Line 131: | Line 131: | ||
[[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]], when it comes to a Prepubescence section in the Preadolescence article, I mean a short section about how the body is before puberty. I'm trying to think of something to resolve the issue with the prepubescent redirect. And, yes, linking ''prepubescent'' means a wikilink to the Preadolescence article. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 22:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC) |
[[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]], when it comes to a Prepubescence section in the Preadolescence article, I mean a short section about how the body is before puberty. I'm trying to think of something to resolve the issue with the prepubescent redirect. And, yes, linking ''prepubescent'' means a wikilink to the Preadolescence article. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 22:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
:As the only place where content describing what a person is like before puberty, is in the [[puberty]] article, then that is the only viable link. Linking to [[Preadolescence]], which takes great pains to define itself as '''not''' being about the period before puberty, makes no sense; it is nonsense. I don't agree with generating in content in [[Preadolescence]] about prepubescence as this is [[WP:OFFTOPIC]] there. The only sensible !vote above is option 3 [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 14:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC) |
:As the only place where content describing what a person is like before puberty, is in the [[puberty]] article, then that is the only viable link. Linking to [[Preadolescence]], which takes great pains to define itself as '''not''' being about the period before puberty, makes no sense; it is nonsense. I don't agree with generating in content in [[Preadolescence]] about prepubescence as this is [[WP:OFFTOPIC]] there. The only sensible !vote above is option 3 [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 14:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
::The article should contain a link to whatever article explains the concepts of adolescence, preadolecence, puberty, and prepuberty. The arguments that are offered by [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] about these concepts being "common knowledge," supported by references to the English dictionary are frankly nonsensical. If the article that best informs the user about "prepuberty" is "[[puberty]]," by all means so be it. But it would be incorrect to simply state that prepuberty is, well, the period before puberty and be done with it. Not in the entry about "pedophilia." -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) |
Revision as of 15:24, 20 January 2017
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Molesters is an inaccurate noun choice
This is a dated, slang and derogatory term. We should be using "child sex abuser" "child sex offender" instead of "molester". The term molester does not carry an accurate description of the child sex abuser we are looking to represent. The primary definition of Molest via the Merriam-Webster dictionary is to "annoy, disturb, or persecute especially with hostile intent or injurious effect". This is a poor noun to use in the context of pedophilies that sexually assault children. Instead of using the verb molest we should use sexually abuse or sexually assault. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's not what this says: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/molest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4300:DB28:C9A5:11DD:5DC3:755 (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Actually it is what it says. Even with your link. Please view the "full definition" not the truncated "simple definition" that you are referencing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and uses full definitions not slang or partial simple definitions. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not going to be overly exercised that it's derogatory. The terms "murderer" and "nazi" and so on are also derogatory, but we still use them when accurate, and why not. If it's dated and/or slang that's a different matter, though. One thing that's not helpful is to look up just part of an idiom (and "child molester" is an idiom) and pick it apart, as you did with "molest". This is like saying "play means 'engage in activity for enjoyment and recreation rather than a serious or practical purpose'" so we should not use the term 'baseball player' since they are doing it as a job" and so on. You can do this with most any idiom and it's not usually helpful.
- This doesn't mean that "child molester" isn't dated or slang or both. Certainly I can see benefits as wall as drawbacks to using the more formal "child sex abuser" or "child sex offender" instead. But we need data. And this Google Ngram indicates to me that "child molester" remains by far the most common term, although other data that contradicts that may exist. Herostratus (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Awesome graph! And yes i am referring the term "child molester" not "molester" to make it clear. In the graph you have posted it is clear that the term child molester, while currently the most absolutely used term, has fallen in popularity while the terms "child sex offender" and "child sexual abuser" have each grown over 400% in the last few years. To me, this indicates a trend that academia and to a smaller proportion, news media is phasing out the term child molester for more accurate and formal terms for this type of individual. A child molester sounds like someone that tickles or harasses a child not quite the term we are looking for in the context of child sex abuse.Boilingorangejuice (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Right, I get your point. And yes, Google Ngram is a great tool for getting data on questions like this -- spread the word! One problem is, I think that Google Ngrams would give equal weight to a serious academic or journalistic book and a throwaway scandal book or whatever. On the other hand, we don't give or want to give too much weight to "serious" sources over "popular" sources. If the ivory tower uses term X but the general public uses term Y, we should go with term Y -- we are a work for the general public. This is not an absolute. IMO some extra weight should be given to serious intellectual sources -- but only some. (We do want to avoid using fancy academic terms that the general public won't understand, but "child sex offender" and "child sexual abuser" are plain English.)
