text:
Talk:Paraphilic infantilism

Regarding pedophilia to child sexual abuse.
Pedophilia should not be directly related to child sexual abuse as pedophilia is the sexual attraction to children, not the act of causing harm to them. The overall feel of this section is that a pedophile cannot behave towards a child in a protective manner and this is an ill-perceived ideal based on stereotype.

It's the same as saying everyone who thinks about suicide kills themselves.

115.198.94.160 (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think pedophilia has any relevance or should be mentioned in this article at all. Saying something is "not" something doesn't really belong. Paraphilic infantilism is not driving a monster truck, either. But we don't need to say it in the article. Sure, there may be some idiots out there who commonly confuse paraphilic infantilism with driving monster trucks, but I do not see that we cater on wikipedia in an article to saying everything under a sun something is not. You do not define something by listing out everything it is *not*, but rather, what it is. Move to delete reference to pedophilia as having nothing to do with the article. 71.226.11.248 (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Since paraphilic infantilism is commonly confused with pedophilia, so commonly confused with it, apparently, that WP:Reliable sources address the matter, it is WP:Due weight (very appropriate) that the article addresses this misconception. Flyer22 (talk) 07:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

 * I have changed "infantilism is not related to pedophilia, or any other form of child sexual abuse" to "infantilism is not related to pedophilia, or any form of child sexual abuse", because the word "other" implied that pedophilia is a form of child abuse which it is not. 31.52.253.135 (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Commonly confused" by who, exactly?
 * First, this appears to be a straight-forward example of weasel words and unsupported attribution, as it is effectively the same as vaguely declaring that "some are said to believe", "many people say", "x has been described as y", etc. But, who exactly are these people who confuse paraphilic infantilism with pedophilia, how common is "common", and most importantly, why is their confusion and misconceptions credible or noteworthy?
 * I'm also reminded of the phase "teach the controversy"; from a movement in which unscientific opinions were suggested to be given comparable weight and credibility as scientific fact. And yet, if we look at the Wikipedia article on evolution, it should be noted that there is no mention of the pseudo-scientific theory of intelligent design outside of the very last paragraph of the last section, concerning "Social and Cultural Responses".
 * In my view that approach is appropriate, because it is not the role of an encyclopedia to imbue all ideas with equal weight, but instead to primarily present objective facts and credible viewpoints from verifiable sources.
 * Finally, on top of the fact that there is no credible or verifiable association between paraphilic infantilism and pedophilia, the label of "pedophile" itself is an extremely value-laden label. These kinds of labels, especially when misapplied, can do real damage to the health and safety of people as well as the ability for society at large to understand and discuss the true diversity or human experience.
 * It's for these reasons that I also strongly argue to remove the vague and dubious references to pedophilia from this article as being totally irrelevant and given undue weight compared to objective facts and credible, modern and verifiable viewpoints.
 * (If anything, "teaching the controversy" in which paraphilic infantilism is confused with pedophilia should be relegated to a specific section of the article. But only if there is a legitimate and reasonable basis to give weight to such an obvious misconception. In my view it's long past due that those who want to include references to pedophilia in this article justify doing so with something more credible than weasel words, lest this very article becomes a vector for propagating this harmful and factually baseless misconception.) FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * commented added on behalf of FuwaFuwaDL 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 12:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

It is not important but I feel that you do not understand English correctly. "infantilism is not related to paedophilia, or any other form of sexual abuse of children" implies that paedophilia is a form of child abuse, which is not contrary to the usual understanding of the matter, so the sentence could remain in this form. To imply that infantilism is a form of child abuse you would have to write "paedophilia is not related to infantilism, or any other form of sexual abuse of children". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.54.83 (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

 * I've added a reference to a new (2019) study indicating that there is no correlation between infantilism and pedophilic interests. I've also removed the language "infantilism is commonly confused with pedophilia" from the introduction (where no source was cited) and revised it in the main text (where the source cited was from 1991). If the article were to assert that this confusion is common, I'd think it would have to cite a more recent source to show that the confusion remains commmon. Otherwise there is a problem with Avoid weasel words. The current policy on WP:Reliable sources doesn't appear to address this issue. HighStdDev (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Reverted. Per WP:MEDRS, we should not be basing content on some new primary source study. And we include historical views, such as John Money's. Whether such views should be regulated to the "History" section is something to consider. Either way, without your addition, the article is already clear that paraphilic infantilism is not the same thing as pedophilia. As for citing that the confusion is common, which it clearly is and is why you felt the need to add the study you added, I will see about sourcing that with a newer WP:MEDRS-compliant source later on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

 * (1) There are a lot of primary sources in the reference list of the article currently, the WP:MEDRS policy on primary sources not withstanding. If this article can cite a case study, I don't see why it can't cite a survey study with over a thousand subjects. Is there a suitably neutral way of including the finding in Fuss et al. somewhere in this article? Perhaps a direct quotation?

 * (2) I really think the paragraph on Money's views in the "pedophilia" section has to be removed or modified. As written, it is making a speculative allegation about diaper fetishists, using the word "may," that would be Defamation per se if said about a named individual. Can the claim about diaper fetishists be removed from this paragraph, leaving behind the unproblematic comment about Money's view of infantilism?

 * (3) Consider "sometimes confused" rather than "commonly confused" if a neutral, recent source can't be found. HighStdDev (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

 * Yes, there are a lot of primary sources in the article. And when someone has argued that regarding other articles, my response has been that existing poor sources and/or content does not mean that it is okay to add more poor sources and/or poor content. Furthermore, primary-sourced content based on older sources is much more likely to be covered in secondary and/or tertiary academic sources than a primary source from the current year is. I haven't edited this article much, but if I ever get around to doing so, it would include replacing the primary sources with secondary and tertiary sources where possible without losing important content. I might need to do that even if I'd rather not take the time to do it; this is so that the article adheres to WP:MEDRS as best it can (which may sometimes mean retaining a primary source here and there, per WP:MEDDATE), to help keep out poor or WP:Fringe content. If there is any content in the article that falls under WP:Fringe, we should consider how best to present that material or to remove it. But when it comes to early/historical sexological views, even if they are fringe, we should include those in some way. For example, Money's Lovemap theory is something we should cover. I changed the aforementioned Money text from "states" to "argued." I think that with the WP:In-text attribution and the use of "argued" and "may," it's clear that this is Money's opinion. It's not presented as fact. It seems to fit in that section because the sentence briefly addresses sexual attraction to diaper-wearing babies, and it doesn't seem he was referring to people with that attraction being sexually oriented toward adults in any way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

 * I take your point about adding further primary sources. The paragraph on Money needed further editing. As written, the passage suggested that Money thought that (some? all?) diaper fetishists "may be" nepiophiles. That is a shocking accusation, bordering on libel, if he indeed took that view. I was not able to find the Money book cited in this passage, but I was able to find Money's definition of "autonepiophilia" in Lovemaps (p. 259). There, he defines the terms "autonepiophilia" and "nepiophilia" without saying anything about diaper fetishists. I've edited the passage on Money so that it makes no mention of diaper fetishists. I trust this is OK, since diaper fetishism is not the topic of this article. HighStdDev (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * With this edit, you removed the "Money argued" piece. If he did argue that diaper fetishists may be sexually attracted to diaper-wearing babies, that is his argument and would still be his argument even if in the Diaper fetishism article. Whether or not to include the material is not a matter of libel. Unless speaking of libel in terms of some WP:BLP matter, libel has nothing to do with how we write Wikipedia articles; see, for example, WP:No legal threats. Diaper fetishism is a related topic, which is why it's mentioned in the lead and there is a section on it in this article. The Money bit you removed can go there, where Money is already mentioned. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

 * But, yes, without being sure if he made the argument and since the piece is not vital, we can leave it out. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Infantilist found guilty of kidnap, rape and torture of child
In light of the David Challenor case should the sentence

"Though commonly confused with pedophilia, the two conditions are distinct and infantilists do not seek children as sexual partners."

not be amended to read

"Though commonly confused with pedophilia, the two conditions are distinct and infantilists do not normally seek children as sexual partners."

