Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Additional notes: RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. Start a new discussion

Partisan group self published source Destruction of early Islamic heritage sites in Saudi Arabia

The article [1] has a lot of citations from a single partisan self published source which reflects only a fringe standpoint of history. Many of the names of the graves mentioned are not even verified , here is the source:

http://www.al-islam.org/history-shrines/history-cemetery-jannat-al-baqi

It looks more like a blog presenting personal opinions on a matter and that too by a fringe group which accuses a Jewish conspiracy in the destruction.

Hence proof of the graves from reliable independent, non sectarian sources should be added. Relevant tag: WP:BIASED,WP:FTN (fringe theory).

partisan base self published source

in article Mufaddal Saifuddin

However, Muffadal Saifuddin's succession has not been accepted by Khuzaima Qutbuddin, who claimed the title of the 53rd Dai of the Dawoodi Bohras Himself.[10] Khuzaima Qutbuddin claims that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin performed nass on him 49 years ago, a ritual during which he appointed him as his successor in private, just before he was publically appointed as Mazoon, second-in-command in Bohras hierarchy.[11] After the death of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin he claims that the succession was not done in London as Mohammad Burhanuddin suffered from a full stroke at the age of 100, that made it difficult for him to write, speak, or move.[1] Khuzaima Qutbuddin explains that he never claimed to be the rightfull successor, as per Mohammed Burhanuddin's instruction to keep it secret.[12][13] It is further claimed that former CJI upheld the validity of Khuzaima Qutbuddin as the rightful successor.

Dispute as to who Sheb Wooleys Children

Sheb Wooleys Wikipedia says that he had two daughters ; when in fact he had ONE LEGALLY ADOPTED daughter Christi Lynn Wooley who was his ONLY CHILD and a step daughter ( never legally adopted) Shauna Dotson . Wikipedia states that Sheb had two daughters ; when in fact he had one legal daughter and one step daughter

Is this a reliable source or not admissable (since being WP:FRINGE)?

1. Evidence Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine [2]
2. Traditional Chinese medicine

3. TCM is considered a protoscience.

This edit has been repeatedly reverted by several different editors. They claim this (peer-reviewed!) journal may not be used, since it's a WP:FRINGE source. --Mallexikon (talk) 02:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Despite it's slick packaging, it's just a open-source vanity press where authors pay to get their work published. I would say it's far from a reputable or widely respected journal, and would agree that labeling it as a fringe source is well justified. Second of all, whether TCM is regarded as protoscience is of little consequence. It's whether it's widely regarded as such within the scholarly community that matters, and this source does little to indicate that such is the case. You would require much better sources to show that the assertion that TCM is a protoscience is more than a fringe position in itself. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You apply double standards. On the TCM talk page, you're rallying to include the statement "TCM is a pseudoscience" using an editorial in Nature as a source. Far from asserting that TCM is widely regarded as a pseudoscience within the scholarly community, this editorial merely theorizes that the most obvious reason why so few effective medication have been distilled out of TCM would be that it is largely pseudoscience. Care to explain? --Mallexikon (talk) 05:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you trying to compare this source to Nature, one of the flagship publications in the scientific community? Don't be ridiculous. Your question is off-topic and irrelevant to the question at hand, which is whether the source your are asking about is reliable for the purpose you wish to use it, and I have answered that no, it isn't, and have explained why. Appeals to motive are a failure to AGF. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, but you're not an uninvolved editor, and you're reasoning sounds biased. According to WP:FRIND, this source is ok - since it's peer reviewed. The article itself is quite theoretic and doesn't sound like it's written from a TCM apologist. Is it possible to get someone else's input here? --Mallexikon (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Website called "Lost Islamic History" for a history article

Currently, myself and another user are working in my User:MezzoMezzo/sandbox on a topic which is significant to Middle Eastern history, the Abbasid Revolution. There is an article about it here on a site called "Lost Islamic History." According to the site's "about" page, the author is a BA holder in history who claims to have no agenda. He includes a works cited section for the article, but there does not appear to be an editorial board or oversight.
So I want to ask the community, would a site such as this be acceptable as a source? Is it reliable? Does it appear to be pushing an agenda? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Not good for a history article, and that's not mainly due to whether it's pushing an agenda or not, but it isn't historical research, just a compilation of ideas from secondary sources. For a standard work covering much of the same ground, see Albert Hourani's A History of the Arab Peoples. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much User:Itsmejudith, I'm going to make note of that book by Albert Hourani in my sandbox and check it out later. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Suspect sources - Major League Baseball on Fox

Hi. I'm hoping I can ask advice about general source reliability in Major League Baseball on Fox. The article seems to rely heavily on what look (to me) like blogs: http://awfulannouncing.blogspot.com; http://fangsbites.com; http://drewzuhoskydaily.wordpress.com and http://www.tvpredictions.com (These are probably the least reliable looking sources, but there are others which look suspect to me too.)

There's also 4 links to Facebook.

And then there's this statement based on the user comments in reference:

Many didn't like the way Zelasko abruptly—and in many fans' eyes, awkwardly—cut Harwell off just 17 seconds into a pre-game interview, as Harwell was detailing the accomplishments of famous Tiger Al Kaline.

https://web.archive.org/web/20051028032742/http://www.bravesbeat.com/bravesjournal/bristol/archives/2005/09/first_round_gam_1.html

Apart from deleting major chunks of the article, what should I do? Sorry, I'm still new... --Otus scops (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I've tagged the article and posted on the talk page--Otus scops (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs improvement... but simply leaving a blanket "this article needs more sources" tag leaves other editors wondering where to start. It would probably be more helpful to take a slow and systematic approach. Start at the beginning, and address the problems one by one... on a section by section basis (or even on a statement by statement basis)... so that people can focus on specific problems, and work constructively to fix them. Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I've continued the discussion on Talk:Major League Baseball on Fox. (Would here be better? Sorry for duplication - I though no one was interested here so I went a bit more WP:BOLD - my bad!)--Otus scops (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this source that doesn't mention the subject of the article ok?

The article is Arthur Kemp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a BLP. The editor, who says he has written most of the article, calls removing this text vandalism: "In fact, Clive Derby-Lewis gave Kemp's name to the police, not the other way round as the SPLC alleged, as revealed in a report in The Independent newspaper: “The police said yesterday they had achieved their 'breakthrough' in the Hani investigation on the basis of information provided by Mr Derby-Lewis.” ("Suspects held in Hani inquiry: Police confirm plot after five more arrests”, The Independent, April 22, 1993." The text immediately before this is:"In 1993, Kemp was a witness in the prosecution relating to the murder of the South African Communist Party leader Chris Hani. A 2007 report from the Southern Poverty Law Center asserted that he left South Africa because he testified in the trials of Janusz Waluś and Clive Derby-Lewis. On his personal website, Kemp dismissed the SPLC's report as "total rubbish", saying that they did not even get his year of birth correct." The source is[3].It does not mention the SPLC or anything about Kemp giving anyone's name to the police. The SPLC report is at[4] and does not make the claim that Kemp gave Derby-Lewis's name to the police but that he cooperated with the police and provided evidence. Dougweller (talk) 06:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Support previous. Cited sources are reliable and do not say that Clive Derby-Lewis gave name to police. Of course, he may have done, but the sources do not say so. This has been properly explained in edit summaries, yet the editor claims that removing his text, despite adequate rationales being provided, is vandalism. Patently, it is not. Emeraude (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I misread something TheFallenCrowd wrote on his talk page, he was talking about an AfD when he said he wrote most of it. He has however edited the article more than anyone else. As he refused to come here to discuss but again reinserted the material I have taken him to ANI. Dougweller (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree... the cited source does not support the statement. It says that Derby-Lewis provided information that lead to a breakthrough in the case, but does not specify what that information was or who "ratted out" who. Blueboar (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

References

The Emperor Has No Clothes: A review of the 'Pornography Addiction' model, by Ley,Prause & Finn - should be banned

The paper under question - The Emperor Has No Clothes: A review of the “Pornography Addiction” model

First the obvious, this paper is not a review of the existing literature. Instead, it was published in the CURRENT CONTROVERSIES section, and it was not promoted as a fair review. The lead author was David Ley, who is the author of "The Myth of Sex Addiction". The editor was Charles Allen Moser, who has railed against sex and porn addiction in the past. Hypersexual disorder: Just more muddled thinking. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(2), 227-229. Moser, C. (2010) Put simply this review is biased, and doesn't consider any contradictory studies.

The less obvious is that Ley et al. misrepresented the content most of the studies they did cite. In fact, many of the supposed supportive studies actually contradicted the claims in the text. Moreover, about 12 citations had absolutely nothing to do with the associated text. Everything is completely documented below.

This so called review should be banned from wikipedia as a source. Instead, original sources should be cited.

MY CRITIQUE OF THE The Emperor Has No Clothes: A review of the 'Pornography Addiction' model, by David Ley, Nicole Prause & Peter Finn (2014)

As I will explain below in laborious detail, the authors of this "objective" review:

1)defend their dismissal of addiction on the basis of studies that are as much as 25 years old, ignoring numerous recent, contradictory studies/reviews that reflect the current consensus of experts.

2) do not acknowledge (or analyze) dozens of brain studies on internet addicts. All show hard evidence that stimulation via the internet is addictive for some users and causes the same fundamental addiction-related brain changes seen in substance addicts. A current list appears at the end of this critique.

3) ignore the first ever brain-scan study performed on internet porn addicts/controls at Cambridge University (in press).

4) dismiss all published studies showing ill effects from porn use on the grounds that they are "merely" correlational, and then proceed to cite as support for their pet theories various correlational studies. We'll share many of the relevant studies Ley et al. found unworthy of mention.

5) cherry-pick random, misleading lines from within studies, failing to report the researchers' actual opposing conclusions.

6) cite numerous studies that are entirely irrelevant to the claims Ley et al. make.

Introduction

Ley et al. claim ‘Pornography addiction’ is one label that has been used specifically to describe the high-frequency viewing of sexual images. Just to clarify, as ASAM, the American Society of Addiction Medicine (3000+ top addiction doctors and researchers) and others have emphasized, all addiction is a primary disease (not a symptom of other pathologies as Ley et al. here imply). It's marked by specific addiction-related brain changes as well as well established behaviors that reflect those changes, such as continued use despite negative consequences.

While pornography addiction may involve high levels of viewing, studies show that length of time spent is not the key determinant of problematic porn use. Rather, it's degree of arousal and number of applications opened (the thirst for novelty). See 123 "Watching pornographic pictures on the Internet: role of sexual arousal ratings and psychological-psychiatric symptoms for using Internet sex sites excessively." (2011)

Excerpts: Time spent on Internet sex sites (minutes per day) did not significantly contribute to explanation of variance in [addiction test] score. ... The finding ... may be interpreted in the light of previous studies on cue reactivity in individuals with substance dependency or behavioral addictions.

Another study also found cue reactivity (a measure of addiction), not frequency of use, was most relevant for problematic users: "Cybersex addiction: Experienced sexual arousal when watching pornography and not real-life sexual contacts makes the difference" (2013)

Excerpts: The results show that indicators of sexual arousal and craving to Internet pornographic cues predicted tendencies towards cybersex addiction in the first study. Moreover, it was shown that problematic cybersex users report greater sexual arousal and craving reactions resulting from pornographic cue presentation. ... The results support the gratification hypothesis, which assumes reinforcement, learning mechanisms, and craving to be relevant processes in the development and maintenance of cybersex addiction.

In other words, these studies don't support the idea that porn users are just folks with high libidos who can't get enough action in real life and have to make up for the shortfall with porn use. Rather, problematic porn users show hyper-reactivity to cues, just as other addicts do. Incidentally, the upcoming Cambridge University brain study on porn addicts found the same hyper-reactivity to cues, and no evidence of higher sexual desire in the addicts tested.

Ley et al. - state that scientists investigating high-frequency sexual behaviors rarely describe these behaviors as an addiction (37 % of articles) [2] First, Ley et al. are now talking about "sexual behaviors," in general, not studies that screened problematic porn users, so their percentages are irrelevant.

Citation 2 affirms that different studies use different nomenclature for various behavioral addictions. This is not unusual in the mental health field. For example, bi-polar disorder has been called by many names, but it is still the same disorder. Even the DSM-5 uses different ways to describe addictions. So what? The DSM's confounding terminology probably says more about the politics of the DSM board and work groups than about the physiological reality of addiction.

Naturally, these authors (as well as some others in the sexology field) openly reject sexual-behavior addiction, and sometimes all behavioral addictions, as "pseudoscience." Their position is evident to anyone familiar with the literature they churn out. Tobacco executives still reject nicotine addiction too. In fact, it's amazing that 37% of the studies reviewed used the term 'addiction', as sexology researchers (including Prause) who produce academic articles on the subject have taken great pains to avoid both 'addiction' and the screening of addicted subjects (which is required procedure in true addiction research).

Next our audacious authors claim that most scientists have overtly rejected the addiction model [3, 4]. This is untrue, and neither of their citations remotely supports the claim that "most" scientists have "overtly rejected" the addiction model for sexual behavior addictions. Nor does either citation relate to research by addiction neuroscientists, who have publicly concluded the opposite.

Eric Nestler PhD, head of Nestler Lab (Molecular Psychiatry) at Mount Sinai's Icahn School of Medicine writes about addiction:

It is likely that similar brain changes occur in other pathological conditions which involve the excessive consumption of natural rewards, conditions such as pathological over-eating, pathological gambling, sex addictions, and so on.

From ASAM's press release:

CHEVY CHASE, MD, August 15, 2011 – The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) has released a new definition of addiction highlighting that addiction is a chronic brain disorder and not simply a behavioral problem involving too much alcohol, drugs, gambling or sex.

