This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Those wondering why WLU is suddenly deleting from this article [1] [2] should note that it coincides with the most recent round of attempts to suppress my comments on an unrelated topic (e.g. [3] [4]...), summarized here [5]. To complicate any possible assumptions of good faith, WLU has already made accusations of wikihounding [6].

If there is interest in discussing that topic, it should be reopened at Conflicts of interest (medicine). The discussion there was "nuked" from wiki space by WLU, who then specifically re-raised the topic in user space [7]. Originally, the issue only involved WhatamIdoing. WLU was personally invited by WhatamIdoing, due to his essay expressing sympathetic views [8]. BitterGrey ( talk) 08:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

2010 and 2011 have actually been relatively slow as far as this category of incivility is concerned, at least for this article. This is probably because two waves of deletions in 2009, both also triggered by events on other articles, didn't leave much to delete.

• On 17 July 2009, a series of deletions [9] [10] [11] started, coincident with a 12-16 July 2009 debate [12] on Sexology. That editor went on to violate 3RR [13] [14] [15] [16].

• In 29 January 2009, there was a prior mass deletion [17] coincident with a debate starting on 28 January 2009 [18] at diaper fetish. The debate made it's way to AN/I and wrapped up with the 30 Jan revelation that the admin accusing me of persistently inserting links to my own website wasn't aware of which website was mine [19]. ( http://understanding.infantilism.org in case you are wondering, and I wasn't inserting links to it.)

Perhaps this article is the default target for attacking me since it is the one that I've spent the most time finding references for. After how it was treated, there was little motivation to invest that quality of time into Wikipedia. Why pour my life into a resource that is actually competing with my own website, just to give them more to delete? BitterGrey ( talk) 10:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed the external links because in my opinion they did not meet with any criteria found in WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE but several criteria in WP:ELNO (as listed in my edit summary, 2, 4, 10 and 11). I reviewed the archives and found a section discussing the external links ( here) which seemed to indicate at least two other editors agreed. So after looking for something at DMOZ as a possible replacement and finding none, I removed them. Both links were added by what look like throwaway accounts with no appreciation for external links ( understandinginfantalism by Science Dog in 2 out of his/her five contributions, and the forum by an anonymous account representing one of only two contributions. In neither case is there any effort to adhere to our guidelines for external links.

As for the books, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should have informative further reading. Nancy Friday's book is about sexual fantasies which if I recall correctly does include a small number of fantasies about paraphilic infantilism but is neither scholarly, nor strongly related to the topic, I removed it. Different loving has a preview which suggests it has perhaps 20 pages in a 560 page book by Random House on the topic. I would suggest using it as a reference rather than a further reading, as that's not the point of the book. The ToyBag Guide to Age Play and Power Exchange Books' Resource Series: Age Play are both extremely short and appear focused on age play in general, not paraphilic infantalism specifically. In addition, neither are from scholarly press, and both appear to specialize in BDSM titles rather than scholarly works. In my opinion they are not good further reading titles ( WP:FURTHER isn't very helpful here), but if there is disagreement it could be resolved through a request for comment or because there are only two editors, a third opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 12:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

WLU, given your edit description when deleting one of my comments, "I can just delete this without reading it" [20], you really should be more brief. The golden rule applies even at Wikipedia. On the subject of brevity, one "book" cited four times in sexology is only 34 pages long [21]. (It is a club history, and states that it is quasi-self-published on page iv. ) This is one third as long as those "extremely short" books. wp:Further_reading doesn't mention size as a criteria for exclusion anyway.

As for the external links, there we both have a conflict of interest: I operate one of the websites, and you clearly have something against me. BitterGrey ( talk) 16:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There are no length limitations set for the citations of sources. Further reading is (in my opinion) meant for lengthy discussions of the topic of the article and should thus be both lengthy and scholarly while citations are meant to verify content and length matters less than reliability. In addition, in most cases issues in other wikipedia pages can't be used as examples of how things should be done. Since this is a wiki and anyone can edit it, other pages are poor examples since those examples may have been recently added as vandalism, or represent inappropriate additions that do not comply with the policies and guidelines. That which is why we must refer to the policies and guidelines. If, based on this discussion, you feel Bullough, 1989 is an inappropriate link for the sexology page, please remove it from that page. I admit the further reading section is more questionable than the external links which is why I suggested a 3O or RFC. Either is acceptable to me, and if we go that route I will make my case for why the books I removed should, in my opinion, not be included. I fail to see the need for multiple books each with a short section on the topic in the further reading section, particularly when there is a single scholarly source that can reasonably be assumed to include a scholarly treatment.

If you believe that a website should be included, please make your case according to WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE as that is the standard applied to external links. Neither website was scholarly (ELNO2), both essentially promoted a website rather than add encyclopedic content (by their very nature, ELNO4), one was a forum (ELNO10) and one was a personal web page (ELNO11). That is the reason I removed them, please indicate any reason why they should be returned per ELYES and ELMAYBE. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 17:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Scope and detail. wp:ELYES #3 applies: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." DSM 4 included clinically significant distress and impairment among the criteria, excluding all who have the same desires as those who meet the DSM 4 criteria for paraphilic infantilism but haven't suffered clinically significant distress or impairment. Reportedly, this will be adjusted in DSM5. Additionally, there is much detail in the EL which, if included in this article, would make it excessively long.

ELNO2 actually reads "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material" with no mention of looking academic. Might I ask which specific, deceptive factual inaccuracies you are referring to? BitterGrey ( talk) 18:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

...Seems this discussion wasn't enough to make WLU happy. The deleting has resumed [22]. BitterGrey ( talk) 18:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If either of these external links are advocacy sites, they are not neutral. If either is a personal website, they would not be considered accurate or reliable. "Accuracy" on wikipedia is akin to reliability, and reliability is determined by the expertise of the author and reputation of the publisher. Sports Illustrated publishing sports statistics would apply, a personal website would not. By being a personal website rather than say, an academic website or another publisher with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, they do not meet the criteria for ELYES. Unless the author is a recognized expert on the topic, with multiple reliable sources that cite it, or highlight it as a good source of information, there's no way to demonstrate that it's accurate or appropriate. Being a member of the community and/or personal experience is not sufficient. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 18:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"If either of these external links are advocacy sites, they are not neutral." This is a circular argument. WLU wishes to dismiss them, so they are not neutral. Being non-neutral, they must be advocacy sites. He has already made up his mind, so there is little point in discussing it. He has now moved on to removing references anyway. He's thinking about deleting more, possibly including more references. Apparently he hopes that someone else will contribute something more to delete. BitterGrey ( talk) 19:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I've separated out the sections again and changed this section's name back. These are two separate issues - the removal of external links/further reading, and reworking the citations. I've already cited this section by name and retitling it breaks that link. The original title was not a good choice since it was somewhat pointy as it attempted to imply a motivation when it's a very basic discussion of policy and as WP:TPO says, "It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate". If you're really concerned over the previous heading being important, then it is within your rights to change it back but please include the {{ formerly}} or {{ anchor}} template for navigation purposes.

I believe I'm well within the norms and expectations of the community, and kicking it to ELN will hopefully build consensus on this. It's quite routine in my experience to remove personal, advocacy and web fora pages. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 19:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the section back to it's original header. Please don't change it again. BitterGrey ( talk) 19:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

As you like, I've adjusted the ELN section accordingly.

An advocacy site attempts to advocate for something; in other words, it is not an effort to objectively summarize the "something" in question. Advocacy sites are attempts to acquire resources - material, emotional, social, etc. - for those advocating for that something and are therefore motivated to present their topic in a biased manner. I'm not dismissing them, it's the same reason we in most cases don't link to a fundraising organization's website for a medical condition.

