Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:24, 6 January 2013

Psychology Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Pedophilia Article Watch (defunct)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Pedophilia Article WatchWikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchTemplate:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchPedophilia Article Watch

Archives

Start to December, 2012

Franklin's Blog

There needs to be some explanation about Karen Franklin's work regarding this topic. She is highly biased about the subject and has been waging an all-out smear campaign. Her blog post about APA's decision is a perfect example of her taking minimal information and running with it like a proper tabloid reporter. The APA official release just says "these are the new disorders for the DSM-5." Hebephilia is not on the list. That's it. It's really rather simple: What the APA approved as newly recognized disorders are there, and anything not there simply did not make the cut for whatever reasons. It doesn't say why, just what is.

Franklin's blog post that is being used as the source of this revelation is basically her noticing it's not on the list, and then her pulling the bullhorn out to bloviate about how it was "rejected" in a "stunning blow," piling tons of assumptions on why this occurred without any real evidence. It's biased and incredibly unprofessional.

This is why blogs are generally not allowed as reliable sources. Even respected professionals have powerful biases, and this is a perfect example. Regardless of our (the editors of Misplaced Pages) opinions on this topic, we have an obligation to preserve neutrality as best we can.Legitimus (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, well I am not familiar with the individual personalities of the psychologists, so I can only work with what sources say - she may well have biases, I don't know. You could have biases yourself for all I know and I could be biased for all you know - we can only work with sources and polices and guidelines. I am not sure your claim that she is basing her posting simply on an APA press release and then running with it is true. She reports on talk (buzz as she calls it) that senior APA psychiatrists were not happy with the sex offender work group - so her posting is not based on the APA press release for that information (she seems to have had personal communication with people in the know) and she then refers to an open letter to the APA from 100 healthcare professionals as well as opposition from the British Psychological Association and a petition from UK mental healthcare professionals who were concerned about the proposed changes to DSM-V - so she is not simply basing her posting on a press release but is basing her posting on several different sources of fact and information. Again, blogs can be used as a source, for certain content, if the person writing the blog is notable. The site the blog is posted on seems reputable enough (it is not like wordpress or something). It is when blogs by non-notable people/non-experts are used for sourcing or when any blog by anyone is used/misused to source things like medical content or such like that blogs are almost always bad sources. This is not the case here.--MrADHD | T@1k? 22:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) Here is a thought! Is there a source by psychologists on the other side of the fence who have an opposing view that could be used to add sourced content that disputes or gives an alternative viewpoint from what K. Franklin is saying? That would be a much better way of resolving this without deleting notable content! What do you think?--MrADHD | T@1k? 23:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Everyone, also look at what has been stated at the Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. I was also going to state that, per WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability, blogs are not always considered unreliable by Misplaced Pages. But I don't agree with the inclusion of "The AMA board of trustees apparently had to step in due to a small group of psychologists digging their heels in and not accepting the opinions of the wider community of mental health professionals." The wording "digging their heels in"? Completely inappropriate for an encyclopedic article, unless it's a quote and is put in quotation marks. Flyer22 (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ya, and even if that's a direct quote, it's still a quote from a partisan blog. I think we need a better source. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 01:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok we have a problem here

This is an article that generated a fair amount of heated debate in the academic literature (especially in the past year or two) and amongst prominent psychologists and mental health organisations and recently the AMA rejected proposals to include this disorder in DSM-V. However, any mention of the academic debate, the reasons why it was not accepted in the DSM-V just keeps getting deleted. Today I have had 3 people reverting me multiple times and the edits are really just removing any mention of the academic controversy and reasons for its exclusion from DSM-V. I appreciate that this is a controversial topic area and some people editing this article will know victims of predatory hebephilic sexual abuse and exploitation but we still can't exclude this information even if we don't like it. Might need to get wider input from other editors because I can't edit this article if I am going to keep getting reverted.--MrADHD | T@1k? 02:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree there is a problem here. This is one of the hottest of hot-button topics, and there exist several groups with strong POVs. I would include among them: victim-advocates who range from safety-conscious to vigilante, an anxious but often misinformed and hysterical public, defence "experts" ranging from unbiased despite being paid to whores of the court paid say whatever necessary about their clients, advocates for the fair treatment of offenders, and alternative sexuality advocates who philosophically reject the idea that any sexual interest (including hebephilia and pedophilia) should ever be deemed a mental illness.

Franklin is one of the defence persons. It is in her financial interest to speak in defence of persons accused of sexual improprieties involving children and other crimes. On two occasions, she made claims about the research on hebephilia in the California Psychologist that had to be retracted. You can also find this extensive fact-checking of the claims she made in her only published article on hebephilia: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3382737/

In a topic as controversial as hebephilia, RS quality should go up, not down. It is perfectly fine, of course, to summarize the various positions, but it is not appropriate to treat Franklin's claims about "what the buzz is" as if it were a genuine accounting of the opinion of the AMA.

