Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:15, 23 January 2013

Psychology C‑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 C This article has been rated as C-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 C‑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 C This article has been rated as C-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

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Proposed additions

James Cantor removed the following quotations. I proposed we add them back.

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."

Psychiatrist and lawyer Richard Green said, "Diagnosing hebephilic behavior as mental disorder brushes aside common patterns of psychosexual development, sidesteps cultural influences on sexuality, ignores historic precedents, insults much of Europe and elsewhere that legalizes sex with 14 year olds, or younger, and attempts to insinuate psychiatry as an agent of social control."

Physician Charles Allen Moser writes, "It is not clear that a sexual interest in pubescent minors implies that the individual suffers from a mental disorder, specifically a Paraphilia…Paraphilia diagnoses have been misused in criminal and civil proceedings as an indication that these individuals cannot control their behavior.

I believe these are more accurate descriptions of the people and fair summaries of their positions. Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Green and Moser are letters to the editor, I would suggest it is undue weight to include it without any reply by Blanchard. When I get back to the page tomorrow morning I will make it a priority to integrate them.

Ewing discusses the involvement of hebephilia in efforts to indefinitely detain sex offenders, an issue I've seen in a couple other references - probably deserves a separate section. Incidentally, per WP:QUOTE we shouldn't include links in quotes (and I don't think we need to use quotes at all, prose summaries would be more than adequate). WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 23:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, published letters in peer-reviewed journals are reliable sources and carry as much weight in a case like this, where the validity of a concept is in question. Since Richard Green founded the journal in which it appears, I think it's safe to cite him. No one who thinks this is a spurious taxonomy is going to do clinical research. They are going to refute it in an essay, article, letter, or literature review. I am fine with summarizing the quotations above, and I think we should identify people by their training. The legal/civil commitment part of this is one of the biggest parts of what's missing. Jokestress (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding linking within quotes, WLU means Misplaced Pages:MOSQUOTE#Linking; I've known of that guideline for years, but sometimes link within quotes when it is important to do so and there does not appear to be a good alternative. We should avoid linking within quotes as much as possible, but it's not completely advised against. Flyer22 (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I do plan on including discussions regarding civil commitment provided I can find enough information on it. So far Franklin's article has discussed it, but my first pass through it left me with the impression it was rather first-person, but I'll re-read it with an eye towards that topic. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 15:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Started a section, but it's only one sentence long and one reference. Nice and explicit though. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

If this article is going to have two paragraphs detailing proponents' views, it needs about 20 paragraphs outlining the scientific consensus view per WP:UNDUE. So keep writing, dude. Jokestress (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

All the letters to the editor which so far form the bulk of the objections are not evidence of a scientific consensus though (and several of them explicitly endorse the use of the term for research purposes), they are individual opinions. Portraying hebephilia as a slam-dunk denial and discarded hypothesis is incorrect, as is portraying all feedback as negative. But I am slowly continuing to add sources and replies, feel free to let me know if I am missing any. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm done for at least the next couple hours (please have a look over the latest version as there are certainly typos if nothing else). I may return later today or perhaps tomorrow if I have time. My impression so far is that reaction to hebephilia is very far from universal dismay, several authors pointed to limitations in the specific bit of research rather than rejection of the overall concept - and more than a couple thought it a good idea. This topic is very much not a fringe theory, and I don't think it should be portrayed as such. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 20:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'overall concept'? Do you mean concept as in a potential diagnosable psychiatric disorder/paraphilia? Or do you mean the concept that hebephilia exists as an age orientated sexual preference for pubescent adolescents?--MrADHD | T@1k? 18:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The idea that there is a distinction between sex offenders who have pubescent versus prepubescent victims. Cantor and Blanchard have made a more distinct argument in one of the articles (don't remember which) involving the Tanner scale which allows more meaningful distinctions than ages (which are averages rather than biologically meaningful in puberty terms). Yes, several authors have explicitly said "this is an excellent idea for doing research but it should not be a diagnosis in the DSM-5". WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 12:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

ICD-10

Is hebephilia diagnosable under the ICD-10? ICD-10 includes a preference for the age range of prepubescent and early pubertal stages of sexual physical development. What do they mean by or define as 'early pubertal age'? Does ICD-10 mean prepubescent and early 'breast buds' type development or do they extend up to the ovulating 14 year old girl? ICD-10 pedophilia definition seems open to interpretation - what is the general consensus of experts? Is hebephilia a paraphilia according to the World Health Organisation, ICD-10? Is hebephilia 'pedophilic disorder' under the ICD-10? If yes, or if no, then this needs discussed in the article and mentioned in the lede. Interpretation of ICD-10 is important for this article. If hebephilia really is pedophilic disorder under the ICD-10 then do we need to merge this article into the pedophilia wiki article? Some questions worth pondering over and figuring out.--MrADHD | T@1k? 19:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Short answer: It doesn't say one way or the other. Greater details about paedophilia (coded as F65.4) are expanded upon in the so-called "Green Book" and "Blue Book" texts of the ICD-10, which are mental disorder diagnostic criteria for research and clinical practice, respectively.

• The Green Book states "A persistent or a predominant preference for sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children."
• The Blue Book states "A sexual preference for children, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age." With the addition of the following qualifier, "Contacts between adults and sexually mature adolescents are socially disapproved, especially if the participants are of the same sex, but are not necessarily associated with paedophilia." And also "Included among paedophiles, however, are men who retain a preference for adult sex partners but, because they are chronically frustrated in achieving appropriate contacts, habitually turn to children as substitutes."

No flat definition of puberty is given. I do know that how you assess the onset of puberty is a complex medical eval, and it actually is variable based on race/ethnicity. Furthermore, individual pedophiles and hebephiles likely have some kind of "cue" they are attracted to that varies between individuals, and clearly is not a careful medical judgement.Legitimus (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

MrADHD, refer to the comments in the #Proposed lede section about this. Even though the ICD-10 says "or early pubertal age," it's not called hebephilia by the ICD-10. I view it as more closely related to pedophilia because kids in the early stages of puberty, especially boys, often still look prepubescent or mostly prepubescent. Among experts in these fields, there has been talk of that overlap; I mention this in the Proposed lede section above, and the "or early pubertal age" and hebephilia aspects are of course already covered in the Pedophilia article with WP:DUEWEIGHT. Going back to the age ranges, age 14 is not "early pubertal" for most people, especially for girls, which is why "in the early years of puberty" was removed from the lead on August 16, 2012. Also see the Definition and serious problems in the article hebephilia discussion, which goes over some of what you are wondering and led to that removal; in that discussion, James goes over the Tanner stages aspect (although I have issues with the age ranges given for them in the Tanner scale article). Age 13 is not "early pubertal" for most girls either. And although also not "early pubertal" for most boys, there is still a good number of boys who are either prepubescent or in early puberty at age 13. Flyer22 (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting responses; I think the opinions of different experts should be included in the article. At present (regarding the ICD-10 criteria) we just have James Cantor's view that ICD-10 pedophilic disorder covers hebephilia (up to age 14) but his view does not appear to be a consensus interpretation from what you both have said. Legitimus, I am not sure what you mean by 'cues'? What cues? I think you mean maybe breast development or such like? Are cues important for hebephiles and should we discuss them in the article?--MrADHD | T@1k? 19:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, James does acknowledge that the ICD-10 only says "or early pubertal age" on this matter and that it does not include hebephilia by name. Flyer22 (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Check the quote from source contained in reference - he says hebephiles would/will receive a diagnosis under ICD-10. I may be misinterpreting him. No need to defend as I am not attacking - I know what you mean. :-P--MrADHD | T@1k? 20:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Which reference? And I know that you weren't attacking, MrADHD. That comment of mine was not about defending; I was simply stating what James has acknowledged on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I was teasing, playing with your words for humour - I said "I know what you mean". :-) Currently it is reference 13, Flyer.--MrADHD | T@1k? 20:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

MrADHD, yes the cues are things like breast development, pubic hair, spacing between the nose, upper lip, lower lip and chin, size and position of the eyes in relation to the face. Basically, visual indications of young age. Forgive me being crude, but perpetrators probably don't do a formal Tanner Staging when selecting a victim or piece of pornography. This is a bit of forensic psych talking, but perpetrators often have a "type," so the individual pedophile might fixate on some visual indication over another. Hebephilia or at the very least, the model of it, is most definitely part of forensic profiling, as it is mentioned in more than one forensic manual. For example the Crime Classification Manual used by the FBI has 4 victim times for sexual assault: Adults, Elderly, Adolescents, and Children. "Adolescent" is defined as age 13-17 in this book, because no matter how much clinical psychologists want to argue with each other about what to call it or is it a mental disorder, there are perps out there past and present who specifically go for this age range and they all tend to have similar characteristics.Legitimus (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yes there is no controversy that hebephilic offending is against the law and society strongly condemns it - thus yes hebephilia I would expect would be described in criminal and forensic profiling text books and papers. The only major controversy AFAICT is the question of 'is it a mental illness/psychiatric disorder?' I didn't know about those individual cues for facial attraction for hebephiles - interesting but makes sense. I wonder if you have a source and whether it is worth describing those cues in this article text? It might be of interest to the general reader in understanding this topic. Also the similar characteristics of adolescentophiles or hebephiles would be of interest if you or anyone can source it. I just tried doing a search for it facial cues and related search on google books and couldn't find a source for this.--MrADHD | T@1k? 21:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I have some textbooks I will consult and I'll get back to you.Legitimus (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