At this point I would prefer to wait for external input from the ELN. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 21:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This issue has been raised at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Paraphilic infantilism. I am deliberately focussing on the ELNO-based reasons for removing the external links as they are the only ones germane to this discussion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 21:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want the history involved, why do you keep bringing up the two-year-old discussion from the archive [23] [24]? Also, an unbiased editor would not just focus/presume wp:elno, but consider wp:el as a whole. BitterGrey ( talk) 23:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That's the point of having archives, and it's actually akin to a best practice to review archives for evidence of a previous consensus. The fact that that section seems to support my point that other editors consider it an inappropriate external link is evidence that it may very well be inappropriate. That's a fairly weak consensus, but it's still relevant, hence my linking to it at ELN. I'm somewhat baffled that anyone would question this since it seems rather obvious - citing previous work and discussion is natural to essentially any substantive discussion. I rarely consider ELYES or ELMAYBE because most external links fairly clearly fail to meet them or fall into ELNO. EL deliberately insists on a minimal number of external links, and as it says at WP:ELPOINTS (#3), a lack of links is not a reason to include them. In my opinion it is quite apparent that the UI site clearly doesn't meet any ELYES criteria, and I also see falling under several ELNO points as well because the material is of uncertain factual accuracy, it essentially promotes the site itself, and essentially the entire site is based on the work of a single person. See my recent lengthy discussion of substantive points for the details. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 03:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

<a name=1013></a>

(This discussion was part of Talk:Paraphilic_infantilism#motivation_for_recent_deletions. It has is not separate from the broader context. BitterGrey ( talk) 20:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I've spent some time reworking the citations. I did take out some unsourced text I considered more dubious (which is permitted per WP:PROVEIT, it is up to the replacing editor to find reliable sources to verify the content) but generally did not remove very much information. I'm concerned about citations 10-13 in the Paraphilic infantilism in medicine section since they seem to be "examples" rather than "citations". It is not appropriate to cite four sources as examples of "many published cases [being] only tangentially related" as that would be a synthesis of primary source used to "prove" a point. These sources should all say within them, explicitly, that the paraphilic infantilism aspects are tangential to the overall case, in order to be used this way. I'd like to look them all up and review them but doubt I'll have time in the coming days so for now at least I'll be leaving them in. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 18:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

(The following comment was removed from its original context without my consent. BitterGrey ( talk) 20:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC))

Currently, the deletions have resulted in a 27% reduction in length and a 35% reduction in the number of references. BitterGrey ( talk) 19:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that numerous references were repeated - for instance, currently there are 17 "named" references but 34 citations (the DSM is cited 10 times for insance, but there is only one "reference" to them, the first in the reflist). The page before I started editing had 26 "named" references and 44 citations, but many of those citations were sub-par. 5 was an "informal survey" and therefore not a reliable source. 26 was understanding.infantalism which isn't a reliable source either. Several sources for the same line were combined into a single citation - for instance in the lead, 1 and 8 were both to the DSM so I combined them into a single reference to the DSM (and removed the first reference to 8 in the third paragraph because it was also to the DSM - thus three citations were actually to a single reference). The total number of reference is not really important, it is how they are used, with reference to the policies and guidelines. Simply adding more low-quality, unreliable sources makes the page worse, not better. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 19:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The page numbers are both helpful and necessary. For example, you've replaced all the specific references to DSM with just the one citation, leaving the reader no way of knowing which section is being cited. This denies the reader information that was in the article before. Additionally, it fuels future rounds of deletion, since a point that was supported by section C might not be mentioned at all by sections A or B. Of course, this might be the goal. BitterGrey ( talk)

The DSM citation is to the chapter "Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders", spanning pages 535 to 582, not the entire book. It's akin to citing an entire journal article rather than a specific page number, you don't need to narrow it down to a single page when the actual citation could be read in a single sitting. The DSM citations used previously were to pages 572-573, 568, 569-570 and 571-572 (and both 12 and 13 shouldn't really be used here since they are both rererences to pedophilia - what is needed is a reference to paraphilic infantilism being unrelated to pedophilia, this is once again a WP:SYNTH issue though one easily fixed through reference to any citation that says the two are unrelated). Strictly speaking, I could have used a page range of 568-573 rather than the whole section, but the whole section gives good context and makes sense given the topic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 21:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

So you are asserting that readers should have to wade through forty-seven pages, when only one or two of them might be relevant to a particular section of text referenced, just because you want the article to have small number of references? BitterGrey ( talk) 23:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a better idea to keep the page references at the whole chapter, but feel free to limit it to just the five if you really think it improves the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 23:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't suppose I could trouble you to put the page number information just deleted from the article back in, could I? BitterGrey ( talk) 23:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it as an important point, so no, I see no reason to include it. Are you specifically barred from editing the page due to a page ban? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 02:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping you'd clean up the mess you left. BitterGrey ( talk) 02:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider it a mess and don't see the need to correct it. I always prefer citing a whole chapter to a sampling of pages when it is a single chapter on a specific subject found within a larger edited volume. I do think the previous version with it's many duplicated sources and varying citation styles was a mess though, that's why I edited essentially all of them into citation templates and condensed ref name tags. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 03:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

<a name=1014></a>

The article is currently without any specific tags in the body, but the article-wide tags applied in 2009 remain. Since then, the article has gone through two mass deletions (40% and 27%). AGF would hold that these deletions focused on the sections that required tagging. Based on this, I think it reasonable to question or remove the tags. BitterGrey ( talk) 15:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No comments so far. Since there is no rush I'll wait another month or so. BitterGrey ( talk) 18:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

WLU, please stop this senseless edit war with Yobot (yes, a bot). You have now twice moved the disambiguation link to after the maintenance tags [25] [26]. Yobot responded by twice moving the disambig link back, before the tags [27] [28], where it was before you became involved with this article. I believe Yobot is correct because...

A) the Manual of Style clearly states "Disambiguation links should be the first elements of the page, before any maintenance tags"

B) Were Yobot incorrect, the same error would have been made on thousands of other articles, and been noticed before now. (Yobot has made some 1,358,751 edits.) BitterGrey ( talk) 05:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC) <a name=1016></a>

Now I remember why I didn't cite Malitz: "Dynamically the patient's diaper [fetish] appeared to symbolize a regression to infancy in order to reclaim the attention and love of his mother and to undo his displacement in her affections by his sister's birth." James, I seem to have missed how this applies to the text being supported. Would you mind pointing it out? BitterGrey ( talk) 06:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The text being supported was "Diaper lovers typically do not imagine themselves as babies. Rather, they more often see themselves as adults who are drawn to wearing diapers." The case reported by Malitz was just that; he was interested in using the diapers but expressed no desire to be treated like an infant. That Malitz (a psychoanalyst) interpreted the case to be a symbolic return to infancy does not suggest that the case had any actual erotic interest in being treated like an infant.

— James Cantor ( talk) 21:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

<a name=1017></a>

Others have had some time to weigh in, but haven't. It is true that, after dismissing Malitz' regressive interpretation and the maternal imagery he uses to support his interpretation, we are left with a account that is free of regressive and maternal themes. Of course, it also leaves us with an argument from silence. However, unless someone disagrees with the supported text, the amount of support that the RS offers isn't really important. BitterGrey ( talk) 22:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this new section is relevant to this page. Although there will be psychoanalytic writer who probably declare a causal connection between these, toilet training per se seems rather off topic to me. — James Cantor ( talk) 18:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

<original research> Actually, overly early, overly late, overly harsh, or insufficiently motivated toilet training aren't rare explanations to be given by AB/DLs. Given how common overly early, overly late, overly harsh, or insufficiently motivated toilet training is, this isn't surprising. The difficulties in exploring this include A) the accurate quantification necessary to meaningfully comment on the presence of the non-rare explanation set relative to the non-rare condition set, B) that AB/DLs generally don't remember their potty training well. The best I've been able to do is to contrast AB/DLs who were in diapers later in life with those who were taken out of them within the usual age ranges. To the layperson, Figure #6 is the most 'squigly' but I consider it the most telling: Basically, it shows that AB/DLs still in diapers reported an onset age distribution similar to that of other AB/DLs. This suggests that getting taken out of diapers is at most one factor among many, not the key causal factor. The other contrasts can be explained by noting that a population of would-be AB/DLs didn't feel the desire to be in diapers because they still were in diapers.</original research>

One option to consider is restoring the text " Regression is a broad term with many meanings. ABs regress, but those who regress aren't necessarily ABs" that I added it in 2006 [29]. Since Brazelton was studying infants, not infantilists, he was probably referring to general regression instead of the specific AB/DL practice. Currently, this article doesn't contrast the general and specific usage of the word.