— James Cantor (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay but we need to include all of these notable viewpoints - including Franklin's and perhaps we can include your own viewpoint from a reliable source. We do need to use reliable sources but it is not a heavily researched topic area so high quality sources are not in abundance. I get that you don't trust Franklin - if Franklin was here maybe she would be saying we can't trust Cantor he is only chasing research grant money or whatever. I still think that the way to go is to include the opposing viewpoints and build a WP:NPOV article.--MrADHD | T@1k? 04:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) You say that Franklin's claims about why the AMA turned down the proposed addition of the hebephilia diagnosis cannot be trusted - what are the reasons for the AMA not accepting the proposed hebephilia diagnosis in the DSM-V in YOUR opinion? Are there alternative sources for the reasons the AMA turned down proposals to include hebephilia as a psychiatric disorder in the DSM V? They obviously had firm reasons for doing so - they didn't even add it to the appendix for disorders needing further study. Why? This DSM/AMA decision and the reasons for it should be documented in this article whether it is sourced to Franklin or someone else.--MrADHD | T@1k? 04:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You're getting closer to the problem: Nobody knows what the thinking was. Everybody involved in the process had to sign confidentiality agreements. There does not exist any source that says what the thinking way. Franklin is simply exploiting the news-blackout (and the inability of the relevant people to respond to her) to start and push a rumour.— James Cantor (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ideally what we need is a few sentences about the AMA turning down the addition of hebephilia to the DSM-V as a psychiatric disorder and then a few sentences from critics of the DSM V's decision and hey presto we have a neutral article. Also a couple of sentences about why some experts feel it should be a diagnosable psychiatric disorder and a couple of sentences about why some experts feel that it should not be a diagnosable psychiatric disorder. Ok it is not quite as simple as that as you need to consider things like WP:WEIGHT but you get the idea. There is no debate about age of consent laws as well - the debate isn't pro-hebephilia versus anti-hebephilia. It is a debate between are people who preferentially offend against young adolescents purely criminal offenders to be dealt with by criminal justice or are all hebephiles mentally disordered. This might need to be clarified in the article.--MrADHD | T@1k? 04:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It should be the APA, not the AMA. Personally, I think the article should stick the known facts – - i.e. that this proposed diagnostic category was not included in the DSM-V. Until there's a decent rs, preferably by a third party, covering the specific reasons for its rejection by the APA, the role of the Board of Trustees in the dispute, and the putative political machinations of "psychologists", I'd be inclined to leave it out. Due to considerations of weight I think the article would benefit, however, from a more extensive treatment of the objections to the diagnosis in the scholarly literature. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with MrADHD that we need a bit more detail about why hebephilia has been rejected as a paraphilia and mental disorder by a lot of researchers. FormerIP reverted this, stating that "It's no good adding a random source. This article doesn't contain the wording it is being used to support," but both sources do support that material...although it's more so the second source that supports the "it pathologizes reproductively valid behavior in order to uphold current social and legal standards" wording. The wording doesn't have to be the exact wording used by the sources; in fact, we strive not to use exact wording unless it's in a quote, per WP:Copyright. I'll ask FormerIP to weigh in on this. Flyer22 (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

First, I have to say that I didn't notice there were two sources when I made that revert, so apologies for that.

The topic is sensitive, so I think we should take care to use only the highest quality sourcing. The Psychology Today website seems to me to be something halfway between Scientific American Mind and Cosmopolitan, and I don't think it cuts it. The phrase "many of them critical on the basis that it pathologizes reproductively valid behavior" (based on that source) is extremely sloppy, and I don't think it is at all reflective of the primary literature. I find the idea that "reproductive validity" is at all clinically (or morally - our article currently fails to highlight the distinction) relevant somewhat offensive. It smacks of scientistic apologism for sexual abuse (that's not to criticise the good faith addition, because clearly it is in the source). Imagine general application of this as a criterion. The implication would seem to be that homosexuality might be considered a mental illness. But, in a heterosexual context, it would rule out incest, sexual sadism (paraphilias in DSM-IV) and raptophilia (which will apparently be in the appendix of DSM-V).

The second part of what I reverted is "in order to uphold current social and legal standards". Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough, but I can't see this wording supported by the Sexual Offender Treatment source. Formerip (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from on this, FormerIP. I'm not hard-pressed on getting rid of the Psychology Today source or for using it. As for the primary literature, or non-primary literature for that matter, as has been discussed extensively on this talk page these past few days, it does appear that most researchers do not feel that hebephilia should be categorized as a paraphilia or mental disorder and that this is because hebephilia concerns sexual attraction to individuals who have clearly reached puberty (have attained adult features in some form, or completely considering that some boys and girls complete puberty by age 14). From what I have read, which is a lot on this topic, that is the main reason that adding hebephilia as a paraphilia/mental disorder was rejected by the American Psychiatric Association. They certainly were not trying to have "apologism for sexual abuse," as if to say that a man engaging in sexual activity with a pubescent 11-year-old girl is perfectly fine behavior because she's of reproductive age, but rather to stress that categorizing hebephilia as a paraphilia/mental disorder would be based on social and legal standards instead of on science. They also stress that the age of consent varies, such as being 14 in enough places, and that some cultures permit adult sexual relations with those who have attained puberty...and even designate those who have attained puberty as adults. In contrast, adult sexual attraction to, sexual actions with, prepubescents is frowned upon by all cultures (from what I have read/heard/studied anyway). There is this matter regarding prepubescents in certain cultures, but that's about the supposed power that the ingestion of semen will provide rather than sexual activity. Disregarding the semen point, the second source extensively discusses rejecting hebephilia as a mental disorder because of these aspects...which is why I stated that it supports the wording you reverted. I'm fine with using different wording for that material, however, especially because of the points you brought up. All that stated, I stress that hebephilia is about the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to pubescents; that's one reason it's considered abnormal by some researchers -- because these individuals would prefer a pubescent sexual partner over one who has clearly completed puberty or looks to have completed puberty. Flyer22 (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Wakefield addresses this incidentally, it's about three pages worth of reading and it discusses the legal/cultural issues involved. I don't mind PT for some statements of fact, but we should certainly stick to the peer reviewed literature when discussing arguments for and against inclusion. My very rough impression (hopelessly premature) is that at least some of the objections are due to a lack of adequate data to justify a new or expanded category - a complaint made against many of the proposed DSM-5 diagnoses I believe. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 01:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I think that's correct. More specifically, to be classed as a paraphilia, something has to be "rare and bizarre" (without looking it up, that may not be the exact wording, but it captures it). The main reason for hebephilia not being accepted for DSM would seem to be that there is insufficient evidence to show that it is especially rare. As commented above, though, these things are done by voting, so we can't say precisely. Some sort of communique was issued saying that it was intended to be conservative in terms of redefining paraphilia, which does give an indication that this was the main reason.

What is definitely not the case though, is that the decision was reached "because hebephilia concerns sexual attraction to individuals who have clearly reached puberty". That would be a purely moral, rather than clinical or scientific, basis for making the decision, so we cannot say or imply that it was the reason, or even a consideration. Formerip (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

FormerIP, the Paraphilia article goes over all the ways that paraphilia is defined. And when I stated "it does appear that most researchers do not feel that hebephilia should be categorized as a paraphilia or mental disorder and that this is because hebephilia concerns sexual attraction to individuals who have clearly reached puberty (have attained adult features in some form, or completely considering that some boys and girls complete puberty by age 14)," that is because that, and the rest of what I stated above about the aspects that have been debated, is essentially what (a summary of the main reasons) I have read in the sources about not categorizing hebephilia as a paraphilia or mental disorder; the pubescent aspect very much has to do with the debate. If that had been the sole reason that hebephilia was excluded from the DSM, I don't understand what you mean about that being "a purely moral" decision. A lot of researchers have argued that there is no scientific basis that primarily or exclusively finding pubescents sexually attractive is a mental disorder. There's so much drama over all of that it can make one's head spin, however. Flyer22 (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, "sexual attraction to pubescent adults" is the definition of hebephilia, so it is not going to go unmentioned in the literature. But the definition can't possibly be the same as the reason for its rejection for DSM. Imagine dramatising the rationale:

Can sexual attraction to pubescent humans be considered a paraphilia?