Citation 3 is from 2000. "Sexual disorders not otherwise specified: compulsive, addictive, or impulsive?" It basically says that the DSM should include diagnostic criteria for the disorder underlying the various labels:

Excerpt: Growing evidence supports the existence of a discrete syndrome characterized by recurrent and intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving patterns that fall outside the definition of paraphilia. We suggest that the DSM-IV category of sexual disorders be modified to include explicitly diagnostic criteria for a disorder characterized by hypersexual symptoms.

Citation 4 in no way rejects the notion of sex addiction. ("Should Hypersexual Disorder [HD] be Classified as an Addiction?") In fact, it says that "available data suggest that considering HD within an addiction framework maybe appropriate and helpful." (emphasis added) In short, the reality is the opposite of "overtly rejecting" the addiction model, the proposition for which Ley et al. cited these items.

Also consider this review, which Ley et al. apparently missed: "Sexual Addictions" (2010)

Excerpts: A number of clinical elements, such as the frequent preoccupation with this type of behavior, the time spent in sexual activities, the continuation of this behavior despite its negative consequences, the repeated and unsuccessful efforts made to reduce the behavior, are in favor of an addictive disorder. ... The phenomenology of excessive nonparaphilic sexual disorder favors its conceptualization as an addictive behavior, rather than an obsessive-compulsive, or an impulse control disorder.

Ley et al. then cite DSM-5, which has affirmed that pathological gambling is an addiction disorder in the wake of decades of solid science, but has not yet added internet addiction or internet porn addiction. This is not surprising as the dozens of brain studies on internet addictions are fewer and more recent than the majority of gambling studies--and the DSM-5 is notoriously slow and political rather than scientific.

Ley et al. use deceptive wording to imply that the DSM cited the following in support of its position, "To include [internet porn addiction] as an addiction would require published scientific research that does not exist at this time." However this statement was only made to Ley et al. via personal communication from Charles O'Brien chair of the DSM-5 Work Group on Substance-Related and Addictive Disorders. It seems likely, however, that the DSM will eventually include sexual behavior addictions, because the research on all internet addictions is mounting and it lines up with the research on substance and gambling addictions. Said the same Charles O’Brien in 2013,

""The idea of a non-substance-related addiction may be new to some people, but those of us who are studying the mechanisms of addiction find strong evidence from animal and human research that addiction is a disorder of the brain reward system, and it doesn't matter whether the system is repeatedly activated by gambling or alcohol or another substance.""

Moreover, Dr. Richard Krueger, work group member who helped revise the sexual disorders section of the DSM-5, has little doubt porn addiction is real and will eventually garner enough attention to be recognized as a mental illness.

Recklessly disregarding both (1) the DSM's declaration that gambling is an addictive disorder (i.e., a behavioral addiction) and (2) years of conclusive addiction-neuroscience demonstrating that addictions, behavioral and chemical, are fundamentally one disorder, our anti-science authors next gratuitously dismiss all behavioral addictions (including gambling).

First, Ley, Prause & Finn dismiss food addiction ignoring extensive research on the subject and citing both 5, research funded by the sugar industry, specifically WorldSugar Research (sponsored in part by Coca-Cola), and 6 "Obesity and the brain: how convincing is the addiction model?" The latter actually makes a decent argument, but its authors cherry pick, and its conclusions need to be considered in light of the many contradictory studies, such as "Obesity and addiction: neurobiological overlaps" and "Common cellular and molecular mechanisms in obesity and drug addiction."

Next Ley et al. dismiss internet addiction citing 7, a study from 2001. However, almost all of the internet addiction studies have been done in the last 4 to 5 years. The more recent work eviscerates Ley et al.'s position that internet addiction isn't genuine. These ~60 brain studies are listed at the end of this critique.

Ley et al. next dismiss gambling addiction, citing 8, which is ancient history from 25 years ago. At the same time they ignore the many studies that demonstrate brain changes in gambling addicts akin to those in drug addicts' brains, as well as the position of the DSM itself. See "Similarities and differences between pathological gambling and substance use disorders: a focus on impulsivity and compulsivity" (2012) and "Neurobiology of gambling behaviors." Frankly, it is difficult to avoid drawing the conclusion that Ley et al. themselves are "pseudoscientists."

In support of their claim that "the emperor is not wearing any clothes," Ley et al. throw in a cite to a 1991 manifesto by the APA's president 9, which appears to have no relevance to anything at all.

Next, Ley et al. take offense at the word "pornography" in addiction studies, citing 11, a law review article that is not remotely related to addiction. They call for less biased language citing 12, an item that has nothing to do with porn-terminology guidelines.

Ley et al. then make the jaw-dropping claims that pornography use ""does not appear to be increasing despite increased availability, and VSS viewing in the USA has remained remarkably steady (near 22%) since 1973."" The only support for these mind-bending statements is citation 20, an analysis that relies primarily on years of replies to a single question in a government survey of adult women conducted by personal interview. The question, first asked in 1973, is "Have you seen an X-rated movie in the last year? (0=no; 1=yes)."

The researchers then compared percentages of all adult women who said "yes" to seeing an X-rated movie (which was only possible in a theater back then) with percentages of women who say they watch internet porn flicks today. They reach the staggering conclusion that average porn-watching in women of all ages hasn't changed much.

This is a classic apples-and-oranges sleight of hand. First, an X-rated film in the 70s (think "Last Tango In Paris") might not be X-rated today. More to the point the percentage of 1973-women watching the equivalent of today's hardcore porn would have been virtually 0%. In contrast, the rate of young women who watched an X-rated film in 2010 was 33%. In effect, that's an increase from zero to one-in-three, and up from one-in-five in 1993. Hardly stable.

Second, "X-rated film" watching says nothing about other forms of (potentially addictive) online erotic stimulation, which some of today's internet-erotica users over-consume, such as streaming video clips of hardcore porn, web cam use, today's compelling written erotica, endless novel stills or animated porn such as hentai.

Moreover, what do X-rated film-viewing stats have to do with pornography addiction? Would a poll asking who had a drink in the last year be relevant in a review about alcohol addiction?

If Ley et al. believe porn rates are salient to their analysis, why didn't they cite research that included men? Why didn't they isolate digital natives, who appear to be most at risk for internet porn overconsumption, based on the fact that they make up the overwhelming majority of online recovery forum membership? Why didn't they compare quantities of porn viewed? Why instead do they trot out this meaningless survey as sole support for their claim that porn viewing rates are 22% and stable? Consider some of the conflicting research that they ignored, how the stats might differ from porn use among emerging adults in 1973:

• Generation XXX: Pornography Acceptance and Use Among Emerging Adults (2008)

Excerpt: Nearly 9 out of 10 (87%) young men and nearly one third (31%) of young women reported using pornography.

• Prevalence and correlates of sexual behaviors among university students: a study in Hefei, China (2012)

Excerpt: Males reported more sexual fantasies (84.6%), solitary masturbation (70.3%), and using pornographic videos (86.3%). Note: porn is officially banned in China.

• Gender differences in pornography consumption among young heterosexual Danish adults (2006).

Excerpt: In Denmark 97.8% of males and 79.5% of females watched pornography among 1002 people aged from 18–30 years old.

• X-Rated: Sexual attitudes and behaviors associated with U.S. early adolescents’ exposure to sexually explicit media (2009)

Excerpt: Average age 13.5: Two-thirds (66%) of males and more than one-third (39%) of females had seen at least one form of sexually explicit media in the past year.

• Adolescents’ Exposure to Sexually Explicit Material on the Internet (2006)

Excerpt: 71% of the male adolescents and 40% of the female adolescents had been exposed to some kind of online sexually explicit material in the 6 months prior to the interview.

• Pornography Consumption, Sexual Experiences, Lifestyles, and Self-rated Health Among Male Adolescents in Sweden (2013)

Excerpt: Almost all boys, 96% (n = 453), had watched pornography. Frequent users of pornography (everyday) (10%, n = 47) differed from average users (63%, n = 292) and nonfrequent users (27%, n = 126).

• Does Viewing Explain Doing? Assessing the Association Between Sexually Explicit Materials Use and Sexual Behaviors in a Large Sample of Dutch Adolescents and Young Adults (2013)

Excerpt: Online cross-sectional survey study of 4,600 young people, 15–25 years of age ... found that 88% of men and 45% of women had consumed SEM in the past 12 months.

Ley et al. next offer estimates of men and women reporting out of control sexual experiences. Empirical estimates from nationally representative samples are that 0.8 % of men and 0.6 % of women report out of control sexual behaviors that interfere with their daily lives [23].

This statement demonstrates Ley et al.'s complete lack of integrity. First, their estimates rest on citation 23, a study that is not about porn use. The researchers specifically stated that, "We had not asked about pornography." It was about sexual experiences, fantasies and urges. In other words, this study has no place in a "porn addiction" review, and all of the artful statistical chicanery that follows is meaningless.

That said, it's worth noting that Ley, Prause and Finn shamelessly cherry-picked from the (irrelevant) study's results. Nearly 13% of men and 7% of women reported out of control sexual experiences, but Ley et al. ignored those percentages and only mentioned that 0.8% of men and 0.6% of women reported that their "actual sexual behavior had interfered with their lives." Porn use is not sex. Problematic porn use therefore exists in some people who believe that no "actual sexual behavior [is] interfering with their lives."

Ley et al. next make the groundless leap that problematic porn use is always a subset of "actual sexual behavior that interferes with users' lives," and estimate that porn problems might affect 0.58 % of men and 0.43 % of women in the USA. Unbelievable. Ley et al.'s own source (see discussion of 24 below) says that experts estimated (in 2012) that 8–17% of Internet pornography users were addicted.

In contrast with the Ley et al.'s trivial estimates, the researchers in "Viewing Internet Pornography: For Whom is it Problematic, How, and Why?" found that,

• approximately 20%–60% of the sample who view pornography find it to be problematic depending on the domain of interest. In this study, the amount of viewing did not predict the level of problems experienced.

Ley et al.'s purposefully misleading calculations also assume that everyone with porn addiction seeks treatment. In fact, it's likely that only a small percentage do. For example, consider the millions of smokers who attempt to quit every year and the millions who have quit over the last several decades. It's likely that those who struggled without professional help far outnumbered those who sought it. Once again, one wonders how a peer reviewer, or co-author Finn, could let slip such deceptive reasoning.

Positive Effects of VSS Use

Ley et.el state - Most people who view VSS believe that it improves their attitudes towards sexuality [25] and improves their quality of life [26]. The studies Ley et al. cite as proof that porn's effects are beneficial (24, 25, 26) are unconvincing. The first (24) actually offers evidence of the ill effects of porn use:

Excerpt: Experts put the percentage of persons with problematic sexually compulsive behavior in reference to viewing sexually explicit material at approximately 8–17% of the population of users (Cooper, Delmonico, & Burg, 2000; Cooper, Scherer, Boies, & Gordon, 1999). This group of users exhibits behavioral indicators of sexual compulsivity (e.g., spending 11 or more hours per week in online sexual pursuits) and reports personal distress and impairment of functioning (e.g., declining performance at work).

Further, the researchers found that possible beneficial uses of "sexually explicit visuals" are largely confined to medical and educational audiences.

The second study (25) is primarily a marketing survey of people who like porn (e.g., "Which of the following practices do you like to be present in pornography?"), peppered with a few questions about attitudes toward women. It was funded in part by the porn industry itself. As part of the lengthy survey, a sole ambiguous question asked "What effect has pornography had on your attitudes towards sexuality?" What does this question, or its possible answers ("Large positive effect," "small negative effect," etc.) even mean? Isn't this like asking people at a rave whether rave participation has had a positive or negative effect on their attitude toward ecstasy?

"Self-perceived effects of pornography consumption" (26) also relies purely on porn users' self-perceptions (rather than a comparison with non-users or ex-users). Its questions were skewed to always find porn use beneficial because of all the non-standard sex acts porn users learn about. Its conclusion? The more pornography you use, the more real you believe it is, and the more you masturbate to it, the more positive its effects in every area of your life. Wow! Not even a bell curve there folks. Senior psychology professor and reviewer John Johnson called this questionnaire "a psychometric nightmare," yet Ley et al. treat it as authoritative. See this critique of the study.

Frankly, many of the "benefits" claimed by Ley et al. turn out to be negatives for today's young porn users. Here are some of their examples of how porn users might profit:

• greater likelihood of anal and oral sex [27] and a greater variety of sexual behaviors [28].

So, more is an unqualified benefit? In "Does pornography influence young women's sexual behavior?" (2003), Swedish researchers found that of 1000 women polled at a family planning clinic, 4 out of 5 has consumed pornography. About half had experienced anal intercourse, and the majority found it a negative experience. Condom use was only 40%, presenting a risk of spreading STIs. Among young Swedish men visiting a similar clinic, 99% had consumed porn and half had had anal intercourse. Only 17% always used condoms during anal sex. Both genders said that watching porn had influenced their behavior.

According to Mount Sinai: "It is believed that an increased number of people are engaging in sexual activity with multiple partners and engage in oral sex practices and as a result are contracting HPV in the head and neck region, resulting in [at least a four- to five-fold increase in the number of oropharynx cancers in the US]."

• This increased breadth of sexual behaviors could arise by increasing a person’s feeling of empowerment to suggest new sexual behaviors or by normalizing the behaviors [29].

"Normalizing sexual behaviors" ultimately proves alarming to many young porn users because, in their unending quest for novelty, they so easily escalate to bizarre fetish porn that doesn't have anything to do with their earlier sexual tastes. Some go far into this spiral before they begin questioning whether what they're watching is "normal."

• VSS can also promote pleasant feelings in the moment, such as happiness and joy [30, 31].

What porn user doesn't have "pleasant feelings" during use, just as many people enjoy drinking? Shouldn't users be more informed about the potential longer-term effects of their porn use? Incidentally, citation 31 is Prause's own shaky research: "No Evidence of Emotion Dysregulation in “Hypersexuals” Reporting Their Emotions to a Sexual Film." See a critique of that study: "Study: Porn Users Report Narrower Emotional Range."

• VSS may provide a legal outlet for illegal sexual behaviors or desires.

Really? Are Ley et al. then advocating watching child porn and creating a demand for more of it?

In any case, progression appears to work the opposite way in some users. Instead of simply providing an outlet for innate sexual preferences, internet porn may create preferences. Thanks to their unending quest for novel sexual stimulation online, some porn users report escalating to bestiality porn or underage porn, both of which are illegal in some jurisdictions.

In "Does deviant pornography use follow a Guttman-like progression?" researchers investigated whether desensitization (leading to a need for more extreme material) occurred in individuals who engage in adult pornography at a young age. They found that,

Excerpt: individuals with a younger “age of onset” for adult pornography use were more likely to engage in deviant pornography (bestiality or child) compared to those with a later “age of onset”.

Ley et al. then proceed to associates declines in crime with increased porn use, and imply a causal link between the two citing correlational data (based not on actual studies, but on notoriously inaccurate government statistics). If such data have a place in this review, then we call upon Ley et al. to redo their entire review to incorporate the dozens of correlational studies associating porn with ill effects. (See the list at the end of this critique, as well as various overlooked studies we cite within the body of this critique.)

Ley et al. write: A large longitudinal study controlling for baseline attitudes and behaviors identified that VSS use accounted for only 0–1 % of the variance in gender role attitudes, permissive sexual norms, and sexual harassment in boys or girls [12]. Ley et al. paint a rather misleading picture of the total findings in citation 12 ("X-Rated: Sexual attitudes and behaviors associated with U.S. early adolescents’ exposure to sexually explicit media" (2009).)

Excerpt: Of all the variables in the models, exposure to sexually explicit media was one of the strongest predictors, even after controlling for demographics, pubertal status, sensation seeking, and the baseline measure of the sexual attitude (if relevant). Thus, these analyses suggest that exposure to sexually explicit media should be considered an important factor in the sexual socialization of early adolescents. ... One of the most troubling findings in this study is that exposure was related to not only early oral sex and sexual intercourse for both males and females but also perpetration of sexual harassment by adolescent males. (emphasis added)

Addiction Model

Addiction is not, as Ley et al. brashly insist, a theoretical construct. Addiction is perhaps the most studied and best elucidated of all mental disorders. It can be induced in animals and is currently studied right down to the molecular and cellular mechanisms that physically and chemically change in the brain in response to chronic overconsumption. Addiction is, in fact, the very opposite of a theoretical construct. It's a physiological reality that applies to both chemical and behavioral addictions.

Again, Ley et al. go to amazing lengths to try to convince themselves and their readers that the slow-moving DSM-5 physicians who are finally beginning to bring the DSM into line with current research by creating a behavioral addiction category--didn't really mean it: While there seems to be a consensus that addiction is a useful construct to describe opiate dependence [39], the usefulness of ‘addiction’ to describe the excessive use of any drug [40], compulsive gambling [41], and excessive video game playing [42] has raised many concerns.

The citations they tuck into their stunning assertion deserve a closer look. 39, 40 and 41 were published in 1996, 1986 and 1989, respectively. All predate the lion's share of the research on each of the addictions named. Ley et al. were forced to reach back into the depths of time because modern hard-science studies do not support Ley et al.'s "concerns" about the science of addiction.

Citation 42 relates to videogaming (which has burst on the scene more recently than gambling, of course) and it points to a 2008 item. However, this item predates all but 3 of the ~60 existing brain studies on internet/videogame addicts. As a body, the intervening studies demonstrate that internet addictions also belong in the behavioral addiction category. In short, Ley et al. resort to subterfuge to support their outdated views.

Next, Ley et al. present their unique definition of porn addiction drawn from thin air, and begin to trot out their straw army, a long list of random "proofs" they claim are vital before one can consider porn addiction to exist. As part of this exercise they totally disregard ASAM's public statements and the decades of hard science that refute their position. Repeatedly, they imply that porn addiction has been studied in the ways they list and found to be absent.

This is not the case. The first-ever brain study on porn addicts done at Cambridge University has not yet been published. However, it found the same kinds of solid evidence of addiction seen in substance addicts, gambling addicts and internet addicts. One would think that if Ley et al. were indeed taking an objective look at the possible existence of internet porn addiction, they would devote much attention to the ~60 brain studies on internet addiction and internet videogame addiction. Surely those studies are highly relevant to internet porn addicts as well, particularly given ASAM's consensus that all addictions are fundamentally one disease.

Again, it's worth noting that Ley et al. proclaim opioids to be the only legitimate addiction--or in their artful lingo, the only "dependence for which an addiction construct is useful." No one agrees with them. Not the DSM, not ASAM, not the medical profession generally. They may, in fact, be the only 3 people on the planet clinging to this unsupportable position. Or perhaps they hope their empty assertions will fool unsuspecting journalists.

Ley et al. suggest that porn addiction's existence needs to be supported by proof of negative consequences that cannot be ascribed to other causes. As far as we know, very few studies have even attempted to look at the kinds of severe symptoms porn users report in online forums: erectile dysfunction, delayed ejaculation, anorgasmia, morphing sexual tastes, depression, anxiety, social anxiety, decreased motivation for positive activities, less attraction to real partners, concentration problems, etc. Nor is it easy for porn users to connect porn use with their symptoms until they stop using porn (remove the key variable) for an extended period. Such experiments are difficult to design and execute, and impossible to do with adolescents even though they are the most likely to be adversely affected because their brains are more susceptible to addiction.

As far as we know, only one study has asked porn users to stop porn...for a mere three weeks. Those researchers saw a significant increase in subjects' desire to remain in a committed relationship, compared with controls who kept using. In short, it's far too soon to assume that there are no negative consequences from internet porn use itself, especially in light of both the demonstrable problems stemming from overconsumption of internet generally, and the dozens of correlational studies about porn use showing associations with harm.

Negative Consequences of High Use of VSS - High VSS Use Associations with Health-Risk Behaviors

Ley et al. imply that causation studies have been done, and that - No study has demonstrated a direct, causal link between VSS use and health-risk behaviors. In fact, no one knows what causal studies would reveal about porn use and health-risk behaviors, because no causal studies have been done. There are only 2 ways to determine causality neither of which seems likely to be undertaken with respect to health risks and porn: 1) Have two matched groups, in which one group uses porn and the other does not. 2) Remove porn for an extended period and see the results.

In the interim, correlation studies are the strongest formal evidence available, and dozens of them show associations between porn use and health-risk behaviors. (See list at end of critique.) Bear in mind that Ley et al. themselves freely cite correlation studies when they like the results.

Negative Consequences of High Use of VSS - Erectile Dysfunction and High VSS Use?

Why does this section exist? No published studies have ever considered porn use as a variable in connection with erectile dysfunction. There is nothing to review. Why are Ley et al. once again creating the false impression that the relationship between ED and porn has been formally studied and found to be absent? Why are they citing ED studies that never raised porn as a possible cause, let alone removed porn use as a variable to see if it would help (as it has thousands of young men with unprecedented ED who report their results online)?

Ley et al. admit that two European studies have found a startling increase in ED in young men. However, neither belongs in "No Clothes." The researchers in those studies didn't think to poll their subjects about internet porn use. They could only theorize that the increases in youthful ED might be stemming from factors such as smoking, drug use, depression or poor health. As an aside, smoking is at an historic low, and it only causes ED problems in longtime smokers who develop arterial disease. Commenting about these two studies, urologist James Elist said that Internet porn was the primary cause of ED in young men:

Excerpt: recreational drugs, smoking, and mental health seem, compared to internet porn consumption, to be making up rather the smaller portion of elements being responsible for early onset ED.

Next Ley et al. hypothesize that porn can't cause ED because the brains of men with and without ED showed no differences during VSS viewing in (63). Actually citation 63 is irrelevant to the discussion of ED and porn. It only examined cerebral cortex activity, not the limbic regions that govern desire and erections. Incidentally, Ley et al. ignored another study that did find differences in cerebral activation between those with psychogenic ED and controls: "The role of left superior parietal lobe in male sexual behavior: dynamics of distinct components revealed by FMRI." Note: 'Psychogenic ED' is a term for ED, such as porn-related ED, which cannot be explained by organic causes such as vascular damage.

Ley et al. (and their reviewers) apparently overlooked the next two studies as well, which revealed significant differences (in the limbic brain regions that control sexual excitement and erections) when researchers compared control subjects with subjects who had psychogenic ED.

• Macrostructural alterations of subcortical grey matter in psychogenic erectile dysfunction (2012)
• Hypothalamus may be involved in psychogenic erectile dysfunction (2008)

In their determination to dismiss internet porn as a possible cause of unprecedented youthful ED, Ley et al. even vilify masturbation and orgasm. (The irony of this position taken by the champions of "high sexual desire" is noteworthy.) They prefer to theorize about these two time-honored, normal activities, rather than consider the glaring possibility that high-speed internet porn, a brand new stimulus that has only been present for the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms, might be a factor.

They reach the remarkable conclusion, supported by no urologist, that chronic ED in young men is a function of masturbation, or, alternatively, the refractory period. The latter is particularly droll in light of the fact that it sometimes takes 2-12 months for guys to get their erections back even after quitting porn/masturbation. That's some refractory period!

Persistent porn-induced ED in young men caught the medical profession by surprise, but this year doctors have finally begun to acknowledge it. Harvard urology professor and author of books on men's health Abraham Morgentaler, MD said,

• "It's hard to know exactly how many young men are suffering from porn-induced ED. But it's clear that this is a new phenomenon, and it's not rare."

And Cornell urology professor and author Harry Fisch, MD writes bluntly that porn is killing sex. In his book The New Naked, he zeroes in on the decisive element - the internet:

• It "provided ultra-easy access to something that is fine as an occasional treat but hell for your [sexual] health on a daily basis.

Dr. Fisch continues:

• I can tell how much porn a man watches as soon as he starts talking candidly about any sexual dysfunction he has. ... A man who masturbates frequently can soon develop erection problems when he's with his partner. Add porn to the mix, and he can become unable to have sex. ...

Finally, Ley et al. say something with which we totally agree, although we don't know if young men with limp members would appreciate Ley et al.'s label of "non-pathological." The researchers acknowledge that learning, another term for which would be 'sexual conditioning,' might be contributing to youthful ED. We totally agree that young porn users may be wiring their sexual response to screens and novelty-on-demand instead of people, such that performance with a real person is alien and not arousing. This, of course, does not preclude some of these ED sufferers from also being addicts.

What Ley et al. fail to mention is that sexual conditioning (learning) and porn addiction appear to hijack some of the same mechanisms in the brain. In other words, sexual conditioning and addiction are surprisingly closely related phenomena as a biological matter. It's illogical to entertain sexual conditioning as a possible cause of porn-related problems and still insist that addiction-related brain changes cannot also be at work in some users.

Chronic ED stemming from Pavlovian conditioning via screens is powerful evidence that internet porn is a supernormal stimulus quite unlike static porn in terms of its effects. ED was not a challenge for youthful porn users who could only gaze upon brothel murals or magazines.

In short, Ley et al.'s admission that porn can cause ED via sexual conditioning (learning) is quite close to an admission that porn can also cause addiction--although they seem to be unaware of this. Addiction is merely another example of pathological learning, equally related to Pavlovian conditioning. As researchers said in "Initiation and maintenance of online sexual compulsivity: Implications for assessment and treatment":

Excerpt: Sexually compulsive behavior on the Internet is now a widely recognized problem. ... Factors that serve to maintain compulsive online sexual behavior include classical conditioning and operant conditioning [i.e., Pavlovian conditioning].

Addicted or not, when young men with porn-related ED quit using porn they generally experience a long period of low libido, non-responsive genitals and sometimes mild depression. Happily, thousands of ex-porn users have gradually resolved their sexual health problems (ED, delayed ejaculation, anorgasmia, loss of attraction to real partners and morphing porn-fetish tastes) simply by quitting. Their informal experiment suggests causality, even if further research would be needed to establish it.

Negative Consequences of High Use of VSS - Failure to Inhibit VSS Use

In support of their claim that "Far more people report a feeling of inability to control their VSS use, than actually report life difficulties resulting from their use [23]", Ley et al. again cite a study that did not ask about pornography use. (See above discussion of citation 23.) They also conclude that "No data currently support the notion that ‘porn addicts’ have difficulty inhibiting their VSS use".

In any case, what study has asked porn users to stop using porn so their difficulties could be observed? Not one that we know of. That said, Ley et al. overlook a wide range of correlation studies that suggest that some porn users have difficulty inhibiting use. Consider the following:

• Internet sex addiction treated with naltrexone (2008)

Excerpt: Malfunctioning of the brain's reward center is increasingly understood to underlie all addictive behavior. Prescribed for treating alcoholism, naltrexone blocks opiates' capacity to augment dopamine release. This article reviews naltrexone's mechanism of action in the reward center and describes a novel use for naltrexone in suppressing a euphorically compulsive and interpersonally devastating addiction to Internet pornography.

• Predicting compulsive Internet use: it's all about sex! (2006)

Excerpt: The objective of this research was to assess the predictive power of various Internet applications on the development of compulsive Internet use (CIU). The study has a two-wave longitudinal design with an interval of 1 year. ... On a cross-sectional basis, gaming and erotica seem the most important Internet applications related to CIU. On a longitudinal basis, spending a lot of time on erotica predicted an increase in CIU 1 year later. The addictive potential of the different applications varies; erotica appears to have the highest potential.