Since Wikipedia policy is " Verifiability, not truth," the etiology with references might end up remaining, while equally frequent etiologies without references might not. (Please note that the assertion that any one cause is dominant is itself an assertion.) Most other articles haven't applied this as <POV adverb> as it has been applied here, requiring only that contested points have references. BitterGrey ( talk) 02:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia guidelines, "Citations for books typically include: name of the author(s), title of the book in italics, volume when appropriate, city of publication is optional, name of the publisher, year of publication, chapter or page number(s) where appropriate, ISBN where available ".

Furthermore, "All of the citations within each Wikipedia article should follow a consistent style." ..."Do not change the citation style used in an article merely for personal preference or cosmetic reasons. If you think the existing citation system is inappropriate for the specific needs of the article, gain consensus for a change on the talk page before changing it. This article uses APA style citations, and the APA example for books by one author is "Sheril, R. D. (1956). The terrifying future: Contemplating color television. San Diego, CA: Halstead". Please note the title and publisher.

WLU, you have now twice removed titles and publisher information from two books [30] [31], resulting in an inconsistent style (all the other citations have titles, etc.) and removing useful information. These changes have not been discussed, much less supported by a consensus. Would you please explain why? BitterGrey ( talk) 21:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not switching between parenthetical and footnotes. Parenthetical looks like this (Smith, 2000). Footnotes look like this.^[1] I'm eliminating duplicate citations by splitting the references and footnotes into separate sections, the refinement discussed here. The information is not removed, if you click on the author's last name in the footnote you will see it links to the full reference. This allows the same reference to be linked to multiple inline citations. The alternative is multiple lengthy citations to the same book whenever you cite a different page. See also WP:IBID and WP:SFN. The edits I made have the advantage of including hyperlinks to the full citation, though otherwise it's substantially identical. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 18:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

To the contrary, you ARE removing information. Five sentences were deleted in that edit [32]. Additionally, the previous version directed readers to the specific, relevant subsections. Your version removes this information. For example, you are asking them to weed through the forty-seven pages of the DSM, when only one or two might be relevant to the point being referenced. Neither of those style guides require the removal of this information, nor even the change in style that you are pushing. We've been through all this before. Feel free to share why it is such an issue now. BitterGrey ( talk) 18:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a completely separate issue. This section was removed because there was no indication Brazelton specifically linked toilet training to daiper fetishism. If it actually does, please provide a quote to verify. These sentences were removed per WP:PROVEIT. This sentence was a simple move since it didn't fit in the section it was in. If you can find a better place for it, then please feel feee. This is the edit where I compacted the citations. No information was removed. Your justification of " per prior discussion" doesn't work. All page numbers are retained, the DSM goes from being three different references to different pages in the same set of five pages, to a single reference to the full five-page range. Quite reasonable. And as I've referenced here, I'm not switching between citations, I'm shortening footnotes per the guidelines. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 19:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that I've replaced the short footnotes, this time using the {{ sfn}} template. It's substantively the same as using a cite ID tag but uses a template which is neat. Either is fine in my mind. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 19:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

And again you've deleted page number information [33]. You are now at 3RR: [34] [35] [36] The ability to check references is important to me, so I think it is important to have specific page information in the article. If you'd like to share why this is so important all of a sudden, perhaps we can make some progress toward a mutually acceptable middle ground. BitterGrey ( talk) 20:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any page number information removed, none whatsoever, can you be more specific? Also, you've undone my shortened footnotes which you have failed to justify. Please clarify why you are undoing the reference improvements. Finally, if we continue to disagree, how do you wish to resolve it? What form of dispute resolution would you prefer? My preference would be a simple third opinion.

You've also asked "why now" and my reply is my reasons don't matter, only my references to policy. Are there any policy-based objections to my changes? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 10:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It is possible that you didn't realize you had deleted text from the article when arguing that your version was "substantially identical," just as you didn't realize that your previous edit war here was with a bot, and don't realize that you are removing page number information now. If my previous explanations were unclear, I can explain it again.

In a bit over three hours, you've gone from uninvolved to 3RR after deleting 22% of the article [37]. This clearly suggests a strong motivation, not an arbitrary formatting choice. Last time around, you accused me of many things, including asking an admin for advice (which I thought was permitted per Wikipedia guidelines). This time, I thought I'd give you every opportunity to share a good-faith rationale for you sudden, strong motivation. BitterGrey ( talk) 13:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Your previous explanations are unclear. What information did I remove that is not justified? Keeping in mind, "removing text" is completely justified if it is unsourced, per WP:PROVEIT. Otherwise, your commentary is not clear enough to see exactly what I did that was inappropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 13:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

In the "substantially identical" edit [38], you deleted five sentences that had five references among them. I'm aware that an editor can chant proveit no matter how many references are cited. This too does not explain why these deletions are so important to you all of a sudden. I know you objected to my previous comments about why your last round of edits occurred. Now you are chanting proveit as a justification for removing citations. The same factors that I suspected were causal then are again present. Were I to have forecast a behavior pattern that confirmed my comments, this would be it. If there is a good-faith reason, please share it with us.

As for middle ground, please note that I haven't reverted most of the deletions you made in this present outburst [39]. I would strongly prefer to keep the reference details, however. They are small, don't take up that much space on the page, and as references, they are inherently referenced. I can see no good-faith reason why someone would edit-war to remove them. BitterGrey ( talk) 15:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide me a quote of the sentences I deleted, or even the first three words? I simply can't see any in the edit you provide.

An editor can not claim PROVEIT as a justification if a source is provided. The only time I removed text as unsourced/PROVEIT was this one, which your reverts have yet to replace.

I've removed no reference details, I turned three references to a six-page range of the DSM (pages 568, 569-70 and 572-3) into a single reference to the full six-page range (568-573). As far as I can tell, the text and citations to the DSM are exactly the same, it's just 9 citations instead of 15. For example, in the current version the block of text starting with "Although there is no typical..." is referenced to pages 572-3 (footnote 2) and 569-70 (footnote 7); by collapsing to one citation of the five pages it's becomes one reference to 568-73. Ditto for the lead, everything in the first paragraph after "DLs and ABs differ in..." is now cited to that same page range, once - one citation instead of five.

I'm pretty sure your 3O request is malformed, the description isn't neutral and you're mis-stating the actual dispute. Also, as I've tried to make clear above, you appear to believe I'm still citing a full chapter of the DSM when I'm only citing the relevant five pages. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 15:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"I've removed no reference details" is untrue. For example, this edit [40] replaced "DLs and ABs differ in self-image and the focus of attention.[2][7]" with "DLs and ABs differ in self-image and the focus of attention." (unreferenced) Given how eager people have been (and continue to be) to delete material from this article, it is important to keep the citations specific and detailed. Some times it has even been necessary to cite references in mid-sentence to prevent deletion. Why is removing this detail so important to you? BitterGrey ( talk) 16:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I had wondered if that was the issue. The entire paragraph was referenced to the six page range of the DSM-IV TR. There is now a single citation for the entire paragraph. Compare the text, I replaced the ref tags <ref name = DSM_inf/> (pages 569-70) and <ref name=DSM_fetish/> (pages 572-3) with a single reference to the six pages I mnetioned above, 568-73 (ditto <ref name=DSM_568> in the paragraph previous to the one we're discussing). Essentially, instead of having three different references (<ref name=DSM_568>, page 568, <ref name = DSM_inf/>, pages 569-70 and <ref name=DSM_fetish/>, pages 572-3) there was a single reference <ref name = DSM/>, pages 568-573. And instead of citing every single sentence in the paragraph, there's a single citation to just the DSM pages 568-573. No loss of text, no loss of citation. So nothing was deleted. Given that, can we revert to the abbreviated version with the {{ sfn}} tags for neater citations? No-one is challenging any of the text sourced to the DSM. If you'd prefer, we could use the SFN template to replace the DSM and put the full DSM citation in the references section like I did with Stekel and Money. I don't see much added value, but it serves the same purpose. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 16:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

<a name=1015></a>

I've set up Misza bot to archive the old posts. It'll always ensure there's a couple heading that remain but will cull out the ones older than 30 days.

