Talk:Hebephilia/Archive draft

Recrafting

Crossroads, regarding this, let me know what you're thinking.

I thought about changing the "Variation of normal" heading to "Attraction." But the debate is also about other aspects with regard to attraction. So "attraction" is vague and more than just the "variation of normal" aspect could go in the section if named that.

Once we are done with the sandbox, we can preserve this talk page for documentation of the changes made. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay. I was going to test out an alternative organization, but it wasn't working. I'll likely play around with it more tomorrow. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Early this morning, I'd just noticed the "Not distinguishable from pedophilia" heading you were thinking of. I don't think that should be added, since both sides distinguish hebephilia from pedophilia. If you are looking to add content comparing hebephilia to pedophilia, like the "Sexual Offending: Predisposing Antecedents, Assessments and Management" source does, I would title that "Comparison to pedophilia." But if going that route, there should be debate material in the section from both sides, not just the "Sexual Offending: Predisposing Antecedents, Assessments and Management" source comparing them. Otherwise, that content should be a subsection of the "Research" section, which already compares pedophiles and hebephiles. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I've finally played around with it and have a result that, tentatively and roughly, I think would be good. This includes having the 3rd level sections like this. The heading titles could be tweaked. Of course, I need to replace my notes-to-self with the sourced material, and it will need polishing up for flow. I look forward to seeing what you think. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, actually, there might be more vague or redundant commentary that could be combined or removed. But this is probably a good point for you to weigh in and comment or make further changes. I know before I spoke against having a subsection on the "variation of normal" argument, but it seems prominent enough of an issue to address on its own, and will be better balanced when I expand the Stephens and Seto commentary on it. However, the name "As a variation of normal" was not good (and those supporting it as a paraphilia would say "As a dysfunction" is better). Maybe just "Whether dysfunctional" would be good, but I am open to suggestions. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Your changes look mostly fine to me. With this edit, I tweaked a little and added a little back. I think that the "Responses" heading should have the two subheadings I gave it since the material in those sections are responses to the concept. The "Use in court" section stands more so on its own since it's not solely about responding to the proposal. Regarding the "Variation of normal" heading, you know that I feel that it's fine because, as stated on the article's talk page with sources, part of the debate is about whether or not the attraction is normal (which, as noted by Blanchard and the "Sexual Offending: Predisposing Antecedents, Assessments and Management" source, is complicated by opponents using the term "hebephilia" in a broader way than the proposal intends for it to be used). I don't think your "Debate whether dysfunctional" heading works. And researchers aren't typically using the term "dysfunctional" with regard to the debate. I thought about changing your title to "Abnormality debate," but the "Debate" heading already exists and different aspects of the condition are about abnormality. This section is about whether the attraction is normal or abnormal. So I considered changing the title to "Abnormality of attraction"...but that heading makes it seem that most of the arguments are about the attraction being abnormal. They aren't. So I went with "Attraction as normal or abnormal." I think that's the best compromise. Regarding this, yes, the topic of false positives are covered above, but I wonder if Wakefield stating "it appears that the hebephilia proposal is one where criminality and social disapproval are being confused with mental disorder" should be retained because of the cultural relativism and social construction material you plan to add. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Further edits here and here. Trimming unnecessary redundancy and putting the material in the more appropriate sections is obviously tricky; the overlap, which you mentioned with this edit, can trip one up. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with your latest changes and made a few more. I don't think the Wakefield bit needs preserving since it will be covered by the relativism/constructionism bit from the secondary Stephens and Seto source. They don't present that as a criticism per se; they simply describe it for what it is.

Once I add that content, I think we'll basically be ready to go live. I'll double check if there is anything I want to add to the research section, but this sandbox isn't really needed for such material and so it can be added down the line, as there is no rearrangement required. And we could always reuse the sandbox (unless you are going to have it deleted - up to you).

Do you have anything else you think should be added from the Stephens and Seto source? Crossroads ^-talk- 05:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I made this edit (followup note here and tweak here) because Zander speaks directly on the topic of whether the attraction is pathological. That stated, we should look to replace all of the "letter to the editor" sources with non-primary sources. I don't mean that we should remove the remaining "letter to the editor" commentary that exists in the article; I mean that we should look to replace the sources for it. I don't like the article relying on primary sources as much as it does.

As for adding more from Stephens and Seto, there is more from them that can be added to the Research section. I'll look over that and what other sources state and will add it at a later date if you don't add it first.

As for deleting this draft page, I won't have it deleted since it documents work on the article. I will include it as part of the archive in the way that this is included as part of an archive. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done adding what stood out to me from the Stephens and Seto source. If there is anything else you want to add from there, this would be a good time. The only thing I still want to do is add something about the recent research finding similarity between hebephiles and pedophiles, as I noted. After that, I'm ready for you to copy this over the article itself. Of course, you will want to leave the categories at the destination intact - remember I had removed them here. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, looks good. You did a great job improving the content. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that, and your help and input. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I am officially done with what I wanted to add. Unless there is anything else you want to add, or any adjustments, I think we're ready to copy this over. I think it would be good for you to do it. Only thing at the destination to keep would be the categories. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I made this edit for flow and to remove an instance of overlinking. Karen Franklin is also speaking on societal practice (and evolution), but it seems that her piece fits best where it is for now, especially since she speaks of both heterosexual and gay males and Blanchard's rebuttal should follow her commentary (and the criticism from others). We can always rearrange content in the section for better flow, if needed, later.

I'll go ahead and make the draft live. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)