• Hypersexual behavior in an online sample of males: associations with personal distress and functional impairment.

Excerpt: There were 75.3% (N = 253) who reported feeling distressed due to hypersexual behavior. Functional impairment in at least one life area was specified by 77.4% (N = 270), and most participants (56.2%) reported impairment regarding partner relationships. Personal distress and functional impairment in three areas were associated with a strong motivation for behavior change. Distress was associated with online pornography use, masturbation, and/or sexual contact with changing partners.

• Cybersex Users, Abusers, and Compulsives: New Findings and Implications (2000)

Excerpt: This study empirically examines the characteristics and usage patterns of individuals who use the Internet for sexual purposes. The Kalichman Sexual Compulsivity Scale was the primary tool used to divide the sample (n = 9,265) into four groups: nonsexually compulsive (n = 7,738), moderately sexually compulsive (n = 1,007), sexually compulsive (n = 424), and cybersex compulsive (n = 96); 17% of the entire sample scored in the problematic range for sexual compulsivity.

• Pornography consumption, sexual experiences, lifestyles, and self-rated health among male adolescents in Sweden. (2013)

Excerpt: One third of Swedish 16-year old males who were frequent porn users reported watching more pornography than they actually wanted.

Neuroadaptations to VSS Use

This section trots out a veritable platoon of straw men, who are nothing more than a hand-picked assortment of 'essential elements' Ley et al. imply have been studied and found wanting in porn users. For example, offering no supporting authority, Ley et al. opine that porn can't cause addiction unless it shifts the brain's response from 'liking' to 'wanting.' This, they claim, distinguishes "porn addiction" from substance addiction because Data consistently demonstrate the ability of substances to shift brain response to craving, rather than liking, states and porn studies haven't (yet) shown this.

In effect, Ley et al. are denying that craving for porn exists. Yet all of these studies suggest craving is present:

• "Watching pornographic pictures on the Internet: role of sexual arousal ratings and psychological-psychiatric symptoms for using Internet sex sites excessively." (2011)

• "Cybersex addiction: Experienced sexual arousal when watching pornography and not real-life sexual contacts makes the difference" (2013)

• The pornography craving questionnaire: psychometric properties (2014)

Excerpts from the previous item: In light of its similarities with substance abuse and dependence, there is growing support for conceptualizing problematic sexual compulsions as an addictive disorder (Barak & King, 2000; Griffiths, 2001; Meerkerk, Van Den Eijnden, & Garretsen, 2006; Orford, 2001). One element of addiction— and of many impulse control and paraphilic disorders—is the subjective experience of craving. ...The heaviest pornography users reported significantly higher craving.

Moreover, once again, Ley et al. seem not to have done their homework. The studies of 'liking' and 'wanting' by no means "consistently" favor their assertion. For example, here is a recent study that tried to assess 'liking' versus 'wanting' in cocaine addicts: "The Subjective Effects of Cocaine: Relationship to Years of Cocaine Use and Current Age."

Excerpt: These data fail to support the incentive sensitization theory for addiction by Robinson and Berridge, as cocaine “liking” and “wanting” remained the same regardless of age or years of cocaine use.

Research on alcohol also contradicts their assertion: "Excessive alcohol consumption and dependence on amphetamine are associated with parallel increases in subjective ratings of both 'wanting' and 'liking'."

The 'liking' versus 'wanting' Berridge rat studies were really about mapping associated, minute brain regions. Berridge employed neurochemical agonists and antagonists, and often determined 'liking' and 'wanting' based on the rats' facial reactions. ' If you scan the reward center of an addict while he's viewing cues it will light up, but it's not yet possible to tease apart 'wanting' and 'liking'. That's precisely what happens in the porn addicts Dr. Valerie Voon of Cambridge University investigated.

In any case, there are no studies on 'liking' versus 'wanting' in porn addicts. The best evidence currently available may be the addicts complaining that they wish they could stop.

Next, in anticipation of the Cambridge University study showing strong activation in response to porn cues in porn addicts, Ley et al. state that - "stronger activation to VSS in those reporting liking VSS more are both expected and non-pathological." Of course sexual cues are somewhat universally arousing. However, Ley et al. miss the point that the upcoming research compared results with controls who weren't porn addicts, and found a significant difference.

Again, with 'heritability' Ley et al. mislead readers by implying that this element is essential to establish addiction (huh?), and that studies have investigated it in porn addicts and found absent. However, no such research has appeared (yet), and its absence is not evidence of anything.

Ley et al.'s superficial understanding of addiction is perhaps most evident in their comments on ΔFosB, a transcription factor that accumulates with overconsumption and can trigger a more lasting set of addiction-related brain changes. First, there is no question that drugs of abuse and natural rewards induce ΔFosB in the nucleus accumbens (NAc) of rodents. The 2001 paper by Nestler, et al. "ΔFosB: A sustained molecular switch for addiction" stated:

Excerpt: ΔFosB may function as a sustained “molecular switch” that helps initiate and then maintain crucial aspects of the addicted state.

Since 2001, study after study has confirmed that consumption of natural rewards (sex, sugar, high-fat, aerobic exercise) or chronic administration of virtually any drug of abuse induces ΔFosB in the nucleus accumbens. Alternatively, ΔFosB can be induced selectively within the nucleus accumbens and dorsal striatum of adult animals. The behavioral phenotype of the ΔFosB-overexpressing rodents resembles animals after chronic drug exposure.

Second, Ley et al. say that ΔFosB works via D1 pathways. That's not always true. The prominent exceptions are the opiates (e.g., morphine, heroin), which induce ΔFosB equally in D1-type and D2-type neurons. Natural rewards such as sucrose (but not sex) resemble opiates in this regard. Sexual activity induces ΔFosB in D1-type neurons in a pattern similar to cocaine and methamphetamine.

Third, Ley et al. say that ΔFosB's main role is to reduce dopamine signaling. Actually, ΔFosB's initial action is to inhibit dynorphin, thus increasing dopamine signaling, although ΔFosB may also ultimately lead to D2 down regulation (decreased signaling). See "Cdk5 Phosphorylates Dopamine D2 Receptor and Attenuates Downstream Signaling" (2013)

Fourth, Ley et al. completely miss ΔFosB's role in sensitization (inducing cravings). A review covering 15 years of ΔFosB research describes sensitization as ΔFosB's primary action that induces addiction, both chemical and behavioral.

Excerpts: These data indicate that the induction of ΔFosB in dynorphin-containing medium spiny neurons of the nucleus accumbens increases an animal's sensitivity to cocaine and other drugs of abuse, and may represent a mechanism for relatively prolonged sensitization to the drugs. ... ΔFosB in this brain region sensitizes animals not only for drug rewards but for natural rewards as well, and may contribute to states of natural addiction.

Sensitization also explains how ΔFosB reinforces sexual reward. In relation to sex, only rodents' ΔFosB levels have so far been measured. Just a few examples:

• Delta JunD overexpression in the nucleus accumbens prevents sexual reward in female Syrian hamsters (2013)

Excerpt: These data, when coupled with our previous findings, suggest that ∆FosB is both necessary and sufficient for behavioral plasticity following sexual experience. Furthermore, these results contribute to an important and growing body of literature demonstrating the necessity of endogenous ΔFosB expression in the nucleus accumbens for adaptive responding to naturally rewarding stimuli.

• Natural reward experience alters AMPA and NMDA receptor distribution and function in the nucleus accumbens (2012)

Excerpt: Together, these data show that sexual experience causes long-term alterations in glutamate receptor expression and function in the nucleus accumbens. Although not identical, this sex experience-induced neuroplasticity has similarities to that caused by psychostimulants, suggesting common mechanisms for reinforcement of natural and drug reward.

• Natural and Drug Rewards Act on Common Neural Plasticity Mechanisms with ΔFosB as a Key Mediator (2013)

Excerpt: Natural and drug rewards not only converge on the same neural pathway, they converge on the same molecular mediators and likely in the same neurons in the nucleus accumbens to influence the incentive salience and the “wanting” of both types of rewards (sex and drugs of abuse).

So, what of humans? Ley et al. correctly state that there are serious challenges in measuring ΔFosB in humans. It requires fresh corpses. But again, they either deliberately misled their readers or failed to do their homework. They did not report that higher than normal ΔFosB levels have been found in deceased cocaine addicts. This suggests that ΔFosB plays a similar role in reinforcing reward in humans. Instead Ley et al. only pointed to null ΔFosB results in deceased alcoholics. How's that for cherry-picking? They choose an anomaly in hopes they can deceive their readers that ΔFosB research can't offer strong support for the concept that all chemical and behavioral addictions are one biological disease.

What accounts for the anomaly? The study on alcoholics only looked at the frontal cortex, not the nucleus accumbens or dorsal striatum, which is where ΔFosB is normally measured in connection with addiction. All the studies that induced addiction-like behaviors and hyper-consumputive states did so by elevating ΔFosB in the nucleus accumbens not the frontal cortex.

In any event, alcoholic corpses would be poor subjects because they typically experience a slow decline from their chronic condition, which would typically make indulgence in their addiction less feasible and thus make accumulation of ΔFosB less likely near their deaths. In contrast, the cocaine addicts whose ΔFosB levels were measured all died sudden deaths without protracted illness. See "Behavioral and Structural Responses to Chronic Cocaine Require a Feedforward Loop Involving ΔFosB and Calcium/Calmodulin-Dependent Protein Kinase II in the Nucleus Accumbens Shell" (2013)

Excerpt: The cohort was composed of 37 male and 3 female subjects, ranging in age between 15–66 years. All subjects died suddenly without a prolonged agonal state or protracted medical illness. ... Here, we present the first evidence that levels of both ΔFosB and CaMKII are increased in NAc of cocaine-dependent humans. These data indicate that our examination of ΔFosB and CaMKII induction by cocaine in rodent NAc is clinically relevant to human cocaine addiction.

Next, Ley et al. make the jump from deception or incompetence...to incoherence. For reasons known only to themselves they begin babbling about male-on-male mounting behavior, claiming that no one can study hypersexuality or ΔFosB without using gay rats, which would "pathologize homosexual behavior." Huh? This is as uncorroborated as their earlier statements that only opioids can cause addiction.

Perhaps this lively red herring is here to distract readers from contemplating the critically important implications of ΔFosB for sexual addictions. Both amphetamine and sex sensitize the same neurons in the brain, which suggests that of all addictions, sexual behavior addictions may be among the most compelling. Or to state this another way, drug addictions hijack the brain machinery that evolved to drive sexual learning.

In short, Ley et al.'s insistence that sexual behaviors can't become addictive in the face of a supernormal stimulus like internet porn is nothing short of reckless given the evidence that ΔFosB is at work, sensitizing brains, in both sex and addiction. See "Pornography addiction – a supranormal stimulus considered in the context of neuroplasticity."

Alternative Models - Secondary Gain

Next Ley et al. chastise the "lucrative, largely unregulated" pornography and sex addiction treatment industry. However, the internet offers many free porn recovery sites. Very few of the tens of thousands of people on online porn recovery forums see therapists. It's likely that the vast majority of those who self-identify as porn addicts, however severe their symptoms, do not seek, or spend a dime on, treatment. Only a handful have gone to treatment centers, which tend to specialize in helping those with more pervasive sexual or other behavioral and/or chemical addictions.

In any case, how could treatment cost possibly have a bearing on whether or not porn addiction is a physical reality? If Ley et al. are so bothered about possible bias, they could profitably have spent more time investigating their own.

Ley et al. also argue that religious affiliation gives rise to the "supposed pathology" of porn addiction. Self-polls repeatedly show that the overwhelming majority of young people on porn recovery sites are not religious. For example this self-poll of the largest English-language forum found that only 20% of those polled were seeking to quit porn for religious reasons.

And if moneymaking is a problem in the porn-addiction controversy, what of the lucrative porn industry manipulating its visitors to keep them producing ad (and other) revenue? What of author David Ley himself, who presumably charges his clients for his clinical services and book denying the existence of porn addiction?

Ley et al.'s sloppiness, or desire to discredit those who treat sex addicts, shows up again when they claim that 'R. Weiss' has published an explicitly religious argument against porn viewing. The actual author is D. Weiss. Rob Weiss is a sex therapist and the author of several books, including Cruise Control: Understanding Sex Addiction in Gay Men. This error stands to muddy his reputation with both readers and clients.

VSS Use and Mental Health Problems

In this section Ley et al. claim there's no evidence that porn use causes mental health problems, suggesting that any such problems necessarily predate porn use. No doubt pre-existing conditions do increase some users' vulnerability to addiction. Yet therapists are increasingly seeing another type of porn addiction that is not dependent on pre-existing conditions.

They are labeling it in various ways including "opportunity addiction" and "contemporary rapid-onset addiction." Unlike classical 'sex addiction,' this type of addiction is to internet porn and has more to do with early exposure to graphic sexual stimuli via the internet than inherent vulnerabilities, which may or may not be present.

Ley et al. claim that citation 125, "Adolescents' Exposure to Sexually Explicit Internet Material and Sexual Preoccupancy: A Three-Wave Panel Study" (2008), is evidence that lower life satisfaction causes increased porn use, not the reverse. That may, of course, be true for some users, but let's look more closely at some of that study's other, more disturbing findings. The researchers surveyed 962 Dutch adolescents three times over the course of 1 year.

Excerpts: The more frequently adolescents used SEIM [Sexually Explicit Internet Material], the more often they thought about sex, the stronger their interest in sex became, and the more frequently they became distracted because of their thoughts about sex. ... Sexual arousal as a result of exposure to SEIM may cue sex-related cognitions in memory ... and may eventually lead to chronically accessible sex-related cognitions, that is, sexual preoccupancy.

Next, Ley et al. state that "even when loneliness was strongly predicted by overall Internet use, researchers failed to appropriately statistically control for general Internet use and attributed loneliness to VSS use [126]." Alas, continuing a pattern that is becoming dishearteningly familiar in "No Clothes," citation 126 has nothing to do with internet porn use: See "When What You See Isn’t What You Get: Alcohol Cues, Alcohol Administration, Prediction Error, and Human Striatal Dopamine." Shoddy.

Ley et al. then resort to misrepresentation - "Others have reached similar conclusions: “the high comorbidity rates in the present sample call into question the extent to which it is possible to speak of Internet sex addiction as a primary disorder." The relevant citation (127) comes from "Internet sex addiction: A review of empirical research," which was not about internet porn addiction, but rather sex addiction facilitated by the internet. In any case, the statement was not a "conclusion" at all. It was made in reference to only a single study (Schwartz & Southern, 2000) of the many studies the author reviewed. The researcher's actual conclusion was:

Excerpt: If the cybersex user experiences clinically significant distress or impairment because of their engagement in sexual behaviors on the Internet, it appears relatively safe to claim that s/he suffers from Internet sex addiction.

Granted it is difficult to conduct formal causality studies of the type being carried out informally online by tens of thousands of guys who are giving up internet porn and seeing profound mental health benefits (improved concentration, reduced social anxiety and depression, increased motivation and elevated mood). However, researchers have conducted numerous correlation studies that show an association between pathological internet use and mental health problems. In addition to the many studies we discuss specifically herein, we list and describe ~30 relevant studies at the end of this critique, all of which demonstrate mental health risks, or other risks, associated with porn use and none of which made it into Ley et al.'s review.

Ley et al. had better be right that internet porn can't cause mental health problems, because if they're mistaken they're dismissing a serious health concern that has the potential to be quite prevalent in today's digital natives given their porn use (universal among males, growing among females). In view of the increase in depression and suicide risk in those who spend too much time online, internet porn consumers' wellbeing may be at risk.

VSS Use and Mental Health Problems - VSS Use Explained by Sex Drive

Here Ley et al. trot out their pet theory that porn users merely have higher libido than other people and simply can't be expected to scratch their itch without the help of internet porn. Further, Ley et al. insist that somehow this means these high-libido people can't become addicts. This faulty logic has been refuted in "‘High desire’, or ‘merely’ an addiction? A response to Steele et al.

What do the studies they cite in support of their prized hypothesis actually say?

• 122 "Frequent users of pornography. A population based epidemiological study of Swedish male adolescents"

Excerpt: The frequent users had a more positive attitude to pornography, were more often “turned on” viewing pornography and viewed more often advanced forms of pornography. Frequent use was also associated with many problem behaviours. (emphasis added)

• 123 "Watching pornographic pictures on the Internet: role of sexual arousal ratings and psychological-psychiatric symptoms for using Internet sex sites excessively"

Excerpt: We found a positive relationship between subjective sexual arousal when watching Internet pornographic pictures and the self-reported problems in daily life due to the excessiveness of cybersex as measured by the IATsex.

• 129 "Nonaffective motivation modulates the sustained LPP (1,000-2,000 ms)"

Irrelevant citation. There is no indication that this study is about porn viewing or sexual desire.

• 130 "Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on risky decision making are mediated by ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ decisions, personality, and hemisphere"

Again, an irrelevant citation. There is no mention of porn viewing. Instead researchers used "The Columbia Card Task" as their instrument.

• 81 - "Dysregulated sexuality and high sexual desire: distinct constructs? (2010)"

Excerpt: Men and women who reported having sought treatment scored significantly higher on measures of dysregulated sexuality and sexual desire.

Incidentally, this team of researchers, headed by young Canadian sexologist Jason Winters, deserves special mention as the first to sneak past actual peer reviewers with the fiction that sexual behavior addicts have no pathology, but are merely people with high libido. Quite a feat, but hardly a step forward for humankind.

• 52 "Sexual desire, not hypersexuality, is related to neurophysiological responses elicited by sexual images"

This is Prause's very own creative-writing exercise, which has been extensively extensively critiqued.

VSS Use and Mental Health Problems - VSS Use Explained by Sensation Seeking

The ineptitude of Ley et al. continues. They claim that Higher need or desire for sensation is predictive of more frequent use of VSS, in both adolescents and adults [12,133, 134]. Yet citation 133 has nothing to do porn viewing. See "Theta-Patterned, Frequency-Modulated Priming Stimulation Enhances Low-Frequency, Right Prefrontal Cortex Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) in Depression: A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Study" Nor does citation 134: "Peripheral endocannabinoid dysregulation in obesity: relation to intestinal motility and energy processing induced by food deprivation and re-feeding"

Had they (or their reviewers) investigated the actual literature, they might have found - Cybersex addiction: Experienced sexual arousal when watching pornography and not real-life sexual contacts makes the difference" (2013), discussed earlier, which says that cue reactivity (evidence of addiction-related brain changes), not "high desire," fuels problematic porn use:

Excerpt: Poor or unsatisfying sexual reallife contacts cannot sufficiently explain cybersex addiction.

VSS Use and Mental Health Problems - VSS Use As Effective Affect Regulation

Here Ley et al. make the argument that controlling emotions with porn or distracting oneself with porn is normal and only beneficial. They compare porn to cartoons as a way of improving mood. In making their case, Ley et al. overlook, or misrepresent the significance of, various studies that completely contradict their beliefs, and demonstrate that internet porn use is not "like cartoons" in its effects, or mood-elevating properties:

• "Differential psychological impact of internet exposure on internet addicts" (2013)

Excerpts: The results showed a striking negative impact of internet exposure on the positive mood of ‘internet addicts’. This effect has been suggested in theoretical models of ‘internet addiction [14], [21], and a similar finding has also been noted in terms of the negative effect of exposure to pornography on internet sex addicts [5], which may suggest commonalities between these addictions. It is also worth suggesting that this negative impact on mood could be considered as akin to a withdrawal effect, suggested as needed for the classification of addictions [1], [2], [27]. ...

High internet-users also showed a pronounced decrease in mood following internet use compared to the low internet-users. The immediate negative impact of exposure to the internet on the mood of internet addicts may contribute to increased usage by those individuals attempting to reduce their low mood by re-engaging rapidly in internet use. ...

Exposure to the object of the problematic behaviours has been found to reduce mood [26], especially in individuals addicted to pornography [5], [27]. As both of these reasons (i.e. gambling and pornography) for use of the internet are strongly associated with problematic internet use [2], [3], [14], it may well be that these factors may also contribute to internet addiction [14]. Indeed, it has been suggested that such negative impacts of engagement in problematic behaviour may, in themselves, generate further engagement in these high probability problematic behaviours in an attempt to escape these negative feelings [28]. ...

It should be pointed out that, as two of the key uses of the internet for a sizable number of internet users are to gain access to pornography and gambling [4], [5], and these latter activities are clearly subject to potentially-addictive states, it may be that any results relating to ‘internet addiction’ are actually manifestations of other forms of addiction (i.e. to pornography or gambling). (emphasis added)

• "Pornographic picture processing interferes with working memory performance" (136)

Excerpts: Some individuals report problems during and after Internet sex engagement, such as missing sleep and forgetting appointments, which are associated with negative life consequences. One mechanism potentially leading to these kinds of problems is that sexual arousal during Internet sex might interfere with working memory (WM) capacity, resulting in a neglect of relevant environmental information and therefore disadvantageous decision making. ...

Results contribute to the view that indicators of sexual arousal due to pornographic picture processing interfere with WM performance. Findings are discussed with respect to Internet sex addiction because WM interference by addiction-related cues is well known from substance dependencies. (emphasis added)

• "Sexual Picture Processing Interferes with Decision-Making Under Ambiguity"

Excerpt: Subjective sexual arousal moderated the relationship between task condition and decision-making performance. This study emphasized that sexual arousal interfered with decision-making, which may explain why some individuals experience negative consequences in the context of cybersex use. (emphasis added)

VSS Use and Mental Health Problems - VSS Use and Sexual Orientation

Here Ley et al. imply that porn problems are especially a "gay and bisexual" thing, as if sexual orientation is relevant to the existence or absence of addiction. Moreover, we wonder if porn watching is still a sexual-minority-only issue among today's digital-native males. A recent poll of the largest online English-language porn recovery forum showed that 94% of users were heterosexual, and 5% gay or bisexual. With the advent of free, streaming video clips and private smartphones, it is doubtful that young heterosexuals still lag behind other male porn users.

In any case, in this section Ley et al. tumble from carelessness to mind-boggling incompetence. Not one of the six studies they cite has anything to do with their statements. Ley et al in bullets:

• "Studies examining rates of VSS use in nationally representative samples find higher rates of VSS use in both adolescents and adults who identify as other than heterosexual [133], as do studies of clinical samples" [143].

Citation 133 has nothing to do with VSS. It's about transcranial magnetic stimulation and depression. Citation 143 has nothing to do with VSS. It's about monkeys: "Male masturbation in free-ranging Japanese macaques."

• ""Trials of DSM-5 hypersexual disorder criteria found that MSM were more than three times as likely to be in such treatment settings, compared with rates of MSM in comparable substance abuse or mental health facilities"" [144].

Citation 144 has nothing to do with the above statement. It's "Sleep deprivation: Effect on sleep stages and EEG power density in man"

• Increased use of VSS in these populations may reflect adaptive strategies. MSM may be more likely to seek information and stimuli consistent with their sexual orientation. This may reflect a common component of the ‘coming-out process’ of forming a stable sexual identity [145].

Citation 145 has nothing to do with above statement. It's "Dieting and binging: a causal analysis"

• "Studies that examine use of VSS in MSM find that these men overwhelmingly endorse these positive benefits from VSS use" [146]

Citation 146 has nothing to do with men who have sex with men. It is about 12 and 13-year olds. "Sexual risk taking in adolescence: the role of self-regulation and attraction to risk"

VSS Use and Mental Health Problems - Compulsivity

We will address these sections on 'impulsivity' and 'compulsivity' together because they are part of the same strategem. Ley et al. seek to re-brand people with problematic porn use as having unalterable "traits" as opposed to reversible pathological learning as a consequence of their interaction with their environment (addiction).

Certainly, some people are more impulsive than others. Innate impulsivity is a risk-factor for developing addiction. But Ley et al. imply that the presence of increased impulsivity mysteriously precludes addiction. This is flat out wrong; impulsivity increases the chance of addiction.

Part of their plan is to split impulsivity from compulsivity. They don't like the latter because it has been used interchangeably with addiction. With respect to compulsive behavior, the goal of Ley et al. is to re-brand it as "high desire." More on that in a moment.

Let's see what the established science has to say about the terms 'impulsivity' and 'compulsivity'. The following comes from "Probing Compulsive and Impulsive Behaviors, from Animal Models to Endophenotypes: A Narrative Review":

Excerpt: Impulsivity may be defined as ‘a predisposition toward rapid, unplanned reactions to internal or external stimuli with diminished regard to the negative consequences of these reactions. In contrast, compulsivity represents a tendency to perform unpleasantly repetitive acts in a habitual or stereotyped manner to prevent perceived negative consequences, leading to functional impairment. (emphasis added)

Historically, 'impulsivity' and 'compulsivity' were viewed as diametrically opposed, with impulsivity being associated with risk-seeking and compulsivity with harm-avoidance. However, increasingly they are recognized to be biologically linked. That is, they share neuropsychological mechanisms involving dysfunctional inhibition of thoughts and behaviors. ("New developments in human neurocognition: clinical, genetic, and brain imaging correlates of impulsivity and compulsivity")

So, when someone develops an addiction it's accepted (by experts) that their impulsivity and compulsivity have been increased by their addiction-related brain changes. Why? Addiction has been shown to change the frontal cortex and striatum causing dysfunctions. Both impulsivity and compulsivity are driven by dysfunctional cortico-striatal neural circuits. See "Probing Compulsive and Impulsive Behaviors, from Animal Models to Endophenotypes: A Narrative Review"

Excerpt: Impulsive and compulsive disorders are conspicuously heterogeneous, sharing aspects of impulsivity and compulsivity, and become even more complex and thus more difficult to disentangle over time. For example, for impulsive and addictive disorders, tolerance to reward may develop and the behaviors may persist as a method of reducing discomfort (i.e., they become more compulsive).

Indeed, in animal studies low dopamine D2 receptors, caused by addiction, are associated with impulsivity. ("Low dopamine striatal D2 receptors are associated with prefrontal metabolism in obese subjects: Possible contributing factors") Moreover, causation has been established in both animal and human addicts. In other words, addiction can cause the impulsivity that Ley et al. prefer to believe is purely a fixed trait, independent of addiction.

To state all of this another way, while 'impulsivity' and 'compulsivity' can be studied separately, they coexist when one has an addiction. In other words, the research has moved in the opposite direction of the impulsivity-compulsivity split that Ley et al. are pandering. In fact, the DSM recently changed pathological gambling from an "Impulse-Control Disorder" to an "Addictive Disorder" precisely because the research is showing it is an addiction, not a matter of impulsivity. "Addiction, a Disease of Compulsion and Drive: Involvement of the Orbitofrontal Cortex" describes the current model of addiction, which:

Excerpt: invokes both conscious (craving, loss of control, drug preoccupation) and unconscious processes (conditioned expectation, compulsivity, impulsivity, obsessiveness) which result from dysfunction of the striato-thalamo-orbitofrontal circuit.