From my recall, both Cantor and Blanchard have made arguments in reliable sources that hebephilia is an existing diagnosis, it's just called something different. The ICD-10 and DSM both include age ranges that cover pedophilic and hebephilic categories, Blanchard says in one LTTE reply that in meaningful terms, including hebephilia would merely result in the age range going from 13 to 14 years old, and allowing a more fine-grained classification of sex offenders. I think most people would agree there is a large distinction between an 5 year old victim and a 13 year old victim, probably a qualitative one.

Another issue I recall reading is the fixation of the offences; an 18 year old who dates a 14 year old is more of a question than a diagnosis, but if the same person keeps dating 14 year olds exclusively as they age into their 20s, 30s and 40s, then it is no longer a case of dating a young peer. Wish I could remember the specific sources where I read these points, they would be useful as the page develops further. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 12:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey I'm back after consulting some forensic psych texts. We're diverging from the original thread topic a bit, but to address the questions I have some sources. First is Holmes & Holmes Profiling Violent Crimes (4th ed). This is a popular training text for law enforcement, and I was actually surprised to fine the word "hebephile" appear explicitly in the text on the chapter on child sexual offenders. The text explains that the distinction of a clinical diagnosis (including for pedophiles) is often irrelevant, because the why of the crime varies, some perps are sadists while others have a genuine psychological fixation to the exclusion of adult relationships. The Crime Classification Manual mirrors this view, describing criteria to assess the level of the offenders "fixation." Do you think the forensic profiling aspect of hebephilia is worth incorporating, in a separate section to make it distinct from the clinical psychology debate?Legitimus (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It would be a mistake to treat the article as if it were solely about Blanchard's DSM-5 article, the page should reflect ideas from a diversity of RS. So ya, the forensic aspect is not only worth incorporating, I would say it is quite important to include! If nothing else it shows that hebephilia has a life beyond just the DSM-5 discussion and CAMH, and perhaps the page could move away from that hyperfocus. Rather than having it as a section on forensic examination, perhaps a section on why sex offenders pick hebephilic victims? Either option is reasonable IMO. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

BLP statements about Karen Franklin and others

James Cantor has made the POV assertion here and elsewhere that his professional rival Karen Franklin is a "defence psychologist." First, there is no such title or qualification. They are both psychologists by training. I am sure like most expert witnesses, she is called on to testify for both sides in civil and criminal matters. Cantor also says it is in Franklin's financial interest to speak in defense of persons accused of sexual improprieties involving children and other crimes. This is true of any expert witness who gets paid to testify. In fact, financial interest may motivate people who are attempting to increase levels of civil commitment. This kind of weasel wording is problematic, as it is a not-too-subtle attempt at discrediting those aligned with the scientific consensus.

All of the descriptive titles of people mentioned should be based on their training: "Psychiatrist and lawyer," or "psychologist," etc. Adding weaselly things like "kink advocate" to Charles Moser is part of Cantor's pattern of attempting to discredit those holding the majority view. If we are going to do that, we should add "activist" to Cantor's description, as he has been described in a peer-reviewed journal article as "an activist minority in the mental health field."

The far more serious unsourced BLP statement by Cantor is that on two occasions, Franklin made claims about the research on hebephilia in the California Psychologist that had to be retracted. I have searched that publication and can find no evidence of two retractions. Unless there is a source for this serious BLP accusation, it should not go into the article and should probably be deleted from Misplaced Pages. What is the source for these two retractions? Jokestress (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I have removed 'defense psychologist' as I agree that it is not appropriate description for an encyclopedia. I can't find 'kink advocate' in this article. Has it been removed?--MrADHD | T@1k? 23:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, Cantor tampered with the descriptors of his rivals in this edit. "Kink advocate" appears to have been removed by WLU in this edit. Richard Green should be described as psychiatrist and lawyer, as much of the criticism about this centers around the legal ramifications. We should also include a summary of arguments by forensic psychologist and lawyer Charles Patrick Ewing, who was also removed entirely from the article by Cantor. Jokestress (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Kink advocate seems accurate based on Moser's[REDACTED] page (and for that matter, his commentary on hebephila), it's just not an expertise that is relevant to a scholarly commentary. I agree that we should stick to professional training and expertise in describing people. This goes for both "pro" and "anti" camps. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 12:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, looking at Charles Allen Moser's Misplaced Pages article yesterday, I failed to see how "kink advocate" was inaccurate, inappropriate or would be insulting to Moser. And I still do. He deals more with kink and fetish topics than LGBT or any other sexology topics. And "kink" is often a synonym for "fetish." I'd heard of him before now, however, so seeing all the paraphilias he supports, or rather sees as a natural variation of human sexuality (even though so many paraphilias are things that are acquired rather than being innate; but then again, as seen with paraphilias, just because some things are acquired, it doesn't mean that just anyone is inclined to adopt them), was not too new to me. The part of his article that states "Moser's views have been criticized by conservatives." needs to be changed. It's not just "conservatives" who have criticized his views. Jeez.

