Template talk:Pedophilia

Removed entries

Although I believe the template cannot be kept stable and away from WP:BLP violations, I've removed a number of entries which are not associated with pedophilia in any credible way. Some of the scandals had evidence of child sexual abuse or accusations of pedophilia, but none of the accusations were credible. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hebephilia and ephebophilia should also be removed or categorized under a different name, as made clear in the deletion debate. Flyer22 (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles listing the template

It would be best to ensure that the articles removed from the template also have the template removed from those articles; I took care of my removals, but.... 05:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Done my part. Oct13 (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Nepiophilia link

The template's link to Nepiophilia has as it's target Pedophilia#Etymology and definitions. Since we don't have more than a definition on this term, I'm wondering if having this linked item is the right thing. __meco (talk) 08:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I was gonna make an article on nepiophilia but it redirects to pedophilia. Oct13 (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Just made an article for Nepiophilia (Infantophilia). Oct13 (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering, what's the name for attraction towards children under three? __meco (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for a Nepiophilia article. It is a form of pedophilia, and there is not much to state about it on its own. That's why it redirected to the Pedophilia article and should be redirected back there. Further, nepiophilia is a sexual preference for infants and toddlers (meaning ages 0–3). If we're going to say it also refers to "children over the age of three," then where does the age bracket stop? We might as well say nepiophilia covers all of pedophilia. This is why we don't use sources like rightdiagnosis.com to define psychological topics such as this. We use high-quality, scholarly sources, per WP:MEDRS. Flyer22 (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Groups

I don't exactly disagree with this, but if a list is to be included (at all) it should be reasonably complete in its coverage of the most notable associations that we have articles on, instead of a haphazard selection. Like I said in an edit summary, a single link to an overview article or perhaps a category link may be better. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, calling them "pedophile associations" was a bit of whitewashing, but I suppose whoever added the line in the first place found a more descriptive name too long. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Chronophilias vs. paraphilias

James Cantor, if I had seen you make this edit in July, I would have reverted back then; I reverted today (followup note here).

Like I stated in that edit summary, we've discussed this times before at different articles, including at the Hebephilia talk page: I consider the hebephilia age range (generally pubescents 11 to 14 years old) to be an atypical sexual preference, and that hebephiles need counseling regarding that sexual preference. In some countries or jurisdictions, however, age 14 is the age of consent and it's normal in some of those areas to find 14-year-olds sexually attractive (though the adult who takes a sexual interest in a 14-year-old might not be a hebephile, since hebephilia is more accurately about the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to that age group). You and some researchers you work with classify hebephilia as a paraphilia; like the Hebephilia article notes, many other researchers either disagree or are conflicted on the matter of classifying it as such. Therefore, the DSM-5 rejected listing hebephilia as a paraphilia and mental disorder.

And ephebophilia? It has an age range that includes 15 to 19-year-olds (meaning legal adults as well); it is barely considered a paraphilia at all. As you know, I noted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Franklin that you at one point provided me with a source showing that to be the case. So why should we label ephebophilia a paraphilia, when it includes sexual attraction to post-pubescents and when mid-to-late teenagers, especially females, are often physically indistinguishable from early 20-somethings? A paraphilia, while not automatically a mental disorder, means (like the Paraphilia article notes) "intense sexual arousal to atypical objects, situations, or individuals." How is it atypical sexual arousal if a man prefers sexual partners who are, for example, 18 to 19 years old? In the aforementioned edit you made, you stated, "The most common term (by far)." while trading out the word chronophilia for paraphilia. These terms are not automatically synonyms, and there is much stigma attached to the term paraphilia; you know that. While John Money used the term chronophilia to refer paraphilias, many sexologists are more loose with the term; teleiophilia (erotic or sexual interest in adults), for example, is clearly not a paraphilia (well, unless it's a young person with a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to elderly people). Flyer22 (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I am indifferent regarding what does/does-not constitute a paraphilia, as there is no objective way to decide (thus far). I made the change because the term "chronophilia" is virtually unheard of outside of Money's own writings. Perhaps the phrase 'associated sexual interests' would serve both purposes.— James Cantor (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't state that "chronophilia is virtually unheard outside of Money's own writings"; a search on Google Books for the term, for example, shows that other researchers use the term. That's why I stated above that "many sexologists are more loose with the term." I perhaps should not have stated "many," however. I am fine with you changing the text to "associated sexual interests." Flyer22 (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

We've also discussed what does/does not constitute a paraphilia, and I see it as quite easy to objectively label some things as a paraphilia (an atypical sexual interest). Pedophilia is one of those things, in my opinion, as I'm sure is not surprising to you. But, yeah, this is not the talk page to go into deep discussion about what does/does not constitute a paraphilia. Flyer22 (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent additions

Crzer07, regarding this, we are not including all of that. "Behavior and legal aspects" should actually be related to pedophilia. Keep in mind that, despite common usage of the term pedophilia, pedophilia is about adult sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Jailbait images, for example, is not about actual pedophilia or pedophiles. Child marriage is not much about pedophilia either; it commonly includes marriage between adults and teenagers. Sexualization in child beauty pageants is not really about pedophiles or pedophilia, although some adults who are sexually attracted to prepubescent children are drawn to child beauty pageants. Child-on-child sexual abuse is not really about pedophilia or pedophiles either (although child-on-child sexual abuse is commonly the result of a child having been sexually abused by an adult first). Yes, we include child sexual abuse on the template, but that's because some child sexual abusers are pedophiles and term child sexual abuse is often equated with pedophilia. Also, you were reverted at the Lolicon and Shotacon articles by TheFarix and by Knowledgekid87. Being reverted at those articles does not mean that you should then come here to add those articles to the pedophilia template. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I did re-add these additions, but I haven't gotten around to considering your other additions. Since the Jailbait images article does mention debate about pedophilia terminology, it might be worth it to list that article on this template. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

This definitely appears to be a case of casting the broadest net possible with the template on any article that might possibly be related to the topic, but no nessissarily8 about the topic. I've gone ahead and removed it from Online predator, Child-on-child sexual abuse, and Child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome because these articles are not directly related to pedophilia. COPINE scale is a bit more of a edge case because it is related to child pornography, but the article is not linked to on the template. Remember that navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia. And as such, every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional. —Farix (t | c) 12:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm okay with the removal here per Farix. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Before TheFarix reverted some additions, I also reverted Crzer07 on a few additions of the template, such as at the Child marriage article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)