Interestingly, the citation (147) Ley et al. offer for their untenable position contradicts them. The researchers concluded that problematic internet porn (IP) use is "an addictive problem" and the trait of "impulsivity did not appear to be an important factor differentiating IP users from problematic users or IP users from nonusers."

Citation 149 investigated the impulsivity of patients with compulsive sexual behaviors, and their brain imaging results were not consistent with impulse control disorders. Citation 150 goes to an unpublished study by Prause herself, "Neural evidence of underreactivity to sexual stimuli in those reporting problems regulating their viewing of visual sexual stimuli." May we be the first to predict that, once again, she will claim the results disprove porn addiction regardless of underlying data or flaws in study design?

It is important not to let weak claims about "traits," or agenda-driven research, muddy the water, because many of the brain changes associated with addiction are reversible. Addicts can relearn healthy 'wanting,' which means they are empowered to change their circumstances. They can learn to alter the choices they made about how they interact with their environment.

A few words about 'compulsivity' as viewed through the eyes of Ley et al.: They deny "the compulsivity model," instead nurturing the notion that compulsive porn use is just evidence of "high desire." By the same logic, alcoholics would simply have "high desire" for alcohol, and addicted smokers "high desire" for nicotine. This hypothesis has been challenged in a peer-reviewed journal comment, "‘High desire’, or ‘merely’ an addiction? A response to Steele et al." Also see the studies we cited above in the section entitled, "Negative Consequences of High Use of VSS - Failure to Inhibit VSS Use."

Conclusion

Ley et al. extol the health benefits of porn because it facilitates orgasm. However humanity orgasmed just fine for a long time without any help from internet porn. More important, orgasm appears to be less beneficial in the case of masturbation than in the case of partnered sex, so problematic porn use may be getting in the way of potential benefits.

Ley et al. suggest that young porn viewers may be moving to more extreme porn when they don't have partners with whom to engage in sexual risk behaviors. Both their supporting citations show that the younger someone is exposed to porn, the more likely s/he will proceed to illegal porn. Citation 153 found that early exposure to sexually explicit material is a risk factor for sexual risk-taking, and, as discussed earlier. 154 found that the younger kids start viewing pornography the more likely they are to view bestiality or child porn.

Ley et al. also point to the benefits of masturbation to porn as a way of reducing risky partnered sexual behaviors, as if no one had the option of self-pleasuring instead of acting out prior to internet porn! Next they warn there's a risk in "labeling VSS as only addictive." (Who labeled it as "only addictive?")

They even go so far as to advocate porn use as "cognitive retraining" citing (155) "Brain training: games to do you good!" Today's porn is indeed brain training for some users, many of whom report devastating "retraining," such as loss of attraction to real partners, sexual dysfunctions and morphing sexual tastes that escalate to material inconsistent with their underlying sexual orientation.

Ley et al. claim that the concept of porn addiction is driven by the dark hand of "non-empirical forces." This is comical, given that they left out massive empirical evidence that discounts their hypotheses, and brazenly cherry-picked what supported their agenda from various studies, frequently ignoring actual conclusions.

Next they assure us that the popularity of the term "porn addiction" in the media is simply due to widespread ignorance. In fact, the public appears to be ahead of these sexologists in their recognition that addiction is a real, biological condition. Ley et al. also seem unwilling to consider the possibility that growing recognition of the term 'addiction' might, in fact, be evidence that more people are experiencing addictions and sexual dysfunctions caused by porn.

Heading for the finish line, Ley et al. imply that concern about porn addiction is somehow proof of moralistic judgments calculated to suppress sexual expression and stigmatize sexual minorities. In fact, as the concept of porn addiction has gained currency, moral concerns about porn use, suppression of sexual expression and stigmatization of sexual minorities all seem to be declining sharply. Perhaps if Ley et al. were to investigate that correlation they would promptly bring their views on internet porn addiction into alignment with current scientific thought.

Porn studies showing adverse effects, which were overlooked by authors, and have not been mentioned above

1. Adolescent pornographic internet site use: a multivariate regression analysis of the predictive factors of use and psychosocial implications (2009) findings suggested that Greek adolescents who are exposed to sexually explicit material may develop “unrealistic attitudes about sex and misleading attitudes toward relationships” The data indicated a significant relationship between consumption of Internet pornography and social maladjustment. Specifically, adolescents who indicated infrequent use of pornography were twice as likely have conduct issues as those who did not consume pornography at all. Also, frequent consumers were significantly more likely to indicate abnormal conduct issues as well as borderline addictive Internet use
3. Adolescents' Exposure to Sexually Explicit Internet Material and Notions of Women as Sex Objects: Assessing Causality and Underlying Processes (2009) Peter and Valkenburg (2009) determined that viewing women as sex objects was related to increased frequency in the consumption of sexually explicit material. It is unclear how adolescent females are impacted by viewing other females, and possibly even themselves, as sex objects. In short, these findings suggest that “adolescents’ exposure to SEIM was both a cause and a consequence of their beliefs that women are sex objects.
6. Adolescents' Exposure to Sexually Explicit Internet Material, Sexual Uncertainty, and Attitudes Toward Uncommitted Sexual Exploration: Is There a Link? (2008) Drawing from a sample of 2,343 Dutch adolescents aged 13 to 20, the authors find that more frequent exposure to sexually explicit Internet material is associated with greater sexual uncertainty and more positive attitudes toward uncommitted sexual exploration (i.e., sexual relations with casual partners/friends or with sexual partners in one-night stands)
9. Adolescents' Use of Sexually Explicit Internet Material and Sexual Uncertainty: The Role of Involvement and Gender (2010) As adolescents use SEIM more frequently, their sexual uncertainty increases. Equally true for both boys and girls; pornography is confusing for all. As adolescents use SEIM more frequently, they became more strongly involved in the material. Involvement is defined as an intense experiential state during the reception of media content and comprises both affective and cognitive processes Lose track of time; don’t notice surroundings, completely focused.
11. Adolescents’ Exposure to a Sexualized Media Environment and Their Notions of Women as Sex Objects (2007) Both male and female Dutch adolescents (13-18) who used more sexually explicit content were more likely to view women as sex objects.
14. Associations between young adults' use of sexually explicit materials and their sexual preferences, behaviors, and satisfaction. (2011) Higher frequencies of SEM use were associated with less sexual and relationship satisfaction. The frequency of SEM use and number of SEM types viewed were both associated with higher sexual preferences for the types of sexual practices typically presented in SEM. These findings suggest that SEM use can play a significant role in a variety of aspects of young adults' sexual development processes
17. Developmental Pathways into Social and Sexual Deviance (2010) Hunter et al. (2010) examined the relationship between exposure to pornography prior to age 13 and four negative personality constructs. This study surveyed 256 adolescent males with a history of sexual criminal behavior; the authors found a relationship between early exposure to pornography and antisocial behavior, likely the result of a distorted view of sexuality and the glorification of promiscuity (Hunter et al., 2010). Hunter et al. (2010) found childhood exposure to sexually explicit material may contribute “to antagonistic and psychopathic attitudes, likely the depiction of distorted views of human sexuality and glorification of promiscuity” (p. 146). Moreover, these authors argued that because adolescents do not always have the opportunity to counterbalance “real-life experiences with sexual partners. . .. they are especially susceptible to internalization of distorted pornographic images of human sexuality and may act accordingly” (p. 147)
20. Early sexual experiences: the role of Internet access and sexually explicit material (2008) During the ages of 12 to 17, males with internet reported significantly younger ages for first oral sex, and males and females reported younger ages for first sexual intercourse compared to those without it. Early sexual experiences: the role of Internet access and sexually explicit material.
23. Emerging Adult Sexual Attitudes and Behaviors Does Shyness Matter? (2013) The more university-age men engage in solitary sexual behaviours of masturbation and pornography the more shyness they report.
26. Emerging in a Digital World: A Decade Review of Media Use, Effects, and Gratifications in Emerging Adulthood. (2013) The more internet porn university students use the worse the quality of their relationships.
28. Exposure to internet pornography among children and adolescents a national survey (2005) Those who report intentional exposure to pornography, irrespective of source, are significantly more likely to report delinquent behavior and substance use in the previous year. Further, online seekers versus offline seekers are more likely to report clinical features associated with depression and lower levels of emotional bonding with their caregiver.
31. Exposure to Internet Pornography and Taiwanese Adolescents Sexual Attitudes and Behavior (2005) This study indicated that exposure to sexually explicit material increased the likelihood that adolescents will accept and engage in sexually permissive behaviors. Determined that exposure to sexually explicit material on the Internet had a greater influence on permissive sexual attitudes than all other forms of pornographic media.
34. Exposure to sexually explicit Web sites and adolescent sexual attitudes and behaviors (2009) Braun-Courville and Rojas’ (2009) study of 433 adolescents indicated that those who use sexually explicit material are more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors such as anal sex, sex with multiple partners, and using drugs or alcohol during sex. This study was supported by Brown, Keller, and Stern (2009) who indicated that adolescents who witness high risk sexual practices in sexually explicit material in the absence of education on the potential negative consequences, are more likely to engage in some form of high-risk sexual behavior themselves.
37. Frequent users of pornography. A population based epidemiological study of Swedish male adolescents (2010) regression analysis showed that frequent users of pornography were more likely to be living in a large city, consuming alcohol more often, having greater sexual desire and had more often sold sex than other boys of the same age. High frequent viewing of pornography may be seen as a problematic behaviour that needs more attention from both parents and teachers
40. Internet Pornography and Loneliness: An Association? Porn use was associated with increased loneliness.
43. Mental- and physical-health indicators and sexually explicit media use behavior by adults This 2006 survey of 559 Seattle adults found that porn users, compared to nonusers, report greater depressive symptoms, poorer quality of life, more mental- and physical-health diminished days, and lower health status. Mental- and physical-health indicators and sexually explicit media use behavior by adults.
46. Nucleus accumbens activation mediates the influence of reward cues on financial risk taking Porn use correlates with increased financial risk-taking.
48. Pornography and attitudes supporting violence against women: revisiting the relationship in nonexperimental studies (2009) Porn use and violent porn use were both associated with attitudes supporting violence against women.
51. Pornography and teenagers: the importance of individual differences (2005) They found that a male adolescent who “possesses certain combinations of risk factors determines how likely he is to be sexually aggressive following pornography exposure” (p. 316). Focusing directly on violent sexually explicit material, Malamuth and Huppin (2005) suggest that, not only are these higher risk adolescent males “more likely to be exposed to such media but when they are exposed, they are likely to be changed by such exposure, such as changes in attitudes about the acceptance of violence against women” (p. 323–24).
54. Pornography Consumption and Opposition to Affirmative Action for Women (2013) Pornography viewing predicted subsequent opposition to affirmative action in both men and women, even after controlling for prior affirmative action attitudes and various other potential confounds.
57. Pornography use as a risk marker for an aggressive pattern of behavior among sexually reactive children and adolescents (2009) Alexy et al. (2009) studied the pornography consumption patterns of juvenile sexual offenders as they related to various forms of aggressive behavior. Those who were consumers of pornography were more likely to display forms of aggressive behaviors such as theft, truancy, manipulating others, arson, and forced sexual intercourse.
60. Pornography Viewing among Fraternity Men: Effects on Bystander Intervention, Rape Myth Acceptance and Behavioral Intent to Commit Sexual Assault (2011) The more porn male university students watch the more casual their attitudes toward sexual assault.
63. Pornography, Relationship Alternatives, and Intimate Extradyadic Behavior (2013) Porn use is linked with increased fooling around on the side in romantically committed individuals.
66. Pornography's Impact on Sexual Satisfaction (2006) Porn use reduced satisfaction with intimate partners.
69. Sexual Addiction among Teens: A Review (2007) It is concluded that there probably does exist a phenomenon of sexual addiction that applies across the life course (including the teenage years), that deserves much more study.
72. The use of cyberpornography by young men in Hong Kong some psychosocial correlates (2007) participants who reported to have more online pornography viewing were found to score higher on measures of premarital sexual permissiveness and proclivities toward sexual harassmen
75. Use of Internet Pornography and Men's Well-Being This 2005 study revealed that depression, anxiety, and real-life intimacy problems are associated with chronic cybersexuality in men.
78. Variations in internet-related problems and psychosocial functioning in online sexual activities: implications for social and sexual development of young adults. (2004) (Available in full online) Online sexual activities displaced normal relationship development, learned courtship, and romantic behaviours in university students.
81. X-rated material and perpetration of sexually aggressive behavior among children and adolescents: is there a link? (2011) Ley, Prause and Finn do mention this study, but they attempt to reduce it to evidence of "sensation seeking" in porn users. They didn't mention that adolescents who are intentionally exposed to violent pornography appear to be six times more likely to commit acts of sexual aggression than those who had no exposure or were exposed to non-violent pornography
84. Young adult women’s reports of their male romantic partner’s pornography use as a correlate of their psychological distress, relationship quality, and sexual satisfaction. 2012 Results revealed women’s reports of their male partner’s frequency of pornography use were negatively associated with their relationship quality. More perceptions of problematic use of pornography was negatively correlated with self-esteem, relationship quality, and sexual satisfaction.
87. The effects of gay sexually explicit media on the HIV risk behavior of men who have sex with men. 2013. Overall sexually explicit media consumption was not associated with HIV risk; however participants who watched more bareback sexually explicit media reported significantly greater odds of engaging in risk behavior. The results suggest that a preference for bareback sexually explicit media is associated with engaging in risk behavior.
90. Use of pornography and self-reported engagement in sexual violence among adolescents (2005). The findings showed that active and passive sexual violence and unwanted sex and pornography were correlated. However, reading pornographic material was more strongly linked to active sexual violence, while being a boy was found to be protective against passive sexual violence. Nevertheless, some effects of viewing pornographic films on passive unwanted sex were also found, especially among girls.
93. Pornography and sexual aggression: Associations of violent and nonviolent depictions with rape and rape proclivity (1994). Data collected from a sample of 515 college men indicated strong bivariate associations of rape and rape proclivity with use of almost all forms of pornography. Multivariate analysis indicated that the strongest correlates of sexual coercion and aggression, as well as rape proclivity, were exposure to hard‐core violent and rape pornography. Exposure to nonviolent hard‐core pornography displayed no association net of the other variables. Exposure to soft‐core pornography was positively associated with likelihood of sexual force and nonviolent coercive behavior, but negatively associated with likelihood of rape and actual rape behavior.
96. Attitudinal effects of degrading themes and sexual explicitness in video materials (2000) Results revealed that men exposed to degrading material, regardless of explicitness, were significantly more likely to express attitudes supportive of rape, while explicitness had no significant main or interactive effect on these attitudes. Further, the interaction of explicitness with degradation was found to impact scores on a measure of sexual callousness. Theoretical and clinical implications of these findings are discussed
99. Young adult women’s reports of their male romantic partner’s pornography use as a correlate of their psychological distress, relationship quality, and sexual satisfaction (2012) Results revealed women’s reports of their male partner’s frequency of pornography use were negatively associated with their relationship quality. More perceptions of problematic use of pornography was negatively correlated with self-esteem, relationship quality, and sexual satisfaction.
102. Pornography Use: Who Uses It and How It Is Associated with Couple Outcomes (2012) Overall results from this study indicated substantial gender differences in terms of use profiles, as well as pornography's association with relationship factors. Specifically, male pornography use was negatively associated with both male and female sexual quality, whereas female pornography use was positively associated with female sexual quality.
105. Sexual media use and relationship satisfaction in heterosexual couples (2011) Results revealed that a higher frequency of men's sexual media use related to negative satisfaction in men, while a higher frequency of women's sexual media use related to positive satisfaction in male partners.
108. When is Online Pornography Viewing Problematic Among College Males? Examining the Moderating Role of Experiential Avoidance (2012) The current study examined the relationship of Internet pornography viewing and experiential avoidance to a range of psychosocial problems (depression, anxiety, stress, social functioning, and problems related to viewing) through a cross-sectional online survey conducted with a non-clinical sample of 157 undergraduate college males. Results indicated that frequency of viewing was significantly related to each psychosocial variable, such that more viewing was related to greater problems.
111. "Bareback" Pornography Consumption and Safe-Sex Intentions of Men Having Sex with Men (2014) The results provide novel and ecologically valid evidence that "bareback" pornography consumption impacts viewer's inclinations toward sexual risk-taking by lowering their intentions to use protected sex measures. Suggestions are given as to how these findings can be utilized for purposes of intervention and prevention of STI and HIV infections.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaborlewis (talk • contribs)