I do view labeling Karen Franklin as simply a "defence psychologist" as problematic, however. Flyer22 (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Cantor added "kink advocate" for the same COI reason he added "defense psychologist." He believes those labels undermine their credibility as scientists and indicate some sort of bias. It's straight-up POV pushing designed to make scientific consensus sound less credible. You are welcome to add any other criticisms of Moser, but NewsMax and Insight on the News, as well as the activist minority in the mental health field trying to get traction for hebephilia, all have a conservative POV. Jokestress (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Continued discussion

Both retractions appear in the California Psychologist. Whether Jokestress' claim that they don't exist is because she is lying or just a poor reader, I cannot know. The documents are behind a paywall (and copyrighted). You can also see my correspondence with the California Psychologist, and with Franklin, where she acknowledges making factual errors (albeit quite minimized): https://dl.dropbox.com/u/71471740/franklin_docs.pdf — James Cantor (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You are apparently uninformed or misinformed about what "retraction" means in journalism and science. The correction or clarification described in that correspondence is not a retraction. I urge you to remove those serious allegations from this page and anywhere else on Misplaced Pages per WP:BLP. Jokestress (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

LOL Right. I'm an editor of a science journal, but I don't know what a retraction is. Good luck with that. (2) I didn't say (and don't need to say) that I was reproducing the retraction itself (which is behind a copyrighted paywall). I need only to direct you to where it is, which I have, so that anyone who so desired could find it, which they can. You might try BLP/N, but you might want to remove all your BLP violations about me from this page first. (You might also want to prepare an explanation for how exactly you were able to "search that publication" when it can't be searched from the outside. Again, good luck with that.)— James Cantor (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently you don't know what a retraction is, or you are misstating that there was a retraction. I looked through all of the content listings of the last five years of California Psychologist and didn't see any indication of a retraction of articles of any kind, let alone two occasions involving Karen Franklin. It appears that Franklin used the term "hebephilia" as Paul K. Benedict and Bernard Glueck, Jr. defined it when they proposed the definition, to describe sexual activity with adolescents, and you took issue with that. Your reluctance to share the precise citation for these "retractions" casts doubt on your claims. What were the date(s) of publication for the two occasions where you claim these retractions occur? Misplaced Pages requires citations for those kinds of serious allegations. I can get copies myself. If you are unwilling to share the citation(s) for these alleged retractions, I recommend you remove the claims now. Jokestress (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Both of you please stop sniping at each other. I know you both hate each other, please address this by being icily polite and keeping tangential comments to a minimum, preferably zero. What specific change is proposed for the page on the basis of these points? If there is none, please drop it. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 12:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

There should be nowhere on Misplaced Pages that asserts two items by Franklin were retracted. That's a serious charge that is apparently not true. We should also note the discrepancy in "hebephilia" definitions in the lede. The current lede only describes the rejected novel diagnosis and not the more generalized usage originally proposed. Jokestress (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Is such a statement made anywhere on wikipedia. The more generalized concept appears to have more acceptance than the specific diagnosis, but I haven't moved comprehensively through all the sources. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 00:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the claim she had two items "retracted" was made by James Cantor here. I believe that should be rmoved from the site. Cantor presents an operationalized definition of hebephilia that was rejected as a diagnosis. See the Charles Patrick Ewing book Cantor removed from the article. There are a lot of differences of opinion on these terms regarding denotation, similar to pedophilia, which experts use in several ways. This is a lot like the other obscure terms Cantor and friends are trying to codify. Jokestress (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

