Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) at 22:52, 3 May 2015 (Reverted edits by Witalb (talk) to last version by KateWishing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pedophilia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Template:Vital article

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q: Why does this article characterize pedophilia as a mental or psychiatric disorder? A: Fundamentally, Misplaced Pages articles need to reflect the consensus expressed in the best-available reliable sources. Those sources characterize pedophilia as a mental or psychiatric disorder, so this article must as well. Those sources state that a mental disorder is a mental or behavioral pattern or anomaly that causes distress, disability or a strong impulse to harm oneself or others. Because pedophilia creates a strong impulse to have sexual relations with prepubertal children (an act which is innately harmful), and people with the disorder that avoid doing so often suffer great distress, it is considered to be a mental disorder. This is what differentiates it from other types of sexual attractions or orientations that do not innately lead to harm or distress. Q: Why isn't ______ point of view about pedophilia represented in this article? A: Information on Misplaced Pages must rely first and foremost on reliable sources that can be independently verified. Sources come in many forms but some are clearly better than others. Peer-reviewed journal articles, major published manuals and textbooks are considered very reliable, while personal blog posts or anonymous forums are often nearly worthless and almost never acceptable. This article in particular is about a topic in the area of medicine, and so requires a much higher standard of source than, say, an article about a fictional television program. Another key matter in excluding some material is the concept of fringe theories; sources that represent extremely minor and often flawed views of a topic that are plainly contradicted by more rigorous and reliable sources. For pedophilia in particular there are many fringe points of view that exist, but few have any scientific backing verifiable by reliable sources, and many are outright discredited for questionable relevance or due to the author(s) clearly having ulterior motives, i.e. being a pedophile themselves attempting to justify or normalize their behavior. Q: Why doesn't this article talk about pedophilia during historical periods of time (e.g. Ancient Greece or Rome, Muhammad)? A: Covering this particular sub-topic is highly problematic for several reasons. The term "pedophilia" itself did not exist until the 19th century, and was coined specifically to refer to a mental illness with set criteria. While the condition no doubt existed prior to that, there was no way to categorize or name it, and thus no reliable source exists labeling any historical person as having "pedophilia." Labeling a historical person based on sexual behavior alone, especially a single recorded perpetration, is also problematic because not all child sexual abusers are pedophiles. The person's internal mental "drive" to engage in such behavior is a key component in diagnosis, something that is almost always missing from historical accounts. A third problem is that the vast majority of such recorded instances in history that people often think of actually would not qualify, because the "child" victim was at or past puberty, whereas, medically, pedophilia usually only refers to prepubescent children.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Pedophilia. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Pedophilia at the Reference desk.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine: Psychiatry Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Pedophilia Article Watch (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Pedophilia Article WatchWikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchTemplate:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchPedophilia Article Watch Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Pedophilia. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Per the Misplaced Pages:Child protection policy, editors who attempt to use Misplaced Pages to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships, or who identify themselves as paedophiles, will be indefinitely blocked.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pedophilia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Re User:KateWishing's edit on IQ's

Hi, folks. Although I have every reason to think it's meant sincerely, Kate's statement about pedo's actually having the same IQs as non-pedo's is not exactly what those studies say (or how they should be interpreted). Mostly, these studies used self-selected groups of volunteers instead of a representative cross-section. (I find the same lack of IQ difference when I study volunteers instead of representative samples.) I think any discussion should probably be had with minimal input from me, but I am happy to answer any questions or to back-channel copies of the articles Kate posted. For reference, here are their abstracts:

• Joyal, Plante-Beaulieu, & De Chanterac, A. (2014)

Abstract. Typically, neuropsychological studies of sex offenders have grouped together different types of individuals and different types of measures. This is why results have tended to be nonspecific and divergent across studies. Against this background, the authors undertook a review of the literature regarding the neuropsychology of sex offenders, taking into account subgroups based on criminological theories. They also conducted a meta-analysis of the data to demonstrate the cognitive heterogeneity of sex offenders statistically. Their main objective was to test the hypothesis to the effect that the neuropsychological deficits of sex offenders are not broad and generalized compared with specific subgroups of participants based on specific measures. In all, 23 neuropsychological studies reporting data on 1,756 participants were taken into consideration. As expected, a highly significant, broad, and heterogeneous overall effect size was found. Taking subgroups of participants and specific cognitive measures into account significantly improved homogeneity. Sex offenders against children tended to obtain lower scores than did sex offenders against adults on higher order executive functions, whereas sex offenders against adults tended to obtain results similar to those of non-sex offenders, with lower scores in verbal fluency and inhibition. However, it is concluded that neuropsychological data on sex offenders are still too scarce to confirm these trends or to test more precise hypotheses. For greater clinical relevance, future neuropsychological studies should consider specific subgroups of participants and measures to verify the presence of different cognitive profiles.

• Schiffer & Vonlaufen (2011)

Introduction. There is some evidence that child molesters show neuropsychological abnormalities which might reflect specific structural and/or functional brain alterations, but there are also inconsistencies in the existing findings which need to be clarified. Most of the different outcomes can either be explained by the fact that different types of child molesters were examined or by not having accounted for basically confounding factors such as age, education/ intelligence, or criminality.

Aim. The present study therefore sought to determine whether pedophilic and nonpedophilic child molesters, compared to relevant control groups, show different profiles of executive dysfunction when accounting for poten- tially confounding factors.

Methods. The performance of 30 child molesters (15 pedophilic and 15 nonpedophilic) and 33 age- and education- matched controls (16 nonsexual offenders and 17 healthy controls) was assessed regarding several neuropsychological functions.

Main Outcome Measures. Scores on different neurocognitive tests and semistructured diagnostical interviews.

Results. Results indicate that pedophilic child molesters exhibited less performance deficits in cognitive functioning than nonpedophilic child molesters. Compared to healthy controls and nonsexual offenders, the pedophilic child molesters only showed executive dysfunction concerning response inhibition, whereas the nonpedophilic child molesters revealed more severe dysfunction, especially on tasks associated with cognitive flexibility and verbal memory.

Conclusions. These results enhance our knowledge about executive dysfunction associated with criminality and/or pedophilia, as they suggest different profiles of impairment between groups. In summary, data suggest that nonpe- dophilic child molesters showed more severe cognitive deficits than pedophilic child molesters. However, as response inhibition is associated with prefrontal (i.e., orbitofrontal) functioning, the deficits observed in both child molester groups indicate dysfunction in the orbitofrontal cortex. This has to be further examined with functional imaging approaches in larger samples and a full-factorial approach which allows for a clear distinction between criminality and pedophilia in a factorial manner.

• Strassberg, Eastvold, Kenney, Wilson, & Suchy (2012)

Objective: Among men who commit sexual offenses against children, at least 2 distinct groups can be identified on the basis ofthe age ofthe primary targets oftheir sexual interest; pedophiles and nonpedophiles.

Method: In the present report, across 2 independent samples of both types of child molesters as well as controls, a total of 104 men (53 pedophilic and 51 nonpedophilic) who had sexually offended against a child age 13 or younger were compared to each other(and to 49 non-sex offender controls) on psychopathy as assessed by the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI).

Results: In both samples of child molesters, the nonpedophiles scored as significantly more psychopathic than the pedophiles.

Conclusions: These results provide further evidence of the importance of distinguishing between these groups of offenders.

— James Cantor (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see your basis for stating that it "is not exactly what those studies say". It is certainly the study author's interpretation of their own (and other's) results, not just mine. You are free to disagree with their sampling methodology, but the studies themselves all explicitly attempt to investigate the cognitive ability of pedophiles. Regarding Joyal (2014), it wasn't cited for the meta-analysis itself, but for its interpretation of multiple sources:

"The distinction between nonpedophilic child molesters and exclusive pedophile child molesters, for instance, could be crucial in neuropsychology because the latter seem to be less cognitively impaired (Eastvold et al., 2011; Schiffer & Vonlaufen, 2011; Suchy et al., 2009). Pedophilic child molesters might perform as well as controls (and better than nonpedophilic child molesters) on a wide variety of neuropsychological measures when mean IQ and other socioeconomic factors are similar (Schiffer & Vonlaufen, 2011). In fact, some pedophiles have higher IQ levels and more years of education compared with the general population (Langevin et al., 2000; Lothstein, 1999; Plante & Aldridge, 2005)."

My addition essentially rewords this. The other two studies also found normal IQ in their pedophilic sample and less cognitive impairment. KateWishing (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the quote above. In fact, I am the Editor of the journal in which they said it. (!) I am pointing out that their statement, which they wrote and meant to be hypothetical ("could be...", "might perform..." etc.), should not be said in a way as to contest what has actually been shown. It is also an error to describe the studies as explicitly attempting to investigate cognitive abilities. Strassberg, for example was examining psychopathy, not IQ; IQ was merely one of the background demographic measures (using a brief screen instead of a full IQ test) used to demonstrate that any differences in psychopathy were not attributable to differences in IQ.

That pointed out, I really do think this should be discussed by editors other than me.

— James Cantor (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It isn't hypothetical when the authors cite multiple studies that support exactly the inferences they are making. Rather, it is phrased tentatively. Look at the first sentence: "the latter seem to be less cognitively impaired". That isn't hypothetical at all. The second sentence is in the same vein. It cites a study that found pedophiles "perform as well as controls (and better than nonpedophilic child molesters) on a wide variety of neuropsychological measures". These are actual findings, not hypotheticals. Words like "might" and "seem" are there because it's too early to treat these findings as definitive. My "Other studies have found ", combined with the earlier mention of conflicting studies, is similarly tentative.

I should have said "cognitive impairments" instead of "cognitive abilities", but you can't deny that Schiffer & Vonlaufen were "explicitly attempting to investigate cognitive abilities", while Strassberg was investigating a different type of cognitive impairment. KateWishing (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I was reading these over myself. These are good sources, in my opinion. They are journal articles that deal with pedophiles specifically. But, we need to be careful what assertions in the article we attribute to them. Strassberg was definitely about psychopathology, not intelligence. Attempting to draw on its measures used strictly for screening is WP:Synthesis. But what we can do is attach Strassberg to a sentence about psychopathology in the article, just not IQ.

Schiffer seems ok but I feel that the findings need to be described in more detail, not just boiled down to a single measure (IQ). After all, Schiffer fond some deficits. Similar to what KateWishing just suggested, it should be phrased about lack of impairments.

Joyal concerns me a bit because the quotation appears to be from the background/introduction section of that paper, not its findings. This is inappropriate. Rather, we should use the source that Joyal is quoting. I plan to read Joyal in more detail once I get the full text if there is other useful information.

I definitely agree we need to be wary of and fully forthcoming about the selection criteria of each study. While this is a subject area with a rather limited pool to draw from and we have to take what we can get, we need to acknowledge in the text how those selection criteria may alter the meaning of the results. The authors themselves usually do so in the closing of their articles.Legitimus (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm open to separating Strassberg and providing more detail about Schiffer. Joyal seems like a good secondary source to me. We could just cite its sources directly, but WP:SECONDARY suggests that secondary sources are preferable to primary ones. The quote is from the Discussion section and not part of the main meta-analysis, but that doesn't make it unreliable.

Proposal: "Other studies have found that pedophiles are less cognitively impaired than non-pedophilic child molesters. A 2011 study found that pedophilic child molesters had deficits in response inhibition, but no deficits in IQ, memory or cognitive flexibility. Pedophiles have not been found to be psychopathic, unlike non-pedophilic child molesters." KateWishing (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with James and Legitimus that we need to be careful with the wording and get it right. I first noticed you here at the Child sexual abuse talk page, KateWishing. And you confuse me because you are a relatively new (or relatively inexperienced) Misplaced Pages editor (at least under your KateWishing account) who is very familiar with the ways of Misplaced Pages, including with knowing how to spot one of the WP:Sockpuppeteers who keeps popping back up. But whatever the case on that matter, it seems that Misplaced Pages can benefit from your knowledge on the topics you edit. I will wait to see what others have to state about your proposed wording before giving my opinion on it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not inexperienced, I just haven't bothered to log in much until recently. I familiarized myself with that editor a few months ago because he persistently vandalizes attachment-related articles. He's very easy to spot. KateWishing (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that we have a statement on psychopathy in the article that contradicts Strassberg:

Cohen et al. (2002), studying child sex offenders, states that pedophiles have impaired interpersonal functioning and elevated passive-aggressiveness, as well as impaired self-concept. Regarding disinhibitory traits, pedophiles demonstrate elevated psychopathy and propensity for cognitive distortions. According to the authors, pathologic personality traits in pedophiles lend support to a hypothesis that such pathology is related to both motivation for and failure to inhibit pedophilic behavior.

I would move the Strassberg reference into this section and rewrite it as:

Impaired self-concept and interpersonal functioning were reported in a sample of child sex offenders who met the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia by Cohen et al. (2002), which the authors suggested could contribute to motivation for pedophilic acts. The pedophilic offenders in the study had elevated psychopathy and cognitive distortions compared to healthy male controls. This was interpreted as underlying their failure to inhibit criminal behavior. A 2012 study found that non-pedophilic child molesters exhibited psychopathy, but pedophiles did not.

The other changes:

• clarify that the results of Cohen are one study
• disentangle which pathologies were related to "motivation" versus "failure to inhibit", in accordance with the abstract
• subsume passive-aggressiveness into "impaired interpersonal functioning", like the abstract ("impaired interpersonal functioning, specifically, reduced assertiveness and elevated passive-aggressiveness")

Also, I found clearer policy guidance regarding Joyal: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper." Since the entire paper was peer-reviewed and written by an expert, and its sources are accurately represented, I don't see any problem with citing its Discussion section instead of the primary sources. I included the full quote in the citation to avoid misinterpretation. KateWishing (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Any indication why these findings contradict each other? If I were a regular joe reading this article I would certainly want an explanation in the text.Legitimus (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to say because I can't access the full text of Cohen at the moment. One factor is probably that Strassberg diagnosed pedophilia using penile plethysmography and the SSPI, while Cohen simply used "the DSM-IV criteria". The DSM-IV criteria can be overbroad, especially if the clinician bases their diagnosis on persisting behaviors alone (without fantasies and urges). Also, an appropriate control group would have been non-pedophilic molesters rather than healthy community controls (although in Strassberg, pedophiles were less psychopathic than both the community and molester non-peds). Lastly, they are both small studies. Cohen only studied 20 pedophiles, and Strassberg 53. You would need a meta-analysis to make any real conclusion, but none exist. (There is at least one other study that found pedophilic molesters to be less psychopathic than non-pedophilic molesters.) KateWishing (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and point out that WP:SCHOLARSHIP is a guideline, not a policy; but, yes, we should generally use WP:Secondary sources instead of WP:Primary sources. However, as noted by Legitimus above, "this is a subject area with a rather limited pool to draw from and we have to take what we can get." And that statement is consistent with the WP:MEDDATE section of the WP:MEDRS guideline, which states, "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published." I suggest that, if you get no objections, you go ahead and implement your proposed changes. There have been no objections to your first proposal in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers. I agree that we're forced to use primary sources for this article, although some parts of it seem selective in what sources are used. I'd like to go through it all and verify that all our sources are correctly represented and reflective of the scientific consensus, with the help of others on the talk page. I'll post my proposed changes for discussion beforehand. KateWishing (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

For documentation on this talk page, here are the changes that KateWishing made per above. If there are any objections or proposals to improve that content, those thoughts should, of course, be noted here in this section or in a new section if needed. Flyer22 (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Legitimus that readers will want to understand the seeming contradiction. (As I said, the contradiction is from studies--including my own--reporting no differences between groups of volunteers, but a significant difference when using representative cross-samples.) I believe that problem would be resolved by implementing WP:MEDASSESS fully, rather than half-way. That is, KateWishing is correct about the preference for secondary sources, but the grand-daddy of secondary sources for claims like this one is meta-analysis, not narrative reviews. That is, there exist about 80 studies of IQ which vary in sample size and other features, and the most accurate way to evaluate their overall finding is not by citing a small subset of them, but by quantitatively analyzing the results of combing ALL the individual studies within the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis is preferred over citing small sets of individual studies because, as WP:MEDRS says: "small-scale, single studies make for weak evidence, and allow for easy cherry picking of data." The relevant meta-analysis of IQ spanned over 23,000 subjects (doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.4.555; PMID 16060802); the new studies being added to the mainpage, however, had ~40 subject-volunteers.

That said, because I wrote that meta-analysis, I do not want to sell the point over alerting y'all to it.

— James Cantor (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The only conclusive result of that meta-analysis was that low IQ is associated with sex offenses and victim age. The authors suggested that the victim age correlation could be explained by pedophilia, but it was not actually established, because the analysis did not examine the proportion of pedophiles in each sample or specifically consider pedophilia at all. (Notably, extrafamilial offenses and having male victims were not associated with IQ, even though those are also proxies of pedophilia.) We should include the authors' interpretation in our article, but not treat it like a definitive result of their meta-analysis.

The most powerful evidence for pedophilia's association with low IQ and memory problems is your other study. But it's a single study, not a meta-analysis. Why should we include it in our article while excluding studies with different findings? KateWishing (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is a comment about that meta-analysis and pedophilic IQ from Eastvold et al. (2011), one of the studies Joyal cites (not directly cited in our own article yet):

"Importantly, this study sample was remarkably similar to our previous sample (Suchy et al., 2009a, 2009b). In both samples, IQs and semantic knowledge (SK) were average, with PEDs’ IQ and SK being slightly (nonsignificantly) higher than those of NPEDs, in the context of approximately 13 years of education for both groups. The IQ and SK of child molesters in the present study were slightly higher than those of NSOs. This appears to contradict published reports documenting positive correlations between IQs and victim age (Blanchard et al., 2007; Cantor et al., 2004; Cantor, Blanchard, et al., 2005). However, such findings may be misleading and can likely be explained by the heterogeneity of study samples and inclusion of individuals with mental retardation. The only other reported comparison between pedophilic and nonpedophilic child molesters (Blanchard et al., 2007) found no IQ differences, consistent with our findings. Further examination of phallometrically defined non-mentally retarded pedophilic and nonpedophilic child molesters would likely continue to dispute relationships between pedophilia and lower IQs. This brings the neurodevelopmental hypothesis into question." KateWishing (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, folks. The more I re-read KateWishing’s comments, the more confused I became. I’ve only just now had time to go back to the original article(s), and I believe I now see where the problem is: I believe the error is that “cognitive” is being used as a synonym for IQ on the mainpage, which is it not. The relevant two sentences are:

Other studies have found that pedophiles are less cognitively impaired than non-pedophilic child molesters (citing Joyal et al., 2014) and A 2011 study found that pedophilic child molesters had deficits in response inhibition, but no deficits in IQ, memory or cognitive flexibility (citing Schiffer & Vonlaufen, 2011).