- Awesome graph! And yes i am referring the term "child molester" not "molester" to make it clear. In the graph you have posted it is clear that the term child molester, while currently the most absolutely used term, has fallen in popularity while the terms "child sex offender" and "child sexual abuser" have each grown over 400% in the last few years. To me, this indicates a trend that academia and to a smaller proportion, news media is phasing out the term child molester for more accurate and formal terms for this type of individual. A child molester sounds like someone that tickles or harasses a child not quite the term we are looking for in the context of child sex abuse.Boilingorangejuice (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- So anyway, yeah the graph might show a trend, but we don't want to get too far in front of trends. And the terms you favor are trending up, but from from a pretty low base (and if I smooth the graph enough -- here -- the slight downward dip for "child molester" disappears. OK that's probably cheating...). We are supposed to be followers, not setters, of current terminology. At the current rate, maybe in 20 or 30 years we can make this change. Herostratus (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Interesting perspective. I guess we shall wait and see! Boilingorangejuice (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- So anyway, yeah the graph might show a trend, but we don't want to get too far in front of trends. And the terms you favor are trending up, but from from a pretty low base (and if I smooth the graph enough -- here -- the slight downward dip for "child molester" disappears. OK that's probably cheating...). We are supposed to be followers, not setters, of current terminology. At the current rate, maybe in 20 or 30 years we can make this change. Herostratus (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Historical Interest
The documented discussions on the subject , ancient articles, scientific or press, have historical interest and could be cited . If deemed inappropriate by the fact that being a "medical article", this article may be subdivided to address the historical part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvorjik (talk • contribs)
- See Talk:Pedophilia/FAQ. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Narrow definition
Why exactly is a high level of attraction to prepubescents necessary in order for it to be considered pedophilia, when very few adults are capable of ever experiencing any amount of such feelings at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuboll345 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Tuboll345 (talk · contribs), the fact that so many people who have sexually abused prepubescents are not actually pedophiles conflicts with your assertion that "very few adults are capable of ever experiencing any amount of such feelings at all." There are those who have a genuine sexual attraction to prepubescents, and then there are those who can get sexual pleasure from a prepubescent without actually having a genuine sexual attraction to them. For the lack of a better comparison, think of how a man might have sex with a woman he does not find sexually attractive...but is still able to get sexual pleasure from that encounter. For those who turn to little children for sex, it's often that the adult is using the child as a sexual substitute. Some have pretended that the child was an adult while engaging in sex with the child. And then there are the ones who, according to some researchers, have a genuine sexual attraction to prepubescents and adults. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- In regard to those who have a genuine attraction to both prepubescents and adults, I find it rather confusing that there are sources which indicate the existence of such people, but then go on to suggest that such people are not pedophiles if their attraction to prepubescents is weaker than their attraction to adults. Like the main article saying that child molesters who are attracted to both children and adults are only considered pedophiles in the same vein as those who only like adults if the attraction to prepubescents is stronger than the attraction to adults, and then Simple Wikipedia referring to pedophiles who only like adults as exclusive pedophiles and those with a secondary attraction to adults as non-exclusive pedophiles, but then not having a name for adults who prefer other adults but also have some attraction to prepubescent children. So if there are adults who genuinely are attracted to both prepubescents and adults, then why aren't the ones who prefer adults also considered pedophiles if they also happen to have some real attraction to prepubescents? As far as I'm concerned, such an attraction is still unusual enough that it would make sense for it to warrant such a label. Tuboll345 (talk) 02:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Tuboll345, to enough researchers, those who have a genuine sexual attraction to both prepubescents and adults are pedophiles. After all, the lead does state "primary or exclusive." This source that is noted at Talk:James Cantor, for example, states, "Although the majority of pedophiles are exclusively attracted to children, many are fortunate to have some attraction to men or women their own age. This is why many pedophiles are able to get married, have healthy sex lives, bear children, and even deny the reality of their attraction to children far into their adult lives."
