Misplaced Pages

Talk:Hebephilia

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FiachraByrne (talk | contribs) at 16:01, 4 January 2013 (→Additional sources: page ranges). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:01, 4 January 2013 by FiachraByrne (talk | contribs) (→Additional sources: page ranges)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconPsychology Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPedophilia Article Watch (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis 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

/Archive 1

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)

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)

  • 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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

Categories: