Talk:Chronophilia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chronophilia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2: 3 months

Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Sexology and sexuality Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article should be deleted; Wikipedia is not a dictionary

There is no notability to a term that was never picked up and used outside of original coinage. In policy terms, it fails WP:Notability due to no significant coverage in reliable sources. Mathglot (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen plently of notability for this topic in the past few days I've been reading about it, mainly among secondary scientific sources. I have expanded the article a big (ok, a lot). Maybe now the notability is more visible.

This concept was indeed used outside its original coinage, including by big names of the field such as Seto and Cantor, though the version of the article that you saw probably failed to demonstrate that. 🔥 22spears 🔥 20:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dysfunctional

What does dysfunctional because of paraphillia mean? 2600:100D:B02D:9AB3:0:54:A801:A201 (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Errors re: ephebophilia on the Chronophilia page, my accurate corrections, citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Layah50 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Materialscientist

The amendments I made are already supported by sources cited in the existing chrophilia page and on the ephebophilia page. There are obvious errors on the current page, including contradictions between some content on the page and other content on the page. For example:

The page properly notes that chronophilia are determined by Tanner stages, not simply by age, but then ignores the fact that many 15 to 19 year olds are already Tanner stage 5. If further sources are needed aside from those already provided in the Chronophilia and ephebophilia articles ( which both already contain cited sources that support virtually EVERYTHING I said, as I merely made corrections that clarified certain errors and oversights, and which better unified contradictions in the existing text, aligning them with more accurate details ), there is also this further research article by Drs. Michael Seto and Skye Stephens (both of whom are extensively cited as reliable sources on both the ephebophilia and chronophilia pages as they currently exist) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293334555_Hebephilic_Sexual_Offending

which further notes the following: "This wide age range is problematic as it would include...sexually mature teenagers who could be easily confused with young adults. A sexual preference in those in late adolescence who show many signs of sexual maturity (Tanner stage 4) or who are sexually mature (Tanner stage 5) is not representative of hebephilia; instead, it can be described as ephebophilia or teleiophilia (Hames & Blanchard, 2012). The distinction is important in both conceptual and practical ways. given older adolescents are reproductively viable and the fact that typically men are sex-ually attracted to older adolescents, as reﬂected in self-report, psychophysiological, and pornography use studies (Freund, Seeley, Marshall, & Glinfort, 1972; Symons, 1979).1" In light of this, I ask that you please reinstate my factual and accurate changes to the chronophilia page, which presented glaring mistakes. Ephebophilia is not considered a paraphilia, nor an atypical chronophilia, and, especially in the area of 16 to 19 ( notable, when defined imprecisely by generic age range, rather than by Tanner stage, the errors increase because, again, and as above specifically noted by one of the doctors already frequently cited in the Chronophilia and Ephebophilia pages as they currently exist, many later teens are already in Tanner Stage 5 development ) it often overlaps with teliophilia. Again, in light of the provided documentation, the observable errors and contradictions in the existing Chronophilia page, and the supporting citation ALREADY present on those pages (if one reviews them in relation to the corrections I made, and in relation to the pages existing contradictions and errors), I ask that my changes to the page be reinstated. I do not have the tech savvy to make the citation corrections myself, but I have provided a valid source above, and, as stated, existing material and citations on the pages as they currently are already support my changes. I ask that my accurate changes be reinstated and the provided citation added. I would HATE to think that my changes, despite being factual and elucidating, have been edited out based on any ideological biases of the editor(s).

Editors playing games with proper corrections to the Chronophilia information.

Corrections were made to the page, roughly two days ago. They were accurate, and accurately sourced with citations. A moderator made proper edits to some minor formatting issues with one of the citations, entirely appropriately. All the edits remained in place for about a day and a half. In the past day, someone ( & one has ideas of whom, though that is unproven ) has gone and reverted the entire page to what it was before the edits. The page is now, again, full of inaccuracies, which are even contradicted by other material ON the page, and on related pages. What is going on?? Who is revising the page in an inaccurate and potentially propagandist way, deleting revisions that are properly and accurately sourced & cited ( with sources who are among the leading researchers in the field and who are cited already on the existing page )? If this is the doing of a moderator, what oversight procedures are in place on the wiki mods to make certain that they abide by proper rules of fairness and accuracy? The edits that were made had direct quotes from Dr. Michael Seto, and cited where those quotes came from. Why are legitimate, sourced corrections being deleted, and what can be done about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:4101:E4E0:7108:FA11:ACA9:A756 (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It appears you are a new editor. While I don't have time to weigh in on merits of edits at this time (I'm just a user, not a moderator), you may like to know that every edit, and who did it, is recorded and public on all pages in Wikipedia. For this page, you can see the edit history here.Legitimus (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]