No.

Why not?

Because it is sexual attraction to pubescent humans.

OK, I see your point.

This would clearly be absurd. Formerip (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hebephilia is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to pubescents. And, yes, that it involves older adults being sexually attracted to "pubescent adults" is, I'm certain, one of the reasons for its rejection with regard to the DSM. Not only do I not see why that is so difficult to accept, the sources regarding the debate make it very clear that this is one of the main oppositions that researchers had/have with categorizing hebephilia as a paraphilia/mental disorder. Again, I have read most of the debate on this, and every rationale given for not categorizing hebephilia as a paraphilia/mental disorder. And I've summarized those reasons above. Reasons confirmed by WLU, who has admittedly read far less on this than me and others who have watched over/edited this article for years. If you were to read as much as I have on this, including reading arguments from those like Karen Franklin, then I don't understand how you would not see that the pubescent aspect is very much a reason for the DSM's rejection of hebephilia. I'm not going on my personal opinion about why a lot of researchers reject hebephilia as a paraphilia/mental disorder. It's in the sources. And while Franklin can be considered biased, a lot of what she has stated about what has happened behind the scenes -- how researchers feel -- is true. Flyer22 (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I would apply two cautions here. There are several terms one might use to describe who is who, but "researchers" rather misleading. The folks who publish research on this topic pretty much support changing the DSM to match the data. The critics are (mostly) defence folks and activists like Charles Moser who say that no sexual interest (including pedophilia) should be in the DSM. The other caution is mixing up "pubescent" and "adolescent." This will be trickier to handle, but very many writers continue to confuse "puberty" with "adolescence." That is, even though they (mis-)use the word puberty, they are generally referring to adolescence. As I said, these are not (in general) peer-reviewed articles that underwent fact-checking, and many contain factual errors.— James Cantor (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

James, when I state "researchers," I am also referring those who rejected adding hebephilia to the DSM. You have very likely read more than me on this, you deal with it in your life in general, but I have not seen most of the critics being just "defense folks" and activists. As for confusing puberty with adolescence, we both know that adolescence is a wide spectrum, but it's usually defined as beginning with puberty (I just got through extensively discussing that at Talk:Puberty not too long ago); so that's likely where some of the confusion you speak of comes from -- people thinking that puberty encompasses the entire span of adolescence and therefore thinking that hebephilia concerns older adolescents (those beyond 14) as well. Flyer22 (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

But defining adolescence is tricky anyway, especially with regard to when it ends (as discussed at Talk:Puberty and in the Adolescence article); for some people, because "the end of adolescence and the beginning of adulthood varies by country and by function," puberty does encompass the entire span of adolescence (but that's only if you consider adolescence to end with a coming of age ritual or at legal adulthood). Flyer22 (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the context does indeed make it clear that they were the ones you were referring to. It was the term "researcher" I thought was inaccurate; they're mostly clinicians. Because the major clash has been between those reporting the research data and those commenting on its application, I thought the distinction important in selecting an accurate group-noun.

Re defence orientation, it's no real secret. Each of their private practice websites emphasize the markets they aim for. You are probably correct entirely that my awareness of where they're coming from is because of my day job. It's not the kind of thing that appears in 3rd party bio's often (except for the one I linked to about Plaud).

Re adolescence: Yes, absolutely! That's exactly why adolescence is not a good referent for the definition, and the data repeatedly support us on that. I'm just saying that many of the folks who express problems with hebephilia being in the DSM are actually talking about ephebophilia. That is, there are authors (non-experts) who say (in non-fact-checked outlets) things like 'Hebephilia is the sexual interest in adolescents, but being attracted to adolescents is normal' (or even worse: 'Hebephilia is the sexual interest in pubescents, but being attracted to adolescents is normal...'). I'm just pointing out that it would be an error to take claims aimed at hebephilia-as-interest-in-adolescents and apply it to hebephilia-as-interest-in-pubescents. The research data are very specific (and becoming more specific still, over time) about which definitions of hebephilia are scientifically useful (Tanner stages 2-3, usually ages 11-14) and which have not been not (Tanner >3, and about any cutoff over 14). To repeat my refrain, I'm just recommending caution in accurately reflecting the content of the sources in an controversial area.

— James Cantor (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

References

Chumlea 1982

Currently the third footnote simply states: (Chumlea, 1982). Does anyone know what the full reference is? FiachraByrne (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Can I assume it's to the following:

• Chumlea, W. C. (1982), "Physical Growth in Adolescence", in Benjamin Wolman (ed.), Handbook of Developmental Psychology, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, pp. 471–485, ISBN 9780133725995

FiachraByrne (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not a big deal but surely a more recent rs can be found for this? FiachraByrne (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Done, seems odd to have such a reference just for the age of puberty. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

pamf.org

This footnote , currently number four, is used to support statements about age of onset of puberty. There's got to be a better source than this? <ref name="pamf.org">"For girls, puberty begins around 10 or 11 years of age and ends around age 16. Boys enter puberty later than girls-usually around 12 years of age-and it lasts until around age 16 or 17." {{Cite web |title=Teenage Growth & Development: 11 to 14 Years|publisher=]|accessdate=August 15, 2011|url=http://www.pamf.org/teen/parents/health/growth-11-14.html}} FiachraByrne (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed, not the best source and we don't need two sources for a relatively uncontroversial point. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Joe Plaud

Is it really necessary to link to Plaud's bio on psyris.com as is currently the case in footnote 28 ? <ref>{{cite web|url=http://psyris.com/drjoeplaud|title=Psychologist, Joseph J. Plaud, License: 7394|work=psyris.com ... the psychology resource information system|accessdate=4 January 2013}}</ref> FiachraByrne (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope, it's not, I've removed the citation. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 01:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Franklin's list of publications

The last sentence of the first paragraph in the DSM-V section currently reads:

• "Franklin maintains a list of publications discussing the new diagnosis.<ref>http://www.karenfranklin.com/hebephilia.html</ref>"

I think that this is a non sequitur and I see no reason for its inclusion here. It could be included in an external links section. I think Cantor maintains a similar list of publications? FiachraByrne (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Cantor's list for hebephilia publications:

* Cantor, James M. (21 May 2011). "100 Texts that Include Hebephilia". University of Toronto Staff: James M. Cantor. Retrieved 4 January 2013.

