Talk:Pedophilia

Latest comment: 3 days ago by Legitimus in topic English-speaking world

WikiProject iconPedophilia Article Watch (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.


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