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.

There's a contradiction in regard to Money's definition of autonepiophilia.

In the section on diaper fetishism it states:

"John Money distinguishes between infantilism or autonepiophilia and paraphilic diaper-wearing, stating that the latter is a paraphilic fetish that manifests as an erotic attraction to an article of clothing while the former is a non-fetishistic paraphilia directed at a change of status in terms of age identity" (Money, 1986, p. 96)

In the section on Lovemap theory it states:

"Money also coined the term "autonepiophilia" meaning a "diaperism" or diaper fetishism in 1984 to describe the condition." (Money, 1984, no page given)

These readings appear to be incommensurate. Either Money had changed his position on the meaning of the term by 1986 or one of our readings is in error. As he states in 1986 the terms infantilism (autonepiophilia) and paraphilic diaperism stand for two phenomena. Also Money 1985 refers to the coining of the term in conjunction with the Greek classicist Diskin Clay and that the word nepon is Greek for infant (Money, 1985, p.147; see also Money 1986, p. 70). — Preceding unsigned comment added by FiachraByrne ( talk • contribs) 00:30, August 30, 2011

One is sourced to Lovemaps, the other to a journal article. If you send me a copy of the article I can have a look and perhaps we can settle on another wording or clarify where the summary went wrong. I don't find Money, 1986, p. 96 particularly clear on this, he mentions infantilism but seems to mostly be talking about transvestism. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 15:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Money's 1984 article is represented fairly in the infantilism article. He does refer to autonepiophilia as "diaperism" (p. 167) and "a diaper fetish" (p.171). He also classifies autonepiophilia as a fetish in this article (he lists 6 categories of paraphilia: Sacrificial, Predatory, Mercantile, Fetish, Eligibility, Allurement). However, in his 1986 book Lovemaps he categorises autonepiophilia as a Eligibility (or Stigmatic) paraphilia. FiachraByrne ( talk) 01:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I realize the clinical term is, strictly speaking, both accurate and non-disparaging to informed audiences. However, given our audience is nonspecialists and WP:TECHNICAL, as well as the huge red flags that the word "pedophile" raises in the gneeral community, I think there is definite merit in using a definition rather than the "quote" term. In other words, instead of "autoerotic pedophilia", it's "sexually attracted to the idea of being a child."

Another option might be to provide the definition, followed by an attributed term - "the ETLE theory states that the person is attracted to the idea of being a child, which X and Y term 'autoerotic pedophilia'." It's still very important IMO to draw a bold, bright line between pedophiles and infantilists, particularly because of the (completely justified) stigma that is attached to pedophilia. More sources that make the distinction would help. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 13:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

CB&B state in their discussion of F&B that, "They interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia" (p.531). Even excluding the use of the term paedophilia it's difficult to accurately represent that thesis without stating that it hypothesises that the erotic target of infantilists is children and that this somehow becomes inverted. Rereading it they also represent it in that order (children and then inversion of desire). FiachraByrne ( talk) 20:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

But the real emphasis is on identity, not "children". The fetishization is of the self as a child, the state of being an infant, not children overall. Unfortunately I suppose they don't emphasize that, the quote really does place the focus on "children" rather than "self". I'll revisit the sources and think some more. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 15:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right, but I'm not sure if the sources would support that. CB&B p. 530 talk about infantilism in regard to other erotic identity disorders. There, they emphasises more strongly the idea of the self transformed in terms of age and gender through sexual fantasy into an erotic object. CB&B on p. 531 as part of their definition infantilism emphasise self-imaging as an infant (most of the other sources refer to behaviour rather than self-imaging).

Here's the thing though. CB&B report F&B as regarding ETL, whether internal or external, as a basic dimension of sexuality and independent of the object of attraction. Therefore, for them, what would seem to separate the autogynaephile or whatever is that object of attraction (in this instance children, although the child as self here). I think also their discussion of diaper fetishists apparently lacking infantilist qualities should also be understood in terms of this. This is so because if the diaper fetishists are not lying to the clinicians about their self-imaging as a child or if they don't represent some intermediary stage on the way to infantilism they are likely to be, according to ETL, paedophiles.

Hence, also, the distinction made by F&B in regard to paedophiles who self image as children and what they regard as the superficially similar fantasies of "masochistic gynaephiles" who wish to be chastised as babies by women. The latter group is not really about, for F&B, the self as transformed into baby as erotic object whereas as it is for the former group. They see the object of sexual attraction for "mashochistic gyaephiles as women, not babies. FiachraByrne ( talk) 02:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, I think that Dickey's commentary on Adult Baby Syndrome, which uses Blanchard's ETLE theory, should probably be amalgamated with the discussion on "autopaedophilia". Structure could do with an overhaul generally, in fact. FiachraByrne ( talk) 02:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the page is now fully sourced. For the characteristics section I cited the Village Voice article; it's not ideal but it does give a pretty comprehensive breakdown of the major groups, and it's attributed to a practitioner. The split between practitioner (popular attention, little medical attention since they don't seek medical help) and medical/legal (where infantilism causes attention from doctors or courts) isn't ideal, but unless a sexologist makes these distinctions for us, we're pretty hamstrung. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 15:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you WLU for removing the original research. I was questioning this in the past however I could see the page was high-jacked by an editor strong in his POV and it would take more patience then I had to resolve the problems. Gogreenlight ( talk) 18:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between being supported by independent sources, and being enforced by a mob of two.

The fringe theory from WLU and FiachraByrne's preferred facility, CAMH, is present in the article in three places [1], when Wikipedia guidelines would dictate zero places, since it lacks even one independent source: "Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." and "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." Not even Dickey mentioned the Freund and Blanchard article (the one supposedly defining this fringe theory) in his letter to an editor - even though his paychecks might be signed by Blanchard and previously Freund.

Not only is this fringe theory not independently supported, it is inherently unclear. It has appeared both among the 'causes' of infantilism and among the 'other conditions' often confused with infantilism [2]. It cannot be both. Regarding WLU's reading [3] of the article supposedly defining the fringe theory, FiachraByrne wrote "I think the current reading of the Freund and Blanchard article is incorrect." This is understandable, since the F&B article defined a number of dissimilar groups referred to by neologisms without linking any of them to infantilism. Wikipedia editors shouldn't have to do this kind of guessing. In fact it is prohibited as original research and synthesis.

Another example of editor's synthesis was discussed at length above. It involved taking a CAMH source out of context as a means to cite it in more places in the article. The justification originally was that the source text from Cantor, Blanchard, and Barbaree (same Blanchard as in F&B, and the same Cantor as argued for the removal of the DSM) had absolutely positively no exceptions [4]. There was even a Venn diagram to illustrate how infantilism couldn't be one of the exceptions, because there were no exceptions. Then it had absolutely positively only three exceptions [5]. Then their position was that it has a few meaningless exceptions [6] but that the presentation of meaningless data somehow doesn't make the source unreliable. In truth, that section of the source text doesn't claim applicability to infantilism. The absence of this claim was used to justify the removal of references to all but one sentence of the DSM: Separate standards are being applied to CAMH and non-CAMH sources.

As for all the other problems, given how dogmatic some are being, it seems best to focus on a few major issues first. BitterGrey ( talk) 15:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This morning's revert was yet another demonstration of WLU's sense of ownership over this article.

1. [7]: 14 revisions, 10 users. WLU's version enforced by WLU: All significant changes reverted. His lack of familiarity with one questioned reference is made clear by the fact that he never noticed that its title wasn't "...As Studen Bk Aqa A." That is, until another editor pointed it out. Clearly, other editors know the sources better, but WLU can't trust them to edit WLU's article.
2. [8]: 22 revisions, 12 users. WLU's version enforced by WLU: All significant changes reverted. He did switch to the American spelling of "behaviours" after reflexively reverting my doing so [9].

I suspect WLU will try to claim FiachraByrne's support, but her last relevant edit was to revert him [10]. Next he might claim grassroots support, after including this article on a list of "socking" resources. Of course, if non-sockpuppet/meatpuppet support were really present, such a list wouldn't be needed. What WLU really needs to do is read the sources and let others edit. BitterGrey ( talk) 15:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

WLU, after replacing the original heading of this section [11] with a meaningless one ("editing"), wrote on my talk page: "do not replace the original heading" [12]". Claiming his own heading as the original heading, not to be replaced, is a further demonstration of his sense of ownership. BitterGrey ( talk) 03:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Instead of discussing his edits, WLU called this discussion "uncivil and tainting any discussion" at Wikiquette assistance [13]. When his assumption of ill will was shown false, he had to retract his accusation [14] [15]. BitterGrey ( talk) 23:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

WLU recently made the following comment: "...Several editors have agreed that the DSM doesn't discuss infantilism in the sense used on this page. Bringing up Cantor's own editing history on wikipedia is meaningless since he's not responsible for any of the recent changes..." [16]

This, of course, is simply untrue. The first refers to an RSN discussion, now archived [17]. Cantor became involved in that discussion [18] [19]. Of course, he argued against the DSM and offered his own publication as an alternative. He never mentioned that there was a conflict between the DSM and his employer, CAMH. (In the DSM, the APA categorizes infantilism under masochism. CAMH, or at least a few of Cantor's coworkers there, categorized it as a type of pedophilia.) After that exchange and the one at AN/I [20], Cantor's article went from being cited zero times in this article to being cited NINE (9) times - more than any other reference.

Prior to this growth opportunity, Cantor had himself used the DSM to define infantilism on Wikipedia [21].

Cantor et al's publication is the only one connecting the fringe theory by his coworkers Fruend and Blanchard to infantilism. Fruend and Blanchard did not mention infantilism when defining their fringe theory.

Cantor's involvement was instrumental in this conflict, enabling WLU to push the fringe theory of Cantor's coworkers. WLU might have conveniently forgotten this. If WLU wishes, I can detail where the remainder of those "several editors" made it clear that they hadn't read even the relevant pages of the DSM. BitterGrey ( talk) 01:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

When was the last edit Cantor made to the main page? How much has Cantor contributed as an editor to the current page? Since the entire article was essentially rewritten top to bottom by myself, FB and you, Cantor's contributions and motivations are meaningless. You're also discounting and ignoring the other editors who agreed that the DSM's discussion of infantilism doesn't substantially apply to this page (as well as the fact that the DSM is mentioned).

Sources matter, the motivation of other editors do not. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 02:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering when you'd bring up the "other editors." In contrast to the others, Cantor actually seemed to have read the relevant sections of the DSM. To avoid naming names of people who might have hoped to get disinvolved in your war, I'll just mention one; you. WLU wrote "I've read them all [pg 572 and other pages of the DSM], paraphilic infantilism doesn't appear." [22]. Have you read even that one page of the DSM? It does quite clearly define infantilism. Perhaps you are confusing it with the article that defines the fringe theory you are pushing, which doesn't use the word "infantilism" at all.

On the subject of letting others (some of whom have already demonstrated a lack of support for your version) have the option of disinvolving themselves from your edit war, please stop votestacking. Also, please stop claiming support based on some ancient discussion: consensus can change.

As I pointed out, there was a time when Cantor himself added references to the DSM, as a reliable definition of infantilism. [23]

As for the article being rewritten by the three of us, you've just repeatedly reverted each and every substantial change back to your personal version.

..And back to the main point of this thread. You made a statement which is false. Either accept that you were wrong (Again) or defend your statement. How often does the strategy of posting cruft en masse work? BitterGrey ( talk) 03:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

WLU, please stop prodding others in hopes of getting a gang together (eg, one person, three pokes: [24] [25] [26]). I realize that all your "me and my gang vs. you and nobody agrees with you" claims seem silly since no one is voluntarily supporting you. However, this is not an excuse for votestacking. Wikipedia should be driven by sources, real (not votestacked) consensus, and policy.

The policy you are trying to dodge is the one that is intended to maintain a neutral point of view by holding that an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Given the odds that you will again accuse me of distorting or misunderstanding, I'll include the exact quote: "Fringe theory in a nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea." Or more specific to the CAMH fringe theory you are pushing " Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way.."

This article is about infantilism, not "masochistic qynephiles" or whatever they are called in the fringe theory you are trying to push, by edit warring to include it in THREE PLACES in the article. It seems plainly clear that there are no independent sources - so your fringe theory does not meet criteria for inclusion defined by the guideline. BitterGrey ( talk) 15:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the kind of note you would leave on someone's talk page, not on an article talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 15:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be hard to work with bitter when he has put so much sarcasm in many of the pages through the years. One time he had a lot of his personal research here and WLU fixed that. This is the first time it seems like that bitter does not own this page. Gogreenlight ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC).

Gogreenlight, if you didn't feel my 2009 response answered your 2009 concerns [27], you had the option of continuing that discussion or editing. Assume good faith is an important guideline. Perhaps we could have worked together to improve the article in the nearly three years since, but now you'll never know. As it is, this history just shows that no one else had a problem with the link in half a decade.

Anyway, unless you are proposing putting that link back in, there doesn't seem to be much point in discussing it now.