The mainpage makes it sounds as if Joyal et al. (2014) is contradicting Cantor et al. (2005), even though it is not. I believe the confusion comes from that cognitive functioning spans very many brain functions, one of which is IQ (others include frontal/executive functioning, memory, fine motor skills, etc.). Joyal studied frontal/executive functioning and specifically excluded studies of IQ: “reports limited to IQ were excluded as an excellent meta-analysis focused exclusively on the IQ of sex offenders already existed, i.e., Cantor et al., 2005a”. Indeed, it is very strange (in fact, rather inappropriate) to describe Joyal et al. as a contradiction of Cantor et al. when the Joyal team is itself is essentially endorsing Cantor et al. I believe a more accurate and less confusing mainpage sentence would be something like:

Pedophilic child molesters and non-pedophilic child molesters show different cognitive patterns, with non-pedophilic child molesters showing poorer scores on some neuropsychological tasks and pedophilic child molesters showing poorer scores on others.

Kate wrote that the actual findings in Joyal et al. were not the relevant part, but that Joyal's citation of other studies were. I believe Kate is misunderstanding what Joyal is supporting with those citations. (I have gone back and re-read those original articles and am happy to email copies to interested editors.)

• Eastvold et al., 2011

As with Joyal et al., (2014), Eastvold et al. (2011) did NOT study IQ; Like Joyal et al., Eastvold studied frontal/executive functioning. I have every reason to believe the findings from Eastvold et al. (2011), but the mainpage is in error to write as if there is a contradiction. I believe my proposed sentence above would resolve the problem. (FWIW, Eastvold adopted the classification method established by my own team: “Classification into pedophilic versus nonpedophilic groups was accomplished using well-established procedures typically used in this line of research (Blanchard, Kuban, et al., 2006; Cantor et al., 2008; Suchy et al., 2009b).” I point this out only as an example of this group generally extolling rather than contradicting the work from my own group.)

• Schiffer & Vonlaufen, 2011

Schiffer & Vonlaufen (2011) was also NOT a study of IQ, but a study of frontal/executive functioning. I again have no reason to disbelieve their findings, and the main page is in error to suggest there is a contradiction here with Cantor et al. (2005). Moreover, this was a very small study, with 15 pedophiles (compared with my studies of over 200); it used a “multiple choice vocabulary test” instead of any standardized IQ test (with no citation to demonstrate that that test is a valid measure of IQ in the first place); and says the mean IQ of their normal/healthy control group was over 110, even though we know it is supposed to be 100. That is, their own data suggest their findings on IQ are unusual, erring quite high. Being mindful of my COI, I don't think I am out on a limb to say that it would be grossly UNDUE to place this study on pair with a study that was >10 times its size, using an established measure of IQ, with a control group IQ right where it should be, and actually setting out to be a study of IQ.

• Suchy et al., 2009

Once again, this was not a study of IQ, but of frontal/executive functioning, and although it was a small study (20 subjects per group), it again found that pedophilic child molesters have a different PATTERN of cognitive strengths and weaknesses than nonpedophilic child molesters, not contradiction of Cantor et al. (2005).

• Langevin et al., 2000; Lothstein, 1999; Plante & Aldridge, 2005

All three of these were studies of (highly educated and selected) priests. I don’t think anyone can say it’s a meaningfully representative sample by which a conclusion can be drawn about the entire population of pedophiles.

I cannot find anything in any of these studies that claims to be a contradiction with Cantor et al. (2005). (At least, if they do, I am still missing it.) In fact, to the extent that I can find ANY relevant commentary, these authors are all pointing out their consistency with my team’s findings: E.g., “Consistent with prior research (Cantor et al., 2006), our study has identified relatively higher rates of self-reported learning disabilities and placements in special education classes among child molesters on the whole” (Suchy et al., p. 254). Not only do these studies not say anything about contradicting findings from my group, but also they actually re-assert the findings from my group as givens: “It is possible that similar problems in matching samples on education have been encountered by other researchers, especially given that some past research suggests that child molesters on the whole tend to have lower IQs (Blanchard et al., 2007).”

I believe my suggested sentence above would more accurately reflect the RSs' contents. My apologies for any TLDR.
— James Cantor (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Some of these objections are bordering on peer review. Joyal et al. clearly state that pedophilic molesters "seem to be less cognitively impaired" than non-pedophilic molesters. Schiffer & Vonlaufen reported that pedophiles had no deficits in IQ, memory, or cognitive flexibility. Perhaps they are wrong, but I accurately reported what they said. It's possible that your own study used a better test for IQ, but judging that isn't the purview of Misplaced Pages. The authors themselves believe that their tests suffice to measure IQ (as in the quote below). Nonetheless, I'll remove the bit about IQ since it's contentious and not the focus of the studies.

As I said above, the results of Cantor et al. (2005) are not in question. Pedophilia was not a factor in their meta-analysis, so the empirical conclusions are limited to the IQ of sex offenders. That's exactly how Joyal et al. describe it: a "meta-analysis focused exclusively on the IQ of sex offenders". They do not endorse any extrapolations about the IQ of pedophiles from that data. Cantor et al. (2004) was the study that examined pedophilic IQ and memory.

We don't cite Eastvold et al. (2011) as a study on IQ, although it does say: "PEDs had a higher IQ than NSOs (p = .014), and there was a trend for NPEDs to have a higher IQ than NSOs (p = .051)." I already provided a quote in which they explicitly reject your conclusions about pedophilic IQ on the basis of their own and others' findings about IQ:

"Importantly, this study sample was remarkably similar to our previous sample (Suchy et al., 2009a, 2009b). In both samples, IQs and semantic knowledge (SK) were average, with PEDs’ IQ and SK being slightly (nonsignificantly) higher than those of NPEDs, in the context of approximately 13 years of education for both groups. The IQ and SK of child molesters in the present study were slightly higher than those of NSOs. This appears to contradict published reports documenting positive correlations between IQs and victim age (Blanchard et al., 2007; Cantor et al., 2004; Cantor, Blanchard, et al., 2005). However, such findings may be misleading and can likely be explained by the heterogeneity of study samples and inclusion of individuals with mental retardation. The only other reported comparison between pedophilic and nonpedophilic child molesters (Blanchard et al., 2007) found no IQ differences, consistent with our findings. Further examination of phallometrically defined non-mentally retarded pedophilic and nonpedophilic child molesters would likely continue to dispute relationships between pedophilia and lower IQs."

Apart from IQ, Schiffer & Vonlaufen (2011) contradict Cantor et al. (2004) in their finding that pedophiles have normal memory. Our article states that pedophilia is associated with "poorer scores on memory tests". But in Schiffer, pedophiles had no deficit in either the verbal or visual memory test. KateWishing (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I e-mailed Christian Joyal to ask for his input on interpreting that part of his paper. My questions: "Is at odds with the claims of James Cantor's team, i.e., that pedophilic molesters have low IQ, poor verbal memory, and so on? Do you have any thoughts on this contradiction? You describe Cantor et al. 2005 as an 'an excellent meta-analysis focused exclusively on the IQ of sex offenders'; do you agree with its extrapolations about the IQ of pedophiles?" He replied:

"Indeed, we realize more and more the importance of considering subgroups among child offenders (CO). Although the mean IQ of an important group of CO would always be lower than that of the general population, variation is high among CO and subgroups actually possess higher IQ. Our hypothesis is that preferential or exclusive pedophiles have higher IQ. The study of Cantor and colleagues also showed that victim age is important; offenders of young children have lower IQ. Besides, we also stressed the importance of distinguishing between IQ and neuropsychological measures. For instance, many authors report (as you did) "low IQ, poor verbal memory and SO ON", but there is not really a so on...In fact, very few data are available, and the poor verbal memory was not an expected result in pedophiles (not based on theoretical hypotheses and much more closely associated with general delinquency than pedophilia). In brief, I totally agree with the fact that IQ is lower, on average, when a big group of CO is considered, but important subgroups seem to be hidden."

Of course we can't use this in the article, but I wanted to double-check my interpretation. KateWishing (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with everything he said. I agree also with what he wrote in his article (and you put above in boldface). What I disagree with is your interpreting/phrasing this to seem like disagreement between me and Joyal when he and I are actually agreeing. In the bolded quote above, Joyal is not saying that Joyal found something different from Cantor and that therefore the finding is wrong/questionable. Joyal et al. are saying they found a different result which should be attributed to a difference in our methods: They excluded people with mental retardation (many studies rely on volunteers) whereas I included a proportionate number of them. Perfectly fair.

Joyal's other comments are interesting, plausible, and worth testing. We have every reason to believe that pedophiles would exhibit greater variability (most atypical populations do show greater variability than typical populations). But that's not what's being said on the mainpage. I also have no problem regarding the claims about memory functioning or subgrouping...but that's not what's being said on the mainpage either.

The only point I'm trying to make is that the way you phrase the text you added made it sound like there was disagreement among researchers about IQ when we actually are in agreement. All I think the mainpage needs to fix it is to change the relevant two sentences to something like (cut-and-pasted from above):

Pedophilic child molesters and non-pedophilic child molesters show different cognitive patterns, with non-pedophilic child molesters showing poorer scores on some neuropsychological tasks and pedophilic child molesters showing poorer scores on others.

— James Cantor (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand how your hypothesis that pedophiles have lower IQ can be in agreement with "Our hypothesis is that preferential or exclusive pedophiles have higher IQ." (Joyal's opinion), or Eastvold's disputation of "relationships between pedophilia and lower IQs". You make it sound like Eastvold's exclusion of people with mental retardation was a limitation on their part, when in reality they call your inclusion of them "misleading". It's clear that your teams disagree on the appropriate method for studying pedophilic IQ and interpreting the results. KateWishing (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

For reference, these are the two sentences I'm talking about:

• Other studies have found that pedophiles are less cognitively impaired than non-pedophilic child molesters (citing Joyal et al., 2014)
• A 2011 study found that pedophilic child molesters had deficits in response inhibition, but no deficits in IQ, memory or cognitive flexibility (citing Schiffer & Vonlaufen, 2011).

Joyal (and everyone else) is perfectly entitled to hypothesize whatever they want, but neither of those sentences is about someone's hypothesis; it's about the actual findings.

Regarding Eastvold, neither inclusion nor exclusion is either correct or incorrect; rather, whichever method needs to match what is needed by the specific study. For example, in running an MRI study, one would want the IQs of the pedo's and the non-pedo's to be as close as possible so that any brain differences that are found could be attributed to the pedophilia rather than to the IQ difference. As I noted earlier, I myself have published studies doing exactly that. Neither method is right or wrong in itself; rather, the method needs to be appropriate to the research question and subsequent interpretation of the results.

There do exist researchers who wildly and famously disagree. But we are not they, and the text you are putting on the mainpage is putting words in their (our) mouths.

— James Cantor (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I already altered those sentences in response to your concerns, even though I don't agree with them.

The hypotheses of Joyal and Eastvold are based on actual findings. Eastvold cites multiple studies that "dispute relationships between pedophilia and lower IQs." He calls your findings "misleading". How is this not disagreement? Your hypotheses are diametrically opposed. It may be the same data, but most scientific disputes are questions of interpretation. Joyal would not hypothesize that "pedophiles have higher IQ" if he agreed with your interpretation of the data.

My text is almost verbatim from the studies. Your proposal is an inaccurate synthesis, since these studies differ from yours in their conclusions on both IQ and memory. KateWishing (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your intention behind removing the letters I-Q, but that is not the problem. The problem is that the sentences you have included do not reflect the content of the RS's (or emails). You seem to be misinterpreting the words of these authors and providing highly selective (mis-)quotes: I have no issue whatsoever with Joyal's or anyone else's hypotheses. But there is nothing in your text that is at all hypothetical. Again, for reference, your two sentences are:

• Other studies have found that pedophiles are less cognitively impaired than non-pedophilic child molesters (citing Joyal et al., 2014)
• A 2011 study found that pedophilic child molesters had deficits in response inhibition, but no deficits in IQ, memory or cognitive flexibility (citing Schiffer & Vonlaufen, 2011).

An hypothesis is not a conclusion, finding, interpretation, or piece of evidence, but that is exactly how you are applying it. Joyal used the term correctly in his email to you (to predict a future event), but you are using the word to mean a conclusion and are interpreting Joyal to be asserting something factual/evidenced, which he is not.

You wrote that (with the italics): "The hypotheses of Joyal and Eastvold are based on actual findings." Let me repeat that with different emphasis: "The hypotheses of Joyal and Eastvold are based on actual findings." Joyal and Eastvold have every right to use whatever findings they want to make whatever predictions they want; but that is not what is contained in your two sentences above. Your two sentences are not making a prediction, are not about the future, and are not explaining any existing findings. You are (mis-)stating something as a fact, when no RS's say such a thing (and which the RS's take great pains to avoid saying). Joyal offers a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. But your text is asserting this as a fact, not as a hypothetical. If you would like to expand the section to spell out what Joyal is saying, do please go right ahead, but the two sentences that you have put in are simply inaccurate.

What Joyal is saying in his email, but which appears to be getting missed, is that he believes that there are different, important subgroups of pedophiles, which differ in their cognitive profiles (including IQ). (That is what Joyal meant by "misleading": treating the entire range of pedophiles as the same when they instead have different subgroups with different properties.) That is, he believes that pedophiles at the low end of functioning (those with MR) have lower IQs than non-pedophiles whereas pedophiles at the high end of functioning (pedophilic priests) have higher IQs than non-pedophiles. (This is what he means by heterogeneity.) But this is not what your two sentences say. Again, if you would like to expand the section to spell out what Joyal is saying, do please go right ahead, but the two sentences that you have put in are simply inaccurate.

You wrote above that "Eastvold cites multiple studies that 'dispute relationships between pedophilia and lower IQs.'" That also is a selective misquote of what Joyal told you. The parts you are omitting from what Joyal told you are: "Further examination" and "would likely". Future tense, not past. If you like, you can certainly spell out Joyal's prediction for what the future evidence will be, but the sentences you have are asserting this is fact, which is not in the RS's. (Moreover, it is quite misleading to refer to studies of pedophilic priests as if they are generalizable to all pedophiles. By withholding from a reader the very specific nature of the sample and just calling them "pedophilic" is not very encyclopedic.)

What we have here is a very typical situation in an emerging field. A scientist reports a general phenomenon, and other teams work to find its limits, any exceptions, etc. The discovery of limits/exceptions (whether they are ones that Joyal believes or ones that other researchers are working on) do not make the initial discovery wrong, but the two sentences you added are claiming contradiction instead of extension/detail on the basic finding (which all researchers are very explicit about accepting).

Again for convenience, the text I recommend using is:

Pedophilic child molesters and non-pedophilic child molesters show different cognitive patterns, with non-pedophilic child molesters showing poorer scores on some neuropsychological tasks and pedophilic child molesters showing poorer scores on others.

You have not said what it is about that text that you feel might be inaccurate or incomplete (or self-serving on my part). (I'd be happy to expand that further to include the idea that subgroups of pedophiles also show different cognitive profiles, but as you correctly pointed out, that idea is not yet in an RS.)

— James Cantor (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

A hypothesis is not a prediction of future results. It is an explanation of current findings. In this case, the findings are that multiple samples of pedophilic molesters had higher IQ than non-pedophilic molesters; and Joyal and Eastvold's explanation for these results is that pedophiles in general have average IQ. This is no different from your hypothesis that pedophiles in general exhibit low IQ on the basis of more specific findings.

There's some confusion in your reply between Joyal and Eastvold. The following quote is from Eastvold et al. (2011), which was not authored by Joyal: "Further examination of phallometrically defined non-mentally retarded pedophilic and nonpedophilic child molesters would likely continue to dispute relationships between pedophilia and lower IQs." You say that I'm ignoring "further" and "would likely", but the key word is "continue", which means it's already in dispute (by their own results in 2011 and 2009). It seems clear to me that Eastvold et al. are saying your studies have been skewed by the inclusion of people with mental retardation. (If Eastvold's studies are accurate, it suggests that the association between low IQ and pedophilia does not hold true for the majority of pedophiles, since most do not have mental retardation. Rather than a few subgroups showing unusually high IQ, there is one small subgroup with unusually low IQ.) That's why they state afterwards that "this brings the neurodevelopmental hypothesis into question". Surely you disagree with them on that.

If your problem with my first sentence is the word "found", I could change it to "suggest". Neither seems substantially different from Joyal's exact wording: "The distinction between nonpedophilic child molesters and exclusive pedophile child molesters, for instance, could be crucial in neuropsychology because the latter seem to be less cognitively impaired." However, the "found" in the second sentence is perfectly accurate. My objection to your proposal is that it makes it sound like your interpretation of the evidence is in perfect concordance with Joyal and Eastvold, which is not the case. (I don't expect to convince you of that, so anyone still reading is invited to weigh in on these quotes: Eastvold et al. (2011), Joyal et al. (2014), Joyal e-mail for reference.) KateWishing (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

From the discussion above, it is evident that Cantor and Blanchard unproved neurodevelopmental theory is wrong, and Eastwood and Joyal are correct. Cantor´s unproven theory is included in wikipedia only because he and his team are the lead editors. Eastwood and Joyal theories should be included, and Cantor´s and Blanchard should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.23.112.157 (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Clean up: Prevalence and child molestation

Draft edit. I removed several dubious statements and replaced them with better sourced information. I'll explain the major changes:

• "As child sexual abuse is not automatically an indicator that its perpetrator is a pedophile, offenders might be separated into two types: Exclusive (i.e., "true pedophiles") and non-exclusive (or, in some cases, "non-pedophilic")."

  I've changed the typology to "pedophilic and non-pedophilic (or preferential and situational)", with references to match. "Exclusive" is confusing because most pedophiles are not exclusive, per the DSM's exclusive vs. non-exclusive typology. This exact confusion between the two typologies occurs in the next sentence, which I moved to a more appropriate section.

• "They state that approximately 95% of child sexual abuse incidents are committed by the 88% of child molestation offenders who meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia."

  I wrote a longer explanation, but a search reveals that consensus was already formed on the child sexual abuse talk page to remove this. In sum, the 88% figure is a blatant error by the Mayo Clinic author and not representive of the literature at large. I've replaced it with sources that are consistent with the 1/3 estimate James mentioned in that discussion.

• "A behavioral analysis report by the FBI states that a "high percentage of acquaintance child molesters are preferential sex offenders who have a true sexual preference for children (i.e., true pedophiles)"."

  The "" and "(i.e., true pedophiles)" parts are not from the source. In fact, it specifically says "No distinction is made here as to whether this preference is for prepubescent (pedophile) or pubescent (hebephile) children" after that line (p. 53). Removed since we have less vague sources now.

• "A review article in the British Journal of Psychiatry notes the overlap between extrafamilial and intrafamilial offenders. One study found that around half of the fathers and stepfathers in its sample who were referred for committing extrafamilial abuse had also been abusing their own children."

  Says nothing specific about pedophilia. Will move to the child sexual abuse article.

• "one study estimated that by the time of entry to treatment, nonincestuous pedophiles who molest boys had committed an average of 282 offenses against 150 victims."

  The use of the mean here is very misleading. The median number of victims of pedophilic molesters in this study (Abel 1987) was 1.3 for girl victims, and 4.4 for boy victims. Schaefer et al. (2010) states, "Although the data from Abel et al. (1987) does indicate a higher number of victims, the mean scores appear to have been skewed by very few extreme outliers. The median scores may be a better indication of the true size of victim number." All subsequent studies have reported far lower mean averages, comparable to Abel's median. I changed it to the medians.

• "Some child molesters—pedophiles or not—threaten their victims to stop them from reporting their actions. "

  Apart from being more appropriate on the child sexual abuse page, the source (DSM 5) contains nothing remotely resembling these claims. Removed.

KateWishing (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't know how accurate it is to state that most pedophiles are not exclusive, and we certainly cannot base such a statement solely on the DSM's exclusive vs. non-exclusive typology. Like I stated in the #Clean up: Proposed lead changes section above, experts on pedophilia are generally in agreement that pedophilia is a primary or exclusive sexual attraction. There are experts who refer to exclusive pedophiles as true pedophiles. But there's also the fact that the pedophiles who have a bit of sexual attraction to adults are essentially exclusive pedophiles because they cannot be sexually satisfied by adults (not for long anyway, if at all).

Regarding your proposed changes, seen here and here, I'm fine with most of them. I have a few questions, objections, and other statements. Why remove the "Most sexual offenders against children are male" part? We state this in the lead; I think it's only natural to state it in the Prevalence and child molestation section as well. Although research doesn't have much on female pedophiles, and the prevalence data on female pedophiles might be underestimated, it's like James and I agreed on in a discussion about paraphilias in females; it's rare that paraphilias are documented in females (girls or women). Perhaps you removed the "Most sexual offenders against children are male" part because you think that the section is clear enough that pedophilia is not found in women as much as it is found in men? And why change "female offenders may account for 0.4% to 4% of convicted sexual offenders" to "Females account for 0.4% to 4% of convicted sexual offenders"? Your change took away the uncertainty of "may" by making it an "is" matter.

As for the "According to a U.S. study on 2429 adult male sex offenders" part, I think that fits better in the Prevalence and child molestation section where it was, instead of in the ICD-10 and DSM section, since it is about prevalence.

Regarding the Mayo Clinic source, it's clear that complaints have been made regarding its prevalence information; see Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 18#Number of pedophiles among child molesters. What led you to the archives of the Child sexual abuse article regarding that, as opposed to the archives of the Pedophilia article regarding it? Or was it the archives of the Pedophilia article that led you to those archives of the Child sexual abuse article? After all, in the aforementioned Number of pedophiles among child molesters" discussion, I point to the Child sexual abuse article archives.

The FBI source is clear to distinguish the medical definition of pedophilia from the common use definition of pedophilia; for example, page 35 for its PDF format, states, "One problem is the fact the term pedophile has both a less precise lay definition and a more precise diagnostic definition. In the DSM-IV-TR pedophilia is classified as a paraphilia, one of the psychosexual disorders. It is important for investigators to understand the DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria for pedophilia require there be fantasies, urges, or behaviors that are recurrent, intense, and sexually arousing and all of which involve prepubescent children, generally age 13 or younger." But then, on page 37, it goes on to state, "For the purposes of this publication, when the term pedophile is used it will be defined as a significantly older individual who prefers to have sex with individuals legally considered to be children. Pedophiles are individuals whose erotic imagery and sexual fantasies focus on children. They do not settle for child victims, but, in fact, clearly prefer to have sex with children. The law, not puberty, will determine who is a child. The term, therefore, will be applied to those whose sexual behavior involves pubescent children as long as it is part of a true sexual preference and pattern of behavior and not just an isolated opportunity. As previously stated this is inconsistent with the strict diagnostic criteria for pedophilia in the DSM-IV-TR." So, yeah, I agree with not using that source for pedophilia prevalence information. We also need to tweak the In law and forensic psychology section regarding that source, since it currently states, "The FBI, however, makes a point of acknowledging sex offenders who have a true sexual preference for prepubescent children." As noted, the FBI source does acknowledge that, but it, or rather Kenneth Lanning, is clear about how he personally defines pedophile. The source is also dated to 2010, not 2001 (the Pedophilia article currently dates it to 2001). Regarding the "high percentage of acquaintance child molesters are preferential sex offenders who have a true sexual preference for children (i.e., true pedophiles)" part, MOS:QUOTE allows us to change a quote, usually with brackets, when it makes the text clearer, but adding in "" or "(i.e., true pedophiles)" is not clearer in this case because we know that the source is personally defining the term pedophile more broadly. That stated, maybe we are referring to a different page 53? I don't see the "high percentage of acquaintance child molesters are preferential sex offenders" line on page 53. But, surely, it's somewhere in the source; I don't think that the line was fabricated.

Michael Seto is already linked in the Debate regarding the DSM criteria section; so, per WP:Overlinking, we should delink him in the Prevalence and child molestation section. And perhaps only mention him by his last name after the Debate regarding the DSM criteria section. Likewise, we should delink the term child sexual abuse in the Prevalence and child molestation section.

For the "Situational offenders tend to offend at times of stress" paragraph: The "fewer, often familial victims" part seems to me like it should be "fewer, often familial, victims" or "fewer (often familial) victims"; I'm speaking of the comma placement, which was there before your proposed changes. For the "pedophilic offenders" part, you changed "often have a large number of victims who are frequently extrafamilial" to "sometimes have a large number of victims who are frequently extrafamilial." Why did you change "often" to "sometimes"? You also removed that they "are more inwardly driven to offend." Why did you remove that? They are more inwardly driven to offend. After all, they are the ones who have a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children and cannot be sexually satisfied by a post-pubescent person, or by anyone who looks sexually mature.

Regarding the "Some child molesters—pedophiles or not" paragraph, I'm not sure how the sourcing got mixed up there; I was the one who changed the sourcing for that paragraph to the DSM-5, but that's because it was previously supported by the DSM-IV-TR source and I was under the impression that the DSM-5 source did not make drastic changes regarding the DSM-IV-TR pedophilia aspects. I'd consulted Legitimus via email before updating parts of the article with the DSM-5 source, trading out the DSM-IV-TR sourcing for DSM-5 sourcing. Perhaps the "Some child molesters—pedophiles or not" paragraph was originally supported by a different reference or was meant to be supported by a different reference. Whatever the case, an obvious error happened there. I still think that, because pedophiles are often child sexual abusers, the section should mention something about the tactics they employ to sexually abuse children. Flyer22 (talk) 08:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Updated. I restored the "Most sexual offenders against children are male" part. I had removed it because it seemed implicit in the other statistics given.

I found the link to the child sexual abuse talk page from your comment in these archives.

I meant page 69 of the Lanning PDF, which is marked 53 in the text.

I changed "often large" to "sometimes large" because an average of 1.3/4.4 does not seem particularly large. I've changed it to "often larger" now, because it's indisputable that pedophilic molesters average more victims than non-pedophiles, if not a "large number".

I had omitted that pedophiles "are more inwardly driven to offend", along with its counterpart, that non-pedophiles "have a general preference for adult partners", because they seemed self-evident. I added it back for now. KateWishing (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

If you guys feel a brief summary of the techniques of child molesters is relevant, there's some information in Seto's book we could reference instead:

Possible wording: "Child molesters, pedophilic or not, employ a variety of methods to gain sexual access to children. Some groom their victims into compliance with attention and gifts, while others use threats, alcohol or drugs, or physical force." KateWishing (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I know that it's taken me some time to get back to this, partly because of Christmas, but I'm okay with all those changes. Yeah, the "have a general preference for adult partners" part is not needed. And I also noted above why I'd generally rather stay away from stating "sexual preference" in this article. I also agree with adding a brief summary from Seto about the techniques that child sexual abusers use to sexually abuse children; I'm assuming that the Seto material applies to pedophilic offenders as well, especially since it's common for pedophiles to sexually abuse children. Flyer22 (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. KateWishing (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the changes are in good direction and overall the section seems in a good state now. However, the first paragraph still might benefit from adding some context, maybe some info from other paragraphs might appear in the first paragraph, still suddenly there is information about sex offenders without explaining why it is there. But I currently don't have a good idea how to do it without breaking other parts or repeating too much stuff. Lunruj (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Lunruj (talk · contribs), I don't understand what issue you have with how the section is currently formatted. It's called "Prevalence and child molestation"; so the section begins with prevalence information about pedophilia, and then goes into the topic of child molestation, its connection to pedophilia and its prevalence. It's not like all prevalence information in that section should be in the first paragraph (whether about pedophiles or non-pedophiles). And the section mentions sex offenders in the context of child sexual abuse because child molesters are sex offenders. Flyer22 (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The informations about how many child sexual abuse offenders are females or whether cases of sexual abuse are underreported would fit well to the article about child sexual abuse. But how it says anything about pedophilia or pedophiles? Concretely following says nothing about pedophilia or pedophiles: "Most sexual offenders against children are male. Females may account for 0.4% to 4% of convicted sexual offenders, and one study estimates a 10 to 1 ratio of male-to-female child molesters. The true number of female child molesters may be underrepresented by available estimates, for reasons including a "societal tendency to dismiss the negative impact of sexual relationships between young boys and adult women, as well as women's greater access to very young children who cannot report their abuse", among other explanations." It's like writing an article about methanol and having there a section about fuels because methanol can be used as fuel. I am missing any connection here. What is the information used for in the section with respect to pedophilia? Does it give some estimate of prevalence of pedophilia (or estimation of difference in prevalence of pedophilia among males and females)? Is difference of prevalence of pedophilia among males and females used to (partially) explain difference in child molestation by males and females? Etc. If yes, then it belongs there, but I don't see it being used this way. Lunruj (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The reason is that child sexual abuse (CSA) and pedophilia are strongly linked subjects. You cannot talk about one without talking about the other. It is, more or less, the disorder's defining characteristic of concern because of the horrific harm it causes. The passage in question is simply using CSA instances to make inferences about pedophiles as a population since they are usually the perpetrators. By the way, your analogy doesn't seem very compelling. The article on methanol does have a section on fuel, as it should, because that is a topic of concern/interest with methanol.Legitimus (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I bumped into this pre-print of to-be-published new study from Germany and thought it might be interesting for editors of this article (and this particular section). It covers self reported interest in children, contact offending and child pornography usage. I didn't read it thoroughly, but for what I did it seems top-quality and as much representative of a population as possible, since authors have been able to minimize self-selection bias that is common problem with internet surveys. There's some interesting details of rather large portion of dropping out before critical questions and some denying the usage of their answers after completing the survey. Check it out. ViperFace (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Not all people who have sex with prepubescent children are pedophiles?

While the statement that not all pedophiles have sex with prepubescent children makes sense, the statement that not all people who have sex with prepubescent children are pedophiles does not make sense to me. Why would a person want to have sex with someone he isn't attracted to? Should it just say not all pedophiles act on their attraction but take the other half out? "many child sexual abuse offenders are not pedophiles, and not all pedophiles molest children." is the sentence I'm referring to. I assume child sexual abuse means targeting prepubescents. --ECayce187 (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The text is fine as it is, given the strong inclination pedophiles have to sexually abuse children. One of the things they are known for is their lack of impulse control in that regard. I highly doubt that the vast majority of pedophiles can resist their sexual urges; not without some serious help in doing so. And this distinguishes them from child sexual abusers in general. Also, are you this editor I've already replied to on this matter? If you subscribe to the same faulty beliefs as that editor, I am even less inclined to amend the text in your favor. Flyer22 (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

What he said is totally different from what I said. I said I agreed not all pedophiles molest prepubescent children, he seemed to be saying he thought none did. What I thought should change was the second part, that some non-pedophiles molest children. If by children we are referring to prepubescents, those under say 10, that does not make sense. --ECayce187 (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

He was not stating that no pedophiles molest prepubescent children. And, c'omn, you know that I am referring to prepubescents by "children"; otherwise, I would not have stated "this distinguishes them from child sexual abusers in general." The lead is also clear about how pedophilia is defined; we do not need to preface "children" with "prepubescent" each time. Either way, the text is staying. Flyer22 (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

You asked, "Why would a person want to have sex with someone he isn't attracted to?" Now I see that you are stating that you are having trouble grasping the fact that non-pedophiles sexually abuse prepubescent children. Well, they do. We have a section where you can read up on that fact. I think that most people who sexually abuse prepubescent children are not pedophiles, especially given the rate of child sexual abuse and that having pedophilia is thought to be rare by medical experts. A lot of non-pedophiles are sexually attracted to prepubescent children on some level. Other non-pedophiles sexually abuse prepubescent or non-prepubescent children for other reasons. Pedophilia is about the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. The ones that do not have a strong sexual attraction to prepubescent children are not technically pedophiles. Flyer22 (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 18#Start paragraph comments for more commentary on this matter, so that I don't repeat what I stated there. Flyer22 (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

We might be able to alter the lead to avoid this kind of confusion. Perhaps something like: "Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided because many child molesters lack a strong sexual interest in prepubescent children, and are consequently not pedophiles. Also, not all pedophiles molest children." I removed "although people who commit child sexual abuse sometimes exhibit the disorder" to cut the length of the sentence; it's already implied that some molesters have pedophilia when we say many do not. KateWishing (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any confusion in the current wording, and prefer it to your proposal. We are already explicitly clear what pedophilia is and is not before we get to that point of the lead. If a person fails to grasp that, it is that person's fault. Flyer22 (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The link above to a previous thread also contains my own take on it. For what it's worth, I completely understand ECayce187's confusion. Most people who haven't studied the subject closely probably feel that way.Legitimus (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Since ECayce187 is a WP:Disruptive editor we've dealt with before, one who is obsessed with age of consent, hebephilia and pedophilia topics, I doubt the sincerity of his confusion above; this is despite the fact that he has never understood pedophilia particularly well anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: Per this having come up again, this time in the #Clarification section below, I tweaked the lead for better clarity. Flyer22 (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Lewis Carroll

There is a discussion on this article's Talk page Talk:Lewis Carroll#scurrilous psychobabble about the inclusion of a section discussing the possibility that Carroll was a paedophile. Those interested in contributing should look there. Myrvin (talk) 10:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear Seite- Admin caring, yes, for the web since. Hopefully not free. Make Misplaced Pages User's worry about itself. To his prive- security. There is an interest - conflict? 87.66.230.218 (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Pedophile advocacy groups

I think the section might involve information about groups that don't focus on trying to change age of consent laws or are even against it but try to reduce prejudices against pedophiles, for example groups like Virped or B4U-ACT. Both were mentioned several times in major media, their members gave interviews, B4U-ACT did some conferences. Lunruj (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I tentatively support this, but I have some concerns about it. For example, would its inclusion be seen as implicit approval or endorsement? Not that it's particularly bad to do so, but Misplaced Pages strives to be a neutral and unbiased source of information. Adding something like that could be seen as silent support. Having said that, I would love to see this come to a vote reach some sort of consensus. It may be a worthwhile inclusion. I don't think it's wise to title this "Pedophile advocacy groups", though. Groups like VirPed and B4U-ACT are pedophile support groups more than anything, where pedophiles work toward keeping themselves from offending (or re-offending). –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Interview with Fred Berlin on pedophilia.

In case it's useful as an RS or external link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgGaUEPBI38 — James Cantor (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: KateWishing added the link to the External links section. I have not yet listened to that entire Fred Berlin interview, but one of the things that annoys me regarding Berlin is when he refers to pedophilia as a sexual orientation (he does it again in that interview, which I noticed yesterday). I've commented more than once on this talk page about such terminology, including what is seen at Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 17#Development and Sexual Orientation. I understand why he does it, and we currently do have a section in the article addressing that topic, but that terminology confuses matters. Flyer22 (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Clarification

Can someone explain this part to me? "many child sexual abuse offenders are not pedophiles" Wouldn't that make them pedophiles? Doesn't make much sense to me. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Prasad, how does it not make much sense if you read the first three lead paragraphs in their entirety? Either way, this was already discussed in the #Not all people who have sex with prepubescent children are pedophiles? section. I'd rather not repeat myself, so read what I stated there. Also see the Fred Berlin interview linked in the "Interview with Fred Berlin on pedophilia." section above. Flyer22 (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'm sorry, I got on to this a short time ago. Calm down. I didn't know it was already discussed. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Prasad, I tweaked the lead for better clarity. Flyer22 (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Flyer22. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Cracked.com interview with James Cantor and David Prescott

I'm not suggesting that parts of this February 08, 2015 interview be added to the article, unless the additions are to the Societal views section, but I did just stumble across it and I think it's a good, enlightening read for those who don't understand pedophilia well, those who might disagree with portions of the interview, and those who may not be aware of the things the interview mentions; for example, the following: "In surveys, 18 percent of males admitted to having sexual fantasies about children, eight percent said they'd masturbated to those fantasies, and four percent said they'd have sex with a child if they could get away with it. 'But that's just a survey!' you say, 'They could be lying in either direction!' True. So the researchers took a bunch of subjects and hooked them up to boner detectors. Depending on the experiment, the percentage of subjects who got turned on by naked children (under age 12) ranged from 17 percent to 50 percent."

I think that the interviewer should have clarified what pedophilia is first, since, as the Pedophilia article notes, it is commonly confused with other matters. Flyer22 (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Development

I plan to add these sentences to the beginning of the Development section:

Pedophiles often first notice their sexual attraction to children around the time of puberty.<ref name="DSM 5" /> Pedophilia is self-discovered, not chosen.<ref name="faganJAMA" />

I considered in-text attribution for the statement that pedophilia is not chosen, but mentioning any single researcher might be misleading since it's the expert consensus. For example, Briken et al. (2014) state: "Individuals do not voluntarily decide to have a sexual interest in children. Sex researchers hold this view almost universally and only about 30% of the general population thinks that individuals choose to become pedophiles (Jahnke, Imhoff, & Hoyer, 2014)." KateWishing (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

That's seems reasonable. I must admit I was not sure of the necessity of stating that it is not chosen, as it seems absurd and unthinkable to believe otherwise. But your source shows that a lot of people do actually think it's chosen, so I guess it makes sense to mention it. It speaks to a broader problem with the general population's poor understanding of sexual interest and mental illness, but that is a conversation for somewhere else.Legitimus (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Given that people commonly misunderstand what pedophilia is, confusing it with age of consent and/or age of majority matters (which annoys me to no end and makes me question people's ability to use common sense), it's common that they think that pedophilia is chosen. To me, the section is already clear that pedophilia is not chosen, but it won't hurt to spell it out. The "around the time of puberty" part is redundant to the "emerges before or during puberty" part that is already in the section, which I thought about noting yesterday. But I didn't note it yesterday since it makes sense to keep the "emerges before or during puberty" part to give the "edophilia has been described as a disorder of sexual preference, phenomenologically similar to a heterosexual or homosexual sexual orientation" aspect appropriate context. Flyer22 (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

My issue with the current version is that non-controversial facts about development are embedded in a somewhat controversial comparison to sexual orientation. If redundancy is a problem, perhaps we could reword it as: "Pedophilia emerges before or during puberty, and is still stable over time. It is self-discovered, not chosen. For these reasons, pedophilia has been described as a disorder of sexual preference, phenomenologically similar to a heterosexual or homosexual sexual orientation." KateWishing (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

That wording is fine with me. As for comparing pedophilia to a sexual orientation, Legitimus and I have had a problem with it because pedophiles (including some who have visited this talk page) commonly state that pedophilia is a sexual orientation and use that comparison to act as though their sexual attraction is perfectly normal/perfectly natural and/or that they are in the same boat as LGBT people; see this section at the Sexual orientation article's talk page if you haven't already. And, of course, you are aware of this section at the Chronophilia article, and that I've complained above about confusing pedophilia with sexual orientation in the #Interview with Fred Berlin on pedophilia. section above. Besides Fred Berlin, there is also Ray Blanchard adding to confusion with that terminology. That stated, since enough scientists and researchers compare pedophilia to a sexual orientation because they feel that it is similar to one and helps people understand how deeply embedded pedophilia is within a person, I think we should keep mention of it in that section. Flyer22 (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. KateWishing (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Etmology

I have removed a sentence from the "Etymology" section. It was originally introduced in late 2010 as a few words, "though this literal meaning is considered inappropriate in modern times." described as "draft" in the edit summary.

A few days later it was changed to "though this literal meaning is typically used by pedophiles in modern times" and two sources were provided. The first is an FBI intelligence bulletin, which cites Misplaced Pages. The second is "The Killer Book of True Crime" - most books of this nature are pot-boilers and this appears to be no exception, reviews on Goodreads and Amazon describe it as "reads like it was written by a young adult","This is the most confusing book I have ever read","Grade school quality","AT LEAST 1/3 of this book is copied word for word from "The Killer Book of Infamous Murders.", and so forth.

Over the ensuing four years the verbiage supported by these two very unreliable sources expanded to "As pedophilia denotes sexual attraction, the term's literal Greek meaning is not employed by medical authorities; further, the terms child love and child lover are used by pedophiles both as a form of minimization and as part of symbols and codes to identify their sexual preferences toward prepubescent children."

It seems to me that the sentence is unsupported by the references, the references are unreliable, and the sentence has little or nothing to do with etymology. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC).

Rich Farmbrough, I don't mind much that you removed this content, but I think we should have something in that section about how pedophiles use terminology. The section is called "Etymology and definitions," not simply "Etymology." Looking at the Slate source I added, I can confirm that it looked differently back then; this is indicated by the note I included with that reference: "FBI's January 2007 'intelligence bulletin' on 'symbols and logos used by pedophiles to identify sexual preferences.' The document (see Pages 2-4), was prepared and distributed to FBI divisions and field offices in 2007 by the Cyber Division's Innocent Images National Initiative." Slate was a WP:Reliable source for the "as part of symbols and codes to identify their sexual preferences toward prepubescent children" part. If it had not supported that bit, someone else would have quickly removed it at that time. The Sourcebooks reference I added was used to support the "the terms child love and child lover are used by pedophiles" part; the Slate source primarily supported that bit. While I am a much different Misplaced Pages editor than I was in 2011 and would not add that Sourcebooks reference today, I also would not judge a source on what Goodreads and Amazon.com reviews state; Amazon.com is commonly rejected as a WP:Reliable source at WP:Film, for example, and in WP:Good and WP:Featured reviews for television and film articles. And, well, Goodreads is a part of Amazon.com. I appreciate that you thoroughly analyzed and reviewed the text in question, since it should have better sources supporting it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep, the FBI document would probably be considered a reasonable source (ironically) if it did not cite its sources, which for the use of the terms "(boy/girl/child)lover" is the then Misplaced Pages article Childlove movement, which was moved to Pedophilia advocacy, Pedophile activism, Pro pedophile activism, Pro-pedophile activism, Pedophile Movement, Pedophile movement, Pro-pedophile ideology and finally back to Pedophile movement, before being merged/redirected by consensus on the talk page (the discussion says "deleted" but the detail suggest that a merge "sorta kinda" occurred, which is just as well as the article had survived 3 AfDs) to Age of consent reform, and then to this page.

And of course a review on Good reads or Amazon is not a RS - I am not quoting them in an article about Fish Bibliography: they do provide a pretty good indication of when something is not likely to be an RS.

You are quite right that the section includes definitions. Nothing in the removed text, though is a definition of "paedophilia".

You could of course (with adequate sourcing) add sentence under the section "Pedophile advocacy groups" about their use of language, provided this is not considered WP:UNDUE.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC).

Rich Farmbrough (last time WP:Pinging you to this section because I assume you will check back here if you want to read replies), again, the Slate source was different back then and included non-Misplaced Pages images and other non-Misplaced Pages details. Also, whether a WP:Reliable source chooses to cite Misplaced Pages is its right as long as it is giving proper attribution. Such matters are sometimes discussed at WP:Med, when a WP:Reliable source cites a Misplaced Pages image, etc., and especially when the source engages in a WP:Copyright violation. As for where to place the material, the "Etymology and definitions" section discusses terminology; it does not only discuss the definitions of pedophilia. That's why I'd added the aforementioned text there. As for adding the text to the "Pedophile advocacy groups" section: Yes, when replying to you above, I also considered that as a new option. I don't mind much either way. Flyer22 (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:CIRCULAR applies. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC).

I've stated twice now (three times including this post) that the reference was different than it is now. Internet Archive is currently not helping to see what the reference used to look like. I was also making a point that we can use WP:Reliable sources when they point to Misplaced Pages for something they are stating; it depends on how they are stating it. That is why I specifically referred to WP:Med discussions. I can list examples if so desired. There are a lot of non-medical examples as well, including WP:Reliable sources pointing to text in the Chelsea Manning article and/or at its talk page. A WP:Reliable source citing Misplaced Pages by pointing to something Misplaced Pages has stated, or using an image from Misplaced Pages, does not disqualify that source as a WP:Reliable source. Such matters are different than a supposedly WP:Reliable source citing Misplaced Pages as a reference for something in general; for example, if the source is using Misplaced Pages as a reference to prove the effects of cancer. By contrast, a source using Misplaced Pages as a reference because it is specifically noting something that Misplaced Pages stated does not disqualify that source as a WP:Reliable source. The WP:Reliable sources noticeboard can make these aspects clear for editors who are not clear on them. Perhaps I should seek to amend the WP:CIRCULAR "publications that rely on material from Misplaced Pages as sources" bit for those who might interpret that wording the wrong way. Flyer22 (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Googling "The Pedophile's Secret Code" brought up this link; that is closer to what the source I used looked like; the only difference is that it is missing some material, especially images. It also points to this WikiLeaks FBI document, which supports the child lover terminology, including with images. Flyer22 (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems we must have been talking at cross-purposes, for that precise document is indeed the one which the Slate article was about. The provided link, for some reason, was to page 7, you can navigate between the pages by selecting "view all entries" at the top.

Indeed it is not really an article, more of a short commentary on the document - which they link back to Wikileaks.

Slate themselves comment "As a general rule, you can't find information of this nature in a reputable source. The report's footnotes to online sources (see Page 6) bear this out."

Looking at the FBI document itself, as I remarked, the sentence dealing with nomenclature, is sourced to Misplaced Pages - and described as to "indicate ... gender preference".

I'm sure that information from works which cite Misplaced Pages can be used, where the citation is not for the actual fact cited. If you can provide examples where truly circular citation is approved, by WikiProject Medicine, then I would certainly be interested.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC).

I'd clicked on the "view all entries" link, and the article still doesn't look like how I remember it. If my memory weren't very good, I wouldn't think much of it. But you've made a valid point about the Slate article relaying, "The inapplicability of Total Quality Management to this particular topic is underlined when respondents are asked whether the report 'is reliable (i.e., sources well documented and reputable).' Well-documented, yes. But reputable? As a general rule, you can't find information of this nature in a reputable source. The report's footnotes to online sources (see Page 6) bear this out." That stated, I was citing the Slate article, and the Slate article reported, "Every subculture speaks its own dialect, and pedophiles are no exception. Hence the FBI's January 2007 'intelligence bulletin' on 'symbols and logos used by pedophiles to identify sexual preferences.'" And that Slate article was not WP:CIRCULAR because it was not citing Misplaced Pages as a reference, other than stating, "The report's footnotes to online sources (see Page 6) bear this out." As for the FBI, I don't think that the FBI was heavily relying on Misplaced Pages. I think that they were primarily pointing to Misplaced Pages for convenience, and were possibly going on WP:Reliable sources in the Misplaced Pages article(s). It would be good to see what that Misplaced Pages content used to look like; I could contact a WP:Administrator for that. The FBI document points out matters that anyone who is significantly familiar with the topic of pedophilia knows, including the fact that pedophiles/child sex offenders use codes. And it includes images that I don't think the FBI got from Misplaced Pages. Even if they got some non-image content from Misplaced Pages, it's understandable when considering that those articles were being heavily edited by pedophiles, who obviously know how pedophiles operate. The FBI has often observed pedophiles/child sex offenders, which is one way they've gathered information on them. Yes, Misplaced Pages had significant pedophile problems at that time; that's why Misplaced Pages:Child protection was created. I was helping to combat the rampant pedophile infiltration of Misplaced Pages at that time. The FBI and Perverted-Justice were also involved with some of those matters. While it's true that there are not a lot of scholarly sources noting terminology among pedophiles, enough WP:Reliable sources note that they use codes of some sort to indicate that they are pedophiles and/or to avoid law enforcement detection, and so on. This 2010 Salon source shows one pedophile having used the term child-lover for the title of his book.

As for "examples where truly circular citation is approved, by WikiProject Medicine," that's not what I stated or implied above. I stated, "Also, whether a WP:Reliable source chooses to cite Misplaced Pages is its right as long as it is giving proper attribution. Such matters are sometimes discussed at WP:Med, when a WP:Reliable source cites a Misplaced Pages image, etc., and especially when the source engages in a WP:Copyright violation." and "I was also making a point that we can use WP:Reliable sources when they point to Misplaced Pages for something they are stating; it depends on how they are stating it. That is why I specifically referred to WP:Med discussions. I can list examples if so desired." I cannot name any true WP:CIRCULAR case approved by WP:Med. But then again, I think we might disagree on what is a WP:CIRCULAR violation; that was part of the point I was making with my "02:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)" post above. Flyer22 (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

And given the prominence of child love terminology among pedophiles, it would not be WP:Undue weight to include such material in the Pedophilia article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on that. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC).

In my opinion, the term "child love" should probably remain absent until someone could mock up a well-cited, encyclopedic, and neutral section/subsection discussing it. It is prominent, but it's a highly sensitive topic, given that "child love" possesses heavy, pro-pedophilia connotations and is often used in the context of referring to sexual relations between an adult and a prepubescent child as "love" in the same respect as two consenting adults. As far as I'm concerned, it's a pedophile advocacy term (perhaps place the section under there, or under a terminology section?), so its addition is very precarious unless it is done with rigorous adherence to WP:NPOV. I advise against it for this time, if only until a suitable draft is proposed on the talk page. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Above in this section, I've clearly discussed the term child love in the context of pedophile terminology (in other words, terminology that pedophiles use). So your "22:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)" commentary confuses to me. What's currently left in the Etymology and definitions section regarding "child" and "love" is the following: The word comes from the Template:Lang-el (paîs, paidós), meaning "child", and φιλία (philía), "friendly love" or "friendship". Flyer22 (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I think I may be the confused one here. I thought we were discussing whether to add a section or subsection discussing terms used by pedophiles and pedophile advocacy groups, such as "child love". Although the term originates from a literal interpretation of the etymological roots of "pedophilia", it carries heavy connotations. My point was that if we were to include any section/subsection detailing terms used by pedophiles and pedophile advocates, it would need to be well-written and strictly NPOV so as to avoid any accusations that we're somehow endorsing the usage of those terms. If we're not discussing the inclusion of a (sub)section discussing the use of terms by pedophiles and pedophile advocates, such as "child love" with its loaded meaning, then apologies for the misunderstanding. In any case, I do agree with you that "we should have something in that section about how pedophiles use terminology", since it may be important to document. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Your comments are odd because you make it seem like we (Rich Farmbrough and I) would give the impression that we and/or Misplaced Pages as a whole are supporting pedophile terminology. We discussed putting any such terminology in an existing section, not creating a new section on the material. And Misplaced Pages, including WP:Neutral, is clear that Misplaced Pages does not take a stance on issues by reporting on them. I've been clear with you on your talk page that I think your application of WP:Neutral is flawed and that I cannot trust you on pedophilia topics. I am done with this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I did not assume either of you "support pedophile terminology", nor do I. If you intend on adding it to an existing section, then so be it. It'll probably be a worthwhile addition to the article. I misunderstood, which is my fault; I thought that it would be put in a new section. My point about NPOV is that the way it is presented could be seen as partisan—the way we report on these terms could be seen as condemnatory or laudatory. We need to be neutral, and that means reporting on the facts. Pedophile terminology is obviously a highly controversial and sensitive topic, so we need to take special care when including it in the article.

Please keep on-topic. Your opinions or prejudices about me (which, if I'm correct in identifying them, are false) are not on-topic. If you're done with this discussion, then I suppose it's fine if I removed your slander from my talk page, seeing as you're unwilling to be civil and cooperative about this. I'll await for your response; if none is given, I'll simply remove your section on my talk page since it's inappropriate and uncivil. If you have a problem with my neutrality, then let's discuss it on my talk page. Otherwise, there's no point in vague accusations. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Source question

Looking at the section "Causes and biological associations", are the following sources reasonable for usage in this article? If so why? If not why not?

• Zarembo, Alan (January 14, 2013). "Many researchers taking a different view of pedophilia". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2 May 2015.
• Khan, Razib (September 9, 2012). "Pedophiles: born that way?". Discover. Retrieved 2 May 2015.
• Henley, Jon (January 3, 2013). "Paedophilia: bringing dark desires to light". The Guardian. Retrieved 2 May 2015.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, what about this source:

• Jay R. Feierman (6 December 2012). Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 290. ISBN 978-1-4613-9682-6.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The biomedical aspects of pedophilia should be sourced to academic journals or books, per WP:MEDRS. As for Feierman's book, it was published in 1990 (despite the date on Google). There are lots of more recent sources discussing the possible biological origins of pedophilia. KateWishing (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class psychology articles
• Mid-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• B-Class psychiatry articles
• Mid-importance psychiatry articles
• Psychiatry task force articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• High-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• B-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles
• B-Class law articles
• Mid-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles