Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Boylover)

Pedophilia advocacy groups section has WP:UNDUE and WP:OR issues

The section about pedophilia advocacy groups is placing WP:UNDUE weight on advocacy groups that are in favor of adult-child sexual activities, to the detriment of many others that: a) have become highly noticiable on reliable sources after 2016, and b) do not support sexual activies between adults and children. These groups include Virtuous Pedophiles, B4U-ACT (see a, b (article talks about them in some depth) and c) and Prostasia Foundation (they're on the news as well, if you're editing this article you know it, I'm tired of copying and pasting links; they have said it themselves that they do support pedophiles). All these groups support the destigmatization of pedophiles, though they are against age of consent reforms and such things. And I don't see any evidence that these people's views are WP:FRINGE among EXISTING advocacy groups, because I've seen their names on recent reliable sources MUCH more than I have seen Nambla's or PIE's.

The section also reads: In contrast to these organizations, members of the support group Virtuous Pedophiles believe that child sexual abuse is wrong and seek to raise awareness that some pedophiles do not offend; this is generally not considered pedophile advocacy, as the Virtuous Pedophiles organization does not approve of the legalization of child pornography and does not support age of consent reform.[149]. The statement "this is generally not considered pedophile advocacy" here is an obvious WP:OR because source 149 is not a reliable source and, even if it was, it does not support that statement. I will place a [citation needed] on that and, if nobody does anything, will just replace that sentence with something explaining that there are some pedophile advocacy groups that do not support sex between adults and children. (Or maybe not, I will just change the paragraph right now and if someone has a problem just tell me :).) 22spears (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a "virtuous pedophile."
Hope this helps. Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Krafft-Ebing did not coin the term pedophilia

The reference Janssen, D.F. (2015) does not support that claim. It says that the term "paedophilie" was already being used by plently of researchers of Ancient Greek culture in the 1830's, and it was only in 1896 that Ebing started using that word in a forensic enviroment.

The source confirms this directly when it says that "The ancient distinction between edifying love and problematic behaviour, specifically between Pädophilie and Päderastie, had been revived deliberately in the late 1830s by the pioneering researchers into ancient Greek sexual mores (...). However, like Johann Ludwig Casper, all three notably used the terms Männerschändung (Fr.: andrérastie) and Männerliebe alongside the juxtaposed terms of Knabenschändung and Knabenliebe/Paedophilie.49 Right up to Krafft-Ebing’s forensic appropriation of the latter term in 1896, (...)" and that "Krafft-Ebing’s Paedophilia erotica, in this light, was a careful, but still awkward, reworking of known, indeed ancient, terms." 🔥 22spears 🔥 23:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


22, what is wrong with tertiary sources, especially the DSM and ICD? ~~~~ Javan009 (talk) 10:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with those, see WP:MEDRS, for which those are top sources. However, for deeper insights we must consult their underlying literature. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Pеdо has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 15 § Pеdо until a consensus is reached. Fram (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]