I've also compacted the archives - they were 6 archives that weren't topic-based, and none were particularly large. Generally an archive is around 250K and these were more in the 60K range for the most part. For some reason I'm not getting a "this is longer than X K" warning so I'm only guessing at the size. There's really no point in having a half-dozen small archives when it just means the servers have to do more work. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 17:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I've disabled Miszabot. This talk page doesn't get enough traffic to require automated archiving. However - and most importantly - the discussion from the last round is relevant in this round. Same deletions, same deleter. I'm sure WLU would like to make this seem like a new issue and suppress a pattern that strongly confirms my observations from last time. Again, WLU, if you have a good faith reason for WP:GAMING 3RRR [41] [42] [43] [44] to avoid waiting for a third opinion, let's hear it. BitterGrey ( talk) 02:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I am entitled to three reverts within a 24 hour period like all editors. In addition, the issues are separate like the edits are separate- the DSM is irrelevant but for one sentence, so its removal is totally unrelated to the formatting of the Money and Stekel citations, the only thing relevant to the 3O now. I removed the DSM because it failed verification, and it still does. The only exception is the note that some masochists do wear diapers and enjoy being treated as infants, but that's primarily an issue of masochists rather than a generalization that can be applied to all paraphilic infantilists. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 01:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

So you agree that archiving was just one tactic in the broader conflict? If I left a trail as clear as the one you left, I'd try to hide it too. By the way, thanks for justifying those anchor tags that I added. Otherwise they might have seemed silly. BitterGrey ( talk) 03:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The current references to the DSM all use google books anchors for page 535 despite referencing pages 568-73. Also, a search for "infantilism" turns up only a single mention on what appears to be a single page (572, see [45]). I'm going to try to get my hands on a copy over the next week or so and see if the text the DSM is used to justify is actually justified. I was a little surprised to see five full pages on the topic considering how rare I believe it is and how little research is done on it.

Also interesting, page 23 lists the paraphilias (where paraphilic infantilism is ostensibly discussed). It lists exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism, pedophilia sadism and masochism between pages 568-73. That seems like an awfully broad range of topics for paraphilic infantilism to be menitoned in. Is the page range being used to indicate that each topic does not address paraphilic infantilism (i.e. "pedophilia doesn't mention infanitlism therefore it's unrelated")? If so, I think that would fall into original research. Another possibility is the edition originally cited is different and thus the page range and discussion is different. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 18:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I've checked against a copy of the DSM-IV-TR and the only discussion of infantilism occurs under the heading of masochism. It is quite obvious that the discussion is regards masochists who are "forced" to wear infant's clothing and diapers. The figure of 1 in 20 for female to male is regarding masochists again, not infantilism in general. It only says of paraphilias in general that females are exceedingly rare, though women do still exhibit paraphilias in general. I'll be removing all references to the DSM as the entire page range is irrelevant as far as I can tell. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 23:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for so clearly demonstrating my point. The DSM isn't easy reading, so those who aren't really interested can easily miss important parts. Those who aren't really interested, and eager to delete, then end up deleting a lot of well-referenced material. For example, the sex ratios are discussed on the page that was referenced before you removed page details.

Also, thanks for demonstrating that this was never about formatting, contrary to your initial assertion, but the intent to remove citations and then tag or delete the newly unreferenced text as unreferenced. If you were seeking a peaceful resolution to this conflict why would you game 3RR and not wait for a third opinion? Would you care to discuss why you so urgently need to delete? BitterGrey ( talk) 02:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The DSM doesn't discuss paraphilic infantilism, period. All references to it should be removed. I've got pages 568-573, I've read them all, paraphilic infantilism doesn't appear. I've verified the text (or absence of text), now can you point out, via quote, the section that justifies the text that used to be there? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 11:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU above: "I've read them all, paraphilic infantilism doesn't appear." Then minutes later: WLU@RSN "Page 572 does mention infantilism..the two are different paraphilias." [46]. Clearly both statements cannot be true. BitterGrey ( talk) 16:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

See discussion at RS/N BitterGrey ( talk) 04:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

That's what the DSM says about the sex ratio of sexual masochists, not paraphilic infantilists, and infantilism. The word infantilism does appear for one behaviour that some individuals who are sexual masochists engage in. If paraphilic infantilism only appears as a form of masochism, the page should redirect to masochism. Is paraphilic infantilism a form of masochism, the desire to be hurt and humiliated, or is it a sexualization of infancy? And if so, is there a suitable reference saying so? I see this as a fairly clear synthesis of material. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 01:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the 20:1 ratio in the DSM for masochism (and the various types of masochism, including infantilism) is widely accepted and reproducible:

• Dr. Speaker's 1986 dissertation observed 26:1 (pg 78).
• Dave's 2001 survey gave 7%.
• <original research> My own survey showed that the AB/DL population was around 8% female.

The 7% and 8% values included paraphilic infantilists and non-paraphilic AB/DLs. For example, the wives of paraphilic infantilists who developed an interest in being an AB/DL would be included in the 7% and 8% values, but not the 20:1 ratio. </original research> Feel free to cite those as well if you think more references are needed. I don't. BitterGrey ( talk) 04:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Your survey is not reliable. Was Dr. Speaker's dissertation published in a peer reviewed journal or comparable publication? Ditto for Dave's survey. If the answer is no to both questions, then the best we could do would be to attribute the ratio to Speaker's dissertation with a statement of "A doctoral dissertation conducted by Speaker in 1986 found a sex ratio of 26 males for every female". It's not perfect, I'd rather a better citation, but the DSM is not appropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 13:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I saw this on the third opinion page, and having had a go at reading the various comments am now a tad confused as to what exactly the nature of the disagreement is...? Has it just been resolved above, or are there still outstanding issue? I'm a bit confused, so any clarity on this would be helpful, particularly as to the status of the DSM page range ref. MissionNPOVible ( talk) 09:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The DSM doesn't contain any information on paraphilic infantilism, so that issue is moot. Now the sole issue is (for me anyway) about the use of {{ sfn}} to replace the Money and Stekel. Compare these versions, focusing on Money and Stekel.

If you have any access to a copy of the DSM-IV-TR, it would be helpful if you could also check pages 568-573 for any reference to paraphilic infantilism, but that is not part of the 3O. The sole mention of infantilism is on page 572, within the context of masochism (see #DSM references above) but an actual copy of the book would be better as it illustrates my point pretty clearly. That's outside the scope of the 3O however, but Bittergrey will not let this point go otherwise. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 11:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

e/c Well I think that large templates that make editing more difficult should be avoided whenever possible, however this is a matter of editor preference and given I have no intention of editing this article it is perhaps unhelpful/improper of me to offer an opinion on that matter. I do have access to DSM IV-TR and can check tomorrow, but from my search of the google version it seems you are correct. So would you agree Bittergrey that those are the two main issues? I just noticed you've posted the DSM issue on the RSN. Is this really a matter of RS? The DSM is obviously a RS, I think your issue is that the information doesn't exist in the DSM. If this is true then an alternative RS should be found. MissionNPOVible ( talk) 11:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the other editor is doing his best to obscure things. Originally, he hoped to have this dismissed as a mere formatting conflict [47]. WLU had reached 3RR before questioning the DSM. At the time, I was pretty sure he was just "consolidating" reference details so that more sentences would appear unreferenced, and therefore appear more deletable. This has been shown to be true. (He had already deleted most of the previously unreferenced text [48], so the references were in the way of further deletion.) Removing the details also makes it harder for others to check details. For example, in terms of sex ratio, the correct page was listed, but I'd understand people going to the wrong place first if they didn't now what that page was. (Since I've used the actual books, I don't rely on Google.)

