedophilia discussions on this talk page. I know what our readers and editors are confused about when it comes to this topic. On what basis do I assume that people usually know what prepubertal means? On the same basis that I assume people usually know what puberty means. Puberty is a common knowledge topic. Are you going to argue that people don't usually know that "pre-puberty" means "before puberty"? If so, on what basis does such a claim make sense? Per WP:Overlinking, linking everyday (meaning common knowledge) words is overlinking, except for articles where the term is especially relevant. "Prepubertal" is especially relevant in this case, but the Preadolescence article is not about prepubescence. So do I care to reconsider my position? No. If it comes down to it, I will (per my commentary above) resolve the issue with that redirect, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've given a decent compromise suggestion above and am willing to support that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my "personal opinion" that people come to Wikipedia looking for information. The subject we are dealing with is evidently serious. You are asserting that something related to this serious and sensitive subject is "common knowledge" in order to prohibit links to it, yet you fail to offer any substance to that assertion. (Your initial claim that the relevant articles in Wikipedia are inadequate is thankfully behind us.) And it seems that, despite the long experience you claim in editing, you misunderstand what the rule about overlinking is about. Let me help here by offering an actual quote from it: "Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are not usually linked: Everyday words ...; names of major geographic features, locations ...; common occupations; common units of measurement ...; dates..." (emphasis added) This not only indicates what should typically not be linked but also clearly points out what can or must be linked: Whatever is particulalry relevant to the article.
All the terms puberty, adolescence, and the related terms prepuberty, preadolescence are particularly relevant to the context of an article about paedophilia. Your invocation of the overlink rule is without basis. If you believe otherwise, then let's ask the opinions of other editors in a formal RfC. -The Gnome (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
People come to Wikipedia looking for correct information, just like they do regarding any other dictionary or encyclopedia outlet. In my view, what you are arguing for is to mislead readers, considering that you are arguing to link a term to point people to an article that is not about that term/concept. You stated that I am "asserting that something related to this serious and sensitive subject is 'common knowledge' in order to prohibit links to it, yet [I] fail to offer any substance to that assertion." Wrong. I offered plenty of substance to that assertion. You are simply intent on linking the term prepubescent for some odd reason, despite my valid arguments. You stated that my "initial claim that the relevant articles in Wikipedia are inadequate is thankfully behind us." What? No. I've consistently stated above that linking the term prepubescent is inadequate (well, actually, misleading), and I've thoroughly explained why. I did not argue against linking puberty oder adolescence in this article. Puberty was linked in this article before you arrived at it. You are bent on linking a term that leads to an article that is not about that term and will confuse readers. I mentioned the WP:OVERLINK guideline because not only did you overlink the term prepubescent, I wanted to give an example of one of our rules advising against linking everyday (common knowledge) words. I acknowledged that the term prepubescent is especially relevant to this article; I also explained why linking it in this article is problematic. If we look at MOS:LINKSTYLE, it states, "Beware of linking to an article without first confirming that it is helpful in context; the fact that its title matches the concept you wish to link to, does not guarantee that it deals with the desired topic at all." This is similar to you linking prepubescent, which will take people to the Preadolescence article. If we look at WP:OVERLINK, it states, "The function of links is to clarify, not emphasize; do not create links in order to draw attention to certain words or ideas, or as a mark of respect." Does linking to the Preadolescence article really clarify what prepubescence is? Keep in mind that preadolescence is usually designated as ages 10 to 13, while prepubescence covers anyone who has not reached puberty; this obviously means babies, toddlers and those before the pre-teen stage are included. I do not see that you are thinking with the mindset of what is best for our readers. If you were, you would be trying to compromise. In addition to the compromise I mentioned above, there is also the option of using "who have not begun puberty" in place of "prepubescent," like Simple English Wikipedia does for its first sentence. Of course, prepubertal would still be used for quotes in the article, but, per MOS:QUOTE, links generally should not be within quotes anyway. You want an RfC? Okay. Started one below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The argument you are making (i.e. when people see the term "pre-something," they already know this is about "before something"!) is nonsensical. Onwards with the RfC to put this whole nonsense behind us asap. (Looking over your Talk Page and your being-blocked record, I realize, however belatedly, what I've got myself mixed in. Ah, well.) -The Gnome (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing nonsensical about any of the arguments I've made thus far, including the fact that people generally know that prepubescent means "before puberty." And, indeed, the meaning of "pre" is common knowledge/common sense. The fact that you clearly did not do your homework on my block log, or the fact that I work in controversial areas (which are naturally going to be rife with disputes), shows that you clearly don't do much homework on anything else. But given your sporadic edit history, which indicates a lack of Wikipedia editing experience, I shouldn't be surprised. Ah, well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We are not obliged to do any kind of complete "homework" on your edit log; the fact that you've already been blocked twice speaks for itself and no excuse about the subjects you are dealing with being "controversial" will wash. The message on your Talk page where you essentially discourage other editors of opening any kind of dialogue with you is another indicator of your approach. In your own words:

