Misplaced Pages

1) if the topic here were analogous to bisexuality it would speak of persons who were sexually interested in both adults and children. The article focus, however, appears to be on sexual interest in children that does not rise to the level of a -philia. As such it is not a question of either versus both but a question of degree. Indeed, the article appears to concede that "sexual interest in children" exists on a continuum such that the Venn diagram we've been directed to with its neatly defined boundaries is something of a case of having one's cake and wanting to eat it too: apparently we shouldn't classify people as pedos or non-pedos except when deciding this article's notability in which case gradients won't do as there is supposedly this third category that is somehow distinct from just a milder or less intense sexual attraction towards children.

2) Bisexualism has its own distinct term, and authorities like the APA have noted it as distinct. Articles with concatenated titles like "adult sexual interest in children" are often either WP:original research and/or non-notable. For most psychosocial phenomena, if something has a notable independent existence it has a name, e.g. hebephilia or ephebophilia. May I suggest that if an adult's sexual interest in children is not notable enough to be classed as a -philia or as something else for which there is already an article, it is not notable enough for a new Wiki article.Bdell555 (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Reply: Thanks for the respectful comment. While I agree with you that there is a continuum (per Diana Russell and Natalie Purcell's chapter 4 in the Dowd book cited), bisexuality is a bad example. Pedophilia is a clinical diagnosis. As such, it has diagnostic criteria which are currently demarcated by "the primary or exclusive sexual interest in children." This has to occur over time as well (at least "6 months"). The graph I created reflects the diagnosis, which does not have gradations except within the diagnosis (from primary to exclusive). Those who have a secondary or transient or even one-time interest do not meet the criteria and fall outside the diagnosis of pedophilia, according to the APA etc. I could make a chart with blended colors to represent attenuated response to children (I agree with Russell and Purcell), but the point is that the APA etc. make a clear line of demarcation. As the cited experts state, not all adult sexual interest in children is pedophilia.

• "... it is important to remember that the sexual acts with minors involve a heterogeneous group of adult men, some of them non-pedophiles..." Langevin R, et al. (1985). Erotic prefdence and aggression in pedophilia: a comparison of heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual types. In Langevin R (ed.) Erotic preference, gender identity, and aggression in men: new research studies, p. 158. Psychology Press ISBN 9780898594454 (emphasis mine). "Non-pedophilia" is not accurate, though, and "adult sexual interest in children" is the most common way this phenomenon is rendered.
• "Some have a persistent sexual preference for children beginning in adolescence, while others have a preference for adults but act with children due to situational factors (e.g., marital problems, loss of wife, abuse of alcohol, or stress). Most theories focus on the former type since the latter type are really not pedophiles. However, most clinical and criminal studies find the latter type to be the majority of those who offend." Howells K. Adult sexual interest in children: Considerations relevant to theories of aetiology. Adult sexual interest in children. Mark Cook, Kevin Howells (1981). Academic Press, ISBN 9780121872502. (emphasis mine)
• "Ever having thoughts of sex with a prepubescent child, or even having contact with a prepubescent child, would not be sufficient to meet the diagnostic definition of pedophilia, because a central feature is the persistence of the sexual interest in children." Seto MC. Pedophilia: Psychopathology and theory. In Laws DR, O'Donohue WT Sexual deviance: theory, assessment, and treatment Guilford Press, ISBN 9781593856052 (emphasis mine)

