Talk:Hebephilia/Archive 1

Hebephilia versus Ephebophilia

 * H: "sexual preference for pubescent children" E: "erotic interest in children in mid- to late adolescence"

The introduction to this article summarizes the two categories like this, which I think is worded a bit ambiguously. The first (Hebephilia) uses "sexual preference" and the second (Ephebophilia) uses "erotic interest". Are these meant to signify different kinds of attractions, or are they meant to be synonymous? Even though being fancy using alternative vocabulary is nice, in thi'''s case I think it's a better idea to use the same terms if they are meant to be equivilent.

The second point of confusion is pubescent and adolescence. Currently if one looks up pubescent, it redirects to the article on puberty and the word is not even used in the article. The point of confusion is on what the word implies specifically. Currently there is prepubescent, pubescent, and post-pubescent. So I take it to mean it means someone who has initiated puberty but not completed it. However, in this way, it seems synonymous to adolescence. The only difference here is the inclusion of "mid to late" which isn't really that specific at all.

Even with this in mind, going by the way they are defined in this article, ephebophilia would be a subsect of hebephilia, rather than something separate. The article on ephebophilia is more specific, stating an age range of '15-19'. I'm going to go check to see how accurate this is though, because adolescence does not necessarily end at 19 in all cases (though perhaps 'late in' is prior to 'end of'?) and a word like 'mid', which one can only assume means 'halfway through' is going to vary depending upon when adolescence begins for a person. Tyciol (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are correct on all counts. There is little scientific literature on either one. No one (that I know of) has ever declared that hebephilia is entirely distinct from ephebobilia, except that hebephilia is usually used to refer to the interest (or preference) in 11-13ish and ephebophilia to persons a bit older. I have no opposition to rewording sexual preference and erotic interest to match. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I reworded the lead of the article from "erotic interest" to "sexual preference." I also do not understand this topic being treated as too distinct from ephebophilia, other than it being more about a sexual preference for individuals early in puberty (in which case I do not understand it being too different pedophilia either, considering how much early pubescent boys in particular look prepubescent). And to ask it, how would one know that someone is early in puberty, unless the individual is at the age where it has presumably already started or is somehow showing? Although...I cannot imagine too many 11-year-old boys looking as though they are going through puberty. And, as we know, early adolescents are also pubescent and not all or even most mid (mid...as in 15-year-old) adolescents are postpubescent. Flyer22 (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I envisage an important psychological cutoff, is the transition between prepubescent ('hairless' etc) and pubescent ('budding'), and that of 'budding' to 'fully formed'. This is not an issue of age, except in the grossest sense.

I speak only of attraction to morphological characteristics, of course.

Nigel

some problems
The article says, "Hebephilic men are midway between pedophilic men and teleiophilic men on average IQ" etc. The term "midway" doesn't have much meaning unless we know which of the other two are greater. Are we just supposed to assume that pedophiles are inherently less intelligent than teleiophiles?

I also removed the word "sometimes" from the sentence "there are also clinical and correctional samples of sexual offenders in which hebephilic men sometimes outnumber the pedophilic men" because the phrase "there are" implies that hebephiles do not outnumbers pedophiles in all the samples.

Also how reliable are the anonymous surveys supposed to be? Can we expect people to answer truthfully on a survey asking people if they are attracted to children?

For An Angel (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Your point is well-taken. I believe it is up to readers of the page to decide for themselves whether they believe what the researchers reported; as editors, our "job" is merely to bring to the attention of readers what it is that the researchers said. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced a sentence removed by the author of the studies cited; s/he seems to be attempting to spin his/her studies into something they are not. 24.70.131.33 (talk) 22:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Mendori

Specifically stating that pedophiles scored lowest after every test makes the section read very much like a Coat Rack, completely regardless of whether the statements are cited (or even true). This article isn't about pedophilia. Kingoomieiii ♣   Talk   20:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You have a point. That sentence was originally written simply as a list of the characteristics on which hebephilia has been studied.  For An Angel in the above argued that the specific direction of the differences needed to be noted, which led to the current phrasing which you believe resembles a coat rack.  Personally, I am indifferent, so long as the content is clear and accurate.  Suggestions for improvement?
 * — James Cantor (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Remove the comparisons, and leave a link to the study. I've got no problem leaving the information accessible, but the article can't be used to explain how hebephilia is 'better' than pedophilia.   Kingoomieiii ♣    Talk   03:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Go right ahead. The difference of opinion is between you and For An Angel (As I said, I am indifferent.)  I meant only to give the brief history of the issue.— James Cantor (talk) 11:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hebe
I don't understand what the problem is with add this to the disambiguation page for its abbreviation. For An Angel (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't either. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked at the diff. Summary says "Neither this page, nor the target page cite the validity of the alleged abbreviation." This appears to be true.  I often delete what I call non-disambig items when there is no support on the target page for the abbreviation or initialism.  If you state in the article that it's sometimes abbreviated "heme", and source it, then the problem goes away.  Quite simple, really. Dicklyon (talk) 06:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be required because of how obvious it is. There is nothing in December to indicate that it is sometimes abbreviated as Dec. Yet it is still listed at Dec as a common abbreviation. For An Angel (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"Clinical samples" vs. 'studies faulted by non-representativeness'
It is my opinion that to characterize those studies as faulted due to non-representativeness is non-encylopedic and boilerplate, used for contesting a view that one dislikes. Although "non-representativeness" is tauted in most undergrad courses on research design, there are many ways around the problem, which all the cited studies correctly employed. A study using clinical and forensic samples permits appropriate generalization to other clinical and forensic samples, which is the predominant use of such information.

It is correct that such findings should be considered carefully before generalizing them to non-clinical and non-forensic samples. It is incorrect to refer to this to a fault of the studies: For example, there is no plausible reason to assert that correlates (such as handedness) would systematically differ between clinical and non-clinical samples. Moreover, the control groups used in those studies were also clinical and forensic samples, thus removing from the results generic effects due to having been apprehended and convicted. These results have been out for several years now, and no RS has contested them. (If one has, feel free to cite it.) Otherwise, your claim is OR. — James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 07:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe YOUR claims are original research. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the first researcher noted in the studies' authors? Also, forgive me, but I've been unable to find a full copy of your research. 24.70.131.33 (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Mendori

Yes, my research team and I have been responsible for a large proportion of the peer-reviewed articles on this topic. An overview of our projects can be found on my University website, http://individual.utoronto.ca/james_cantor, and complete list of pubs can be found through scholar.google.com. — James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 11:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dr Cantor,

"It is correct that such findings should be considered carefully before generalizing them to non-clinical and non-forensic samples."

Indeed, for example, ask Hernandez and the FBI about that.

Since you did not have the decency to reply to my emails, when you published your recent work, perhaps you will here.

Firstly,

"there is no plausible reason to assert that correlates (such as handedness) would systematically differ between clinical and non-clinical samples"

'''Why is there no 'plausible reason'? Please summarise, for readers, what your 'plausible reason' is.'''

Secondly,

"Moreover, the control groups used in those studies were also clinical and forensic samples, thus removing from the results generic effects due to having been apprehended and convicted.

How does this remove the 'generic effects due to having been apprehended and convicted'?

Finally, for now, please confirm, that your conclusions arise from inferential statistics - is this correct?

Yours.

Nigel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk • contribs) 22:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 11:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I have failed to respond to earlier off-wiki communication from you; it is my habit to respond to all emails I receive, both from the public as well as colleagues. Any oversight on my part would have been inadvertant.
 * Regarding 'plausible reason', I do not understand your question. That is, it makes no sense to ask me what my plausible reason is after I wrote that there existed no plausible reason.
 * Next, one cannot attribute group differences to a characteristic when that characteristic is shared by both groups. For example, although one can say that physical height is related to the ability to play basketball well, one cannot (meaningfully) say that Basketball Team A defeated Basketball Team B because of height when both teams were of the same height.  That is, one cannot attribute the detected brain differences to (for example) being willing to break the law when both groups had histories of breaking the law.
 * My conclusions arise from the application of multiple standard research techniques, including both descriptive and inferential statistics. It would be an error, however, to make any assertion (positive or negative) about any research project that considers any individual technique in isolation.  In designing studies, techniques are selected so as be to mutually reinforcing, with one aspect of a research design providing strengths that other aspects lack.

Dear Dr Cantor,

"I apologize if I have failed to respond to earlier off-wiki communication from you; it is my habit to respond to all emails I receive, both from the public as well as colleagues. Any oversight on my part would have been inadvertant."

Noted, thank you.

"Regarding 'plausible reason', I do not understand your question."

'''The question is; why is it implausible "to assert that correlates (such as handedness) would systematically differ between clinical and non-clinical samples"? Your use of the word [not] plausible suggests, that these two samples could have no other external variables acting upon them. Is that your belief?'''

'''Secondly, what is your plausible reason, for the observed differences? What are your thoughts on the variables acting upon them which are etiological?'''

"That is, it makes no sense to ask me what my plausible reason is after I wrote that there existed no plausible reason."

I trust I have clarified this.

"Next, one cannot attribute group differences to a characteristic when that characteristic is shared by both groups."

Indeed, one should not, if the characteristic is actually shared.

"For example, although one can say that physical height is related to the ability to play basketball well, one cannot (meaningfully) say that Basketball Team A defeated Basketball Team B because of height when both teams were of the same height."

Indeed, one should not, if the characteristic is actually shared.

"That is, one cannot attribute the detected brain differences to (for example) being willing to break the law when both groups had histories of breaking the law."

'''I see. Thus, your hypothesis, is, that sex offenders break the law, for the same reasons as non-sex offenders? Is that your claim?'''

Please remind me where the “detected brain differences” have been confirmed, in these works.

"My conclusions arise from the application of multiple standard research techniques, including both descriptive and inferential statistics."

Predominantly inferential, no? I am not sure descriptive statistics have much worth, here, other than for academic interest and the inferential uses of those data.

"It would be an error, however, to make any assertion (positive or negative) about any research project that considers any individual technique in isolation."

Do you mean, in regards to the generalisability and validity (internal and external) of its discussed outcomes?

"In designing studies, techniques are selected so as be to mutually reinforcing, with one aspect of a research design providing strengths that other aspects lack."

'''Mutually reinforcing? I see. Do you not agree, that each of the tests, which have been applied (some which have dubious reality, in any case e.g. IQ), include a systematic error? Do you agree, that these individual errors may be cumulative and may result in the p values and CIs (some boarding on insignificant, in these works) may reduce them to insignificance?'''

I am sure you will appreciate the Occam's Razor dimension of my suggestion.

Finally, for now,

'''(1) I presume CAMH applies the APA definition of 'paedophile' (etc) in its studies. Is this correct?'''

(2) How does CAMH define ‘acted upon their urges’ or words to that effect?

(3) Do you, or any of your colleagues, have any thoughts on what proportion of the population are not paedophiles, but are exclusive MAAs (non-acting, non-egodystonic people, who are predominantly/totally sexually attracted to minors?).

(4) Do you, or any of your colleagues, have any thoughts on what proportion of the population are not paedophiles, but are non-exclusive MAAs (non-acting, non-egodystonic people, who are sexually attracted to minors, to some lesser degree?).

'''(5) What are your thoughts on the term MAA? How would you describe these MAAs, within your present psychoconstructual terminology?'''

for:

(a) Nepiophiles, (b) Paedophiles, (c) Hebephiles, (d) Ephebophiles, (e) Teleiophiles.

Yours, Nigel.

These are all topics that I find interesting, and each of your questions merits response. I am also mindful, however, that talkpages are for discussions about improving WP articles, not for discussing the actual topic of the WP article, and I suspect this thread is moving from one to the other. As a compromise between these two situations, I will keep my responses brief, but further conversation should probably be restricted to the purpose of this talkpage: — James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 15:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding plausibility, your paraphrase of my assertion is inaccurate. I do not refer to the plausibility of clinical and non-clinical samples differing; rather, I refer to the plausibility of subgroup differences existing between two clinical samples (clinical hebephiles and clinical teleiophiles) but not existing between their two non-clinical counterparts (non-clinical hebephiles and non-clinical teleiophiles).  Statistically, these situations are analogous to detecting a main effect versus an interaction effect.  I have no reason to reject ideas about there being main effects; it is the interaction effects that are implausible (to my mind).
 * It is rather premature for anyone (including me) to assert any strong hypothesis for what causes the effects observed. There are some obvious possibilities, however, which I discuss in my articles on the topic.
 * No, I do not claim that sexual offenders engage in their behavior with the same motivation as do nonsexual offenders. (Sexual offenders are highly heterogeneous as a group, however, and there appears to exist a subgroup of sexual offenders who do have the same motivation as nonsexual offenders; such people typically have both sexual and nonsexual offenses on their records.)
 * Regarding replication, there have only been three MRI-based studies reported thus far (including my own), all of them within the past year. We used overlapping, but non-identical methods, so it is difficult to compare the results directly.  I have recently received funding to replicate and expand the finding in a way that would do so, however. I do not know if other groups are planning anything similar.
 * I do not understand why you would write “I am not sure descriptive statistics have much worth, here, other than for academic interest.” First, as a scientist, my very purpose in pursuing this line or any other line of research is for academic interest. Moreover, descriptive statistics are needed precisely for the reasons alluded to earlier: One can only rule out height as an important effect in the basketball example when the researcher provides the relevant descriptive statistics on height, for example.
 * Regarding your question “Do you mean, in regards to the generalisability and validity (internal and external) of its discussed outcomes?”: No. My point is also easier to see by example: If one reported a correlation between two variables, a critic could (correctly) point out that correlations do not imply causation and (incorrectly) fault the study for coming to any conclusions about causality.  For example, if one of the variables necessarily preceded the other in time (childhood head injuries and age at marriage, for example), then one would be able to rule out marriage as a cause of childhood head injuries. Thus, my response is the caution that one cannot (meaningfully) use the presence of inferential statistics in a study outside the context of other factors in the research design as a basis of assessing the quality of a research project or its conclusions.
 * Regarding your question “Do you not agree, that each of the tests…”: It is not clear to me which of the tests your are referring to. A test that is highly appropriate in one situation can be less appropriate in another, and vice versa.
 * There is no ‘CAMH application’ of the term paedophile (or pedophile). There are only specific researchers, including myself, housed at CAMH; each of us is responsible for our own research.  Our views do not necessarily reflect those of the institution, nor vice versa.  Regarding the APA definition of pedophilia: The operational definitions for research purposes differ from those that appear in the DSM.  I provide the precise operational definitions in each of my publications.
 * I cannot speak for my colleagues, but my own opinion on the proportion of the population who are (primarily) attracted to minors, but who are not pedophiles is, “There is no way to know.” (It's not the kind of information that people are likely to answer truthfully on a survey.) I would happily predict, however, that the proportion will vary enormously with one's definition of “minors.”
 * Regarding the term "MAA" (which I take to be "minor-attracted adults"): My primary criteria for a useful term is that it is precise, unambiguous, and invariant across contexts. Neither the word “minor,” “attracted,” nor even “adult” possesses those characteristics. (I am not saying that the alternative terms fly past my criteria either, but I have little motivation to replace well-known but imperfect terms with unknown terms that fair no better.)
 * I do not know what a “psychoconstructual terminology” is.