Please do not post on my talk page unless necessary. I try to avoid Wikipedia as much as possible. I used to like this site ... but I now view much of it as corrupt. ... Editing here can ... be a huge time stink. Life is too precious to spend as much of my time here as I used to.

If contributing here is so painful, why do you even bother? As to my own Wikipedia history, you may find my edits "sporadic" :-) but I try to be cooperative and reasonable. You should, too. -The Gnome (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We are indeed obliged to do complete homework on people's edit logs before speaking on matters we know nothing about. Editors are wrongly blocked all the time here at Wikipedia, including administrators. Look at administrator NeilN's block log. Those blocks were a mistake, and so were the blocks on my account, as noted by a number of administrators, including The ed17. Being wrongly blocked is an excuse for a stained block log. If you are going to comment on one's block log, you should actually know what you are talking about. It's editors like you who make our WP:RfA's a joke because you just see blocks without doing your homework on those blocks (or you know, simply reading what the edit summaries of the unblocks clearly state). I was not using the fact that I edit in controversial areas as an excuse for my block log. I noted that I edit in controversial areas as an explanation for my talk page often showcasing a lot of disputes. Anyone who has edited here as long as I have and in as many controversial areas as I have knows that the disputes are plentiful, no matter what compromises are made. Not that I need to explain myself to you, but I still edit here for reasons I previously made clear; I stated, "I believe that it's best that I help this site, seeing as many people come here for information (Wikipedia is almost always ranking highest in search engines, and that type of thing is always going to bring in a lot of readers) and a lot of those people trust what they read here. So it's my job to make sure that any topic I am heavily editing is as accurate as possible." Do I like editing here anymore? No. And I don't have to like it.
Cooperative and reasonable, you say? I have been cooperative and reasonable, which is why I have tried to compromise with you. I suggest that you stick to making appropriate talk page comments that pertain to this article, instead of using my block log to deflect and to cover your lack of any substantive argument. If you had any decency as an editor, or rather more editing experience, you would know that trying to use an editor's block log against them in the way that you have done on this talk page is WP:Harassment. If you continue to inappropriately comment on my block log, my reasons for still editing here, or similar, I will be seeing you at WP:ANI. Editors like you are one of the reasons I don't like editing here anymore. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I simply regret having got involved with you in this sorry mess of a dispute and nothing can prevent me or prohibits me from saying so. There is precisely zero interest on my part to contribute to this "conversation" any longer so you are free to have the last word, complain about being harassed (!) or do whatever else you choose to do from here on. Take care and good bye. -The Gnome (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC has been open more than 30 days, discussion has slowed, and a request for non-admin close has been registered.

Most arguments, on all sides, are largely preference-based and do not refer to policy. The value of the argumentation is generally equally weighted.
By breadth of support, 3 editors support "Option 2", 2 editors supports "Option 3", 1 editor supports "Option 1", and two editors have effectively decided to employ Single Transferable !Voting in registering multiple preferences. When adjustments are made to account for those two editors, by breadth of support we find 5 editors support "Option 2", 2 editors supporting Option 3, and 1 editor supporting Option 1.
A consensus exists for Option 2 - Link the term prepubescent, but add a Prepubescence section to the Preadolescence article and redirect the term prepubescent there. Creating a Prepubescence section at the Preadolescence article can obviously be an option regardless of what is decided here at the Pedophilia article, but it has been explicitly suggested as a compromise.

DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

At the Pedophilia article, there is a dispute regarding linking the term prepubescent. One view is that linking the term helps readers understand what prepubescence is and/or the topic of pedophilia. This view asserts that "prepubescence and preadolescence are presented under the same title in Wikipedia, with the nuances in meaning offered therein. We should treat the terms as Wikipedia treats them." The other view is that the link is misleading and confusing since the term prepubescent currently redirects to the Preadolescence article, and prepubescence and preadolescence are not the same thing, which is why preadolescence is usually designated as ages 10 to 13 and can include pubescents, while prepubertal is broader in age range and is specifically about those who have not reached puberty. This view asserts that the sending readers to the Preadolescence article will hinder the understanding of pedophilia, which medically relies on the prepubescent aspect.

If you are seeing this from an RfC page or your talk page, the initial discussion on the matter can be seen at Talk:Pedophilia#Links to articles about puberty, adolescence, etc. Options for how to resolve the dispute are presented below.

Option 1: Simply link the term prepubescent.

Option 2: Link the term prepubescent, but add a Prepubescence section to the Preadolescence article and redirect the term prepubescent there. Creating a Prepubescence section at the Preadolescence article can obviously be an option regardless of what is decided here at the Pedophilia article, but it has been explicitly suggested as a compromise.

Option 3: Use "who have not begun puberty" in place of "prepubescent," like Simple English Wikipedia does for its first sentence.

Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Support option 2 or 3, per my above commentary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 Most clear, less fuss and it is unclear to me what kind of content would go into the section described in Option 2. Option 1 is unclear - do you mean WL to preadolescence? Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 There is simply no excuse in withholding links to articles that amplify on and offer additional information on terms crucially important to "paedophilia." If this means more elaboration in an already existing article, then (sigh) so be it; interested editors should have a go at it. Let's go ahead and place links to "prepuberty" and "preadolescence" and be done with this. -The Gnome (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 Or even a modification/simplification, for example 'piped' link using 'pre-pubescence', linked to puberty, most readers would understand the use of 'pre-'. The point surely being made is that these children have not really even started the purely physical changes that lead to physical sexual maturity and the article linked to should cover those physical changes. Adolescence tends to be used to cover the intellectual, social and emotional changes that lead to early adulthood. Linking to pre-adolescence doesn't seem to cover the same point and even with a new section, might serve to confuse. Pincrete (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 with the caveat that {{R to anchor}} can suffice if defining the term in a dedicated section would otherwise be disproportionate and undue. It seems to me, however, that a fourth option would serve this RFC even better; Option 4: change the target of Prepubescent from Preadolescence to Puberty#anchor and define the term in that article, (logically, it ought to be defined there anyway). Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 JonRichfield (talk) 09:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 This is in response by the RfC request. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 14:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any of the three, though with a (very slight) preference for option 2. The important thing is to link to a place where the relevant term is defined; we should not leave such a term unlinked. "Pedophilia" is not a highly technical word, certainly less than "prepubescent", so we should not assume that readers who came here to learn about the former know about the latter. (@John Cline: I did not understand the difference between your proposed option 4 and option 2 - could you explain?) (Note: bot-summoned, and I stopped reading the discussion below about halfway.) TigraanClick here to contact me 08:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tigraan, I don't think that prepubescent is a more technical term than pedophilia. I'm sure that people generally know what prepubescent means, but people often misunderstand what pedophilia is in the clinical sense (and the article notes this). Like I've noted, there also is not much to state about being prepubescent. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tigraan for asking this of me.
The RFC asks how to best resolve the prepubescent link dispute, describes the contested elements, and infers the answer exists in one of three options.
Although the dispute hinges on the [[prepubescent]] wiki-link taking readers to the preadolescence page and the wrongful impression the link gives; implying the conceptual sameness of preadolescence and prepubescence when no such similarity exists, all three options are inexplicably premised on the misnomer that [[prepubescent]] ought to continue being redirected to preadolescence. Clearly, redirecting [[prepubescent]] to puberty is a better option as prepubescent is an ancillary term that correlates well with puberty.
This is why I suggested option four: to re-target [[prepubescent]] from its current form, #REDIRECT [[Preadolescence]], to its better form, #REDIRECT [[Puberty]] also stating that an expanded description of prepubescence was logically better situated within the article on puberty than it ever would be on the preadolescence page.
I hope I answered your question satisfactorily. If I have not, please advise me as such so I can explain myself further. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever little this is worth, I happen to fully agree with the point presented by Tigraan, i.e. "The important thing is to link to a place where the relevant term is defined; we should not leave such a term unlinked". And John Cline offers an excellent IMVHO course. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 09:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Jytdog, when it comes to a Prepubescence section in the Preadolescence article, I mean a short section about how the body is before puberty. I'm trying to think of something to resolve the issue with the prepubescent redirect. And, yes, linking prepubescent means a wikilink to the Preadolescence article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the only place where content describing what a person is like before puberty, is in the puberty article, then that is the only viable link. Linking to Preadolescence, which takes great pains to define itself as not being about the period before puberty, makes no sense; it is nonsense. I don't agree with generating in content in Preadolescence about prepubescence as this is WP:OFFTOPIC there. The only sensible !vote above is option 3 Jytdog (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog, like I noted above, deciding where the prepubescent link should redirect to has been discussed before, and points were made that having it redirect to the Puberty article is a poor choice since the Puberty article is about puberty. When one links prepubescent, they are expecting the link to explain something about prepubescence. The Preadolescence article was believed to be the best option for the link since preadolescence commonly ends with the beginning of puberty. The article actually does the address the psychological state of people right before puberty or adolescence. But this psychological state is usually designed at ages 10-13; sometimes age 14 is included. And those ages are both prepubertal and pubertal ages (though being prepubertal at age 13 or 14 is very uncommon these days, especially for girls). This means that, as the article notes, a preadolescent person can be pubertal. The prepubescent link has been an issue for years, and I'm not sure how to resolve that issue. There isn't much to state about being prepubescent. Creating a Prepubescence section in the Puberty article would seem unnecessary, and creating one in the Preadolescence article would seem to neglect the fact that preadolescence is specifically about a specific age range. But prepubescent already redirects there. Should I just go ahead and create a stub Preadolescence article, which is unlikely to be significantly expanded? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article should contain a link to whatever article explains the concepts of adolescence, preadolecence, puberty, and prepuberty. The arguments that are offered by Flyer22 Reborn about these concepts being "common knowledge," supported by references to the English dictionary are frankly nonsensical. If the article that best informs the user about "prepuberty" is "puberty," by all means so be it. But it would be incorrect to simply state that prepuberty is, well, the period before puberty and be done with it. Not in the entry about "pedophilia." -The Gnome (talk)
  • Pincrete, Ι agree, as it happens, with the thrust of your argument. Shouldn't we have therefore in the article explanations about the difference between "puberty" and "adolescence" through the appropriate links to Wikipedia articles? -The Gnome (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only in so far as is necessary to clarify any specific point. When replying above, I hadn't looked much at the article, which takes a more literal, 'diagnostic' and precise definition than that often used in everyday speech (which often includes attraction to or acts with any under-age person by a legally adult person). In the context of the article, late adolescents, are being deemed to be effectively 'adults' for the purposes of 'diagnosis'. So I am reluctant to say if linking clarifies 'in the abstract'. Pincrete (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Gnome, there is nothing "frankly nonsensical" about "adolescence, preadolecence, puberty, and prepuberty" being common knowledge, no matter how much you state that there is. And either way, I have not argued against linking adolescence or puberty; I have argued against linking prepubertal, for reasons I've already made abundantly clear. And, like Pincrete and I have stated, people usually do know that "pre" means "before." And there is no need to ping me to this talk page, even if you are trying to alert Pincrete of who I am. Pincrete and I are familiar with each other.
Pincrete, your arguments are pretty much what I have been stating. I like your suggestion to use a "pre-pubertal" link. Like I noted above to Jytdog, something needs to be done about the prepubertal link, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was happy to offer an opinion in the context of this article, but am less certain beyond that. The topic being covered in this article is attraction to children who still lack any, or almost any of the secondary sexual characteristics that are ordinarily associated with sexual attraction. Puberty has a fairly precise meaning, even if it imprecise as to what point it starts or when it is finished, is a 3 or 4 year process and doesn't necessarily equate to an age. Maybe the redirext of pre-puberty to pre-adolescent is wrong since it tends to imply both that the two pre- terms are synonyms (which they aren't, quite), but also that adolescence and puberty are synonyms, which is even less certainly true. Pincrete (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I alerted Flyer22 Reborn when I started a conversation in this page about a revert Flyer22 Reborn did on my edit, as I usually do out of courtesy, and that was that - there has been no "ping" whatsoever since that one time from my part, not to Flyer22 Reborn nor to anyone else. I have made no attempt whatsoever to contact or "alert" Pincrete - or anyone else for that matter. I have no idea what Flyer22 Reborn is on, off or about. And I wish to see this very sorry mess end, a.s.a.p. -The Gnome (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this straight, The Gnome: After I warned you about harassment above, and after you made it seem like you were done with this whole ordeal, you soon afterward decided to edit another article I significantly contribute to, making edits there which were also unhelpful, and then you decided to come back here days later to deny that you pinged me after your initial ping, and to insinuate that I'm on drugs...all while using passive-aggressive pings in that latest post as well? I see. I'll have a solid case on you should I decide to report you.

Here's a tip: If you want this "very sorry mess [to] end, a.s.a.p.", then stop coming to this very sorry mess to start more mess. I've dealt with your type time and time again. It is not unusual for it to continue with the editor visiting and editing another article I've significantly contributed to (as similarly stated on my user page under the "My WP:GAs and WP:FAs" listing), as if they are looking for more conflict with me. And I do not have the patience for it this time. Hexafluoride gave you some advice above. It would be wise of you to follow it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Once again, for the record:
About "pinging". I have not "pinged" nor "alerted" anyone. Unless you consider "pinging" the use of the full form of a User's style, which I try to always do, as a rule, simply so that anyone who reads about a User can go directly to the User's page. And that is all.
About Tribadism. Yes, I found the article when I was looking over your many and frankly quite valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Why was I looking them over? Because I was curious about the combination of an evidently knowledgeable and hard working contributor with the kind of over-the-top passion that carries into confrontation. Anyone reading the text above, would see how this quite simple matter has escalated and who's to blame. (I originally inserted a couple of links to extant Wiki articles, that was all - next thing I know, there's an avalanche of anger, accusations and threats!)
Editing Tribadism. I do not care at all whether you have contributed to the article "significantly" or not at all. No one owns an article! I simply stumbled upon a very small mistake in the Etymology section and corrected it. You have reverted it but I have no wish whatsoever to come back to that. The only thing I care to point out is this: I found a small mistake and corrected it. If I had found a dozen big mistakes, I'd have tried to correct them as well.
My single, simple edit in detail: The Greek noun tribas comes from the Greek verb τρίβειν (pronounced: trīvin). As it happens, I speak fluent Greek and can assure you that the correct pronunciation of the above verb in the first person (τρίβω) is trívο and not tribō as it currently and incorrectly stands after you reverted my edit. Ask any Greek person.
And, oh yes, I made a couple of changes also in the style of some non-English words, but it appears that this was an error according to Wiki style rules. No problem whatsoever. (And thanks for correcting them.)
As the man said, there is no "me and you" here. Have you perhaps considered that, on account of your many bad experiences (as you have stated) editing Wikipedia in the past, you are being a little paranoid? Or a tad belligerent? I have zero intention of "harassing" you, attacking you, or to do anything harmful at all. I'm here simply to contribute, even if I can only do so "sporadically" as you put it. You may report me anywhere you want. I truly do not care: I only regret this whole very sorry mess.
Finally, if the comment by Hexafluoride was indeed addressed to me, I thank him/her and state that I'm truly trying to step out of this as much as I can. But I cannot allow, not as long as I'm an active editor, false or incorrect accusations against me unchallenged. But, again, thanks anyway. I suggest to Flyer22 Reborn (again, whose record of contributions is really impressive) with respect and without malice, that we all allow this RfC to take its course and leave it at that. -The Gnome (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging me means linking my username in a post with a new signature. So you indeed pinged me after your initial post. I noted that there was no need to ping me. You then decided to ping me in your "11:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)" post with multiple passive-aggressive, pseudo pings, all while denying that you had pinged me. That post was also intended to insult me, with your "Flyer is on drugs" nonsense. And after all of that, you have pinged me yet again with your "23:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)" post. You are clearly engaging in WP:Baiting behavior.
As for "over-the-top passion", I am not interested in your analysis. But as for who is to blame for this mess of a discussion, you are. You insisted on using an unnecessary and misleading wikilink. I calmly explained what my issues were with doing that. I tried to compromise. You then insisted on an RfC, threw a hissy fit and decided to insult/belittle me by focusing on my block log. You did not keep the discussion professional. You are to blame.
As for "tribas," I follow what reliable sources state (see another search link here), not Wikipedia editors' claims. I see nothing in the sources about trívο.
As for "little paranoid? Or a tad belligerent", that is what stalkers and other disgruntled editors who have been blocked or otherwise sanctioned for harassing me have stated. Considering they were blocked or otherwise sanctioned and used tricks similarly to yours, such statements are clearly asinine. Unless I am focusing on a sock, never is it the case that I follow these editors to an article they significantly edit after I've gotten out of a heated debate with them; this is because more conflict with those editors is the last thing that I want. But with them and their thoughts on me, more conflict is exactly what they are looking for; usually.
As for significantly contributing to an article, it matters in this case since it was a clear indicator to me that you did not simply happen upon that article. If it had been an article I edited a few times, that is less of a concern. When it is an article an editor significantly contributes to, it is a concern for WP:Hounding reasons.
Insulting me and complimenting me in the same post will not be winning you any favors. I do not wish to talk or otherwise interact with you. And if I report you, you will know. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are still engaging in outright falsehoods.
I never pinged nor alerted anyone. The entry for "pinging" mentions that "Plain links to user pages will also work to notify the mentioned user." I explained from the start of this silliness that simple links to user pages is a standard practice of mine - and not just by me but by many other editors, too. The intent is to facilitate the reader into further inquiry of the respective editor's profile; not necessarily to "alert". (I fail to see that would be wrong with "pinging" itself but never mind!)I have had a significant number of my edits amended for WP:OVERLINKING, as one can see. But what you identify as "passive-aggressive" behavior, with "pinging" etc, is all in your mind.
Allow the Modern Greek pronunciations of the root terms ("τριβάς", "τρίβω") to remain as they are in the Tribadism entry. I no longer care. Perhaps someone else would care enough to undertake the necessary clarifications and distinctions in the Etymology section. (For anyone so inclined, one could start here or here.)
There were no false compliments on my part. In fact, there were no compliments at all - simply the facts as I see them. Yes, you are a genuinely significant contributor to the encyclopaedia. And also, yes, you are engaging in extremely belligerent behavior. Perhaps this is how you normally conduct business. I don't know. Revisit the reason for this circus and see for yourself: It is about a couple of darn links to other Wikipedia articles! Talk about raising storms in a teacup.
And, sorry, an RfC may have been mentioned by me in the discussion, which I thought proper to begin here, formally, but you suddenly initiated the RfC before the discussion had progressed much! So, who "started this", then? And who went on to threaten the other party with "reports" about "harassment" and such nonsense? Really, no one, or at least I am not, is harassing you, stalking you, hunting you or attacking you. Take this for what it is, i.e. a true statement, or keep thinking about "passive-aggressiveness" and other such fantasies. -The Gnome (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please ask at WP:HELPDESK if unsure what "ping" means at Wikipedia. I say that because your 28 January 2017 comment above includes a user link what would ping Flyer, and that is in the same post where you say you have not pinged or alerted anyone. It would be better if future comments focus on the content of this article without your thoughts on other editors. Johnuniq (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Johnuniq, for the suggestion, which I followed. As to your advice about the focus of our comments here, perhaps it would be even better if your advice were addressed to the editor who initiated this teacup storm; or, at least, to both parties. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As noted by Johnuniq, you did ping me. I even linked to WP:Ping while explaining what it is so that you would understand. As for the rest, I've already stated what I need to state; I'm not going to repeat myself. The only editor here "engaging in extremely belligerent behavior" is you. And you somehow think that I started this "teacup storm" when it is you who took the revert matter to this talk page, got upset by my logical explanations, suggested a RfC (yes, it's clear that if I hadn't started the RfC, you would have), then started insulting/belittling me. Do move on. No one here wants to read any of this nonsense, as made clear above and below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to betsy that people would take their personal posturings and vituperations offline. Preferably right offline, not even to their talk pages, even when the issues do affect the articles.
I am not much fussed about the whole RFC thing in this case. I reckon that the article is in any case rather precious in its fine discriminations on matters that in real life are not finely discriminated. This is one of the factors that muddy the waters for practically any topic that rouses socially conflicting emotions, and for us to count the angels dancing on split hairs amounts to feeding the trolls. If either of the other options gets chosen (I sided with 2), the worst that can happen is that a few readers will go away with their delusions of precision re-affirmed, and none of the options is proof against that. Come to that, neither is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), published by the American Psychiatric Association. JonRichfield (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Crafted the section

