Talk:pedophilia

"Pedarist"?
Is "pedarist" actually a word, or some odd variant of pederast ? The spelling seems too divergent from the pronunciation to tell. —Muke Tever 04:57, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * That was a case of my bad spelling &mdash; 203.108.239.12 05:36, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC) (hippietrail)

"Hebophilia"
We need an entry for the word "hebophilia", or attraction to teenagers. 67.5.157.174 21:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * hebophilia, if it exists (there are a few scattered attestations in Google books), should be attraction to adolescence (Greek: ἤβη adolescence)... The apter and more common word for attraction to teenagers is ephebophilia (Greek: ἔφηβος adolescent, teenager).  —Muke Tever 21:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Philia vs. eros
Pedophilia is actually a wrong word to express "a sexual or erotic feelings of desires directed towards children" because philia is NOT erotic love, eros is to express erotic (erotic comes from eros) love. Like it is used in Philo-sophia (love for wisdom) phil-antrop (love for mankind/humans)This is not erotic love! English language does not have two words for this to love (maybe to love and to like) but ancient greek has. Pederasty wold be the correct frase because it starts with the same word peido (child, boy, used in pedagogy too) but ends with erostos (erotic love). So pedophile actually someone who love children in a normal way like a mother loves her child, like a philosopher loves wisdom. Pederast who loves children in an erotic (erast and erotic comes from the same root) way. I know nowadays everyone uses pedophile for someone who loves childre eraticaly and uses pederast for a man who loves young boys but both of them are wrong usages. I suggest to mention this controversion in the article! I am not native English speaker neither a wikipedia editor so i only mention this here and hope someone will hear and listen. Balint from Budapest.


 * Even if you're right, we need to document words as they are used, not as they ideally "should" be used. Equinox ◑ 11:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong use of Pederast.

Many Western cultures- notably the UK and USA- have a stigma dating from the late 19th century that "if a man loves someone who isn't a close relative, it means sex", in effect falsely equating philia with eros. It's why men rarely admit to feeling philia (brotherly love) towards their friends, and especially not other people's children. I think this may be a case where our language has shifted to reflect that stigma.Tws45 (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

RFV
We have: The first two seem basically the same. I can't really tell what the third is supposed to mean. FTR I did just edit the first two because they were badly written. I didn't intend to change the meaning, but it became more apparent that they were redundant. You can see what they used to look like if you want. I think the second two could just be completely removed without losing anything from the entry. WurdSnatcher 04:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Sexual or erotic feelings or desires directed by adults towards children.
 * 2) A desire for overt sexual acts directed by adults towards children.
 * 3) Whatever assumed manifestation of erotic feelings or desires directed towards children, for example using of child pornography, involvement in age unequal interrelationship with a child or an young person etc.
 * Sorry, what is is that we are supposed to be citing? --Mglovesfun (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Either of the last two, sorry I wasn't clear. WurdSnatcher 00:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sense 2 before it was edited referred to acts; now it refers to the desire for acts. That's quite a change (which makes the sense redundant to 1). I say revert that. (Sufficiently many, though not all, of the cites at are for the old sense 2.) &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I cited both senses. The "acts" sense was later removed, but I have re-added it and cited it and the "desires" sense fully. The two senses are distinct. - -sche (discuss) 17:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Passed. - -sche (discuss) 07:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Orientation
Some note should probably be made that pedophilia is sometimes considered a sexual orientation. See, e.g.: In that latter article, the author writes, "male sexual orientation can be defined as the direction(s) of a male person’s sexual thoughts, fantasies, urges, arousal, and behavior . . . . By the above definition of sexual orientation—and most common definitions of sexual orientation—pedophilia can be viewed as a sexual age orientation based on the more limited evidence available regarding its age of onset, associations with sexual and romantic behavior, and stability over time. Though there are clearly differences in some respects, there are also striking similarities in the research literature on pedophilia."

On the other hand, it was noted, 'APA considers pedophilic disorder a “paraphilia,” not a “sexual orientation.”' Leucosticte (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

RFD discussion: February–March 2014
RFD:
 * Sexual acts committed by adults with prepubescent children.

The quotations given do not support the definition because they do not specify what is meant by "engaging in" or "committing" pedophilia. Pedophilia is about what goes on in the mind, not about behavior. Granted, one of the ways in which a person can get diagnosed with pedophilia is by acting on those desires, but the psychiatric literature is pretty clear that not everyone who engages in sexual activity with children is a pedophile, as the third paragraph of the lead to pedophilia points out. We should at least note that it's an incorrect use of the word. Leucosticte (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In informal (non-clinical) speech, any adult who engages in sexual activity with children often is termed a pedophile, and their actions or the motivation behind them are termed pedophilia. This is what the sense in question is intended to cover, as explained when it was RFVed. AFAICT, this is the only -philia entry which currently contains an "acts" sense; OTOH, other -philias are not as often found in collocations like "engaged in ____philia". &lt;tangent&gt;Only some -sexuality entries contain "acts" senses, e.g. homosexuality defines itself as "the state of being attracted..." or as "sexual activity between...", but heterosexuality and bisexuality define themselves only as "the state of being attracted...". Because all the -sexualities are most likely attested in the same kinds of collocations, this is a more curious discrepancy... but tangential to this particular RFD.&lt;/tangent&gt; - -sche (discuss) 17:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Engaging in or committing pedophilia could mean engaging in pedophilic thinking, kind of like how you can engage in meditation or commit thoughtcrime. ("Commit" usually means to engage in an illegal act; probably the only reason people talk of "committing" suicide is that it was once illegal. Since pedophilia isn't illegal in any jurisdiction I know of, it's probably incorrect to speak of "committing" it.)


 * It's kind of sloppy thinking to assume that a person who has sex with a child must be a pedophile. That would be like saying that a person who reads a book is a bibliophile. Maybe there just wasn't anything good on TV, and that's why the person read a book. There are people in prison who are voracious readers while they're in there, and then don't pick up a book afterwards.


 * The misuse of the term "pedophilia" is similar to the misuse of the term schizophrenic; given how often it's misused, it might be appropriate to note that use, but what is the specific notation that we would put? Slang? Casual? Incorrect? Leucosticte (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting because commit suicide is located further up the page. To answer your question, I suppose  could be used to distinguish it from the   sense. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It occurs to me that this discussion should probably be moved to WT:RFV (if you still dispute that the sense exists). RFV is the venue for determining if particular senses of words, or entire words, exist; RFD is the venue for arguing that senses or words which do exist shouldn't be included in Wiktionary, because they're unidiomatic, or redundant to other senses. The sense was previously RFVed, but if you think that some of the citations that talk about "committing pedophilia" could actually be referring to "committing pedophilic thinking", you could request clearer citations. IMO, the Lewis and Cavender ones are clearly referring to acts, but the Burgess one could indeed just be referring to thinking/fantasies. - -sche (discuss) 07:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm kinda in over my head here. It's difficult enough to make sense of all the semantic issues surrounding topics related to pedophilia/pedosexuality/minor attracted person, etc. because people have come up with so many overlapping terms with multiple senses; plus I'm a newcomer here so am not used to the processes. I had thought they were simpler than they actually are. So, perhaps I will leave this to you, lest I make even more of a mess than currently exists. Leucosticte (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the terminology of the topic seems quite complicated. And I suppose Wiktionary's processes may also seem complicated at first, though the basic division is the one I noted above: RFV for "do people actually use this word / this sense?", RFD for "sure, people use these words, but they're not idiomatic". I've removed the one ambiguous citation (from Burgess) and replaced it with one that I think more clearly shows the word pedophilia being used to denote sexual activity rather than desire. IMO, there's nothing else to be done. TeleComNasSprVen mentions some possible context labels, but neither sense seems to be limited to use in the medical community or informal speech, respectively, so I don't think it would be appropriate to add either label. - -sche (discuss) 00:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Resolved. This was a matter for RFV, but the entry has now been comprehensively cited, so there's no need to move it thither. - -sche (discuss) 21:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Etymology hole
I think something may be missing from the explanation of the etymology here. The prefix and suffix seem pretty straight forward.
 * παῖς (pais) + ? + φιλέω (philéō)
 * παιδοφιλία (paidophilía)
 * παιδόφιλος (paidóphilos)

Regarding the prefix I notice these things:
 * the first two characters πα appear unchanged
 * vanishing tilde: the ῖ changes to ι, where did the squiggly line go?
 * the ς after the (now topless) lowercase I, which is making the 'S' sound, at the end, appears to be dropped

Regarding the suffix I notice:
 * the first three characters φιλ (which I think make 'phil' or 'fil' or something) appear intact
 * the last two έω (pronounced éō) are replaced with either ία (ia) or ος (os).
 * Notably the C symbol dropped from the pais prefix reappears once again making an 'S' sound for the 2nd one.

There seem to be some middle unaccounted-for characters though. This is what I am wondering about the etymology of:
 * the two characters δο (making a "do" or "dó" sound, bit unclear on the vowel) are added

Does anyone know what that means? Do we have a middle to mention in the etymology? Does it have its own meaning? Or could this possible be some Ancient Greek meaningless filler used to attach compounds together? Kind of like a dash symbol.

Whatever it is, I would like to discern that and add it to the etymology, it's weird. Etym (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Definition minimum age
I believe that in order to be diagnosed as a pedophile, a person has to be at least 16 years old (it might perhaps be unlikely in practice that someone that age would be diagnosed with it, but that's the absolute minimum), so it is definitional in that sense, because a 15 year old is an adolescent, but he cannot be diagnosed with that defect, because of how the DSM-IV is written. I don't know if the minimum age belongs in the entry though. I'm just stating why it put that in the definition, I'll leave it up to others to decide if it should go in. User:PaulBustion88 (User talk:PaulBustion88) 03:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC) The source for age 16 years to be the minimum age for diagnosis is this,Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition". American Psychiatric Publishing. 2013. Retrieved July 25, 2013. Its listed on English wikipedia as their source for that statement. That's why I put it in the definition.User talk:PaulBustion88 07:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Prepubescent was taken out of the definition.
I do not care about putting the minimum age for diagnosis back in the article, and maybe it would be a bad idea actually because some people have proposed raising the minimum age for diagnosis to 18 and if that happened it would be confusing for readers, but I do think the entry should specify that this attraction is specifically to prepubescent children, because "children" in popular usage means any person who is not yet 18 years old. Obviously attraction to a 17 year old, for example, is not the same thing as pedophilia. Someone removed the adjective "prepubescent" from the article. PaulBustion88 (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Review of sense edits through 1 May 2015
The following is a review of all edits through May 1, 2015.

The initial 2004 edit
 * Primary sexual attraction to prepubescent children (generally 13 years of age or younger). as, in my opinion, quite accurate

A 2005 edit focused on the diagnostic criteria of psychiatry in the U.S.
 * (US) A paraphilia consisting of a primary sexual attraction to prepubescent children; DSM IV: Over a period of at least six months, recurrent, intense, sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 or younger). and added two usage notes
 * The term has been mistakenly used to describe adults sexually involved with adolescents. (See pederasty)
 * The term has also been misused in describing juvenile sex play between minors.

From 2005, good faith edits were made to clarify the single sense, instead of adding additional sense(s) of behavior, found in the usage notes Some unsuccessfully attempted to remove content describing the term as behavior (e.g.,, ) but were patrolled and reverted. Some unsuccessfully attempted to restrict meaning to an etymological sense.

In 2009, the single sense was split into three senses 
 * sexual feelings directed towards children.
 * Overt sexual acts directed towards children.
 * (psychology) A paraphilia consisting of a primary adult sexual attraction to prepubescent children (DSM-IV: Over a period of at least six months, recurrent, intense, sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children)

In 2010, a fourth sense was added  and, a fifth sense was added 
 * A general affection for children, the opposite of pedophobia. The erotic affection for chilren was originally by Richard von Krafft-Ebing (1886, Psychopathia sexualis) called with a specifying adjective, peadophilia erotica in Latin.
 * Whatever assumed manifestation of erotic feelings of desires directed towards children, for example using of child pornography, involvement in age unequal interrelationship with a child or an young person etc.

3 April 2011, the second sense was changed from an external act to a internal desire, and a ( was made

6 April 2011, the first attested usages were added and a sense was modified to distinguish external acts from internal desires 
 * A desire for overt sexual acts directed by adults towards children.
 * Sexual acts committed by adults with children.

Then, a few weeks later, four senses were removed, the remaining sense was 
 * Sexual or erotic feelings or desires directed by adults towards children.

A few months later, that one sense was split into two 
 * Sexual or erotic feelings or desires directed by adults towards children; particularly, in psychiatry, a paraphilia consisting of a primary adult sexual attraction to prepubescent children.
 * Sexual acts committed by adults with children.

The Requests for verification passed ) see Talk:pedophilia.

In 2014, an attempt to remove the 2011 sense of an act was reverted. See Talk:pedophilia.

In 2015, the first sense was changed 
 * Sexual or erotic feelings or desires directed by adults and late adolescents towards children; particularly, in psychiatry, a paraphilia consisting of a primary adult sexual attraction to prepubescent children.
 * Sexual feelings or desires directed by adults 16 and older towards prepubescent children.

A usage note was added 
 * Many psychologists recommend against using the term pedophilia to denote sexual activities with children, because not all people with a sexual preference for children (i.e., pedophilia) commit such acts, and child molesters often lack a strong sexual interest in children. See Wikipedia for more information.

The usage note was expanded from  into 
 * Many psychologists recommend against using the term pedophilia to denote sexual activities with children, because not all people with a sexual preference for children (i.e., pedophilia) commit such acts, and child molesters often lack a strong sexual interest in children.
 * Psychologists recommend against using the term pedophilia to denote sexual activities with prepubescent children, because not all people with a sexual preference for prepubescent children (i.e., pedophilia) commit such acts, and child molesters often lack a strong sexual interest in prepubescent children. Also the common use of the term pedophilia, to mean any adult who has sex with any minor (i.e., under 18), is not correct. Pedophilia specifically refers to attraction to prepubescents, not to all minors.

The sense was reverted to reflect  The edit summary is def from before en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=pedophilia&diff=32717033&oldid=31351647 was more accurate, reflective that many people describe any (even non-exclusive) adult sexual attraction to kids as pedophilia; also, 16 is prob. not definitional
 * Primary or exclusive sexual feelings or desires directed by adults or adolescents 16 and older towards prepubescent children.
 * Sexual feelings or desires (sexual attraction) directed by adults and late adolescents towards children; particularly, in psychiatry, a paraphilia consisting of a primary adult sexual attraction to prepubescent children.

The usage note was referenced and changed 
 * sexual activities with prepubescent children, because not all people with a sexual preference for prepubescent children (i.e., pedophilia) commit such acts, and child molesters often lack a strong sexual interest in prepubescent children. Also the common use of the term pedophilia, to mean any adult who has sex with any minor (i.e., under 18), is not correct. Pedophilia specifically refers to attraction to prepubescents, not to all minors.
 * sexual activities with children, because not all people with a sexual preference for prepubescent children (i.e., pedophilia) commit such acts, and child molesters often lack a strong sexual interest in prepubescent children. Furthermore, psychological texts define pedophilia as a preference for specifically prepubescent children; preferential attraction to older children is known as hebephilia or ephebophilia.

It was split into two from <blockquote style="background-color:#eaf8f4; border-left:3px solid #008560; padding:0 .8em; margin:0;"> into <blockquote style="background-color:#eaf8f4; border-left:3px solid #008560; padding:0 .8em; margin:0;"> The edit summary is <q style="color:teal">split first two definitions as per WT:RFC#pedophilia
 * Primary or exclusive sexual feelings or desires (sexual attraction) directed by adults and older adolescents towards prepubescent children ; particularly, in psychiatry, a paraphilia consisting of a primary adult or adolescent sexual attraction to prepubescent children.
 * Primary or exclusive sexual feelings or desires by majors (i.e. those over the age of consent) towards minors.
 * (medicine) Sexual attraction by adults and older adolescents towards prepubescent children.

The senses were edited from <blockquote style="background-color:#eaf8f4; border-left:3px solid #008560; padding:0 .8em; margin:0;"> into <blockquote style="background-color:#eaf8f4; border-left:3px solid #008560; padding:0 .8em; margin:0;">
 * Primary or exclusive sexual feelings or desires by majors (i.e. those over the age of consent) towards minors.
 * Sexual attraction by adults and older adolescents towards prepubescent children.
 * Sexual attraction to or sexual contact with minors by adults.
 * Mental disorder in which an adult or adolescent aged 16 years or older is mostly or only sexually attracted towards prepubescent children.

—BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That is an excellent review of activity. Thank you for your good work. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Another user, Renard Migrant, put in the definition as "Primary or exclusive sexual feelings or desires by majors (i.e. those over the age of consent towards minors."https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=pedophilia&diff=prev&oldid=32737411, I took "age of consent" out of that definition with this edit,https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=pedophilia&diff=next&oldid=32738001, because age of consent for sex is not what defines legal adulthood, age of majority is, and because the popular definition of pedophilia definitely is more connected to age of majority than age of consent, for example, when Mark Foley made sexual advances on young men who worked for him, nobody cared about the fact that they were all 16 years old or older, which made them of legal age for sex in Washington, D.C., because they were under the age of majority, i.e., 18, which made them still legally children, the most popular use of the term pedophilia is attraction to or interaction with any person under 18, and that definition correlates more to age of majority than age of consent. I originally added the phrasing that pedophilia was when an adult 16 years old or older was primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to children with this edit https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/?diff=32393361&oldid=31351647, but later I decided that since in the vast majority of countries the age of majority is 18 and the general public usually considers 16 year olds children, my calling a 16 year old an adult was inappropriate, so I changed it to "an adult or adolescent age 16 or older" with this edit, https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=pedophilia&diff=next&oldid=32436990. I was criticized for including age 16, one editor stating it was "probably not definitional". I still kept age 16 because no one younger than that can be diagnosed as a pedophile and there are some adolescents younger than 16 years old. The person whoi said age 16 was not definitional was wrong, it is set as the minimum age by the medical community. Although its probably unlikely that someone that young would be labeled as a pedophile since they are generally considered children, that's the absolute minimum age to be diagnosed with pedophilia according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fifth Edition, i.e., no one younger than that age can be a pedophile in the medical sense of the term. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Redundancy
Definition 4 is somewhat redundant to definition 3. "Sexual activity between adults and (prepubescent) children" and "a sex crime against a child" include overlapping definitions, which I thought we were supposed to avoid. Because the legal age of consent for sex is either age 13 or higher (I'm not saying 13 is a common age of consent for sex, I'm saying there's almost no country, state, or jurisdictions where its lower than that) in almost all countries, and the vast majority of 13 year olds and older are either pubescent or post-pubescent, in practice any sexual activity between an adult and a prepubescent child is a sex crime against a child. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * your concern here is similar to your concern in the tea room, where recently
 * <blockquote style="background-color:#eaf8f4; border-left:3px solid #008560; padding:0 .8em; margin:0;">I disagree, that <q style="color:maroon">another problem with that is the definition of a child . Age is an attribute of a child. Age is not an attribute of pedophilia. These various senses and definitions are not about particular law. You are shifting away from what pedophilia is; you are shifting to who a child is. Are you challenging some of the attested usages that I added?
 * here, again, you are attempting to prescribe who a child is. Both child and Citations:child are the places to add the attested usages that you gather about who a child is. The attested usages that I added do not include your assertion of age. Please add some usages to Citations:pedophilia that support your assertions. Please read through the rest of my attestations, as I will be adding other senses soon. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to define who a child is, what I'm saying is that defining pedophilia as a "sexual activity between adults and prepubescent children" seems to fall under the broader umbrella of "a sex crime against a child". I'm not saying all children are prepubescent, I'm saying the prepubescent category falls into the broader sex crimes against children category. It seems redundant in that sense. And not many people use it in that specific way, there is the medical definition, which is about primary or exclusive adult or adolescent sexual attraction to prepubescent children, and there is the popular definition of an adult having sex with a child or being sexually attracted to a child, the definition of having sex with prepubescent children seems to kind of be overlapped into those other two definitions, so that its kind of redundant. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 03:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I do contest this citation,https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Citations:pedophilia#Noun:_.22interest_in_children_as_sexual_subjects.22_.28an_internal_paraphilia.29, "1961, Frank S. Caprio, Donald R. Brenner, Sexual behavior: psycho-legal aspects, New York: Citadel Press, OCLC 607932741, page 204:
 * Pedophilia is a deviation of the sexual impulse characterized by the compulsive urge to accost or assault children sexually. The word is of Greek derivation and means "love of boys." It is a common sexual offense." That is not true, pedophilia etymologically comes from Greek words meaning "love of children", not sex specific. Ephebophilia, which is more similar to teliophilia (adult sexual attraction) than to pedophilia, comes from Greek words that mean "love of adolescent boys" ephebe I believe was a Greek word meaning a young adult or adolescent male, that term was used because homosexual adult/adolescent relationships were common in ancient Greeece. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 04:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I guess I was wrong about the etymology, someone just added to the article,https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=pedophilia&type=revision&diff=32780654&oldid=32779734, "An adaptation of the German Pädophilie, bringing its spelling into conformity with pedo- +‎ -philia, from Ancient Greek παῖς (paîs, “boy, child”) and φιλέω (philéō, “I love”). Compare the Byzantine Greek παιδοφιλία (paidophilía, “love of children”)." I thought it just came from the Greek for "love of child". --PaulBustion88 (talk) 06:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Although it is struck, I don't understand your challenge. Did I miscopy from Caprio?
 * Please add some usages to Citations:pedophilia that support your assertions. I will not discuss prescription. These seem like two senses – one criminal, and one anthropological or sociological. Add attested usages for the historical senses. FYI, even in Sparta, the violation of a child was punished by the loss of civil rights, exile, or death, according to several ancient sources. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I mistakenly believed pedophliia did not have an etymological relationship to the word boy, i was wrong, that was why I challenged Caprio, because of my mistaken belief about the etymology. I was wrong to challenge that specific quote. Then I retracted the challenge when I realized I was wrong.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that any society has tolerated pedophilic behavior. Read what I wrote earlier, "Because the legal age of consent for sex is either age 13 or higher (I'm not saying 13 is a common age of consent for sex, I'm saying there's almost no country, state, or jurisdictions where its lower than that) in almost all countries, and the vast majority of 13 year olds and older are either pubescent or post-pubescent, in practice any sexual activity between an adult and a prepubescent child is a sex crime against a child. "  I'm not trying in bringing that up again to say who is an adult and who is not, my point is that statement is saying all countries have laws against sex with children, so I don't see how you're trying to argue that I said some societies condone pedophilia. Here,"FYI, even in Sparta, the violation of a child was punished by the loss of civil rights, exile, or death, according to several ancient sources.", it seems with that statement that you feel a need to remind me that the vast majority of societies condemn this, I understand.
 * I'm not saying some societies condone pedophilia. My point with the Greek example was just an etymological one, I stated incorrectly that I thought the word pedophilia evolved out of the Greek words for love of child, not love of boys specifically, I was wrong it turned out. And I said maybe they were thinking of ephebophilia, which evolved out of Greek words for "love of boys", ephebophilia means attraction to post-pubescent teenagers, including ones as old as 18-19 and even 20-22 year olds in some definitions, so stating it was a practice in Greece is not the same thing as saying pedophilia was popular in Greece. I never said any society tolerated pedophilia. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "1962, Robert E. L. Masters, Forbidden sexual behavior and morality: an objective re-examination of perverse sex practices in different cultures, New York: Julian Press, OCLC 568047381, page 399–400:
 * It is said that in the Middle East the Prophet Mohammed contributed to the spread of pedophilia by his promise that young boys, "forever in their bloom," would wait upon the faithful in Paradise." Islam is very much opposed to homosexuality, so that statement does not make sense. The president of Iran said there were no homosexuals in Iran, I am not saying i agree with him, what i'm saying is that if he has that unrealistic belief, islam must be very homophobic. unfortunately because of the way i'm lying on a sofa now capitalizing is going to be hard and if sit up it might wake the people next to me up, that's why i'm not capitalizing. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * you might be interpreting in the quote and confusing it . —BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it said young boys, so that would be homosexual pedophilia, I guess. I have heard some people argue that Mohammad was a pedophile because his wife was 9, but others have argued that his wife was older ages, sometimes as old as 17 or 18, which would be outside the pedophile's interest. Islam is against sex with the same sex, "boys" would be the same sex. Presumably Islam would be against pedophilia also, since that's generally considered worse than homosexuality. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The meaning of the word "pedophilia" obviously has nothing to do with Islam. No need to chase that train of thought. Equinox ◑ 03:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the sentence is stating something about Islam that is probably false. Is it appropriate to include sentences with false statements as citations. Like would include the statement "X is a pedophile who has sex with children" as a sample sentence be appropriate if X is not a pedophie who has sex with children? --PaulBustion88 (talk) 03:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the questionable historicity of the use of the word homosexual to describe the Ancient Greeks (as many scholars believe that homosexuality as an identity construct arose in the late 19th century where previously same-sex relationships were not identity-defining and normative), I'm still not sure why homosexuality is being specifically brought up in this context as it has no direct impact on the meaning of pedophilia. — JohnC5 03:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm bringing it up because the sentence is implying Mohammad was a homosexual pedophile. Islam opposes homosexuality, so since the sentence is making a false statement, it should be removed. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I added a few quotes to Citations:paidophilia, one seems to mean that is also a cultural custom. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm wrong about the other senses I criticized as repetitive, but sense 7 is definitely redundant to sense 2, so I took it down.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sense 6 is also redundant to definition 2, its just the World Health Organization's diagnosis of the same mental defect as the AMA and APA diagnose. They give a similar definition, a sexual preference for prepubescent and early pubescent children. That's basically a repeat of definition one, its only slightly different. Its still more like the medical definition than the popular, mistaken definition. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Diagnostic classification within two systems
Senses 5,6, and 7 that you added to the pedophilia entry are definitely redundant to sense 2, particularly the last sense. Why did you add them? Sense 2, Mental disorder in which an adult or adolescent aged 16 years or older is primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to prepubescent children. 5.A sexual orientation. 6.A World Health Organization clinical diagnostic classification of some pedophilia; a disorder of sexual preference. 7. An American Psychiatric Association clinical diagnostic classification of some pedophilia. The medical definition of pedophilia has always been the one in sense 2, so 7 would be the same as 2. The sexual orientation has also always been about having a sexual attraction to prepubescent or sometimes also early pubescent children, so its also basically the same as sense 2, the sexual orientation definition never includes all attraction to under 18s for obvious reasons, being attracted to a 14-17 year old is much more like being attracted to an 18-21 year old than to a 7 year old or even a 12 year old, so lumping all sexual attraction to minors in the same category of sexual orientation would be impossible. PaulBustion88 (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I responded to you a few days ago that <q style="color:teal">you are attempting to prescribe who a child is ( and ) and <q style="color:teal">add some usages to Citations:pedophilia that support your assertions. I will not discuss prescription . Stop foisting; start contributing.
 * From the attestations and outside reading there are two systems of typology used in English that categorize ..
 * <small style="color:gray;">sense 6— A worldwide system still uses the term : <q style="color:teal">(epidemiology, psychiatry) A World Health Organization clinical diagnostic classification of some pedophilia; a disorder of sexual preference. This sense is about the statistical category of <q style="color:teal">disorder of sexual preference within the grouping of "Disorders of adult personality and behaviour".
 * <small style="color:gray;">sense 7— An American system outmoded the term : <q style="color:teal">(psychiatry, outmoded) An American Psychiatric Association clinical diagnostic classification of some pedophilia. [from ? through 2013] That American system replaced the term with the term  in 2013. That change in language is clearly an important aspect about this term.
 * Your other concern
 * <small style="color:gray;">sense 5— <q style="color:teal">sexual orientation is about a "state of being", and is distinguished by consensus in the 21st c. "as not a choice" and is not, in what I read, a classification in epidemiology or psychiatry of, in your words, a sense of <q style="color:teal">mental disorder.
 * Nevertheless,
 * <small style="color:gray;">sense 2— <q style="color:teal">(medicine, more strictly) Mental disorder in which an adult or adolescent aged 16 years or older is primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to prepubescent children. That is distinguished from <small style="color:gray;">sense 6 . The quote attesting usage of <small style="color:gray;">sense 6 : <q style="color:navy">Paedophilia is defined as a mental disorder within the International Classification of Diseases ICD-10 […] Contrary to any medical model of a diagnosis, however, such classification offers no understanding of aetiology and no indication of prognosis or grounds for treatment., is clear that <small style="color:gray;">sense 6 , about a typological category, is not equivalent but <q style="color:navy">Contrary to any medical model of a diagnosis.
 * —BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * " I responded to you a few days ago that you are attempting to prescribe who a child is (diff and diff) and add some usages to Citations:pedophilia that support your assertions. I will not discuss prescription (diff). Stop foisting; start contributing." You're dodging my main point, you have been inserting redundant definitions into this entry. Equinox seems to agree with me. I told you that "sexual activity between adults and (prepubescent) children" made "a sex crime against a child" redundant, Equinox,, said that the crime of burglary is not a different meaning of that word from the act. Since the legal age for sex is not lower than 13 in any civilized country I know of, and most people begin sexual development before then, saying that pedophilia is "sexual activity between adults and (prepubescent) children" and a "sex crime against a child" is redundant, they're pretty much the same definition since sex with prepubescent children is against the law pretty much everywhere. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Bobomisiu has never attempted to refute my contention that her adding 4 new definitions to the pedophilia was ridiculous and redundant, and has resorted to ad hominem arguments such as accusing me of being pro-pedophilia. I'm anti-pedophilia, and her ad hominem point has nothing to do with my point that 7 definitions is to many, and that at least some of the ones she gave are definitely redundant, and as I noted above, Equinox has also noticed that some of her definitions are redundant. I have not tried to push my viewpoints in this article against consensus, even though I view the popular definition of pedophilia as sexual attraction to or interaction with any minor as mistaken, I did not push to change it once it was agreed that that would be the first definition, but having 7 different definitions with some of them just being repeats of ones already given is redundant and ridiculous. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

RFD discussion: May–June 2015
There are now four senses in RFV. The RFV will be hard to close so I am opening this RFD.

I nominate the following senses for deletion (which Equinox already deleted and I thank him for that):


 * 4. (countable, crime) A sex offense committed against a child.
 * 5. A sexual orientation.
 * 6.​ (epidemiology, psychiatry) A World Health Organization clinical diagnostic classification of some pedophilia; a disorder of sexual preference.
 * 7. ​(psychiatry, outmoded) An American Psychiatric Association clinical diagnostic classification of some pedophilia.


 * Delete all four senses. Especially senses 4 and 5 are misguided, and I am tired of explaining why; sense 5 lacks differentia (lexicography 101); senses 6 and 7 seem overspecific. Please avoid very long posts to this RFD, or else it becomes as much of a mess as the RFV and related talk page discussion. Also please keep the typography simple, avoiding various font colors and background colors; please don't repeat the logorrhea and typographic mess that we can see at WT:RFV. Please limit extensive discussion; there is plenty of hard-to-follow discussion on WT:RFV already. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. #4 is a cultural not a lexical difference, like how we don't have different senses for cannabis because it's legal in some countries and illegal in other. Because it's not part of the definition. #6 and #7 are not lexical. It is not the job of a dictionary to list standards held by medical bodies all over the world. That's cultural information and therefore belongs on Wikipedia. #5 is a bit more marginal. I wouldn't mind an RFV so much for that one because a sexual orientation isn't the same as sexual feelings. So definitely delete, #4, #6, #7, on the fence for #5. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * you are starting this RFD to split the discussion that is already started in an RFV – you don't want to have this discussion include usages potentially verified in that RFV (or having the many attested usages declared unverifiable there). Why don't you contribute something there? You may here that you <q style="color:teal">are tired of explaining why – but you never did contribute there. No I am not going to change the way I write for you; criticizing that I visually separate what what I say from what I quote is silly. I will repeat what was included but ignored in WT:RFV. WT:RFV#pedophilia is about verifying what I attested to. That process is failing. No one is discussing either the nuance of the attested usage, or any of the attested usage.
 * This is about a vile and repulsive subject but each usage is well attested on Citations:pedophilia, Citations:paedophilia, or Citations:paidophilia.
 * I think this RFD process should begin after the RFV process is concluded. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * about <small style="color:gray;">sense 4, is hate crime a lexical WT:SOP difference or a cultural SOP difference? I was taught in elementary school that culture is a set of symbols like language.
 * <small style="color:gray;">sense 6 is lexical. It is the prescribed sense used for this term internationally. WHO was created by international agreement to do what it does. Part of what it does is publish a standard for epidemiological classification, the . This is a controlled vocabulary which is translated into many languages. The vocabulary is by international agreement in practice and including the sense that is prescribed and used planet wide. Differentiating <small style="color:gray;">sense 6 and <small style="color:gray;">sense 7 is not over specific but the granularity in use on a planetary scale. It is part of a planetary prescribed vocabulary in multiple languages that should be described in wiktionary. I think it is safe to say most English speaking countries are signatories of these treaties and have obligations involving this vocabulary. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But it's not lexical though. I'm not asking for it to be removed from Wikipedia, which is were encyclopedia material should be, I'm asking for it to be removed here. I said right from the start that that this was not an RFV issue and it should never have been there. This isn't a duplicate discussion, it's a relevant discussion in the right place, which the RFV wasn't. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me add what I find worth checking:, Merriam-Webster, AHD, Collins, Macmillan. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support the deletion and basically agree with Dan's first comment above. The cites that have come out of this debate are pretty useful but I don't think they support more than 2 senses. The three we have currently are literally more than enough. Ƿidsiþ 17:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * pointing to other dictionaries that you want to mimic is just a straw man. Wiktionary claims to "aim to include not only the definition of a word, but also enough information to really understand it" and "allows any attested terms, no matter how rare or obscure". It not just something to plagiarize other dictionaries into. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't discuss <small style="color:gray;">sense 6 in the same way there. Here I am discussing the nuance, there I am discussing that these usages exist. My arguements here and there are reasonable. You are shifting the discussion away from talk about the usage to talk about RFV v RFD. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * like I wrote in the RFV, you would want to reduce the number because that is what you did in 2011 when you also removed other senses to make it seem that  is just used as a feeling. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm against all of the senses BoBoMisiu wants to add as redundant or irrelevant except sense 6 "​ (epidemiology, psychiatry) A World Health Organization clinical diagnostic classification of some pedophilia; a disorder of sexual preference." That definition is slightly different than the American Psychiatric Association definition. WHO in its IHO defines pedophilia as "A sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age." The factor that distinguishes it from the more common medical definition is "early pubertal" so it includes children in the early stages of puberty as objects of the attraction, the APA's definition limits the attraction to a fixation specifically on prepubescent children to the exclusion not only of post-pubescent people but also pubescent children as well, "pedophilia is termed pedophilic disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), and the manual defines it as a paraphilia in which adults or adolescents 16 years of age or older have intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children that they have either acted on or which cause them distress or interpersonal difficulty"., so sense 6 is a different sense of the word than sense 2, which is based on the APA definition. PaulBustion87 (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it also depends on what this dictionary sees its purpose as. If it sees it purpose as reflecting both popular use of words and scientific use, then the two medical definitions should both be included, but if it sees itself as only reflecting popular use, then probably only the first definition should be included, and it should be tweaked to "sexual desire for or sexual interaction with a minor below the age of majority by an adult", because in popular that's how almost everybody uses the term. Not many people outside those who are experts on sexuality and on this topic specifically and the psychiatric community use the term in its medical/psychiatric sense. An example of this is that every time a statutory rape scandal takes place, most of the public labels the perpetrator a pedophile even if the victim is post-pubescent, which would exclude the criminal from both of the two medical definitions. So if wiktionary is reflecting only popular use, it should not use the medical definitions, but if its reflecting both popular and scientific use, it should use both of the two medical definitions. PaulBustion87 (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

your understanding of popular use, to use Dan's words, is misguided in my opinion. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * <small style="color:gray;">—This comment is out of chronological order: Has it occurred to you that your bartender is mad because she is dealing with the type of lunatic who wanders into a bar and randomly starts announcing definitions of words that are heard on the television? Should we get rid of senses of "rape" that have to do with agriculture, to protect such a person from reading them aloud while "rape" is being discussed in the news? bd2412  T 13:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * <small style="color:gray;">—This comment is out of chronological order: even if the <q style="color:teal">bartender is mad, wiktionary is still descriptive and not prescriptive, and should not censor either  or  – even if it makes the bartenders (or PaulBustion87's Humpty Dumpties or Alices) mad or the  lobbyists activities more difficult. Let the consumer see all the usages of both. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

you are here, as did everywhere, discussing an outdated usage. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The goal here should be for our readers to understand in a general way what is meant when a term is used. We aren't paper, but it's not our job to list and explain all the different variations on the definition of a term as used in different cultures, legal jurisdictions and professional organizations. It's also not our job to discuss whether it's a sexual orientation, or a clinical disorder, etc. I would suggest the following single definition:
 * 1) Sexual attraction to or sex with children