I am curious about your interest in the topic, Gogreenlight. You are clearly monitoring the article. (That is, unless you left Wikipedia for nearly three years and were invited back over email by someone who was hoping to votestack.) You have made only four edits [28], and only here, not anywhere else on Wikipedia. Sounds like a heavy investment just to monitor one link, waiting to cheer/gloat if someone else ever removed it. Might I have offended you somewhere else on the Internet or when you were logged in under some other name? BitterGrey ( talk) 02:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

(The following is a prior reply to WLU.)

To be deleted with the edit note "or I can just delete this without reading it" like the last time? Had you engaged in discussion then - in February - we might have been able to resolve your vendetta before you expanded it to include this and other articles. It is clear from your lack of understanding of the fringe theory that you are pushing that you don't actually care about it.

Now stop trying to summon a gang to defend your personal version of the article, and let others edit. BitterGrey ( talk) 16:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Blanchard's fringe theory, about which no independent source is available and about which not even two CAMH sources agree, is now being pushed by WLU as both paraphilic infantilism and some other condition. This is a contradiction. BitterGrey ( talk) 15:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

What section are you talking about and what is the "other condition"? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 16:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That would be the other conditions section. Duh. BitterGrey ( talk) 03:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"Other conditions" falls under the larger heading of "relation to other conditions". In other words, the larger section discusses how PI relates to masochism, pedophilia, diaper fetishism, cross-dressing and "other conditions", a catch-all category for those conditions. In other words, that section discusses possible links to conditions not already discussed. It is no more a contradiction than the section on pedophilia or masochism is a contradiction. In the former case, the relationship between PI and pedophilia is said to be minimal, but they are confused. In the latter case, there is a relationship for some infantilists. In the case discussed by Blanchard, it is saying PI is related to autoeroticism and gender identity disorder. The LTTE for the Archives of Sexual Behaviour discussed the link to sexual abuse. Blanchard is used to source two ideas - that PI is caused by an erotic target location error, and that it is related to gender identity disorder and autoeroticism. This isn't a contradiction, one is an etiology and the other an analogous condition. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 11:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Other conditions that are not paraphilic infantilism. Were it not for the policy against WP:SYNTH, some editor would need to decide whether the fringe theory WLU is trying to push is infantilism or some other condition (not infantilism). Either the material is unclear (in which case it should go) or WLU is including it in sections where it does not belong (in which case he should cease this edit war and go). BitterGrey ( talk) 15:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the other conditions are not paraphilic infantilism. The section discusses how paraphilic infantilism relates and is related to other conditions. As in "PI isn't the same as sexual infantilism. Some people think PI is related to masochism; others do not. Some people think PI is pedophilia but they are wrong. Some people think PI is related to obsessive compulsive disorder, a cluster of symptoms related to a variety of psychiatric disorders or autoeroticism." The section doesn't say "paraphilic infantilism is masochism", only that it has been linked to it. "Other conditions" is a vague title that means we can gather several proposed relationships into a single section, instead of having three or more sections comprised of a single sentence each. The title can be changed, but this doesn't eliminate the fact that paraphilic infantilism has been linked to a variety of other psychiatric and nonpsychiatric conditions - including cross-dressing and diaper fetishism. If you think there is a better way to illustrate the proposed links between PI and conditions it has been associated with, please propose it. Unclear material from reliable sources needs to be clarified, not removed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 16:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

So is the result of that fringe theory paraphilic infantilism or not paraphilic infantilism? It is in contradictory sections. BitterGrey ( talk) 03:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The theory of erotic target location error states that paraphilic infantilism is sexual attraction to the idea of the self being a child. The same article states that there are clear distinctions between paraphilic infantilism and pedophilia due to the erotic target location error. Since the article states quite clearly that paraphilic infantilism isn't pedophilia, there is no contradiction. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 11:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

CB&B:"...that is, infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia." So now you are contradicting the source, as well as making contradictory statements in the article. To resolve ambiguity without WP:SYNTH, we'd normally go to an independent source. In this case, there aren't any, so WP:FRINGE applies: The fringe theory that WLU is pushing in multiple, contradictory locations must go. BitterGrey ( talk) 14:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It is claimed that citing Blanchard, Freund, Cantor and Barbaree's works is undue weight to appear three times. There is no consensus on what causes or contributes to paraphilic infantilism that I am aware of, merely a small number of theories. The DSM certainly does not (see discussion). Three sections have been tagged:

Within the supersection of "Relation to other conditions":

Paraphilic infantilism#Pedophilia - In this section, Blanchard and Freund are cited to make a distinction between pedophilia and paraphilic infantilism. This is two sentences, clearly attributed.

Paraphilic infantilism#Other conditions - In this section, a single sentence fragment is used to indicate some authors believe that PI is a form of autoeroticism akin to autogynaephilia. There are three sources, one of which is a letter to the editor not written by any of the four authors cited above. This clearly suggests that the theory has some respect and thus is not a fringe theory.

Within the supersection of "Causes":

Paraphilic infantilism#Erotic location target error - This is the place where Blanchard et al. get the most text as one of three proposed causes for PI. It is two sentences long, and there is an illegitimate citation of the DSM despite outside input noting it is not appropriate (noted above, but let's link again: discussion).

In none of these three cases is the citation lengthy. In the first and third it is attributed as an opinion. There does not seem to be any scholarly consensus for the cause, or relationship between PI and any other disorders. In all cases, alternatives are discussed which are of approximately the same length. All the sources are peer reviewed articles or a chapter in a scholarly book. In no case has any of the theories or links been criticized in the scholarly literature that I am aware of, and no such critical sources have been presented. Particluarly when there is a lack of discussion of PI overall (noted in references 12, 6 and 15) this is not undue weight. The sources are used for different purposes (in the first two sections to distinguish between PI and pedophilia and a proposed link to autoeroticism respectively; in the third section it proposes an etiology). Given the expertise of the scholars writing (all sexologists who study and publish on paraphilias), the reliability of the sources (Oxford University Press and the British Journal of Psychiatry), and the lack of a generally accepted etiology or link to other disorders in the psychiatric/psychological community in general, this is not undue weight. It is appropriate weight given to proposed explanations by experts publishing in respected venues. I propose the undue weight and contradiction tags be removed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 16:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an article about infantilism, not the type of inverted pedophilia that Freund and Blanchard discuss. In their article, they never referred to the inverted pedophilia as infantilism.

Wikipedia has a guideline to keep theories that have had neither critical review nor achieved broad acceptance - fringe theories - from being given undue weight. It sets the standard for inclusion: Per the Fringe theories guideline: " Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." The essay on independent sources gives detail: "An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective." Blanchard et all has a significant connection with Blanchard et all, and so is not independent. All five authors being cited are or were coworkers with Blanchard at CAMH.

That is, per Wikipedia guidelines, this fringe theory should not be mentioned at all, much less mentioned in three places, taking up 10% of the article. Only one of those sources even uses the word 'infantilism' at all. That one uses it only five times - as many times as it is used in this article in text dedicated to this fringe theory.

As for the DSM, if editors won't believe me or their own eyes (pg 572 4th ed TR), they should accept that even one of WLU's experts, James Cantor, used the DSM as a reliable source to define infantilism [29]. (Remember that WLU? This came up when you falsely accused me of putting up that citation myself. Have you ever accused me and been right?) The DSM does plainly and clearly define infantilism under the heading of masochism (not pedophilia). This widely published consensus document contradicts the fringe view being pushed here.

As for the letter to the editor, WLU omitted that it was written by Blanchard's coworker, Robert Dickey. (His CAMH email and snail mail address are clearly printed on the bottom of the page.) Notably, even though Blanchard might be the one signing Dickey's paychecks, Dickey STILL didn't cite Freund and Blanchard's paper. (He cites Blanchard's transsexualism theory, but not his inverted pedophilia theory. Exactly how many theories does Blanchard have?) Dickey also doesn't seem to use the word 'infantilism' at all.

Per Wikipedia guidelines, this fringe theory should not even be discussed for inclusion, much less included in multiple places. BitterGrey ( talk) 04:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please stop citing Cantor's addition of the DSM to the list of paraphilias as if it mattered. For one thing, you keep claiming Cantor is too biased to be used as a source, but now you're citing him when it supports your position. For a second thing, that was a mistake as the DSM doesn't discuss infantilism, which I corrected and it has not been replaced. For a third, it is the source that matters, not who put it there. The DSM doesn't discuss paraphilic infantilism and it was removed and replaced. I agree that paraphilic infantilism is not pedophilia. I wrote the section that clearly states the two are not related. I've posted a reply making this clear. I don't think paraphilic infantilism is pedophilia, and I've reworded the section to remove the word "pedophilia" while keeping the intent. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 11:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Cantor used the DSM as an RS to define infantilism [30]. WLU replaced it [31]. Who is supposed to be the expert here? BitterGrey ( talk) 14:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Cantor used the DSM, so what? It's not used currently, he hasn't replaced it, and Cantor is not the boss of wikipedia or arbiter of sources. Wikipedia is not based on expertise, it's based on reliable sources. In no case is anyone allowed to change a page based on their personal expertise - it's always based on the content of sources. I completely fail to see the relevance of continuing to post that diff anywhere on wikipedia. The worst thing that you can say is a single editor made an error in sourcing, and it was corrected. Continuing to bring it up serves absolutely no purpose and clarifies no sources that I can see. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 14:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

But he is the first-listed author in the only source even distantly connecting the fringe theory to infantilism. Either Cantor was competent or incompetent. If you believe he was competent, accept the relevance of the DSM as a widely published, medical, consensus document that lists infantilism under masochism, not pedophilia, thus contradicting the fringe theory. If you believe he was incompetent, biased, editing in bad faith, etc., you shouldn't be pushing this fringe theory, since it is only Cantor, Blanchard, et al that ties it to infantilism. Which do you believe?

I also notice that you have again deleted a reference to the DSM, making that section once again completely one-sided [32]. You've also made it appear that F&B connect their topic to paraphilic infantilism - they don't. BitterGrey ( talk) 15:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you point to the wikipedia policy which states that the action of a wikipedia editor has any bearing on the reliability of a source? I believe we seek verifiability, not truth, and we verify using reliable sources. I believe the actions of an editor are completely irrelevant to the reliability of their publications. I also am quite certain that the DSM doesn't discuss paraphilic infantilism.

If paraphilic infantilism is pretending to be a baby, "masochistic gynaephiles who habitually imagine themselves as little boys or babies in sexual fantasies involving adult women" seems to apply - and this reference is used to discuss paraphilic infantilism in Cantor et al. 2008 - see page 531, second column, middle paragraph:

Freund and Blanchard (1993) referred to this characteristic as an erotic target location error...They interpret infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism as an autoerotic form of epdophilia.

So I could also use Cantor et al. 2008 to source this if that is your preference, since it is explicit on the link to infantilism. You lose the distinction between PI and pedophilia though - F&B is quite clear the two are different, pedophilia seeks the child as a sexual partner, paraphilic infantilists seek to act like children, with adult partners or alone. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 15:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Cantor et al. 2008 is already used, it is just listed as Cantor et al. 2009. You might wish to actually read these sources. My hope is that others will check the sources for themselves, since your handling of them leaves much to be desired. For example, why are you bringing up "masochistic gynaephiles" if asserting that infantilism is a type of pedophilia, not masochism? BitterGrey ( talk) 16:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The google books page for the version linked gives the year as 2008. I have edited to make the distinction between PI and pedophilia clear [33], [34]. I also support the inclusion of text that infantilism may come in masochistic and nonmasochistic varieties [35]. I would also like others to verify and engage with the sources, but your consistent accusations of bad faith will reduce the number of editors willing to engage. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 16:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

WLU, please skip the accusations and claims of "subtle, nuanced issues" too mysterious for other editors to understand. The relevant Wikipedia policies are clear and simple. This is an article about infantilism, not whatever Freund and Blanchard discuss. In their article, they never referred to it as infantilism. The minimum standard for inclusion is set by the fringe theories guideline: " Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." The essay on independent sources gives detail: "An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective." Blanchard et all has a significant connection with Blanchard et all, and so is not independent. All five authors being cited are or were coworkers with Blanchard at CAMH.

WLU, if you have any independent sources for this fringe theory, why don't you share them? If you don't, accept that Wikipedia guidelines don't permit the inclusion of that fringe theory - much less in multiple places in the article. BitterGrey ( talk) 03:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Note discussion at Fringe Theories Noticeboard. BitterGrey ( talk) 21:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

[36]

WLU, if you want to keep that fringe theory you have been pushing, you'll need sources that support FB&B that infantilism is autoerotic pedophilia. This source (already cited) says pretty much the opposite. However, if your sole intention was to share a link to yet another source that opposes that fringe theory, that is OK. Of course, there is a more expedient way to take care of that... BitterGrey ( talk) 03:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and WLU, before you make any more accusations that I'm misrepresenting sources [37], be aware that that "misrepresentation" is almost exactly the text you have been edit warring for months to keep:"infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia" ( [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]). The exact quote from CB&B (the only source connecting F&B to infantilism) is "They [F&B] interpreted ...infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia." To connect it to text saying something else would be to misrepresent it. However, violating WP:FRINGE also misrepresents the sources - as something other than a fringe theory without any independent sources; just F&B (Blanchard et al) and CB&B (Blanchard et al). BitterGrey ( talk) 20:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

An image used in this article, File:Adult baby.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 02:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

While I'm neutral about a recent edit by an IP [44], I would have tended to keep it as a good faith edit, and to encourage new contributors. (Well, after removing the one extra coma for a coma-separated list, or switching the other comas to semicolons, that is.) WLU's version of the article could benefit from improvements by others: Improvements which won't occur if he continues to demonstrate a sense of ownership by reverting changes by others. This has been brought up before [45]. WLU's only response was to make accusations on another board, accusations that he then need to retract because they were based on assumptions of ill will [46] [47].)

WLU's given motivation for quickly reverting back to his own version, "they'd be diaper lovers, not infantilists", is not valid. The nearby link to diaper lovers redirects to the diaper fetish article, which defines it as "a sexual fetish." Those who "enjoy the diapers in a non-sexual way, and do not identify as adult babies" would then not be simply grouped as diaper fetishists.

WLU, I believe it is time you stepped back and let others edit. BitterGrey ( talk) 05:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The IP made an edit without a source and the nearest source to it [48] doesn't verify the text. I removed it per WP:PROVEIT. I've never seen this "fifth type" mentioned in the sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 22:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU, you wrote then that you removed it because "they'd be diaper lovers, not infantilists" [49], with no mention of WP:PROVEIT. Yesterday you wrote that the reversion was due to categorization, and today you write that it was due to sourcing. So is the reason you gave initially untrue? Or is the reason you are giving now - or both reasons - untrue? What is the real reason you reverted back to your own version? WP:AGF doesn't apply when an editor is offering multiple, contradictory justifications for his actions. We can't assume your good faith. You reverted another editor's good-faith edit and are now waffling on your justification. Again, I believe it is time you stepped back and let others edit. BitterGrey ( talk) 01:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note a previously archived discussion about WLU's ownership issues. BitterGrey ( talk) 22:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

F&B's "Erotic target location errors in male gender dysphorics, paedophiles, and fetishists." is about, according to the very first line "A clinical series of male paedophiles..." The article doesn't mention "infantilism" at all. In contrast, "paedophile" or "paedophilic" occur 16 times, including the title. The article claims to be about pedophiles, not infantilists. The DSM and many, many other sources clearly differentiate between infantilism and pedophilia. Unless part of some assertion that infantilism is a form of pedophilia - an exceptional claim not supported by any independent sources - F&B doesn't belong here. BitterGrey ( talk) 22:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Since the only active editor who has ever argued for this source has made multiple edits( [50] [51] [52]) to the article since this was posted, I think concluding consensus by silence reasonable. BitterGrey ( talk) 19:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Now that F&B have been removed, let's discuss Dickey: This letter to the editor makes a similarly exceptional claim, of "autopedophilia," but uses entirely different terminology. It mentions neither infantilism nor F&B (even though Dickey and Blanchard of F&B work for the same facility). It refers to no other "autopedophilia" sources, and so is primary. Finally, as a letter to the editor, it isn't peer-reviewed. BitterGrey ( talk) 20:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I just don't want to end up in another long, pointless argument. The claim is not exceptional and the sources are acceptable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 21:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Pointless arguments can be avoided by making points, WLU. For example, Aerobicfox of RSN wrote "Per WP:Exceptional claims require exceptional sources I would like better sourcing for this claim '...infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia' " [53] on Dec 6th, just before WLU flip-flopped the text to misrepresent the sources. BitterGrey ( talk) 21:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU has now reverted [54] repeatedly [55], apparently opting for a pointless edit war instead of discussion. BitterGrey ( talk) 02:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The claim isn't exceptional, since Freund & Blanchard are being used to clarify a distinction between pedophiles and PI (an uncontroversial claim, sexologists acknowledge that the two groups are different) and to posit an etiology when there is no widely-recognized etiology for the condition. I've repeatedly stated that "autoerotic form of pedophilia" isn't the same thing as "pedophilia", if I haven't convinced you yet then I suggest you reread any one of probably a dozen rebuttals of your similarly-repeated claim. You can find them here and here and here and here, and probably on this very talk page as well. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 11:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Please actually read my post or the article, WLU. You might also wish to highlight any points in those discussions that support your position, instead of linkspamming in hopes of frightening people off. Another at RSN wrote " Freund 1993 is a PRIMARY in terms of medical research, it is the first proposal of a theory, and therefore unreliable. Cantor 2009 would be a secondary, but I consider it tainted by association with an author who proposes the theory. Cantor 2009 can be used if independent secondary studies published in appropriate medical forums attest to the uptake of this medical theory. Until someone can demonstrate this, the text should be removed from the article as unverifiable due to failing to meet MEDRS."

Even past-supporter FiachraByrne didn't agree with WLU's reading of F&B: " They delineate a small sub-set of paedophiles who self-image as infants or children." This is why much of the text now being fought over was hidden from August to December. BitterGrey ( talk) 14:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ludwigs2 Your argument against the source is more or less baseless - The source is not being misrepresented, and is not an unreputable source. You are yourself misrepresenting what they say in a passage that's not even being used in the article and trying to remove the source on those grounds. Ludwigs2 later edited the page to remove the NPOV tags [56].
• WhatamIdoing I'd guess that it's the usual problem for articles about unusual sexual traits: the editor with the trait in question does not want people reading the article to learn anything about theories that he personally disagrees with (and especially not anything that presents it neutrally, i.e., "So this one expert had this idea..." rather than "The following idea, which I hate, has been thoroughly discredited"). BitterGrey's complaints have all aimed at removing Freund and Blanchard's ideas about PI entirely from the article
• Elinruby I think you are better off replacing it with a summary that avoids the term. I can't comment on whether this is a fringe theory. However, I personally am inclined to trust anything published by the Oxford University Press or a peer-reviewed journal. Even if the book, which I have not examined, is intended to be an anthology of differing views, there's a presumption that these views have some claim to academic legitimacy. So I am not sure why quoting the book for what an author says in it would be wrong.
• AerobicFox's more recent comment (the above diff Bittergrey used is from December 6th, this is from December 16th) The sources used are reliable, although I'm largely indifferent now towards their weight considering the lack of resources on infantilism. I'm definitely against including more material, and would support some removal, but I don't really care if what's currently written stays.

The hyperfocus on the use of the word "pedophilia" while ignoring what the actual source intends is a blatant misrepresentation of the source. Freund & Blanchard use their case series to distinguish between pedophiles and infantilists, and Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree is a secondary source that also makes that distinction while clearly referencing infantilists explicitly. Claiming the DSM discusses infantilists at all is flatly wrong, which you know, and which the community has clearly stated is wrong, twice here and here. Why you think I'd change my mind when there's no evidence of that is beyond me. FiachraByrne's comment is distinguishing between two groups of infantilists - those who do so because of masochism and those who do so because of an erotic target location error. The full quote is:

CB&B refer to Freund and Blanchard's 1993 article and state that, "They hypothesized that erotic target location was a basic dimension of sexual attraction, independent of the nature of the erotic target (object) itself. They interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia" (p.531). It would seem clear that CB&B characterise infantilism as an "erotic identity disorder" (p.530). That they wish to apply this concept as a general one across the paraphilias is obvious from their parallel treatment of transexualism (autogynaephilia) and those who self-image as amputees. Similary F&B assert that errors in erotic targeting are a basic feature of the paraphilias. They delineate a small sub-set of paedophiles who self-image as infants or children. The term they use as an analogue to gender identity disorder is "age identity disorder" and they obviously see it as structurally very similar (irrespective of the object of attraction) to the former condition. In these autoerotic disorders, they conjecture, the object of attraction becomes inverted and attached to the self. They clearly distinguish this paraphilia from what they term "masochistic gynaephiles" who although they fantasise about themselves as infants or little boys do so in fantasies involving adult women. They speculate that this group is fundamentally different from the previous one although the fantasies are similar as one use the fantasy to increase distance and difference from their sexual object (women) and the other use it to collapse difference (infants/children). As CB&B refer to infantilism as an autoerotic form of paedophilia it would seem that they consider it distinct from similar behaviour with a putatively different aetiology that is essentially masochistic.

But really if you want to know what FiachraByrne thinks now and of the current page, you'll have to ask her.

If your argument is that F&B should be removed from the page, it essentially changes nothing - Cantor, Barbaree & Blanchard can be used to verify the exact same points as Freund & Blanchard's 1993 paper. The first use in the pedophilia section states that pedophiles are attracted to kids while infantilists are attracted to the idea of being kids. The second use is redundant to two other citations, one of which is Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree, a reliable source, and merely states that infantilism has been linked to autoeroticism and autogynephilia. So by all means, remove the sources and replace them with CBB, but there is no reason to change the text. And here is the long, pointless discussion I've been wanting to avoid, but what have you. Again, nothing changes. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 17:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU, one of those quotes is from someone who hasn't even read the sources. "...Even if the book, which I have not examined... [57]" Two others are friends or friends of friends. If you don't have any valid points to make, you could at least be less verbose about it. I notice that you are again trying to argue for your preferred sources by arguing against the DSM, even though the DSM actually mentions infantilism, unlike the sources you are warring to use. BitterGrey ( talk) 17:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The overall point that can be taken from this is that the questions were not cleanly resolved (or even asked). Claiming that the only people who agree with me are friends is a fairly serious accusation of bad faith and cabalism, as well as ignoring the editing experience of those accounts and the substance of their specific comments.

I agree the DSM mentions infantilism, as a behaviour found in masochists. It is of course essentially irrelevant to this page, as indicated by the two lengthy noticeboard discussions, both of which resulted in a clear consensus that the DSM had virtually no bearing on this page, and certainly didn't discuss infantilism in detail. Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree does mention infantilism explicitly, as well as clearly linking Freund & Blanchard's 1993 paper to paraphilic infantilism. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 18:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

WAID has taken your side against me ever since you took her side against me in Feb 2011 [58], and Ludwigs2 was supportive of her for admin [59]. I don't recall either of them showing a familiarity with the sources either. Now your turn: The RS/N post resulted in two comments by editors who were familiar with the sources. Other than the fact that they agree with me, why do you dismiss those? BitterGrey ( talk) 18:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Many people have found your arguments unconvincing, for instance, nobody agreed with your assertion that the DSM defines paraphilic infantilism (it certainly doesn't distinguish between paraphilic infantilism and pedophilia, though Freund & Blanchard as well as Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree do). Nobody thought the link to the understanding infantilism website was worth including. As I've said before, WAID and I have a very similar understanding of the policies and guidelines but the same could be said of most experienced editors here. There's only so many times you can accuse people who agree with me of being biased by some sort of personal relationship before it starts looking like your interpretation is simply wrong.

I could ask you the same question - you've ignored the input of many people who have disagreed with you, you completely gloss over Elinruby's comment, as well as AerobicFox's later comment. It's extremely difficult to tease out any consensus from any of those discussions since they are so clogged with irrelevant tangents - for instance, my motivation and alleged flipflopping. If you left out those accusations, discussions would be shorter, you would have more engagement from other editors and things would be a lot more civil. I make an effort to base discussions around policies, guidelines and sources rather than motivations. When I say "the policy on fringe theories suggests this is an alternative theoretical formulation, not pseudoscience" and your reply is that I'm biased and my comment should be ignored, you're completely ignoring the fact that I'm substantively discussing a policy, not any motivation.

Your comment about "familiarity with sources" is also problematic - knowing how to identify a reliable source is completely different from being familiar with its content. Determining whether a source is reliable based on its content rather than its author and publisher is a pretty big mistake. I can pretty quickly and easily determine whether a source is reliable or not without having read a word of it. Basing pages on reliable sources means sometimes we have to put up with page content we personally disagree with, so long as it is reliably sourced. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 18:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

According to two comments RSN already quoted, those sources aren't sufficiently reliable for the exceptional claim. Regarding your boast about determining a sources reliability without reading a word of it, I have to disagree. A tertiary discussion of Einstein's theory of relatively might be generally reliable, but not a reliable source for a particular topic that it doesn't discuss. F&B doesn't discuss infantilism, and so is irrelevant. You might wish to actually read it. BitterGrey ( talk) 19:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course, Ludwigs2 and Elinruby both suggested that CB&B is reliable for the claims made. And F&B does discuss infantilism, even if it doesn't use the exact wording - CB&B is evidence of this. And, AerobicFox's December 6th comment is really rather irrelevant considering his December 16th comment makes it clear that ten days later he changed his mind and considered the sources sufficiently reliable - your selective citation of one opinion while ignoring the other is quote mining. Not to mention that we can replace the two uses of F&B with CB&B without issue but you didn't replace the citation, you removed the text. And, discussion with AerobicFox and other editors indicated they didn't understand the point being made - that the "autoerotic form of pedophilia" isn't the same thing as pedophilia, a point you don't even acknowledge. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 20:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is some nuance that nobody but you understands, WLU, that would be a great reason NOT to have it in a Wikipedia article, since if the sources don't explain it, it is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. BitterGrey ( talk) 20:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

CB&B does explain all the points sourced to the F&B article you removed. Do you agree to replacing the text using CB&B instead of F&B? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 22:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

At RSN, WLU wrote One thing that everyone seems to miss here, is that "autoerotic pedophilia" is not the same thing as "pedophilia". If "everyone" who reads the sources "misses" their support for a particular point, that seems clear evidence that the point isn't adequately supported. Whether WP:SYNTH or WP:OR, it should go. WLU is still asserting that infantilism is a form of pedophilia, and edit waring to cite a paper based on "A clinical series of male paedophiles..." (F&B, first sentence) and no reference to infantilism to do it. BitterGrey ( talk) 23:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, not everyone missed that. WhatamIdoing noticed it, Elinruby noticed it, and Ludwigs2 noticed it (in that he didn't argue for the removal of the source). We can get a request for comment if you'd like, it's not a particularly intuitive paper but it's pretty obvious what the overall purpose is.

Regards edit warring, I'm perfectly willing to cite CB&B since it's obviously about infantilism. If your objection is that the F&B paper doesn't use the term, we can use CB&B to cite the exact same ideas. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 23:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU, you are the one that wrote "everyone." [60]. If we discard F&B, then CB&B will be WP:PRIMARY at best, claiming that F&B is about infantilism even though F&B doesn't mention infantilism. F&B claim to be about pedophilia. exceptional claims require "multiple high-quality sources" - not one contradictory source. BitterGrey ( talk) 00:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

CB&B will never be primary. If you claim CB&B is primary, then you misunderstand the policy. The claim that paraphilic infantilists do not want to have sex with children is not an exceptional claim, as several other sources corroborate it (Ardnt, 1991; Holmes & Holmes, 2008; Money, 1997 and of course, Freund & Blanchard and Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree simply make this point in a different way). Within the theory of erotic target location error, autoerotic pedophilia is at one end of a continuum, and pedophilia is at the other. An infantilist, theorized as having the autoerotic form of pedophilia, desires a transformed self, not a child sexual partner. A pedophile wants to rape children. The point is made in both sources.

Cantor, Blachard & Barbaree, using the term "infantilism", make the point that paraphilic infantilists are on the opposite end of the erotic target continuum as pedophiles and are therefore not pedophiles. Not an extreme claim, actually a distinguishing claim. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 10:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU, you've once again flip-flopped from actual content to a politically correct textbyte. If F&B doesn't mention infantilism, then CB&B's claim that F&B was about infantilism (in spite of not mentioning it) would be new to CB&B: That is, it would be PRIMARY. The extraordinary claim, which you seem to have suddenly forgotten in spite of including it even in the text you quoted at AN/3RR [61], is that infantilism is some form of pedophilia. F&B never mentions infantilism, only making frequent mention of being about pedophiles. BitterGrey ( talk) 13:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this is why I consider engaging with you on a talk page to be virtually worthless. CB&B is not a primary source, and CB&B and F&B both make it clear that infantilists are not pedophiles. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 13:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU, please skip the ad-hominem attacks. You have the option of walking away any time you wish. I've supported my position with quotes from the sources and input from RSN. If this discussion seems pointless, it is because you haven't raised any to support your position. Like all but one of the other articles you have fought me at, you never showed any interest in this article before you started hounding me. Perhaps it is time you left me and these topics alone. BitterGrey ( talk) 14:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You are also free to walk away. You've supported your position with selective quotes from other editors, partial summaries of noticeboard discussions and misrepresentations of sources (for instance, that the DSM discusses infantilism and that Freund & Blanchard think infantilists are pedophiles). And you've been ignoring the substance of my comments in favour of attacks on my motivations for as long as we've been interacting. So trust that I also find this frustrating, I find these pointless, sprawling, ugly discussions irritating, but my comments are not ad hominen, I consider them scrupulously accurate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 14:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

No, WLU, since you are chasing me around Wikipedia, I can't go away. BitterGrey ( talk) 14:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Please note new RS/N discussion. BitterGrey ( talk) 14:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to bring up my behaviour at the appropriate venue, it's irrelevant here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 15:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You're the one who brought up personal behaviors: "Yeah, this is why I [WLU] consider engaging with you [BitterGrey] on a talk page to be virtually worthless" [62]. BitterGrey ( talk) 15:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 15:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

3O

In my opinion the 3O is unclear, there is no central question asked. In my opinion the issues are whether the sources in the removed text are reliable, relevant and appropriately summarized. The two sources are Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree's chapter in the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology, page 531 (available via google books preview here) and Freund & Blanchard's paper in the British Journal of Psychiatry, PMID  8481752 (which I can e-mail). A letter to the editor is also used as a citation [63], which I can also e-mail. I see the sources as reliable (published in a peer reviewed journal and a textbook by Oxford University Press), relevant (Cantor et al. discusses infantilism explicitly, Freund & Blanchard does so implicitly but is also explicitly cited by Cantor et al. as discussing infantilism - thus no original research is needed to verify the text, while the argument to exclude the paper is itself original research that ignores the relevant parts of the F&B case series - the comments section found on pages 561-2 where pedophiles and infantilsts are contrasted, and the discussion section found on page 562 where the theory of erotic target location errors is discussed - both from Freund & Blanchard 1993) and appropriately summarized (the sources clearly distinguish between pedophilles and paraphilic infantilists; the theory of erotic target location errors states that these are different points on a continuum - pedophiles desire child sexual partners, infantilists desire to be transformed into children and adult sexual partners who treat them as such). They are not a fringe theory, they are in my opinion an alternative theoretical formulation for a condition with very little research on it. The current version of the page does not feature these sources used in this manner, they were removed in this diff. These are the specific reference uses:

• Use of sources to indicate pedophilia and paraphilic infantilism are different, [64] and [65]
• Use of sources to describe one of the concepts hypothetically linked to paraphilic infantilism [66], [67], [68]
• The theory of erotic target location error as an etiology for the condition [69]

In an effort to keep this section short, I will stop here and not address the obvious behavioural issues. For me, the only issue that needs 3O input is whether the sources are adequate and appropriately summarized. I believe an appropriate summary can be found in the old version. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 00:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It would seem WLU has already gone back on the second part of his claim: " I'll continue to revert, but I have nothing to add to this talk page beyond the thousands of words I've already put in."

I think the section header, "Fruend and Blanchard's Paedophilia article doesn't belong here" is clear. The source opted not to use the then-established term of infantilism or any synonym, so any use of it here is WP:SYNTH at best. As a result, it does not meet the standard for inclusion, even if it hadn't been used to make exceptional_claims and promote a fringe theory. The 14 cases discussed in F&B were divided into four groups; two groups of pedophiles, one group of masochists, and one that involved being a cartoon. Most of the diaper-related cases were in one of the two groups of pedophiles. As dissected at RSN, the case in F&B that CB&B appears to refer to as "infantilism" was #6 on pg 560, who had a "habit" involving nappies and a fantasy involving sexual contact with his babysitter's "little daughter". F&B just called it pedophilia.

WLU's positions, alternately equating infantilism with pedophilia (pre-Dec 6th) or masochism (post-Dec 6th), are not supported by other editors familiar with the source. For example, James Cantor (the C of CB&B) wrote "...I have never met a professional who would diagnose paraphilic infantilism as masochism. In my experience, it is diagnosed as "paraphilia NOS (infantilism)" (ie not pedophilia either). In conflicts past, even WLU has argued against WLU's current position [70].

Complicating things, WLU has provided needless (and apparently endless) obscurity. Blanchard's one theory is mentioned in not one but three sections in WLU's version of the Wikipedia article. WLU also flip-flops the text he is fighting for. After Dec 6th, according to WLU's version of the Wikipedia article, the theory was that infantilism WAS NOT pedophilia( [71] [72] [73]... [74] [75] [76]). Before Dec 6th, the theory was that infantilism WAS pedophilia ( [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82]) (Although, further confusing things, there was a commented-out section.) On April 8th, WLU realized that he's "been reading the article wrong for a very long time." [83] I've tried to explain things to WLU repeatedly. However, WLU continues to edit-war.

This new "3O" subsection is WLU's second attempt to reframe or obscure this discussion. His first is below. Please note his interest in discussing three sources, not one. Dickey is a letter to the editor (not peer-reviewed) that doesn't mention F&B. CB&B includes the comment that F&B considered infantilism a form of pedophilia, the opposite of how it is now being used. All three were written by Blanchard and/or his colleagues at CAMH. None of the three use overlapping terminology relevant to infantilism. Blanchard's fringe theory might be supported outside of Wikipedia only by Blanchard and his coworkers, and on Wikipedia only by WLU and two waves of sock puppets [84] [85].

Given all WLU's obfuscational efforts, the desperate sockpuppetry attempts (one before and one after my 3O request) is the simplest demonstration that not even WLU believes WLU's position-du-jour is defensible. The unusable source should not be used. BitterGrey ( talk) 01:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

As I say above, I am not focusing on behavioural issues. My comments above represent my interpretation of the sources and their use. I see this as a content issue that needs to be resolved. I'm discussing 3 sources because the text removed was verified by three sources [86]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 17:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU's position requires other sources because F&B can't be used without WP:SYNTH. The simple truth is that F&B chose not to use 'infantilism' or any synonym of infantilism. F&B diagnosed their patients as pedophiles or masochists (or cartoon dogs), not infantilists. On the other hand, WLU can't let F&B be removed: CB&B only dedicates three sentences to the fringe theory that currently has two sections (and a phrase) dedicated to it in WLU's version, and the text in CB&B contradicts the text it is being used to support here. Dickey chose not to cite F&B. We should follow his lead.

Given the weakness of the sources, it is unsurprising that WLU's interpretation changed last week [87], even though this conflict started in August 2011. As is clear from the surrounding discussions, WLU has frequently resorted to ad-hominem attacks, but he seems to have backed off now that he's been caught using multiple sockpuppets. BitterGrey ( talk) 22:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

In August 2011, WLU wrote "I've been ignoring Bitter[G]rey's constant claims of bias and his interpretations. Cuts down on the reading." [88] He has admitted to not considering my input in other places as well (eg [89] [90]...). Friday, WLU wrote "I'll continue to revert, but I have nothing to add to this talk page beyond the thousands of words I've already put in." As is clear from the archives, "thousands of words" is no exaggeration. There will still be the issue of the edit wars due to WLU's sense of ownership, of course. However, much of the time that would have been wasted preparing discussion points for WLU to ignore will be saved.

So can we get this (or maybe just the second part) written in stone? BitterGrey ( talk) 04:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

There are thousands of words indicating quite clearly I haven't been ignoring you since August 2011. I have been ignoring your claims of bias and interpretation whenever possible, instead responding to the substance of your arguments. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 11:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The most recent example is at RSN. WLU: "I don't see where you quote Freund & Blanchard's definition of masochistic gynaephiles..." [91]. (WLU had demanded it of me ten times on two talk pages.) BitterGrey: "F&B's def of gynephilia was actually quoted above" [92]. WLU: "Wow" WLU's "been reading the article wrong for a very long time." [93]. ...Or arguably, reading neither the article nor my comments with sufficient care. Sadly, WLU merely waffled from one bad position to another, and as is clear from the argument here, WLU hasn't stopped arguing. WLU even engaged in personal attacks regarding my sexuality and bluffs of disciplinary action, determined that he was right and I was wrong. When will it end?

It seems we can't give much weight to any of WLU's claims. BitterGrey ( talk) 13:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU has been doing a good job of editing this article. You have been a nuisance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.187.226 ( talk • contribs)

Anon, it would greatly help if you registered an account. If you are using a /24 IP, there is no way to distinguish between me sockpuppeting and someone else using an IP address that happens to conceal where they are. In addition, it would greatly help if you gave the policy and guideline reasons for your objections rather than just registering approval and disapproval. Though I appreciate the support, it's not particularly helpful for the larger community (and given the IP address issues, could get me blocked as a sockpuppet on purely behavioural grounds). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 10:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

No, registering an account now that the second SPI has been opened would merely obfuscate things and require a third SPI. Besides "If you have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry, then that will almost always be the finding." SPI doesn't discuss their tools and tests in detail to avoid wp:gaming. If 203.118.187.226 is who he or she claims [94], he or she has been editing Wikipedia for a year or more, would probably already have considered registering an account, and decided not to so. Additionally, given how responsive he or she has been to WLU's needs, he or she must spend a lot of time monitoring Wikipedia. (In the past year, there have only been two times here when WLU has been at 3RR and in need of someone to make a fourth revert for him. The IPs have been here for him both times. Odd given that the IPs have only edited here this year.)

Of course, we are straying from the topic of this discussion, WLU's claim that he wouldn't edit this talk page. When logging in as WU, he has already added 400 words. BitterGrey ( talk) 13:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Those looking over that page might notice that a few articles are heavily cited, even though they are given little weight elsewhere. This isn't was a consensus development, but the result of a determination of an editor to specifically cite CAMH sources: two papers written by four authors, all at the same facility, CAMH. For brevity, we'll call the papers F&B (Freund and Blanchard) and C,B,&B (Cantor, Blanchard, and Barbaree). This determination would also have driven the removal of references to the DSM, since the APA's established, consensus view as expressed in the DSM was in conflict with some of CAMH's conclusions. A number of the CAMH conclusions disagree with basic observations. This is why they have been largely disregarded as fringe theories in academia.