* Cantor, James M. (25 May 2011). "Peer-Reviewed Research Articles Providing Data on Hebephilia (1972–2010)". University of Toronto Staff: James M. Cantor. Retrieved 4 January 2013.

The list of cites I put together is actually very different from Franklin's. Hers is a list of (non-peer-reviewed) commentaries, and mine is a list of the peer-reviewed literature on hebephilia.— James Cantor (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Both seem like reasonable inclusions, along the lines of say, a DMOZ page. I've trimmed the EL section to remove a couple inappropriate entries, and removed Franklin's list from the body text (links in the body shouldn't duplicate links in the EL section and vice-versa). Noting that there is such a list isn't really helpful, but linking to the list seems reasonable. In particular, both are academic experts in psychology, so linking to their professional assessments of aspects of the literature seems defensible. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Pedohebophilic disorder

The first sentence in the second paragraph of the DSM-V section currently reads:

• "The proposed DSM-5 replacement for the pedophilia diagnosis, called pedohebophilic disorder, largely reflected the proposal of Blanchard and his colleagues.<ref name=dsm5>http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=186</ref>"

I can't access this source, I assume James or another editor can. Would it be possible to get the proper citation details to complete a web cite template? Can someone confirm that this source supports article text? 14:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't either. I believe the pages with the proposals have been removed now that the final versions have been released. Moreover, the claim is rather WP:OR.— James Cantor (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional sources

Here's a list of additional sources not currently included in the article that may merit inclusion - feel free to add any relevant sources FiachraByrne (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• 1. Good, Paul; Burstein, Jules (June 2012). "Hebephilia and the Construction of a Fictitious Diagnosis". Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 200 (6): 492–494. doi:10.1097/NMD.0b013e318257c4f1. (subscription required)
  2. Tucker, Douglas; Brakel, Samuel Jan (June 2012). "DSM-5 Paraphilic Diagnoses and SVP Law". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 41 (3): 533. doi:10.1007/s10508-011-9893-3. Letter to the editor
  3. Wakefield, Jerome C. (June 2012). "The DSM-5's Proposed New Categories of Sexual Disorder: The Problem of False Positives in Sexual Diagnosis". Clinical Social Work Journal. 40 (2): 213–223. doi:10.1007/s10615-011-0353-2. integrated
  4. Janssen, Diederik F. (June 2009). "Hebephilia Plethysmographica: A Partial Rejoinder to Blanchard et al. (2008)". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 38 (3): 321–322. doi:10.1007/s10508-009-9479-5. Letter to the editor
  5. DeClue, Gregory. "Should Hebephilia be a Mental Disorder? A Reply to Blanchard et al. (2008)". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 38 (3): 317–318. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9422-1. Letter to the editor
  6. Tromovitch, Philip (June 2009). "Manufacturing Mental Disorder by Pathologizing Erotic Age Orientation: A Comment on Blanchard et al. (2008)". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 38 (3): 328. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9426-x. Letter to the editor
  7. Cantor, James M. (April 2012). "The Errors of Karen Franklin's Pretextuality". International Journal of Forensic Mental Health. 11 (1): 59–62. doi:10.1080/14999013.2012.672945. PMC 3382737. Invited submission, not peer-reviewed; Franklin declined opportunity to rebut
  8. Green, Richard (2010). "Hebephilia is a Mental Disorder?". Sexual Offender Treatment. 5 (1).
  9. Fabian, John Matthew (December 2011). "Diagnosing and Litigating Hebephilia in Sexually Violent Predator Civil Commitment Proceedings". J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 39 (4): 496–505.
  10. Prentky, Robert; Barberee, Howard (December 2011). "Commentary: Hebephilia—A Would-be Paraphilia Caught in the Twilight Zone Between Prepubescence and Adulthood". J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 39 (4): 506–510.
  11. Kramer, Richard (2011). "APA guidelines ignored in development of diagnostic criteria for pedohebephilia" (PDF). Archives of Sexual Behavior. 40: 233–35.
  12. Zander, Thomas K. (June 2009). "Adult Sexual Attraction to Early-Stage Adolescents: Phallometry Doesn't Equal Pathology". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 38 (3): 329–330. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9428-8. Letter to the editor
  13. Ryniker, David C. (August 2012). "Hebephilia and Male Fertility". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 41 (4): 741–43. doi:10.1007/s10508-012-9977-8. Letter to the editor
  14. Rind, Bruce; Yuill, Richard (August 2012). "Hebephilia as mental disorder? A historical, cross-cultural, sociological, cross-species, non-clinical empirical, and evolutionary review". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 41 (4): 797–829. doi:10.1007/s10508-012-9982-y. PMID 22739816.
  15. Cantor, J. "Sexual Disorders". Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology. Oxford University Press. pp. 527-8. ISBN 978-0-19-537421-6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)
  16. Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 20848175 , please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=20848175 instead.

From the EL section

• Meet the Hebephiles, in Psychology Today
• Pedophiles, Hebephiles, and Ephebophiles, Oh My: Erotic Age Orientation, in Scientific American

These ones were trimmed from the EL section, they're not appropriate as ELs, and the blog post is questionable as an inclusion. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Given the amount of back-and-forth in the page history, it seems odd that we would be using things like blog posts and the like rather than these sources. I'm also a little concerned about the use of primary sources on the page, it would be better if the information could be found in secondary sources - review articles and books. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

One problem is that it's like MrADHD told you on your talk page: "One of the problems is that we don't have a wide range of sources to choose from as it is not heavily researched, so it can't be resolved by strict interpretations of WP:MEDRS or WP:RS..."

There are a lot more primary sources than there are non-primary sources for this topic. And like I stated at WP:MED in December of last year (though I just today saw MrADHD's most recent reply in that discussion), the thing about trying to follow WP:MEDRS's recommendation of "Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years." for the Pedophilia article, or, in this case, the Hebephilia article, is that recent material is not always coming out for every aspect; this is why WP:MEDRS also states that its instructions about up-to-date material "may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published." Flyer22 (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ya, I haven't looked into the actual topic and sources in any detail yet. Still seems like we could do better though, if nothing else there's a massive number of sources about the DSM-V controversy, to the point I wonder if there's merit to renaming the page "Hebephilia DSM-V controversy", refocusing the page and having only a brief section describing the proposed diagnosis.

This is somewhere between spitballing and hallucinating though, I'm hopped up on 'flu meds. I wouldn't take anything I say too seriously until I'm back to full coherency. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 20:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I hope that you feel better soon, WLU. You know that I've always appreciated your input. You are a valued editor here, and we need you at your full capacity. Take care of yourself as best you can. If that means putting this article on hold for a day or more, then I feel that you should.

I wouldn't rename the article to your suggestion, since, all in all, the topic is about the chronophilia hebephilia. The article should remain titled Hebephilia and discuss whatever aspects there is to discuss about it, even with one aspect having a lot more material than others. Flyer22 (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries, it's part making a point (the controversy generated a lot of publications, we should totally tap them) and part Buckleys-fueled crazy. Take-home message, I can't believe these sources aren't used yet! WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 22:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Two suggestions

Nice work, WLU. Two suggestions, however: First, I wouldn't say that Blanchard or I (and co-authors) believe that hebephilia is a mental disorder. The suggestions we made in our article were much more modest, regarding how to adjust what is already in the DSM to account for the data we were reporting. (And we made more than one suggestion for how to do that.) Speaking only for myself now, I am very specific about not declaring what is or is not mental disorder. In this article I make it explicit that I believe that DSM decisions are part science and part value-judgment, and that I am offering opinions about the science part only. Second, I'm not sure it's appropriate to refer to Franklin's list of cites as a "list of academic articles." As I noted earlier, it is really a list of letters-to-editors (not articles), and the current phrasing suggests that they were peer reviewed etc.— James Cantor (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm battling the 'flu right now (damn you sub-optimal vaccine!) so I don't know how much concentration I can muster on the page. No promises, just like I said to MrADHD. I may get sucked into editing the page, depends on how obsessive I end up being :)

Removed the word "academic" from the EL. We really should mine the crap out of both pages to expand this one. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Split of Etiology and Etymology sections

Some time ago, I combined these sections because "I'm pretty sure the Etymology section cannot be expanded too signficantly." Seems needless to have a separate section for this material. James was fine with combining the sections, but reversed the order.

WLU has recently split the sections.

Any comments on this? If it's not clear, I'm still for combining the sections. Flyer22 (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

My biggest concern with the etymology section is the lack of sources :)

I don't mind recombining, it just seems like an odd combination. Also, etymology doesn't seem like it should go near the beginning (MEDMOS puts it at the end). Perhaps we just include a short section next to the word itself? Akin to:

Hebephilia (from the Greek whateverwhateverwhatever)

I'm not too attached to either one. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 20:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

For Misplaced Pages articles in general, the Etymology section is usually placed at the beginning (and, in general, I feel that the Etymology section should be placed at the beginning). For medical articles, however, it's usually placed at the end like you stated (which is understandable since the medical aspects are significantly more important than knowing how the term came about). Anatomy articles are an exception, since as the WP:MEDMOS guideline you linked to states, "Etymologies are often helpful, particularly for anatomy." But I've still seen etymology sections generally placed in the middle or at end of Misplaced Pages anatomy articles; it's definitely more of a case-by-case basis than the mostly, or completely, medical articles.

WP:MEDMOS has guidelines for different fields. But since hebephilia is not recognized as a mental disorder by most mental health professionals, it's difficult to know if we should follow Misplaced Pages:MEDMOS#Diseases or disorders or syndromes, Misplaced Pages:MEDMOS#Symptoms or signs or Misplaced Pages:MEDMOS#Medical specialties for this article. Yes, we need to find a source for the Greek goddess information. And considering that it's not a lot of material, and per my objection with it being split and your concern with it being combined, covering it in the lead seems best. Flyer22 (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

With a bit more digging, we might be able to assemble a "History" section, looks like discussion of the topic goes back to at least 1955. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 01:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I can't take it any more. I just tagged this article for massive WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE issues. This is yet another "phenomenon vs. term" debate within human sexuality. "Hebephilia" is a fictitious diagnosis, one of many created by an activist minority in the mental health field to pathologize sex and gender minorities. The recent attempts by these "experts" to codify this as a real disease failed miserably, as the more circumspect majority of the field recognized the many serious problems of the entire conceptualization. Unfortunately, one of the people in that activist minority, James Cantor, happens to be an editor here at Misplaced Pages. Via several sympathetic proxies, he is attempting to shape this article to downplay his recent failures and to continue pushing the specious arguments that failed to convince his peers. This article is being systematically reified to make it seem as if this is a legitimate disease, to reflect the views of Cantor and his friends at CAMH, when the vast majority of people in their field see it as their latest attempt to manipulate a debate that is generally considered settled. They failed with "pedohebephilia," and now they failed with "hebephilia."

This article should include all information about the controversy in proportion, and it should at the very least have proportional coverage of the majority view, including the following published material:

• Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 22652613 , please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid= 22652613 instead.
• Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 21531463 , please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=21531463 instead.
• Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 22159978 , please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid= 22159978 instead.
• Green, R (2010). "Hebephilia is a Mental Disorder?". Sexual Offender Treatment. 5 (1).
• Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 18923890 , please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=18923890 instead.