- Also at that talk page, you can see that I challenged part of that by stating, "I just looked at the second source (cbc.ca). A number of experts would debate [it ...] And by 'debate,' I mean that a number of experts on pedophilia usually don't think it's many that are 'fortunate to have some attraction to men or women their own age.' At least as far as genuine sexual attraction goes. We address the exclusive vs. non-exclusive aspect in the Pedophilia article (here and here), which also notes the definitional issue that comes along with it and the topic of child sexual abuse. I don't know of any reliable documentation of a true pedophile being able to have a satisfactory sex life with an adult; so I like that the article also relayed the following: 'Even when pedophiles do find adult partners to have a relationship with, they often are more strongly attracted to children than adults, and for obvious reasons.' So despite my concern about the source making it seem that pedophiles being sexually attracted to adults is common, the source does seem solid."
- This is not like bisexuality, where being sexually attracted to both automatically gets someone titled "bisexual" (though, as noted in the Bisexuality article, what it means to be bisexual is also debated). The reason that it's common for experts to disregard those with a weak sexual attraction to prepubescent children as pedophiles is due to what I initially stated to you above. Simply put, either the experts don't believe that the sexual attraction is genuine or they don't believe that it's strong enough to warrant a diagnosis of pedophilia. When it comes to pedophilia, the sexual attraction is a big part of it. This is because pedophiles have a difficult time being sexually satisfied with an adult sexual partner and their sexual attraction to prepubescents is likely to lead to the sexual abuse of a child. Situational offenders and similar are also a worry, but it is usually easier to counsel such individuals, in the way of preventing harm to a child, because their primary sexual attraction is to adults and not to children. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pedophilia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/dutch_movement_frame.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Links to articles about puberty, adolescence, etc
I placed some links to the Wikipedia entries about adolescence, puberty, and others, which were removed (by Flyer22 Reborn). The reason offered for their removal is that "people usually know what prepubescent means." And that the link to it "leads to the preadolescence article, and prepubescent and preadolescence [sic] are not necessarily the same thing." However, I would think it'd be trivially necessary for an encyclopaedic article about paedophilia to contain such links, which here are of evident and paramount importance. We cannot assume adequate knowledge on these subjects by someone looking up pedophilia in Wikipedia.
Moreover, the Wikipedia entry for preadolescence is quite clear and quite informative in its definitions:
"Preadolescence, also known as pre-teen or tween, is a stage of human development following early childhood and preceding adolescence. It commonly ends with the beginning of puberty, but may also be defined as ending with the start of the teenage years. ... The point at which a child becomes an adolescent is defined by the onset of puberty or by the beginning of the teenage stage. Adolescence is also viewed as ending with the teenage stage. However, in some individuals (particularly females), puberty begins in the preadolescence years, and adolescence may extend a few years beyond the teenage years in others (typically males). Studies indicate that the onset of puberty has been one year earlier with each generation since the 1950s."
In so many words, prepubescence and preadolescence are presented under the same title in Wikipedia, with the nuances in meaning offered therein. We should treat the terms as Wikipedia treats them, and the links should all be re-instated. Any opinions, please? -The Gnome (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- The prepubescent link has been discussed before at this talk page; the discussion or discussions are somewhere in the archives, and involved thoughts about linking the term prepubescent, and where is the best place to redirect the term, meaning to either the Puberty article or to the Preadolescence article. While it currently redirects to the Preadolescence article, it is not the ideal choice; it is simply the best choice we currently have since there is not much to state about being pre-pubertal. Just as puberty and adolescence are not the same thing, neither is prepubescent and preadolescence. We want people to understand pre-puberty and puberty well enough at this article, which ensures them understanding pedophilia a lot better than they currently do. As this article notes, pedophilia is commonly misunderstood, to the point where the average person will call adult sexual attraction to a 17-year-old "pedophilia," despite the fact that a 17-year-old and an 18-year-old adult are usually biologically and mentally on the same level. Preadolescence, which can include pubertal children, is not what we mean when we state, "Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children." I do not think that the link would help our readers; I think it would only add to the confusion, which is why I oppose re-adding it to this article. Like I stated, people usually know what prepubertal means. And we do link the Puberty article in the Pedophilia article. The only way I might (MIGHT) support linking prepubertal at this article is if the lead and lower part of the Preadolescence article addressed the distinction between being prepubertal and preadolescent a lot better than it currently does. A Prepubertal section at that article might be a good idea, and then the term prepubertal could specifically link there. But, again, there is not much to state about being pre-pubertal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- And the only reason the Preadolescence article even bothers to note that what it does regarding puberty and preadolescence is because of my edits to that article years ago. Looking at it, though, I need to change/update those sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. Your response comes down to a personal opinion about what people do and don't know. On what basis do you assert that "people usually know" what all these terms that are relevant to pedophilia mean? You claim that what people "usually" know is not in the relevant Wikipedia articles! Would you care to reconsider this position? -The Gnome (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- If my argument is based on personal opinion, then so is yours. It is your personal opinion that linking the term prepubescent is beneficial to our readers. My argument is that it's not because the place that the term redirects to is not about prepubescence. In what way is your argument based on any of our rules? As for what supports my argument, my argument is based on facts and what is best for Wikipedia readers...in addition to my personal opinion. I've been editing this article since 2007 and have been through many pedophilia discussions on this talk page. I know what our readers and editors are confused about when it comes to this topic. On what basis do I assume that people usually know what prepubertal means? On the same basis that I assume people usually know what puberty means. Puberty is a common knowledge topic. Are you going to argue that people don't usually know that "pre-puberty" means "before puberty"? If so, on what basis does such a claim make sense? Per WP:Overlinking, linking everyday (meaning common knowledge) words is overlinking, except for articles where the term is especially relevant. "Prepubertal" is especially relevant in this case, but the Preadolescence article is not about prepubescence. So do I care to reconsider my position? No. If it comes down to it, I will (per my commentary above) resolve the issue with that redirect, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I've given a decent compromise suggestion above and am willing to support that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is not my "personal opinion" that people come to Wikipedia looking for information. The subject we are dealing with is evidently serious. You are asserting that something related to this serious and sensitive subject is "common knowledge" in order to prohibit links to it, yet you fail to offer any substance to that assertion. (Your initial claim that the relevant articles in Wikipedia are inadequate is thankfully behind us.) And it seems that, despite the long experience you claim in editing, you misunderstand what the rule about overlinking is about. Let me help here by offering an actual quote from it: "Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are not usually linked: Everyday words ...; names of major geographic features, locations ...; common occupations; common units of measurement ...; dates..." (emphasis added) This not only indicates what should typically not be linked but also clearly points out what can or must be linked: Whatever is particulalry relevant to the article.
- All the terms puberty, adolescence, and the related terms prepuberty, preadolescence are particularly relevant to the context of an article about paedophilia. Your invocation of the overlink rule is without basis. If you believe otherwise, then let's ask the opinions of other editors in a formal RfC. -The Gnome (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- I've given a decent compromise suggestion above and am willing to support that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- People come to Wikipedia looking for correct information, just like they do regarding any other dictionary or encyclopedia outlet. In my view, what you are arguing for is to mislead readers, considering that you are arguing to link a term to point people to an article that is not about that term/concept. You stated that I am "asserting that something related to this serious and sensitive subject is 'common knowledge' in order to prohibit links to it, yet [I] fail to offer any substance to that assertion." Wrong. I offered plenty of substance to that assertion. You are simply intent on linking the term prepubescent for some odd reason, despite my valid arguments. You stated that my "initial claim that the relevant articles in Wikipedia are inadequate is thankfully behind us." What? No. I've consistently stated above that linking the term prepubescent is inadequate (well, actually, misleading), and I've thoroughly explained why. I did not argue against linking puberty or adolescence in this article. Puberty was linked in this article before you arrived at it. You are bent on linking a term that leads to an article that is not about that term and will confuse readers. I mentioned the WP:OVERLINK guideline because not only did you overlink the term prepubescent, I wanted to give an example of one of our rules advising against linking everyday (common knowledge) words. I acknowledged that the term prepubescent is especially relevant to this article; I also explained why linking it in this article is problematic. If we look at MOS:LINKSTYLE, it states, "Beware of linking to an article without first confirming that it is helpful in context; the fact that its title matches the concept you wish to link to, does not guarantee that it deals with the desired topic at all." This is similar to you linking prepubescent, which will take people to the Preadolescence article. If we look at WP:OVERLINK, it states, "The function of links is to clarify, not emphasize; do not create links in order to draw attention to certain words or ideas, or as a mark of respect." Does linking to the Preadolescence article really clarify what prepubescence is? Keep in mind that preadolescence is usually designated as ages 10 to 13, while prepubescence covers anyone who has not reached puberty; this obviously means babies, toddlers and those before the pre-teen stage are included. I do not see that you are thinking with the mindset of what is best for our readers. If you were, you would be trying to compromise. In addition to the compromise I mentioned above, there is also the option of using "who have not begun puberty" in place of "prepubescent," like Simple English Wikipedia does for its first sentence. Of course, prepubertal would still be used for quotes in the article, but, per MOS:QUOTE, links generally should not be within quotes anyway. You want an RfC? Okay. Started one below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- The argument you are making (i.e. when people see the term "pre-something," they already know this is about "before something"!) is nonsensical. Onwards with the RfC to put this whole nonsense behind us asap. (Looking over your Talk Page and your being-blocked record, I realize, however belatedly, what I've got myself mixed in. Ah, well.) -The Gnome (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- People come to Wikipedia looking for correct information, just like they do regarding any other dictionary or encyclopedia outlet. In my view, what you are arguing for is to mislead readers, considering that you are arguing to link a term to point people to an article that is not about that term/concept. You stated that I am "asserting that something related to this serious and sensitive subject is 'common knowledge' in order to prohibit links to it, yet [I] fail to offer any substance to that assertion." Wrong. I offered plenty of substance to that assertion. You are simply intent on linking the term prepubescent for some odd reason, despite my valid arguments. You stated that my "initial claim that the relevant articles in Wikipedia are inadequate is thankfully behind us." What? No. I've consistently stated above that linking the term prepubescent is inadequate (well, actually, misleading), and I've thoroughly explained why. I did not argue against linking puberty or adolescence in this article. Puberty was linked in this article before you arrived at it. You are bent on linking a term that leads to an article that is not about that term and will confuse readers. I mentioned the WP:OVERLINK guideline because not only did you overlink the term prepubescent, I wanted to give an example of one of our rules advising against linking everyday (common knowledge) words. I acknowledged that the term prepubescent is especially relevant to this article; I also explained why linking it in this article is problematic. If we look at MOS:LINKSTYLE, it states, "Beware of linking to an article without first confirming that it is helpful in context; the fact that its title matches the concept you wish to link to, does not guarantee that it deals with the desired topic at all." This is similar to you linking prepubescent, which will take people to the Preadolescence article. If we look at WP:OVERLINK, it states, "The function of links is to clarify, not emphasize; do not create links in order to draw attention to certain words or ideas, or as a mark of respect." Does linking to the Preadolescence article really clarify what prepubescence is? Keep in mind that preadolescence is usually designated as ages 10 to 13, while prepubescence covers anyone who has not reached puberty; this obviously means babies, toddlers and those before the pre-teen stage are included. I do not see that you are thinking with the mindset of what is best for our readers. If you were, you would be trying to compromise. In addition to the compromise I mentioned above, there is also the option of using "who have not begun puberty" in place of "prepubescent," like Simple English Wikipedia does for its first sentence. Of course, prepubertal would still be used for quotes in the article, but, per MOS:QUOTE, links generally should not be within quotes anyway. You want an RfC? Okay. Started one below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- There is nothing nonsensical about any of the arguments I've made thus far, including the fact that people generally know that prepubescent means "before puberty." And, indeed, the meaning of "pre" is common knowledge/common sense. The fact that you clearly did not do your homework on my block log, or the fact that I work in controversial areas (which are naturally going to be rife with disputes), shows that you clearly don't do much homework on anything else. But given your sporadic edit history, which indicates a lack of Wikipedia editing experience, I shouldn't be surprised. Ah, well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
RfC: How best to resolve the prepubescent link dispute?
At the Pedophilia article, there is a dispute regarding linking the term prepubescent. One view is that linking the term helps readers understand what prepubescence is and/or the topic of pedophilia. This view asserts that "prepubescence and preadolescence are presented under the same title in Wikipedia, with the nuances in meaning offered therein. We should treat the terms as Wikipedia treats them." The other view is that the link is misleading and confusing since the term prepubescent currently redirects to the Preadolescence article, and prepubescence and preadolescence are not the same thing, which is why preadolescence is usually designated as ages 10 to 13 and can include pubescents, while prepubertal is broader in age range and is specifically about those who have not reached puberty. This view asserts that the sending readers to the Preadolescence article will hinder the understanding of pedophilia, which medically relies on the prepubescent aspect.
If you are seeing this from an RfC page or your talk page, the initial discussion on the matter can be seen at Talk:Pedophilia#Links to articles about puberty, adolescence, etc. Options for how to resolve the dispute are presented below.
Option 1: Simply link the term prepubescent.
Option 2: Link the term prepubescent, but add a Prepubescence section to the Preadolescence article and redirect the term prepubescent there. Creating a Prepubescence section at the Preadolescence article can obviously be an option regardless of what is decided here at the Pedophilia article, but it has been explicitly suggested as a compromise.
Option 3: Use "who have not begun puberty" in place of "prepubescent," like Simple English Wikipedia does for its first sentence.
Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Survey
- Support option 2 or 3, per my above commentary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Option 3 Most clear, less fuss and it is unclear to me what kind of content would go into the section described in Option 2. Option 1 is unclear - do you mean WL to preadolescence? Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Option 2 There is simply no excuse in withholding links to articles that amplify on and offer additional information on terms crucially important to "paedophilia." If this means more elaboration in an already existing article, then (sigh) so be it; interested editors should have a go at it. Let's go ahead and place links to "prepuberty" and "preadolescence" and be done with this. -The Gnome (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Discussion
Jytdog, when it comes to a Prepubescence section in the Preadolescence article, I mean a short section about how the body is before puberty. I'm trying to think of something to resolve the issue with the prepubescent redirect. And, yes, linking prepubescent means a wikilink to the Preadolescence article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- As the only place where content describing what a person is like before puberty, is in the puberty article, then that is the only viable link. Linking to Preadolescence, which takes great pains to define itself as not being about the period before puberty, makes no sense; it is nonsense. I don't agree with generating in content in Preadolescence about prepubescence as this is WP:OFFTOPIC there. The only sensible !vote above is option 3 Jytdog (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- The article should contain a link to whatever article explains the concepts of adolescence, preadolecence, puberty, and prepuberty. The arguments that are offered by Flyer22 Reborn about these concepts being "common knowledge," supported by references to the English dictionary are frankly nonsensical. If the article that best informs the user about "prepuberty" is "puberty," by all means so be it. But it would be incorrect to simply state that prepuberty is, well, the period before puberty and be done with it. Not in the entry about "pedophilia." -The Gnome (talk)