These fringe theories include:

A) Everyone expressing a sexual interest in diapers, but who doesn't want to be a baby, either has an incomplete form of infantilism or is hiding their desire to be a baby. (C,B,&B pg 531) That is, diaper fetishes do not exist.

The DSM clearly has a section on fetishes. Few would argue that fetishes exist. WLU has already taken it upon himself to strip away all references to the DSM's sections on fetishism or general paraphilias from the diaper fetishism article [95].

<original research>In an AB/DL community survey, 24% of surveyees reported that they either don't roleplay or don't roleplay as a baby or child. When asked about a sense of being a baby, 21% considered it merely OK in games, scenes, and fantasies. 17% percent reported considering it 'Tolerable,' and 15% that it 'Must be absent.' </original research>

B) Female gynephiles don't exist.(F&B 588) That is, women who prefer women - lesbians - do not exist.

While the prevalence of lesbianism might be debated, there seems to be a clear consensus that they exist.

C) Infantilism is an autoerotic form of pedophilia (C,B,&B pg 531).

The DSM, the widely available and widely adopted document expressing the consensus opinion of the American Psychological Association, groups pedophilia in section 302.2, pg 571. It also defines paraphilic infantilism as a type of masochism, section 302.83 pg 572. Thus, infantilism is not a form of pedophilia. Supporting sources already mentioned include Mattoon, pg 207; Brame, pg 137; Holmes, pg 81. This fringe theory appears to be only accepted by that one facility, CAMH.

With additional synthesis from WLU, that "masochistic qynephile"=infantilist, the fringe theories also include:

D) Infantilists ("masochistic qynephiles") are all heterosexual males or homosexual females (qyne = woman, wife). Homosexual male infantilists do not occur.

<original research> My own survey showed that 10% of surveyees reported being homosexual.</original research>

E) All infantilists will (if complete) want to be baby girls. A pedophilic masochistic qynephile with the "erotic target location error" hypothesized would desire to be the erotic target of a pedophilic qynephile; a little girl. (pedo- child, gyne- woman, wife)

Of three examples mentioned for support in F&B, one wanted to be a boy of 10, and the other two were unspecified. This fringe view does not even hold true of the author's examples.)

<original research> My own survey showed that 61% of surveyees reported that they don't enjoy being a baby girl or being dressed as one.</original research>

These fringe theories, and the papers advocating them, should not be included.

1: Per the Fringe theories guideline: " Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." Since this is not an article on these fringe theories but on paraphilic infantilism, the fringe theories may only be mentioned if connected by independent sources. C, B, B, and F are all colleagues: C, B(lanchard), &B is not independent of F&B(lanchard).

2: Without fudging the sources, mentioning fringe theory B would involve "pedophilia," an emotionally charged word. per MOS, " Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." One facility represented by four people, two sources is not "widely used."

3: Regarding fringe theory C, the C,B,&B paper only cites the one paper by F&B. As detailed in the essay on "Party and Person," first-party work without meta-analysis of multiple primary sources is itself just a primary source, and so C,B,&B is primary in this regard.

4: Also regarding fringe theory C; The text of F&B was so ambiguous that WLU thought "Freund & Blanchard explicitly states that the sexual focus is only superficially similar and discusses what distinguishes a pedophile from an infantilist (which they term masochistic gynaephile)." [96] until it was pointed out to him that his reading of F&B differed from the one presented in C, B. &B [97].

5: F&B is structured around novel categories labeled with neologisms. Neologisms should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last. In particular, it does not use the term "paraphilic infantilism." Attempts to use C,B,&B to conclude that one or more specific neologisms is infantilism are WP:original research, since C,B,&B doesn't state which neologism(s) was intended to replace paraphilic infantilism, and so mean(s) the same thing. The assumption that it was the category that is least out-of-line from the DSM ("masochistic qynephile") is just that - an assumption.

6: C,B,&B cites Malitz and Tuchman & Lachman to support "There have also been reports of individuals ... who express no desire to seem like an infant (Malitz, 1966, Tuchman & Lachman, 1964)" However, they both mentioned regression. 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." Tuchman & Lachman conclude "The regressive quality and symbolism of the behavior pattern suggest a schizophrenic mechanism." When challenged on this point, James Cantor commented only on the typography on the challenge, not the sexology. (Pate comments that neither Malitz's nor Tuchman & Lachman's patient's said they wanted to be a baby. While both authors mentioned regressive themes, neither documented the patient saying that he wanted to be a baby.)

7: C,B,&B intermixes psychosexual infantilism (Stekel) and paraphilic infantilism (defined by the DSM). Most cases of psychosexual infantilism did not involve either diapers or babyhood. While reasonable before the publication of DSM IIIR, modern sources should observe this distinction. IIIR was the first to include a definition of paraphilic infantilism, and was published in 1987.

8: CAMH has editor(s?) on it's payroll promoting themselves and CAMH interests on Wikipedia. Only one of these is (or at least was) open about his financial conflict of interest, and then only after it was discovered by another editor [98]. Relevant to this article, he argued for removing references to the DSM from this article and suggested his own writings and an alternative [99]. This opened the door for his own writing to be cited in this article NINE times, even though it conflicted with the established consensus opinion, expressed in the DSM.

Alternatives to the promotion of all of this fringe, uncertainly, and baggage, have been proposed and ignored. BitterGrey ( talk) 03:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Your own unpublished studies are unreliable.

Your own opinion is only as good as anyone who agrees with your points. To date I don't believe anyone has.

Several editors have agreed that the DSM doesn't discuss infantilism in the sense used on this page.

Bringing up Cantor's own editing history on wikipedia is meaningless since he's not responsible for any of the recent changes.

Claiming something is a fringe theory doesn't make it a fringe theory. There is a paucity of research on paraphilic infantilism so we can essentially use whatever is scholarly and available to expand the page. To demonstrate something is a fringe theory, it requires you to demonstrate that other experts, not editors, disagree with it or criticize it for being overused.

You're misapplying wikpedia policies. WP:NEO applies to new articles. The use of homonyms in an article is allowable if supported by reliable sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 23:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Since you are the one edit warring to include the fringe theory, the burden to find independent sources is on you. Per the Fringe theories guideline: " Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way.." That is a direct quote. I strongly suspect you would have added any non-CAMH sources to support your pet fringe theory if you had any. Why would you withhold them if you had them?

Stop pointing fingers. Stop making false accusations [100]. Time to put up or shut up. BitterGrey ( talk) 00:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

How do you know it is a fringe theory? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 00:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If you can't find even one non-CAMH source that supports or even seriously discusses the CAMH theory, it is a fringe theory. Clearly, you can't, so clearly, it is. BitterGrey ( talk) 01:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

There's very little research, publications and general scientific literature on paraphilic infantilism. There are no real alternatives, or even a mainstream orthodoxy on it. There is no "mainstream view" that CAMH is "fringe" to that I'm aware of. These are peer reviewed works published in mainstream journals, or by mainstream publishing houses - respected venues that are considered quite orthodox. They are works by scholars writing in their own areas of expertise. They definitely meet the criteria for being reliable sources. There has been no criticisms raised in any reliable publishing venues that I've seen. A theory like satanic ritual abuse is clearly fringe, and there are lots of texts that point out it is not a real thing, it's a moral panic - "moral panic" is the orthodoxy, "killing babies for the devil" is the fringe theory; the former clearly outweigh the latter in both respectability of sources and number of texts that take this view. The same for parental alienation syndrome - there are a minority of participants who promote it, and a large, large number of legal and psychiatric scholars who criticize it. Where are the critical sources for CAMH's publications?

It doesn't look like these documents and theories meet the criteria to be a fringe theory. It looks like you personally disagree with what they say, and thus wish them removed. That is not appropriate. And even if they were a fringe theory, removal is not appropriate. Instead, we would briefly summarize what they said, then immediately after point to the criticisms made in other, more respected and more voluminous sources. Fringe theories are not labelled as such because of editor beliefs, they are labelled as such by other sources. WP:FRINGE pretty clearly states that reliability and peer reviews are thresholds that fringe theories generally fall below. The publications you are removing pass those thresholds. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 02:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The DSM, the consensus document of the American Psychiatric Association, categorizes infantilism as a type of masochism (pg 572 in 4TR). Given how long you've been edit warring over the DSM, I'd suggest reading it. If you'd like to fix those other articles, be my guest. Now stop trying to divert the discussion.

Claiming that there is "very little research" doesn't justify pushing your version here. Do you have independent sources or not? If not, the fringe theory doesn't belong here. BitterGrey ( talk) 02:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I have read the pages of the DSM, I have photocopies of all 6 relevant pages and infantilism only appears once as a behaviour of masochism. That aspect is dealt with on the main page. As numerous editors have said - the DSM doesn't discuss infantilism that way. Saying it does doesn't make it so. This was discussed and addressed here. Myself, WhatamIdoing ( talk · contribs), FiachraByrne ( talk · contribs), James Cantor ( talk · contribs) and FuFoFuEd ( talk · contribs) disagreed with you. Nobody agreed with you.

Claiming something is a fringe theory doesn't make it so. Fringe theories are demonstrated by reliable sources being critical of the theories. If it is genuinely a fringe theory, please present reliable sources that criticize it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 13:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Six pages? In February you were edit warring to cite fourty seven pages [101]. Were you wrong then, wrong now, or both times?

Stop trying to distract from the fact that you don't have any independent sources to support the fringe theory you are pushing. As I've clearly stated, there is a consensus view, published by the APA, which contradicts your fringe theory. Longtime buddies and editors with conflicts of interest are not a substitute for independent sources. Gangs are not a substitute for independent sources. Votestacking is not a substitute for independent sources. Claiming support from others who aren't supporting you is not a substitute for independent sources. As the edit history clearly shows, you are the ONLY ONE pushing this fringe view here.

Per the Fringe theories guideline: " Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way.." You don't have independent sources for the fringe theory you are trying to push, so it should go. BitterGrey ( talk) 14:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

What source contains this view published by the APA?

"Independent" means not published by the subjects themselves (i.e. not self-published). Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree is published by Oxford University Press. Freund & Blanchard is published in the peer-reviewed British Journal of Psychiatry. All of the sources are thus independent and bear the imprimatur of the publisher, the de facto approval of the editorial and peer reviewers, particularly in the absence of a withdrawal or criticism by other scholars. This is why the publications and opinions expressed therein are not considered fringe theories. I have attributed the opinion more specifically to Blanchard, Freund, Cantor & Howard [102] as it is a proposed theory rather than the general consensus. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 15:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective." Blanchard et al is not independent from Blanchard et al.

Again, please actually read the DSM, pg 572 of 4th TR ed. You will clearly see infantilism defined under the heading of masochism, not pedophilia as claimed by the fringe theory. BitterGrey ( talk) 06:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:IS is about self-published and primary sources as they apply to people, businesses and cities discussing themselves in a self-promoting manner. It doesn't apply to scholarly sources. The DSM has been discussed repeatedly. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 11:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:IS is about INDEPENDENT sources, thus the title "Independent Sources.", which Blanchard et al and Blanchard et al are not. Blanchard in particular has an interested perspective in how Blanchard's fringe theory is described. Feel free to point out any policy, guideline, or essay that supports your position. I've quoted a number of policies. Perhaps it is you whom no one agrees with. The DSM simply and clearly contradicts the fringe view you are pushing. Since you continue to ask about it as if you had no familiarity with it (eg "What source contains this view published by the APA?"), I continue to mention it, hoping that you will actually read it after all theses months. BitterGrey ( talk) 14:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Independent sources are those subject to independent scrutiny (i.e. peer review) and publication. This is met by any article published in a peer reviewed journal or a scholarly press book as all of Blanchard, Freund, Cantor and Barbaree's works cited here are. Blanchard may indeed have an interest in how his theory is published and summarized, but that doesn't mean he has control over publication - if his ideas were not considered respected or supported, the peer review process or editor would not publish it. Quoting a policy doesn't mean it applies correctly. I've posted a notice at the reliable sources noticeboard.

The DSM issue was discussed and closed, for the second time I will point to it: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_103#Lack_of_references_in_the_DSM. If you are claiming the APA source that portrays the "consensus view" on paraphilic infantilism is the DSM, you are wrong and your interpretation has never been supported by any other editor.

Blanchard, Freund, Cantor and Barbaree's works are not fringe theories. You have provided no reliable sources to substantiate this assertion, merely your own opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 15:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

WLU wriote "If you are claiming the APA source that portrays the "consensus view" on paraphilic infantilism is the DSM, you are wrong and your interpretation has never been supported by any other editor." So James Cantor is now no longer an editor? He did use the DSM in that way. [103] BitterGrey ( talk) 03:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are bringing up a single edit on a different page by an editor from three years ago as if it had any bearing on this discussion. Particularly when that editor has not ventured an explicit opinion here. You may however, be interested in his more recent opinion here. So drop it then? Even assuming he didn't make a simple error in citation three years ago, his opinion now is obviously different. And irrelevant. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 11:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

To promote that CAMH theory as anything other than a fringe view in opposition to the widely published consensus, you need to get the DSM dismissed as irrelevant. That edit shows that even an editor on the CAMH payroll thought the DSM WAS relevant. As for that quote, you might actually want to read it. He mentions categorizing infantilism as "paraphilia NOS (not otherwise specified)", NOT pedophilia. The fringe theory that you are pushing categorizes it as a type of pedophilia. Not even the person you are quoting agrees with you. Perhaps you are the one who should "drop it"? BitterGrey ( talk) 14:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No, this edit shows that James Cantor doesn't think the DSM's mention of the word "infantilism" is relevant, and Blanchard and Freund distinguish pedophilia from paraphilic infantilism. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 15:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

So you are arguing that Cantor is inconsistent, first using the DSM to define infantilism and then waffling and citing his own new text? Not the best position, given that CB&B is the only source you are claiming for support that doesn't require WP:SYNTH in equating some particular neologism off a list and infantilism. F&B doesn't even use the word 'infantilism' once. BitterGrey ( talk) 03:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

RS/N summary

Some relevant quotes from a now-archived discussion [104] about these sources.

• AerobicFox:"This source has a variety of WP:REDFLAGs, the preface of this textbook states "it is aimed primarily at graduate students taking a first course in adultpsychopathology ... chapter authors were given considerable latitude"(emph mine). The chapter author of this particular chapter, Ray Blanchard, sources this theory to his own published work in 1993." [105].
• Fifelfoo:"MEDRS applies. Freund 1993 is a PRIMARY in terms of medical research, it is the first proposal of a theory, and therefore unreliable. Cantor 2009 would be a secondary, but I consider it tainted by association with an author who proposes the theory. Cantor 2009 can be used if independent secondary studies published in appropriate medical forums attest to the uptake of this medical theory. Until someone can demonstrate this, the text should be removed from the article as unverifiable due to failing to meet MEDRS." [106]
• (Elinruby also commented, but stated not having examined the sources.)

The discussion itself was stretched out to twelve thousand words, perhaps expecting that fatigue would prevent others from becoming involved in the article, or doing more than just expressing their concerns on the noticeboard. Sadly, this effect was apparently achieved. BitterGrey ( talk) 06:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(diff to longtime supporter who didn't comment at RS/N, added by WLU) [107]

• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_29#paraphilic_infantilism
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_29#Paraphilic infantilism (shorter)
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_29#"mosochistic gynephiles","autoinfantophilia/autopedophilia", and "autoerotic pedophilia"

That's an extremely selective summary. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 22:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU, thanks for demonstrating that my summary of the RS/N (the reliable sources noticeboard) discussion was impartial. Had I left out anything that supported your position, you would have linked directly to it. As it is, you just threw up links to entire discussions at the fringe theories noticeboard, including one extremely partial diff. Are you aware that Wikipedia has multiple noticeboards, and that the fringe theories noticeboard is not the reliable sources noticeboard? BitterGrey ( talk) 01:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

These sources were questioned in yet another RSN discussion, but there were no specific comments on the applicability of the sources. BitterGrey ( talk) 21:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It might be interesting to note that WLU's position on F&B has waffled during each RSN discussion. On Dec 6th, it changed from infantilism being a type of pedophilia to infantilism not being a type of pedophilia. In April, he gave up trying to equate "masochistic gynephilia" and infantilism, even though gynephiles love women, not diapers. (This WP:OR was necessary to use F&B, since F&B never use the term infantilism nor any established synonym.) Perhaps a lot of arguing could have been avoided if he had read and understood the source back in August (2011). BitterGrey ( talk) 00:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Is the following text adequately sourced by the attached sources?

• (1) Cantor J (2009). "Sexual Disorders". In Blaney PH & Millon T (ed.). Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology (2nd ed.). New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp.  531. ISBN  9780195374216. {{ cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) ( help)
• (2) Freund K; Blanchard R (1993). "Erotic target location errors in male gender dysphorics, paedophiles, and fetishists". The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science. 162: 558–563. PMID  8481752. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 20:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, as has been pointed out repeatedly, there are THREE affected locations. The third reads "...or as a form of autoeroticism analogous to Ray Blanchard's concept of autogynephilia as applied in certain cases of gender identity disorder.[Dickey][F&B][CB&B]..."

• Dickey, Robert (2007). "Commentary on "Adult Baby Syndrome" by Evcimen and Gratz (2006) (letter to the editor)". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 36: 131–2. doi: 10.1007/s10508-006-9148-x.

Please note that all of these authors are colleagues at CAMH, and so all of these sources are dependent. BitterGrey ( talk) 21:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Cross-posted requests for input to WP:PSYCH and WP:SEX.

I believe the sources are adequate; to be used exactly as they are currently would require a minor modification of the rules since reference (2) does not use the word "infantilism", but does define the key term "masochistic gynaephiles" as individuals who "habitually imagine themselves as little boys or babies" (Freund & Blanchard 1993, p. 561) - the definiton of paraphilic infantilists. Ray Blanchard is also a co-author of both the first (2009) and second (1993) sources. The 1993 source most clearly makes the distinction between pedophiles and paraphilic infantilists, making it most valuable in explicitly verifying the text. Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree can be used for a modified version of the above. The actual statement from Cantor et al (2008) page 531 is "erotic fantasies of persons with erotic identity disorders pertain less to any sexual partners and more to their transformed images of themselves; some authors refer to these paraphilias as autoerotic...[Freund and Blanchard] interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia." Within the theory of "erotic target location errors", that places pedophilia on opposite ends of a spectrum; on one end are pedophiles (who are sexually attracted to children and desire children as sexual partners). On the other end are paraphilic infantilists (who are sexually attracted to the idea of being, and being treated like an infant, and desire adult sexual partners who treat them like children). Both sources clearly distinguish pedophiles from paraphilic infantilists, even if their wording is unclear to those not familiar with the theory of erotic target location errors.

This has been discussed, at length, repeatedly, before ( FTN, FTN2, FTN 3, RSN 1, and RSN 2, which started this morning and lead to this post at the suggestion of Kmhkmh). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 20:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As I stated in my above attempt at discussion, F&B's "Erotic target location errors in male gender dysphorics, paedophiles, and fetishists." is about, according to the very first line "A clinical series of male paedophiles..." The article doesn't mention "infantilism" at all. In contrast, "paedophile" or "paedophilic" occur 16 times, including the title. The article claims to be about pedophiles, not infantilists. The DSM and many, many other sources clearly differentiate between infantilism and pedophilia. Unless part of some assertion that infantilism is a form of pedophilia - an exceptional claim not supported by any independent sources - F&B doesn't belong here. This was the point of the discussion above. WLU, the only active editor who has ever argued for this source has made multiple edits( [108] [109] [110]) to the article since this was posted, I believed concluding consensus by silence reasonable. However, WLU then edit warred to force his version of the article.

To summarize the past RSN discussion (the one where editors looked at the sources):

• AerobicFox:" Per WP:Exceptional claims require exceptional sources I would like better sourcing for this claim '...infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia'. This source has a variety of WP:REDFLAGs, the preface of this textbook states 'it is aimed primarily at graduate students taking a first course in adult psychopathology ... chapter authors were given considerable latitude"(emph mine). The chapter author of this particular chapter, Ray Blanchard, sources this theory to his own published work in 1993...'"
• Fifelfoo:" MEDRS applies. Freund 1993 is a PRIMARY in terms of medical research, it is the first proposal of a theory, and therefore unreliable. Cantor 2009 would be a secondary, but I consider it tainted by association with an author who proposes the theory. Cantor 2009 can be used if independent secondary studies published in appropriate medical forums attest to the uptake of this medical theory. Until someone can demonstrate this, the text should be removed from the article as unverifiable due to failing to meet MEDRS."
• (Elinruby also commented, but stated not having examined the sources.

The more recent RSN discussion degenerated into WLU making personal accusations against me, much as the above discussion did.

One more quote from past-WLU supporter FiachraByrne, regarding F&B "They delineate a small sub-set of paedophiles who self-image as infants or children." The largest of THREE sections of text being debated now was commented out from August to December because she didn't support that part of WLU's version. F&B was based on a sample of pedophiles.

As for myself:

A)Since F&B does't mention infantilism, it should be removed. To do otherwise would violate WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR. No reliable source defines "masochistic gynephiles" or any of F&B's other neologisms as infantilists. Please note that F&B (in 1993) could have used "infantilism" (in use since the 70's, and included in DSM IIIR in 1987). F&B could have used the established term - infantilism - but did not.

B) CB&B's claim regarding F&B - that F&B considered infantilism a form of pedophilia - is an exceptional claim without exceptional sources, and so should be removed. This is even more true given it's current, weasel-worded state that arguably contradicts the source. Furthermore, if we accept that F&B doesn't mention infantilism, CB&B's claim that it does would then be primary. Some other citations to CB&B might remain, but only those that properly represent the source.

C) Finally, Dickey's letter to the editor should go, since no remaining text that it is connected with is supported by a peer-reviewed source. It is cited only in the third section, conveniently omitted by WLU: "...or as a form of autoeroticism analogous to Ray Blanchard's concept of autogynephilia as applied in certain cases of gender identity disorder.[Dickey][F&B][CB&B]..." BitterGrey ( talk) 20:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I highly urge any interested editors to read the full set of sections or ignore them completely. Bittergrey noticeably neglects to mention opinions that disagree with his:

• Ludwigs2 "Your argument against the source is more or less baseless - The source is not being misrepresented, and is not an unreputable source. You are yourself misrepresenting what they say in a passage that's not even being used in the article and trying to remove the source on those grounds. I'll remind you that Wikipeida is not censored - the fact that there is an interpretation of this source that might offend people is not in itself sufficient grounds for removing the source. You need to show that the source is being misrepresented or misused, and to date you've failed to do so."
• WhatamIdoing "I think this dispute comes down to BitterGrey's unwillingness to have the article accurately represent a theory that personally offends him."
• AerobicFox's statement 10 days after the one quoted above, " The sources used are reliable, although I'm largely indifferent now towards their weight considering the lack of resources on infantilism. I'm definitely against including more material, and would support some removal, but I don't really care if what's currently written stays."

The claim that the sources are not independent is flatly wrong, all are published in venues not controlled by the authors, making them all independent. The fact that Blanchard, who cowrote the chapter, cited the work in reference to infantilism, makes it obvious that the authors think Freund & Blanchard 1993 applies even if it doesn't use the word "infantilism". That the paper is relevant is particularly obvious since the definition of the key term "masochistic gynaephiles" is people "who habitually imagine themselves as little boys or babies in sexual fantasies involving adult women."

Regarding FiachraByrne's statement, though a small number of pedophiles may indeed imagine they are children, please note the discussion in the paper regarding masochistic gynaephiles (who again, are people "who habitually imagine themselves as little boys or babies in sexual fantasies involving adult women") are thus:

Thus while there may be a small number of pedophiles who, like paraphilic infantilists, pretend they are children, this superficial similarity is belied by the fact that the etiology and underlying motivation is completely different - pedophiles and paraphilic infantilists are different.

And as I've said many times - Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree do not say paraphilic infantilists are pedophiles. They say that paraphilic infantilists lie on opposite ends of a continuum, the same way they theorize acrotomophilia is on the opposite end of a continuum from apotemnophilia, and homosexuality is on the opposite end of a continuum from transsexualism. It's the same continuum in all cases - is the desired sexual object another person with the desired trait, or the desire for the self to be transformed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 22:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

To the contrary, WLU, you've edit warred to include the text "infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia."(quote is from the last altered section) [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] in the article. You flip-flopped on Dec 6th, during the RSN discussion. You grieved "One thing that everyone seems to miss here, is that "autoerotic pedophilia" is not the same thing as "pedophilia"." It seems more likely that "everyone [else]" understands correctly, and that you alone do not. If you are finally willing to accept that F&B's paper, based on "[a] clinical series of male paedophiles..." wasn't about infantilism, we can get rid of that source. F&B had the option of using the then-established term, infantilism, and chose not to. BitterGrey ( talk) 23:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Does the page currently say that paraphilic infantilism is a form of pedophilia? Did I not say I wanted a different wording back in August, 2011? Did I not change the wording on December 7th? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 23:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As already noted, the text was weasel-worded to mean pretty much the opposite of what it meant before; the opposite of what the source says. The text should have been removed, as I have tried to. BitterGrey ( talk) 23:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The sources are accurately summarized as distinguishing pedophiles from paraphilic infantilists, I don't know how anyone can read the sections and quotes I've included ("The above cases suggest a distinction between paedophiles with erotic imagery of themselves as children and masochistic gynaephiles with similar fantasies...we believe that erotic fantasies of being a child probably have different aetiologies in the two groups.") and come to the conclusion that Freund & Blanchard are saying paraphilic infantilists are pedophiles. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 00:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU, feel free to add your "masochistic gynaephiles" source to the "masochistic gynaephiles" article. This is the infantilism article. F&B had the option of using the then-established term of infantilism, but opted to use some other term instead, because they weren't writing about infantilism. BitterGrey ( talk) 05:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Bittergrey, what is the definition of a masochistic gynaephile? What is the definition of a paraphilic infantilist? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 11:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll pass on the invitation for WP:OR. However, WLU, I am curious: Do you believe that infantilists are generally masochistic? BitterGrey ( talk) 13:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

What I personally believe is irrelevant, but the sources suggest there are probably infantilists who are interested in it for its masochistic aspects, and others who are in it for other reasons. There's very little research on the topic.