This is not a fringe ideology, but a commonly accepted clinical definition of what kind of sexual interest in children is considered "pedophilia" and what kind is not. Jokestress (talk) 11:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment Again, if not "sufficient to meet the diagnostic definition of pedophilia" then what alternative diagnostic definition is met? None, it would seem. From nothing follows nothing, not a Misplaced Pages article. I don't see why the pedophilia article cannot act as the "umbrella", such that both diagnostic and, if you will, non-diagnostic variants can be discussed there, or in the alternative, there be a section over in that article devoting to discussing the matter of definition.Bdell555 (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply As a less loaded example, we have separate articles on the umbrella phenomenon of Weight loss and the act of Dieting, both of which can reach a diagnostic level (Anorexia). Adult sexual interest in children can reach a diagnostic level (Pedophilia). Many more examples and precedents abound where we have separate articles for the non-diagnostic level of a phenomenon. Since neither Adult sexual interest in children nor Pedophilia are crimes, it makes sense to have separate articles on Child pornography and Child sexual abuse, which are crimes. These topics are all related and interconnected, but they cover different things. Not all adult sexual interest in children is classified as pedophilia, in the way not all weight loss or dieting is classified as anorexia. That's why those phenomena merit separate articles. And as a preemptive rebuttal, I am not saying that adult sexual interest in children = weight loss or dieting. I am giving an example of similar split-out articles on the project. Jokestress (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Dieting is distinct from the umbrella phenomenon of weight loss because dieting is intentional weight loss. This leaves the remainder category of unintentional weight loss. I might add that whatever the theoretical problems of "adult sexual interest in children" as a remainder category and potential article, the appearance in the actual article of material like "normal/abnormal, moral/immoral, acceptable/deviant" raises further empirical problems. This article has "Adult sexual contact with children" as its title yet I perceive no interest from the authors in distinguishing contact that is not "child molestation" from conduct that is. This book, which is cited 200 times according to scholar.google.com, says "In professional and popular terms, there is almost universal agreement that sexual contact between a child and... any adult or older person... considered sexual abuse." (p. 80). Now one could argue that "contact" does not equal "interest", but such an argument makes the potential remainder category both less verifiable as a visible phenomenon and more negligible. Furthermore, The Journal of Psychology appears to be a leading journal, and this article which appeared in that publication and is cited 285 times, says "Despite a lack of theoretical and empirical support, proponents of child and adult sexual relationships have argued that sexual interests and behaviors of adults with children should be considered acceptable, normal, and healthy expressions..." Note that the presenting of "sexual interests... of adults with children", not just contact, as distinguishable from "abnormal" variants thereof is a presentation without "theoretical and empirical support", according to this source.Bdell555 (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply: Per my weight loss example, we cover the remainder categories under Starvation and Malnutrition, and again not all instances of those phenomena meet the diagnostic criteria of Anorexia. Lots of other precedents in Misplaced Pages. Not all Cross-dressing meets the diagnostic criteria for Transvestic fetishism, so we have separate articles, and so on. I'm not sure what other point you are trying to make in relationship to this article's retention. The pedophilia article already correctly states, "Another erroneous but unfortunately common usage of "pedophilia" is to refer to the actus reus itself (that is, interchangeably with "sexual abuse")." We also have an article on age of consent reform that discusses the viewpoints of proponents. Adult sexual interest in children can sometimes meet the diagnosis of pedophilia (usually not), and acting on adult sexual interest can frequently result in child sexual abuse. This article is about three remainder categories: the times that it is not pedophilia, not child sexual abuse, or not either. Adult sexual interest in children is significantly more prevalent than pedophilia, and it does not always result in child sexual abuse (for instance, those who don't act on their interests). That's why this merits a separate topic. Jokestress (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is this beginning to look like a WP:DICDEF? Per my comments on my delete vote, I don't think that the article on pedophilia needs to conform to the exact definition of what constitutes pedophilia in the psychiatric field. However, even if it did, the only purpose this article could serve would be to define a range of very narrow range whereby someone might be interested in a child sexually without acting on it (which would better fall under Child sexual abuse) or being a pedophile (which, let's get serious, all the DSM requires is period of fantasy that persists for more than six months). Mention of these persons in scholarly texts is almost entirely going to fall into the category of passing reference: "Of course, not everyone who's ever thought of children sexually is a pedophile." But that's as much as can be said, because a passing thought does not a notable topic make; some people have passing fantasies of killing their bosses, but we don't create articles on, for example, Potential killers. — Chromancer /_cont 01:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This matter is about definitions, and how much the pedophilia article should focus on the lay definition or the clinical definition. As it stands, the lay definition gets little or no weight (WP:UNDUE) because some editors believe only the strict clinical definition should be covered. If that's the case, we should cover the other uses somewhere as is common practice. Re potential killers, we do have separate articles for legal, medical and lay definitions that describe thoughts of murder and homicide; see the nonclinical/legal terms of potentiality like malice aforethought (also offender profiling and mens rea), as well as the generic intrusive thoughts and the clinical diagnosis homicidal ideation. All have specific meanings and merit separate coverage with links to each other. Jokestress (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean that the lay definition of 'anyone who thinks about children sexually' is getting undue weight. Regardless, the article you're creating here is explicitly about something that is not a clinical term; you're creating an article about a number of people, passingly referenced, who are mentioned as not qualifying for a clinical diagnosis. Re potential killers, you misunderstand my point. This is as if I was to create an article Law-abiding citizen interest in theft and include citations about people who are not criminals because they have not committed a crime nor do they have an obsession with it, i.e. kleptomania. Anyone could potentially be included under the umbrella of such a vaguely defined concept, which is why there is not a clinical term for it. What is more, the very creation of an article focused on said people implies that they are a clinically defined class, a harmless underclass of adults interested in children sexually but that will never act on it, which is a bold distortion of the very literature we're citing here. — Chromancer /_cont 03:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel that we are not communicating well. There is a wide range of scholarship on sexual interest in children that is not clinical (historical accounts, philosophy, media studies, etc.). By limiting the Pedophilia article to a strict clinical definition and not allowing discussion of other academic disciplines, we need someplace to talk about all the other published work.

