Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:37, 5 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)

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)

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)

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.
  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)

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 for WLU's (quite good) edits.

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)

NPOV tag: History written by the losers

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:

• Hebephilia and the construction of a fictitious diagnosis
• DSM-5 proposed diagnostic criteria for sexual paraphilias: tensions between diagnostic validity and forensic utility
• Commentary: Hebephilia—A Would-be Paraphilia Caught in the Twilight Zone Between Prepubescence and Adulthood
• Hebephilia is a Mental Disorder?
• Manufacturing Mental Disorder by Pathologizing Erotic Age Orientation: A Comment on Blanchard et al.

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)

• 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