I'm not asking you to actually engage in original research. I'm simply asking you to indicate you've read and understood the sources you are so critical of, by asking for something of substance from them. To whit, the definitions of masochistic gynaephiles and paraphilic infantilists. I'm not saying you should change the page to include the definitions, just that you summarize them. I think you're avoiding doing that because then it would be evidence that you are actually aware of the definitions being substantially identical and WP:IAR being justified. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 14:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

To quote a past WLU "But we can't use the DSM to state infantilism is part of masochism. ... the sexual fixations are different - for infantilists it is being treated and coddled like an infant; for masochists it is the humiliation of being forced to be treated like a baby. One is about being cared for, the other is about being humiliated." Clearly, if infantilists are generally not masochistic, equating infantilism with masochistic gynaephiles is wrong, in addition to being WP:OR. BitterGrey ( talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the definition of a masochistic gynaephile according to Freund & Blanchard, 1993? What is the definition of paraphilic infantilism? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 15:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Repeating the same invitation for WP:OR, WLU? Shouldn't you be busy trying to undermine WLU's position, since it contradicts your current WP:OR? Or we could skip all this and just remove the claims that aren't supported by sources on infantilism. BitterGrey ( talk) 16:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Still dodging a question you know will undercut your position? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 16:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Answered below [117]. Answer below rejected. Question re-asked again, bringing the total to nine times [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126]. (Again, since I'm not the one seeking to include text in the article, I'm not the one who has to provide sources, per WP:Burden.) BitterGrey ( talk) 19:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Necessity of a second discussion

I question the necessity of this second discussion. As we've seen, it appears doomed to merely rehash what was already said in the prior discussion. The core issue is still that F&Bs "Erotic target location errors in male gender dysphorics, paedophiles, and fetishists." doesn't mention infantilism (or any synonym used by any other reliable source). Infantilism was formally defined six years prior (1987 vs 1993), so the authors could have used the established term - but chose not to. Perhaps the most basic question is whether we feel the need to, as WLU requests, ignore all rules to use this source. (He called it a "minor modification." [127]) We can discuss WP:SYNTH and WP:OR at great length, but that doesn't mean that their results should be used in articles. F&B's first sentence claims that it is based on "[a] clinical series of male paedophiles..." and we have no reason, short of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR, to question that. If we can't trust what an article says, we shouldn't be using it.

F&B claims to be about pedophilies, not infantilists. if we consider it reliable in this, we should not use it because it is not relevant. Alternatively, if we don't consider it reliable in this, we should not use it because it is not reliable. BitterGrey ( talk) 00:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrong, on the point of what F&B says asthat source uses the term "masochistic gynaephiles" as a synonym, since the definition matches that of infantilism (a person sexually motivated to act like an infant) and a subsequent publication featuring Blanchard as a coauthor makes the link explicit.

Wrong on the core issue since F&B could be replaced with CB&B; if the issue was truly yor objection to a synthesis you would have accepted the replacement source. If you agree to leave the text as is and replace F&B with CB&B, I will consider the issue resolved and we never have to have this conversation again. I have presented this option in the past and you have yet to indicate if you find it acceptable.

Wrong on the number of discussions, since this is at least the sixth time this very point about these very sources has been debated. Each time you clog the discussion with repetitive misrepresentations, selective quotations and in some cases outright lies (for instance, that the DSM defines infantilism) and each time I point out how you are wrong. The last section to address issues of substance closed with Ludwigs2's comment Your argument against the source is more or less baseless - The source is not being misrepresented, and is not an unreputable source. You are yourself misrepresenting what they say in a passage that's not even being used in the article and trying to remove the source on those grounds. The section you started March 25th is little more than a revival of a closed issue in the hopes of getting a different answer. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 00:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Since F&B was writing about a sample of pedophiles, they might have been describing a pedophile who also role-played. They chose not to use the term infantilism, and we aren't in a position to second-guess them. You can copy and paste your buddy's claims (it was source_s_ in that discussion, by the way) as many times as you like, and this won't change. As for compromises, WLU, I'm the one who started a discussion: You ignored and then reverted until you hit 3RR, and then started your own revival discussion. As for clogging discussions, you are the one who fought to cite 47 pages of the DSM [128] [129], then 5 pages (4RR/28 hours) [130] [131] [132] [133], (and hijacking a 3O [134]), then zero (0) pages [135], [136] [137] [138], and then finally one (1) page [139] at the same article. You claimed to have read that source seven months into the conflict [140] [141]. In contrast, I have held to and supported one (and only one) position per discussion. WLU, you can't accuse me of "clogging" the talk pages. BitterGrey ( talk) 05:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

In addition to a sample of pedophiles, they also conducted case studies of masochistic gynaephiles. By focusing on solely the title of the article and the abstract, you are ignoring the parts of the article that discuss non-pedophiles, starting on page 561 with the statements "Progress in understanding erotic target location errors will require careful distinction between genuine phenomena of erotic target location and superficially similar paraphilic acts and fantasies that may have different aetiologies...The above cases suggest a distinction between paedophiles with erotic imagery of themselves as children and masochistic gynaephiles with similar fantasies." So clearly the article is not just about pedophiles, and does not say masochistic gynaephiles are pedophiles. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 11:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

So you are claiming that the abstract is incorrect? The basic, inescapable fact is that F&B could have used the established term of infantilism or one of many less-established synonyms, and yet did not. They even used the term "cisvest[it]ism", but not infantilism. They chose to assert that they were writing about something else, and we need to accept that. BitterGrey ( talk) 13:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No, you are putting words in my mouth. Abstracts are incomplete, abbreviated summaries of the whole paper which is why we are urged to consider the whole paper, not just the abstract. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 14:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The whole rest of the paper doesn't mention infantilism or any established synonym either. WLU, are there any other parts you'd like us to ignore because they contradict your position? BitterGrey ( talk) 14:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the definition of a masochistic gynaephile, according to that article? Does Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree use the term "masochistic gynaephile", or infantilist? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 14:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Since we are engaging in WP:SYNTH and WP:OR...

• "I have never met a professional who would diagnose paraphilic infantilism as masochism. In my experience, it is diagnosed as "paraphilia NOS (infantilism)". The erotic focus of masochism is the pain and humiliation, whereas the erotic focus of paraphilic infantilism is being treated as a baby. That is, people with paraphilic infantilism do not experience the interaction as humiliating, just erotic; whereas the masochists do not experience the interaction as being "mothered" (rather, they are obeying a dominatrix who is belittling them, which they do experience as erotic)." - James Cantor (The C of CB&B, a colleague of both F and B of F&B, and so most likely has met them).
• "But we can't use the DSM to state infantilism is part of masochism. ... the sexual fixations are different - for infantilists it is being treated and coddled like an infant; for masochists it is the humiliation of being forced to be treated like a baby. One is about being cared for, the other is about being humiliated." - WLU

So clearly neither WLU nor the authors consider infantilists generally masochistic (at least per AGF). Thus we should not equate infantilism with "masochistic gynaephilia". Of course, without RS's, we shouldn't be doing that anyway... BitterGrey ( talk) 15:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Well thank the FSM that we're basing the article on sources, not on editor opinions! What do references 16, 26, 27 and 28 say about the subject?

What is the definition of a masochistic gynaephile according to Freund & Blanchard, 1993? What is the definition of paraphilic infantilism? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 15:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Linkspam aside, it is clear that not even WLU agrees with WLU's current attempt to equate infantilism and "masochistic gynaephilia," and that no RS's make this connection BitterGrey ( talk) 15:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Still dodging a question you know will undercut your position? Still misrepresenting CB&B's use of F&B? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 16:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If you consider me an authority on this matter, feel free to add an EL to my website to the article. If you don't consider me an authority, why are you asking for my ruling? Since no RS's have been offered, and even your stated position (about infantilists not being masochistic) contradicts your stated position (about masochistic gynaephilia being equal to infantilism), there is nothing left to discuss. F&B doesn't mention infantilism according to F&B. BitterGrey ( talk) 16:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This is why I went into this discussion thinking it was pointless. You know I don't consider your website reliable, you know my arguments for including F&B, and rather than seriously engaging in a substantive fashion you are playing word games, including pointless quotes and diffs and strategically ignoring a simple request because you know it illustrates the abusrdity of your position. All of which I expected. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex

Someone needs to chill and thank the FSM more often. As I wrote so long ago, WLU, you can avoid a pointless discussion by making points: You haven't. F&B don't mention infantilism or any established synonym of infantilism. No reliable source equates "masochistic gynaephilia" with infantilism. Quotes from you and James Cantor show that neither of you (previously) equated the two either. You had the WP:burden here, and you haven't produced. F&B, at least according to F&B, doesn't discuss infantilism, and so should not be cited. BitterGrey ( talk) 16:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the definition of a masochistic gynaephile according to Freund & Blanchard, 1993? What is the definition of paraphilic infantilism? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 16:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU has now repeated that question eight times [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149]. If I'm not an expert, my opinion doesn't mater. (I did quote WLU's past opinion because it contradicts his current assertion.) Since he is clearly not seeking my ruling as an expert, we can only conclude that he has nothing to offer. Usually he is more creative in his attempts at obscurity and discouragement through verbosity. BitterGrey ( talk) 17:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

And 8 times you have refused to provide the answers, despite the simplicity of the question. Do you not have a copy of Freund & Blanchard? I can e-mail it to you. It requires no expertise to simply read a source and select a definition, and I am indeed manifestly uninterested in your expertise. Merely your literacy and honesty. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 17:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Since you clearly aren't interested in my opinion, I'll answer based on your opinion. Previously, you have asserted that infantilists are not generally masochistic: "the sexual fixations are different - for infantilists it is being treated and coddled like an infant; for masochists it is the humiliation of being forced to be treated like a baby. One is about being cared for, the other is about being humiliated.". This alone would rule out equating infantilism with "masochistic gynaephilia". Of course, that was in a discussion about excluding the DSM: " 'Paraphilic infantilism' is indeed absent from the DSM....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. (Please note that unlike F&B, the DSM actually uses the term infantilism.) Additionally, WLU, if you accept that there are homosexual male infantilists, heterosexual female infantilists, or both, this would mean that infantilists weren't necessary gynephilic. Do you? If so, this would mean that infantilists would be "generally non-masochistic, not-necessarily gynephilic." This is quite different than "masochistic gynaephilia." We could go into more detail, but if they don't match, they don't match.

To paraphrase WLU, to include "masochistic gynaephilia" material we would need a source that says all infantilists were "masochistic gynaephilies" and that all the "masochistic gynaephilies" texts apply to paraphilic infantilism. Of course, if there were an RS that used both terms, WLU wouldn't be wasting so much space asking the same question over and over. BitterGrey ( talk) 18:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the definition of masochistic gynaephiles in Freund & Blanchard? Rather than quoting what I've said in the past, why don't you answer my current question? But none of this matters, since the RSN pretty much supported the current version of the page. So I guess I'm done, I'll consider the independent input from the RSN have addressed this issue and closed it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 19:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Nine times. [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158]... Not surprising that the consensus of RSN seems to have been "you should take your personal fight over content elsewhere...you should move the argument to special subject portal (psychology, medicine)" [159] with no discussion about relevance. WLU, if you are willing to let the unsupported and irrelevant material be removed, we can consider this matter closed. If not, the WP:burden is yours. BitterGrey ( talk) 19:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Trying Again...

Given the last round of silence, the next step is to edit. Here is a step-by-step description of what I'm removing and why:

1) Two citations to Freund & Blanchard, 1993: The term infantilism was formally adopted by the APA in the DSM IIIR, in 1987. F&B choose not to use that term, or any established synonym, in their paper. The first line of the abstract describes it as being based on a sample of pedophiles. Thus, according to F&B, F&B isn't about infantilism. Counterarguments degenerated into an invitation for WP:OR, equating "masochistic gynephiles" with infantilism based on editor opinion. This invitation was repeated nine times [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168]. These were answered with past quotes from the inviter showing that in other contexts, he held that infantilists were not generally masochistic: "the sexual fixations are different - for infantilists it is being treated and coddled like an infant; for masochists it is the humiliation of being forced to be treated like a baby. One is about being cared for, the other is about being humiliated.". That is, infantilists are not generally masochists, and so not generally "masochistic gynephilies." Please note that the inviter continues to reject the DSM's applicability to infantilism (eg. [169]), even though it actually uses the term infantilism and multiple independent sources refer to it as a source on infantilism. Neither of these are true of F&B.

2) Two citations to Cantor, Blanchard, and Barbaree, 2009: These are used in WP:SYNTH to apply specific comments in F&B regarding "masochistic gynephiles" to infantilists, even though CB&B never use the term "masochistic gynephiles." This synth is contradicted by an on-wiki comment by James Cantor: "I have never met a professional who would diagnose paraphilic infantilism as masochism. In my experience, it is diagnosed as 'paraphilia NOS (infantilism)'. The erotic focus of masochism is the pain and humiliation, whereas the erotic focus of paraphilic infantilism is being treated as a baby. That is, people with paraphilic infantilism do not experience the interaction as humiliating, just erotic; whereas the masochists do not experience the interaction as being "mothered" (rather, they are obeying a dominatrix who is belittling them, which they do experience as erotic)."

3) The paragraph previously supported only by #1 and #2.

4) One citation to Dickey, 2007: As a letter to the editor, this was never peer-reviewed.

5) The phrase previously supported only by #1, #2, and #4.

6) One citation to Cantor, Blanchard, and Barbaree, 2009: In the paragraph on ETLE, the source reads "[Freund and Blanchard] interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia." Paul B at RSN commented "It's blindingly obvious that Blanchard believes that infantalism is an 'Autoerotic form of pedophilia'. WLU says that 'Autoerotic form of pedophilia' is not the same thing as 'pedophilia'. Well, yes it is. That's what 'a form of pedophilia' means. I think this theory is utterly idiotic..." [170]. This is also an exceptional claim, since no other RS claims that infantilism is pedophilia.

The paragraph removed in #3 is a good illustration of how problematic the sources are: F&B was previously used in Wikipedia to support text stating that infantilists _are not_ pedophiles. CB&B mention F&B as claiming that infantilists _are_ pedophiles. Per AGF, we can't assume that this is an intentional act of misrepresentation, but evidence that F&B is obscure, and indirectly that CB&B's comment on F&B isn't that certain. This might be why Dickey doesn't cite F&B, even though they all work for the same facility, CAMH. (In spite of this, there is no overlap in the terminology of Dickey, CB&B, and F&B.)

Even in Cantor's on-wiki comment, he wrote that "In my experience, it is diagnosed as 'paraphilia NOS (infantilism)'." ...not pedophilia. It is possible that the fringe theory that infantilists are pedophiles is only held by Blanchard, and then only recently. Fringe theories should be included in articles (other than those about the fringe theory itself) "only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." Additionally, Exceptional claims require "multiple, high-quality sources". This single, questionable source doesn't fit the bill.

7) The section previously supported only by #6. On Dec 6th, this section was weasel-worded to avoid removal due to the exceptional claim. However, the exceptional claim is in the only source, so removing it from the text would be a misrepresentation. Whether the text includes or does not include the exceptional claim, the end result is the same: The text should be removed. BitterGrey ( talk) 02:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Every single one of these claims has been raised and rebutted before. This is nothing but tendentious editing, extreme failure to listen and the last in a long line of consistent attempts to keep asking the question until you get a response you agree with. Unbelievable. You can't even quote Paul B's full statements regarding your attempts to discredit these sources:

It's unbelievable to me that you would try to use an author's on-wiki comment as a rational to discredit their off-wiki work. I'll continue to revert, but I have nothing to add to this talk page beyond the thousands of words I've already put in. Nothing has changed in your argument, nothing is new. I'll instead spend my time putting together an AN or RFC/U posting since it is obvious that discussion, sources and outside input are not going to be enough to get you to stop. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 04:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU, you've been bluffing at an RFC/U posting since 23 March 2011 and a separate AN/I posting since 15 December 2011‎. You haven't because you know it will be clear to any objective reviewer that you've been hounding me all over Wikipedia for a year. You showed no real interest in this article or any of the others you've attacked me at before your hounding of me began.

Your current position amounts to nothing more than new personal attacks on my sexuality [171] [172] [173] and honesty [174]. After the same invitation for WP:OR over and over and over [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182] [183], you wrote "...I guess I'm done..." [184] and "..."I'll continue to revert, but I have nothing to add to this talk page beyond the thousands of words I've already put in. [185]" Of course, ignoring my points is nothing new for you [186] [187] [188].

I don't expect you to stop until you have fulfilled your determination that I should be driven from Wikipedia [189] [190]. Now, if you would like to discuss sources, do so. If you have nothing but OR and personal attacks to offer, please go away. BitterGrey ( talk) 06:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

(The post I responded to was only 192 words long [191]. It was modified to 573 after I responded. WLU should probably learn to use quotation marks. BitterGrey ( talk) 14:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC))

I have been watching this dispute. My view is that everything WLU has said is absolutely right and that everything Bittergrey has said is absolutely wrong. To Bittergrey I would ask: if you find WLU's alleged attacks on your sexuality to be offensive or distressing, why are you so eager to draw other editor's attention to them by linking to them? 203.118.187.209 ( talk) 22:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

At first I tried to remove them (eg. [192] [193]), but WLU kept replacing them [194] [195]. If I don't draw attention to WLU's personal attacks, wikihounding, and other incivility, it won't stop. As for finding WLU "absolutely right", this is impossible given his frequent changes of position. For example, in the past he has fought to cite 47 pages of the DSM [196] [197], then 5 pages (4RR/28 hours) [198] [199] [200] [201], then zero (0) pages [202], [203] [204] [205], and then finally one (1) page [206] here. (He claims to have read that source seven months into the conflict [207] [208].) Even if we assume one of WLU's past positions were right, that means that three of his past positions were wrong. The only way he could be "absolutely right" is in they eyes of someone who took his word unquestioningly, so the right answer would change based on his say-so. Most editors are imperfect. That is why we rely on sources, not friendship, to determine article content. BitterGrey ( talk) 21:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

203.118.187.167, 203.118.187.43, and 203.118.187.209 were found to be sock puppets of WLU. This is not the first time that WLU has failed to cover his tracks regarding puppetry (eg [209]). Any users whom WLU encourages to edit on his behalf should be aware that such meatpuppetry would be a violation of Wikipedia policy and can get them blocked or banned. BitterGrey ( talk) 14:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

For future clarification, NativeForeigner subsequently concluded socking was unlikely [210], [211]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 18:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not WLU, and have never been in any kind of communication with him off-Wiki or even on-Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.187.226 ( talk) 01:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Usually only experienced Wikipedians appreciate the difference between on-wiki and off-wiki edit discussions. BitterGrey ( talk) 05:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

As we can see by contrasting a Sept 2011 version with an April 2012 version, almost all significant changes from WLU's version have been reverted by WLU.

• Winston Spencer changes from polyvinyl chloride to the more common and compact PVC [212], WLU reverts [213] (I intervened, and between us we were able to edit away from WLU's version in this small detail.)

• 108.88.120.64 makes a good-faith addition [214], WLU reverts [215]

• BitterGrey adds a cite to Ardnt and corrects thesis/dissertation error [216], WLU reverts [217]

• BitterGrey cites Ardnt & Speaker [218], WLU reverts [219]

• BitterGrey cites DSM to provide NPOV [220] [221] [222], WLU reverts [223] [224] [225].

• BitterGrey changes spelling of "behaviour" to behavior [226], WLU reverts [227] (WLU would latter flip-flop, suggesting didn't look at the edit before reverting).

• BitterGrey edited to make dependence of sole sources clear [228], WLU reverts [229]

• BitterGrey removed section on autonepiophila, including only the post-DSMIIIR def (not a fetish) without reference to the pre-DSMIIIR def (a diaper fetish). NPOV requires both or neither. [230]. WLU reverts [231]

• 71.237.90.48 removed citation to misspelled source "...Studen Bk Aqa A" [232], WLU reverts [233]

• 71.237.90.48 removed discussion specific to John Money, considering it UNDUE [234], WLU reverts [235]

• BitterGrey adjusts citations based on what the sources actually say [236], WLU reverts [237].

• 194.238.70.70 makes a good-faith addition [238], WLU reverts [239]

• ...

• Yobot (a BOT) corrects page formatting [240] [241], WLU reverts [242] [243]

WLU does permit some spelling corrections and the removal of images, but quickly and dogmatically reverts almost all significant changes, demonstrating an ongoing sense of ownership. This has discouraged other editors from contributing. Those that do engage in discussion (me) see their time wasted, because WLU doesn't consider the points raised - he just reverts.

WLU's sense of ownership has been discussed before [244] [245]. WLU's only counterpoint was an accusation raised at wikiquette assistance, which he needed to retract when it became clear that he had not even looked at my edit [246]. BitterGrey ( talk) 16:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU is obviously doing a good job editing this page. I hope he keeps up the good work. Bittergrey is being a nuisance, and should be banned from editing this page if he keeps it up. 203.118.187.43 ( talk) 23:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

203.118.187.43, were you previously 203.118.187.167? Both resolve to a New Zealand DSL connection via ihug.co.nz.

Anyway, I have to disagree with you. Were my name the only constant on the list, then we might conclude that I was the problem. It isn't. Winston Spencer, various IP editors, even a bot have been reverted by WLU. He is the constant on the list. By the way, what are your thoughts on the diaper_fetishism article? BitterGrey ( talk) 02:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

203.118.187.167, 203.118.187.43, and 203.118.187.209 were found to be sock puppets of WLU. This is not the first time that WLU has failed to cover his tracks regarding puppetry (eg [247]). Any users whom WLU encourages to edit on his behalf should be aware that such meatpuppetry would be a violation of Wikipedia policy and can get them blocked or banned. BitterGrey ( talk) 14:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, NativeForeigner apparently concluded that I was a sock of WLU. He was wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.187.226 ( talk • contribs)

203.118.187.226, do you acknowledge being 203.118.187.167, 203.118.187.43, and 203.118.187.209? NativeForeigner didn't conclude that 203.118.187.226 was a sock yet, but given that 203.118.187.167, 203.118.187.43, and 203.118.187.209 were, and that your edit pattern matches theirs (but not that 2011 IP editor you claim to be [248]) it seems likely that you are a sock too. BitterGrey ( talk) 04:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

For future clarification, NativeForeigner's conclusion was subsequently changed [249], [250]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 18:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia should follow the consensus, not merely the majority. However, in practice at least, it seems that only the position of 203.118.x.x matters here. Based on this, I would like to ask 203.118.x.x which case or cases in F&B he or she believes CB&B were referring to. (Again, F&B is Freund and Blanchard, and CB&B is Cantor, Blanchard, et al.) BitterGrey ( talk) 14:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest attention be primarily focused on the relevant discussion of F&B rather than analyzing their source material. It starts on page 561. Regards CB&B, the relevant discussion used to verify the paraphilic infantilism text are found on page 531, right hand column. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 18:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

203.118.x.x has already joined in a edit war, and so should already be familiar with the sources and debates. He would only need additional pointers if he had edited in bad faith. For example, only someone who hadn't read the sources would need the page numbers that WLU provides. I've conveyed my position, and WLU has sequentially conveyed multiple positions. However, the two of us don't matter. We cancel each other out. The edit conflict has twice been decided by 203.118.x.x. Effectively, only 203.118.x.x's position matters. I think it reasonable to ask a question or two about his position. (To prevent this from being yet another endless debate with WLU, I'll give him the lastword by not replying to him further, unless 203.118.x.x or others join in.)

Since F&B doesn't use the term "infantilism" or any synonym, we can only use F&B with CB&B and WP:SYNTH. F&B claimed that all of F&B's cases were something other than infantilists. CB&B did claim a case or cases in F&B as infantilists, and which ones those are has bearing on the article content. 203.118.x.x, which case or cases in F&B do you believe CB&B were referring to as being infantilists? Please note that this should be your independent answer, not based on the directions of another. BitterGrey ( talk) 05:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You are ignoring the explicit discussion in favour of your personal analysis of the primary material. This is an unacceptable application of original research in my mind. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 13:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

My initial response [251] was first hidden and then moved by Slp1. Slp1 also got involved on WLU's behalf at SPI, playing a role in getting the archived conclusion of SPI regarding WLU and 203.118.x.x reversed.) I'd urge him to understand that since 203.118.x.x doesn't have a user page, this discussion is being attempted here. I'm the one attempting discussion. In contrast, 203.118.x.x has yet to make any non-personal comments or any edits that aren't part of an edit war. All of 203.118.x.x's relevant edits have been when WLU was at 3RR and in need of a fourth revert. BitterGrey ( talk) 13:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

How can a consensus be built if editors won't engage in meaningful discussion? If 203.118.x.x was not acting as a puppet, he or she would have needed to become familiar with the sources before joining the edit war. For one who is familiar with the sources and not pushing a misrepresentation, the question I asked is a simple one. Furthermore, it is important since F&B never use the term "infantilism" or any established synonym, and so can only be used after WP:SYNTH with CB&B. I asked a simple question a month ago, and am still waiting for an answer. BitterGrey ( talk) 22:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Freund and Blanchard's paper never uses the term "infantilism," nor any established synonym. WLU does not deny this, but still fights to keep it and misrepresentations of its claims in three sections of this article. In contrast, WLU removed a section from the corrective rape article commenting "Janoff doesn't use the term "corrective rape" at all...". These two positions are incompatible with any singular interpretation of Wikipedia standards. WLU is fighting to implement his own double standard.

Currently the only active editor to support WLU's current position on F&B is WLU. WLU has gone through at least three positions on F&B, but persists in his fight.

Freund and Blanchard could have used the then-formally-recognized term "infantilism" to describe their few subjects, but chose to use other terms. They described their patients mostly as pedophiles. Applying F&B to infantilism, in spite of what F&B actually wrote, is WP:OR at best. It should be removed from all three sections, since Freund and Blanchard doesn't use the term "infantilism" at all... BitterGrey ( talk) 00:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)