Relocated research question
Question posed to User:James Cantor by User:Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield moved to James Cantor's talkpage.

The question was not about hebephilia, so I have moved it to my talkpage. — James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 15:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dr Cantor,

The question is directly related to paraphilias, and specifically to hebephilia/ephebophilia, in the work of Schiffer at al, but I respect the move.

Nigel.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk • contribs) 15:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't contest that your question is relevant to hebephilia; I contest only its relevance to the hebephilia talkpage (which is for the article, not the topic). Nonetheless, I have reponded to your question at User talk:James Cantor. — James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 16:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Subsequent portions of thread also relocated to User talk:James Cantor. — James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 12:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Oxymoron
By definition, a child has not reached puberty. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no universal definition of "child." The literature on this specific topic almost universally refers to "pubescent children" and "prepubescent children."  Although I personally prefer "children" here, "youths" is not incorrect (albeit unusual, perhaps).
 * — James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 20:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Depending on jurisdiction and context a "child" could be defined as a person under 18 years of age. While they might be inclined to protest at being branded "Children" most 17 year olds would tend to have undergone puberty! 213.40.223.203 (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Precisely. In writing about pedophilia, hebephilia, and other "age orientations," one should be more precise than to use the word "child" without any qualifiers.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Catholic sex abuse cases
The article should probably mention the controversy surrounding Catholic sex abuse cases, due to the fact that the USCCB's John Jay Report asserted that the pedophile priest problem was actually an ephebophile priest problem, and that many of the priests in question were gay. This perspective was re-affirmed recently by the Church's official delegate at the United Nations. ADM (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If they were ephebophilic, that is a paraphilic disorder, so I'm unclear where being gay comes into it. Being gay is not a paraphilia, but a sexual identity.  Were they attracted to adult men as well as adolescent boys?  That would mean they were homosexual and ephebophilic.  Being attracted to adolescent boys is not being gay. Mish (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Mish, ephebophilia is not classified as a paraphilic disorder...well, not generally. The age/look of the boy matters when classifying what it is or may be. If it is a 14-year-old boy who clearly has no type of adult resonance to his face or one who could pass for a 12-year-old, then I am more inclined to think of an adult male being sexually attracted to that as having a mental or some type of paraphilic disorder. Although...ephebophilia stresses the point of 15 to 19 for its age range. But, if, for example, it is a man constantly going after 17-year-old boys, it is difficult to say that is exactly distinct from if he had been constantly going after legal adult 18-year-old males. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There are mixed cases, perhaps some ephebophilic clergy are homosexual while some are not. In any case, many in the press and in the general public tend to conflate the concepts of gay identity and same-sex relations, which is why this was brought up publicly in the first place. Conservative bishops in the Catholic hierarchy have obviously taken advantage of this confusion and have made new rules against the ordination of seminarians with deeply-rooted attachments to the gay culture. ADM (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because the public conflate these things (supposedly), that does not mean we have to, especially when it is not accurate - he doesn't talk about 'mixed-cases' in the report, he talks about priests who are predominantly ephebophilic. It may be that homosexual priests have been punished because of the activities of these ephebophilic priests - although it may just be that in working on getting their house in order, JP2 & Ratzo realised that there were a lot of 'gay' priests (and monks and lesbian nuns) around that didn't really fit in with what people thought priests, monks and nuns were supposed to be doing, and started kicking them out.


 * "The statement said that rather than paedophilia, it would "be more correct" to speak of ephebophilia, a homosexual attraction to adolescent males. Of all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90% belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17."


 * Interesting that this is not referred to as a sexual disorder, but as a 'sexual orientation minority'. Is it worth noting that 20% were alcoholics?  But definitely no connection with being gay, rather 'a homosexual attraction to adolescent boys'.  (odd phrasing, as a male sexual attraction to males is a homosexual attraction - I guess this is an example of why the APA recommends religious people stick to what they know rather than get involved in psychology).  So, the context is that very few priests are ephebophiles in the Catholic church, and many of those that are are also alcoholics, and lots of religions have this problem, including Protestantism and Judaism.  So, how would you propose phrasing this to accurately reflect the source?  I see no justification for inserting anything about these priests being gay, as that is not in the source, and no point saying they were homosexual, as the way they are described (having a sexual orientation towards adolescent males) is already covered within the article's description, and there is nothing to suggest they had a homosexual sexual orientation towards adult males (i.e. were homosexual) as well as being ephebophiles, but simply towards adolescent boys in most cases. Mish (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The statement in that source is partly wrong anyway; ephebophilia is certainly not about the sexual attraction or preference for boys as young as 11. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not proposing to quote directly from the Guardian source, but rather I think a good thing to do would be to look back at the John Jay Report of 2004, where it seems that the term ephebophilia was first used in such a context. Public commentators have interpreted the John Jay Report in a variety of ways, some liberal and some conservative, and one of these conservative interpretations was to claim that priest abuse scandal was related to the clergy's gay problem.  ADM (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This all sounds a bit like WP:OR. You cite the Guardian, but don't want to quote it, yet the distinction is explicit therein.  I don't have access to the Routledge paper myself, but again, the abstract is clear this is about ephebophilia rather than paedophilia or homosexuality, and within the article you wikilink to or Catholic sex abuse cases there is no mention of any gay or homosexual connection.  That leaves this rather bizarre website you cite, which I doubt could be taken as a WP:RS.  It would seem that the best that could be said about the Catholic priest business in the context of this article is that most of the Catholic priests involved in this scandal were ephebophilic, and that certainly should be in there, but I don't see how it justifies the inclusion of Anti-gay propaganda.  However, if you do find some reliable sources on this, I'd be more than happy to include it in that article instead. Mish (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was initially not quite sure what to do with this. I can tell you that the comments in the Guardian are so distorted as to almost be offensive.  As has been pointed out, ephebophilia is not a gender-specific term and has nothing to do with seeking same-sex or opposite sex partners.  That kind of angered me when I read that line.  In addition, psychological science established as far back as the 1970s that the gender of the victim is completely unrelated to the adult's sexual identity and past sexual behavior with adults.(Groth and Birnbaum, 1978; Holmes 2002)  There are straight, married men who molest boys.
 * I also have serious doubts about the statistics on the gender of the victims. In the general population, sexual abuse of minors is overwhelmingly adult male with female minor.  But media basically ignores this, and it is more easily hidden or denied.  Media loves to zero in on same-sex abuse cases because, well, let's face it:  the US is still pretty homophobic and popular consciousness finds this all the more horrific.
 * Also, remember that ephebophilia, like pedophilia, is a preference for that age range, not a description of their actions. While it is a more accurate term for the Catholic abuse cases than pedophilia, no evidence has been offered that this was a ingrained preference and not a crime of opportunity.  For example the John Jay Report claims that 59% were accused of only a single allegation.Legitimus (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well said, Legitimus. As I stated above, they have the definition of ephebophilia somewhat wrong; it certainly is not about a sexual attraction or preference for boys as young as 11. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Conflating terms
The problem seems to be the conflating of ephebophilia and hebephila. I've been through the sources I can access and tried to clarify this. The problem is that there is not firm source for what this is, as it is only a proposed diagnostic category, so the definition can vary according to who is describing it - and the maximum age also relates to age of consent. So, for girls, the upper limit is 16 years old, but for boys, in the case of same-sex, it is limited by the legal age of consent for males - which means that in the UK it would be the same as for girls (16), and an attraction for adolescent males over the age of consent is no more paraphilic than for girls - unless the adult involved is in a position of trust and/or authority (teacher, relative, priest, etc.) and the adolescent is under 18. It needs to be clear that this is not a formal diagnosis. Mish (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have never heard of any chronophilia term being defined by matters of law. It was my impression that it was matter of physical (and some might say mental) maturity.  But you would be right in that is a poorly defined term all around because it is not standardized by any sort of governing body, such as the DSM or ICD.Legitimus (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if it is between consenting adults it is between consenting adults - otherwise it makes no sense to have different definitions for male attraction to adolescent girls (14-16) and to adolescent boys (14-19). The whole thing is poorly defined, and different sources seem to define it slightly differently. I'm just trying to reflect the sources, and the one I cited on ethics seemed to pin it to the age of consent, which is a legal definition rather than medically defined.  The whole thing gets bizarre - is a 21-year-old male's attraction for a fully-mature 19-year-old ephebophilia?  What about a 17-year-old for a 15-year-old girlf who's got a baby from a previous boyfriend?  How about a 20-year-old fully developed male for a 30-year-old undervirilised male who still looks like he's 18?  Some of these fit the definition, but appear odd, while others don't but probably are more relevant.  It is poorly defined because it is based on certain political attitudes about age, sex and gender. Mish (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Mish, I understand your concerns, and I have expressed similar concerns higher about this on this talk page. But you changed the lead to say that ephebophilia is the sexual preference for underage mid to late adolescents; that is not completely true. If you talk to sex researcher James Cantor, who has studied this more than any of us here and whose source we use in this article, he will tell you this. And of all the research I have done on pedophilia, what is in between, and this, I can also tell you that it is not about the age of consent, which is why I took that out of the lead. For example, in the way you give an example, I give the example of a 17 and 18-year-old. If we say the ephebophilia is the sexual preference for underage mid-to-late adolescents, are we saying that 17-year-olds typically look physically different age-wise than 18 and 19-year-olds and that a ephebophile will typically not go after them sexually? I can certainly say that 17-year-olds generally cannot be told apart from 18 and 19-year-olds (especially regarding females). And the thing about a 21-year-old male's attraction for a fully-mature 19-year-old being ephebophilia, I brought up something similar to that before (higher on this talk page). But we have to remember that we are talking about the preference, not the attraction. A man being sexually attracted to a 19-year-old is, of course, not ephebophilia. And we are, of course, not talking about a 17-year-old being sexually attracted to a 15-year-old girl. We can specify ephebophilia as being an adult attraction, as we do for the Pedophilia article, although a 16-year-old with a sexual preference for prepubescent children can be classified as a pedophile. But classifying ephebophilia as being about the age of consent is doing more harm than good, in the same way that some people believe that any older adult (20 or older) who is sexual with someone even a year under the age of consent is a pedophile. Pedophilia is not based on the age of consent and neither is ephebophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, we should always go with medical sources first on something like this, and the medical source that James Cantor provides says 15-19, which is also sourced lower in the article. If we are going to put some of how the law defines it, if they do define it, then that should go after what the medical sources say...like is done with the Pedophilia article. I also do not feel that we should specify ephebophilia as being about post-pubescents; there are plenty of 15-year-old boys and girls who are still pubescent, which is why, in truth, hebephilia and ephebophilia cross each other enough, though ephebophilia is distinct enough from it. And, yes, referring to epbebophilia as pedophilia is colloquial use...because it is a widespread improper use of the word. And as for ephebophilia rarely being considered a mental disorder, unless it affects the ephebophile's life in a destructive way, that is basically sourced lower in the article as well; this also makes it clear that ephebophilia is not a formal diagnosis. And by "rarely," we mean that it is not listed as a paraphilia or mental disorder in those two authorative medical sources...except for in a certain case with one of them. Though we could specify that in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I specified the lead to mention that it is an adult sexual preference, and to stress that it is about the sexual preference, not simply the attraction (though I worded it better than that, LOL). This should stop confusion right off the bat for people who would otherwise overlook the "preference" part and feel that a 30-year-old man sexually involved with a 19-year-old woman, for example, is an ephebophile. How do you feel about the lead now? Flyer22 (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you need to make clear that it is as an exclusive compulsion that makes it a paraphilia, and not applicable in individual cases. I need to take your word on the Blanchard and Cantor article - I can't access the ASB article in full (all I can access discusses hebephilia) which is why I have cited another source, which gives 14-19 for boys and 14-16 for girls. Colloquial is not the right word - because professionals, religious groups, politicians, and the media appear to use it this way - popular seems better, especially as there is no coded substance for ephebophilia, only a catch-all code that has allowed abusers to be treated, but not as paedophiles. Mish (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As I stated before, it is not typically regarded as a paraphilia. The lead also makes it clear that it is an exclusive compulsion by stating it as a sexual preference. As I also stated before, chronophilias are not about the law/age of consent in actual definition and are rather more about the physical than anything else. You specify 14 to 16 for girls, when, really, 16-year-old girls look no physically different age-wise than 17 or 18-year-old girls, for example. And medical sources, such as ones provided by James Cantor, say that hebephilia typically covers 14-year-olds. But I left your addition/source about that and boys ages 14-19 in after the medical source (which specifies it as 15 to 19), and I specified it as "sexual ethics." I am also not seeing how colloquial is the wrong word to use; I am not seeing any experts (who know what they are talking about) refer to ephebophilia as pedophilia. The fact that it is referred to as pedophilia in widespread use, despite being the wrong word to use, is exactly what colloquial covers. But I obliged you and left the word colloquially out. Flyer22 (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Youths?
"Hebephilia refers to an adult's sexual preference for pubescent youths". According to my copy of Fowler, the word "youths" refers exclusively to males, and that is also the way I would use the word in everyday conversation (British English speaker). Just my opinion, but I think the word is confusing here. 91.107.190.1 (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just for the record of this talk page, James Cantor went ahead and changed it to "children" on the same day this section was started. As touched on above, the word "children" was something we were trying to avoid in the lead due to pubescents no longer being biological children (at least not in the strictest sense) and hebephilia sometimes overlapping with ephebophilia. For example, ephebophilia's general age range is 15-19. But what about age 14? Does 14 really look all that differently than 15? And what about 13-year-olds, particularly girls, who look about 15?


 * But now that I think about it, using the word "children" is probably better...to give a picture of hebephilia; it probably helps people to see the difference between it and ephebophilia, as they likely envision hebephilia to be about the sexual preference for young people who have just started going through puberty (9 to 12-year-olds). The tricky thing is...is that hebephilia can be seen to overlap with pedophilia as well, because a lot of pubescents (particularly boys) may still look prepubescent and plenty of 9 to 12-year-olds have still not hit puberty).


 * Either way, we already use the word "children" in the lower body of this article in relation to hebephilia. The Ephebophilia article's lead was changed some time back to relate "children" to hebephilia as well. Thus, it is no big deal that it be in the lead of this article also.


 * I cannot say that I have ever heard of the word "youths" being restricted solely to young males, though. It is often used to refer to young people in general here in America. Flyer22 (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How about "individuals"?— James Cantor (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That would do, James. I do not mind either way on this matter. But would you apply that throughout the article, or just the lead? If you do either, I will change the Ephebophilia article's lead to state "individuals" in reference to hebephilia as well. Flyer22 (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. At least, I'm pretty sure I got them all.  I left standing, however, occurrances of "pubescent children," as that phrase doesn't seem to be objectionable to anyone (and overuse of the word "individuals" made for poor reading).— James Cantor (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. On a side note, you may want to weigh in on this: User talk:Dbachmann. I do not know what to make of this editor's thoughts, but your expertise would help. No pressure, though, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Tone Problem
This article really reads like it was written by a bunch of pedophile apologists. There can be no NPOV when we are discussing a grotesque criminal act and a mental aberrance. Slagathor (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You are entitled to whatever option you want, of course. Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy does not mean treat the topic as if the topic were neutral; it means not to add our own spins when summarizing the content of reliable sources.  If the text you added to the page came from a WP:Reliable source, integrate it into the page, citing the where that information came from.  If the information did not directly attributable to an RS, then it ought not be on the page.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Slagathor clearly took a great deal of this from the Pedophilia article lead (it's just that Slagathor's version was altered a little and unsourced), but (either way) I do not see how it makes this article seem more neutral. Slagathor, you feel that this article is written by pedophile apologists simply because it distinguishes between pedophiles and hebephiles? Um, I point out that we should present the truth. We cannot and should not present hebephilia as pedophilia, if it is not. Your adds even distinguished the two. Sure, pedophilia and hebephilia significantly cross each other, especially in the cases of boys, but they are not the same thing. And true hebephile apologists would not note in the lead that hebephilia is being debated as a psychological disorder; they would keep the fact that it is being considered a psychological disorder from the lead altogether. Flyer22 (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But Hebephiles *are* Pedophiles if the object of attraction is under the legal age of consent. It's not a matter of debate. It's simply a legal reality. The failure to document this is ridiculous and represents a failure of NPOV.Slagathor (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hebephilia and pedophilia are medical terms, not legal terms, and you are confusing "pedophile" with "child molester." You are entitled to your opinion, but WP may contain only what is said in RS's.  I know the existing RS's on this topic quite well, and they do not contain the claim you are making.  (You are treating pedophilia and the other terms as synonyms, which experts do not.)  If I am wrong, all you need to demonstrate so is to produce an RS that says what you think...If, after looking, you do not find any, you might consider the obvious conclusion: The correct use of the terms are a little different from what you are accustomed to.  Arguing here will not get far; I recommend doing some good, old-fashioned library work.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel the need to echo JC's point here. These articles are about medical, not legal phenomena.  The terms exist seperately to describe seperate conditions. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's absurd and incorrect. First, these articles are about *all* facets of the condition, both medical and legal. Or are you attempting to arbitrarily limit the scope of an encyclopedic article in order to control its content. Second, and as you are probably aware, the state of being a pedophile does indeed result in a life-long legal sanction if an offense has been committed in the past. That is, the medical condition itself is criminalized (and rightly so). And Hebephiles *are* Pedophiles. Hebephilia is a subset of Pedophilia if the object of desire is below the legal age of consent. Argue it any way you want, but you're still both wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slagathor (talk • contribs) 12:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Slagathor, you say that "Hebephiles *are* Pedophiles if the object of attraction is under the legal age of consent"? Well, I say that is absurd and ridiculous. If we go by your logic, then a man who engages in sexual intercourse with a 17-year-old girl is also a pedophile. Considering that age 17 looks no physically different than age 18 (unless one of the two looks drastically older than the other), how exactly can one be a pedophile for being sexually attracted to or sexually intimate with a 17-year-old but not an 18-year-old? Pedophilia is not based on age of consent. There is no such thing as a legal pedophile. People are not charged with being a pedophile; they are charged with child sexual abuse or some other legal term relating to it. Pedophilia is about the mental (what goes on in the mind), and child sexual abuse is about the act. Pedophilia is about the sexual preference for prepubescent children. If it was about age of consent, then that would make a lot of normal people out there pedophiles as well. Plenty of normal men have found 17-year-old girls, as in girls below the legal age of consent, sexually attractive...but they are not pedophiles. And let us not forget that the age of consent varies; it is different in certain states and countries. By your logic, a person would be a pedophile in one state, but not in another state where the age of consent is just one age lower. To not be a pedophile, the person could just change states. That is absurd. Pedophilia is not something that one can just get rid of. You either are one, or you aren't; there currently is no cure for being one, and changing states certainly is not a cure. What if the age of consent was age 21 across the board? Would that mean that anyone who has sex with someone under age 21 is a pedophile? Of course not!! That is why basing pedophilia on the age of consent is beyond silly. You might want to better read the Pedophilia article. Flyer22 (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can talk your way out of this one.Slagathor (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not have to talk my way out of anything regarding this matter. But you obviously cannot argue against my very valid points. Your logic is extremely flawed. And since you clearly go against the actual definition of pedophilia, you have no valid reason to be editing any pedophilia topic or ones close to it. Flyer22 (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In my own view, Flyer22 was actually engaging the topic very productively. I would caution Slagathor that personal attacks are not permitted on WP, and that discussion should pertain to the matters at hand.  Attempted feats of rhetorical display don't win people over; in my experience, they are typically interpreted as a lack of actual evidence supporting the opinion.— James Cantor (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll echo that, and add the following: Slagathor, you're entitled to your opinion.  You are not entitled to have that opinion be adopted by Wikipedia.  Part of the reason that we do not give great treatment to the legal aspects of hebephilia is because the legal aspects vary greatly.  You can be labelled a pedophile for sleeping with a 20 year old in Madagascar, but you can marry and have sex with a 9 year old in Yemen.  Wikipedia is not a store of American knowledge, it's a store of knowledge in general.  I'm sorry you feel that hebephiles are pedophiles.  Maybe in your particular jurisdiction, that holds true in a legal sense.  It doesn't in a general or medical sense, and that's what this article is about. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

And I just saw the AN/I thread where Slag was indeffed, so... Problem solved. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There does appear to be a slight problem with the tone of the DSM V section. When I read it, it came across as though Blanchard et. al. were some sort of moral guardians trying to force their views into the DSM, but on this talk page Cantor (who worked with Blanchard) seems much more reasonable. Maybe only I interpreted it that way, but I don't see where it would hurt to have more information as to why they believe hebephilia should be included in DSM V in addition to the arguments against it. On an unrelated note, it seems that the above exchange between "Nigel" and Cantor is cluttering the talk page and really should be moved, possibly with a link to it if it's considered to be relevant enough. 70.180.163.69 (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Disclosure and edit to mainpage.
I have removed from the mainpage a non-RS'd statement. Because I am a co-author on an RS that is still cited in the remaining part of that sentance, I thought it best to indicate so here for other interested editors to verify.— James Cantor (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I have added an external link to an relevant essay. Because I am the author of that essay, I am indicating it here so that other editors can review/retain/remove the link as appropriate.— James Cantor (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have added an external link to a complete list of all the peer-reviewed research on hebephilia. Because that list is on my faculty website, I am indicating so here for others to review.— James Cantor (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Karen Franklin
When I removed the reference to Karen Franklin from the lede, it was because her opinion was not (in my opinion) an expert one: She has never done any research in the area (her research being in homophobia), and she had no RS's published on the topic (although she had written on the topic in her blog and in letters-to-editors). Rather, she is a psychologist in private practice, paid to provide testimony in court. (On her website, she includes testimonials only from defence lawyers who hired her for her testimony, but I do no know if all of her work is for the defence side.) So, although she can express whatever opinion she wants, I did not feel that her opinion was notable as an expert one.

In the few weeks since that time, however, Franklin had an article accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, Behavioral Science and the Law. The journal is peer-reviewed, but the article does not contain any research; it consists of her arguments regarding hebephilia. Included in that article, however, are some very harsh things that Franklin says about me personally. This isn't the place for me to show the err of her arguments, but it certainly makes COI issues pretty unavoidable. Although I do believe that I am quite capable of describing the situation perfectly neutrally from both her and my points of view, I certainly do not expect other editors to take my word for it. This is a very controversial area after all, and there are editors with strong feelings about this already.

So, I thank Flyer22 very sincerely in her faith in my good faith editing, but it would probably be appropriate for me to let the decision to be made by others. Franklin's article is available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123388688/abstract.

— James Cantor (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm female, but you're welcome, James. I'll see what Legitimus and Jack-A-Roe have to say about this. Flyer22 (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, goodness; I very much apologize. I am usually in the habit to watch my language better than that.  I am both sorry and embarrassed.— James Cantor (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's okay. It happens to me all the time here at Wikipedia, and most of us have done the same to others at this site. Flyer22 (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I took some time to read the full article (Please note I edited James's link so that it is now functional). My impression is that regardless of its approval for publication, it is, at its core an editorial.  There is no primary research or even meta-analysis.  I understand Franklin's concerns about the term being used in a unethical and unscientific manner in the legal system, but I feel this is not valid grounds to start manipulating scientific terminology and research.  For example, I recall another article claiming pedophilia should be removed from the DSM so that sex offenders will no longer have an "excuse" in court and can be punished more harshly.  This follows similar logic, and at least I feel, is equally foolish.  Scientists should not try to "fix" problems with the legal system (as well as media reporting) by altering the course of their own research.  Furthermore, I personally feel that she fails miserably at making the case that the term was concocted strictly for legal and political reasons.
 * Now that said, I cannot entirely toss this one in the dustbin. I think some brief mention might be worth it, provided that such mention is small in proportion to the size of the overall article itself so as to avoid unintentional coat racking.Legitimus (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent points, Legitimus. Regarding mention of Franklin in this article, are you saying we let mention of her stay in the lead as "and Karen Franklin arguing that its consideration as a mental condition is driven by legal, not medical considerations" (since it is brief)...or move it lower in the article (and probably with some different type of wording?). Flyer22 (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Got my answer, LOL, and thank you again, Legitimus. Flyer22 (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the edit removed a letter to the editor. Its publication is subject to editorial oversight, but not peer review. But that distinction does not violate WP:RS in anyway I can think of in this case. You can argue that it's WP:UNDUE and what not, which is a matter of opinion in this case, because she's not contesting some statics, but whether the statistics justify adding it to the DSM despite what evolutionary psychology has to say about this. Completely removing the statement from the article, instead of (say) moving it to a criticism section is contrary to good faith NPOV editing in my view. I will add more criticism shortly to balance the article. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, folks. Folks who are interested in Karen Franklin's various claims about hebephilia might be interested in | this new publication that catalogs some of her factual errors.  Because I am the author of that document, I am posting it here, rather than integrating it into the mainpage myself.— James Cantor (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * An excellent rebuttal Dr. Cantor. I am especially fond of the part about Franklin accusing you and your research group of pushing for this concept so you can reap the fat rewards of providing expert testimony to American criminal cases.  Except for that little minor detail that your group is Canadian.  Oops.
 * However for time being, in the interest of preventing any accusation of self-publishing, I suggest we wait until the paper is published by Taylor & Francis Group. My institution has a subscription to this service so I can obtain and verify the final publication at no cost.Legitimus (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment, Legitimus. She was so personal in so many of her attacks, that it took great effort to respond with purely objective and verifiable arguments.  Regarding time, I am not concerned with speed. (Indeed, her essay was out a year before I decided to submit a response at all).  I just posted it here at the same time as updating my website.— James Cantor (talk) 04:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The final, offical version of the article commentary has now been released, and is downloadable free of charge from Taylor & Francis at http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/ufmh20/current or click here to download the .pdf directly: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14999013.2012.672945.
 * There are very few changes from the pre-print that I posted earlier, but the copy at the publisher's site is the official one.
 * In that article commentary is a sentance that I did not write, and which might become relevant, that being the Editor's note that Franklin declined the invitation to respond to my comments. Interpret as you will.
 * This would likely be relevant to other articles that mention this debate, including Karen Franklin and James Cantor.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * James, the rebuttal is not a peer-reviewed article. It's a letter to the editor, which was then published by Taylor & Francis. Flyer22 (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are correct. I have modified the above.— James Cantor (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Concern over overuse of primary studies
The entire "etiology" section is based on the work of the same group at CAMH. Is there some review paper not written by them? I realize there's little literature in this area, so WP:MEDRS may be hard to follow in that respect, but it's worth asking the question of whether independent review papers exist. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking that for now...that section can only be sourced by CAMH, which is why I removed the POV tag. But if you feel that it should remained placed there, feel free to revert. Flyer22 (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

South Korea
What's the point in being angry at some middle aged guy having fun with a teen? It's the law that says it's ok. Try to do a referendum or something similar to change the minimal age of consent if you don't like it, free countries generally allow that. Schoolstage (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't get what your point is. No single person wrote the content for this article, so I do not understand what or whom your statement is aimed at.Legitimus (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It was just a comment to that story listed in the page, where in South people got pissed at the fact that an adult had relations with a 16 year old, which is legal there. Schoolstage (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Our individual opinions of that event, as users on this site, are irrelevant. It is merely a news item illustrating an event.
 * On Wikipedia, it is not our place to debate morality of events or what we personally think of those events. Rather, we merely report that they happened. See WP:NOTLegitimus (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The machine translation of that source does not quite seem to support the claim of "significant public outrage" over hebephilia alone. The case involved "youth" (minor (law)) prostitution and what not. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't add it so if it looks like a bad source, let's remove it.Legitimus (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

"Boys begin puberty generally at ages 12-13"
More 11-12 than 12-13. If a boy began at 13, I'd say that's a tad on the late side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.201.133 (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sure no one minds a change in the article if you can provide a good source for that information. Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * According to most sources, boys generally begin puberty at age 12, two years after girls. If boys are now generally beginning puberty at the same time girls do, I would definitely like to see reliable sources for that. It could also be that girls are now generally beginning puberty at age 9 instead of age 10, which would put boys' general starting rate at 11-12. But, from what I've researched, 13 is not late at all...for many boys. And while 13 is generally late for girls, there are still those who begin puberty at that age too. Flyer22 (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: James has taken the initiative and changed it away from 13 to 11-12 for boys, with the statement that "It's rarely that late." I'm okay with the change, though I'm still not sure why so many sources still list 13 as prepubescent if it typically isn't these days. Even the DSM currently goes all the way up to 13 for pedophilia. I've always figured that that's because it's more common for boys to begin puberty at age 13 than girls. Flyer22 (talk) 05:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oops, I'm sorry. I hadn't realized there had been talk about this already.  So, to join in (if belatedly), here are refs showing when each of the major signs of puberty become apparent.  I'm happy to email reprints to anyone interested.
 * The first appearance of pubic hair occurs at a mean age of 11.0 years in females and 11.2 years in males (Roche, Wellens, Attie, & Siervogel, 1995); the first stage of breast development in females (“breast buds”), at a mean age of 11.2 (Roche et al., 1995); the initial growth of the penis and testes in males, at a mean age of 11.2 (Roche et al., 1995); the first menses occur at a mean age of 12.9 years in Caucasian, American females (Herman-Giddens et al., 1997); and the pubertal growth spurt begins at a mean age of 10 in females and at a mean age of 12 in males (Grumback & Styne, 1998, Fig. 31-11).
 * Puberty typically lasts approximately until age 14: In females, the adult-pattern of pubic hair is typically achieved at ages 13.1–15.2, and of adult breasts, at 14.0–15.6 years (Grumbach & Styne, 1998, Table 31-2). In males, the adult-pattern of public hair is achieved at ages 14.3–16.1, and the genitalia attain adult size and shape at 14.3–16.3 years (Grumbach & Styne, 1998, Table 31-4). Approximately 0.3% of boys experience their first ejaculation before age 11, and 87.7%, by age 14 (Tomova, Lalabonova, Robeva, & Kumanov; 2011).
 * Grumbach, M. M., & Styne, D. M. (1998). Puberty: Ontogeny, neuroendocrinology, physiology, and disorders. In J. D. Wilson, D. W. Foster, H. M. Kronenberg, & P. R. Larsen (Eds.), Williams textbook of endocrinology (9th ed., pp. 1509–1625). Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
 * Roche, A. F., Wellens, R., Attie, K. M., & Siervogel, R. M. (1995). The timing of sexual maturation in a group of US white youths. Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology & Metabolism, 8, 11–18.
 * Tomova, A., Lalabonova, C., Robeva, R. M., & Kumanov, P. T. (2011). Timing of pubertal maturation according to the age at first conscious ejaculation. Andrologia, 43, 163–166.
 * I hope that's a help.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It kind of makes me more confused, James. If puberty generally begins at age 11 for both boys and girls, then why do so many general sources state girls as beginning at age 9 or 10, without it being due to precocious puberty in the medical sense? Why do so many source still list age 12 for boys? Maybe they mean the growth spurt, like this source from you above states: "...the pubertal growth spurt begins at a mean age of 10 in females and at a mean age of 12 in males (Grumback & Styne, 1998, Fig. 31-11)." And why in the world does the DSM have the age range all the way up to 13 for "prepubescent" in regard to pedophilia?


 * I also find it difficult to believe that puberty typically ends at age 14 for boys. Just looking at 14-year-old boys, you can see that most of them haven't finished puberty. They typically haven't even reached adult height. One of the sources you cite above even says "In males, the adult-pattern of pubic hair is achieved at ages 14.3–16.1, and the genitalia attain adult size and shape at 14.3–16.3 years (Grumbach & Styne, 1998, Table 31-4)." By those sources, this means that it is common for boys to still be going through puberty at age 16 too. Further, reading through scholarly sources over the years, ages 16-18 are given for adult male height in humans. How can it typically be age 14? I mean, I can understand "sometimes," but "typically"?


 * Basically, I'm confused. Why is there so much conflicting information around about this? I trust your sources. I'm just saying that there are reliable sources stating different age ranges, such as the typical "10 for girls and 12 for boys" stuff. I'm not as confused by the information on girls. But I am by the "14 is it" stuff for boys. If age 14 is often late puberty for boys, or even post-puberty for boys, then the Hebephilia article needs to be changed away from "in the early years of puberty" to "in the early to late stages of puberty." But then that just adds to the confusion of how it is distinct from ephebophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, puberty is one of those concepts that seems obvious from afar, but gets more complicated when examined closely.


 * Because puberty differs between boys/girls, between modern/previous times, and between wealthy vs. poorly nourished regions, attaching puberty to specific ages is inexact. Also, the great majority of information sources are meant for the public (the parents and the kids) and emphasize the broad range of what is "normal" and nothing to worry about.  That is, in the context of providing general health information, most sources are trying to get across: "Typically age 11-12, but it's not a necessarily problem if your son has not started by age 14", etc.  In the context of discussing hebephilia, however, we are interested in the more narrow range of what is most typical.  That is, when we say that someone has a sexual preference for pubescent children, we don't actually care if (for example) a victim was a 9-year-old who started puberty early, an 11-year-old who started right on average, or a 15-year-old who started late.  What's important was the visible developmental stage (Tanner 2-3) to which the hebephile felt attracted.  The age ranges are meant only to illustrate.  I think what I am saying is that it is true that puberty can start as early as 9, in the sense that is is not a medical problem when it occurs, but that puberty at age 9 is atypical enough so that I would not use age 9 as an exemplar when trying to describe when puberty typically hits.


 * I have found that a lot of confusion comes from forgetting that puberty is only a part of maturation, and one is not mature (an adult) at the end of puberty. (Puberty is different from adolescence.)  Maturation contains several different mechanisms, and they start (and stop) at different times.  Puberty is that in-between stage during which at least one of the maturational mechanisms has started but not yet all of them.  The end of puberty is when all the multiple maturational systems have kicked in, not when they have finished.  That is, puberty is not the end of maturation.


 * Is that a help?


 * — James Cantor (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that helps. I completely understand what you mean by the age ranges, and had figured that in my own head. With regard to 9-year-olds, I was speaking of girls, since it seems more and more are starting puberty at that age and that it is even a common occurrence now. But, again, I understand what you mean there. And the following line sounds like you are still relating hebephilia to early puberty, or at least early/mid puberty: "That is, when we say that someone has a sexual preference for pubescent children, we don't actually care if (for example) a victim was a 9-year-old who started puberty early, an 11-year-old who started right on average, or a 15-year-old who started late. What's important was the visible developmental stage (Tanner 2-3) to which the hebephile felt attracted." I'm also surprised that I was so taken aback by one of your sources stating "Puberty typically lasts approximately until age 14," and some of the other sources showing that, since the Tanner scale basically says the same thing, and I am familiar with it. I think I got caught up in the fact that hepephilia gives the age range of 11-14, when, apparently, 14 is often the end of puberty. I might have also gotten caught up in the fact that girls generally start puberty before boys, and the attainment of male adult height is generally reported as higher than age 14. But speaking of that:


 * I also understand what you mean by puberty not being the end of maturation...I think. At first, I figured you meant the fact that the person still has to mature psychologically. But reading the rest of your statement, it seems you are saying they still have to mature biologically as well? Maybe a boy still hasn't reached adult height, even at the end of puberty? Disregarding the fact that sources generally seem to indicate that any increase in height after puberty is uncommon. One example of puberty being over but a person still maturing physically, however, is that (with recent discoveries) the human brain is not finished developing cognitively until age 24/25. So, yeah, I am interested in what you mean by "adult," if not an individual who has completed puberty. When we say "biological adults," don't we mean people who are not only capable of sexual reproduction but have also finished puberty? Or are you looking at "maturation" as different than "biological adulthood"? Flyer22 (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes; it's exactly because 14 is (more or less) when puberty ends, that my predecessor sex researchers settled on that when describing the typical age range of greatest interest of hebephiles.


 * Yes, again; boys typically do not achieve adult height until late teens. Remember, however, that puberty relates to the age at which the growth spurt starts, not the age at which the growth spurt ends (which happens closer to maturation/adulthood).  If a given boy's growth spurt were the last of the maturational process to kick in, then the age of the spurt would mark the end of his puberty even though it would be the beginning of his growth in height.


 * There are indeed multiple legitimate definitions of "adult" and "mature," each as used in their intended contexts, whether those be legal, cultural, psychological, endocrinological, or morphological (etc.). So, it is entirely true that there continue to be advancements in our understanding of human development, such as how late we now know the brain to continue to develop, which can impact (for example) the definition of "adult" in the legal context.  However, in the context of the evolution of the human male sexual response system, "adult" would generally refer to "visibly reached peak reproductive fitness."  This again refers to stages of development, and age of maturity also varies between modern/previous times, etc.  So, I would hesitate to look too hard for The definition of adult/mature, and instead to interpret each source in terms of the definition most logical to its own context.


 * Better, or am I babbling?— James Cantor (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're not babbling at all. I don't think I've ever heard that "puberty relates to the age at which the growth spurt starts, not the age at which the growth spurt ends," though, which just shows that I'm not as well-versed in the topic of puberty as I thought. And I wonder if most other sources are looking at it that way too. Examples of sources that confuse me along these lines, also used in the Puberty and Adolescence articles (though both articles need a lot more work), would be these:


 * This Teenage Growth & Development: 11-14 Year source states: "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." Though pamf.org, while a seemingly reliable/respectable resource, may not be the best source to use for this information.


 * And then there are sources like this MedlinePlus source, Puberty and adolescence, which states: "In girls, puberty is usually finished by age 17. Any increases in height after this age are uncommon."


 * So, in the way that they are defining puberty to end at ages 16 or 17, I wonder if maybe they are relating puberty to the age at which the growth spurt ends. I certainly found it odd that MedlinePlus would state girls as completely puberty at age 17; that's rather late for girls. It's also why I offered the age range of 15-17 for girls in both the Puberty and Adolescence articles.


 * But, yeah, you aren't babbling at all. I understand what are you saying. And as I stated before, it is only the conflicting sources which confuse me. I wonder how they are defining puberty, because it's apparent that either they are not going by the Tanner scale, are relating puberty to the age at which the growth spurt ends, or are just doing what you stated above about the great majority of information sources being meant for the public -- trying to please everyone. Flyer22 (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes: Picture in the lead, etymology and etiology sections, etc.
I reverted Ewawer with this edit, because his changes added a picture (when I feel that pictures are not needed for this topic), and because they recreated the Etymology and Etiology sections. A quick look in the edit history shows that James and I just compromised on how to deal with those sections. I decided to combine them because the Etymology section cannot be expanded much further. James gave his approval, but altered it so that the etiology information would come first.

I happen to disagree with placing Etiology first, because I feel that having Etymology come first is more of a proper lead-in to the material and is not that much to read to begin with. Placing it second makes it look trivial to me. I suppose it is, but still... I accepted James's alteration. And now we are at Ewawer splitting the sections back up again. Clearly, I am against a split, per what I stated above. I'm also against the picture, because it does not help the reader understand this topic. No picture will, I believe. And Wikipedia images are supposed to enhance a reader's understanding of a subject. Furthermore, having the same image for the Pedophilia article (which I also objected to) for the Hebephilia article is in bad taste in my opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 08:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

History Survey
Hello, I'm trying to gauge whether a particular user is promoting James Cantor (attempting to add citations, write him into articles, etc.) and his colleagues to promote them, or just to get at me. One way to answer this is to see if he was promoting Cantor where I'm not involved. One approach to this, of course, is building a list of the various references, ELs, etc and who added them. Since he has two ELs here, and the tool for finding ELs is better than the other tools, I started here.

For this article, the results were surprisingly one-sided. James Cantor (as MarionTheLibrarian) added 11 citations to himself here (7x,1x,2x,1x): About the same number as there are now, give or take duplicates. (The give-or-take means I've probably missed a few 'gives'. I'm not listing the 'takes.') He also added all the ELs to himself and to articles that mention him ,,2x although he added those as James Cantor. Of course, some measure of self-cite and self-promotion is acceptable, so this might not be a problem.