I'm hesitant to edit the article as I don't know if someone is actively managing it and whether this would require some additional information on how different paraphilias can be present in the same person, but I think this should be amended (especially since this is not the only conviction of an infantilist in relation to children).Small candles (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Content should be based on what the literature states, not on some news headline. That stated, child molesters come from a variety of backgrounds. It is obviously incorrect to imply that an infantilist can never be sexually interested in little children. Those familiar with the literature on pedophilia and child sexual abuse topics know that it's not even the case that everyone is who has sexually abused a little kid is technically a pedophile; the Pedophilia article addresses this. So feel free to add "normally." I'm not going to revert. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * All this conversation does is prove just how completely out-of-place, and potentially loaded, the above sentence is.
 * Any category of person, or member of any group, has the possibility of being a pedophile (or a rapist, murderer, or on the positive side, an olympic athlete, renowned artist, astronaut, etc.), but that obviously does not warrant the weight of inclusion without solid evidence of a genuine connection, correlation or causation.
 * For example, there have been countless documented examples of priests having sexually abused children, but if you check the article on priests you won't any reference to pedophilia, or other such value-laden language to that effect. You certainly don't see a sentence that says, "Though commonly confused with pedophilia, the two conditions are distinct and priests do not normally seek children as sexual partners.". And rightly so, because even with an abundance of examples of priests having sexually abused children, it is still not considered by any rational person to be a defining feature of priesthood in general.
 * So, again, clearing up the possibility of "confusion" is not something that should be a persistent through-line of this article (which should really be focused on accurately describing what paraphilic infantilism is, and not what it is not). If anything, explaining the differences between paraphilic infantilism and pedophilia should be relegated to its own (unbiased, well-sourced and verifiable) section or article entirely. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

_____

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Adult baby wearing child attire.jpg

Petition to remove, replace or localize value-laden, inaccurate, biased or otherwise dated terminology.
I would like us to examine and discuss the use of various terms used in this article, and whether they are appropriate in the context of our modern understanding of paraphilic infantilism as well as paraphilias and atypical sexual interests in general. For example:

1 - The word "syndrome" as used in "Adult Baby Syndrome". According to the American Psychological Association's Dictionary of Psychology a "syndrome" is defined as "n. a set of symptoms and signs that are usually due to a single cause (or set of related causes) and together indicate a particular physical or mental disease or disorder.". However, as of the DSM-5, the psychological consensus draws a clear and intention distinction between paraphilias (as a benign, but atypical sexual desire) and paraphilic disorders (as stress, impairment, or personal harm to the self or others as the result of paraphilias). Connecting those two dots makes it very clear that paraphilias like paraphilic infantilism are not in and of themselves to be considered a mental disease or psychological disorder--rendering the term "Adult Baby Syndrome" archaic, obsolete and potentially misleading in the context of the lead section.

2 - Similarly, the word "condition" as used in the section header "Relation to other conditions", may also evoke the concept of paraphilia being a "medical condition. Though admittedly this point is debatable, as "condition" is a fairly broad term on its own.

3 - As eluded to in the article itself, the term "psychosexual infantilism" is extremely archaic, has changed over time, and is fundamentally less descriptive than the term "paraphilic infantilism". Not only is "physchosexual infantilism" a virtually unused term in modern research or ABDL subculture context, neither Freud's (1856–1939) nor Stekel's (1868-1940) use of the term is consistent with the modern classification or understanding or infantilism, paraphilias, or the diversity of human sexual expression in general. Thus, I'm arguing that the term "psychosexual infantilism" is only relevant in a historical context, and likely doesn't belong as one of the a.k.a.'s in the lead section.

There may be other ways in which terminology can be clarified or improved, but I want to stress my general belief that it's both important and socially responsible that the terms used by Wikipedia to discuss sensitive topics adequately reflect the modern day understanding and consensus, otherwise we run the risk of further perpetuating historical systemic biases. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

 * 4 - The use of "gone wrong" or "errors" here are both further examples of value-laden and biased terminology. (From: "A variety of causes have been proposed, including altered lovemaps, imprinting gone wrong and errors in erotic targets, though there is no consensus.) These ought to be replaced with neutral language. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 5 - The sentence "Additionally, infantilists may not consider themselves as suffering from a medical condition and may not want to change their behavior, a common occurrence among individuals with paraphilias" seems to imply that [paraphilic] infantilism is a medical condition or is a behavior that needs to be corrected or avoided. Not only is this not consistent with recent psychological consensus on paraphilias according to the DSM-5, this statement feels generally biased. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 09:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Quick note: I have implemented some of these changes.
 * To me, it's very important that we do not introduce bias into this article by pathologizing benign sexual fetishes (as is consistent with the declassification of fetishes in the DSM-5), associating legitimate sexual expression with crime, or giving undue weight to "confusion" by disingenuously or erroneously conflating paraphilic infantilism with totally unrelated, and in some cases deeply stigmatized or taboo, sexual behaviors.
 * In fact, we should take it a step further and depathologize, decriminalize and destigmatize the language in this article in favor of truly fair, accurate and neutral descriptions.
 * As editors, we are not here to keep the article static and stagnant. We are here to leave it in better condition than we found it. And so, we really ought to come together to try and improve the accuracy, neutrality, verifiability and overall quality of this article, so that we can help the people in the future develop a better understanding of this paraphilia and fetishes like it.
 * And not only because "knowledge is power" and the truth is important, but also because there is a human side to sexuality, fetishism, and the long history of shame and stigmatization that has lead to many past injustices. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Criminology is not relevant to the topic.
Among other issues, this article contains a line that reads, "Criminologists Stephen and Ronald Holmes believe that while there is no simple answer to the origins of infantilism, the practices may involve an element of stress reduction similar to that of transvestism."