Per the close by DarjeelingTea above, I went ahead and crafted the section and reinstated the prepubescent link, as seen here (followup edit here) and here. And I re-targeted the term prepubescent there. I didn't specifically request a non-admin closure, but it didn't matter whether an admin closed the matter or not, as long the matter got closed/settled.

Now one may be thinking that I did not add much about being prepubescent. Well, that's because, as I've stated before above, there's not much to add about being prepubescent. I saw a few sources talking about the health of prepubescents and the state of prepubescents' genitalia before reaching puberty, but the genitalia stuff is best left to the Tanner scale article. Looking over the book sources that mention prepubescence, it is common for them to tie it to preadolescence in some way; so I do still think that this material is best served in the Preadolescence article rather than in the Puberty article. (Granted, these same sources also obviously mention puberty.) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Self-help groups section

I have reverted TealHill on the Self-help groups section for reasons explained in the edit summary. TealHill added this section as a subsection of the Treatment section, and the material was unsourced. This article is about pedophilia; it is not about child sexual abuse (although child sexual abuse is mentioned because pedophiles are likely to commit it). It is not about sexual addiction. What WP:Reliable sources, specifically WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, state that pedophilia is a sexual addiction? What WP:Reliable sources state that self-help groups are a treatment for it? The Pedophilia article makes it very clear that pedophilia is unlikely to be cured. It is not something you simply treat by going to a self-help group. It is not like an alcoholic going to Alcoholics Anonymous at all.

TealHill also created unnecessary subheadings; by that, I mean subheadings for a little bit of material. MOS:Paragraphs states that such subheadings generally are not needed. And they were not needed in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedophilia&oldid=769039494"