WLU, as you know, hebephilia is not a well known term. Not "even among professionals who work with sex offenders," as stated in this source by Blanchard et al. But the way that most sources define it, especially due to the DSM debate, is as "a sexual preference for pubescents" or some version of that. As you also know, the word "adolescent" or "teenager," with hebephilia additionally covering ephebophilia, are sometimes used to define the term as well. Some sources, though fewer, also restrict the definition of hebephilia to a sexual preference for pubescent girls. But most sources using "adolescent" or "teenager" on this topic go the extra measure to specify by saying "pubescent." See this general Google search and this Google Books search. Even Charles Patrick Ewing, who Jokestress mentions above, defines it as "a word that describes the sexual attraction of an adult to a pubescent (i.e., sexually mature) person who is under the age of consent," while also stating that "Hebephilia is not, however, a recognized diagnosis." So hebephilia does have a primary definition, just like pedophilia has a primary definition among most experts in these fields. For hebephilia, it's just that the age range given for the term varies substantially more. Therefore, regardless of whatever we do when it comes to listing the age ranges, the opening sentence of this article should continue to state that hebephilia is a "primary or exclusive sexual interest" or "sexual preference" in/for pubescents (but with the qualifier of "generally"). Flyer22 (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Charles Patrick Ewing has the best summary of the issue I've read and the most accurate overview. You'll note that he doesn't say "hebephilia is..." as our NPOV lede currently stands. He puts the term "hebephilia" in quotations to indicate that the usage described is in dispute. He also accurately explains this is a phenomenon vs. term issue. He says "hebephilia is a word that..." This avoids the attempt at reification that is a major NPOV problem as we have it rendered right now. The DSM-V discussion was a non-starter for everyone except the activist minority in the mental health field. Ewing is also describing how proponents of the diagnosis use the term, not how it is generally used. Since he is a prominent figure in the field and has been removed from the article by a COI rival, I think it's time to get his POV (which is the consensus POV) back into the article. Jokestress (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

When initially giving the definition of hebephilia, he doesn't put the term in quotation marks. And when he does put the term in quotation marks, besides possibly being to show that the term is in dispute, it may also sometimes be because that's what we often do with terms -- put them in quotation marks when writing or typing. Either way, he's describing what the term generally means and how it is used by proponents of the diagnosis. Flyer22 (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Ewing doesn't put any other headings in quotations because he, like most of the scientific community, considers "hebephilia" a neologism and an ersatz diagnosis with deeply problematic legal ramifications. All of the sex topics on Misplaced Pages have been overmedicalized by a handful of editors. As is the case here, the legal aspects of the "hebephilia" diagnosis are virtually ignored as it stands, reflecting a manipulation of this topic that has little reflection of the actual published scholarly views on the topic. Jokestress (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It's best not to guess what Ewing means by sometimes putting the word "hebephilia" in quotation marks. And, yes, some of us know that you think that "a handful of editors" have "overmedicalized" things that you think should not be medicalized at all. But it is untrue to state that all sex topics on Misplaced Pages have been medicalized (except for in cases that are going over medical aspects such as sexually transmitted infections or sexual dysfunctions, or other aspects that should be referenced using WP:MEDRS-compliant sources), or that all or any such topics have been "overmedicalized" on Misplaced Pages. We won't agree on that, ever, so let's not have this discussion go into a debate about that which will have us here debating each other all day and/or whatever day afterwards. As for "actual published scholarly views on topic," Ewing even notes that, in one court case, the court held that "The peer-reviewed literature provided by the government defines hebephilia as 'a sexual attraction to pubescent children.'" I have no objection to legal aspects being in this article, but the word "hepehilia" or "hebephile" should be used by the sources. And as I'm sure that you know, adding such aspects to this article has already been discussed without any objection to adding such aspects. Not to mention, legal aspects are already mentioned in the History section and there is an In the criminal justice system section in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Ewing clearly agrees with Franklin about the diagnosis, and is particularly concerned, like many professionals, about its potential use in civil commitments. Fortunately there is a section that discusses this. I don't think it can be argued that Ewing represents the majority of the field, certainly there are people that agree with him, but numerous also agree that the term is useful for classification, some said it is too early to include in the DSM and some argue it should never be included. I am not convinced Ewing is the best, be-all and end-all definition, but I do support its use. I don't see any reason to exclude any yet, particularly since the page hasn't reached saturation for sources. Speaking of which, I'll try to get another one on the page. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 02:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this reordering, WLU. It often irks me when editors cut up an order, and always irks me they cut a person's comment in half or into more than two pieces (when the latter is done with my comment, I always put my comment back into one piece and usually ask whichever editor in question not to break up my comment like that again). I also moved James's comment to the top of this section because the cut-in started with that post. Flyer22 (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I also altered the heading of this section a little. Flyer22 (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing attention to my changes, I should have alerted the other editors to it specifically. My bad. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Alerting them to it likely wouldn't have compelled them to reorder the replies. So thanks again for that. Flyer22 (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Alternate name for "pedohebephilia"