However, paraphilic infantilism is not a crime, nor is it typically associated with crime. As such, I fail to see the relevance of criminology and the quoted opinion. It should be removed. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

 * (This comment is a quote from a user page who keeps adding this back without first discussing it here.)
 * Let me go ahead and quote for you chapter 4 of "Sex Crimes" on "Nuisance Sex Behaviors" (a completely made up weasel word, and the chapter which mentions fetishes and infantilism):
 * "There are many sexual behvaiors that are completely abhorrent to the senses of most Americans. These practices become more visible as scores of sex offenders are placed in correctional institutions throughout the United States. [...] there is a growing amount of serious literature that suggests that many rapist, lust murderers, and sexually motivated serial murderers have histories of sexual behaviors that reflect patterns that in the past have been considered only nuisances. [...] Nuisance sex behaviors are often viewed in a less serious fashion than sex crimes that cause serious trauma and death. But there may be great benefit in analyzing those who commit such nuisance sex acts; such analysis may indeed hold the key to understanding those who move into more serious sex offenses." (Sex Crimes, Page 63. Emphasis mine.)
 * This source is book on sex crimes written by criminologists. It is explicitly about crime, written by people whose expertise is on crime (and not on the psychological or biological origins of paraphilias). Furthermore, it broadly and explicitly links what they call "nuisance sex behaviors" to crime, a category under which "infantilism" is later defined. And what insight to they have into the origins of infantilism? Practically nothing of value; three sentences of unsourced suppositions, with no new data, no original or cited research, and nothing of value behind it:
 * "Why does one choose to practice infantilism? There is no simple answer to this question. At first blush, one would think it is totally sexual. But there does appear to be an element of street reduction for the practitioner of this form of sexual activity." (Sex Crimes, Page 81)
 * That's it. That doesn't even qualify as a "theory" on the origins of paraphilic infantilism. It's simply a short statement about the motivations of participants. Do you honestly believe that this little blurb carries any due weight when compared to actual theories on the psychological origins of paraphilias born out of psychological and psychiatric research?
 * This source is absolutely worthless at best, and at worst is explicitly associating non-normative sexual behaviors with some of the worst acts of violent crime without any evidence. I will be removing it again, and adding this comment into the talk page where others can see it, and if you add it again despite my well-reasoned objections without engaging in a discussion first, I will have no other choice but to take it to arbitration. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Copypaste from my talk page
 * Again, just because the authors of that book/source are criminologists does not mean everything they write about is criminal. https://books.google.com/books?id=_zqOsZSZxYQC&pg=PA81#v=onepage&q&f=false A blurb on the page says “This form of paraphilia should not be confused with any form of sexual child abuse, pedophilia, incest, or other forms of child molestation.” So I don’t see what you are saying, the authors themselves are making it very clear that that paraphilia in and of itself shouldn’t be confused with those heinous crimes, and they don’t consider it a crime. “Furthermore, it broadly and explicitly links what they call "nuisance sex behaviors" to crime, a category under which "infantilism" is later defined.” I do not see them as doing that due to them specifically making it clear on the page cited that the paraphilia should be separated from those crimes & not confused with them, and not mentioning infantilism anywhere else.
 * If you have a problem with the word criminologists being put in the article, I’ll say that what you consider broken clocks can be right twice a day, and again repeat that those criminologists, researchers in crime, explicitly say that the paraphilia shouldn’t be confused with crime, and even say practitioners of the activity are consenting adult partners, “Practitioners are called adult babies (Abs), diaper lovers (DIs), and consenting partners.” . Consider the fact that they are including the paraphilia in that book specifically to differentiate it between those actual harmful crimes and make that clear to the audience who may be confused, which I hope you can agree is an understandable reaction and confusion.
 * Yes, it is not a full fledged theory, but I don’t think that warrants taking it out of the article altogether, and may I also mention that all the other sources and cites aren’t completely in depth “actual theories on the psychological origins of paraphilias born out of psychological and psychiatric research,” partly due to the dearth of more complete research and sources. It’s a blurb but a blurb that proposes new possible causes/relations to this paraphilia, stress reduction and relation to transvestivism(“Why does one choose to practice infantilism? There is no simple answer to this question. At first blush, one would think it is totally sexual. But there does appear to be an element of stress reduction for the practitioner of this form of sexual activity. This is similar to an element that is present in the practice of transvestivism.”) And as said above in the article, “Research on the
 * etiology
 * of paraphilias in general is minimal and as of 2008 had essentially come to a standstill; it is not clear whether the development of infantilism shares a common cause with other paraphilias.[40]“(40 can be accessed through
 * https://www.academia.edu/1909323/Handbook_of_sexual_and_gender_identity_disorders
 * ) There is only one other bit within the article that mentions a possible cause being linked to ‘transvestism,’ and none to stress management/reduction, and this does not appear to be a well researched topic/area(I searched for sources and citations and much of what I found was already in the article.)”
 * Justanotherguy54 (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I can see now that you're a good faith participant in editing this page, so thank you for joining the discussion here. I know it's not convenient to participate in these talk-pages because they are really slow moving, but it's worth doing to separate genuine attempts to improve the article from drive-by edits. To that point, I want you to understand that this page is not infrequently vandalized by bad-faith editors who seemingly want nothing more than to conflate paraphilic infantilism with (a) pedophilia, (b) sex crimes and (c) mental illness. A quick look at the revision history or even in this talk page will might shed some light on this.
 * At the very least, I hope the editors of this page can acknowledge the basic set of facts that (a) paraphilic infantilism is a consensual sexual interest/kink/fetish/roleplay between adults, which is in no way associated with pedophilia, (b) that there is no connection between paraphilic infantilism and any crime, and (c) that there is not necessarily a connection between paraphilic infantilism and mental illness or poor mental health. -- Should high-quality, verifiable sources challenge this set of facts, then that should be also reflected in the article, but from the research and sources that we have right now that doesn't appear to be the case.
 * One of the main pillars of Wikipedia editing is to present relevant facts and opinions with a neutral point of view. Among other things, this means avoiding value-laden language that (intentionally or otherwise) muddies the water around a topic. In the context of this article, to me that means sticking to the verifiable facts and avoiding the use of words that conflate paraphilic infantilism with crime or medical pathology.
 * I personally still don't feel that the source in question is high-quality, verifiable, or meets the bar for expertise in the subject of psychological/biological etiology of fetishes (especially when compared to the other theories that are already). But, like you pointed out, the research on this topic is sparse and because of that the bar for sources is still relatively low right now. I also don't think you've adequately defended the source's linking of "nuisance sex behaviors" to "more series sex offenses", which is not only self-contradictory to the excerpt that you shared, but is also inherently problematic, especially when considering how little real data/evidence that is used to back up that claim...
 * BUT, if you feel strongly that there is meaningful, valuable insight that this source brings to the table when it comes to stress relief or links to "transvestivism", then I don't have a problem with you adding that information to the appropriate sections and referencing this source. All that I ask is that you do so in a way that is neutral and avoids conflating paraphilic infantilism with crime. If that means removing the "Criminologists Stephen and Ronald Holmes" part of the sentence and working this information into the article in a more natural way, then I can live with that.
 * Sorry for writing a wall of text, but is that a reasonable compromise? FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, I don’t see the problem with that excerpt. They explicitly state that the reader should not assume otherwise, contrary to whatever section of the book it’s in. Just because it’s in that section doesn’t mean the authors imply that’s always the case, especially if they clearly state otherwise. Just because they are Criminologists does not mean everything they write about is criminal or crime, sometimes they may be differentiating or making things clear, and if readers of the wiki article check the source they’ll know that. I don’t see a need for compromise, because I don’t see a major problem to begin with. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, this discussion is going in circles...
 * To be very clear, my problems with the source is that they are (a; undue weight) not experts in the fields of psychology, psychiatry, sexology, biology, or any other field that can shed light on the origins or etiology of paraphilias, (b; 'criminalization', for lack of a better term) very explicitly, and yet without any real evidence, associating what they call "nuisance sex behaviors" with sex crimes, despite the fact that's it's counter to the facts, and (c; low-quality source) the extent of the content in that source is little more than two vague sentences and no real data or insight.
 * Readers should not have to research every source themselves (and they won't, by the way) to understand and interpret what is being said. It is the "job" of the editor to find high quality, verifiable sources and to present that information to the reader in an accurate, clear, informative and unbiased way. Even if you really believe that the source in question doesn't conflate atypical sexual interests with sex crimes (which it very clearly does, again, see the quote above), that only makes it more important for the editors of this page to also not do so.
 * The "need for compromise" comes from the fact that you are seemingly adamant about including a line about crimonology in this wikipedia article, despite the fact that it's neither relevant to the article, nor is it even linking to a high quality source. Unfortunately, saying the same things over and over again is not going to get us anywhere. I'm against it, and I have laid out very clearly why. If you can't address my problems with the source, and if we can't find a compromise that you and I are both happy with, then we will have no choice but to find outside arbitration.
 * In light of the wikipedia editing guideline, the burden of justifying why this source and the word "criminologists" should be included in this article are on you. And even though the bar is pretty low right now, I feel confident that the arguments against including them are stronger. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If I can provide a third opinion here, albeit an unsolicited one, I think that Fuwa has the better end of the policy stick here: for someone whose name and edit history suggests that they could be considered an SPA on this and related subjects, they seem to have a good grasp on the relevant policy considerations. Having looked at the specifics of the wording (diffed here for those who might come upon this discussion next--thank you justanotherguy54, for not edit warring over this after the second revert, btw) I have to agree that the wording was non-neutral and problematically suggestive.  Jag54, with regard to a sentence that starts with "Criminologists Stephen and Ronald Holmes believe that while there is no simple answer to the origins of infantilism...", I feel that "Just because they are Criminologists does not mean everything they write about is criminal or crime, sometimes they may be differentiating or making things clear, and if readers of the wiki article check the source they’ll know that. I don’t see a need for compromise, because I don’t see a major problem to begin with.", considerably underappreciates the concerns here.  Yes, criminologists may at times make observations outside the narrow constraints of criminality or criminal justice, but in the context of an encyclopedia article, the reader is most definitely primed to contextualize any quote that begins by stating the quoted parties field of inquiry as pertaining to said specialty.  I think it very much muddies the waters.
 * If I can provide a third opinion here, albeit an unsolicited one, I think that Fuwa has the better end of the policy stick here: for someone whose name and edit history suggests that they could be considered an SPA on this and related subjects, they seem to have a good grasp on the relevant policy considerations. Having looked at the specifics of the wording (diffed here for those who might come upon this discussion next--thank you justanotherguy54, for not edit warring over this after the second revert, btw) I have to agree that the wording was non-neutral and problematically suggestive.  Jag54, with regard to a sentence that starts with "Criminologists Stephen and Ronald Holmes believe that while there is no simple answer to the origins of infantilism...", I feel that "Just because they are Criminologists does not mean everything they write about is criminal or crime, sometimes they may be differentiating or making things clear, and if readers of the wiki article check the source they’ll know that. I don’t see a need for compromise, because I don’t see a major problem to begin with.", considerably underappreciates the concerns here.  Yes, criminologists may at times make observations outside the narrow constraints of criminality or criminal justice, but in the context of an encyclopedia article, the reader is most definitely primed to contextualize any quote that begins by stating the quoted parties field of inquiry as pertaining to said specialty.  I think it very much muddies the waters.