Copyvio, original research or advocacy?

I don't know how to handle this long post from User talk:Gaborlewis. There might be several problems with it: copyvio (copy/paste of a blog article, but it could well be that it is its author who posted it on Wikipedia), lots of original research (basically it should be accepted as true because a blogger says so), weird claims that DSM-5 would be fringe pseudoscience instead of medical consensus. Anyway, I told him that attacking Ley, Prause and Finn is a very different matter from reinstating claims about Delta FosB inside Pornography addiction. Even if these three authors are wrong, it does not follow that there would be peer-reviewed evidence linking verbatim Delta FosB to sex addiction (instead of natural reward for sex). It is his task to produce positive evidence, negating negative evidence won't do. It all smacks of WP:Advocacy for a unfalsifiable hypothesis with a heavy theological agenda. I told him that maybe ten or twenty year later there will be evidence for such claim, now it's 2014 and according to DSM-5 evidence for the existence of sex addiction was lacking just an year ago. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The DSM is not science based. You can argue that the DSM5 has not accepted, porn addiction, but we already know that. However the DSM5 has been labeled as pseudoscience by the head of the NIMH. The DSM5 is not medical consensus. NIMH director Tom Insel stated that the NIMH will no longer fund studies based on the DSM - http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml

— User:Gaborlewis

Quoted from [5] by Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

That is, at best, a surprising reading of Insel's blog post. It's also also, in large parts, wrong. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the shrink would tell to the insurance company "I'm afraid I can't follow DSM-5, since it's pseudoscience." Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Ley, Prause and Finn said that 90% of the studies upon sex addiction are scientifically worthless since they either contain no empirical data (but only value judgments) or if they contain empirical data there is no responsible statistical analysis of such data. So the three authors cannot be blamed for discarding from the review what they considered sub-standard scholarship. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

This paper is normal peer-reviewed academic research. I wouldn't say that it is a systematic review. MEDRS applies, so it would be helpful to have comments from people with a medical background who regularly comment on MEDRS. In the meantime I would say that it passes MEDRS but a full systematic review would take precedence. If the OP wishes us to consider the various other papers that they cite in criticism of Ley, Prause and Finn, they should make a specific request. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Not really sure if this is the right venue to seek approval for a book I wish to cite as a reliable source.

Because entire sections, specifically pgs 53-81of "Judicial Cases Concerning American Slavery and the Negro" address in various and sundry places throughout the book, several of the issues I am currently developing and, in some cases on some pages, challenging, I am unable to narrow the specific quotations and internal citations without doing, basically, as I have done: submit an entire book source for evaluation and approval, citing the specific pages which contain the material I seek to cite.

I am looking forward to a robust and meaningful series of replies, all approving this oft-cited-on-WP book... Thanks in advance, PresidentistVB (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

...and you are likely to be disappointed. This noticeboard isn't intended or able to give blanket, advance endorsement of a publication for all purposes in all places. It looks like you're throwing a chapter of a 1926 book at us without telling us where or how you intend to use it. You also haven't told us where or if any other editors have challenged the reliability of this source in any of the places where it is used on Wikipedia—which rather like asking us to render a verdict without allowing the prosecution to present a case. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

We can, however, comment on the general standing of a book. This appears to be social history/social commentary. At a brief reading, it looks excellent, but above all it is very out of date. More recent historians have almost certainly covered the same ground, so use those more recent historians. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is a reliable source but there are a few things to consider. There is a sort of hierarchy when discussing reliable sources. For instance, tertiary sources can be used but they can not be used when in conflict with a reliable secondary source. Even among reliable secondary sources, more recent, peer reviewed, and scholarly sources are more reliable than something published without undergoing the same academic scrutiny. I'm not sure if the Carnegie Institute of Washington is a peer reviewed university press or scholarly journal, so it may not carry more weight than other sources that have undergone that peer review from a renowned institution. Also, many of the pages you expressed interest in are actually a reference to primary sources. Primary sources are not as reliable as secondary sources. So if you're going to cite from this book, be sure that you're citing what the author has to say about the primary sources, not the primary sources themselves. If I'm mistaken on any of this, I'd appreciate another editor clarifying any discrepancies.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian based sources coverage of the ongoing Ukrainian crisis

Most of Wikipedia's articles covering the crisis are for a large part based on Ukrainian sources coverage. Since there is no lacking of coverage from 3rd party verifiable English language sources, I find no reason to include Ukrainian sources per WP:NPV and WP:NONENG. Just for example Unian.net is a Kiev based news agency it is used throughout "2 May 2014 Odessa clashes" 15 times, that is more than any other reference. Their coverage is heavily skewed in favour of the current Ukrainian regime. Their website regularly describes anti-Kiev protesters as "terrorists" (Террористы)[6], while the ongoing military operations are described as "anti-terrorist" (антитеррористическую).[7] Similar claims can be made against news.liga.net, unn.com.ua, etc.--Kathovo talk 13:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised at this. Usually with current news stories there are plenty of people adding material from the BBC, CNN etc. News agencies in both Russia and Ukraine are in principle reliable, but where versions diverge, ensure that everything is compatible with what is in the mainstream English-language media. No opinion pieces unless by expert outsiders, and then use only very sparingly. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

No Daily Mail, please. Articles should carry a current events warning. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The user above simply wants to censor Ukrainian media. That UNIAN calls them terrorists is irrelevant since we don't use that terminology, or transfer bias into the article itself. If UNIAN quotes a public official, and we include that quote or report in the article, that's neutral content from a reliable source. A lot of English language sources are used but for obvious reasons local media will have more in depth coverage. If you have a problem with a 'Ukrainian source' please provide the ref and how it is used incorrectly, or suggest a better source to use in its place. You yourself claim there is "no lacking of coverage from 3rd party English sources", so go ahead and help out.--Львівське (говорити) 15:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That Ukrainian media call them terrorists shows that they are already disposed towards a certain side and should be viewed with extreme caution. If a certain Ukrainian official is quoted then his quote must be included when notable enough to be picked up by mainstream media, even then it should be attributed properly to him and not presented as a fact.

Local media does provide a more in-depth coverage, but let's not forget this is an encyclopaedia (Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS). We shouldn't strife to provide the most in-depth coverage of the current events, but rather to present main events based on the most neutral and verifiable sources possible. so far Ukrainian crisis-related articles fail miserably at this.--Kathovo talk 16:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That's like saying we can't use American sources which talk about the Boston Marathon bombings because "they call them terrorists which shows they are already disposed towards a certain side". Crazy. —Львівське (говорити) 16:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm a vocal advocate of WP:NOTNEWS, and have made sure our articles are in line with that principle to the highest degree possible. The main article, 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, uses the OSCE monitoring missions as a source to verify information, and uses western sources along with some local Ukrainian ones. We never advocate the point of view of a Ukrainian source. We merely take the facts, and shed the propaganda. If we included a quote, we give context. Everything is attributed. However, many reliable sources, such as the New York Times [8][9], have reported about a 'disinformation campaign' by Russian media. We cannot ignore that sources that are usually considered highly reliable are reporting this, and hence we take Russian sources with a grain of salt, just as we do Ukrainian sources. RGloucester — ☎ 17:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It is strange that you use the NY Times as a source to put forward the idea that Russian media are engaged in a "disinformation campaign", since the NY Times has been engaging in its own disinformation campaign:

the Times’ prejudice over the Ukraine crisis has reached new levels of extreme as the “newspaper of record” routinely carries water for the neocons and other hawks who still dominate the U.S. State Department. Everything that the Times writes about Ukraine is so polluted with propaganda that it requires a very strong filter, along with additives from more independent news sources, to get anything approaching an accurate understanding of events....

Along with almost the entire U.S. mainstream media, the Times cheered on the violent overthrow of Yanukovych on Feb. 22 and downplayed the crucial role played by well-organized neo-Nazi militias that surged to the front of the Maidan protests in the final violent days. Then, with Yanukovych out and a new coup regime in, led by U.S. hand-picked Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the IMF austerity plan was promptly approved.

Since the early days of the coup, the Times has behaved as essentially a propaganda organ for the new regime in Kiev and for the State Department, pushing “themes” blaming Russia and President Vladimir Putin for the crisis.....

In the Times’ haste to perform this function, there have been some notable journalistic embarrassments such as the Times’ front-page story touting photographs that supposedly showed Russian special forces in Russia and then the same soldiers in eastern Ukraine, allegedly proving that the popular resistance to the coup regime was simply clumsily disguised Russian aggression.

Any serious journalist would have recognized the holes in the story – since it wasn’t clear where the photos were taken or whether the blurry images were even the same people – but that didn’t bother the Times, which led with the scoop. However, only two days later, the scoop blew up when it turned out that a key photo – supposedly showing a group of soldiers in Russia who later appeared in eastern Ukraine – was actually taken in Ukraine, destroying the premise of the entire story.

Note that Russian media have never had to retract a story on the Ukraine crisis, but the NY Times has. That alone means that Russian sources are more reliable on events in the Ukraine than the NY Times is. – Herzen (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That argument is complete nonsense. The New York Times is not perfect, but it is widely considered one of the leading newspapers of record. The fact that it has the journalistic integrity to correct its own mistakes makes it more reliable, not less reliable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

My argument is "complete nonsense"? The Times exhibits a clear pattern of producing disinformation to further US foreign policy goals. Another example, from a former correspondent of the International Herald Tribune:

Misinformation, disinformation, lies: Can the New York Times’ foreign coverage be trusted at all?

That is about Syria using chemical weapons, a claim that the NY Times published which turned out to be false. In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the NY Times reported that Iraq was working on germ warfare, a claim which also turned out to be false. The Times consistently publishes stories putting a government that the United States is hostile to at the time in a very bad light, is then forced to retract the stories, but then does the same thing again. If it keeps on publishing false stories, then publishes a retraction saying that it should have done better, but then makes the same mistake again, it is simply not a reliable source when it comes to a country that the US is in a conflict with, as the US currently is with Russia.

And as for Wikipedia treating the Times as a reliable source. The Times published a story detailing how the US government gave the go-ahead for the coup that ousted Morsi. I tried to get that into the Wikipedia article on the coup, but couldn't, because I could find no other source that gave the same account of events as the Times did. – Herzen (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Making mistakes is common to all journalism. There is a great difference between mistakes and intentionally misleading readers. RGloucester — ☎ 20:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Informed readers could instantly tell that the story about the Syrian army using chemical weapons didn't make any sense. So it's very difficult for me to view that article as simply a "mistake". Anyway, this is off topic. Please just keep in mind in the future that although Russian media are going to take the Russian government line on most things, I have never caught them in a lie during this whole Ukrainian crisis. (When the Russian government said that the polite men in green that appeared in Crimea were not Russian troops, Russian media reported that they seemed to be Russian. It did not mechanically follow the official line in that case.) So your bringing up Russian media in this thread was off-topic. The State Department says that RT just presents "Putin's fantasy", but in all the Western news reports I have seen about Russian media engaging in "disinformation", it is the Russian media that turns out to be truthful. And remember that the BBC is in exactly the same position that RT is: it is a state run news outlet. – Herzen (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Almost everything in the articles is verified with western sources, but many of those complaining about Ukrainian sources have also said that the BBC is no good, and so on. If we include anything from a Ukrainian source, it is mentioned who reported it. We never call anyone terrorists, nor do we call anyone fascists. We can use Ukrainian sources for facts, like quote from officials, but we do not give WP:UNDUE weight to Ukrainian POV on 'terrorism'. RGloucester — ☎ 16:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

-Львівське says we should use Ukrainian sources because they have more in-depth coverage. To me that is exactly why we should avoid them. The elements of the story that are significant will be carried in Western media. Local sources are best for local stories that have little or no international significance. Furthermore one of the pluses of Wikipedia articles is that readers can look up the sources. Few readers speak Ukrainian. TFD (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's a compilation of lies that have been spread by the Ukrainian press, from the anti-Putin Moscow Times. (The article treats lies published by the Ukrainian media and anti-Maidan rumors as if they were the same thing, for "balance".) This article should be taken as a warning that Ukrainian sources should not be used unless a Western source can back them up.

Don't Drink the Tea and Other Myths From the Ukraine Conflict – Herzen (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Ergo, according to this opinion piece by a (notice the use of the singular) journalist, all Ukrainian reportage is tainted?(!) Of particular interest is his use of colourful language. The title, alone, seems a little less than neutral. I can certainly see how it would appeal to readers who want confirmation that Ukrainian reports are all crazy. It's good to see that this reporter doesn't hold back on patting himself on the back for 'debunking' everything that's just plain propaganda. No flies on him! (EDIT) Just in case I haven't made myself clear, I'm wondering how the Moscow Times qualifies as a reliable source on the basis on it being 'anti-Putin', or how this journalist qualifies as being a reliable source because he has pieces published in the Moscow Times. Ipso facto? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 0:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The consensus of this board is that you should prefer English-language sources such as Associated Press. If a fact is relevant it will be picked up by these sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

As you would have noted, it appears that Herzen's contention is that because the Associated Press, et al have carried misinformation in the past, while he/she has never caught out the Russian sources he wishes to cite indulging in such spurious activities, the Russian sources are superior to Western sources. But wait, if I start digging through the archives regarding the war on Georgia, the Chechen war, ad infinitum, will Herzen's contention actually hold up? I'm reluctantly prepared to dig around if needs must, but I remember for a fact that I've read seriously tendentious, pro-Russian propaganda articles on such matters printed in his truly 'reliable' sources in the past... The state of near perfection he purports is in the eye of the beholder. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

We should use third party non-partisan sources where possible. In my experience, where there exists such a degree of polemic, we should avoid such polarised sources as RT, Pravda, Kyiv Post or Ukrayinska Pravda if at all possible. National news outlets of Russia and the Ukraine cannot be relied upon to report these events objectively because sentiment is strong and the stakes are high, these organs can become mouthpieces of the respective governments by extension even if they are notionally independently controlled. There is the strong risk that in these sources, even superficially impartial "facts" may be subject to inherent bias or even be propagandised by them. Certainly if we choose to rely on these national sources, should there be any dispute as to factual accuracy or bias, we should defer to foreign media. The exception being where there is the express desire to represent the views or situation seen by that one side; such assertions/views ought to be balanced in some way by sources representing opposing points of view. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Given that, as you have suggested, there is bound to be self-censorship and agenda based bias, I can see a compromise of 'according to/reports from [insert name of regional source]' where colourful, emotive terminology is substituted, and where 'unbiased' sources can back up the assertions as having their place. Having been following the development of the article, this cautious approach was, and is, in place. I don't see the argument for Russian sources being more reliable than Ukrainian sources as having any merit. I'm already convinced that the right balance has been struck, and this as being a push to introduce POV sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with you entirely, Ohconfucius. My main concern is that many of the people calling for the elimination of Ukrainian sources are also calling for the elimination of western sources because they are 'propaganda' and 'lies'. If we cannot even cite the New York Times, we are more or less screwed. Regardless, all the work I've done on the various articles has always verified information with OSCE reports and western sources, and I've made sure to eliminate sole reliance on Ukrainian or Russian sources, or added qualifiers (explaining who reported it). I'd be happy for anyone here to take a look at 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine and see if there are any problem spots in that regard that need work. RGloucester — ☎ 16:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• No sources are unbiased or free from error. But neutrality means we need to give greater weight to the presentation in mainstream sources. The result may be that the articles have a Western bias, but that is what neutrality dictates. TFD (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The preference is for English-language sources whether they be Russian (RT), Ukrainian (KyivPost), American (NYT), or British (BBC). The country of origin or inherent bias of each organization is irrelevant. They are English-language sources and an English-language user can verify their contents. The Russian-language, Ukrainian-language, Estonian-language, Polish-language, etc. sources are unverifiable to me. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

David Patterson & 1947 Aleppo pogrom

According to David Patterson there was a pogrom in Aleppo in 1853.

_{<ref name="Patterson2010">{{cite book|author=David Patterson|title=A Genealogy of Evil: Anti-Semitism from Nazism to Islamic Jihad|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=lMLmK-fmf8kC&pg=PA56|accessdate=18 October 2010|date=31 October 2010|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-13261-9|page=56}}</ref>}

User:Oncenawhile does not provide any source to disprove this assertion. He nevertheless removes the content because he claims Mr. Patterson's work is Islamaphobic (defames a BLP?) and he is "100% certain that Mr. Patterson has no idea what happened in Aleppo in 1853, and it is likely that he knows little about Aleppo at all."[10] Now User:Pluto2012 demands that I provide another source.[11]

Some input is requested. Is David Patterson reliable enough for the uncontradicted assertion that there was a pogrom on Aleppo in 1853? Thanks.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a little bit more nuanced : Talk:1947 Aleppo pogrom#1853

Pluto2012 (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_126#Genealogy_of_Evil.3F

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

In addition, per [12] no mention of such event is found in a specialist work on the history of Aleppo's Jews. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It's an academic author and a good publisher. However, based on the bad review in the Oxonian Review, the fact that this is indeed a very tangential claim for Patterson and his book, and the fact that apparently no other sources can be found while there are independent sources for a Christian-Jewish conflict in 1853 Aleppo, I would be very reluctant to use this source for this fact. Even nominally reliable sources make errors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The bad review you link to is a student review published in a 10 year old student run literally magazine. Patterson is a professor and published scholar in the field in which he writes. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The review is from 2011, and the author, while young, has (and had at the time of writing) a BA from King's College London and an M.Phil. from Oxford, both degrees in very relevant fields. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand, but still disagree. A reliable source is not invalidated by a student-authored "bad review" published in a student-run literary magazine, even if the reviewing student has degrees in the relevant field. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I see it the other way round. If someone has the relevant degrees in the field, why should it matter that he (or she) is a student? Do my papers become unreliable if I decide to go off and study medieval history? There may be a cultural difference at work here - with a Master's degree one usually is a fully qualified scholar, not just "a grad student", Howard Wolowitz jokes notwithstanding. That said, I checked what is available from Patterson's book online, and while he may give the impression that the pogrom was related to Muslim jihad, he does not actually seem to say so. He may be referring to the Orthodox Christian attack on Jews also mentioned in other sources. In that case, I wonder if and how one should mention that Christian-on-Jew event in the context of the 1947 nationalistic Arab unrest. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Several reliable sources mention a blood libel made by Christians against Jews in Aleppo in 1853. For authors like Patterson this would be enough to call it a pogrom, but we should have better standards. I have read several accounts of the accusation and none of them report a pogrom. A notable aspect was that the Muslim authorities took the side of the Jews and urged them to seek revenge on the Christians. I'll add more details on the article talk page. Zero^talk 12:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I can see several sources that mention a blood libel in Aleppo in 1853 but few that give any details or say any more than that. If there are enough sources, and there must be some somewhere, we should have an article on those events. This would have been just one of a series of blood libels, generally instigated by Christian community leaders or would-be colonialists and suppressed by the Ottomans, probably not energetically enough. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox officeholder

Has an RfC to discuss the interesting situation where redistricting results in "successors" and "predecessors" being named for office holders where there is zero actual district overlap between the "current" officeholder and the putative "successor" or "predecessor." Collect (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Catholic legislators and abortion

Without discussing on the Talk page of Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication, an article created by herself, Roscelese has again deleted information on the teaching of the Catholic Church on the moral obligation of Catholic politicians who participate in what their Church considers the seriously sinful action of promoting liberalization of abortion to refrain from going to Communion. The first time was this. The grounds she earlier adduced were that the text was a "quote farm" (in reality there was only one quotation in the first text she deleted and none whatever in the second) and that the sources were "bad". See the discussion here. Is Roscelese right in claiming that none of the cited source are reliable for the statement for which they are given? Surely not? Esoglou (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• This is a typical bad faith post from Esoglou, who's already had it explained to him that the problem isn't that the statements might not be factually accurate, but that these self-published or low-quality partisan sources don't meet our reliable sourcing standards for purposes of weight and NPOV. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• I am grateful to Roscelese, whose good faith I do not question, for stating the question clearly: Are the following sources merely "self-published or low-quality partisan" for the statement that, according to the Catholic Church, Catholic legislators who promote legalization of abortion should refrain from Communion? (The question of whether they should be refused if they present themselves for Communion is a separate question.)

1. Pastoral Statement published by Bishop John J. Myers in June 1990;
2. article by David Paul Kuhn published by CBS on 6 April 2004;
3. article by Charles J. Chaput published on Denver Catholic Register, 26 May 2004;
4. memorandum by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, published in July 2004;
5. statement by Bishop Michael Saltarelli in August 2008
6. article by Sandro Magister on L'Espresso, 27 August 2008.

• Esoglou (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• • The reliable sources in this list weren't the ones being used for the disputed content, so they're kind of irrelevant. Please stay on topic. Do you have anything to say in defense of the sources that were used? If your addition had adhered to our policies on weight, NPOV, and reliable sourcing, you wouldn't have been reverted, so obviously the reliable sources aren't the problem here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    • They are the ones that you deleted. More on-topic than that there is nothing. Have you withdrawn your objection? May your deletion be reversed? Esoglou (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

[13] in Staci Appel

Is [14] which appears to be a press release run in a local paper, a reliable source for making the same assertions in Wikipedia's voice?

During her time in the State Senate Appel worked to pass the Equal Pay For Equal Work Act.

I am uncertain precisely where a "presumption for fact checking" implicit for a reliable source intersects with verbatim use of a press release. I would rather hope a better source were found, as the amount of "campaign material" sourced to her campaign web site made up a large amount of the BLP. Collect (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Straightforward local paper stuff, OK for local news, which this is. Giving the newspaper the benefit of the doubt, they would have cut out any assertions that she intercepted the landings of dozens of UFOs. The problem is with the "worked to pass the ... Act". What on earth is that? She voted for the Act? She wrote a letter asking other state senators to vote for it? Too vague to be of any use. Whole article is resume-like. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You should have seen the material directly sourced to her campaign web site <g>. I fnd press releases easy to spot from effusive use of adjectives. Collect (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

A lot of newspaper reporting, especially business news, is based on press releases. Reporters are supposedly familiar with the subjects they report and if they are satisfied with a press release to report its contents as facts, then that is sufficient. TFD (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Ip vandalism

Can anybody restore this deleted part? Maybe we need a page protection against further vandal attacks.--Pramo97 (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

That isn't what Wikipedia defines as vandalism. See WP:VANDAL. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it what Wikipedia defines as removal of content in a deliberate attempt? --Pramo97 (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

A deliberate attempt at what ? Editors can remove content for all sorts of legitimate reasons. In this case the IP appears to think that the DNA sample size is too small to support the conclusions being stated in the article. That's the kind of content dispute that should be discussed on the article's talk page. Specific questions about the reliability of the sources cited can be brought here. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Well this is exactly the point, the sample sizes in both studies ([15] | [16], [17] ) were huge enough. Thats the reason why the IP first argued like this. The Ip obviously wants to avoid any East Asian connotations. How to deal with it? --Pramo97 (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

How we're going to deal with it, here, on the reliable sources noticeboard, is to advise on the quality of the sources you've presented. I'm examining them right now. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at the sources and none of them are anywhere near the quality of source required for a section on Genetics. It all seems to be based on the work of Jeannine Davis-Kimball, who although qualified with a PhD, doesn't hold a university post, instead runs her own centre. If any of it is published in peer-reviewed journal articles or books from scholarly presses, that could be possibly be included, so long as our article doesn't stretch the facts in order to present a nationalistic argument. The deleted text is remarkable in how at first reading it seems like sound scholarship but on examination is anything but. Classic WP:SYNTH. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

UK Independence Party

Is this political parties own website RS for membership numbers? It has been added to the article and removed as not RS several times. I do not see how it is not RS for their own membership numbers. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Parties' membership claims are notoriously inaccurate. Hence it fails WP:SELFPUB as "unduly self-serving." TFD (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Especially for smaller and fringier parties. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Blog source written by scientist

I am going to expand the article about Paraceratherium, and am mostly using the 2013 book "Rhinoceros Giants" by palaeontologist Donald Prothero. In this book he makes the novel claim that these animals probably had large, elephant-like ears. However, in a blog post review[18] of this book by the palaeontologist Darren Naish, Naish expresses scepticism of this idea, and elaborates a bit in the comments section. Is it possible to cite that? For example, if I first explain and attribute the large ear hypothesis, but then write something like "Palaeontologist Darren Naish expressed scepticism towards the idea in a review of Prothero's book"? FunkMonk (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It is fine to use, per "Self-published sources (online and paper)": "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." TFD (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)