This nonsense about only using "peer reviewed" clinical data is the same argument phrenologists used to use. If your peers are all quacks, and you control the content of the journals where you and your peers publish your data, it's quite easy to veer into pathological science and pseudoscience. If you think something is a fake disease, you aren't going to publish clinical studies about it. You are going to explain in commentaries why it is a fake disease. This article needs to reflect the majority view that this is a spurious disease, and that should be in the very first sentence. The WP:FRINGE views of the invisible college attempting to pathologize this sexual interest need to be in proportion to consensus. Those of us in the reality-based community owe that to Misplaced Pages readers, who are not going to come away with an accurate view of expert consensus as this is currently written. About 50% of this article is comprised of CAMH-related POV, when that is a tiny fraction of the field's POV. We either need something like nine times more info on the majority view, or we need to reduce the CAMH view substantially and make it clear how far outside consensus this position is. All articles where CAMH POV is over-represented need to be reviewed. Jokestress (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I've linked to the citations when I could find them. I don't know if Green is a MEDRS or not. We now have at least 20 sources that could be integrated, which is excellent. The page should reflect the weight found in the sources, not in the opinions of editors. It could be that the sexology community has rejected the diagnosis, but we'll have to reflect what the sources say, not preconceptions. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 22:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, note that all five of these citations are already included above. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 23:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Right. I picked the ones that seemed most representative, but all of FiachraByre's should be included. Further, as I believe I have pointed out previously, when there's a debate on whether to pathologize something or not, as we have here, MEDRS does not apply, because that policy immediately downplays or eliminates an entire POV. People who see the world through a medical lens and want to medicalize everything are going to claim that medical texts are preferable, when reliance on them is a symptom of the problem itself. I know that's more of a debate to have over at MEDRS, but this is an excellent illustration of the problem of pathologizing human diversity. Jokestress (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no comment about James and most of the other arguments made in this section, but I did state above, in the #Ok we have a problem here section, that "I agree with MrADHD that we need a bit more detail about why hebephilia has been rejected as a paraphilia and mental disorder by a lot of researchers." Flyer22 (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

James kindly sent me some reprints, I believe of the LTTE and Blanchard documents (have to check tomorrow). My plan was to integrate them as attributed statements to individuals. As I accumulate more, I very much expect to start shortening the statements; even though they're experts and academics, a LTTE =/= an actual article, and that's a lot of opinion to include. Given how many sources we have, particularly on google books, we're better of drawing from a wider set of sources than we are drawing deeply from the LTTEs. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 01:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Trimmed sources

I removed the following three sources:

• Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 14744183 , please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid= 14744183 instead.
• Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 14574100, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid= 14574100 instead.
• Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 12462478, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid= 12462478 instead.

They seemed to discuss (based on the abstracts) pedophilia rather than hebephilia; if we wanted to use them in this article, it would have to be confirmed that they actually discuss hebephilia. Also shortened the etiology section, too many primary sources IMO. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 23:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to email copies to anyone who likes, of course. All three articles contained samples both of pedophiles and of hebephiles. Indeed, the hebephiles typically outnumber the pedophiles. Because there are strong word limits on abstracts, it is true that I/we have frequently referred only to pedophilia and provided the full description in the main text. Despite remarks to the contrary, I/we have never studied hebephilia unto itself. All of our studies have investigated hebephilia alongside pedophilia. (Upcoming exception: I have a student who is interested in hebephilia per se, so this may change in the future.)— James Cantor (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Send 'em all, please, I've pinged you. But I don't expect to expand the discussion much more than it already is, I still don't really like using primary sources and it is all coming out of a single group. Also, if you've got all eight responses to this article, that'd be great. The current article discusses the fact that there were responses to Blanchard's article, but not why they objected, nor Blanchard's replies. Saying "there is a controversy" is way, way less helpful than "the controversy was over this".

Would you happen to have a source for the etymology? WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 00:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Scratch the etymology, I found a reference. Which brings me to a new point - I don't know if the term is necessarily that rare. Though google hits don't count for much, google books turns up over 1300 hits for hebephilia and almost 1200 for hebephile. Rather surprisingly, there appears to be a large number of sources to draw upon. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 00:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed lede

Per WP:BRD, here is my proposed lede:

Hebephilia is an unrecognized clinical diagnosis described by proponents as a primary or exclusive sexual interest in pubescent individuals approximately 11–14 years old. Forensic psychologist and lawyer Charles Patrick Ewing writes, "In a rather transparent effort to ensure that all otherwise eligible sex offenders (including those whose preferred sexual targets are pubescent teenagers rather than children) may be subject to diagnosis for SVP commitment purposes, some mental health professionals have attempted to create the diagnosis of hebephilia." Hebephilia was specifically rejected as a diagnosis in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in both the fourth and fifth versions.

In the model used by proponents of the diagnosis, hebephilia is a type of chronophilia, preferences for a sexual partner of a specific age. They distinguish hebephilia from ephebophilia, sexual preference for individuals in later adolescence, and from pedophilia, sexual preference for prepubescent children. They further distinguish "true hebephilia" as a preference for pubescent rather than adult partners. Many proponents of the diagnosis believe hebephilia is a mental disorder. This view criticized by by a significant majority of experts in related fields, including Richard Green, DSM editors Allen Frances and Michael First, Karen Franklin, Charles Allen Moser, and William O'Donohue.

An editor has objected to this. Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with FormerIP's revert. Also note that I erroneously used the Herold APA citation to verify the "rejection" of hebephilia. The document itself doesn't actually use the term itself, it is Franklin's blog entry that states it was "rejected". I'm uncomfortable using the blog entry for a statement like this without attribution (and would rather not use it at all). It inappropriately puts words in the APA's mouth. I'm hoping that in the future the APA will clarify why it included or didn't include hebephilia (along with a multitude of other proposals) so we don't have to rely on rather partisan blog posts. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 01:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The Ewing passage uses "rejected," as this is that standard language in court cases. "Significantly, the American Psychiatric Association considered and rejected hebephilia as a diagnostic category..." Jokestress (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Primarily, hebephilia is a social phenomenon. In terms of it also being a putative psychiatric disorder, this should be covered in the body of the article and mentioned in the lead (including its rejection for DSM-V - I think that wording is accurate). As well as giving a very one-sided characterisation of a complex debate, the recent revision to the lead gave massively undue weight to the clinical status of hebephilia. Formerip (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with FormerIP's revert. The lead is mostly fine as it is/is quite neutral. As for the American Psychiatric Association issue, we could simply mention that they did not include hebephilia in the DSM-5, but this already seems to be covered in the Attempt to include in the DSM-5 section where it mentions academic conferences for the American Association of Psychiatry and Law and International Association for the Treatment of Sexual Offenders. Flyer22 (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the Ewing source being relevant to the DSM decision as it was published in 2011 and the DSM-5 announcement was on December 1st, 2012. I would really prefer to have the APA's take on things rather than relying on a blog that has explicitly stated it's very anti-hebephilia. My preferred wording would be along the lines of "the APA did not include hebephilia in the DSM-5" rather than using "rejected"; close to the same thing but the latter implies some sort of massive flaw rather than a lack of data. Anyone know if the APA is going to release an accompanying rationale for why some changes were included and others not?

