Talk:Infantilism/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Previous archives of this page appear at:
Talk:Infantilism\Archive 1

Contents

Refactoring

I've just done some major refactoring of this talk page. I've only moved mostly my comments, and removed any of mine that were not really advancing discussion. I did copy one section of orbit's comment into the copyvio section. If everyone would both move anything they want kept into the relevent section and take out anything that is not helpful, we could make some progress? Oh! Thanks for putting on your "orbit suit" orbit. ^_^
brenneman(t)(c) 07:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm going to be a bit more bold than perhaps is wise. So some careful language is coming, ok?

  • Please first see Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages.
    • Up to this point I have neither changed nor moved any comments other than my own.
    • I did copy one section of text to another section while leaving the original intact.
  • The edit summary for this will be "REFACTORING SAVE POINT - REVERT TO HERE IF YOU MUST".
    • Because I'm about to edit the hell ot of everyone else's comments.
    • Please have a good look at the results. The diff will be posted here: [1].
    • If you believe that this was not the correct thing to do, simply revert to this edit.
    • Please be careful of other's edits if you do so!

brenneman(t)(c) 11:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • And a big apology to Orbit for losing his edits while archiving. Thanks for being understanding.
    brenneman(t)(c) 12:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, that's done. I've really hammered this talk page, and I know that that is a controversial thing to do. However, no progress was being made, and the levels of spite and anger were rising like the tide.
  • Can we all now just play nice? If anyone says something you don't like here, ignore it. Concentrate on the fact this is about producing an ecyclopedia entry.

brenneman(t)(c) 13:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

RfC, peer review, and Feature Article status

The path to a Featured Article
Start a new article
Develop the article
Check against the featured article criteria
Get creative feedback (Peer review)
Apply for featured article status
Featured articles
  • Time to move this article to featured status soon, so a peer reveiw isnt that far out of order, is it? --OrbitOne 08:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Orbit, have you looked at some of those peer reviews, especially for controversial articles? They can be brutal. I've attached the FA linkbox to the side of this section. Steps (2) and (3) need to be pretty tight before considering step (4). That being said, I suppose it's good for you to have a goal in mind, and I would be mightily impressed if an article with a topic as contentious as this could make it through.

Possible copyvio

Please only use this section to address the potential copyright problems of images:

For all other discussion, please either use the relevent section or create a new section using the small + next to the edit tab.

(refactored comment here)

  • The hiatus on copyvio I offered to Orbit is nearly over.
    • If you cannot provide me with a link (to a wikipedia reference) that supports your claim that you've satisfied copyright requirements, I'm going to put the {copyvio} tag on your duplicate photos Friday.
    • Regardless of the outcome of that, please remove one or the other of the pairs.
  • And, since I've complained when people don't do it I should do the opposite as well - Thank you for consistently signing your edits! ^_^

brenneman(t)(c) 02:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

(Split section (part A) by OrbitOne, no time tag - brenneman(t)(c) 12:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC))
...As for CopyVio, the Tod picture is supplied by the email, good as a link. As for the female, it is supplied by DD, but I will look for a different picture. However, copyvio can be applied to alot of pictures, why not check out the diesel article. Past giving the website where it comes from, you do not have a direct link to the picture. Based on the standards of that article, the source of the picture is www.DailyDiapers.com. --80.62.170.94

Orbit,
I've looked at the image from diesel and I'm not sure I understand your point.

  • This image clearly identifies it's creator by name
  • It has the the technical details
  • It has a license tag
  • It does not have a copyright watermark.

brenneman(t)(c) 06:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I think Dave should handle this one. Dave, here are my suggestions. Reupload the image with in creative commons, add all the information as to who created it and so on while you are uploading it, not afterwards. I also see your point about the information, didnt see that part. --OrbitOne 06:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • The watermark is actually the biggest problem... if a version could be supplied without that it wouldn't scream "copyvio" quite so loudly.
    brenneman(t)(c) 06:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

That is up to Dave. BTW, you again (by accident) edited out one of my entries :). Just prior to the archiving. As for being Civil and the OI case, I want to point out I invited the guy to write the section himself and the only thing I said no to was giving out my phone number, something the OI head has demanded repeatedly over emails. --OrbitOne 07:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

(Comment inserted during refactoring, user expressed opposition to refactoring on talk page, thus will not move comment! - brenneman(t)(c) 12:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC))

Aaron, I don't really care how things look to you. My concern is with following Wikipedia policy. Your personal likes and dislikes are about as relevant to me as your insults. Quote chapter and verse the policy that says no watermarks allowed. Or, you can follow my earlier sugggestion and go do something awful to yourself. Orbit, I'll hgandle the re-uploading. I'm still new at this, and I'll probably botch it a few times before I get it right. Now, I have a favor to ask you. Leave Dean alone, okay? Please. Just let go. The man hasn't come here trying to pick a fight like aaron has. He hasn't spewed any personal venom against anyone. Yeah, okay, I dissaprove of his group and what they teach. So what? Wikipedia isn't a sounding board for airing our grievances. It's supposed to be a bare bones presentation of data that is left in such a state that the reader can make such judgements about right and wrong, good and bad, etc for themselves. And slamming OI every chance we get isn't appropraite here. BTW, I'd like to see who else is with me on requesting an arbitrator review the records of these pages, particularly Aaron's comments, in considering the matter of banning his profile from Wikipedia. Do I have any supporters, or should I let it go? Dave 11:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Todaler releases the photographs under GFDL

I contacted Todaler and asked if he released the photographs under GFDL. He replied that he was asked about it in advance and gave his permission and is okay with it. I have added this information, including a transcript of the request email and the response, to the image files in question. Those images can be used on Wikipedia. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for that opinon, Tony. Could you provide the link to an image with an embedded copyright watermark where permision was given via an anonymous e-mail account so that I might refer to the discussions around this precedent?
brenneman(t)(c) 02:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Religion and infantilism

(Split section (part B) by OrbitOne, no time tag - brenneman(t)(c) 11:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)) The Religious section isnt to justify the IO section, rather, it is to give background information on a problem we have all had. Most of America, when it comes to religion, is christian, thus, choosing Christianity as the headliner for the section made sense. Also, since Islam, although a religion of its self, was spawned from Christianity, and the Koran says Islam "must respect the people of the book" (christians), the section covers the Islamic veiw as well. As for other religions, we do not have the background information as to what their veiw on this is. -- OrbitOne

  • Whoa! Did you actually just say that a section {Christianity and Foo} would cover Islam by default?
    brenneman(t)(c) 23:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

(Split section (part B) by OrbitOne, no time tag - brenneman(t)(c) 11:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC))
As for Islam being covered by Christian veiws, that is pretty much true. Islam and Christianity can not be seperated by much, both believe in the exact same god. Islam seperates from the point of its first prophet, which is believed to be the last prophet. Islam believes in all prophets that came before, but none that came after. As a result, Muslims believe in the bibel as well as the Koran. I direct you to Islam#God as a reference. The part about Jesus is a little off though; according to muslims I have asked, Jesus is a prophet, not the son of god. --OrbitOne, or is it --80.62.170.94 06:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC) ?

OI

(Comment left unchanged as per user's request. - brenneman(t)(c) 12:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC))
Will whoever it is that keeps harassing Dean Winarski please leave the poor man alone? It's bad enough we have to put up with bigotry, we don't need infighting on top of it all. The man has a dissenting opinion. He's entitled to that. Wikipedia isn't about flaming people, that's what blogs are for. The man has stated he wants his group to be left in peace. After alln the attacks Aaron has made on us, surely you can sympathise, and grant the man the peace of mind that comes with just being left alone? Do unto others, right? Dean, I apologise for the rude behaviour of my peers. Aaron, go do something to yourself. Everyone else, cool out and quit attacking each other. 03:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I've left a message on Dean's talk page to ask him not to revert again until we can work something out.

brenneman(t)(c) 03:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

About the OI section, I think it is relevent information as to the psychology of infantilism. OI has taken a role in helping people treat Infantilism, thus one might assume they have some psychological knowledge of Infantilism. As for a revert war, I find it hard to dismiss what he is saying about the currect version of the section since he hasnt said anything yet, however, civility was lost over the emails. As I understand things though, his gripe is being grouped with fundamentalism. I removed that part so he shouldnt have any current problems with the article. --80.62.170.94 06:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I feel OI is an important reference to Infantilism which is justifide since they are the only group which practices in helping people 'remove' the desire or practice of Infantilism. The head of this group is welcomed to write the section himself, which he has not yet done. When he does write a NPOV section regarding his group, the old section can be replaced, but I do wish the old section stay up until such time. --OrbitOne 07:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The full text of Dean's edit can be found at Talk:Infantilism\Dean's request. The following is a brief summary.
Dean states