 * As to the argument that the nuances will become immediately apparent to anyone who follows up on the source, well, the simple reality is that while, as encyclopedists, we would always advise a reader to check into the sources, the vast majority simply do not, which is one of several important reasons that we construct our content to be as facially neutral as possible in the first impression. Further, I think Fuwas proposed compromise is a more than fair middle ground: there's a decent WP:WEIGHT/WP:MEDRS argument to be made here for excluding this quasi-armchair psychology altogether, so if Fuwa is proposing to maintain it, but suggests merely that the most potentially misleading and problematic part me excised, I think that's reasonable. Mind you, this is a bit of an atypical case: often one of the first things you want to consider doing when the neutrality of a statement is in question is ask whether better attribution will fix the issue.  But every rule has it's exceptions, and I think this is a good example of that principle.

 * I do think it's only fair that I note that I am here by way of looking at old contributions of FlyerReborn, since deceased, who voiced an opinion on related issues above. So it may be that I am operating from a bias here, but I don't think so: I think I would have viewed the issues here in the same way even had I not seen her feedback.  Indeed, Flyer actually seems to have argued in the other direction to some extent, insofar as she was in favour of maintaining certain other references to deviance (albeit by virtue of pointing out the lack of connection between this paraphilia and certain psychological pathologies/criminal offenses).  But those were different cases and the functions of those references are very valuable for clarifying matters for the reader, whereas I think the disputed language in this instance actually implies a link and thereby confuses the issue. SnowRise let's rap 10:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * , I'm very sorry, but I had to rollback your last two edits: they just made a complete mess of the talk page formatting and discussion, and made your new comments and the post you were trying to embed unreadable. I couldn't even figure out what was meant to go where and at what level of WP:INDENT because it was such a mess.  Could you please reintroduce your thoughts through the normal UI when you have an opportunity? Also, please don't copy and paste another user's entire post again, including signature, as that only confuses matters further.  Consider instead using the quoted text template to quote the portions you want to respond to. Apologies: I don't like to refactor, let alone delete, another user's TP contributions, but it really was going to destroy any readability of the page. Sn</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 05:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm really not sure why @Justanotherguy54 is so hell-bent on adding this passage even though the consensus seems to be that the source is weak and that criminologists are being given undue weight in the context of the psychiatric, psychological and sexological origins of paraphilia...
 * I wonder if this isn't something we need further mediation to handle, because it seems like we've now lost the thread of communication on this issue, leaving only an edit war. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Is "TB/DL" appropriate for inclusion? If so, how should it be included?
In a recent edit I removed a clumsily tacked on bit describing "TB/DL", which is "AB/DL" expression when practiced by people below the age of consent.

The main reason for my reversion of this change was grammatical and to preserve readability, but as these terms a may refer to a potentially sexual activity of minors it's also worth being careful and precise with how this kind of content is handled (both for the safety of minors, and to prevent any unnecessary confusion or conflation of adult paraphilic infantilism with minors).

As this page is mainly focused on adult expression so far, personally I'm not sure that "TB/DL" is appropriate for inclusion and may instead warrant its own page, so as to not muddy the waters or over-complicate things.

However if you feel that "TB/DL" is appropriate for inclusion in this page, please make your case here and describe how it should be done in accordance with the goals and standards of Wikipedia. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

 * What would be put on a supposed “TB/DL" page if that term refers to minors under the age of consent? Not appropriate for inclusion anywhere. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Paraphilic infantilism


text:
Doomwatch

Doomwatch is a British science fiction television programme produced by the BBC, which ran on BBC1 between 1970 and 1972. The series was set in the then present day, and dealt with a scientific government agency led by Doctor Spencer Quist (played by John Paul), responsible for investigating and combating various environmental and technological dangers.

The series was followed by a film adaptation produced by Tigon British Film Productions and released in 1972, and a revival TV film was broadcast on Channel 5 in 1999.

Background
The programme was created by Gerry Davis and Kit Pedler, who had previously collaborated on scripts for Doctor Who, a programme on which, for a time during the late 1960s, Davis had been the story editor and Pedler the unofficial scientific adviser. Their interest in the problems of science changing and endangering human life had led them to create the popular cyborg villains the Cybermen for that program. Similar interests led them to create Doomwatch, which explored new and unusual threats to the human race, many bred out of the fear of real scientific concepts, with a "this could happen to us" angle.

Synopsis
The formal name of the protagonist's organization was "Department for the Observation and Measurement of Scientific Work". Officially Doomwatch was an agency dedicated to preserving the world from dangers of unprincipled scientific research. In the words of one character, "We were set up to investigate any scientific research, public or private, which could possibly be harmful to man." Its actual intended purpose was to form a body with little power meant in order to stifle public protest and secure green votes. However, the incorruptible Spencer Quist and his allies soon gave the agency some actual power and influence.

Quist had worked on the development of the atomic bomb and seen his wife die of radiation poisoning; Ridge was the secret agent type and Wren a conscientious researcher. Together they took science into people's living rooms, explaining about embryo research, subliminal messages, wonder drugs, dumping of toxic waste, noise pollution, nuclear weaponry, animal exploitation, etc.

Storylines included a genetic mutation that created a particularly large and vicious race of rats, and a virus that ate away at all types of plastics, causing aeroplanes to fall out of the sky. There were also less dramatic stories such as an episode that centred around the medical dangers of jet lag. After Davis and Pedler left the series at the conclusion of the second series in 1971, the series turned into a more conventional thriller drama. The two creators openly criticised this change.

The first two series each consisted of thirteen episodes, and the third of twelve, of which one, titled "Sex and Violence", was not transmitted. It has been suggested that this was because of objections to either its use of stock news footage of a public execution in Lagos, or its presentation of characters designed to be satirical analogues of Mary Whitehouse, Cliff Richard and Lord Longford. The execution footage has appeared on British television a number of times since 1972, notably in a 1988 edition of Panorama about violence on television.

Doomwatch was popular, and at its peak drew audiences of as high as 13.6 million for the episode "Invasion", filmed mostly in the village of Grassington in North Yorkshire. The start of every series merited a cover feature on the BBC's Radio Times listings magazine, which even today is a prestigious feat for a programme. The series was also sold abroad, gaining some popularity when transmitted in Canada.

Archive loss after production
As was common at the time, the BBC wiped the Doomwatch master tapes soon after transmission, regarding them as being of little further use. Although some episodes have been returned from Canada or exist as telerecordings, many are still missing and will probably remain so, although all are being sought by the BBC Archive Treasure Hunt as a whole. However, a copy of the un-broadcast episode survives in the archives, one of only three from the final series to do so. Series two is complete, thanks to the returns from Canada, but series one is missing five episodes. All of the existing episodes, other than "Sex and Violence", were repeated on the satellite channel UK Gold during the 1990s, although that episode was erroneously published in broadcast schedules.

Cast and crew
The main character throughout the series was Nobel Prize winner, Dr Spencer Quist, who had been given the task of setting up and running the department by the British government. Quist is haunted by guilt through having worked on the Manhattan Project, making the first nuclear bomb. He was played throughout the BBC run by John Paul, a familiar face from a range of British television series, who later went on to appear in I, Claudius.

The other main regular character throughout the run was Dr John Ridge, played by Simon Oates. He often did not see eye to eye with Quist, whom he called a "bastard" in episode 7 for manipulating one of his own staff into lying to Ridge on the telephone that their secretary, Pat Hunnisett, had died. Dr Ridge appeared in only four episodes of the final season. One of the first series' main characters was Tobias 'Toby' Wren (Robert Powell), who provided one of Doomwatch's most memorable episodes when he was dramatically killed off in an explosion at the conclusion of the series one finale, "Survival Code". Powell had only signed for one series; the producers wanted him to sign for a second run, but he was adamant that he wanted to leave the series on a high, and suggested that they get rid of him by blowing him up, which they did. The BBC got more letters on his unexpected death in the series than any other subject since the Second World War.

Wren was trying to disarm a nuclear device, which had been traced to a pavilion at the end of a seaside pier at Byfield Regis. Having thought he was finished, a pair of wire cutters slips from Wren's hands and falls into the sea just before he discovers a last wire as the remaining seconds tick away. Though the nuclear part of the bomb is safe, we see the pavilion explode as the conventional explosive goes off, killing Wren and two others. Though this episode is missing, the scene is shown at the start of the first episode of series two in which there are recriminations, guilt and an official enquiry, which is intended to get rid of Quist.

Wren was played by Robert Powell, who later found worldwide fame as the title character in the television series Jesus of Nazareth, and starred in films such as the 1978 version of The Thirty-Nine Steps and later the BBC medical series Holby City in the 2000s and 2010s. The ministerial antagonist to the Doomwatch team, determined to keep the department following the government line, was played by John Barron, better known as 'CJ' from the comedy series The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin. Other members of the cast were: Philip Bond as Inspector Drew, Joby Blanshard as Colin Bradley, Wendy Hall as Pat Hunnisett, Vivien Sherrard as Barbara Mason, John Nolan as Geoff Hardcastle, John Bown as Commander Neil Stafford, Jean Trend as Dr. Fay Chantry, Elizabeth Weaver as Dr Anne Tarrant, and Moultrie Kelsall as Drummond.

Throughout its run, Doomwatch was produced by Terence Dudley, who also contributed several scripts himself. Dudley went on to produce another well-remembered BBC science-fiction drama, Survivors, and in the early 1980s wrote and directed episodes of Doctor Who. Aside from Davis, Pedler and Dudley, several other writers wrote episodes for the programme, including well-known veterans of several other British television science-fiction productions such as Robert Holmes, Dennis Spooner and Louis Marks.

Spin-off film
The Doomwatch feature film was produced by Tigon British Film Productions Ltd under licence from the BBC, and released in 1972. The script was based on a screenplay by Clive Exton from a story by Davis and Pedler. The television series' main characters appeared, played by their original actors, but main billing was given Ian Bannen and Judy Geeson as new characters. The film also featured George Sanders.

Revival
In 1999, Channel 5 bought the rights to revive Doomwatch from the BBC, and on 7 December that year screened a 100-minute TV movie produced by the independent production company Working Title Television. Subtitled Winter Angel, the television movie was a continuation of the story rather than a remake.

Written by John Howlett and Ian McDonald, only one of the original characters from the series appears, an aged Dr Spencer Quist—now played by actor Philip Stone, as John Paul had died in 1995. Quist is killed off during the course of the TV movie, and the main character was Neil Tannahill, played by Trevor Eve, who at the conclusion of the story sets up a new Doomwatch group to pursue the same aims as that of the original series. In the film, an artificial black hole is created as an energy source. The downside of this was, once created, it must be forever looked after or it could explode with force enough to destroy a country.

Although Channel 5 had intended the production to act as the pilot for a possible series and it had been generally well received by critics and public, further episodes were not forthcoming. This was generally accepted to be for reasons of cost.

VHS and DVD releases
BBC Enterprises released two separate VHS tapes in March 1991, the first containing "The Plastic Eaters" and "Tomorrow, the Rat", and the second "The Red Sky" and "You Killed Toby Wren". Paradox Films re-issued the tape of "The Plastic Eaters"/"Tomorrow, the Rat" in June 1995, with a different cover, and subsequently released the same episodes on DVD in January 2001.

In April 2016, Simply Media released a seven-disc DVD box set containing all 24 surviving episodes of Doomwatch, including "Sex and Violence", which remains unbroadcast. The DVD box set also contains the BBC documentary The Cult of Doomwatch, originally broadcast on BBC Four on 21 November 2006.

Books
Pedler and Davis reused the plot of the first episode of the series, "The Plastic Eaters", for their 1971 novel Mutant 59: The Plastic Eater, This was not technically a Doomwatch novel, however, and did not contain the characters from the series. The book also re-used the Radio Times cover photograph of a melted plastic aeroplane in a briefcase.

In 1975, Longman Education published Doomwatch - The World in Danger, a simplified adaptation of the episodes "The Plastic Eaters", "The Red Sky" and "Survival Code".

In 2012, Miwk Publishing released Deadly Dangerous Tomorrow, a collection of scripts of six of the missing episodes: "Spectre at the Feast", "Fire and Brimstone", "High Mountain", "Say Knife, Fat Man", "Deadly Dangerous Tomorrow" and "Flood".

Episodes
There are 38 episodes of Doomwatch that were recorded, 37 of which were broadcast on BBC1 on Monday nights from February 1970 to August 1972. 14 episodes of Doomwatch are currently missing from the television archives, mainly from series three. 23 of the transmitted episodes of Doomwatch are known to survive; the untransmitted "Sex and Violence" also survives and has still never been broadcast on British television, although it is included on the 2016 DVD box set release.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Doomwatch


text:
Martial arts manual

Martial arts manuals are instructions, with or without illustrations, specifically designed to be learnt from a book. Many books detailing specific techniques of martial arts are often erroneously called manuals but were written as treatises.

Prose descriptions of martial arts techniques appear late within the history of literature, due to the inherent difficulties of describing a technique rather than just demonstrating it.

The earliest extant manuscript on armed combat (as opposed to unarmed wrestling) is Royal Armouries Ms. I.33 ("I.33"), written in Franconia around 1300.

Not within the scope of this article are books on military strategy such as Sun Tzu's The Art of War (before 100 BCE) or Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus' De Re Militari (4th century), or military technology, such as De rebus bellicis (4th to 5th century).

Predecessors
Some early testimonies of historical martial arts consist of series of images only. The earliest example is a fresco in tomb 15 at Beni Hasan, showing illustrations of wrestling techniques dating to the 20th century BCE. Similar depictions of wrestling techniques are found on Attic vases dating to Classical Greece.

The only known instance of a book from classical antiquity is Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 466 from the 2nd century CE, detailing Greek wrestling techniques.

There are some examples in the Chinese classics that may predate the turn of the Common Era: the Records of the Grand Historian by Sima Qian (c. 100 BCE) documents wrestling, referring to earlier how-to manuals of the Western Han (2nd century BCE), which have however not survived. An extant Chinese text on wrestling is "Six Chapters of Hand Fighting" included in the 1st-century CE Book of Han.

All other extant manuals date to the Middle Ages or later.

The "combat stele" at the Shaolin Monastery dates to 728 CE.

The earliest text detailing Indian martial arts is the Agni Purana (c. 8th century), which contains several chapters giving descriptions and instructions on fighting techniques. It described how to improve a warrior's individual prowess and kill enemies using various methods in warfare whether they went to war in chariots, horses, elephants or on foot. Foot methods were subdivided into armed combat and unarmed combat. The former included the bow and arrow, the sword, spear, noose, armour, iron dart, club, battle axe, chakram and trident. The latter included wrestling, knee strikes, punching and kicking methods.

The oldest extant European martial arts manual is Royal Armouries Ms. I.33 (c. 1300).

"Illustrations only" manuals do not become extinct with the appearance of prose instructions, but rather exist alongside these, e.g. in the form of the Late Medieval German illuminated manuscripts.

German Fechtbücher

Fechtbuch (plural Fechtbücher) is Early New High German for 'combat manual', one of the manuscripts or printed books of the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance containing descriptions of a martial art. The term is usually taken to include 15th- and 16th-century German manuals, but the nature of the subject matter does not allow a clear separation of these from treatises from other parts of Europe on one hand (particularly from the Italian and French schools), and from manuals of later centuries on the other hand.

Notable Fechtbücher include:
 * Royal Armouries Ms. I.33 ("Walpurgis Manuscript") (c. 1300, predating Johannes Liechtenauer)
 * Nürnberger Handschrift GNM 3227a (c. 1389)
 * Fechtbuch of Sigmund Ringeck (1440s)
 * Codex Vindobonensis B 11093, kept in Vienna, and "Gladiatoria", discovered in Poland, both dating to the mid-15th century and largely uninfluenced by Liechtenauer.
 * Fechtbücher of Hans Talhoffer (several surviving manuscripts dating from 1443–1467).
 * Fechtbuch of Peter von Danzig, Cod. 44 A 8, 1452
 * Jud Lew Cod.I.6.4°.3 (1450s), Augsburg
 * Fechtbuch of Paulus Kal (1460s)
 * Cgm 558, a Swiss treatise of the later 15th century only loosely related to the German school.
 * Codex Wallerstein (Vom Baumans Fechtbuch), 1470s, Augsburg
 * Solothurner Fechtbuch, no text, dependent on Paulus Kal, 1470s, Solothurn
 * Johannes Lecküchner Cod. Pal. Germ. 430, Heidelberg (1478), Cgm. 582, Munich (1482)
 * Cod. Guelf. 78.2, Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel (late 15th century)
 * Peter Falkner P 5012, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna
 * Hans Folz Q566 (c. 1480), Weimar
 * Hans von Speyer (MS M I 29) (1491)
 * MS 862, c. 1500, influenced by Kal and Falkner, drawn upon by Wilhalm.
 * Glasgow Fechtbuch (1505)
 * Hans Wurm, grappling, (c. 1505)
 * "Goliath (manuscript)" (1510s)
 * Albrecht Dürer's fechtbuch HS. 26-232 (1512), Michigan State University
 * Andre Pauernfeindt, Ergründung der ritterlichen kunst des fechtens durch freyfechter czu Vienn, Vienna, 1516
 * Cologne Fechtbuch, anonymous (early 16th century)
 * Fechtbücher by Jörg Wilhalm (1520s)
 * Egenolph: Der Altenn Fechter anfaengliche Kunst, anonymous, printed by Christian Egenolff, 1529, Frankfurt. This is largely derived from Pauernfeindt's 1516 manual.
 * Hans Czynner MS. 963 (1538), Graz
 * the compendia of Paulus Hector Mair (1540s).
 * Johannes Lecküchner (1558) (this is a reprint from the Altenn Fechter anfaengliche Kunst, printed by Egenolph).
 * Joachim Meyer "Gründtliche Beschreibung der freyen Ritterlichen vnnd Adelichen kunst des Fechtens in allerley gebreuchlichen Wehren mit vil schönen vnd nützlichen Figuren gezieret vnnd fürgestellet" (1570)
 * Gunterrodt: "De veris principiis artis dimicatoriae" (1579), Wittenberg
 * Codex Guelf. 83.4 (c. 1591)
 * Jakob Sutor von Baden (1612)
 * Hanko Döbringer, Cod.ms.3227a (1389)