Now that WLU has moved on to deleting the previously referenced text, he's claiming that it is some issue with the DSM. Perhaps with your involvement and with RSN, I'll be able to resolve this. That WLU isn't seeking a peaceful resolution is clear this round in that he didn't wait for a third opinion. It was also clear last round, when he picked an edit war with a bot [49] after his previous round of deletions [50].

Of course, I believe that the DSM is relevant and reliable. However, I do not believe that the relevance or reliability of the DSM is the real issue here. I have repeatedly asked WLU what the real issue is. BitterGrey ( talk) 15:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The DSM is obviously reliable, but it is almost entirely irrelevant to this page. The sole exception would be the note that some masochists enjoy being treated like an infant and dressed in diapers, but that is a subset of masochism, you can't say everything that applies to masochism applies to paraphilic infantilism. That's the sole issue as far as I'm concerned regarding the DSM. Confirmation that the page range is irrelevant to the page would be welcome but it's beyond the scope of the 3O.

As far as the 3O goes, as far as I'm concerned it's whether we should use the {{ sfn}} or not. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 00:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU, you might wish to retract statements like "I've read them all, paraphilic infantilism doesn't appear" [51]. I've spent enough time with multiple versions of the DSM to know that in IIIR and later it most certainly does. Please concede this, even if as just a show of good faith. There is no point arguing how much DSM has to say about infantilism while you are asserting that it does not mention it at all.

As for relegating MissionNPOVible's input to the rationale that you've already abandoned, that would be MissionNPOVible's decision, not yours. BitterGrey ( talk) 01:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I stand by my statement. "Paraphilic infantilism" is indeed absent from the DSM. Infantilism does appear once, as an activity undertaken by masochists. You can't apply a single word in an unrelated section to apply to the entire section. You would need a source that says all infantilists are masochists and specifically that all the masochism sections of the DSM apply to all infantilists. Where would you like to request outside input? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 01:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This'll probably save time. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Lack_of_references_in_the_DSM WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 11:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You guys are edit warring over content while it is being discussed at dispute resolution. Not a good thing. If you don't calm it down and discuss this on the talk page or dispute resolution forums I'll have to suggest that the page be fully protected until a consensus emerges on how to handle this. Them From Space 16:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and protected the page for three days. Hopefully that will provide a pause which will allow editors to work towards consensus. If that is not possible then other dispute resolution steps should be taken.   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully we'll be able to resolve this, or at least find out what the real issue is. BitterGrey ( talk) 22:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The real issue is that the DSM is not relevant for the most part. The DSM should be cited once, only to note that masochists will sometimes have a desire to be dressed in diapers and treated as an infant. Everything else discussed in the pages doesn't apply. I have read the pages, and find this to be self-evident. How do you want to resolve this? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 01:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU, you were already at 3RR before discussing the DSM. You even modified my third opinion request to claim this was a formatting conflict [52]. If you'd be willing to share what the problem really is, we might be able to resolve it and not have to go through this again in another three months. BitterGrey ( talk) 01:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem now is that you believe the DSM discusses paraphilic infantilism when it doesn't. Does that mean you agree that Stekel and Money's references should use the {{ sfn}} or similarly compact template? Since the DSM will be removed bar a single reference to page 572, it is a nonissue leaving only the {{ sfn}} citation template. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 02:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

So the DSM has suddenly gone from "The real issue" (01:13) to "a nonissue" (02:00)? We would like to know what the real issue really is. There was clearly strong motivation fueling the edit war: Most editors wouldn't game 3RR over something trivial, like an arbitrary formatting option. The conflict won't really be solved until we address the real motivations. BitterGrey ( talk) 02:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

OK can I just jump in here and try to get some clarity. What exactly is the DSM being cited for that is specifically relevant to paraphilic infantilism? What exactly is the DSM not providing sufficient evidence for, and are there other RS's that do provide the necessary verifiability? MissionNPOVible ( talk) 09:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The DSM is cited in the current, protected version, as citations 2, 6 and 7. I would say that none of those apply, the only thing I would cite using the DSM would be that infantilism is a behaviour sometimes seen in masochists as part of their desire to be humiliated (or something similar). There are no other sources for these points. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 12:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, an excellent summary of the situation appears here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 12:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

MissionNPOVible, the section on infantilism (under the heading masochism) is being used for information about infantilism, the section on fetishism is being used for information about diaper fetishism (a fetish for diapers), and the section on sex ratios is being used for information about sex ratios. It is greatly fortunate that we still have reference details. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to differentiate between the three.

One change that is expected in DSM 5 is the inclusion of people who haven't suffered clinically significant distress or impairment. Until that change in terminology, infantilists and those with common interests (but maybe not clinically significant distress or impairment) are called ABs. Similarly, diaper fetishists with and without are called DLs. This terminology is widely used, but for obvious reasons, not in the DSM currently.

I'd recommend checking the truth for one's self. So far, no neutral party has gotten involved at RSN. WLU has merely been joined by two other editors fresh from the same conflict with me elsewhere on Wikipedia. (He has yet to provide any other reason why this, which he initially asserted was just a "disagreement about reference formatting", has become so complicated and urgent.

It would have been so much simpler if he had just stopped and waited for a third opinion. Of course, that might have meant dealing with the details of the DSM references, as is happening now. His edits show that he was hoping to consolidate, generalize, dismiss, and delete. At least now, after I stood up to keep the reference details in place, we can have a specific discussion, although he still has yet to share what the real issue is. BitterGrey ( talk) 15:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the simple solution here is to provide additional RS's that supplement (and eventually replace?) the current DSM references. I think that once the additional refs are in place it would then be possible to start going through and removing any refs that are less appropriate/accurate - DSM or otherwise. Would anyone object to that approach? MissionNPOVible ( talk) 00:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Bittergrey is right that I did comment on another editing issue. I'm not "aligned" as such in this and related conflicts and, as it happens, I would be happy for this article to reflect the actual state of play in the AB/DL community or communities rather than to fit it into a psychiatric category. Actually, I'd argue that decent sources from the AB/DL community should be used to construct a better article. In terms of detailing the activities of ABs and DLs publications from those within the community, particularly if it's been through an editorial process (i.e. not self-published) should not be controversial sources. In terms of the medical literature, it is very small and this might reflect the fact that the majority of "infantilists" do not suffer from psychosis, affective disorders or personality disorders and hence do not present at clinics in sufficient numbers for psychiatrists to construct them as an object of knowledge. In terms of the medical sources there are:

(1) Cantor's chapter (with Blanchford and Barbaree) in the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology. This is available from User:James Cantor. He emailed me a copy and it might be handy if everyone involved in this article got a copy. It's a review of the existing literature on the paraphilias. Aside from containing some useful information on the paraphilias generally, it dedicates about 250 words to "infantilism". It contains some details of reported behaviours associated with infantilism (wearing diapers, wishing to be rocked by a sexual partner, use of baby props, etc). Additionally it surveys all of the relevant medical literature on the subject (not much).