If you are interested, please feel free to contribute more diffs to my lists. BitterGrey (talk) 07:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Definition and serious problems in the article hebephilia
Note: This discussion has been moved here from Talk:Pedophilia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F01:1059:F001:0:0:BC19:A01F (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The ICD-10 defines pedophilia as "A sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age." There are problems in this article, and there are serious problems in the article hebophilia. This article states "As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia, or paedophilia, is defined as a psychiatric disorder in persons who are 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally those under the age of 14, though onset of puberty varies)" - this is not correct- puberty starts in its first stages at around 10 for girls and 11 for boys (although the ages differ significantly from child to child), so children under 14 are not all prepubescent - but attraction to children in the early pubescent stages is considered pedophilia. The article on hebophilia reads "Hebephilia refers to a primary or exclusive sexual interest in individuals in the early years of puberty (generally ages 11–14, though onset of puberty may vary). Girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11; boys at age 11 or 12" and then claims that there is debate on weather or not it sholud be considered a psychiatric diagnosis, but this depends on its definition and the cut-off age, because attraction to 10, 11, 12  y/o children (who are early pubescent) is considered a psychiatric disorder. Also the article on Hebephilia states: "In 2008, Ray Blanchard was the lead author of an influential paper proposing the introduction of hebephilia in the DSM-5.[8] The paper, coauthored mostly with colleagues from CAMH and the University of Toronto, triggered a number of reactions, many of them critical on the basis that it pathologizes reproductively valid behavior in order to uphold current social and legal standards." That is not correct, the average age of menarche in the US is 12.5 and in other countries it is even higher; and in boys the age of first ejaculation is higher than the age of menarche in girls- in most cases sex with an 11-12 y/o is not reproductively valid behavior.2A02:2F01:1059:F002:0:0:BC19:A2D0 (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been a difficult matter that has come up before. Now one thing I need to point out about your first paragraph is a slight mismatch of criteria and that may be the problem.  In short, you have the DSM and the ICD.  The sentence the goes "As a medical diagnosis..." I think was intended to represent the DSM criteria.  (Aside:  We don't have the word-for-word criteria because the APA literally threatened to sue Wikipedia for copyright infringement.)  It would appear someone tampered with this sentence since I last looked at it because the DSM (which I have all 3.8 pounds of in my hands as I type this) says clearly on page 572 "prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger)"  Not 14.  The DSM also does not include "early pubertal age" in it's criteria like the ICD does.  This leaves a gap and perhaps would explain why "hebephilia" is of more interest to the DSM-V, whereas the ICD already sort of covers it.
 * It's no easy task untangling these two terms, since one has multiple definitions and the other isn't even officially accepted. Further, ultimately the criteria are based on a judgement call, not any sort of numerical age.  But we have to put some kind of number in there for lay people to understand it.Legitimus (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand these problems; my main issue is not as much with this article, but with the Hebephilia article, which is a complete mess. Apart from being full of contradictions and unclear, it is blatantly incorrect when presenting biological facts. Its lede states: "Hebephilia refers to a primary or exclusive sexual interest in individuals in the early years of puberty (generally ages 11–14, though onset of puberty may vary)". To what stage of development is it exactly referring?? It is lumping together different ages- there is a huge difference between 11 and 14; and the age of 14, for a girl especially, is not "early stages of puberty". The lede than goes on to say "Girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11; boys at age 11 or 12", and therefore implies that people who are attracted to children of these ages are hebephiles, and then goes on to say that there is debate on weather or not it should be considered a psychiatric diagnosis, and that people who oppose it to be considered a mental disorder bring the argument that it is reproductively valid behavior- but sex with children of this age is generally not reproductively valid- a girl generally has her first period about 2-3 years after the first changes at the beginning of puberty occur. So does hebephilia refer to the early stages of puberty, when sex with the child would not be reproductively valid? Because if so, there really isn't any debate- there is a general consensus that attraction to a child at this stage is a mental disorder. Now if hebephilia refers to attraction to children in later stages of puberty (eg. a girl 13-14, after her first period- now that is something different, but than the article must say so). The article can't lump together girls aged 10-11 with girls aged 13-14 as it does now! Obviously the ages at which a child develops differ from child to child- but the article needs to clarify weather hebephilia refers to the early stages of puberty (just when the first changes are beginning, during the first and second year of puberty) or weather it refers to mid puberty (eg, shortly after menarche, when a girl doesn't yet look like an adult, but she is quite well developed and there is a possibility of pregnancy). I'm going to tag that article for factual accuracy and I hope someone will look through it.2A02:2F01:1059:F002:0:0:BC19:A2D0 (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The wording was changed from "generally age 13 years or younger" to "generally those under the age of 14" by User:RJR3333 while pointing out that they mean the same thing. I've never liked the change, considering that it can be more confusing than simply saying "generally age 13 years or younger," as shown by Legitimus's comment about it above, and therefore I've changed it back. IP, hebephilia is not officially defined as pedophilia, despite the ICD-10 saying "early pubertal." I'm sure that Legitimus remembers this, but the wording "As a medical diagnosis" was included as a compromise because two people argued that there is more than one definition of pedophilia and that the common use/popular definition of pedophilia should come before the medical definition. The medical definition was kept first because it is the authoritative/accurate definition of pedophilia, but it was made less definitive by adding "As a medical diagnosis." And as medical diagnosis, pedophilia is indeed defined by the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. "Early pubertal" mostly looks prepubescent, which is most assuredly why the ICD-10 includes "early pubertal." Saying "generally age 13 years or younger" or "generally those under the age of 14" does not mean that we are saying "all children under 14 are prepubescent"; that is why we state "though onset of puberty varies." Maybe we should state "though puberty usually begins at age 10 or 11 for girls and 11 or 12 for boys" or something specific like that and/or take it out of parentheses while we're at it. But I've argued against having "generally age 13 years or younger" mentioned at all because of the fact that most kids hit puberty before 13 and because puberty can vary/the hebephilia overlap.


 * Like I told RJR3333 on the talk page of the Puberty article, "[The Pedophilia article] says 'generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary.' Not 14 years or younger. '14 years or younger,' as you also know, is the proposed criteria to combine hebephilia with pedophilia and retitle the disorder 'Pedophilic Disorder' (previously proposed under the title 'Pedohebephilic Disorder'), which means that early pubescents would be included. So that is not the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) saying that 14-year-olds are generally included under 'prepubescent.' That is the proposal showing that researchers know that 14-year-olds are not usually prepubescent...but can look it. Since it is no longer that common for a girl to hit puberty at age 13, it seems that the only reason that the DSM lets the age criteria extend to 13 is because of the fact that it is more common that a boy may hit puberty that late, and because 13-year-old pubescent boys still look prepubescent. Unlike girls, who can look clearly pubescent due to breast and hip development, there is little to no noticeable physical change in an early pubescent boy. Yes, people who are 10-14 (especially ages 11-14) can be pubescent, but that age range also falls into the prepubescent territory (hence the proposal to combine pedophilia and hebephilia). But it's very rare these days that a person is going to be just starting puberty at age 14 or 15, which is why the pedophilia age range stops at 13. It includes 13 just to be safe."


 * As for the "reproductively valid behavior" argument, we can't do anything about what these researchers state. Wikipedia is simply reporting what they have stated. But keep in mind that the hebephilia age range does extend up to 14. At ages 13 and 14, most people are capable of reproduction. Flyer22 (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I fixed the format, I answered to Legitimus above, there was an edit conflict- I was posting at the same time as Flyer22. I posted below Legitimus for the flow on the discussion.2A02:2F01:1059:F002:0:0:BC19:A2D0 (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Flyer22, I address much of what you're saying in my answer to Legitimus, although when I wrote it I hadn't yet read your post, you are referring to some of the same things I wanted to discuss.2A02:2F01:1059:F002:0:0:BC19:A2D0 (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case maybe we should move this discussion to Talk:Hebephilia.Legitimus (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * IP, the APA DSM-5 | U 03 Pedophilic Disorder proposal link isn't working for me right now, but the proposal does classify 11-14 as "early pubescent." You are correct that it is faulty to do that. Despite my keeping it as "early" in the past because stating "early to mid" borders on ephebophilia (15-19), "early to mid" is more accurate. The fact that it goes all the way up to 14 is no doubt a major reason why controversy exists over classifying this as a mental disorder. 14 and 15 are not as different as 13 and 15, after all. I would suggest you take this to the Talk:Hebephilia page because that is where a discussion about that article's content should be had, but I see that you left a note in a Hebephilia edit summary pointing editors here. James Cantor/User:James Cantor, one of the creators of this new term, should be commenting on this soon. If he doesn't, you should ask him to weigh in here. Flyer22 (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I left a message on James Cantor's talk page2A02:2F01:1059:F002:0:0:BC19:A2D0 (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The main problem here isn't the age itself; and I don't think that discussing this in terms of numbers is the most appropriate, given the fact that the ages when puberty milestones are reached differ considerably, not only between different children, but between different parts of the world/different populations. The problem is that it is not clear weather Hebephilia refers to children during the first 2 years after the first changes of puberty started (therefore sex with such children would not be reproductively valid, although these children are not pre-pubescent anymore) or does it refer to children who have reached the first period/first ejaculation but are not yet fully developed; or does it refer to both categories??2A02:2F01:1059:F002:0:0:BC19:A2D0 (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Hi, folks. I appreciate how easy it is to get these confused, since various groups/documents use these terms in slightly different ways. I, personally, don't see a problem with the hebephilia page. I can imagine benefits to base definitions on Tanner Stage rather than age. That is, the preference for persons with Tanner I features would be pedophilia; for Tanner 2-3 features, hebephilia; Tanner 4, ephebophilia; and Tanner 5, teleiophilia. Unfortunately, in practice, the clinician can know only the ages of victims of sexual abuse; there is no opportunity to examine victims' developmental stages. Thus, in practice, clinicians need an attempt to translate Tanner stages into approximate age ranges...but puberty has fuzzy boundaries. Is that a help?— James Cantor (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, so if I understand correctly, sexual attraction to children Tanner 2-3 is hebephilia; so for a girl, Tanner II is 10-11.5 y/o and Tanner III is 11.5-13 y/o, and that would be hebephilia. So what I don't understand is: why does the article on hebephilia say that: 1.there is huge controversy about weather hebephilia is a mental disorder, and 2. opponents say it should't be considered a mental disorder because it deals with reproductively valid behavior. Both of these claims are mostly untrue. As I stated above, the The ICD-10 defines pedophilia as "A sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age." and our article here defines it as "13 or younger". Also sex with 10-12y/o children is generally not reproductively valid; generally speaking an "average" girl starts her first signs of puberty at around 10, has menarche at around 12.5 is fully developed at around 15. My understanding is that the controversy would be mostly for attraction to the girl at around 13-14 y/o (Tanner IV is 13-15), not for Tanner II & Tanner III (especially not Tanner II) as these are generally understood to be mental disorders and mostly not reproductively valid.2A02:2F01:1059:F002:0:0:BC19:A2D0 (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the lede of both pedophilia and hebephilia state that various groups/documents use these terms in different ways, as stated above; in order to alleviate the confusion of the readers? And shouldn't the fact that there is controversy both regarding the cut-off between pedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia as terms; and the cut-off when the attraction  to a developmental stage is a mental disorder or when it isn't any more be mentioned more prominently in the lede of these articles?  2A02:2F01:1059:F002:0:0:BC19:A2D0 (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * James, given the age ranges used in the Tanner scale article, and hebephilia and ephebophilia concerning post-pubescents in addition to pubescents, I wouldn't use that as explaining the differences between pedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia. Your hebephilia age range, as proposed, goes up to 14. And some girls are either done or almost done with puberty by age 14. Ephebophilia mostly regards post-pubescents, and therefore more so fits Tanner 5 -- teleiophilia (adult).


 * IP, the controversy over classifying hebephilia as a mental disorder is supported by reliable sources in the Hebephilia article. However, it doesn't state "controversy" or "huge controversy" in the article (though "controversy" is stated in a few of the sources); it simply states "Debate is ongoing over whether hebephilia is a mental disorder" and that reactions to classifying it as a mental disorder have mostly been critical "on the basis that it pathologizes reproductively valid behavior in order to uphold current social and legal standards." Again, this debate does exist and for those reasons. Since hebephilia ranges from ages 11-14, it covers most and sometimes all of the pubertal years, for girls anyway, and so I'm certain that that's why these researchers are saying that "it pathologizes reproductively valid behavior in order to uphold current social and legal standards." Karen Franklin, one of the opponents, has a page about it that can help you better understand their arguments; for an in-depth look at their arguments, you need access to the journals. Here is one journal which currently allows full access without payment and will give you insight into the matter.


 * As for the leads, the lead of this article does state "The term has a range of definitions, as found in psychiatry, psychology, the vernacular, and law enforcement." And, as noted above, it goes over more than just the medical definition. But hebephilia and ephebophilia are not commonly used terms, even among researchers, and hebephilia being added to the pedophilia definition is still a proposal. As I stated before, it is not official. And, finally, there is no scientific controversy regarding ephebophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Pedophilic Disorder link I provided above is working for me again and I see that, in addition to it using "early pubescent" like I stated it does, it now uses the Tanner scale for pedophilia and hebephilia in the way that James has. Flyer22 (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I understand what you're saying, but hebephilia, as it is defined in its article, ranges from 11 to 14. As I said above, there is an immense difference between 11 and 14 - most researchers probably consider sexual attraction to an 11y/o as a mental disorder and sex with an 11y/o is generally not reproductively valid (i.e an 11y/o girl generally can't get pregnant). On the other hand, most researchers probably do not consider sexual attraction to a 14y/o as a mental disorder and sex with a 14y/o is generally reproductively valid (i.e a 14y/o girl generally does get pregnant). That's one of the problems with that article.2A02:2F01:1059:F002:0:0:BC19:A2D0 (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Does anybody object if I make some changes to the Hebephilia article? First I'd like to change "Hebephilia refers to a primary or exclusive sexual interest in individuals in the early years of puberty (generally ages 11–14, though onset of puberty may vary)" to "Hebephilia refers to a primary or exclusive sexual interest in pubescent individuals aged 11-14"; my reason for this is that 14 isn't "early pubescent", definitely not for a girl.2A02:2F01:1059:F001:0:0:BC19:A01F (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds ok to me, though I feel like the 11-14 needs some kind of qualifier like "approximately."Legitimus (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, something like ""Hebephilia is defined as a primary or exclusive sexual interest in pubescent individuals aged approximately 11-14"2A02:2F01:1059:F001:0:0:BC19:A01F (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I made this change and other small changes.2A02:2F01:1059:F001:0:0:BC19:A01F (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Some thoughts/rambling from me: I'm okay with the changes as well, IP, although the rewording will definitely make people wonder exactly how hebephilia is distinguished from ephebophilia. That is, other than the age range. Going by sources defining the term, it's distinguished because it is about the sexual preference for people who are in the early years of puberty. Why that goes all the way up to 14 (and I've mentioned this before, but), I can only assume is to cover boys who may start puberty late in their 12th year or right at their 13th year. For those boys, 14 would still be early puberty. But it also seems that the DSM-5 proposal has discarded the 11-14 age range, since that is no longer in the source about it listed above. If we go by the age ranges in the Tanner scale article, then that would place the hebephilia age range at 9-12/13. But where would age 14 go? Age 14 had to go somewhere and so it seems researchers decided that it fits better with hebephilia than with ephebophilia. But, again, if we go by the Tanner scale article, and that ephebophilia is defined as "generally ages 15 to 19," ephebophilia fits Stage 5 more than any of the other stages. But the Ephebophilia article does give two definitions for it starting at 14, and there are of course going to be some people who are pubescent at age 15 (more so boys).


 * As for what sexual attraction most researchers do or do not consider a mental disorder based on "reproductively valid behavior"... We have to remember that, according to the ones who have defined hebephilia, a person is only considered to have a mental disorder if they have a sexual preference for this age group. Like the article states, "While individuals with a sexual preference for adults (i.e., teleiophiles) may have some sexual interest in pubescent-aged individuals, the term hebephilia is reserved for those who prefer pubescent-aged individuals over adults." Preference or exclusivity is also stressed with regard to pedophilia, although most researchers don't consider any sexual attraction to a prepubescent to be normal. Some of these researchers who consider hebephilia to be a pathologization of "reproductively valid behavior" are also defining "reproductively valid behavior" as the sexual attraction alone -- meaning the physical appearance of early pubescent girls who have not had their first menstrual cycle as well, since, as mentioned above, breast and hip development happens before the first menstrual cycle. And despite 12.[fill in digit here] years being the average age for girls' first menstrual cycle (especially in the West), we also have to remember that there are a lot of girls who achieve reproductive capability before that point. List of youngest birth mothers certainly shows that. Some girls are hitting puberty at the age of 7 (although 7 is more so precocious puberty), and others at age 8 or 9, which means that they will reach reproductive capability before age 12. These girls are also in the hebephilia age range, which can make a person wonder why the age range was designated at 11-14. But the simple fact is that it wouldn't make any sense to cut the pedophilia age range off at any of those younger ages, especially considering that it's very rare that a boy will hit puberty at age 7 or 8, and (despite the age ranges given in the Tanner scale article) 9 doesn't seem all that common for them either. But why not start the hebephilia age range at 10? Most sources state that girls begin puberty at age 10. 10 is also common for boys, and 9 is now common for girls.


 * Anyway, as I was stating, the "reproductively valid behavior" stance is also referring to sexual attraction alone. This source, which isn't explicitly about hebephilia, says, "Imagine being eight or nine years old and having men hit on you because you have breasts. Grown women have enough trouble dealing with unwanted sexual advances – imagine being in the fourth grade." So it would seem, especially going by some of what I've read with regard to diagnosing hebephilia as a mental disorder, it isn't so much about whether these girls can reproduce...but rather that they look like they can -- meaning they resemble physically mature human females. All of these philias are about sexual attraction to a specific physical development stage. Flyer22 (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia) 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 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 Wikipedia. But I don't agree with the inclusion of "The AMA board of trustees apparently had to step in due to a small group of psychologists digging their heels in and not accepting the opinions of the wider community of mental health professionals." The wording "digging their heels in"? Completely inappropriate for an encyclopedic article, unless it's a quote and is put in quotation marks. Flyer22 (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ya, and even if that's a direct quote, it's still a quote from a partisan blog. I think we need a better source.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:50, 6 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)


 * Letter to the editor
 * integrated
 * Letter to the editor
 * Letter to the editor
 * Letter to the editor
 * Invited submission, not peer-reviewed; Franklin declined opportunity to rebut
 * letter to the editor
 * Letter to the editor
 * Letter to the editor
 * letter to the editor
 * Letter to the editor
 * Letter to the editor
 * Letter to the editor

From the EL section
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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Meet the Hebephiles, in Psychology Today
 * Pedophiles, Hebephiles, and Ephebophiles, Oh My: Erotic Age Orientation, in Scientific American

NPOV tag
I can't take it any more. I just tagged this article for massive WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE issues. This is yet another "phenomenon vs. term" debate within human sexuality. "Hebephilia" is a fictitious diagnosis, one of many created by an activist minority in the mental health field to pathologize sex and gender minorities. The recent attempts by these "experts" to codify this as a real disease failed miserably, as the more circumspect majority of the field recognized the many serious problems of the entire conceptualization. Unfortunately, one of the people in that activist minority, James Cantor, happens to be an editor here at Wikipedia. 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:



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 Wikipedia readers, who are not going to come away with an accurate view of expert consensus as this is currently written. About 50% of this article is comprised of CAMH-related POV, when that is a tiny fraction of the field's POV. We either need something like nine times more info on the majority view, or we need to reduce the CAMH view substantially and make it clear how far outside consensus this position is. All articles where CAMH POV is over-represented need to be reviewed. Jokestress (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've linked to the citations when I could find them. I don't know if Green is a MEDRS or not.  We now have at least 20 sources that could be integrated, which is excellent.  The page should reflect the weight found in the sources, not in the opinions of editors.  It could be that the sexology community has rejected the diagnosis, but we'll have to reflect what the sources say, not preconceptions.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, note that all five of these citations are already included above. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. I picked the ones that seemed most representative, but all of FiachraByre's should be included. Further, as I believe I have pointed out previously, when there's a debate on whether to pathologize something or not, as we have here, MEDRS does not apply, because that policy immediately downplays or eliminates an entire POV. People who see the world through a medical lens and want to medicalize everything are going to claim that medical texts are preferable, when reliance on them is a symptom of the problem itself. I know that's more of a debate to have over at MEDRS, but this is an excellent illustration of the problem of pathologizing human diversity. Jokestress (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no comment about James and most of the other arguments made in this section, but I did state above, in the section, that "I agree with MrADHD that we need a bit more detail about why hebephilia has been rejected as a paraphilia and mental disorder by a lot of researchers." Flyer22 (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * James kindly sent me some reprints, I believe of the LTTE and Blanchard documents (have to check tomorrow). My plan was to integrate them as attributed statements to individuals.  As I accumulate more, I very much expect to start shortening the statements; even though they're experts and academics, a LTTE =/= an actual article, and that's a lot of opinion to include.  Given how many sources we have, particularly on google books, we're better of drawing from a wider set of sources than we are drawing deeply from the LTTEs.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

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


 * I'm happy to email copies to anyone who likes, of course. All three articles contained samples both of pedophiles and of hebephiles.  Indeed, the hebephiles typically outnumber the pedophiles.  Because there are strong word limits on abstracts, it is true that I/we have frequently referred only to pedophilia and provided the full description in the main text.  Despite remarks to the contrary, I/we have never studied hebephilia unto itself.  All of our studies have investigated hebephilia alongside pedophilia.  (Upcoming exception: I have a student who is interested in hebephilia per se, so this may change in the future.)— James Cantor (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Send 'em all, please, I've pinged you. But I don't expect to expand the discussion much more than it already is, I still don't really like using primary sources and it is all coming out of a single group.  Also, if you've got all eight responses to this article, that'd be great.  The current article discusses the fact that there were responses to Blanchard's article, but not why they objected, nor Blanchard's replies.  Saying "there is a controversy" is way, way less helpful than "the controversy was over this".
 * Would you happen to have a source for the etymology? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Scratch the etymology, I found a reference. Which brings me to a new point - I don't know if the term is necessarily that rare.  Though google hits don't count for much, google books turns up over 1300 hits for hebephilia and almost 1200 for hebephile.  Rather surprisingly, there appears to be a large number of sources to draw upon.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

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


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


 * Franklin is one of the defence persons. It is in her financial interest to speak in defence of persons accused of sexual improprieties involving children and other crimes.  On two occasions, she made claims about the research on hebephilia in the California Psychologist that had to be retracted.  You can also find this extensive fact-checking of the claims she made in her only published article on hebephilia: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3382737/
 * In a topic as controversial as hebephilia, RS quality should go up, not down. It is perfectly fine, of course, to summarize the various positions, but it is not appropriate to treat Franklin's claims about "what the buzz is" as if it were a genuine accounting of the opinion of the AMA.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


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

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


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


 * Ideally what we need is a few sentences about the AMA turning down the addition of hebephilia to the DSM-V as a psychiatric disorder and then a few sentences from critics of the DSM V's decision and hey presto we have a neutral article. Also a couple of sentences about why some experts feel it should be a diagnosable psychiatric disorder and a couple of sentences about why some experts feel that it should not be a diagnosable psychiatric disorder. Ok it is not quite as simple as that as you need to consider things like WP:WEIGHT but you get the idea. There is no debate about age of consent laws as well - the debate isn't pro-hebephilia versus anti-hebephilia. It is a debate between are people who preferentially offend against young adolescents purely criminal offenders to be dealt with by criminal justice or are all hebephiles mentally disordered. This might need to be clarified in the article.-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  04:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be the APA, not the AMA. Personally, I think the article should stick the known facts – - i.e. that this proposed diagnostic category was not included in the DSM-V. Until there's a decent rs, preferably by a third party, covering the specific reasons for its rejection by the APA, the role of the Board of Trustees in the dispute, and the putative political machinations of "psychologists", I'd be inclined to leave it out. Due to considerations of weight I think the article would benefit, however, from a more extensive treatment of the objections to the diagnosis in the scholarly literature. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with MrADHD that we need a bit more detail about why hebephilia has been rejected as a paraphilia and mental disorder by a lot of researchers. FormerIP reverted this, stating that "It's no good adding a random source. This article doesn't contain the wording it is being used to support," but both sources do support that material...although it's more so the second source that supports the "it pathologizes reproductively valid behavior in order to uphold current social and legal standards" wording. The wording doesn't have to be the exact wording used by the sources; in fact, we strive not to use exact wording unless it's in a quote, per WP:Copyright. I'll ask FormerIP to weigh in on this. Flyer22 (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * First, I have to say that I didn't notice there were two sources when I made that revert, so apologies for that.
 * The topic is sensitive, so I think we should take care to use only the highest quality sourcing. The Psychology Today website seems to me to be something halfway between Scientific American Mind and Cosmopolitan, and I don't think it cuts it. The phrase "many of them critical on the basis that it pathologizes reproductively valid behavior" (based on that source) is extremely sloppy, and I don't think it is at all reflective of the primary literature. I find the idea that "reproductive validity" is at all clinically (or morally - our article currently fails to highlight the distinction) relevant somewhat offensive. It smacks of scientistic apologism for sexual abuse (that's not to criticise the good faith addition, because clearly it is in the source). Imagine general application of this as a criterion. The implication would seem to be that homosexuality might be considered a mental illness. But, in a heterosexual context, it would rule out incest, sexual sadism (paraphilias in DSM-IV) and raptophilia (which will apparently be in the appendix of DSM-V).
 * The second part of what I reverted is "in order to uphold current social and legal standards". Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough, but I can't see this wording supported by the Sexual Offender Treatment source. Formerip (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're coming from on this, FormerIP. I'm not hard-pressed on getting rid of the Psychology Today source or for using it. As for the primary literature, or non-primary literature for that matter, as has been discussed extensively on this talk page these past few days, it does appear that most researchers do not feel that hebephilia should be categorized as a paraphilia or mental disorder and that this is because hebephilia concerns sexual attraction to individuals who have clearly reached puberty (have attained adult features in some form, or completely considering that some boys and girls complete puberty by age 14). From what I have read, which is a lot on this topic, that is the main reason that adding hebephilia as a paraphilia/mental disorder was rejected by the American Psychiatric Association. They certainly were not trying to have "apologism for sexual abuse," as if to say that a man engaging in sexual activity with a pubescent 11-year-old girl is perfectly fine behavior because she's of reproductive age, but rather to stress that categorizing hebephilia as a paraphilia/mental disorder would be based on social and legal standards instead of on science. They also stress that the age of consent varies, such as being 14 in enough places, and that some cultures permit adult sexual relations with those who have attained puberty...and even designate those who have attained puberty as adults. In contrast, adult sexual attraction to, sexual actions with, prepubescents is frowned upon by all cultures (from what I have read/heard/studied anyway). There is this matter regarding prepubescents in certain cultures, but that's about the supposed power that the ingestion of semen will provide rather than sexual activity. Disregarding the semen point, the second source extensively discusses rejecting hebephilia as a mental disorder because of these aspects...which is why I stated that it supports the wording you reverted. I'm fine with using different wording for that material, however, especially because of the points you brought up. All that stated, I stress that hebephilia is about the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to pubescents; that's one reason it's considered abnormal by some researchers -- because these individuals would prefer a pubescent sexual partner over one who has clearly completed puberty or looks to have completed puberty. Flyer22 (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wakefield addresses this incidentally, it's about three pages worth of reading and it discusses the legal/cultural issues involved. I don't mind PT for some statements of fact, but we should certainly stick to the peer reviewed literature when discussing arguments for and against inclusion.  My very rough impression (hopelessly premature) is that at least some of the objections are due to a lack of adequate data to justify a new or expanded category - a complaint made against many of the proposed DSM-5 diagnoses I believe.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think that's correct. More specifically, to be classed as a paraphilia, something has to be "rare and bizarre" (without looking it up, that may not be the exact wording, but it captures it). The main reason for hebephilia not being accepted for DSM would seem to be that there is insufficient evidence to show that it is especially rare. As commented above, though, these things are done by voting, so we can't say precisely. Some sort of communique was issued saying that it was intended to be conservative in terms of redefining paraphilia, which does give an indication that this was the main reason.
 * What is definitely not the case though, is that the decision was reached "because hebephilia concerns sexual attraction to individuals who have clearly reached puberty". That would be a purely moral, rather than clinical or scientific, basis for making the decision, so we cannot say or imply that it was the reason, or even a consideration. Formerip (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * FormerIP, the Paraphilia article goes over all the ways that paraphilia is defined. And when I stated "it does appear that most researchers do not feel that hebephilia should be categorized as a paraphilia or mental disorder and that this is because hebephilia concerns sexual attraction to individuals who have clearly reached puberty (have attained adult features in some form, or completely considering that some boys and girls complete puberty by age 14)," that is because that, and the rest of what I stated above about the aspects that have been debated, is essentially what (a summary of the main reasons) I have read in the sources about not categorizing hebephilia as a paraphilia or mental disorder; the pubescent aspect very much has to do with the debate. If that had been the sole reason that hebephilia was excluded from the DSM, I don't understand what you mean about that being "a purely moral" decision. A lot of researchers have argued that there is no scientific basis that primarily or exclusively finding pubescents sexually attractive is a mental disorder. There's so much drama over all of that it can make one's head spin, however. Flyer22 (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously, "sexual attraction to pubescent adults" is the definition of hebephilia, so it is not going to go unmentioned in the literature. But the definition can't possibly be the same as the reason for its rejection for DSM. Imagine dramatising the rationale:
 * Can sexual attraction to pubescent humans be considered a paraphilia?
 * No.
 * Why not?
 * Because it is sexual attraction to pubescent humans.
 * OK, I see your point.
 * This would clearly be absurd. Formerip (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hebephilia is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to pubescents. And, yes, that it involves older adults being sexually attracted to "pubescent adults" is, I'm certain, one of the reasons for its rejection with regard to the DSM. Not only do I not see why that is so difficult to accept, the sources regarding the debate make it very clear that this is one of the main oppositions that researchers had/have with categorizing hebephilia as a paraphilia/mental disorder. Again, I have read most of the debate on this, and every rationale given for not categorizing hebephilia as a paraphilia/mental disorder. And I've summarized those reasons above. Reasons confirmed by WLU, who has admittedly read far less on this than me and others who have watched over/edited this article for years. If you were to read as much as I have on this, including reading arguments from those like Karen Franklin, then I don't understand how you would not see that the pubescent aspect is very much a reason for the DSM's rejection of hebephilia. I'm not going on my personal opinion about why a lot of researchers reject hebephilia as a paraphilia/mental disorder. It's in the sources. And while Franklin can be considered biased, a lot of what she has stated about what has happened behind the scenes -- how researchers feel -- is true. Flyer22 (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I would apply two cautions here. There are several terms one might use to describe who is who, but "researchers" rather misleading.  The folks who publish research on this topic pretty much support changing the DSM to match the data.  The critics are (mostly) defence folks and activists like Charles Moser who say that no sexual interest (including pedophilia) should be in the DSM.  The other caution is mixing up "pubescent" and "adolescent."  This will be trickier to handle, but very many writers continue to confuse "puberty" with "adolescence."  That is, even though they (mis-)use the word puberty, they are generally referring to adolescence.  As I said, these are not (in general) peer-reviewed articles that underwent fact-checking, and many contain factual errors.— James Cantor (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * James, when I state "researchers," I am also referring those who rejected adding hebephilia to the DSM. You have very likely read more than me on this, you deal with it in your life in general, but I have not seen most of the critics being just "defense folks" and activists. As for confusing puberty with adolescence, we both know that adolescence is a wide spectrum, but it's usually defined as beginning with puberty (I just got through extensively discussing that at Talk:Puberty not too long ago); so that's likely where some of the confusion you speak of comes from -- people thinking that puberty encompasses the entire span of adolescence and therefore thinking that hebephilia concerns older adolescents (those beyond 14) as well. Flyer22 (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But defining adolescence is tricky anyway, especially with regard to when it ends (as discussed at Talk:Puberty and in the Adolescence article); for some people, because "the end of adolescence and the beginning of adulthood varies by country and by function," puberty does encompass the entire span of adolescence (but that's only if you consider adolescence to end with a coming of age ritual or at legal adulthood). Flyer22 (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, the context does indeed make it clear that they were the ones you were referring to. It was the term "researcher" I thought was inaccurate; they're mostly clinicians.  Because the major clash has been between those reporting the research data and those commenting on its application, I thought the distinction important in selecting an accurate group-noun.
 * Re defence orientation, it's no real secret. Each of their private practice websites emphasize the markets they aim for.  You are probably correct entirely that my awareness of where they're coming from is because of my day job.  It's not the kind of thing that appears in 3rd party bio's often (except for the one I linked to about Plaud).
 * Re adolescence: Yes, absolutely!  That's exactly why adolescence is not a good referent for the definition, and the data repeatedly support us on that.  I'm just saying that many of the folks who express problems with hebephilia being in the DSM are actually talking about ephebophilia.  That is, there are authors (non-experts) who say (in non-fact-checked outlets) things like 'Hebephilia is the sexual interest in adolescents, but being attracted to adolescents is normal' (or even worse: 'Hebephilia is the sexual interest in pubescents, but being attracted to adolescents is normal...').  I'm just pointing out that it would be an error to take claims aimed at hebephilia-as-interest-in-adolescents and apply it to hebephilia-as-interest-in-pubescents.  The research data are very specific (and becoming more specific still, over time) about which definitions of hebephilia are scientifically useful (Tanner stages 2-3, usually ages 11-14) and which have not been not (Tanner >3, and about any cutoff over 14).  To repeat my refrain, I'm just recommending caution in accurately reflecting the content of the sources in an controversial area.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed lede
Per WP:BRD, here is my proposed lede:

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

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

An editor has objected to this. Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with FormerIP's revert. Also note that I erroneously used the Herold APA citation to verify the "rejection" of hebephilia.  The document itself doesn't actually use the term itself, it is Franklin's blog entry that states it was "rejected".  I'm uncomfortable using the blog entry for a statement like this without attribution (and would rather not use it at all).  It inappropriately puts words in the APA's mouth.  I'm hoping that in the future the APA will clarify why it included or didn't include hebephilia (along with a multitude of other proposals) so we don't have to rely on rather partisan blog posts.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Ewing passage uses "rejected," as this is that standard language in court cases. "Significantly, the American Psychiatric Association considered and rejected hebephilia as a diagnostic category..." Jokestress (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Primarily, hebephilia is a social phenomenon. In terms of it also being a putative psychiatric disorder, this should be covered in the body of the article and mentioned in the lead (including its rejection for DSM-V - I think that wording is accurate). As well as giving a very one-sided characterisation of a complex debate, the recent revision to the lead gave massively undue weight to the clinical status of hebephilia. Formerip (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I also agree with FormerIP's revert. The lead is mostly fine as it is/is quite neutral. As for the American Psychiatric Association issue, we could simply mention that they did not include hebephilia in the DSM-5, but this already seems to be covered in the Attempt to include in the DSM-5 section where it mentions academic conferences for the American Association of Psychiatry and Law and International Association for the Treatment of Sexual Offenders. Flyer22 (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see the Ewing source being relevant to the DSM decision as it was published in 2011 and the DSM-5 announcement was on December 1st, 2012. I would really prefer to have the APA's take on things rather than relying on a blog that has explicitly stated it's very anti-hebephilia.  My preferred wording would be along the lines of "the APA did not include hebephilia in the DSM-5" rather than using "rejected"; close to the same thing but the latter implies some sort of massive flaw rather than a lack of data.  Anyone know if the APA is going to release an accompanying rationale for why some changes were included and others not?
 * Incidentally, I think my choice of "attempts to include in the DSM-5" is a terrible section title, improvements solicited :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * FormerIP, since hebephilia is mostly discussed within a clinical context and the general public has never heard of the term, I wouldn't state that it is primarily a social phenomenon.


 * WLU, yeah, that's what I basically stated in my 01:42 comment about the American Psychiatric Association wording. As for the "Attempt to include in the DSM-5" heading, I prefer titling it "DSM-5 debate." Also, I don't feel that we should list all of the proposed criteria; it just looks sloppy to me. Readers can go to the sources if they want to see all of that. Flyer22 (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a wiki so feel free to change it, I'm more than happy to see my shoddy prose improved. It'd be nice to have a thumbnail sketch of the criteria though, I think the list could be changed to a two-sentence summary.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I 'll change the heading to my suggestion. You take care of the summary? Flyer22 (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

FormerIP, the social phenomenon of people being sexually attracted to pubescent people under the age of consent is distinct from the conceptualization of it as a paraphilia, which is part of the problem here. The term hebephilia is by definition a diagnostic category, and as such, this article should be primarily about the diagnosis, not the phenomenon. That's what I meant when I said this is a "phenomenon vs. term" debate. The lede makes it sound as if "hebephilia" is a real thing instead of an iatrogenic artifact proposed as a means of social control. Jokestress (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If hebephilia is by definition a diagnostic category, why can't I find it in a diagnostic manual?
 * Framing a "phenomenon vs term debate" does not really make sense. The term is simply the word we use to put a label on the phenomenon. Your argument that we should make an article about the diagnoses rather than the phenomenon draws a totally artificial distinction. A good WP article on sociological topic will look at it through different lenses, not choose one to build a fence around.
 * It's a separate issue that this is a term used most commonly in psychological literature - that is to do with the content balance of the article overall, not what we would arbitrarily include and exclude.Formerip (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * FormerIP, you can't find it in a diagnostic manual because it is an unrecognized clinical diagnosis. I'd be less generous in what I call it, but we need to stick to sources. Saying hebephilia "is" this or that in our current lede is a tautology used by proponents of the term attempting to establish the legitimacy of the term, hence my reification comment earlier. Karen Franklin says, "hebephilia is not a formally recognized diagnosis." Allen Frances talks about the "numerous conceptual problems with the diagnosis of hebephilia." Paul Good discusses the construction of a fictitious diagnosis. Per POV, we need to be very clear that "hebephilia" is considered a spurious concept, in part because of the term itself, and in part because of how the diagnosis has been proposed as legitimate in manuals and courts and rejected as a diagnosis in both. The first sentence should be very clear about all that. Please propose a different first sentence if you don't like the one I proposed. Jokestress (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Jokestress, all definitions are tautologies, so that isn't a problem.
 * The article should indeed be very clear that hebephilia is considered a spurious concept, by some, and it should also be clear that it is not so considered by others.
 * Regarding the first sentence, WP:LEAD says "the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist". AFAICT, that would be "Hebophilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in pubescent children", following the model at Ephebophilia but differing from Pedophilia by not using the term "psychiatric disorder". Formerip (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The articles you mention have their own problems, but it's too much of a dispiriting grind to deal with the people camped out there. The difference here is that this article, especially the lede, is an egregious misrepresentation of scientific consensus. It's the equivalent to stating "Nymphomania is an affliction of the womb which causes sexual insatiability in women." I am sure there are people on the fringe who still believe that, but the consensus is that "nymphomania" is a fake disease. Per NPOV, the lede needs to clearly state:
 * Hebephilia is an unrecognized clinical diagnosis described by proponents as a primary or exclusive sexual interest in pubescent individuals approximately 11–14 years old.
 * or some variant of that:
 * Hebephilia is a proposed diagnosis...
 * Hebephilia is described by proponents of the concept as...
 * Hebephilia is a controversial diagnosis...
 * Hebephilia is an attempt to pathologize...
 * followed by whatever definition proponents use. It needs to be very clear up front that the legitimacy of the concept and diagnosis is rejected by the majority of experts in the field and has been for a long time. There's no indication in the first sentence that this spurious definition/concept is widely rejected. Jokestress (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The page would be greatly enhanced by having these points integrated, provided sources can be found. Wakefield may do so, I'll have to re-read it in more detail later on.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above appears to be overstating the situation. The International Classification of Diseases (by the World Health Organization) does indeed include diagnosing hebephilia.  Its definition of paedophilia is: "a sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age".apps/icd/icd10online/index.htm?gf60.htm  Only the term would change, who gets a diagnosis remains the same.  The APA decision can be described in different ways, but it is factually incorrect to refer to hebephilia as "unrecognized," or "not in any diagnostic manual,' etc.  The proposal would have brought the U.S. into line with the rest of the world in being explicit, but it would not have added anything not already recognized as a diagnosable condition.— James Cantor (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I still agree that the lead should start off stating that hebephilia is the primary or exclusive sexual interest in pubescent individuals. It shouldn't start off with the biased "unrecognized clinical diagnosis described by proponents" and all that other biased WP:Weasel wording. It's neutral as it is now. Flyer22 (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed on the start. I don't think anyone can say that the overall lede is yet neutral, however.  Including critics but not supporters?  Describing O'Donohue in a way that makes him sound like he agrees with the others instead of saying the opposite of what they do?— James Cantor (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Like many controversial articles, I think we're better off writing the body first, then the lead. The body rather unhelpfully points to areas of disagreement, without indicating the substance or reasoning - and that's dumb.  It may be that after working through the unintegrated sources, an obvious consensus, or majority-minority scholarly opinion on hebephilia may fall out.  I'll go through a couple more LTTE.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, James, I sort of misspoke on that. I agree that those who support the proposal should be mentioned for balance. But we also have to keep WP:UNDUE WEIGHT in mind. Equal balance should not be created where there isn't any. The lead is sloppy by mentioning several names anyway. And we don't need several proponent and/or supporter names adding on to that sloppiness. It should be summarized in the lead that there were/are supporters and that there were/are critics.


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


 * No worries re lede.
 * Re ICD, I think we're not yet talking about the same thing. You are entirely correct that the terminology would change; I point out the ICD to show that the-sexual-preference-for-early-pubescent-children is already something that is diagnosed throughout the world (but called paedophilia in the ICD).  So, it would be misleading to phrase things in a way that would suggest that the sexual-preference-for-early-pubescent-children is not in any diagnostic manual; it is that these folks are currently called pedophiles instead of hebephiles.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops, forgot. Re my own prior suggested definitions: Yes, that is correct.  Given a magic wand, I would indeed define pedophilia narrowly (prepubescence) and define the word hebephilia to describe the interest in pubescence.  That is, my definitions are about the whole set, not changing one without the other.  Both the ICD and DSM use broader definitions than I would.  The ICD does this by explicitly including early puberty in its definition of paedophilia, and the DSM does this by extending its operational definition of puberty to 13.  The research literature uses very many definitions (which is what causes many of the contradictions in findings).— James Cantor (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that the ICD-10's definition, and the DSM extending prepubescence to age 13, is about the overlap I mentioned above. The ICD-10 wouldn't limit the definition to "early pubertal age" instead of just "pubertal" otherwise. As for the research literature, while you and I have discussed the different definitions (I wouldn't say that there are many) and the contradictions, we have also agreed that most of the research literature limits pedophilia to the primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescents. This is how researchers usually distinguish between pedophiles and child molesters. It's just that some sources don't limit the attraction to having a strong sexual attraction to prepubescents, but rather include any sexual attraction to prepubescents, and feel that an adult sexually abusing a prepubescent child should be automatically categorized as pedophilia as well. Flyer22 (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Plaud as a source?
My final caution before heading to brunch is to distinguish notable claims by topic experts from WP:GOSSIP. For example, even though Plaud claims that Blanchard (et al) did not include a control group, anyone reading the article will find that there was in fact a control group (called "teleiophiles" in that article). FWIW, Plaud was kicked out of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers for ethical violations (available from the ATSA newsletter archives). As I've said, the major opposition has come from defence types who would lose the basis of substantial incomes if they could no longer be paid to argue against hebephilia in court: Regarding Plaud:. The claims in the various letters were not fact-checked, and engaging in such fact-checking will reveal very many falsehoods in those claims.— James Cantor (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The threshold for reliability is publishing venue though, not moral standing. The real issue for me is that a large number of LTTE were published, along with rebuttals.  Indeed, Blanchard does seem to rebut Plaud's letter rather handily.  I suspect as I read and integrate more of them, it will become apparent that many of the complaints are spurious and we'll end up shortening that section dramatically.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Consensus knows best. Holler if you need copies of anything.— James Cantor (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * FIP, I very much agree. Blanchard's reply to Plaud is the kind of "nets to zero" discussion that makes me inclined to remove both.  Though such a control group might have been interesting, its absence is far from crippling.  Franklin's "Pretextuality" article (quite questionably in my mind) references Blanchard's original paper, and summarizes the LTTE responses - but doesn't mention Blanchard's four-page reply.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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


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


 * Well, I don't have any COI and I support James' reversion of what you added. And I think it goes without saying that I won't be the only editor to support it. Jokestress, carrying on editing the article as if it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks is not going to get you anywhere, so please give some thought to saving everyone time and headaches. Formerip (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed the COI tag. Of the most recent 300 edits to the page, which takes it back to 2010, James' contributions represent perhaps 5%, and consist of minor wording changes, reverts and the addition of some links.  He is not a substantial contributor to the main page, and his edits are reviewed by other editors.  Claiming the views of CAMH are fringe theories is inappropriate, they appear in peer-reviewed journals and books and are seriously discussed as part of the scholarly debate over hebephilia, pedophilia and related matters of sexuality.  At worst the idea could fall into the "Questionable science" criteria of WP:FRINGE/PS, but I think it is quite clearly a mainstream topic which is subject to disagreement.
 * It may be best if both Jokestress and James refrained from editing the main page, particularly given their history of disputes with each other. I have no issue with the NPOV and UNDUE tags remaining up until the large number of missing sources have been integrated, if nothing else the presence of bland "X criticized and Y replied" is bad writing and doesn't give any sense of the real issues of disagreement.  I encourage both to make their points and suggestions on the talk page where they can be reviewed in detail.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

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:
 * 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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, seems odd to have such a reference just for the age of puberty. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/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? "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." 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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/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 ? FiachraByrne (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's not, I've removed the citation. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Franklin's list of publications
The last sentence of the first paragraph in the DSM-V section currently reads: 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)
 * "Franklin maintains a list of publications discussing the new diagnosis. "
 * Cantor's list for hebephilia publications:


 * 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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Pedohebophilic disorder
The first sentence in the second paragraph of the DSM-V section currently reads: 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)
 * "The proposed DSM-5 replacement for the pedophilia diagnosis, called pedohebophilic disorder, largely reflected the proposal of Blanchard and his colleagues. "
 * 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)
 * I believe that someone has deleted this. :-)-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  03:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Two suggestions
Nice work, WLU. Two suggestions, however: First, I wouldn't say that Blanchard or I (and co-authors) believe that hebephilia is a mental disorder. The suggestions we made in our article were much more modest, regarding how to adjust what is already in the DSM to account for the data we were reporting. (And we made more than one suggestion for how to do that.) Speaking only for myself now, I am very specific about  not declaring what is or is not mental disorder. In this article I make it explicit that I believe that DSM decisions are part science and part value-judgment, and that I am offering opinions about the science part only.   Second, I'm not sure it's appropriate to refer to Franklin's list of cites as a "list of academic articles." As I noted earlier, it is really a list of letters-to-editors (not articles), and the current phrasing suggests that they were peer reviewed etc.— James Cantor (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm battling the 'flu right now (damn you sub-optimal vaccine!) so I don't know how much concentration I can muster on the page. No promises, just like I said to MrADHD.  I may get sucked into editing the page, depends on how obsessive I end up being :)
 * Removed the word "academic" from the EL. We really should mine the crap out of both pages to expand this one.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I hate the flu. I hope that you feel better soon WLU!-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  03:30, 8 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 sign[i]ficantly." 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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 MEDMOS, MEDMOS or MEDMOS for this article. Yes, we need to find a source for the Greek goddess information. And considering that it's not a lot of material, and per my objection with it being split and your concern with it being combined, covering it in the lead seems best. Flyer22 (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * With a bit more digging, we might be able to assemble a "History" section, looks like discussion of the topic goes back to at least 1955. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I moved the History section up, per my edit summary comment. Although History sections are usually placed near the middle or at the end of Wikipedia medical articles, like etymology sections, it's more important for an article that is substantially about a term (how it is defined) to have the section(s) explaining that term placed higher in the article. We do the same with the Pedophilia article, although it's titled Etymology and definitions there...with subsections. Flyer22 (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Two comments
First, I set up MiszaBot at the top of the page to archive with a 7 day delay. Should probably be deactivated when the page slows down, but for now it'll handle archiving easily and neutrally.

Second, I'm done for the day. Though it seems narcissistic to consider this noteworthy, I have been responsible for adding much of the newer text to the page so it seems reasonable :) I will return to the page tomorrow and continue integrating sources.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I try and help and will see if I can find some content to add to this article.-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  18:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/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 MOSQUOTE; 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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/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 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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/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 Wikipedia. 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 wikipedia 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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, looking at Charles Allen Moser's Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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? Wikipedia 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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There should be nowhere on Wikipedia 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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 [this] 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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/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 Wikipedia is being misused to over-represent a pseudoscientific POV. Jokestress (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, we use "found" in Wikipedia 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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/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)
 * Rather than dealing in generalities, I'd rather locate and discuss specific sources. The reason why I started this section is because so many sources discuss the presence and arguments for hebephilia as a, if not diagnosis, then at least useful term, in involuntary commitment hearings.  I am assuming those discussions are based on some sort of research base and arguments within the scientific literature, and I am requesting that any editor who has access to or seen said sources identify them.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:58, 23 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)
 * Just a note: I recently have repeatedly stated that most researchers do not consider hebephilia a mental disorder or a paraphilia. But Cantor has criticized my use of the word "researchers" and believes that most of what he considers to be the actual researchers do view hebephilia as a psychiatric issue that should be diagnosable.


 * On the topic of COI: Jokestress, even if we were to state that all of us at this article have a COI, it still stands that your COI is pretty much on the same level of COI that you claim Cantor to have. As some of us here know, you were a part of a well-publicized campaign against J. Michael Bailey, who Cantor has supported. And you hate Cantor almost as much. Now you are at an article repeatedly attacking a diagnosis proposal made by Ray Blanchard, Cantor et al.; when these individuals are involved, it's never simply about being neutral with you; it's rather about you having, as Legitimus has stated, an axe to grind against these people. You do this at almost all such articles involving views expressed by Bailey, Cantor or other researchers you don't like. You constantly hound Cantor around Wikipedia, and that is not at all about "fair and accurate" matters. You act like Cantor is always pushing his POV and that you are never pushing yours, which is the opposite of what many others at this site have seen. For years on Wikipedia, you and Cantor have been repeatedly asked to stay away from each other, and to not edit articles that have to do with the other; it's not like you have been repeatedly asked this for nothing. Flyer22 (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"What matters is reflecting the scientific and legal consensus" Agreed, and this can only be done by integrating the best, most recent and most reliable sources; the page isn't there yet, and it is in part my fault for not continuing to read and integrate sources (obviously it's not my page but like any interested editor, the page only expands if I work at it). This section is long on assertions and short on sources, fortunately there are lots still to integrate so I will focus on that.

I do think the tags can and indeed should remain - mostly because there are too many sources missing. I also think that Jokestress has as much right as any other editor to raise concerns about the page, but more strongly do I think that she does have a nonfinancial COI and her mere assertions should be taken with a substantial grain of salt. Please, let us focus on missing and inaccurately summarized sources rather than editor opinion at least until the page has reached saturation. Let us also remember that claiming a COI does not prove a COI, outing editors is never a good thing and everything should be based on sources. Jokestress, it is very hard to assume good faith when you make demands about real-life identities when there is quite substantial evidence that anyone with a known real-life identity who disagrees with you has reason to fear harassment. And now, I will try to get all the way through at least one source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI Jokestress I have employment restrictions against using me real identity, as it could be construed as representing the views and opinions of the institute I work for. Suffice it to say I don't have a biography article of any sort on wikipedia as I'm simply not anyone notable enough, nor has anything I've published ever been referenced or used as source.  I'm also not very enthusiastic about the possibility of photos of my children being secretly posted online with obscene captions.
 * I also do need to mention that I have no opinion on whether or not hebephilia is a mental disorder. This is another reason why I have stayed out of the debate.  Though I don't think it's fair to favor certain professional's opinions who have never actually conducted any primary research in this subject area and appear to have financial and/or political stakes in opposing this.
 * I am more interested in adding information about the term (and/or very concept) in an investigative capacity. The principle (whether called "hebephilia" or something else) undeniably exists among criminal profilers and other members of law enforcement for use as a way to classify sexually-based offenders, though the actual motive that drives a criminal towards this population varies.  For now I'd rather wait for the other parts to get sorted out.Legitimus (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is off topic, but I'd kind of like to also say Andrea, would you please get off the hobbyhorse that we're not legitimate editors if we don't use our real names, OK? Your constant harping on this annoys and depresses me. I'm just a little person, Andrea. OK? I've had people (not here, but at Wikipedia Review) make credible threats to hunt me down and -- I'm not sure what. Have me lynched as a pedophile if possible, I guess, or at at any rate destroy my life. I'm just a little person, Andrea. I don't have a fancy job or a Wikipedia article or lot of money or a reading public or a foundation backing me up or whatever. Is that OK with you Andrea? Is it OK with you if I still edit the Wikipedia even if I don't have those nice things? That would be nice, because I do like editing the Wikipedia, so if I have your permission to continue doing so even if I don't use my real name, I'd be grateful. Because, you know, maybe I work with children in a position of trust, or maybe I have a position of trust in my community, or something like that (I'm obviously not going to say if I do or not, but maybe). And I'm just a little person, as I said, and if someone likes you decides to come after me, using the kind of tactics for which you are so well noted, I don't really have a whole lot to defend myself with. I'm different from you in that way, Andrea. Is that OK too? Is that something you can understand? I suppose probably not, but even if not, how about a nice hot steaming cup of... tea, or something? Herostratus (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Herostratus, I believe civility and fair dealing suffer because of anonymity on contentious topics at Wikipedia. I believe topics like this should require people to identify themselves, due to the potential for people like yourself editing topics of this nature. If you have concerns that your behavior here may affect your real life, you should probably think about changing your behavior. You would never have been so disrespectful above if you weren't using a pseudonym. It's only because you believe there are no real-life consequences for your behavior here. You may have a massive COI. You might be the former head of NAMBLA for all we know. I get credible threats and all sorts of harassment and attacks on a regular basis, but I am not going to let silly stuff like that worry me. I encourage everyone to identify themselves or at least comport themselves as if they were using their real names. Since you seem interested in doing neither, maybe you can go edit elsewhere while the rest of us try to reach consensus on this complex topic. If you have some RAEG to express to me in the future, please put it on my talk page or email me. If you have a COI to disclose or a point about content to add here, you are welcome to join in.
 * Legitimus, as I have said a million times, this is a phenomenon vs. term debate. Of course there are people primarily attracted to minors within very narrow groups based on levels of sexual maturity. The question is how to organize a theoretical framework for such interests. The consensus among medical and legal experts is that "hebephilia" is a problematic conceptual framework that should not be codified. This article need to reflect that clearly and explain why, with a little bit of space given for arguments of the activist minority trying to make this concept happen, in proportion to the overwhelming consensus against it. Jokestress (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Herostratus the former head of NAMBLA? Laughable, and you know it; otherwise, he wouldn't be considered one of the members of what you call "the camp" who is overly sensitive to making sure that pedophiles, child sexual abusers and certain others don't push their pro-pedophile, pro-"nothing abnormal about adults engaging in sexual activity with prepubescent children" POVs on Wikipedia. As for COI, everyone except you is clear above about why revealing their true identities isn't helpful in this case or generally at all on Wikipedia. And it's not like people can't lie about their identity anyway; the Essjay case is a reminder to many. Flyer22 (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And I highly doubt that Herostratus wouldn't have "been so disrespectful above" if only he had not been using a pseudonym and we knew his true identity, especially since all of us knowing yours doesn't stop you from being so disrespectful. Flyer22 (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Flyer22, as I said, if you want to RAEG at me, please put it on my talk page or get one of your sockpuppets "brothers" to do so. If you have a contribution to keep this page from stagnating with NPOV tags on it, please feel free to make suggestions. My main suggestion right now is to expand the the DSM IV material for now. Keep writing, dude! Jokestress (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why should I "[P]lease put it on [your] talk page," when you don't do the same regarding others? Oh, that's right. You do sometimes, after you've misbehaved at the talk page. Nice sockpuppet quip, though; you may want to ask Alison why she considers those supposed sockpuppets of mine to be another person. But keep trying to push your obvious POVs on Wikipedia; it's great entertainment watching you fail. Flyer22 (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Jokestress, what the heck do you mean "the potential for people like yourself editing topics of this nature". What do you mean by "people like yourself"? "Topics of this nature"? Well? What kind of person is "like myself", Andrea? You'd best explain yourself, I think. And it is absolutely un-Wikipedian and a strike against core Wikipedia functioning for you to insist on only engaging with editors willing to out themselves. This bizarre and persistent demand, often repeated and here doubled down on, absolutely disqualifies you from editing the Wikipedia, period, in my opinion.

And this from a person who published photos of an opponent's quite young children with jeering, nasty captions! This give me reasonable cause to suspect that that you demand that I out myself so that you can bully me, harass my family, call my employers with nasty lies about me, and so forth. I "should probably think about changing [my] behavior" so that you won't do this? Well think again chuckles. I don't take well to threats, and that's not how we operate here on the Wikipedia.

I get that you get "get credible threats and all sorts of harassment and attacks on a regular basis, but [you] am not going to let silly stuff like that worry [you]." That's your world, that's how you operate, and I suppose you thrive on that sort of stuff and give as well as you take, probably. You're a public figure. You have fans and supporters. You can't be ruined by a smear campaign. Hell, any attempt would probably just be good publicity for you. I'm not like that, and that's not my world, and "silly" stuff like that worries the living hell out of me.

As the merits of your case: who you are speaks so loudly that I can't hear what you say. In the poisoned atmosphere that you have created by demanding that editors out themselves, it's not possible to conduct a reasoned discussion, I would say. You need to go away from this page for awhile (I've taken the liberty of removing your tags) and think this over. I much dislike wikidrama and sterile fighting, but if you want to escalate this to the next levels of dispute resolution, that's your prerogative I guess. Bye. Herostratus (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "get one of your sockpuppets "brothers" to do so"? Joseph Welch (slightly amended): "Let us not assassinate this lass further, Jokestress. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency madam, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?" I mean really, is there no depth of depravity, character assassination, and general villainy to which you won't stoop? And we're supposed to turn our identities over to your tender mercies, heh. Anyway, we're done here. Now it's just embarrassing to watch you reveal yourself. So bye for now, and god luck with your other articles. Herostratus (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)