I decided to note here that some time after pedohebephilia was proposed, the name for it was changed to "pedophilic disorder." Flyer22 (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

"Found"

"Found" is a word specifically described as biased and NPOV at WP:SAID. The best way to think about this in terms of neutrality is to think of how we would describe phrenology, a psychological classification scheme also rejected by scientific consensus. If a phrenologist published a study claiming criminals can be organized based on subcategories of bumpy-headedness, we would not say they "found" that this was true. We would say, "According to studies by phrenologists, criminals can be categorized by bumpy-headedness." Or we would say phrenologists say this is true, etc. Claiming these people "found" this or that does not reflect scientific consensus, which says this differential diagnosis is neither valid nor reliable. It's POV-pushing by people with a medicalized worldview, often passed on over generations to namesakes. An activist minority says it's a valid category, their peers rejected their claims, and once again Misplaced Pages is being misused to over-represent a pseudoscientific POV. Jokestress (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes, we use "found" in Misplaced Pages articles with regard to research; and in a lot of these cases, if not most, using "found" is acceptable. Besides, WLU used this wording, without "found," which is very much acceptable, and you reverted anyway.

I agree with WLU that we shouldn't be making it come across in the lead that Blanchard et al. suggested the division based on their personal opinion, especially since the lower body of the article makes it clear that they did not. Flyer22 (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The lede is super-biased as it stands, and we'll be looking at that in detail once the body is rewritten. I estimate we are about 25% of the way through the POV/UNDUE issues. The problem with Blanchard's "evidence" of his theorizing is that he starts with assumptions that beg the question. These paraphilic subtypes were not empirically derived but rather stemmed from his initial grouping of individuals. It's not the first time he's done this to support a taxonomy he advocates, either. Fortunately, his peers rejected what he and his friends "found" about these subcategories because they are unnecessary diagnoses with problematic ideological underpinnings, something he has been accused of on other occasions as well. Jokestress (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The article now gives plenty of ground to the information you wanted included, so I fail to see how we're only "about 25% of the way through the POV/UNDUE issues." And I don't see any WP:Undue weight at all. Flyer22 (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

For starters, you can write a commensurate section on the DSM-IV rejection. Keep writing, dude. Jokestress (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That's already adequately covered just by the responses to the proposal that hebephilia be included in the DSM-5. And as was mentioned before, there is only Karen Franklin's word for what happened when the decision was made to exclude hebephilia. And as for "keep writing," whether or not this article is neutral or gives undue weight should not simply be based on your opinion. We don't have to "keep writing" until you find the state of this article satisfactory. When the majority of editors, and based on WP:CONSENSUS (not just by head count), find the state of this article satisfactory, then it will be acceptable to remove your non-neutral and undue tags. Flyer22 (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Phrenologists did not use scientific methods, Blanchard did - no matter that some groups may not consider the methods adequate. Phrenology is specifically recognized as a pseudoscience with evidence indicating skull shape is not an indication of underlying specific functions. Penile plethysmography is not seen as pseudoscience, and there is pretty good biological, neurological and psychological reasons to believe that erections in response to specific stimuli indicate sexual arousal and/or interest. Phrenology is a discredited hypothesis that is not being actively used and debated within research circles as a valid methodology. Penile plethysmography is. Phrenology was always based on assumptions, not data. Penile plethysmography is data-based and data-gathering, it is empirical. I do not believe the comparison is apt, I do not believe penile plethysmography is considered pseudoscience and I do not believe Blanchard's research is considered pseudoscience. Contested, yes; a diagnosis, no; but even critical commentators have indicated they think hebephilia is a promising classification for research purposes, even if it was not yet ready for the DSM-5. Portraying hebephilia as "everyone but Blanchard thinks it is a terrible idea" is inaccurate from what I've seen. I do not think it is valid to say hebephilia has been categorically rejected, nor do I think CAMH can be accurately described as an "activist minority". Minority, perhaps, activist, questionable given the fact that their conclusions and publications are research-based.

I believe "found" is an adequate word to use when discussing empirical results of scientific research, particularly when it is pretty obviously framed in terms of a specific research finding. If "found" specifically is unacceptable, an equivalent term that indicates Blanchard's support for hebephilia in the DSM-5 is based on more than mere personal opinion is fine with me. Perhaps "According to research by Ray Blanchard...Based on their research results, Blanchard..." though I don't think it is stylistically the best writing.

Regarding the issues of weight in the body, most of the articles (letters to the editor really) I've seen have been less than devastating in their critiques and have rebuttals by Blanchard. I don't know if I would give a percentage to how much is missing, good or bad, but certainly more work needs to be done. Unfortunately it is time consuming to read and integrate the articles, and I have not yet gotten to some longer ones (Rind's article for instance is both lengthy and critical but is on my list if I can find the hours required to review it in depth).

I dislike the continuous presentation of Blanchard and the CAMH as a "gang" or "advocates", both on this page and on others. I understand you have a personal dislike of at least some of Blanchard's theories. I have not objected to your conflict of interest in this matter on this talk page out of courtesy, nor have I used it as a reason to discount your opinions. I will however, acknolwedge that it may color your analysis and interpretation of Blanchard's theories. If you want your objections to be taken seriously by me at least, please substantiate them through reference to reliable sources, which I will integrate into the page in the fairest way possible. I appreciate that this is a controversial page to work on, I would appreciate if it were not difficult to work on as well. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Penile plethysmography is rejected as evidence in criminal cases for the same reasons "hebephilia" is rejected as a concept. In your worldview, both might look like science and evidence, but there is a subjective underpinning to it all that has been consistently rejected by experts. One major POV issue with this article is the over-reliance on alleged medical aspects of this taxonomy. That's a result of the systemic bias of editors who collaborate on this and related articles. This article is missing a wide array of information. Jokestress (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If Blanchard's use of penile plethysmography has been criticized as a source of information, this is a valuable inclusion on the page. The fact that courts have rejected it as a source of evidence is not a reason to discount it as a research tool. Feel free to list reliable sources and points that are missing so they can be integrated into the page. Accusing editors of systematic bias without sources to subtantiate these accusations is not helpful, not specific and is inadequate to change the page. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 21:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, we'll address this systemic bias bit by bit, starting below. Jokestress (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

To close out the section, I'd like to alter the wording in the lead again. Does anyone have any objections? Or failing that, any suggestions? WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 00:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You already know that I agree with your wording. But because of the objection to "found," I prefer the one I linked to above in this section, unless you want to change it to something different than that. Flyer22 (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm borderline 3RR so I won't make the change until tomorrow. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 00:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I am requesting that we follow the WP:SAID guidelines, as "found" in this case is the exact sort of bias to which they are referring. Please do not add back in "found." We are going to be reviewing the entire lede in time. Jokestress (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Please replace this version then, which does not use "found". Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 02:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Charles Patrick Ewing

This article needs to include the analysis published by forensic psychologist and lawyer Charles Patrick Ewing, preferably with a quotation, because he is both a psychologist and a lawyer and is thus much more qualified to discuss problems with this disputed diagnosis compared to some garden-variety psychologist. Further, he represents the scientific and legal consensus currently under-represented. Jokestress (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I have had a copy sitting on my computer for a while now, I'll take this opportunity to integrate it. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 22:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I still disagree that the scientific and legal consensus is currently underrepresented in this article. Jeez, what's in this article is mostly criticism of diagnosing hebephilia as a mental disorder and/or paraphilia...from both the scientific and legal sides. Flyer22 (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, Ewing is the editor who published Franklin's article despite its being riddled with factual errors. Whether that represents just a simple mistake or an expression of his own bias would be better decided by y'all than me.— James Cantor (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I just integrated Ewing, and I'm curious why it would be considered a "slam-dunk". It's published by Oxford University Press, which is a good thing, but its treatment of hebephilia is only 4 pages long, 50% of which is direct quotes from a single federal court case, that seemed to fall apart on a technicality. Further, Ewing is a forensic psychologist who seems firmly in the "defence" camp - one of the two sides on the hebephilia debate, the other being those on the "prosecution" side. I don't really see this as representative of the whole debate, the treatment is far too shallow, brief, one-sided and heavily relies on essentially a single (though probably important) case held up as an exemplar what the courts that rejected the diagnosis think.

Frankly, I expect Rind's paper to be a lot more meaty, this was a disappointment.

Note that I don't think I did a very good job with Ewing, too many quotes. Please review. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 00:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, three brackets in a one-sentence quotation is pretty subpar writing. His definition can go in the definition section along the many other ones currently omitted. It's bad form to paraphrase and elide that heavily. His view is the majority view, so let's quote him without making it look like you're trying to cherry-pick. Also, we should identify him as a psychologist and lawyer. Jokestress (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no definition section but it isn't a bad idea if it can be populated with several different ones, so anyone with an idea for what sources to tap, please mention them. Though age ranges are one definition, Blanchard's use of the Tanner scale is a much better choice. Ewing's actual criticisms are pretty weak - that attraction to pubescent youth isn't pathological unless there are other issues (duh), that the diagnosis is controversial, and that hebephilia alone isn't a diagnosis. Blanchard, the most notable proponent, agrees on all these points incidentally. As per my section below, I think we're missing one side of the debate and I'm hoping other editors can help with sources and suggestions.