(2) J.E. Pate and G.O. Gabbard (2003), 'Adult baby syndrome', American Journal of Psychiatry,160: 1932-1936. It's only based on one case and its not without its flaws but this is a really interesting paper. I can email anyone who wants it a copy of this paper. It details Pate's "treatment" of an adult baby. Pate was at that time a young and inexperienced clinician. Her client was a cop who used to arrive at their sessions dressed as a baby and appears to have used the meetings as a means of enacting his fantasies. Pate never gets a handle on him, but it's fascinating. Also of note is that while this adult baby had some social impairment (arguably due to the social unacceptability of his behaviour rather than anything intrinsic to his Adult Baby behaviour) he was competent at his job, financially secure and he discontinued his therapy only when it appears that it was no longer satisfying his role playing. The latter part of the article is written by Gabbard, who is the consultant psychiatrist. He discusses the literature - largely dismissing the 1960s studies of Malitz and Tuchman & Lachmann as detailing only partial instances of Adult Babies. He also gets into a bit of psychodynamic object relations theory which is of limited use. More relevant to the needs of this article he discusses the prevalence of Adult Babies on the web, that most of them do not perceive themselves as patients and enjoy their behaviour and role play. FiachraByrne ( talk) 01:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

If what you say is right FB - and I'm not casting aspersions - it is starting to sound like this article could be a candidate for deletion on notability grounds. If there is so little by way of RS's available then it may not warrant a WP article. I wonder if that is part of the backdrop to this dispute... I'm inclined to harden my previous position and suggest that RS's need to be found to justify the existence of the article in the first instance, and then move on to what content they specifically support. If this is such a marginal area of the literature it may not justify a separate article and it might be better to merge it with another article, such as being an instance of Paraphilia. MissionNPOVible ( talk) 01:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree and as it happens I've found some new material. I don't think that there's any question that it's a notable topic and it would easily survive an application for its deletion. Here are the three articles from the 1960s.

(3) Tuchman WW, Lachman JH (1964), 'An unusual perversion: the wearing of diapers and rubber pants in a 29-year-old male', Am J Psychiatry 120:1198–1199. I can't access this. Gabbard summarises this article as detailing the case of patient facing legal charges for molesting his young daughters. He wore rubber pants over a diaper and liked to urinate and masturbate in it. No indication of being an Adult Baby. Fetishtic and sexual relationship to diapers and rubber pants.

(4) Malitz S (1966), 'Another report on the wearing of diapers and rubber pants by an adult male', Am J Psychiatry, 122:1435–1437. I can't access this. Gabbard summarises this article as detailing the case of 20 yr old student who had been arrested for breaking and entering into a house. The reason he gave for this was that he had a compulsion to wear diapers and to defecate in them. Defecation was often accompanied by orgasm regardless of whether he masturbated. He also enjoyed wearing rubber pants over his diapers. He did not think of himself as a baby. Gabbard reasons that this cases demonstrates features of anti-social behaviour and of a fetishtistic or sexual relationship to diapers and rubber pants. Not an adult baby.

(5) Dinello FA (1967), 'Stages of treatment in the case of a diaper-wearing seventeen-year-old male', Am J Psychiatry, 124:94–96. I can't access this. Gabbard describes this case as involving a 17-year-old boy who wore diapers under his clothing, took a baby bottle and ate baby food. He masturbated while wearing his diaper. He gave up wearing diapers and started wearing women's clothes. Adult Baby.

(6) Bethell, M. F. (1974), 'A rare manifestation of fetishism', Archives of Sexual Behavior, 3,301-302. I can't access this. Cantor: involvement of baby props and behaviours and sexual excitement, masturbation and ejaculation

- Just found a few more accessible articles in the Archives of Sexual Behaviour FiachraByrne ( talk) 01:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

- Just to counter the contention that this is a non-notable topic I'm going to list all other relevant scholarly articles and communications I've found on the topic.

(6) Croarkin, P., Nam, T., & Waldrep, D. (2004). Comment on adult baby syndrome [Letter to the Editor]. American Journal of Psychiatry, 161, 2141.

(7) Evcimen, H., & Gratz, S. (2006). Adult baby syndrome [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 115–116.

(8) Lehne, G. K.,& Money, J. (2003). Multiplex versus multiple taxonomy of paraphilia: Case example. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 15, 61–72.

(9) Pettit, I., & Barr, R. (1980). Temporal lobe epilepsy with diaper fetishism and gender dysphoria. Medical Journal of Australia, 2, 208–209.

(10) Kristina Kise and Mathew Nguyen (2011). Adult Baby Syndrome and Gender Identity Disorder. Archives of Sexual Behavior (epub. ahead of print addition)

(11) Robert, Dickey (2007). Commentary on “Adult Baby Syndrome” by Evcimen and Gratz (2006). Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36:131–132

FiachraByrne ( talk) 02:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(12) Patriquin, Martin. Won't you be my baby? Maclean's; 3/5/2007, Vol. 120 Issue 8, p71-72, 2p, 1 Color Photograph [The article reports on adult daycare in Montreal, where adult men pay to be treated like a baby. Adult Baby Lovers and Diaper Lovers (ABDL) purports to be one of the first places in North America catering to grown men who find comfort and pleasure in reliving the helplessness of childhood. The owner of the daycare claims there is no sexual contact. Some say infantilism is a matter of degrees, while others argue it is a male-dominated submission fetish.]

FiachraByrne ( talk) 02:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Books & Magazines

1. Mary Ann Mattoon Chicago 1992: The Transcendent Function: Individual and Collective Aspects, p. 207.
2. Melissa Hope Ditmore Encyclopedia of prostitution and sex work, Volume 1, p. 238 integrated WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex
3. Irving B. Weiner, W. Edward Craighead, The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology, Volume 3 - I don't think we can use this WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex
4. Frederick Kaufman, Our binkies our selves: the adult baby boom, p. 55 integrated WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex
5. Gloria G. Brame, Come hither: a commonsense guide to kinky sex, p. 174
6. Stacey Weiss, Secrets of a Phone Sex Operator, p.65
7. June Rathbone, Anatomy of masochism, p. 114
8. Christopher E. Forth, Ivan Crozier, Body parts: critical explorations in corporeality, p. 136
9. Gloria G. Brame, William Brame, William D. Brame, Jon Jacobs, Different loving: the world of sexual dominance and submission
10. Lorelei, The Mistress Manual: The Good Girl's Guide to Female Dominance
11. Barker, Paul Fantabulosa: a dictionary of Polari and gay slang

FiachraByrne ( talk) 03:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm not adverse to the addition of references to the article. This conflict was to prevent the removal of reference information, with the intent to weaken the references as a prelude to deleting the once-referenced text. I think the value of my position has been demonstrated in that we can discuss specific pages in the DSM, instead of the forty-seven-page chapter [53].

I will, of course, continue assert that those articles only tangentially related to infantilism be discussed as such. For example, the patient described in "Epilepsy with fetishism relieved by temporal lobectomy" presented with epileptic symptoms, involving a safety pin but without mention of diapers or babyhood. (<original research> While half the mostly AB/DL responses to a 2008-2009 survey reported an interest in sadomasochism or power exchange, and two-thirds in baby-themed activities that involve restraint or punishment, only around 2% of AB/DLs reported having been diagnosed with epilepsy. </original research>

Additionally, Tuchman & Lachman conclude "The regressive quality and symbolism of the behavior pattern suggest a schizophrenic mechanism." I'm not aware of a reliable source that considers schizophrenia a paraphilia.

While we're on the topic, I'll point out that Malitz wrote "Dynamically the patient's diaper [fetish] appeared to symbolize a regression to infancy in order to reclaim the attention and love of his mother and to undo his displacement in her affections by his sister's birth." Regressing to infancy to reclaim maternal affection is inherently infantile. In Cantor's book, he cites Malitz, Tuchman, and Lachman to support the text "There have also been reports of individuals ... who express no desire to seem like an infant (Malitz, 1966, Tuchman & Lachman, 1964)" This is, at best, a seriously flawed interpretation of the sources.

Still, I'd be OK with citing the actual sources appropriately and in accordance with our conflict of interest policy. BitterGrey ( talk) 07:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That quote of my chapter is incorrect. The whole quote is "There have also been reports of individuals who wear diapers while masturbating but express no desire to seem like an infant" (emphasis added). That same sentence continues, saying "it is not known if these individuals were hiding such imagery from their clinicians or if these individuals had an incomplete form of infantilism".

— James Cantor ( talk) 14:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

So I point out that you cited a case of schizophrenia and a case of "regression to infancy...to reclaim the attention and love of his mother" to support that "There have also been reports of individuals who ... express no desire to seem like an infant" and your only counterargument is to point out that (at 2AM) I left out an ellipsis? I've added it, and it doesn't affect my point at all. Towards the goal of integrity, you should add the citations to your version. Of course, then people would be able to see that the obscuring continuation you added follows after the citations and after a semicolon.

Malitz' patient actually seems to have been quite open about the maternal and regressive themes in his fantasies.

For those not hoping to mash all paraphilias (excluding their own pet paraphilia, homosexuality) together into some "autosomething" neologism, it is so much simpler to accept separate conditions of infantilism and fetishism. ( Cantor's promoting his and his colleague's "autosomething" neologisms might have been one factor in his failed attempt to delete the Androphilia_and_gynephilia article. )

Fortunately, there is a widely accepted diagnostic standard that doesn't carelessly mash schizophrenia, infantilism, fetishes, etc. together; the DSM. BitterGrey ( talk) 15:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

FiachraByrne & MissionNPOVible: Hope you two don't mind that I've been focusing on refs based on what points they might support or counter, instead of a big list of ones that mention infantilism. (I even dusted off my copy of Brame's older book, which interviewed a few of the more established members of the AB/DL community.) Let me know if there is a question about the old articles: I think I have copies of all the worthwhile ones mentioned above.

In general, it is best to assume that infantilism-related features are overemphasized in old articles. For example, Dinello's patient had "psychological and social retardation" as well as retarded physical growth (pg 132). His use of diapers might have been mainly for moral reasons: "He felt he was not able to achieve an orgasm by any means other than wearing diapers. This approach also satisfied him on religious grounds since he felt manipulative masturbation was morally wrong but orgasm achieved through the pressure of the diaper was not within his control." (pg 133) The diapers were traded for women's clothing and a girdle. "The girdle had the same masturbative effect as the diaper had." (pg 133) These were then replaced with a vacuum cleaner. It is an interesting case of diaper use (for a period of only about 29 months), but not even Dinello seems to have considered it a diaper fetish. BitterGrey ( talk) 00:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I believe this page passes notability as well. I've integrated some of the above sources but I don't know if we'll be able to use all of them. Several are case studies or reports of individual experiences (either as adult babies or as sex workers who have worked with adult babies). I've included what I could write up so far. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 14:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent FB - that settles the notability issue. So the question reverts back to the original one, which of these can be used as RS's for the statements currently attributed to the DSM? From what I can tell the following claims need to be sourced:

i) The majority of infantilists are heterosexual males

ii) DLs and ABs differ in self-image and the focus of attention

iii) Neither includes a sexual preference for children

iv) Desires and tastes of paraphilic infantilists vary around common themes of diapers and babyhood

v) AB is an interest in roleplaying as a baby or small child, called infantilism

vi) DL's focus on diapers as sexual fetish items

vii) Infantilism and diaper fetishism and should not be confused with basic paraphilias

viii) There is a ratio of ~10-20 males per female AB/DL

I imagine these should just about all be attributable to one or more of those sources... MissionNPOVible ( talk) 03:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion

i) & viii) Probably. But if you're using the DSM to support this I think you would have to say that the AB/DL/Infantilism is regarded as either a paraphilia (DSM paraphilia unspecified - the refractory ward for all the other many paraphilias) or as a behaviour associated with another specific paraphilia that falls into a distinct DSM diagnostic category (Masochism). Then you can say that the DSM records that individuals with paraphilic behaviours are almost invariably men except for masochists where there is a higher proportion of women (20:1 according to the DSM but other sources put the ratio of females much higher I think). I'm not aware of any literature that says they're mostly heterosexual.

ii) We can source that but not from the DSM.

iii) This seems true. But getting a source that says that might be difficult particularly as I think some of the sources, almost all of which deal with individual cases, do record instances of sexual abuse by AB/DL people. Of course most AB/DL people do not present at clinics so one of the most frequent routes to a medical encounter is through legal transgressions. Therefore AB/DLs who engage in a criminal activity, particularly one in association with their paraphilia, are going to be way over-represented in the extremely small sample that have come under medical scrutiny. However, I think if the paraphilia is described as fully as possible it should be evident that there's no association between the behaviour and desires of AB/DL and sexual desire for children. Wait. Actually - I remember one source that said infantilism was the direct opposite of paedophilia (which actually makes sense). I'll try and find it.

iv) Supportable I think.

v) Supportable.

vi) I'd like bittergrey to elaborate on that.

vii) The article as it was constructed appeared to argue implicitly (and arguing implicitly was a real problem with the original article) that DL was fetish and AB was a sexual masochism. Or rather, it applied the general descriptions from the DSM of fetishism and sexual masochism and applied it to DL and AB respectively although the DSM only instanced infantilism as one mode of behaviour seeking humiliation by another. Some sources, following the DSM, discuss infantilism (rather than DL) as a form of masochism. Others treat it as a distinct paraphilia. Also, if diaper fetishism is a fetish it falls into one of the basic DSM categories. Now, if we want to treat DL in this way, first we need to get a decent source that says DL is fetish and fits the DSM criteria and then we could state that as a fetish DL shares the following traits in common with other fetishes and list them. FiachraByrne ( talk) 15:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Mind a few questions to explore where we are and how far we have to go? It would be a shame to waste a lot of time making a case for things we already agree upon.

1) Do we accept the common terminology of 'adult baby(AB)' for an infantilist or someone with desires similar to an infantilism but might or might not be diagnosed as one due to Criterion B? (Having studied the broad diversity of AB/DLs, I can understand why Criterion B was diagnostically necessary, even though it did define all infantilists as having suffered clinically significant distress or impairment.) Similarly, do we accept 'diaper lover(DL)' for diaper fetishists with and without, and 'AB/DL' for the population as a whole? <original research> Around 40% of AB/DLs reported meeting Criterion B.</original research>

(Please note that this does not mean that ABs and DLs are equal or interchangeable, just that they generally have a lot in common.)

2) A number of the references above were in the article before but were deleted for one reason or another. My preference would be to only seek that history if it might be useful somehow (such as being able to copy and paste the old citations and convenience links). Are we in agreement about this?

3) Do we accept the DSM diagnostic criteria (the document's main intent)?

4) Do we have any objections to the words "costumes" or "props?"

5) Do we accept that a) since some/many of the AB/DL population doesn't meet Criterion B, b) most don't seek medical help(refs #3 and #9), c) this article hasn't been part of wikiproject medicine for a while; that some references will be outside the medical domain? (Yes, I'm aware that original research will need to be limited to the discussions back here.) BitterGrey ( talk) 08:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

