KateWishing

Hello. I'm Paul Bustion. The link you restored to the entry for pedohebephilia, http://www.dsm5.org/_layouts/login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fProposedRevision%2fPages%2fproposedrevision.aspx%3frid%3d186&rid=186, just shows a site where it says a user has to login to show he's already a member of the site before he can use it, so I removed it as it seemed useless to me. You restored it. What's the reason?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Mostly or only versus preferential

There is nothing wrong with "mostly or only" instead of preferential. First of all, it is more common language, second of all preferential has a connotation more similar to "only" than "mostly or only". On simple English wikipedia the phrase "mostly or only" was used in the ephebophilia article. "Ephebophilia is when an adult is mostly or only sexually attracted to people in their mid-to-late teenage years, generally those in the age range 15-19."https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia This was discussed on that article's talk page and two different editors reached a consensus that "mostly or only" was good wording. Readability[change source] The average grade level is the average number of years of schooling generally required to understand the text, as calculated by various readability tests. Grade 16 would be post-secondary education. Most articles on this wiki aim for an average grade level of 8 or lower. It might be helpful to point out that those grades are not calculated for the average native speaker of English, for whom this project is not intended.

You can get a rough reading of scores here. You can also compare the reading difficulty of this article to that of the version on the English Wikipedia, here. Before my edits, the Flesch reading ease score was 24.7 (compared with the slightly easier score of 33 from the English Wikipedia, which is supposed to be more difficult). My quick edits got the reading ease up to 40.2, and the average grade level down to about 13. Still too complex, but now it's been made even more so (and half of the content has been removed). The reading ease score as of this timestamp is 32.2, with an average grade level of 14; back to being more difficult than the English Wikipedia's version. The second link above will now tell you that 94% of the articles on the Simple English Wikipedia are easier to read than this one. So...definitely warrants some work.

This is all calculated mathematically, so it is not a perfect analysis. But a score like that is pretty bad, and from an educated glance it is clear that the article needs simplifying. Most of the sentences are compound sentences, and that seems to be the main problem. Basic English vocabulary is here. If a word is not on any of those lists, then either a simpler synonym needs to be chosen, or it needs to be explained in the text or, at very least, linked to a definition. "Primarily" or "exclusively" are examples of words that have simpler synonyms, and that are indeed too complex for this wiki.

Simplifying takes practice. If it is your first attempt, then it can be frustrating. If you would like help with it, or you would like to understand more about how it works, all you need to do is ask. Accuracy is of course important, so if the meaning is changed too much in the process of simplification, all you need to do is politely point it out. I might not know much about the subject, but I'm pretty good at simplifying, and I'm only trying to help in that regard. Perhaps we can put our heads together to translate this article into the project's language. Osiris (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC) https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ephebophilia#Readability Also, H.W. Fowler, author of The King's English said an author should prefer simple words to complex, and common words to unusual ones. Mostly/only beat both primarily/exclusively and preferential on both counts.