I think it is far from established that his view is the majority view. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 02:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that Jokestress was referring to the History section, which goes over definitions, although definition aspects are also mentioned in other sections to explain, and/or because it's a part of, whatever context is being discussed. Flyer22 (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

"Prosecuting" psychologists' position missing

I'm thinking over something - several sources talk about the split between defence and proseucting psychologist/psychiatrists and their testimonies in court cases. Yet none of the sources I've integrated to date have discussed things from the latter perspective. There seems to be two possible solutions - either these experts aren't publishing, or the article is unbalanced and not neutral because they are not integrated.

Is anyone aware of sources that exist that represent the prosecuting psychologists/psychiatrists' perspectives? Give me a list and I'll try to find the time to integrate them. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 00:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Those claims are generally made by people trying to characterize someone's financial motivation as evidence of bias. Most psychologists who testify do more of one or the other, but to characterize someone as a defense psychologist or prosecution psychologist is POV-pushing. Jokestress (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Stagnant

This has not seen any recent movement, and there are many more unaddressed issues. Though I am under no obligation to do so, I have held off editing in article space for now, but if there's not movement, I will begin addressing the tags sometime soon. Jokestress (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Most people here do not agree with most of what you want done with this article. That's what you need to accept. Like I told you above, "When the majority of editors, and based on WP:CONSENSUS (not just by head count), find the state of this article satisfactory, then it will be acceptable to remove your non-neutral and undue tags."

Coming here and essentially making a threat that the article needs to be the way that you want it or you'll make it the way that you want it is only going to get you constantly reverted.

Given your hatred for James Cantor and some researchers he works with, and your hatred for medicalizing sexualities at all, you have as much of a WP:COI regarding this article as you claim Cantor to have. And you should therefore step back from editing it just as much as you feel he should. You know by now that it's not a good thing at all for you to edit where Cantor has edited anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what three regular editors here think, or what I think. What matters is reflecting the scientific and legal consensus that the narrow operationalized definition presented on this page reflects the view of a minority of experts. Most experts do not consider this a real disease, and even among those who use the term, the definitions vary significantly. The article should reflect the majority view, with the minority view currently presented in proportion to the majority view. Something under 10% of experts consider this legit, and the article should be a proportional reflection of that. Jokestress (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Regular editors of this article or not, it's more than three editors here who disagree with a lot of what you want done with it. And even if it were only three editors, WP:CONSENSUS is policy. If three editors here state that there are no WP:Neutrality violations or WP:UNDUE issues, and their arguments are shown to disprove yours, then the neutrality and undue tags can be removed. It does matter what three or more editors here think. And because it matters what you think, this is why COI applies to you in this case. As for the majority view, WLU has argued against you on that; so I'll let him tackle that part of your comment. As for definitions, something most hebephilia definitions have in common is that it is a concentrated sexual interest in pubescents. Flyer22 (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I have not bothered getting involved in the discussion because I don't like debating, but this is worth mentioning if it's going to concern consensus. Jokestress has as much of a COI as Cantor does, and I dare say would have no interest in this article whatsoever if nobody from her personal shit list was involved. This is an agenda and an axe to grind, not a reasonable attempt at improving a subject. Further I see a severe case of cherry-picking sources and wiki-lawyering tactics.Legitimus (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It's no secret that I consider James Cantor an WP:SPA here to promote himself and his friends and to discredit his critics. I'm not the only one. As far as you're concerned, Legitimus, I see an undisclosed COI from an pseudonymous "mental health provider." Perhaps you'd like to join those of us who identify ourselves for purposes of transparency, rather than making COI accusations? James Cantor accidentally outed himself; perhaps you can be more intentional. That goes for everyone else using fake names here as well. It's very easy to make accusations while hypocritically hiding behind a username. I did not get involved until the BLP accusations and other well-poisoning happening here. Legitimus, you have expressed strong support for the minority view along with the other "consensus" editors here, so I question your own objectivity. I frequently work on topics where I disagree with the subject but have no problem presenting them in a fair and accurate manner. That's my goal here. Jokestress (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Ewing, Charles Patrick (2011). Justice Perverted: Sex Offender Law, Psychology and Public Policy. Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780199732678
2. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1007/s10508-010-9602-7, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1007/s10508-010-9602-7 instead.
3. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9436-8, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1007/s10508-008-9436-8 instead.

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