1. ) There's good support for the use of term AB as synonymous with infantilism. There's less support for the term Diaper Lover. They're both community terms, right? And doctors appear to have adopted the term AB (and thus made it "authoritative") but not so DL (although they describe some of the behaviours associated with it. Moreover, there's real confusion over how these terms are applied in the medical and other literature. Sometimes AB and DL are discussed as manifestations of the same underlying and distinct paraphilia. Sometimes DL is treated as an unrealised or partial instance of infantilism. Sometimes DL is treated as a fetish activity. Sometimes AB is treated as instance of masochism. I think it would be good, if sources are available, to get a handle on how the AB/DL community defines itself and then compare that to how the medical or other literature defines them. DSM as set up now is a bit stupid in regard to the description of the paraphilias - i.e. they only exist where a social, occupational or other impairment is present as a result of the paraphilia. It should not be a problem referencing the working group on paraphilias for DSM V and their contention (and supporting literature) that a distinction should be introduced between paraphilias and paraphilic disorders.
2. ) That's impossible to answer until it is produced. Copy and paste any deleted sections you want reinserted into this talk page and we can look at them I guess.
3. ) This troubles me given the use of the DSM in this article. I'd like you to explicitly state what you mean by this. Certainly we can get sources that treat infantilism or AB as a paraphilia (e.g. Cantor). We could then reference the general statements from the DSM on the paraphilias (e.g. AB or infantilism, while sometimes discussed in relation to broader categories of paraphilia (ref DSM) is commonly considered as a distinct paraphilia (ref Cantor, Blanchard, Barbara). Paraphilias occur almost invariable in men (ref DSM) etc ... But the DSM says nothing specific about AB or infantilism so it would, I think, have to be done in this way.
4. ) No. But as opposed to what?
5. ) This is the thing. Where you are discussing it as a medical condition you're going to have to use medical sources. So, if you're structuring the article around the DSM as providing the basic description of it as paraphilia it's going to be very hard to disregard medical opinion. Also, as I said, we can reference DSM V's proposal to distinguish between paraphilias and paraphilic disorders. In my opinion, one could discuss the medical literature - stating explicitly that this is how the medical literature has defined the condition and signalling where the medical literature is contradictory or incomplete. Then you could, in my opinion, look at how the community has defined itself, set up commercial establishments to fulfill the needs of AB/DL people etc. Again you would have to state explicitly that: members of the AB/DL community define themselves as ... Rather than stating that: AB/DL people are. FiachraByrne ( talk) 15:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That's very interesting I know its bittergrey's own work but it's probably the largest survey of its kind, no? Now, I've only glanced at so I've not read the methodology in any depth, it's self-published (no editorial oversight or peer review), it's been conducted by an interested party, etc. Honestly, I don't mean this as a personal attack, I'd be a little troubled or should I say very cautious about using it given the way that the DSM was used in this article and indeed in the way that Cantor was quoted above. However, could not an editor other than Bittergrey reference this work if they clearly stated the nature and conditions of the research as I've outlined above? I'm not talking about structuring the article around it, but in using it as a primary source about the subject of this article to fill in detail where the broad categories have been established with secondary sources. I mean I would use blogs or other primary material occasionally in this way for some wiki articles and particularly for non-contentious claims. FiachraByrne ( talk) 15:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(Starting from the bottom and working back)

re the article: Please note that this isn't my article. I've contributed most of the references and a lot of text, but much of the text has been rewritten or deleted since. There are times, such as the Malitz ref where I believed a change should be made but did not, to try to avoid conflict.

re the quote: The ellipsis I omitted at 2AM this morning has been added, and doesn't affect my point at all. I'm waiting for Cantor to synchronize his version with the actual text now, and maybe respond on the sexology instead of the typography.

re surveys: I'm providing my own survey results here to inform the discussion. Among reasonable editors, these results have sometimes been useful when discussing and resolving conflicts. Since I have now three sets of survey results to draw from, I can stay very close to the source data. I wouldn't be adverse to my survey results being cited in the article, but for obvious reasons, won't do it myself. As was the case with the recent sex ratio discussion, I also point to other surveys such as Dr. Speaker's doctoral dissertation and Dave's survey.

5) For simplicity, it might be best to use "infantilism" and "diaper fetishism" to refer to the medical conditions, and AB, DL, etc. to refer to the people/community/demographic. I wouldn't be adverse to mentioning that AB/DL was originally a community term. ADISC has an OK article with some definitions. An archive of DPF might also be available somewhere.

4) Let's just say that this article has a long history.

3) Basically that the diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia, infantilism, fetishism, etc. are different, and are, with some limitations, the criteria used to define those diagnoses, at least in the US.

2) Actually, my question related to prior uses of references or points that are being brought up here. Some might think this history important. I know going through it will involve a lot of wading. I think a lot of text could have been kept, but bringing that up now would just complicate this discussion further.

1) Accepting 'AB' is most important for the article. Unlike paraphilic infantilism, diaper fetish is in the common vocabulary. As a result, some use diaper fetish when referring to the paraphilia, and some use it in reference to the kink. To avoid perpetuating this confusion, would you contest our use of DL as a contrast to AB?

"vi) DL's focus on diapers as sexual fetish items"..."I'd like bittergrey to elaborate on that.": Sure. One difficult point in this article is contrasting infantilism and diaper fetishes, or AB and DL. One passage that usually gets missed on the way to the fetishism section is "The individual paraphilias can be distinguished based on differences in the characteristic paraphilic focus" (DSM 4TR, pg 569, first line). The first line in the fetishism section then reads "The paraphilic focus in Fetishism involves the use of nonliving objects (the 'fetish')." If #1 above is contested, we can reword this to "diaper fetishists focus on diapers as sexual fetish items." Worded this way, it seems kind of obvious. The intent was to highlight the differences in the focus, per the first quote. In one case, the focus is an object, and in another, the focus is one's self (or doing something with an object versus something being done to one's self or something he or she is doing to themselves). (The subject-object counterpart to masochism is sadism, where the focus is doing something to someone else.)

@MissionNPOVible, I do plan to get to the points you'd like supported. I'm just trying to measure the valley before trying to build a bridge. BitterGrey ( talk) 18:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the points remaining in the article if sourced appropriately. My only issue is that the DSM does not source them but if the same info can be verified elsewhere, that's of course fine. If other sources can be used instead (and reliable sources, Bittergrey's work is not acceptable in my opinion, unless published in a peer reviewed volume, journal or notable and respected non-scholarly newspaper or magazine). The best article is one built from reliable sources where most sentences are referenced or attributable to a source. If that means a short article with lots of attribution, I much prefer that over a long article with plenty of poorly-sourced speculation and web-based, uncontrolled surveys. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 00:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU, I think we get the picture. Web pages are only RSs if diaper companies are selling hard copies. By the way, all should know that in the previous round (when WLU tried to replace DSM page references with DSM chapter references a few months ago, immediately after an argument with one of his friends whom I just recently had another argument with) he also took it upon himself to singlehandedly eradicate all mention of Understanding.infantilism.org from Wikipedia (eg [54] [55] [56]). WLU "...searched for it..." so he "...could remove any instance...".

Now if WLU would be so kind as to respond to the those questions I asked we might be able to make some progress. BitterGrey ( talk) 01:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I've opened some new sections to discuss MissionNPOVible's points of concerns in detail. Ideally they'd have a four-part structure: 1) intended points 2) supporting refs 3) proposed wording 4) buy-in. Since I wasn't able to get buy-in on the AB,DL, and AB/DL terminology, I've started with that. It directly affects items ii, v, vi, and viii, so it might be best to put those off until after it is settled. Should we start the others as soon as possible, or stage them out? I'm hoping to build some inertia among those who are engaging in this conversation. However, I'd like to be able to discuss this before someone starts removing the citation details again. BitterGrey ( talk) 03:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think this is a particularly high grade source, but it is a reliable third party that uses AB/DL terminology. If all else fails the following extract may prove a possible source for a few things. The book is 101 Things You Didn't Know about Sex By Eve Marx, and this comes from p.145 - I hope it's of some use:

From Google Books A person who engages in infantilistic play is called an adult baby or AB. There are categories within categories regarding adult babies or ABs. One in three ABs is also a diaper lover (DL) and these folks are collectively called AB/DLs. The majority of AB/DL's are heterosexual males. Another category is a sissy baby, usually a male AB/DL who throws a little gender play into his infantilism mix. This person might be a cross dresser who wants to wear little girl clothes or maybe a pink diaper cloth! An AB/DL masochist is someone who might want to be cross dressed by force. Infantilism is viewed by some mental health professionals as a relief from stress. Obviously they're not dangerous! They just have a deep-seated desire to be helpless and irresponsible because babies are not held responsible for anything, and it's not their fault when they crap or wet their pants!

MissionNPOVible ( talk) 07:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• I also found something possibly relevant to vi) on pg.157 of the Brame book listed above by FB On Google Books relating to fetishised diapers. MissionNPOVible ( talk) 10:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

MissionNPOVible, mind if I point you to those questions I asked? They might have gotten lost in the commentary. I'd like your input, but if you'd rather stay neutral, that is fine. BitterGrey ( talk) 12:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I had integrated Marx (101 things...) but the edit protect hit before I could save it to the main page. I have no problem with it being used to clarify terminology, though it might require attribution. I don't really have a problem with the distinctions it makes, but I don't really consider it authoritative. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 17:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)