Regarding your example:

• Larger phenomenon: (theft), separate diagnosis article (kleptomania).
• Larger phenomenon: (homicide), separate diagnosis article (homicidal ideation).
• Larger phenomenon: (suicide), separate diagnosis article (suicidal ideation).
• Larger phenomenon: (cross-dressing), separate diagnosis article (transvestic fetishism).
• Larger phenomenon: (sexual interest in children), separate diagnosis article (pedophilia).

We are missing an article. The people who study the larger phenomenon use the term "adult sexual interest in children," to distinguish children's sexual curiosity about each other, etc. That seems to be the best name for the missing article. Adult sexual interest in children is not clinically defined because the majority of it occurs in "normal" people (see citations in article). Neither I nor the researchers are claiming this phenomenon is harmless; those with the interest have the potential for great harm to themselves and others. What I am saying is that the way we cover this topic is different than the way we cover any other topic, and I believe it's simply because of the subject matter. There is a fear that the general article somehow promotes or normalizes sexual interest in children. I consider that as spurious as saying that an article on homicide promotes or normalizes murder. We need an article to cover the phenomenon that doesn't frame it in the narrow language and conceptualization of the diagnosis. Jokestress (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delete POV fork of pedophilia. Suggest Salt as well. Edward321 (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep Since nobody here can dispute that "Whereas pedophilia and hebephilia refer to psychological propensities, child molestation and child sexual abuse are used to describe actual sexual contact between an adult and someone who has not reached the legal age of consent. In this context, the latter individual is referred to as a child, even though he or she may be a teenager. Although the terms are not always applied consistently, it is useful to distinguish between pedophiles/hebephiles and child molesters/abusers. Pedophilia and hebephilia are diagnostic labels that refer to psychological attractions. Not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually molest children; an adult can be attracted to children or adolescents without ever actually engaging in sexual contact with them. Child molestation and child sexual abuse refer to actions, and don't imply a particular psychological makeup or motive on the part of the perpetrator. Not all incidents of child sexual abuse are perpetrated by pedophiles or hebephiles; in some cases, the perpetrator has other motives for his or her actions and does not manifest an ongoing pattern of sexual attraction to children. Thus, not all child sexual abuse is perpetrated by pedophiles (or hebephiles) and not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually commit abuse. Consequently, it is important to use terminology carefully." http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html by Gregory M. Herek , thus the votes for deleting as a POV fork are invalid and unjustified. --Destinero (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I do believe that Jokestress and Herostratus, and others contributing here, are working in good faith on this difficult topic. There is clearly considerable scholarship available, and Misplaced Pages should do the best job possible of summarizing it. Rather than hashing out issues in AfDs, I'd urge editors to use the collaborative framework of the WP:PAW to find the best way of covering this material.   Will Beback  talk  19:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I support this reasonable proposal. --Destinero (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I too support this. Please all cool down a bit. Flinging ugly and unfounded accusations of bad faith at serious good-faith editors is very much not in the interest of our project. It is a clear and well-sourced fact that professional sources in the area do make a distinction between pedophilia (a psychiatric disorder) and at least some cases of sexual interest of adults in children, where the definitions of "adult" and "child" may be based biologically, or legally, or on still other criteria with large discrepancies in meaning, and may depend on the jurisdiction in force, nutrition of the population, and other things, that have nothing to do with classifications of psychiatric disorders. As long as we refuse to acknowledge this and do not allow an encyclopedic treatment based on reliable sources, the issue will keep resurfacing and generating heat.  --Lambiam 21:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't, on the grounds that 1) WP:PAW is inactive and probably needs to stay inactive unless several editors are willing to participate in it regularly, otherwise it's liable to trollery or hijacking, and 2) Jokestress is clearly much smarter than me (doesn't make her right, though) and I'm not qualified to do scholarly battle with her, and 3) even though she's acting in good faith, she's still a screamin' ideologue (see below) and there's no talking to people like that, and 4) I'm supposed to be retired from the subject (under duress) and 5) anyway, Jokestress has requested ordered me not to address her except on article talk pages (which is understandable since I was more than a little harsh when I tried to dissuade her from going down the path that she so apparently intends, but still). So I guess that won't work. Herostratus (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, so let's reactivate it or find a new forum. Folks here, all respected editors, need a neutral space to work towards consensus on issues that span multiple articles. I offer moral support and will gladly contribute positive suggestions to that effort. I hope everyone !voting here will add WP:PAW to their watchlists. Many hands make light work.   Will Beback  talk  10:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Comment. Not to go ad hominum, but I think this is germane. The question of motivation has troubled me in this case. This whole situation seemed really odd to me, because Jokestress is not at all the kind of editor we usually see trolling this subject: she's obviously a long-time, prolific, and very accomplished Misplaced Pages editor, judging by her user page. I also just now see that (per her user page) she is Andrea James, and she has her own Misplaced Pages article. Both the article and her website describe her as an "activist". What kind of activist? I don't know exactly how to put it, but in the general area of sexuality. Oh, OK. That is interesting. Let's see, she is on the board of which I'm not saying anything against TransYouth Family Allies which is probably a great organization (I don't know), but appears to be partly a youth-rights-activist organization. The last entry on her website "In 2008 she joined the Board of Directors for Outfest. Outfest... foster artistic expression of gender, sexuality and LGBTQ culture and its transformative social impact on the world." Oh, OK. Not equal rights or marriage rights (which decent people generally support) but transformative social impact on the world. Hmmmm. Now let me say that by all appearances Andrea James looks to be a fine person, and a lot more dynamic, intelligent, educated, and erudite than a poor schmuck like me'll ever be. That doesn't give her a pass in life, though. Is Andrea James motivated by a burning desire the Change The Dominant Paradigm vis-a-vis sexuality in this world? Yes, she is. Is this article part of that? Yes, it is. Does motivation enter into one's assessment of an article? It sure does, in my opinion. We do have WP:COI and so forth. We're not required to pretend that there isn't an elephant in the room when there is an elephant in the room.