A usage note might be in order to let readers know that some of the details of what constitutes pedophilia may differ/be disputed, but innumerable books have been written on the subject, just about every legal jurisdiction has some kind of law or regulation regarding it, and I'm sure it's been the subject of extensive litigation, not to mention internet flame wars, arguments, debates and fistfights. We can't begin to cover all that in our definitions, and we shouldn't try. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * <small style="color:gray;">sense 5 Dan thinks <q style="color:teal">sense 5 lacks differentia . To me it is clear that a biological difference is neither an internal desire nor an external behavior. That is the way is used in works studying the manifested genetic and physical differences. This sense does not describe either an internal desire (<small style="color:gray;">sense 1 ), or a medical diagnosis (<small style="color:gray;">sense 2 ), or an external behavior (<small style="color:gray;">sense 3 ). It is about a physical state of being with measurable physical differences in the brain. There is a reference to a peer reviewed paper on National Institute of Health site that I added in WT:RFV.  also did not distinguish these categorical differences. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My point is that, for the purposes of a dictionary, it doesn't matter whether it's cultural, psychological, biological, or The Work Of Satan. The term "pedophilia" as an element of the language refers to sexual attraction or actions centered on children. There's much more to it as a concept, as part of the culture, and as a phenomenon, but that's beyond the scope of a dictionary. When I say the word "ball", I could be referring to the toy my neighbor's kids were playing with this afternoon, or to something in Meso-American mythology and rituals- but a dictionary doesn't have separate definitions for each. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We do not have different senses for a word based on whether it is legal or not. Homosexuality is legal in some states, but not in others, that does not give it a new definition, its still just being sexually attracted to or having sex with members of one's own sex. Incest is legal in some places but not in others, its still just having sex with relatives. Even Equinox agreed with me about that point. Murder is still killing innocent people, even if its legal, for example Adolf Hitler was a murderer because he murdered innocent people, but what he was doing was legal because he was the head of state and thus had sovereign immunity, his kind of murder was legal, while Ted Bundy's was illegal, but its still just killing innocent people. PaulBustion87 (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've actually changed my mind about this entry. I think that only the first definition should be shown, the popular definition of adults being sexually attracted to/having sex with minors. Even though I do not agree with that definition, that is the definition most people use, very few in the general public limit its meaning to specifically adults wanting to have sex with only prepubescent or pubescent children, and apparently according to BoBoMisiu the American Psychiatric Association does not use the term this way either anymore,and its the job of a dictionary to reflect real world use, not to reflect scientific, specific, or even necessarily correct use of words. So my insistence on the medical definition was a mistake even though its the more accurate/useful definition. That's something that belongs in an encyclopedia entry, not in a dictionary. So there should just be one definition probably, the popular one of adults having sexual attraction to/committing sexual acts against minors. Even though the medical definition is more accurate, including it is a minority trying to impose its will on a majority, and that's not the job of a dictionary. That would belong more on wikipedia. PaulBustion87 (talk) 05:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, another reason why the criminal sense argument does not make sense is because most people use the term pedophilia to mean sexual relations with anyone younger than 18 years, but it is possible for that to be legal, for example in some states in the USA the minimum legal age for sexual activity is 16 years, but the media still label any adult (18 years or older) who has sex with or marries a 16 year old legally a pedophile, so in that case a legal activity is taking place, but people are still labeling it pedophilia, I do not agree with/approve of labeling that pedophilia, but the fact is, people do it, even though the "victims" in these cases are legally able to agree to sex without their partner being guilty of a crime, the general public does not care about that, because the "victims" have not reached the minimum legal age of majority (i.e., 18 years), therefore they are not adults legally in most other respects. So that is a case where people offended by a sexual activity between an adult and a "child" still label it pedophilia despite it not being a crime, so that argues against your separate, criminal sense of the term. And since this is a dictionary, not an encyclopedia, we should be reflecting popular use, not necessarily accurate use, unfortunately. We can't go by your opinion, BoBoMisiu, that's not what a dictionary does, to quote what Renard Migrant said to me before. He was right. PaulBustion87 (talk) 05:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * To quote what Equinox, no fan of mine, stated, "'The behavior is a crime in many cultures, but is not a crime in some cultures.' This is no rebuttal. Homosexuality is a crime in some cultures and not others: that doesn't mean we have two separate senses for it. It still just means gay sex" . There's no sense in including the criminal sense per Equinox's point. PaulBustion87 (talk) 05:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The actual usages are attested to here, here, and here, the rest – in the RFV and RFD dysfunctional process on this term – in my opinion is just hypocritical censorship of how the term is actually used. Maybe someday these wiktionary discussions about will get used as a sociology case study about group denial.  you know there is more to the understanding of the word then sex with children. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why don't we just add another sense, someone who watches television to much, while we're at it.
 * "'And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'


 * 'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.


 * Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'


 * 'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.


 * 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
 * Anyway, on a serious note, if we give the legal definition of pedophilia, then we would have to get bogged down in the discussion of what the exact legal age for sex is, which I know can easily can become an endless quagmire because it varies by country/state, and sometimes even in the same country/state it change according to the situation. So inserting the criminal sense of the word is not an option.


 * 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'


 * 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'"
 * Hopefully it was seen that I was being sarcastic, and that I'm against all these ridiculous and redundant definitions being added. There's only three definitions at most that should be included. The popular one of sexual acts against/sexual attraction to minors by adults, the first medical one of adults sexually fixating on prepubescent children, and the second medical definition of adults sexually fixating on both prepubescent and pubescent children. Nobody uses the term in the senses you use it in, BoBoMisiu.
 * PaulBustion87 (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't have to convince anyone. Any consumer of the entry that looks for better understanding can open Citations:pedophilia to read the usages that demonstrate a criminal sense; and they can read the RFV and RFD by opening Talk:pedophilia after they are moved, and can read the deletes in the histories. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of people use the term pedophilia to mean sex by an adult with a person under some arbitrary chronological age, like age 16 years old or 18 years old. For example, psychologist Hans Eysenck, in The Causes and Cures of Criminality stated that pedophilia "in its broadest sense refers to a sexual act (sodomy, intercourse, indecent assault, gross indecency) performed against a person below the age of consent, this being 16 for heterosexual behavior and 21 for homosexual behavior" (he was a citizen of the Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, where the minimum legal age for homosexual sex was 21 years at the time and for heterosexual sex was 16 years at the time, today its 16 years for both). That's more similar to how most people use the term than the medical definition. Nobody outside the medical field restricts the term to sexual interest in/sexual activity against prepubescent children in real world use. An example of this is that when Roman Polanski was accused of raping a 13 year old, much of the media incorrectly labeled him a pedophile, despite the fact that his alleged victim was clearly sexually mature. Since dictionaries are supposed to reflect actual use, not my opinion, then even though I don't agree with the popular definition of sexual acts against/attractions to minors by adults because I feel its to broad, that is the definition that should be listed, and the others should all be taken down, including the medical ones. I was used to having edited this topic on wikipedia, in an encyclopedia, accuracy is what's important, so it made sense to focus on the medical definition there, but in a dictionary, actual use is what's important, so it makes sense to focus on actual use instead here. PaulBustion87 (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is that there should only be one definition, "Sexual attraction to or sexual acts with children by adults". Because in the real world, that's how people use the term. They either base it on what the minimum legal age of majority is, or what the minimum legal age of consent is, and they may have different definitions, for example to a Frenchman pedophilia might mean an adult attraction to a person 14 year old or younger since that's the legal age for sexual activity in France, sources:, , while to an American it would mean an adult attracted to a person 17 or younger, because that's the age of majority here, but they all use it to mean an adult committing a sexual against an underage person. Nobody in real world use limits the term to its medical definition, Equinox was right about that. The medical definition belongs in an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. I was wrong to push my agenda for the medical definition here. So I think there should only be the one definition I suggested above. That's my final comment. PaulBustion87 (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with this. I actually think this is the best solution, because there are so many citations where it is impossible to determine whether real actions are meant or just attraction/desire, and it is not clear to me whether the word has any inherent distinction for many speakers. This is particularly the case when we have a Usage note explaining the medical/legal complexities of the word. Ƿidsiþ 09:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is true that most people use a definition of pedophilia more similar to Hans Eysenck's definition than to the psychiatric definition, I'm quite certain that almost nobody uses the medical definition of pedophilia in real life, even though I think the medical definition is more accurate, when I defined the term as meaning adults who were sexually attracted to prepubsecent children, and I said that would not include attraction to 12-13 year olds, people were almost always either outraged or confused by my arguing that pedophilia did not include attraction to 12-13 years old. Eysenck's definition was the one that I cited above, of an adult having a sexual attraction to/committing a sexual act against, a person under the minimum legal age for sex, which is 16 years in Eysenck's country, the Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as contrasted to the narrow, specific psychiatric definition of adults sexually fixating specifically on prepubescent children. Almost everyone includes sexual attraction to/sexual acts against 12-13 year olds in their definition of pedophilia, because the legal age for sex is at least 14 almost everywhere, an example of this is the Roman Polanski rape case, everyone calls him a pedophile despite the fact that his victim was clearly at least in the middle stages of puberty. Some people include sexual attraction to/sexual acts with, all people younger than 18 in their definition of pedophilia, this is how most Americans use the term, while some people limit it to sexual attraction to/sexual acts with somewhat younger people, for example in Europe a lot of people will use it only to mean sexual acts against people under 14, because that's the legal for sex in a lot of Europe, but almost everyone in the real world agrees that pedophilia means sexual attraction to/acts against people under some arbitrary chronological age, whether its 15,16, or 18 or whatever other age is chosen, the point is nobody uses the psychiatric definition in real world use "primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children by adults or adolescents" because almost everyone considers 12-13 years old children despite their being pubescent or even sometimes post-pubescent and therefore includes attraction to them/acts with them in their definition of pedophilia. So since it has no real world use, the psychiatric definition is inappropriate to a dictionary. It would be the more appropriate definition for an encyclopedia, which is about facts and logic, but a dictionary is about real world use, not logic. We cannot favor "opinion over actual usage, that's not what a dictionary does", to quote Renard Migrant. So the medical definition of pedophilia does not belong in a dictionary. PaulBustion87 (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As a word with widespread usage, of course the medical definition belongs in a wordbook. There's no problem with making two definitions, one colloquial, one medical or technical or whatever tag we have for technical terms. Tons of people misusing a term certainly creates a second definition for it, but it doesn't annihilate the original one. As long as the medical community does have a narrowed understanding of pædophilia, we have to include it by our own standards. We're recording, not redacting. _Korn (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ps.: I see this fulfilled by the current usage note. _Korn (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete the "crime" sense. So far as I know, there is no "crime" called pedophilia; there are a number of crimes likely committed in an act of pedophilia ranging from "sexual assault against a minor" and "statutory rape" to "child endangerment", but "pedophilia" itself is not a legal term, and I can not find it in Black's Law Dictionary or other legal dictionaries. bd2412  T 14:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. You can easily check the current UK legislation here using Ctrl + f and it isn't in there under any of its three spellings. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * In the time since this discussion was started, all of the aforementioned senses have been deleted (not by me). I agree that this was the correct course of action. However, I have restored the distinction which existed in revision 31351647 (before all the changes by Paul et al started) between action and attraction. Many other entries (correctly, IMO) make this distinction, e.g. heterosexuality and homosexuality. - -sche (discuss) 21:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Resolved; contested senses have been deleted, in accordance with the consensus to do so. bd2412 T 22:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

RFV discussion: May–June 2015
Please note the four senses were removed prior to my request for verification. The senses which I refer to in this request are found dated 01:10, 5 May 2015.

They are:
 * <small style="color:gray;">sense 4— (countable, crime) A sex offense committed against a child.
 * <small style="color:gray;">sense 5— A sexual orientation.
 * <small style="color:gray;">sense 6— (epidemiology, psychiatry) A World Health Organization clinical diagnostic classification of some pedophilia; a disorder of sexual preference.
 * <small style="color:gray;">sense 7— (psychiatry, outmoded) An American Psychiatric Association clinical diagnostic classification of some pedophilia.

Each usage is attested on Citations:pedophilia, Citations:paedophilia, or Citations:paidophilia.

The term has multiple overlapping senses: is the label of a crime, which is also the label of a sexual orientation (a biological sense), which is also the label of a psychiatric condition, which is also the label of a desire, which is also the label of behavior, which is also the label of a cultural custom.
 * <small style="color:gray;">sense 4 was removed by Equinox with edit summary <q style="color:teal">&thinsp;and the fact that it's an offence (like burglary) isn't a separate sense of the WORD. burglary as an offence is not a separate MEANING of burglary.&thinsp;
 * The behavior is a crime in many cultures, but is not a crime in some cultures.


 * <small style="color:gray;">sense 5 was removed by Equinox with edit summary <q style="color:teal">&thinsp;"orientation" not distinct from "feelings". it's absurd to give this word 5 senses&thinsp;
 * The attested usages show that this sense is a distinct from a feeling or a desire, and "many experts view it as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality or homosexuality." It is in that sense biological and not behavioral.


 * <small style="color:gray;">sense 6 was removed by PaulBustion88 with edit summary <q style="color:teal">&thinsp;"A sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age." Again, redundant to definition, diagnosis of a "sexual attraction primarily or exclusively to prepubescent children"&thinsp;
 * As <blockquote style="background-color:#eaf8f4; border-left:3px solid #008560; padding:0 .8em; margin:0;"><small style="color:gray;">sense 2— <q style="color:teal">(medicine, more strictly) Mental disorder in which an adult or adolescent aged 16 years or older is primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to prepubescent children. That is distinguished from <small style="color:gray;">sense 6 . The quote attesting usage of <small style="color:gray;">sense 6 : <q style="color:navy">Paedophilia is defined as a mental disorder within the International Classification of Diseases ICD-10 […] Contrary to any medical model of a diagnosis, however, such classification offers no understanding of aetiology and no indication of prognosis or grounds for treatment., is clear that <small style="color:gray;">sense 6 , about a typological category, is not equivalent but <q style="color:navy">Contrary to any medical model of a diagnosis.


 * <small style="color:gray;">sense 7 was removed by PaulBustion88 with edit summary <q style="color:teal">&thinsp;Sense 7 is definitely redundant to sense 2. The American Psychiatric Association's definition of pedophilia has always been more or less the same as sense 2&thinsp;
 * I included a usage note that <q style="color:teal">In 2013, the term pedophilia was outmoded and replaced with the term by the American Psychiatric Association in , edition 5 (DSM-5). As, <q style="color:teal">That change in language is clearly an important aspect about this term.

I also commented on my understanding of <small style="color:gray;">sense 2, <small style="color:gray;">sense 5 , <small style="color:gray;">sense 6 , <small style="color:gray;">sense 7 on entry talk page. Please take the time to read through the attestations. I spend a lot of time to gather them, and believe they show a fair and balanced range of 21st c. usage of this term. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "The behavior is a crime in many cultures, but is not a crime in some cultures." This is no rebuttal. Homosexuality is a crime in some cultures and not others: that doesn't mean we have two separate senses for it. It still just means gay sex. Equinox ◑ 19:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "The behavior is a crime in many cultures, but is not a crime in some cultures." A ridiculous statement. Look at wikipedia's articles about the legal ages for sex in different geographical regions. They are well sourced and are accurate, although they use the vague term age of consent, which I dislike because it is not used in government documents and does not specify sex, I would rather just call it either "age of sexual consent" or "legal age for sexual activity", you claim, Bobomisiu, that pedophilic behavior is criminal in some places but not others. That is not true, I cannot think of any state where the minimum legal age for a young person to become old enough to legally have sex with an older adult without the older party being guilty of rape is lower than 13 years old, and if you look at wikipedia it will support what I say. Pedophiles are not interested in people that old, someone that age would be to old for a pedophile, because they already are starting to develop adult bodies and partially adult, although still somewhat immature, minds. Give one example of a country where an adult having sex with a 5 year old or even an 11 year old is legal. I'll bet there is not even one. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly what Equinox said. Abortion is still ending the life of a baby before it is born, whether it is a crime, as it is in the Republic of Ireland, or it is legal, as it is in the United States of America. We do not give a separate definition for abortion, "the crime of ending a pre born baby's life". --PaulBustion88 (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "The term has multiple overlapping senses: pedophilia is the label of a crime, which is also the label of a sexual orientation (a biological sense), which is also the label of a psychiatric condition, which is also the label of a desire, which is also the label of behavior, which is also the label of a cultural custom.""sense 5 was removed by Equinox with edit summary  "orientation" not distinct from "feelings". it's absurd to give this word 5 senses  The attested usages show that this sense is a distinct from a feeling or a desire, and "many experts view it as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality or homosexuality." It is in that sense biological and not behavioral." Wrong again, Bobomisiu, pedophilia is not considered a sexual orientation by medical doctors/reliable sources,wikipedia In response to misinterpretations that the American Psychiatric Association considers pedophilia a sexual orientation because it renamed the disorder pedophilic disorder in its DSM-5 manual, the association stated: "'[S]exual orientation' is not a term used in the diagnostic criteria for pedophilic disorder and its use in the DSM-5 text discussion is an error and should read 'sexual interest.'" --PaulBustion88 (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems straightforward and not an RFV issue but an RFD issue (just to make it a bit messier than it already is). Sense #4 is redundant to "Sexual activity between adults and (prepubescent) children." and crime is not a context. The sexual orientation is not a separate sense from "Sexual feelings or desires by adults towards minors." The last two are frankly ridiculous senses based on specific standards, and are overtly redundant to sense #2. A rare instance of intentional redundancy by the author. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If something's redundant to a real sense, of course it's going to be attested, because any cite for the first real sense will also back up the senses with the same meaning. Can we hurry up and delete this section please, since no rfv material has been presented. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What do mean <q style="color:teal">that delete this section please, since no rfv material has been presented . What are your questions about this? Why not let others see what I am requesting? It is awfully prescriptive to say something is not a crime when it is attested to be. It awfully prescriptive to say something is a sexual orientation when there is reliable attestation of such usage. It is awfully prescriptive to say that when a term is replaced with another that is insignificant. A google search shows everything I added is district and in current usage. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you considered reading my comments? If not, please do so. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I did. Your reference is something that I had attested to days ago. Did you read my attestations? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In light of my comments, which you claim to have read, why would I do that? Renard Migrant (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I will wait for input from others here. The biology and genetics of pedophilia is studied and the term is associated with sexual orientation. The referenced article is an example. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC) modified 23:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * So are we going to have separate definitions for homosexual behavior, zoophilic behavior, rape, abortion, pornography, harassment, etc. based on there being crimes in addition to the actions. The fact that something is a crime does not make it have a different definition, aborting a baby is the same act regardless of whether it is a crime or not a crime."It is awfully prescriptive to say something is not a crime when it is attested to be." "The behavior is a crime in many cultures, but is not a crime in some cultures." You said that Bobomisiu, so the only person who said it was legal in some places was you, not Renard Migrant, Equinox, or myself. I also detect from your editing pattern that you have an agenda, because you insisted on the quote that insinuated Mohammad was a pedophile, and you suggested pedophilia was a custom in some tribal cultures, with no evidence for either claim. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The American Psychiatric Association, which defines the scientific use of the term pedophilia, does not consider it a sexual orientation, BobMishiu.
 * "The APA said in its statement that “‘sexual orientation’ is not a term used in the diagnostic criteria for pedophilic disorder and its use in the DSM-5 text discussion is an error and should read ‘sexual interest.’”
 * “In fact, APA considers pedophilic disorder a ‘paraphilia,’ not a ‘sexual orientation.’ This error will be corrected in the electronic version of DSM-5 and the next printing of the manual,” the organization said. The error appeared on page 698, said a spokeswoman. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This may seem off-topic, but let me remind those who are posting mountains of text here and elsewhere that, in order to change someone's mind, they have to read what you wrote, and very few are masochistic enough to read all of this. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I totally support Equinox's edits (and personally I'd merge the remaining senses together too). Ƿidsiþ 09:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you would because that is what you did 2011 when you also removed other senses to make it seem that  is just used as a feeling. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC) modified 13:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Did I? Well, that doesn't surprise me. I still feel that the profusion of senses is less, not more, helpful to our users and introduces social/legal distinctions that are not inherent to the word itself. Ƿidsiþ 14:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (On this subject, by the way, I note that no other dictionary that I can find gives more than one sense of the word, so I consider my view to be quite standard.) Ƿidsiþ 14:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Pidsip, you cannot merge those senses together. The first definition and the second definition have different meanings. The first definition means any adult being sexually attracted to any minor, the second means an adult specifically having a sexual fixation on prepubescent children. The first one is obviously much broader than the second, so one of those two meanings would have to go if we're limiting ourselves to one definition, they cannot really be merged. Also, the third definition is about behavior, while the first two are about sexual attraction, so that one could not be merged with either of the other two. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The first definition, "sexual feelings or desires directed by adults towards minors" does not really make sense. Because there's no difference between a 17 year old minor and an 18 year old adult in appearance, or at least there's not a significant one, so I really do not see why an adult would prefer one over the other, unless it had to do with a "forbidden fruit" thing. So I see "adult sexual attraction to minors" to be to broad to be a real category. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't like that definition either, also because who is a minor depends on what jurisdiction you're in. A 19-year-old who's attracted to a 17-year-old is exhibiting pedophilia in California but not in Texas? I doubt it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The legal age for sex varies widely. Its 14 in Germany and Austria, while its 18 in some USA member states. To say a man is a pedophile when he has sex with a 17 year old in Wisconsin because its a crime there but is not a pedophile when he does it in Indiana because its legal there does not make sense. So there is no single, international definition of who is an adult and who is not. So maybe that definition should go also for that reason, because it could cause wiktionary to have to get into specific judgements about that. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree it doesn't make sense in a logical way, but as long as people use it that way, it's real! Falling head over heels doesn't make any logical sense because your head is already over your heels. But we don't keep or delete things based on whether they make logical sense, just if they exist or not. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

your argument today, as before, is based on the APA definition even though the APA outmoded and replaced the term with the term  in 2013 in its DSM-5. You are arguing against a that you are creating not against what I have attributed.

sorry for saying you referenced the when it was clearly PaulBustion88, there is, as Chuck Entz says, too much text.

others do <q style="color:teal">give s more than one sense of the word, online, for example "The problem with these crimes is that pedophilia is also treated as a mental illness", according to dictionary.law.com.

age is an attribute of a child not an attribute of pedophilia. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is an attribute of pedophilia in the sense that two consenting adults 21 and older having sex or being sexually attracted to other 21 year olds and older is never considered pedophilia. I do not agree with the definition of pedophilia you seem to be using, of a person 18 years old or older having sex with or being sexually attracted to a person 17 years old or younger, but even your definition is using age as an attribute, you're just using a different age range than my attribution does. I view pedophilia as a sexual attraction towards or sexual activity with prepubescent or early pubescent children, which would generally be victims or objects 12 or younger, (by "objects" I mean "objects of sexual desire" not "inanimate objects") but we're both doing the same thing, just with different age ranges. Your claim is disingenuous. Also wikipedia's entry about pedophilia still defines it using the APA's definition, so I think you are wrong. Pedophilic disorder is a synonym for pedophilia, not a term that replaced it. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Pedophilia is termed pedophilic disorder in the ' [that is a publication of the APA, so they are synonyms, according to wikipedia], and the manual defines it as a paraphilia in which adults or adolescents 16 years of age or older have intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and about prepubescent children that they have either acted on or which cause them distress or  difficulty. The   defines it as a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early  age. In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often applied to any sexual interest in children or the act of . This use conflates the sexual attraction (pedophilia) with the act of abuse (child molestation), and does not distinguish between attraction to prepubescent and pubescent or post-pubescent . [that's why the age of the victim or object of sexual attraction matters]''' Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided because although people who commit child sexual abuse sometimes exhibit the disorder, child sexual abuse offenders are not pedophiles unless they have a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children, and not all pedophiles molest children. ― <small style='color:gray;'>references removed from this blockquote; for content before refactor, see:"
 * And yes, pedophilia and pedophilic disorder are listed as synonyms in other sources,
 * 2015 ICD-9-CM Diagnosis Code 302.2 Pedophilia
 * Disease Synonyms
 * Paedophilia
 * Clinical Information
 * A disorder characterized by recurrent sexual urges, fantasies, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children
 * A sexual disorder occurring in a person 16 years or older and that is recurrent with intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 or younger). (from apa, dsm-iv, 1994) ―icd9data.com
 * --PaulBustion88 (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * really — since you defer to wikipedia therefore you think I am wrong&#8253; I wrote that <q style="color:teal"> these were <small style="color:gray;">sense 6 and <small style="color:gray;">sense 7 which you deleted from the entry. But, now you copy blocks of text from wikipedia and elsewhere into the this discussion to show that <small style="color:gray;">sense 6 ICD-10 and <small style="color:gray;">sense 7 DSM-5 are used in wikipedia? Your argument about the synonymous term in the 2013 DSM-5 is a ; I added  . In 2013, the term  in DSM-4TR was replaced by the term  in DSM-5. The distinction between those senses was found . Berryessa categorized
 * as "an individual who meets the clinical diagnosis for pedophilia"
 * as "an individual who meets the clinical diagnosis for pedophilia and sexually offends against children"
 * as "an individual who does not meet the clinical diagnosis for pedophilia and sexually offends against children"
 * She uses pedophilia and notes "or pedophilic disorder" only once.


 * The other argument, that the APA does not consider a, is an : the usage is well attributed for more than a decade and shows the APA's 2013 recommended usage was and is disregarded by many. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, fine BoboMisiu, as long as you leave the medical definition in, I'm not opposed to readding the other definitions you want to add. I would rather they not be added, but I do not want controversy here. Is that a reasonable compromise?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * this is not about compromise but about verifying the attested usage of the term.
 * I have reviewed the attested usages (here, here, and here) and this discussion (especially ) again and found a few unanswered questions.
 * 's <q style="color:teal">not inherent to the word itself is contrasted by: PaulBustion88's voluminous quotes about two distinct systems of typology and contradicted by many attestations of usage included here, here, and here that show these distinctions for over a 110 years. These senses are not novelties and are different:
 * An internal desire is not an external behavior (<small style="color:gray;">sense 1 and <small style="color:gray;">sense 3 ).
 * A disordered internal desire is a medical condition, i.e. a medical disorder (<small style="color:gray;">sense 2 ).
 * A crime is an act against society (<small style="color:gray;">sense 4 ).
 * A biological difference is neither an internal desire nor an external behavior (<small style="color:gray;">sense 5 ).
 * A regional difference, based on two predominant authorities, is an attested outmoding and replacement of the term in 2013 by one of those authorities (<small style="color:gray;">sense 6 and <small style="color:gray;">sense 7 ). This implicitly means that part of the world uses the term different than the rest.
 * 's, that I provide no evidence of an additional sense that is a cultural custom, should be part of a future vetting after I attribute that usage and add that sense to the term. In this discussion that as a straw man about a sense that I have not yet added.
 * 's edit summary for the removal of <small style="color:gray;">sense 4, states that if is <q style="color:teal">an offence (like burglary) then that <q style="color:teal">isn't a separate sense of the WORD , e.g. <q style="color:teal">burglary as an offence is not a separate MEANING of burglary.
 * The attested usage shows is not <q style="color:teal">an offence (like burglary) . While  has only a criminal sense,  has other well attested senses beyond its well attested criminal sense.
 * The first part of Equinox's edit summary for the removal of <small style="color:gray;">sense 5, that <q style="color:teal">&thinsp;'orientation' not distinct from 'feelings'&thinsp; , fails to distinguish that a difference is not an internal  or.
 * The second part of Equinox's edit summary for the removal of <small style="color:gray;">sense 5, that <q style="color:teal">it's absurd to give this word 5 senses , is a subjective preference for less clarity – which reminds me of the quote from Amadeus by the emperor to Mozart: "It's quality work. And there are simply too many notes, that's all." Which, of course but unfortunately, has nothing to do with Equinox challenging any of the attested usages included here, here, and here. These should be senses of this term as are necessary.
 * I see no one challenging the attested usage described in WT:CFI. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh? This whole thread and the RFD thread are about whether are not the above-mentioned senses are attested as distinct, CFI-meeting senses. The consensus is that they are not. Compare: goose can be attested in the sense "an animal with webbed feet capable of swimming", and also in the sense "a bird capable of flight". Does [[goose]] need two senses to cover this attested usage? No, one sense "a waterfowl with webbed feet, capable of both flight and swimming" would suffice. (Our current definition is a bit less informative — I may expand it shortly — but it still gets the point across.) - -sche (discuss) 21:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I asked about relevance, and you said you'd wait for someone else to comment. Oh well, I suppose I'd better keep waiting then. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * In the time since this discussion was started, all of the aforementioned senses have been deleted (not by me); I agree that this was the correct course of action, because the senses all failed to be verified as independent senses. Compare the RFD discussion. I have restored the distinction which existed in revision 31351647 (before all the changes by Paul et al started) between action and attraction; many other entries (correctly, IMO) make this distinction, e.g. heterosexuality and homosexuality, and those two senses passed a previous RFV (which, disclaimer, was judged by me). - -sche (discuss) 21:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I saw from my comments in beer parlour about explicit images that I am not writing clearly. So here is another attempt at clarity. Some think that wiktionary should not:
 * <q style="color:teal">list and explain all the different variations on the definition of a term as used in different cultures, legal jurisdictions and professional organizations
 * I think it is wiktionary's purpose to include the many different senses of that are attested to have determinable meanings which are stable over time. Including attested usage is just an  since there will always be some other excluded knowledge. Nevertheless, it is better to include more than to include less. And when a term is outmoded by one of the groups that prescribes usage that should also be included. The senses don't even have to occur together, e.g. a person arrested for pedophilia might not be categorized epidemiologically and likewise a person with the psychiatric disorder might not exhibit the behavior. The senses have a degree of independence.
 * <q style="color:teal">discuss whether it's a sexual orientation, or a clinical disorder, etc.
 * I think it is wiktionary's purpose to describe that some people use the term to signify a biological sexual orientation and that others use it to signify a psychiatric disorder. The consumer benefits by knowing that there is a variety of senses. Those senses just show the usage and not a judgement of the veracity the usage. Wiktionary should describe the range of 21st century usage and not prescribe it through omission. The standard should not be how comfortable the community feels about the actual usage (or a perceived misusage) of a term.
 * Reading phrases from Citations:pedophilia such as: "pedophilia is a sex offense in all States", "seeks the legalization of pedophilia", "Pedophilia is illegal sexual activity", "arrested for pedophilia", "arrest inside the city state on charges of pedophilia", and "suspects arrested for pedophilia" clearly demonstrate a sense of criminal behavior (<small style="color:gray;">sense 4 ) which is broader than the sense of some individual behavior since the attestations show it also has the quality of group behavior, i.e. organized collective behavior, which is in some way behavior against society. The sense does not seem to be colloquial. That sense is not about the particular age of a child within a particular society, it emphasizes the child victim and not the pedophile malefactor.
 * A is a poor comparison. Nevertheless, like the quote I added to the  entry informs: "This type of pedophile has no real sexual interest in children in the traditional sense, although he may sexually abuse them." —BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The, before verifying, . I also expect that this RFV will be closed with the reasoning that the RFD is closed so there is no need to verify the senses. Nevertheless, I just noticed that, while the reasoning by was that <q style="color:teal"> , that reasoning was in a juxtaposition near a strawman conclusion that <q style="color:teal"> and <q style="color:teal">  added about <q style="color:teal"> that <q style="color:teal">.
 * Neither addressed that a criminal sense is not the same as <q style="color:teal">.
 * The criminal sense of pedophilia is a different facet than a psychiatric facet, for example, which was , , was:
 * <blockquote style="background-color:#eaf8f4; border-left:3px solid #008560; padding:0 .8em; margin:0;">pedophilia was cited as both an aggravating and a mitigating circumstance by trial judges, as was the absence of pedophilia. This signals some confusion among judges about what a diagnosis of pedophilia means.
 * I believe, as I wrote above, that <q style="color:teal">Wiktionary should describe the range of 21st century usage and not prescribe it through omission . —BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This still misconstrues what a crime is. Consider - if a person punches, kicks, or stabs another person, this may constitute a criminal act. However, there is no sense of punch, kick, or stab defining it as the crime of doing so, because the crime in those cases would be battery or the like. Similarly, kleptomania is a disorder which compels people to steal, but is not a crime; the crime is theft. bd2412  T 23:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No, what am writing does not misconstrue <q style="color:teal">what a crime is . Using your example, a stabbing generally has a criminal sense if there is a victim. Deciding which legal set term also describes that instance of stabbing, in a particular jurisdiction, is a separate concept. People regularly use stabbing and understand it has a criminal sense.
 * From ; ; and, I see the concept criminal sense is not the concept crime. It is common knowledge – I am confident that if:
 * someone is stabbing me
 * I call the police and say "he is stabbing me"
 * the police will understand that my use of stabbing has a criminal sense
 * they will send help to me because the criminal sense of stabbing conveys I am a victim
 * other people will, only later, decide which legal set terms also describes the instance of stabbing that I experience
 * years later as I recall the incident to others, people understand that my use of stabbing has a criminal sense, and will never interrupt me to ask if I mean battery
 * —BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, there is no separate dictionary definition of "stabbing" as a crime. bd2412  T 01:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. "Stab" doesn't have one sense "to pierce or to wound (somebody) with a pointed tool or weapon, especially a knife or dagger" and then a second sense "to commit a crime by piercing or to wounding (somebody) with a pointed tool or weapon, especially a knife or dagger"; that would be redundant. "Stab" has just one sense, "to pierce [...etc...]". The action which that sense describes happens to be considered a crime in most (all?) jurisdictions, and if you mention to the police that you are being stabbed they will understand from context that the fact that piercing someone with a knife is illegal (and they are charged with fighting illegal activity) means they should take action, but that doesn't change the (or add a new) definition of the word. - -sche (discuss) 02:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, I agree with bd2412 and -sche. Not everything predicated of a thing is part of the definition of the thing: having sentences of the form "A is B" does not automatically lead to B becoming part of the definition of A or B becoming a separate sense of A. The fact that something is a crime in some jurisdiction does not mean that there should be a separate definition having "crime" in its genus. The RFD on the four senses nominated in this RFV has already settled the matter. Since lexicographical sense and judgment of editors was needed, RFD was a good process for this, IHMO. Dictionaries online seem to agree with the judgment made in the RFD. I propose to close this RFV as follows: "RFV closed: case already handled in RFD." --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I like the way DanP has summed it up and agree in principle and generally. But in some cases a predicate is so important in a context that it indicates a need for an additional definition. But I think the existence of English-speaking jurisdictions which defined pedophilia as a crime would warrant a definition, specifying the context, however vague it would have to be to avoid having one definition for each jurisdiction. It might be possible, even advisable to use a non-gloss definition or a usage note (without any definition) to reflect this. We often find that legal definitions are quite specific in a way that ordinary usage is not in much the same way as iron has both a common meaning and various technical meanings. DCDuring TALK 20:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC discussion: April 2015
Usage notes: "Psychologists recommend against using the term pedophilia to denote sexual activities with prepubescent children, because not all people with a sexual preference for prepubescent children (i.e., pedophilia) commit such acts, and child molesters often lack a strong sexual interest in prepubescent children. Also the common use of the term pedophilia, to mean any adult who has sex with any minor (i.e., under 18), is not correct. Pedophilia specifically refers to attraction to prepubescents, not to all minors. See Wikipedia for more information."

First of all, removed 'many' from 'Many psychologists' where many is not a weasel word, because removing it implies all psychologists recommend against using the term pedophilia to denote sexual activities with prepubescent children, which I doubt is true, because I'll bet most of them have no published opinion on the matter whatsoever. "Also the common use of the term pedophilia, to mean any adult who has sex with any minor (i.e., under 18), is not correct." should obviously go because it's prescriptive not descriptive. I mean I agree with the comment, but it's still not allowable. Usage notes might be called for, and should be unified with pedophile and all the pae- variant spellings. But I think statements like "many psychologists recommend against using the term pedophilia to denote sexual activities with prepubescent children" need sourcing and cannot just be left as blind assertions. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, in general, putting ages on what constitutes pedophilia and what doesn't is not the job of a dictionary. It's not lexical, and in practice it's down to societies to define what's acceptable and what isn't. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, but other editors don't, since we have those "legal" entries -- can't remember an example right now -- but like where we have "skimmed milk" and it's defined as "(US standard of identity) milk that is 30% X and 40% Y". Equinox ◑ 23:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You'll be happy to know that you're mistaken in this case. There were only a few users who favoured including "legal" senses i.e. copying all statues from all eras of all countries that have been mentioned 3x times in English and listing said statues as definitions. (See [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=murder&oldid=19455953 this diff of murder] for a very incomplete taste of how many ways that term has been "defined" in laws.) I drafted Votes/pl-2013-03/Standards of identity and legal definitions of terms, but agreement was subsequently reached on the talk page and concurrent discussions elsewhere to exclude such senses without even voting on it. So, removing the ages from the definition here is the correct course of action. (But entries like partially defatted pork fatty tissue, which are SOP outside of their legal meanings, still have technical definitions.) - -sche (discuss) 23:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reminder. I also get the impression from PaulBustion88's editing patterns that he has a bit of an agenda regarding sex and age. Beware the agenda! Equinox ◑ 23:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think his idea may be to 'separate out' hebephilia, ephebophilia and pedophilia so they don't overlap. But real world language doesn't work like that. Meanings of words overlap sometimes. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I added a few sources for the usage note and rephrased it to be non-prescriptive. I left the clean up template since I'm not familiar with Wiktionary's norms. KateWishing (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What does "prescriptive" mean?User talk:PaulBustion88 20:01, 24 April 2015
 * "preferential attraction to older children is known as hebephilia or ephebophilia." I think hebephilia and ephebophilia are off topic in an entry about pedophilia, because they're both something else than that. Maybe there could just be links to those entries at the bottom of the pedophilia entry, but I do not think they should be described in the entry on pedophilia because they have nothing to do with it. PaulBustion88 (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The 2nd citation 'Lanning, Kenneth V. (2010). Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis (fifth ed.). National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. pp. 29–30', the supporting citation does not seem to be in those pages. I can't see it, is it in there somewhere? Renard Migrant (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's pages 45-46 of the PDF, which are marked 29-30 in the actual text. KateWishing (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * PaulBustion88 has raised on my talk page (and not here, much to my chagrin) the possibility of having two definitions. A general-use definition, an instance of an adult engaging in sexual activity with a minor, no matter what the ages are apart from those two restrictions, and a medical definition where we specify pre-pubescent. I would be in favor of it; I think these definitions are distinct in terms of usage and meaning. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to insist on my viewpoint, but ideally I would only want the medical viewpoint, I realize that there's no chance anyone will agree with me, so I'm compromising by accepting the popular definition and medical definition being covered separately. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason is, we can't favor your opinion over actual usage! That's not what a dictionary does! Renard Migrant (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)