Italian treatises
The Italian school is attested in an early manual of 1410, at which time it is not yet clearly separable from the German school. Indeed, the author Fiore dei Liberi states that he has learned much of his art from one "Master Johannes of Swabia". The heyday of the Italian school comes in the 16th century, with the Dardi school.

 * Fiore dei Liberi's Flos Duellatorum (1410)
 * Filippo Vadi's De Arte Gladiatoria Dimicandi (1485)
 * Pietro Monte (1509)
 * Anonimo Bolognese M-345/6 (c. 1510s)
 * Antonio Manciolino (1531)
 * Achille Marozzo (1536)
 * Camillo Agrippa, Trattato di Scienza d'Arme (1568)
 * Giacomo di Grassi, His True Art of Defense (1594)
 * Vincentio Saviolo, His Practice (1595)
 * Salvator Fabris (1606)
 * Ridolfo Capo Ferro (1610)
 * Francesco Alfieri, La Scherma (1640)
 * Giuseppe Colombani (1711)

French manuals
Similar to the situation in Italy, there is one early manual (c. 1400, dealing with the pollaxe exclusively), and later treatises appear only after a gap of more than a century.

 * Le jeu de la hache (c. 1400)
 * Andre Pauernfeindt, La noble science des joueurs d'espee (1528)—This is a French translation of Pauernfeindt's 1516 work. One notable difference between it and the original is that the "noble science" print has colored images, unlike the German.
 * Henry de Sainct-Didier, Traité contenant les secrets du premier livre de l'épée seule, mère de toutes les armes, qui sont épée, dague, cappe, targue, bouclier, rondelle, l'espée deux mains, et les deux espées, avec ses pourtraictures, ... (1573)
 * Gérard Thibault d'Anvers, Académie de l'epee, ou se démontrent par reigles mathématique, sur le fondement d'un cercle mysterieux, la theorie et pratique des vrais et jusqu'a present incognus secrets du maniement des armes, à pied et a cheval (1623)
 * Monsieur L'Abbat, The Art of Fencing, or, the Use of the Small Sword (1734)

England
Apart from three rather opaque texts of the later 15th century, the native English tradition of fencing manuals begins with George Silver's Paradoxes of Defense (1599).

 * Harley MS 3542 (The Man Who Wol), late 14th–early 15th century
 * Cotton Titus, 15th-century English greatsword and staff
 * Additional Manuscript 39564, 15th century
 * George Silver, Paradoxes of Defense (1599)
 * Joseph Swetnam, Schoole of the Noble and Worthy Science of Defence (1612)
 * Captain John Godfrey, A Treatise Upon the Useful Science of Defence, Connecting the Small and Back-Sword (1747)
 * John Musgrave Waite, Lessons in sabre, singlestick, sabre & bayonet, and sword feats (1880)
 * Alfred Hutton, Cold Steel, A Practical Treatise on the Sabre (1889), Old Sword-Play (1892)

Scotland
Scottish manuals detailing the use of the basket-hilted Scottish broadsword, besides other disciplines such as the smallsword and spadroon, were published throughout the 18th century, with early and late examples dating to the late 17th and early 19th centuries, respectively:

 * Sir William Hope, The Scots Fencing Master (the Complete Smallswordsman) (1687)
 * Sir William Hope, Advice to his Scholar from the Fencing Master (1692)
 * Sir William Hope, Complete Fencing Master (1691–1692)
 * Sir William Hope, The Swordsman's Vade-Mecum (1692)
 * Sir William Hope, New Short and Easy Method of Fencing (1st edition, 1707)
 * Sir William Hope, New Short and Easy Method of Fencing (2nd edition, 1714)
 * Sir William Hope, A Few Observations upon the Fighting for Prizes in the Bear Gardens (1715)
 * Sir William Hope, A Vindication of the True Art of Self-Defence (1724)
 * Donald McBane, Expert Swords-man's Companion (1728)
 * Captain James Miller, A treatise on backsword, sword, buckler, sword and dagger, sword and great gauntlet, falchon, quarterstaff (1737)
 * Thomas Page, The Use of the Broad Sword (1746)
 * Captain G. Sinclair, Anti-Pugilism – Anonymous (1790)
 * Captain G. Sinclair, Cudgel Playing Modernized and Improved; or, The Science of Defence, Exemplified in a Few Short and Easy Lessons, for the Practice of the Broad Sword or Single Stick, on Foot
 * Archibald MacGregor, Lecture on the Art of Defence (1791)
 * Thomas Rowlandson, The Guards of the Highland Broadsword (1799)
 * Henry Angelo and son, Hungarian & Highland Broadsword (1799)
 * John Taylor, The Art of Defence on Foot with Broadsword and Saber (1804)
 * Thomas Mathewson, Fencing Familiarized; or, a New Treatise on the Art of the Scotch Broad Sword (1805)

Iberian manuals
There are some manuals containing training advice for the medieval tournament and jousting, such as the early Portuguese work A ensinança de bem cavalgar em toda a sela by Edward of Portugal (1391–1438), a riding instruction manual that also included martial information.

In 1599, the swordmaster Domingo Luis Godinho wrote the Arte de Esgrima, the only fencing manual that preserved the older "Common" or "Vulgar" system of Spanish fencing, which has its traditions in the Middle Ages.

17th-century Spanish destreza is steeped in the Spanish Baroque noblemen mindset, so it does not contain graphical explanations of the fencing techniques so much as explanations based on mathematics and philosophical sciences in general. The subsequent difficulty in interpreting the theory and practice of destreza correctly has frequently led to this school of fencing being misunderstood.

 * Jerónimo Sánchez de Carranza, De la filosophia de las armas y de su destreza... (1582)
 * Luis Pacheco de Narváez, Libro de las grandezas de la espada (1600)
 * Gerard Thibault, Academie de l'espée (1628)
 * Luis Pacheco de Narváez, Nueva ciencia (1632)
 * Luis Méndez de Carmona Tamariz, Compendio en defensa de la doctrina y destreza del comendador Gerónimo de Carranza (1632)
 * Luis Diáz de Viedma, Método de Enseñanza de Maestros (1639) and Epitome de la Enseñanza (1639)
 * Cristóbal de Cala, Desengaño de la espada y norte de diestros (1642)
 * Diogo Gomes de Figueyredo, Memorial da Prattica do Montante Que inclue dezaseis regras simplez (1651)
 * Miguel Pérez de Mendoza y Quijada, Resumen de la verdadera destreza de las armas en treinta y ocho asserciones (1675)
 * Francisco Antonio de Ettenhard y Abarca, Compendio de los fundamentos de la verdadera destreza y filosofia de las armas (1675)
 * Álvaro Guerra de la Vega, Compreension de la destreza (1681)
 * Thomas Luis, Tratado das liçoens da espada preta, & destreza que hao de usar os jugadores della (1685)
 * Nicolás Tamariz, Cartilla y luz en la verdadera destreza (1696)
 * Manuel Cruzado y Peralta, Las tretas de la vulgar y comun esgrima de espada sola y con armas dobles (1702)
 * Francisco Lórenz de Rada, Nobleza de la espada (1705)
 * Nicolás Rodrigo Noveli, Crisol especulativo, demostrativo, práctico, Matemático de la destreza (1731)
 * Manuel Antonio de Brea, Principios universales y reglas generales de la verdadera destreza del espadín (1805)
 * Jaime Mereló y Casademunt, Tratado completo de la esgrima del sable español (1862)

Historical Asian martial arts

Some texts on unarmed combat survive from Han China (c. 1st century). A list of wrestling techniques is contained in the Malla Purana of 13th-century Gujarat, India. The Chinese Jixiao Xinshu dates to the 1560s. The Korean Muyejebo dates to 1598, the Muyedobotongji dates to 1790. The Japanese The Book of Five Rings dates to 1645.

title: Martial arts manual


text:
User:Ham II

commons, cywiki,  enwiki,  wikidata

 * /attn

 * Arty article alerts

 * List updated daily, Public art in London

 * Vitruvian Man Noun project 6674 styled.svg Leonardo drawings

 * Mix'n'match

 * Cc.logo.circle.svg Openverse

 * PetScan

 * Toolhub community logo.svg Toolhub

 * Wikidata Query Builder

 * WikiShootMe

 * Crotos

 * Eo circle pink white letter-a.svg openArtBrowser

 * Flickr large white chiclet logo - no rounded corners, no border.svg Flickr-to-Commons

 * Google "G" Logo.svg Google Books Ngram Viewer

 * JavaScript Wiki Browser (WP:JWB)

 * Massviews, Userviews

 * Monumental

 * OS Grid Reference—Latitude/Longitude Converter

 * Pages Created

 * Public art worldwide

 * Public commemorative sculpture in Britain

 * War memorials

 * The Wikipedia Library

 * JSTOR icon.png JSTOR

 * Woolf.jpg ODNB

 * Oxford Art Online

 * Oxford Reference

 * User New Pages

 * Font Awesome 5 solid fist-raised.svg WDFIST

 * Antu yad.svg Wikidata Resolver

 * Miscellaneous
 * WP:SNODGRASS
 * WP:TITULAR
 * WP:TITLECON
 * NPG glossary: Statue
 * Style sheet for British Art Studies
 * wikimania:2021:Submissions/Wikidata: What happened? Where are we going?
 * wikimania:2021:Submissions/Thematic weeks as a tool for strengthening the community
 * Guess the century
 * WikiTrivia
 * World map of notable people

title: User:Ham II


text:
IBM System/4 Pi

The IBM System/4 Pi is a family of avionics computers used, in various versions, on the F-15 Eagle fighter, E-3 Sentry AWACS, Harpoon Missile, NASA's Skylab, MOL, and the Space Shuttle, as well as other aircraft. Development began in 1965, deliveries in 1967.

It descends from the approach used in the System/360 mainframe family of computers, in which the members of the family were intended for use in many varied user applications. (This is expressed in the name: there are 4π steradians in a sphere, just as there are 360 degrees in a circle.) Previously, custom computers had been designed for each aerospace application, which was extremely costly.

Models
System/4 Pi consisted of basic models:
 * Model TC (Tactical Computer) - A briefcase-size computer for applications such as missile guidance, helicopters, satellites and submarines. Weight: about 18 lb
 * Model CP (Customized Processor/Cost Performance) - An intermediate-range processor for applications such as aircraft navigation, weapons delivery, radar correlation and mobile battlefield systems. Weight: 80 lb total
 * Model CP-2 (Cost Performance - Model 2), weight 47 lb
 * Model EP (Extended Performance) - A large-scale data processor for applications requiring real-time processing of large volumes of data, such as crewed spacecraft, airborne warning and control systems and command and control systems. Weight: 75 lb

System/360 connections
Connections with System/360:
 * Main storage arrays of System/4 Pi were assembled from core planes that were militarized versions of those used in IBM System/360 computers
 * Software was for both 360 and 4 Pi
 * Model EP used an instruction subset of IBM System/360 (Model 44) - user programs could be checked on System/360

Uses
The Skylab space station employed the model TC-1, which had a 16-bit word length and 16,384 words of memory with a custom input/output assembly.

AP-101
The AP-101, being the top-of-the-line of the System/4 Pi range, shares its general architecture with the System/360 mainframes. It has 16 32-bit registers, and uses a microprogram to define an instruction set of 154 instructions. Originally only 16 bits were available for addressing memory; later this was extended with four bits from the program status word register, allowing a directly addressable memory range of 1M locations. This avionics computer has been used in the U.S. Space Shuttle, the B-52 and B-1B bombers, and other aircraft. It is a repackaged version of the AP-1 used in the F-15 fighter. When it was designed, it was a high-performance pipelined processor with magnetic-core memory. While its specifications are exceeded by most modern microprocessors, it was considered high-performance for its era as it could process 480,000 instructions per second (0.48 MIPS; compared to the 7,000 instructions per second (0.007 MIPS) of the computer used on Gemini spacecraft, while top-of-the line microprocessors as of 2020 were capable of performing more than 2,000,000 MIPS). It remained in service on the Space Shuttle because it worked, was flight-certified, and developing a new system would have been too expensive. The Space Shuttle AP-101s were augmented by glass cockpit technology.

The B-1B bomber employs a network of eight model AP-101F computers.

The AP-101B originally used in the Shuttle had magnetic-core memory. The AP-101S upgrade in the early 1990s used semiconductor memory. Each AP-101 on the Shuttle was coupled with an input-output processor (IOP), consisting of one Master Sequence Controller (MSC) and 24 Bus Control Elements (BCEs). The MSC and BCEs executed programs from the same memory system as the main CPU, offloading control the Shuttle's serial data bus system from the CPU.

The Space Shuttle used five AP-101 computers as general-purpose computers (GPCs). Four operated in sync, for redundancy, while the fifth was a backup running software written independently. The Shuttle's guidance, navigation and control software was written in HAL/S, a special-purpose high-level programming language, while much of the operating system and low-level utility software was written in assembly language. AP-101s used by the US Air Force are mostly programmed in JOVIAL, such as the system found on the B-1B bomber.

title: IBM System/4 Pi