I can easily understand how a burning belief in youth rights and sexual liberation and all that can lead one over the line into error. We do get quite a bit of that e.g. the contention that children have the right to choose to have a fulfilling sex life with a caring and nurturing adult. I'm not saying that Ms James is claiming that here, not exactly. Does she believe it? I don't know, but I do know that she's way too smart to say it like that if she did. Has Andrea James become "pedophile activist"? No, not exactly. But she sure is acting like a useful idiot.

Look, I know that Andrea James has a bunch of quotes and citations at her fingertips and knows how to talk the talk. I'm not impressed. She's not an acadamecian, she's a sexual activist at the fringe at the society. She's got an agenda and she intends to promote it and this article is part of that.

It's sad. You hate to see the editor who wrote Ruby & The Romantics and many other fine articles go down the path where she's putting in (with obvious approval) quotes like "Intuitively it is obvious that the sexual abuse of children inflicts deep psychological harm. But there are also reasons to distrust this intuition. First of all, it could reflect an irrational taboo about the sexuality of children. The idea that children should be sexually innocent is not universal; in fact, it is relatively modern...". But it doesn't look like anyone can dissuade her. I sure can't. Herostratus (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Your opinions is irrelevant here and it is untactful to accuse the editors from all of this. You are simply unnable to counter the reliable sources here and Misplaced Pages policies demand articles to be based on them. You should get the knowledge of the topic first, since it is clearly not enough, and then suggest the articles for deletion. Because what are you doing is outrageous. You are not able to accept the presented facts about the difference between pedophile and adult and want to treat those aspects in irrelevant articles. Maybe this is good case for arbitrary comitee since it seem's nothing else can settle this right. --Destinero (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Holy smoke Herostratus - let people concentrate on the given issue, which is too important to lose in a cloud of generalities. Amphitryoniades (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Err...Destinero, so you think we should go to arbitration just because this article is headed for deletion? And strictly in accordance with wikipedia policies - well you need to go to arbcom privately if you choose to do so. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

