Talk:Penile plethysmograph

message: The US section makes some very strong claims on definitiveness of the results, giving no specific sources. I've tagged them with citeneeded's, but unless someone actually goes and finds reliable articles to support them, I'd suggest removing those claims. Strong statements regarding credibility in criminal cases simply cannot go without verifiable sources. mathrick 20:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The statements are from the Smith citation in the references. I'll pull the quotes sometime soon unless you want to. Jokestress 20:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This IP editor injected all the unsourced original research. I removed all of it and will source the rest appropriately. Jokestress 21:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced claims on evidence-gathering capabilities 

message: It also does not provide the definition of operative trauma.68.148.164.166 (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the term needs to be defined. A certain familiarity of the common vocabulary in the relevant subject is necessary for understanding any article. If we happen to have an article on operative trauma, a link to it would be helpful. It should not be a goal to embed dictionary definitions of all the technical terms in an article. --71.162.233.193 (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think an explaination of the term in the context of this article is warranted, of course Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we have wiktionary for that.68.148.164.166 (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|cleanup}} 

message: I have added an external link to the main page: http://individual.utoronto.ca/ray_blanchard/index_files/Phallometry_Lecture.html.  Because the author of that document is a colleague of mine, I thought it prudent to indicate it here.— James Cantor (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disclosure 

message: The wording in the section for reliability and validity to me seems to be mostly sufficiently neutral. Though I still feel I have unanswered questions when reading it. Namely that it's not exactly clear how useful or accurate the tool actually is in regards to testing different things relating to sexuality.
Also, two sections of the article seem to be at odds. The Utility section and the legal admissibility section. One painting it as an accurate instrument for determining heterosexuals from homosexuals, pedophiles from non pedophiles and so on...and one section stating that it's extremely unreliable and inadmissible in court due to it's unreliability, and it's high danger for false negatives/positives. If it's not good enough for court, doesn't meet the Frye Standard, and is unreliable...why are scientific studies performed with this instrument included on this page? That seems somehow...backwards? Especially when the tone in the section these studies are included in aren't worded in such a way that questions it's reliability.
This part is also worded poorly and does not coincide with the findings of the study it references: "One study showed that homophobic men who have claimed to be heterosexual undergo arousal when given homosexual stimuli." The study found that a significant number of men who self identified as homophobic heterosexuals experienced varying levels of arousal when exposed to homosexual video and audio stimuli, but not all did. The study also offered several theories on why the men experienced arousal and one of their theories included the possibility that they were not necessarily homosexual/bisexual, and that their reaction could have been triggered by other factors. This sentence also doesn't note that a significant number of men who identified as non-homophobic heterosexuals also experienced varying degrees of arousal. Just not as significant of a portion as the homophobic men. Just as a personal gripe, the study only includes 35 homophobic males which is simply not a large enough sample to make conclusive statements like the one above. Anyways, the point is: The wording of this particular phrase gives the impression that all homophobic men are actually homosexual, which is not the conclusion the study reached. Also, the link to the PDF is dead. I'm not sure if there's another one up somewhere.
So I know that's a lot of random ranting, but I think the article needs to be a little clearer and I'm not sure how to best balance it out. If the instrument is currently deemed unreliable in accurately determining sexuality, should we be including studies on this very same page that use the instrument for their research? Perhaps a separate page for research conducted with Penile Plethysmographs should be created to avoid this issue? Or simply word the section regarding it's accuracy to be more...well, accurate.  BeardedScholar (talk) 04:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting information/tone in the article 

message: The sentence in question: "Penile plethysmography (PPG), or "phallometry", is a controversial type of plethysmograph that measures changes in blood flow in the penis."
First off, "plethysmography" is not a "type of plethysmograph". The use of a device is not the device itself. Normally I'd just correct the grammatical error without comment, but I think it's instructive, considering that the real issue here also deals with a contrast between a device and its use.
Specifically, I see no way in which a little piece of rubber and wire can be inherently controversial. Citations say that it has been used on sex offenders of old age and young, and whatever my opinions on such usage, I won't claim it's uncontroversial. This is not, however, the only standard usage of the device, and should not be the exclusive focus of this article The initial paragraphs already discuss the issue of accuracy, and there are well-established sections on legal admissibility and ethics, which seem to me quite sufficient to discuss issues surrounding its use. To stick the word "controversial" into the opening sentence of an article on a tool of measurement, though, with nothing to support it but a citation on an isolated, extreme case of controversial use, strikes me as nothing more than FUD. Salvar (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As you point out, the article title describes the device, but the first sentence describes the use. Analogues are polygraph, where our article makes it clear that the device is generally considered pseudoscientific. Perhaps we should have separate articles, as we do with calipers and phrenology. As you note, calipers themselves are not controversial. Measurements taken with PPG are not controversial, but claims made based on those measurements, and the conditions under which the measurements are taken, are quite controversial. Jokestress (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial 

message: no sexual interest or preference, UNLESS ACTED UPON IN AN ILLEGAL MANNER, is in any way damning. Its unconstitutional. 
And yes, even the oft-mentioned paedophiliac or incestuous desires are 100% legal, while judging one for such is not.... Men and women can be attracted to kids (or whatever else) until the cows come home if they: a) reign in their desires, b) roleplay with consenting adults, c) engage in relationships with consenting adults of petite or short stature, youthful apprarance, dwarfism, etc etc to their hearts' content... In fact, frowning upon such would constitute undue discrimination also against persons of such appearance or stature, as it would essentially create a taboo to deem attractive or engage in personal relationships with short/petite/little people,  thus infringing greatly on their right to "the pursuit of happiness". All for being born with a juvenile appearance or small size lasting unto adulthood.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.70.219 (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the..? 

message: "A phallometric study indicated that men who are more homophobic show greater penile arousal to stimuli depicting gay sex than do less homophobic men."
I feel offended by the above statement. Is it by chance an act of vandalism?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.71.153.13 (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  homophobic? 

message: I am wondering if this Wiki page would be improved if a section/subsection or two were added that provide mare detail about the different types of stimulus sets that are used during a penile plethysmograph test to assess different sexual interests (e.g., pedophilic, gynophilic, androphylic, transvestic fetishism).  I have this information readily available to me and would be willing/able to add this information into this page.  However, I'd like some input from other editors, like James Cantor, prior to doing so.  Thanks. 71.17.29.227 Ian V. McPhail (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right on the mark.  Any stimuli can be used (in theory), but the only valid phallometric tests have data to to demonstrate that their results reliably distinguished people with versus without interest in those stimuli.— James Cantor (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  More info on different types of stimuli required? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Penile plethysmograph. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081013110843/http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf to http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Penile plethysmograph. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002000446/http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2000/2000scc51/2000scc51.pdf to http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2000/2000scc51/2000scc51.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified