" 
 ::::(Starting from the bottom and working back) 
 ::::re the article: Please note that this isn't my article.  I've contributed most of the references and a lot of text, but much of the text has been rewritten or deleted since.  There are times, such as the Malitz ref where I believed a change should be made but did not, to try to avoid conflict.   
 ::::re the quote: The ellipsis I omitted at 2AM this morning has been added, and doesn't affect my point at all.  I'm waiting for Cantor to synchronize his version with the actual text now, and maybe respond on the sexology instead of the typography. 
 ::::re surveys: I'm providing my own survey results here to inform the discussion.  Among reasonable editors, these results have sometimes been useful when discussing and resolving conflicts.  Since I have now three sets of survey results to draw from, I can stay very close to the source data.  I wouldn't be adverse to my survey results being cited in the article, but for obvious reasons, won't do it myself.  As was the case with the recent sex ratio discussion, I also point to other surveys such as Dr. Speaker's doctoral dissertation and Dave's survey.  
 ::::5) For simplicity, it might be best to use ""infantilism"" and ""diaper fetishism"" to refer to the medical conditions, and AB, DL, etc. to refer to the people/community/demographic.  I wouldn't be adverse to mentioning that AB/DL was originally a community term.  ADISC has an OK article with some definitions.  An archive of DPF might also be available somewhere.   
 ::::4) Let's just say that this article has a long history.   
 ::::3) Basically that the diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia, infantilism, fetishism, etc. are different, and are, with some limitations, the criteria used to define those diagnoses, at least in the US. 
 ::::2) Actually, my question related to prior uses of references or points that are being brought up here.  Some might think this history important.  I know going through it will involve a lot of wading.  I think a lot of text could have been kept, but bringing that up now would just complicate this discussion further. 
 ::::1) Accepting 'AB' is most important for the article.  Unlike paraphilic infantilism, diaper fetish is in the common vocabulary.  As a result, some use diaper fetish when referring to the paraphilia, and some use it in reference to the kink. To avoid perpetuating this confusion, would you contest our use of DL as a contrast to AB?   
 ::::""vi) DL's focus on diapers as sexual fetish items""...""I'd like bittergrey to elaborate on that."": Sure. One difficult point in this article is contrasting infantilism and diaper fetishes, or AB and DL.  One passage that usually gets missed on the way to the fetishism section is ""The individual paraphilias can be distinguished based on differences in the characteristic paraphilic focus"" (DSM 4TR, pg 569, first line).  The first line in the fetishism section then reads ""The paraphilic focus in Fetishism involves the use of nonliving objects (the 'fetish').""  If #1 above is contested, we can reword this to ""diaper fetishists focus on diapers as sexual fetish items.""  Worded this way, it seems kind of obvious.  The intent was to highlight the differences in the focus, per the first quote.  In one case, the focus is an object, and in another, the focus is one's self (or doing something with an object versus something being done to one's self or something he or she is doing to themselves).  (The subject-object counterpart to masochism is sadism, where the focus is doing something to someone else.)   
 ::::@MissionNPOVible, I do plan to get to the points you'd like supported.  I'm just trying to measure the valley before trying to build a bridge.   "