  • The entire (original) section if copied from an attack website.
  • There have been in total thirteen infantilists in this group.
  • The statements in the main article regarding "free from desire" are unrepresentative.
  • Alcoholics Anonymous, for example, does not claim to remove the desire to drink.
  • His perception of the history of how and why this conflict occured.
  • That he is again offering to work together to compose a section on OI if it must be included.
  • Finally, "So please---I'm asking any reasonable person here to back me up---just leave reference to my organization off this article."

brenneman(t)(c) 13:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Orbit - I've removed your reply as well. As it does not relate directly to the content of this article, it should go on Dean's talk page if anywhere. I'd suggest, in the name of peace, that you don't do that, but that is of course up to you. (If anyone want to see it, it's in the history.)
brenneman(t)(c) 13:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I wont repost that reply, I regret it to some extent, but onward. I feel the mention of desire is important to the section as it covers psychology of an infantilist. The want and desire can be considered a kind of behavioural addiction. As for the small number of members; the experience and knowledge base built off of this support group, although private, still can provide insight into the psychology of infantilism. -- OrbitOne (streaking through wiki without his suit)

The last time it was removed, it was with the understanding Dean would post information himself which he found acceptable. He hasn't. The information posted in the section was based off of the groups front page and is factual. --OrbitOne 05:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Structure

  • Although Wikipedia doesn't support subpages for articles now, there's no reason we can't think of pages like in that manner. This would help determine what information goes where. Ignoring the countless re-directs and the disambig made counter to the VfD, the existing articles are
 Infantilism 
  |
  + - >Diaper lover
  |
  + - >Adult baby
        |
        +-> Sissy baby
  • Do we need all four articles, or do we need more? How would they sit in this hierarchy? What content belongs in every article (to allow it to stand alone) and what can happily sit in just one place? How will the content in any of these articles be quality controlled?
  • (removed "crabby boots" comment.)

brenneman(t)(c) 14:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

We did cut down the size by seperating the articles, but we moved information back into the main article because people objected to two articles covering the same subject but containing different information. But, why dont you post one version into the talk pages and we will see what we can agree to. OrbitOne

-Puts on his OrbitOne suit- As for article size, there might be room to reorganize it, and delete the research project section which has my contact link, but over all, this is a complete picture of infantilism. There is even talk about merging it with one or two other articles to cut down on the number of articles covering this subject, so this thing will only grow. We split this article before, and you know the history after we did that. I think the next step is to make this a featured article. --OrbitOne 06:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  Age Play
  |
  + - >Daddys Girl
  |
  + - >Infantilism 
     |
     + - > Diaper lover
     |
     + - >Adult baby
     |     |
     |     +-> Sissy baby
     |
     + - > Teen Baby

All this can go under Age play. This kind of set up would make everything much easier to access. Infantilism should stay the largest, but we can sub-section some of the sections to other articles to cut down on load times. --OrbitOne 07:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I've looked over the content (and existing re-directs and VfDs) and believe that, once the material in this article is summarised and everything is verifiable and NPOV, there will be quite a bit of room for other information to come back into this article. Thus:
 Infantilism 
  |
  + - >Diaper lover - becomes subsection of Infantalism
  |
  + - >Adult baby - becomes subsection of Infantalism
        |
        +-> Sissy baby Information summarised into Adult baby subsection.

This would of course require quite of bit of work to the existing article, and some co-ordination among editors would be desirable.
brenneman(t)(c) 02:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Current structure

So here's the current article layout:

   * 1 Clarification
         o 1.1 Infantilism in young children
         o 1.2 Conscious vs Subconscious
         o 1.3 A common object of fixation
   * 2 Some infantilist lifestyles
         o 2.1 Some younger adult infantilists experiment with 'adoption'
         o 2.2 Most older adult infantilists eventually reach a state of equilibrium
   * 3 The psychology of infantilism
         o 3.1 Psychological perspectives on infantilism
         o 3.2 Some commonly experienced inner dynamics
               + 3.2.1 The binge-purge cycle phenomenon
               + 3.2.2 A fantasy of permanent regression
               + 3.2.3 A conscious vs: subconscious tension
               + 3.2.4 A release of stress and tension (similar to the release of sexual tension)
               + 3.2.5 An eventual development of some form of acceptance
         o 3.3 Possible psychological causes and effects
               + 3.3.1 Infantilism and the domineering parent/ submissive child
               + 3.3.2 Infantilism and child neglect or abuse
                     # 3.3.2.1 Forced diaper wearing, a form of child abuse?
                     # 3.3.2.2 Forced diaper wearing, a form of pedophilia?
               + 3.3.3 Some forms of infantilism may not have abuse component
         o 3.4 Infantilism and pedophilia
               + 3.4.1 Pedophilia amongst infantilists
               + 3.4.2 Pedophilia amongst mommy/daddy roleplayers
         o 3.5 Infantilism and gender identity
               + 3.5.1 Infantilism and gender switch roleplaying
               + 3.5.2 Sissy babies
               + 3.5.3 Castration/SRS
         o 3.6 Academic researchers and case study submissions invited
   * 4 Impact and ramifications
   * 5 Subsets based on age, (TB's and AB's)
   * 6 Subsets based on importance of ageplay, (DL's and AB's)
   * 7 Infantilism and Christianity
   * 8 Infantilism and privacy
         o 8.1 Infantilism and privacy for adult infantilists
         o 8.2 Infantilism and privacy for teen infantilists
               + 8.2.1 Disclosure
               + 8.2.2 NonDisclosure
         o 8.3 Infantilism and care for privacy concerns of the general public
         o 8.4 Health problems
   * 9 Some interpersonal relationships that incorporate infantilism
   * 10 The significant others (SO's) of infantilists
   * 11 See also
   * 12 External links

I mean, that's HUGE. Well, I suppose if you check out science, it has 12 sections, too. - brenneman(t)(c) 14:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposed structure

   * 1 Psychology 
         o 1.1 DSM-IV (or is it V now?) 
         o 1.2 Manifestations
               + 1.2.1 Binge-purge cycle 
               + 1.2.2 Permanent regression fantasy
         o 1.3 Gender identity
               + 1.3.1 Gender swap roleplay
               + 1.3.2 Sissy babies
               + 1.3.3 Castration/SRS
   * 2 Lifestyle
         o 2.1 Practices
               + 2.1.1 Partners
               + 2.1.2 Diaper lovers
               + 2.1.3 Adult babies
               + 2.1.4 Sissy babies
   * 3 See also
   * 4 External links

Cheers! - brenneman(t)(c) 14:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Over a month has passed with no objections to this proposed structure. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?

It might be just me, the the describing of Infantilism itself as "irrational" seems to be a bit POV, to me.

Perhaps we should scan this article and take out things which overtly criticize or support Infantilism, such as said statements?

Hello Tobias Lane, and welcome to wikipedia. That's an excellent first edit, and I agree completely. I think the the best first step is to determine the shape/ skeleton/ outline/ whatever of the article before getting into anything specific (see above). It would be good if you could contribute there, too. Oh, and don't forget it's polite to sign with ~~~~ to make it easier for others to follow the conversation. brenneman(t)(c) 05:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Overcoming Infantalism group

Please refer to the discussion above regarding the inclusion of this group. It's a very small organisation, it's history with relationship to this page is acrimonious, and its inclusion adds very little to the article. As a possible alternative how about a link to the Ex gay article in the "See also", with short (and non-specific) commentary?
brenneman(t)(c) 05:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Can we agree to use the this talk page and reach some agreement here prior to adding this material to the main page?
brenneman(t)(c) 06:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes we can agree to that. As for ex-gay, I do not believe it can be applied. New research suggests homosexuals are born gay; the same can not be said about infantilism. --OrbitOne 06:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Just briefly: the parallel I was drawing was religious intervention to change sexual behavior. Are you suggesting that these methods work?
brenneman(t)(c) 05:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

No, but I am saying Infantilism is psychological, homosexuality might be genetic. But really, I don't like the idea of any group coming in and deleting what they do not like and the rest of us bowing down to avoid a fight. --OrbitOne 22:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with that statement. However, the reason I do not believe that OI should be included in the article has nothing to do with that. While I did try and soothe Dean's feelings as much as possible, had the group been notable I'd have been stamping for NPOV content to be included. Even if it is the *only* support group for infantilists, it's just too small to warrent a mention.
brenneman(t)(c) 23:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've put a cleaup tag - too many refernces to "your" or "ones partner" etc.. Also a lot of weasel words "Some infantilists who have been known to take these sorts of games too far have on occasion been arrested by the police." could perhaps be "This behaviour has lead to arrests." Rich Farmbrough 13:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Could you please give me a definition of 'weasel words'? Keep in mind please, it is reference to actual cases. --OrbitOne 18:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

"Weasel words" are words or phrases that say "something exists" or "something may happen" or "something happens in some undefined quantity" without ever showing any evidence, references, or quantitative measurements.
My two criticisms with this article are that (1) it is very rambling and poorly organized, more stream of consciousness than essay; and (2) there are lots of "facts" asserted without any references. If you are referencing actual cases, OrbitOne et al., give a link to an article about it, or reference a book's author. Anecdotal evidence (stories from your life or that of people you know) is not acceptable on Wikipedia.
--zandperl 02:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  1. Just for completeness - Weasel words
  2. I'd be happy to work on some collaboration here. I've put a proposed structure up above, but it never got commented on.
    brenneman(t)(c) 02:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

My take, defining infantilism is like defining LOVE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love) That may be the problem with this page. Everyone has a different idea of LOVE.

I would like to comment on this suggested statement: "This behavior has lead to arrests." Personality traits are not isolated only to Infantilism. Individuals are complex and are a ‘mixed bag’ that are subject to other diagnostic behaviors. The DSM IV-R has expansive content describing disorders and has complex algorithms to sort out amalgamated pathologies. Additionally, disorders that are prominent are examined first while ruling out other axis II personality disorders. I believe that stating, "This behavior has lead to arrests." misses the mark and miss-informs the reader. Components of infantilism have lead to arrests in extremely rare cases. More directly, 'Qualifiers' are more accurate in these cases with no deception indented. 7 November 2005 (UTC) KAS PS: If you think the subject if infantilism is long, check out this one - 17 sections! Narcissism -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissist

That's a very good point, and it doesn't help anyone to include such a statement. The average reader will only get a negative viewpoint, and a practicing infantilist will probably not take it as advice or a warning, and more likely be offended. As an infantilist myself (and an extremely cautious one at that) I don't believe the entry should carry that sort of tone. I'm going through the article and making changes where I feel they are either misinformative, misleading, or incorrect, but I'm also careful not to show too much POV or bias towards my side. DLGrif

Removing Original Research

A large portion of this article appears to consist of original research. Wikipedia articles are supposed to consist only of facts that have already been published in primary and secondary sources.

I've removed the most serious violation of the policy, the section on possible causes of infantilism. It appeared to consist of speculation or anecdotal experience. To my knowledge, there are no published studies about the causes of infantilism. If there are any, the article should cite them; if there aren't, the article shouldn't say anything on the subject.

I'll be going through the article to remove other cases of original research. This may shorten the article quite a bit. Infantilism is an obscure subject; there hasn't been much published about it. But if not much has been published, not much should be said here.

Brenneman's suggested structure might help with this problem; it leaves out several of the sections that have original research issues. Flatlander 23:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The longer I look at this article the more I see that it needs to be burnt to the ground and built anew. If we could have a single unbiased source to cite, that would be a good start. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
It's tempting. It is deeply flawed. It should only be a last resort, but perhaps we might have to move all the material to a subpage of the Talk page: Talk:Infantilism/Old Article, and restart with a fresh stub. Then readd material from the old article as and when we find sources for it. — Matt Crypto 11:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad so much of this is being changed. And yes, it might actually be very helpful to start over from a stub. DLGrif

Teen Babies

I have one experience with a good friend who insists on staying immature at all times (with an exception for school and work) in the hopes that he will stay a Teen Baby. He does not understand that when he turns 21 he will automatically be an Adult Baby, regardless of his thought process. How might I fit this into the "Subsets based on Age" section, as an example of TBs being afraid of ABs or afraid of becoming one? --DLGrif