@Herostratus, the quotation you are so upset about was written by Richard Posner, a Reagan-appointed federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. It appeared in the legal issues section and has since been removed by another editor, I guess under WP:UNDUE (or maybe WP:IDONTLIKEIT). I think a federal judge is qualified to opine on this topic in a section on legal issues, but if it's getting in the way of the larger issue at hand, we can leave it out. He is not writing "to promote sex-with-children-normalization" and is not some fringe nutjob. He is someone who thinks a lot about these issues within a legal framework. As for my own motivation, it's no different than when I wrote Ruby & the Romantics or any of the other hundreds of articles I have donated. I wanted a concise, well-sourced, neutral summary of the topic. I am aware of this literature on this topic because of my work with sex and gender minorities, and it bothers me that this cluster of articles is so incomplete and inaccurate. You appear to be incapable of discussing this issue in a calm manner and continue to jump to all sorts of conclusions about me and my motivations. Please focus on the article content and the arguments for/against deletion and stop commenting and theorizing about me personally. Jokestress (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:POVFORK and WP:SYNTHESIS. The principle argument here for retention of the page is that there is a difference between the psychological disorder of pedophilia and all other sexual interest in children. This is true; some sexual abuse of children is situational, only, and doesn't carry an implication that the person involved is a classic pedophile. However, we are not bound by the definitions exclusive to psychiatry. The real-world understanding and common definition of pedophilia is as any sexual interest in children, and this is how the subject is being treated in Misplaced Pages; as such, an article such as this, built on these principles, simply serves to present only one portion of Misplaced Pages's collective information on pedophilia in such a way that it represents POV. These citations and ideas would be harmless within the body of the Pedophilia article that exists now, given there is a massive weight of citations to the contrary, but separately they are academically unconscionable.
  It is disingenuous, also, to believe that these data are not being cherry-picked to represent a WP:SYNTHESIS of ideas. The sources we have are coming from a wildly varying group of publications, and I have more than a suspicion that the statements made were not intended to support the essential point of the article. The facts are not fringe, but their use in this article is; it's trying to make a point. I am more than willing to import some of the ideas presented here (that people who demonstrate interests commonly called pedophilic are not necessarily classic-case academic pedophiles) to the main article, but this article as a separate entity must go. — Chromancer /_cont 00:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment It sounds as if you are arguing for a merge of this material into pedophilia, which I would support along with a lede rewrite. I believe all sources and most editors agree on the following (quoting you):

• There is a difference between the psychological disorder of pedophilia and all other sexual interest in children.
• The real-world understanding and common definition of pedophilia is as any sexual interest in children.
• These citations and ideas would be harmless within the body of the Pedophilia article that exists now.

Unfortunately, the primary long-term editors of that article (User:Jack-A-Roe, User:Flyer22, User:James_Cantor, and User:Herostratus) want it to be about the disorder only, and they have formed a loose coalition to shut down any edits or suggestions that reflect what they call Misuse of terminology. Their WP:OWN style voting block is used to squash reasonable lede rewrites that reflect how the term is used, as well as any discussions of the concept outside of a psychology/mental illness model. Because of this, it seemed we should cover the wide range of materials they seek to suppress somewhere in the project. I was surprised to see two three of them voting to delete here, which makes me believe they don't want this covered anywhere on the project. This article's title is the term most frequently used in the literature to describe non-pedophilic sexual interest in children. I believe if this were on almost any other topic, we would not even be having this conversation. Editors questioning the current "disorder" focus of the article get accused of promoting/advocating/normalizing pedophilia. I create a space to give this topic due coverage and get accused of promoting/advocating/normalizing pedophilia, and the AfD is spun to make me look like some sort of monster hell-bent on creating a coatrack for pedophilia advocacy. It's very unproductive. Perhaps the editor who suggested arbitration has the right idea. Jokestress (talk) 05:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Weak delete. I am a professional sex researcher studying and publishing on pedophilia and related topics, and I have recently been appointed Editor-in-Chief of Sexual Abuse, a scientific journal specializing on this specific topic. I recognize that there exist wikieditors who dislike professionals commenting on topics in their field, so I take seriously my disclosure of it.

1. In my opinion, for what it’s worth, the arguments presented in support of this page largely confuse pedophilia the idea with pedophilia the word. Greek roots and former uses do not pertain to what is actually known about pedophilia itself (however named). In science, terms are supposed to become more exact as time and knowledge accumulate. To evaluate contemporary use and understanding in terms of the obsolete ones is to end progress.
2. Similarly, arguments in support of the page have confused the construct of pedophilia (that is, the idea of pedophilia) with the diagnosis of pedophilia. Diagnostic criteria for pedophilia should not be mistaken for an actual definition of pedophilia. Diagnostic criteria are merely an approximation we use to help us draw the line between pedophilia and not-. That someone fails to meet diagnostic criteria for pedophilia DOES NOT MEAN that they are not pedophilic; it means only that we do not have enough evidence from the (known) symptoms to be sure, and (for better or for worse) we do not give such a life-altering diagnosis without being sure (or reasonably sure).
3. The diagram uploaded by (and created by?) Jokestress is in error. Its logic permits a person both to be pedophilic but not to have a sexual interest in children, which is, of course, counter to their definitions. It would be possible to have a sexual interest in children but not to meet any given set of diagnostic criteria of course (the DSM-IV-TR criteria still being in widest use in North America for a little while longer), but that is again to mistake the definition of pedophilia with a given set of diagnostic criteria for operationalizing pedophilia.
4. The references on the mainpage (and in the rest of the literature) do not actually provide support for “adult sexual interest in children” as a topic of study. That is, although some authors have occasionally used the phrase adult-sexual-interest-in-children, they have not treated “adult sexual interest in children” as a topic. In the references cited on the mainpage, no precise or scientific definitions are given for “adult sexual interest in children,” no history of the topic is reviewed, etc. Rather, the cited authors merely used the sequence of words, adult-sexual-interest-in-children, as an alternative phrasing for what they are writing about: In some contexts, the authors used it to mean sexual abuse, and in some contexts, pedophilia. None of the authors examined “adult sexual interest in children” as a subject contrasted with sexual abuse or pedophilia.
5. In my opinion, not everyone who abuses children is pedophilic; this is frequent in cases of incest, for which the motivations may have included issues other than eroticism. Also, it has been demonstrated by my colleagues that non-pedophiles do often show low levels of genital arousal (but more than zero) to stimuli depicting children. However, I do not believe that these phenomena have ever been the subject of serious or significant scientific study. Of course, there might come to be such study in the future, but I am not aware of anyone working on such questions currently. So, I would delete, but not salt.

By way of disclosure: My colleagues and I have long been the targets of Jokestress’ attacks, both on and off WP. To what extent my (or Jokestress’) opinions reflect a POV is, of course, up to readers to decide for themselves.

— James Cantor (talk) 05:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment (edit conflict earlier) To James Cantor's points:

1. Yes, this is another dispute between the phenomenon and a term used to describe it. The phenomenon of adult sexual interest in children predates the term "pedophilia," a term which reflects a conceptualization in one area of academia (sexology/mental health). If the Pedophilia article is to be about the mental health conceptualization, we need someplace to talk about the other conceptualizations.
2. Yes, there is a range of literature that looks at "pedophilia" as a social construction; that is, the construction of it as a mental illness (Foucault, etc.). We should discuss that somewhere in the project, and not as "misuse" of terminology. Notable philosophers and legal experts consider the word "pedophilia" and related terms to be a misuse of terminology based on a worldview. The term used for the title of this article is the most common umbrella term in use. It's the title of a book that includes chapters written by many of James Cantor's colleagues. "Non-pedophiles," which James Cantor uses, includes people with no sexual interest in children, so it is an inappropriate descriptor, except in the context of child sexual abuse.
3. James Cantor does not understand how to read the . Nowhere on the chart does it say someone has pedophilia but not a sexual interest in children. The top red part is for non-adult pedophilia.
4. Adult sexual interest in children is not a scientific descriptor. It is a term used by scientists and others to describe the phenomenon in its more general sense. It's an elegant solution to discussing the phenomenon, which is why it's been adopted by so many in James Cantor's field. It also allows for a discussion of the topic in all contexts, not just from a mental illness model. I'm surprised James Cantor doesn't recognize its value and join experts in using it.
5. James Cantor's answers above demonstrate the problem: he says "not everyone who abuses children is pedophilic" and uses "non-pedophiles" and "nonoffender pedophiles." However, he offers no alternative umbrella term to cover the phenomenon to include "normal" people who have a sexual response to children (as described by his mentor Kurt Freund, cited in the article). I have provided the umbrella term most widely used in his field. In fact, the Freund article appears in a book titled Adult Sexual Interest in Children. If James Cantor has a well-sourced alternative that he prefers, we should discuss its merits. I'm not aware of one. This article's title is what people in his field use. The fact that he wants this article deleted strikes me as WP:COI, perhaps some sort of professional rivalry or something he is not disclosing about why he dislikes this term and refuses to use it himself.

And as disclosure, I had published my opinions about this editor off-wiki long before he came here under two pseudonymous accounts and started a campaign of self-promotion and attacks on his critics. That's a discussion for elsewhere.

Bottom line: the larger phenomenon should be discussed in depth somewhere on the project. It will clear up all the terminological confusion (it's apparently confusing even to those who study it). I have used the most widely-accepted term in the field as the title. The Pedophilia article has calcified into a very narrow representation of the work done in academia on this phenomenon. These important distinctions need to be discussed if not in a separate article, in the related topics. Jokestress (talk) 06:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Something that is the sole subject of a 275-page book collecting academic papers from many renowned sexuology researchers, born out of "the need for a collection of informed opinions on the subject of adult sexual interest in children" (quoting from the book's introduction) is obviously important enough for an encyclopedic article. Those who believe that all adult sexual interest in children must be considered pedophilia will need to come with overwhelming verifiable evidence from reliable sources in support of their belief, in view of the very strong evidence that both academic researchers in the area and respected judges think otherwise.  --Lambiam 10:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment If you want an article about the book and you think it is notable you could create it, but creating a themed article based on an obscure book is not appropriate. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. After parsing the 'definition' section (see this http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Adult_sexual_interest_in_children&oldid=383249805 version], it is obvious to me that the efforts to create a third category are based on careful quoting to make it appear that reputable sources support this idea. However, after careful checking, that does not seem to be the case and hence the whole basis of th9ios article disappears. -- Kim van der Linde 14:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

  I have deleted all references that have been quoted out of context, and none of the references supported the idea of a third category. -- Kim van der Linde 15:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. In referring to me, Jokestress wrote she "had published my opinions about this editor off-wiki long before he came here." Actually, Jokestress has been harassing, for the better part of a decade now, sex researchers and any other professionals who note the existing science disagrees with one or more of Jokestress' comparatively radical claims about transsexualism (the topic of Jokestress' off-wiki activism, which in itself I strongly support). Jokestress' maintains off-wiki attack sites attempting to discredit whole lists of sexologists who disagree with her (including me), maligning even other transsexual activists who disagree with her (see also), and repeatedly postulates whole conspiricy networks to argue she alone is right and the consensuses of whole fields are wrong (much like she's said here).

Jokestress has written to researchers’ employers (including mine) demanding that the scientists be fired. She's posted on the Internet photos of researchers’ underage children with captions including A cock-starved exhibitionist, or a paraphiliac who just gets off on the idea of it?, and so on. As part of her efforts to discredit the scientists, Jokestress also attacks the topics that any of the above scientists study, such as her attack site on penile plethysmography. In fact, it came to the point where Jokestress’ harassment itself became the subject of inquiry by a professional ethicist who studies academic fraud, the reporting of which led to a Guggenheim award. (But for which Jokestress ‘declined to be interviewed’).

Although Jokestress referred to not having previously edited the pedophilia page at all, she neglected to mention what did lead her to it: Jokestress first attempted to re-add long-deleted EL's that violated WP:ELNO on the penile plethysmography page, but found herself unable to justify the re-addition except for repeating that their removal originally came from me. Unable to get her way at penile plethysmograph, Jokestress instead posted another off-wiki attack on me for editing WP all (available here; I am the person she refers to as "guy in charge of Sexual Abuse"), and shifted her wiki-hounding of me/my colleagues to the pedophilia page. The other editors at pedophilia quickly found Jokestress' edits wanting, resulting in the POV fork currently under AfD. Sexology pages on WP are littered with similar incidents.

If my colleagues and I had a history of studying sex addiction instead of pedophilia, then that would be where Jokestress would be trolling.

Although I have no opinion regarding Jokestress' editing of other WP topics, it is my personal belief that Jokestress should be banned from sexuality-related pages. Although Jokestress has, of course, said the same of me, I have long kept a pledge on my userpage to stay off pages that have had the greatest conflicts on them, but I have been unable to convince Jokestress to do do the same for the benefit of WP. I regret that her wiki-hounding of me has led her to bring those conflicts to still other pages.

— James Cantor (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)