PaulBustion88 01:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, on simple English wiktionary, I was reverted when I called pedophilia a "primary or exclusive" attraction and told "mostly" was preferable because it was simpler. https://simple.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=pedophilia&diff=prev&oldid=345566 --PaulBustion88 (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I just found The King's English, https://books.google.com/books?id=Uj_wAgAAQBAJ&pg=PP1&dq=king%27s+english+fowler&hl=ga&sa=X&ei=BrlBVbK-A8OggwTRyoHYDQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=king's%20english%20fowler&f=false, on google books. H.W. Fowler wrote in the first chapter, "Anyone who wishes to become a good writer should endeavor, before he allows himself to be tempted by the more showy qualities, to be direct, simple, brief, vigorous, and lucid. This general principle may be translated into practical rules in the domain of vocabulary as follows Prefer the familiar word to the far fetched. Prefer the concrete word to the abstract. Prefer the single word to the circumlocution. Prefer the short word to the long. Prefer the Saxon word to the Romance. These rules are given roughly in order of merit, the last is also the least." The King's English H.W. Fowler chapter 1. Vocabulary page 1. Mostly and only are more familiar words and are shorter words than primarily and exclusively are. Mostly is a Germanic word, for the most entry on wiktionary, its etymology is explained, "Etymology[edit] From Middle English most, moste, from Old English mǣst, māst, from Proto-Germanic *maistaz, *maist. Cognate with West Frisian meast, Dutch meest, German meist, Danish and Swedish mest, Icelandic mestur." https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/most#Etymology Primarily is a Romance language word, its etymology is explained on wiktionary, Etymology[edit] Borrowing from Latin prīmārius (“of the first”, “of the first rank”, “chief”, “principal”, “excellent”), from prīmus (“first”; whence the English adjective prime) + -ārius (whence the English suffix -ary); compare the French primaire, primer, and premier." https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/primary Only is a Germanic word," Etymology[edit] Old English ǣnlīċ, from Germanic; corresponding to one + -ly/-like. Cognate with Swedish enlig (“unified”), and obsolete Dutch eenlijk."https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/only#English, exclusively is a Latin/Romance word Etymology[edit] From Latin exclūsīvus, from excludere (“to shut out, exclude”), from ex- (“out”) + variant form of verb claudere (“to close, shut”). https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/exclusive#English Preferential is a modified form of preference, which is a Latin word, Etymology[edit] From Middle French preference, from Medieval Latin preferential https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/preference#Etymology. These are reasons "mostly" and "only" are preferable to "primarily", "exclusively", and "preferential". --PaulBustion88 (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear God. I suggest you meditate on Fowler's advice "to be direct, simple, brief" more deeply. KateWishing (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Could you address my point, my point is I prefer "mostly" and "only" because they are more common, they are simpler, they are more concrete, they are shorter words than primarily, exclusively, and preferential and they are Germanic, whereas the other three are Romance words. Now that I've simplified and abridged my explanation of why I prefer "mostly" or "only" would you reply to it?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You are taking Fowler's guidelines to an illogical extreme. Looking on Google Books, Fowler himself uses the word primarily eight times and exclusively three times in A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. KateWishing (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I've given up and seen there is no possible way I could get other editors to see my point of view on primary or exclusive. I'm ok with those words now. Actually I prefer those to preferential, because preferential sounds more like exclusive to me.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The reason I prefer primarily or exclusively to preferential is for the same the reason this editor on simple English wikipedia preferred mostly or only to mostly. "As for "primarily or exclusively," as you can see, I added "mostly or only" in place of that; I don't see how either are too complicated, but the latter version is definitely less complicated. In fact, you're the one who added "mostly." I noted in the edit history that I added "only" on to that because it's more accurate than "mostly" by itself. You're saying that the Simple English Wikipedia is not intended "for the average native speaker of English"? I didn't know that; and while understandable, that seems a bit odd." 72.216.39.214 (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)" https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ephebophilia#Readability I think she was saying that mostly or only is more accurate because these philias can have people mostly attracted to their object or exclusively. I think primarily or exclusively works better for making that point than preferential.

--PaulBustion88 (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Just stop, Reply

Here, https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=pedophilia&type=revision&diff=32775884&oldid=32775821, you wrote "Just stop". If we are going by the medical definition of pedophilia, then it is specifically about sexual attraction, not behavior. But if we are going by the popular definition, it is about both. The first definition definitely is not the medical definition, it says, "Sexual feelings or desires by adults to minors." That's definitely not the medical definition, the popular definition also includes sexual acts with minors, I'm very sure of that, so if we're including the popular definition, it should include sexual interaction with minors. I'm against using the popular definition, but as long as its going to be up there, we should define it the way the public uses it. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The third sense already notes that usage. The behavior and attraction meanings should be kept separate. KateWishing (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You reverted me on saying "child sexual molestors" instead of "child molestors" in usage notes. Molestation does not necessarily have to be sexual, so its not specific unless you say "child sexual molestors". Molestation can sometimes mean "to harm" or even merely "to harass", so it should specifically say "child sexual molestors." --PaulBustion88 (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

A term can mean more than the sum of its parts. Nobody says "child sexual molesters". On that note, please stop molesting the Pedophilia entry. KateWishing (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Should the third definition even be in the article, "sexual activity between adults and prepubescent children", nobody uses the term that way. There is the medical use, which means "primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children", and there is the popular use, which means "sexual attraction to or interaction with any person younger than 18 by any person older than 18", but I do not think the popular use or medical us refer specifically to sexual activity between adults and prepubescent children, the popular use obviously also refers to that, but not only that the popular means any adult having sex with any minor, and the medical use is about the attraction, not about acting on it, so maybe the third definition should be taken out. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)