Incidentally, I think my choice of "attempts to include in the DSM-5" is a terrible section title, improvements solicited :) WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 01:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

FormerIP, since hebephilia is mostly discussed within a clinical context and the general public has never heard of the term, I wouldn't state that it is primarily a social phenomenon.

WLU, yeah, that's what I basically stated in my 01:42 comment about the American Psychiatric Association wording. As for the "Attempt to include in the DSM-5" heading, I prefer titling it "DSM-5 debate." Also, I don't feel that we should list all of the proposed criteria; it just looks sloppy to me. Readers can go to the sources if they want to see all of that. Flyer22 (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a wiki so feel free to change it, I'm more than happy to see my shoddy prose improved. It'd be nice to have a thumbnail sketch of the criteria though, I think the list could be changed to a two-sentence summary. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 01:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I 'll change the heading to my suggestion. You take care of the summary? Flyer22 (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)FormerIP, the social phenomenon of people being sexually attracted to pubescent people under the age of consent is distinct from the conceptualization of it as a paraphilia, which is part of the problem here. The term hebephilia is by definition a diagnostic category, and as such, this article should be primarily about the diagnosis, not the phenomenon. That's what I meant when I said this is a "phenomenon vs. term" debate. The lede makes it sound as if "hebephilia" is a real thing instead of an iatrogenic artifact proposed as a means of social control. Jokestress (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If hebephilia is by definition a diagnostic category, why can't I find it in a diagnostic manual?

Framing a "phenomenon vs term debate" does not really make sense. The term is simply the word we use to put a label on the phenomenon. Your argument that we should make an article about the diagnoses rather than the phenomenon draws a totally artificial distinction. A good WP article on sociological topic will look at it through different lenses, not choose one to build a fence around.

It's a separate issue that this is a term used most commonly in psychological literature - that is to do with the content balance of the article overall, not what we would arbitrarily include and exclude.Formerip (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

FormerIP, you can't find it in a diagnostic manual because it is an unrecognized clinical diagnosis. I'd be less generous in what I call it, but we need to stick to sources. Saying hebephilia "is" this or that in our current lede is a tautology used by proponents of the term attempting to establish the legitimacy of the term, hence my reification comment earlier. Karen Franklin says, "hebephilia is not a formally recognized diagnosis." Allen Frances talks about the "numerous conceptual problems with the diagnosis of hebephilia." Paul Good discusses the construction of a fictitious diagnosis. Per POV, we need to be very clear that "hebephilia" is considered a spurious concept, in part because of the term itself, and in part because of how the diagnosis has been proposed as legitimate in manuals and courts and rejected as a diagnosis in both. The first sentence should be very clear about all that. Please propose a different first sentence if you don't like the one I proposed. Jokestress (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Jokestress, all definitions are tautologies, so that isn't a problem.

The article should indeed be very clear that hebephilia is considered a spurious concept, by some, and it should also be clear that it is not so considered by others.

Regarding the first sentence, WP:LEAD says "the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist". AFAICT, that would be "Hebophilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in pubescent children", following the model at Ephebophilia but differing from Pedophilia by not using the term "psychiatric disorder". Formerip (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The articles you mention have their own problems, but it's too much of a dispiriting grind to deal with the people camped out there. The difference here is that this article, especially the lede, is an egregious misrepresentation of scientific consensus. It's the equivalent to stating "Nymphomania is an affliction of the womb which causes sexual insatiability in women." I am sure there are people on the fringe who still believe that, but the consensus is that "nymphomania" is a fake disease. Per NPOV, the lede needs to clearly state:

• Hebephilia is an unrecognized clinical diagnosis described by proponents as a primary or exclusive sexual interest in pubescent individuals approximately 11–14 years old.

or some variant of that:

• Hebephilia is a proposed diagnosis...
• Hebephilia is described by proponents of the concept as...
• Hebephilia is a controversial diagnosis...
• Hebephilia is an attempt to pathologize...

followed by whatever definition proponents use. It needs to be very clear up front that the legitimacy of the concept and diagnosis is rejected by the majority of experts in the field and has been for a long time. There's no indication in the first sentence that this spurious definition/concept is widely rejected. Jokestress (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The page would be greatly enhanced by having these points integrated, provided sources can be found. Wakefield may do so, I'll have to re-read it in more detail later on. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 02:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above appears to be overstating the situation. The International Classification of Diseases (by the World Health Organization) does indeed include diagnosing hebephilia. Its definition of paedophilia is: "a sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age".apps/icd/icd10online/index.htm?gf60.htm Only the term would change, who gets a diagnosis remains the same. The APA decision can be described in different ways, but it is factually incorrect to refer to hebephilia as "unrecognized," or "not in any diagnostic manual,' etc. The proposal would have brought the U.S. into line with the rest of the world in being explicit, but it would not have added anything not already recognized as a diagnosable condition.— James Cantor (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I still agree that the lead should start off stating that hebephilia is the primary or exclusive sexual interest in pubescent individuals. It shouldn't start off with the biased "unrecognized clinical diagnosis described by proponents" and all that other biased WP:Weasel wording. It's neutral as it is now. Flyer22 (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, agreed on the start. I don't think anyone can say that the overall lede is yet neutral, however. Including critics but not supporters? Describing O'Donohue in a way that makes him sound like he agrees with the others instead of saying the opposite of what they do?— James Cantor (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Like many controversial articles, I think we're better off writing the body first, then the lead. The body rather unhelpfully points to areas of disagreement, without indicating the substance or reasoning - and that's dumb. It may be that after working through the unintegrated sources, an obvious consensus, or majority-minority scholarly opinion on hebephilia may fall out. I'll go through a couple more LTTE. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, James, I sort of misspoke on that. I agree that those who support the proposal should be mentioned for balance. But we also have to keep WP:UNDUE WEIGHT in mind. Equal balance should not be created where there isn't any. The lead is sloppy by mentioning several names anyway. And we don't need several proponent and/or supporter names adding on to that sloppiness. It should be summarized in the lead that there were/are supporters and that there were/are critics.

As for the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10), the difference is that it states "early pubertal age," not simply "pubescent"; it's not defining the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to pubescents approximately 11–14 years old and of course is not called hebephilia. As I've discussed with you before, as well as with regard to the DSM having the prepubescent age range going all the way up to 13, "it definitely appears to me that they are trying to take care of that overlap, where kids, especially boys, may still be prepubescent; and where pubescents, especially boys, still look prepubescent. So, in that sense, of people still looking prepubescent or mostly prepubescent, I do feel that most researchers consider hebephilia to be abnormal. But it would make more sense if the DSM cut the age range off at 12 than at 13." You have mentioned the overlap before, and so has Ray Blanchard. I asked you a few times over the years how you would define pedophilia, and you always stated that you define it as the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescents. The same as what most researchers state. As you know, "pedohebephilia" was going to be a combination of pedophilia and hebephilia, with the criteria distinguishing between the "pedophilic type," the "hebephilic type" and those significantly sexually interested in both prepubescents and pubescents (pedohebephilic). Flyer22 (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries re lede.

Re ICD, I think we're not yet talking about the same thing. You are entirely correct that the terminology would change; I point out the ICD to show that the-sexual-preference-for-early-pubescent-children is already something that is diagnosed throughout the world (but called paedophilia in the ICD). So, it would be misleading to phrase things in a way that would suggest that the sexual-preference-for-early-pubescent-children is not in any diagnostic manual; it is that these folks are currently called pedophiles instead of hebephiles.

— James Cantor (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Oops, forgot. Re my own prior suggested definitions: Yes, that is correct. Given a magic wand, I would indeed define pedophilia narrowly (prepubescence) and define the word hebephilia to describe the interest in pubescence. That is, my definitions are about the whole set, not changing one without the other. Both the ICD and DSM use broader definitions than I would. The ICD does this by explicitly including early puberty in its definition of paedophilia, and the DSM does this by extending its operational definition of puberty to 13. The research literature uses very many definitions (which is what causes many of the contradictions in findings).— James Cantor (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that the ICD-10's definition, and the DSM extending prepubescence to age 13, is about the overlap I mentioned above. The ICD-10 wouldn't limit the definition to "early pubertal age" instead of just "pubertal" otherwise. As for the research literature, while you and I have discussed the different definitions (I wouldn't say that there are many) and the contradictions, we have also agreed that most of the research literature limits pedophilia to the primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescents. This is how researchers usually distinguish between pedophiles and child molesters. It's just that some sources don't limit the attraction to having a strong sexual attraction to prepubescents, but rather include any sexual attraction to prepubescents, and feel that an adult sexually abusing a prepubescent child should be automatically categorized as pedophilia as well. Flyer22 (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Plaud as a source?

My final caution before heading to brunch is to distinguish notable claims by topic experts from WP:GOSSIP. For example, even though Plaud claims that Blanchard (et al) did not include a control group, anyone reading the article will find that there was in fact a control group (called "teleiophiles" in that article). FWIW, Plaud was kicked out of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers for ethical violations (available from the ATSA newsletter archives). As I've said, the major opposition has come from defence types who would lose the basis of substantial incomes if they could no longer be paid to argue against hebephilia in court: Regarding Plaud: . The claims in the various letters were not fact-checked, and engaging in such fact-checking will reveal very many falsehoods in those claims.— James Cantor (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The threshold for reliability is publishing venue though, not moral standing. The real issue for me is that a large number of LTTE were published, along with rebuttals. Indeed, Blanchard does seem to rebut Plaud's letter rather handily. I suspect as I read and integrate more of them, it will become apparent that many of the complaints are spurious and we'll end up shortening that section dramatically. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

In terms of controls, Plaud's complaint is that Blanchard et al. look only at sex offenders and don't compare to the general male population. So, he isn't saying anything that's patently false. IMO, his complaint is not at all devastating, because it is not clear why it would have been useful for Blanchard to have done this, and Plaud doesn't give any suggestion. In fact, I would take Plaud to be making an oblique reference to someone else's critique, perhaps contained in the same issue. I don't know who this would be, but we should consider crediting them with the criticism, if we are to include it. Formerip (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Consensus knows best. Holler if you need copies of anything.— James Cantor (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

FIP, I very much agree. Blanchard's reply to Plaud is the kind of "nets to zero" discussion that makes me inclined to remove both. Though such a control group might have been interesting, its absence is far from crippling. Franklin's "Pretextuality" article (quite questionably in my mind) references Blanchard's original paper, and summarizes the LTTE responses - but doesn't mention Blanchard's four-page reply. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 20:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Fast and loose with puberty

I'm now reading Cantor's reply to Franklin's "Pretextuality" article. He notes the distinction between "pubescent" and "adolescent". I did not make such a distinction while I was editing the page, so could the other editors keep an eye out for any slipshod terminology I may have used? Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 21:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record...

I've reverted Jokestress one-sided slanting of the mainpage. I believe such wild shifts away from the tone being used by non-involved editors should be discussed here first. Given the well-known history of problems here, and although Jokestress has never taken me up on the offer before, I am willing to swear off the page if she will, leaving this other editors.— James Cantor (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I just added the COI tag. You should definitely not be reverting reliably sourced materials summarizing the controversy, which are currently absent from the article. In fact, you should not be editing the article to remove views that are in opposition to yours. Your clear conflict of interest in doing so has been noted many, many times. There is consensus on the talk page that we should summarize the criticisms, which is what I am doing. There is WAY too much weight given to the WP:FRINGE views of you and your friends. I am putting the quotations back in later today unless an uninvolved editor objects. Jokestress (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Ewing, Charles Patrick (2011). Justice Perverted: Sex Offender Law, Psychology and Public Policy. Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780199732678
2. Herold, E (2012-12-01). "American Psychiatric Association Board of Trustees Approves DSM-5: Diagnostic manual passes major milestone before May 2013 publication" (pdf). American Psychiatric Association. Retrieved 2013-01-05. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
3. ^ Krafft-Ebing, R (1924). Psychopathia Sexualis, with Especial Reference to the Antipathic Sexual Instinct; a Medico-Forensic Study. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
4. Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 4714830 , please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid= 4714830 instead.
5. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9399-9, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1007/s10508-008-9399-9 instead.
6. Cite error: The named reference green was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
7. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 21389170 , please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid= 21389170 instead.
8. Cite error: The named reference cpn was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
9. Cite error: The named reference franklin was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
10. Cite error: The named reference moser was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
11. Cite error: The named reference Donohue was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• Start-Class psychology articles
• Low-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• Start-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Mid-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles