Talk:Pedophilia

Editing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled to promote compliance with Wikipedia's policy on the biographies of living people.
See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can request unprotection, log in, or create an account.

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 Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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, 22: 2 months

Frequently asked questions

Q1: Why does this article characterize pedophilia as a mental or psychiatric disorder?

A1: Fundamentally, Wikipedia 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.

Q2: Why isn't ______ point of view about pedophilia represented in this article?

A2: Information on Wikipedia 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.

Q3: Why doesn't this article talk about pedophilia during historical periods of time (e.g. Ancient Greece or Rome, Muhammad)?

A3: 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 victim was at or past puberty, whereas, medically, pedophilia usually only refers to prepubescent children.

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.

While you may consider this article depressing or disturbing, please remember this page is only for discussing improvements to the article. Wikipedia is not censored, but articles do have to meet certain standards.

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.

Sexology and sexuality High‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. 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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Psychiatry Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal 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 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Psychiatry portal This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-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 articles

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia: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

Pedophilia advocacy groups section has WP:UNDUE and WP:OR issues

The section about pedophilia advocacy groups is placing WP:UNDUE weight on advocacy groups that are in favor of adult-child sexual activities, to the detriment of many others that: a) have become highly noticiable on reliable sources after 2016, and b) do not support sexual activies between adults and children. These groups include Virtuous Pedophiles, B4U-ACT (see a, b (article talks about them in some depth) and c) and Prostasia Foundation (they're on the news as well, if you're editing this article you know it, I'm tired of copying and pasting links; they have said it themselves that they do support pedophiles). All these groups support the destigmatization of pedophiles, though they are against age of consent reforms and such things. And I don't see any evidence that these people's views are WP:FRINGE among EXISTING advocacy groups, because I've seen their names on recent reliable sources MUCH more than I have seen Nambla's or PIE's.

The section also reads: In contrast to these organizations, members of the support group Virtuous Pedophiles believe that child sexual abuse is wrong and seek to raise awareness that some pedophiles do not offend; this is generally not considered pedophile advocacy, as the Virtuous Pedophiles organization does not approve of the legalization of child pornography and does not support age of consent reform.[149]. The statement "this is generally not considered pedophile advocacy" here is an obvious WP:OR because source 149 is not a reliable source and, even if it was, it does not support that statement. I will place a [citation needed] on that and, if nobody does anything, will just replace that sentence with something explaining that there are some pedophile advocacy groups that do not support sex between adults and children. (Or maybe not, I will just change the paragraph right now and if someone has a problem just tell me :).) 22spears (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a "virtuous pedophile."

Hope this helps. Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Pеdо" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Pеdо has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 15 § Pеdо until a consensus is reached. Fram (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Child diddler" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Child diddler has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 25 § Child diddler until a consensus is reached. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophilia as a disorder

I'm a bit confused about the language used. The first sentence describes it as a psychiatric disorder, but then later it makes the distinction between pedophilia and pedophilic disorder, wherein the latter implies distress or having acted on it. But having pedophilia doesn't imply distress or acting on it. But throughout the article it continues to call it a disorder. Is this a mistake? Canyonjumper200 (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

English-speaking world

Regarding the phrase "In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often applied to any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse, including any sexual interest in minors below the local age of consent or age of adulthood", I want to specify, just like in the article about ephebophilia, that this belief is common in the English-speaking world and doesn't apply to the rest of the world. Cretin Fox (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This would need to be reliably sourced, and personal analysis of a Law & Order SVU episode certainly doesn't cut it. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources added by @Cretin Fox are mostly good, but seem to lack supporting evidence regarding this being an "English-speaking world" problem.

Ames et al 1990 - This source was already in the article and was already cited in 5 different places. I realize this is a newbie error, but there is no need to put the entire cite each time it is reference. It just needs the short version ("ref name="ames"/ but with less-than and greater-than at each end). Another issue is that this source doesn't need to be cited unless it's relevant to that line. There is such a thing as overkill on cites, especially when the connection to the source is loose. But most importantly, this source doesn't comment on the use of this term in languages other than English.
NSPCC Learning - This is a blog from a charity and has no identified author. This is problematic. While it has citations, it would be best to use those citations directly. And again, nothing on languages other than English.

Remember that Wikipedia is multilingual and this is just the English-language version of the article, so drawing attention to this being an "English" issue almost seems redundant.Legitimus (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the 'English-speaking world' addition is unhelpful. First of all, this is an addition to the lead - it ought to be summarising something discussed in more detail in the body of the article, and that phrase doesn't seem to be addressing anything in the body. It's also obviously implying that the word is treated differently in different languages, without going on to explain how. Finally, I agree with Legitimus that since the sentence is about the usage of an English-language word, the qualification seems redundant. I am going to revert the addition. If those sources can be used elsewhere, they can be retrieved. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is specified also in the article about ephebophilia that that is a belief common mainly in the English-speaking world and the data collected in these sources are from America and UK. Also, I deleted a source (that has been reverted for unknown reasons) because it was a double of a source added to the same sentence. Cretin Fox (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something being mentioned in another article is not a good reason to add it to the lead of this article; the concerns about the phrase expressed here may well apply to that article as well. Do you have access to the source used over there - what does it say about how the word is used in English, compared to its equivalents in other languages/cultures? Feel free to reinstate the removal of a duplicate source. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to reinterate that Ames et al is already cited in the article multiple times and is already cited in that lead paragraph, and NSPCC is not a good source. There are already multiple source supporting the assertion that pop culture usage of the term is incorrect and potentially harmful.Legitimus (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]