Talk:Rind et al. controversy/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Question for an Administrator: Is activating the dead web-links in the "Usage outside of scholarly discussions" section allowed by Wikepedia policy?

I want to bring the dead external web-links in the ['Usage outside of scholarly discussion' Section] to the attention of a Wikipedia administrator within the next week, unless this matter can reach some strong consensus here on the TALK page. I am not so familiar with the rules and policies and how they are implemented, but eager to learn the rules and operate within them.

To the appropriate Wikipedia authority or Administrator:

I am a new editor, as of the beginning of December. I need an authoritative answer from an administrator (or similar). I asked about this on the TALK page, and I now raise this matter with an administrator.

In the section ['Usage outside of scholarly discussion' in Wikipedia's Rind et al. Controversy article], three websites are named; one link is active; two links are dead, one link should be upgraded to a different section of the website.

All four websites are active here, so editors may see the active links that might be placed into the article: [NAMbLA] [The RBT Files at Ipce], [The Male Homosexual Attraction to Minors Information Center MHAMic] [Everything you wanted to know about The Rind Controversy MHAMic] This last is a different section of the previous website; the latter deals only with the Rind et al controversy. If by posting these links here I have violated any rule or policy, please delete only the active links immediately.

The question I have is about the permissibility of making these web-links active in the article itself.

According to Dr. Dallam, a highly esteemed, anti-Rind advocate, often used as a reliable source to explain the controversy in this article, these websites were allegedly and inappropriately misusing Rind's scholarly article for political advantage, and these websites are identified in the Wikipedia article for verification purposes. The NAMbLA link in the article works thru another Wikipedia article; with just two clicks of the mouse, one is on the NAMbLA website. The other external links do not work in the article. Since these are links to the work of unknowns, they are NOT referred to in the article as reliable sources. The three links are named, so the Wikipedia reader can verify for him-herself the alleged misuse of the Rind scholarly article on these fringe and non-mainstream websites. The links are associated by Dr. Dallam with tiny fringe organizations that advocate age-of-consent reform. The web-links are external to, and heatedly controversial within, Wikipedia.

Here's my question that needs an authoritative answer: Assuming the consensus of editors of this article is to keep this section of the article as it is, would fixing these dead external links violate any Wikipedia rule, viz. regarding Copyright, using quality sources for verification, or the Wikipedia Policy on Child Protection? Or would active external links be too controversial, and therefore unwanted? I just what to know. If the consensus is to not make these links active, I will obviously have to yield to the consensus.

An alternative view of the editing might go like this: Naming and activating these links might be like placing active external links to variations of the Flat Earth Society, clearly a fringe group, within which nested web-sites are links to many articles from mainstream sources that are allegedly being cited "inappropriately" for the political purposes of the 'Belief in the Earth is Flat Revival'. The purpose of associating the study with favorable reviews and citations by variations of the Flat Earth Society is solely to discredit the study's authors, especially, as noted twice in the article, in court (i.e., with judges and juries). The Wikipedia article and the controversy are maybe saying: "The Rind et al. 1998 meta-analysis must be discredited and trashed because it is 'trumpeted' by the Flat Earth Society on its website."

The first Wikipedia paragraph in the 'Usage outside...' Section is IMHO a "guilt by association" fallacy, a kind of ad hominem attack on Rind et al., a claim that a former Wikipedia editor feels is necessary to repeat in Wikipeida's voice in this Wikipedia article to give the fallacious argument additional weight. The argument goes like this: The mathematical research produced by the Rind et al trio was reviewed or cited favorably on the website of these 3 despicable fringe groups. Therefore, the Wikipedia must also come, by implication, to guilt by association, that Rind et al (and Heather Ulrich et al.) must be morally wrong and despicable like those tiny fringe groups." I edited an alternative version of this section that may be mostly reinstated.

I am considering an alternative edit: The entire "Usage outside of scholarly discussion" section should be dropped from the Wikipedia article entirely. That may not reach consensus either. If the article is rewritten in a NPOV to avoid sullying the reputation of the esteemed Wikepedia with the ad hominem and "guilt by association" attack on Rind et al., and, by implication, on Heather Ulrich et al. (who did a replication of the calculations in 2005, and arrived at identical results) (all six authors are covered by relevant [BLP policies]), then I want to know if the dead external links must remain inactive to comply with one or more Wikipedia rules or policies.

There is another aspect to this: I bookmarked [Everything you wanted to know about The Rind Controversy MHAMic] on my personal page so I could easily find that link again, and was attacked for that, and all my contributions to this article were cherry picked out of the article by two anonymous editors. I have since removed that link from my user page, and have no intention of putting it back there. I speculate that its the source of the text, and the link to a controversial bibliography that is most protested. But I like the quality source links in the article. Radvo (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Woah woah woah woah. What the Sam Hill is going on here? These are not good links. You linked to MHAMic on your userpage and you were called on that and you find this surprising? We do not link to MHAMic any more than we link to Storm Front or whatever. Please use some basic common sense, thanks!
As the rest, could you try to be a little more succinct? There's a heck of a lot to read here. Anyway, we do not want to link to the NAMBLA web site and similar sites from the Wikipedia for any reason, I would say, period. These are primary sources for the material you want to cite anyway, which is usually discouraged. Find a reputable secondary source. Herostratus (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for response and your advise: Be succinct. I'll try that.
YES, I FOUND "BEING CALLED ON THAT" COMPLETELY SURPRISING! Cross my heart & hope to die! Talk more about "common sense". The author of that website lacked some common or political sense by not posting it independently, but it's wrong to reject ideas solely based on their origins.
"WE do not link to" the Storm Front or the NAMbLA. Well, SURPRISE! Wikipedia does link to both.
Correction # 1: [Stormfront] has functioning link to [[www.stormfront.org/forum/ Stormfront's external link]] Fun to point out the facts. (Thanks; I feel like a argumentative teenager again!)
Correction # 2: The Wikipedia Rind topic has an active link to [NAMbLA], and that Wikipedia page, in turn, links directly to NAMbLA's external website. Please, check it out: NAMbLA is two mouse clicks away from the Rind article. Really! I wrote that already twice above; sorry you missed it because I was not succinct. My fault.
Correction # 3: I bookmarked [Everything you wanted to know about The Rind Controversy MHAMic]. Please give me basic common courtesy and please do not confuse the public with the two different sections of MHAMic. Look! The page I bookmarked is something like [Wikipedia's Rind et al. Controversy article], but less focus on the Dallam criticisms (which Rind et al. fully refuted already in 2001 and which Ulrich et al. already corrected for in the 2005 replication. In [Everything you wanted to know about The Rind Controversy MHAMic], one can learn something: the Rind controversy was more than what Wikipedia has to say about it so far.
Correction # 4: The 3 primary web-sources, with active links, were inserted in the article by other editor(s). Two links now broken. The burden to find "secondary sources" was the other editors'. Period?
BTW, the allies already beat the original Storm Front 66 years ago; Storm Front lost. Irrelevant? You injected the White Supremacists/Neo-Nazi's into this. Sorry, it's late, and I feel prickly. Enough.
"A little more succinct" was fun. Please, no offense intended. If this retort was not polite or respectful enough, it was 'The Sam Hill' who made me do it. I'll be extra nice next time, after I get some sleep. Promise. Cheers. Radvo (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposing some adjustments to the Introduction (Part B: Discussion of Truthinwriting's Point (5) only. (Cut and Paste from previous section to shorten.) Tentative proposal for the text of the full Introduction. (or WP:Lead)

This Section was put together, by "cut and paste," to facilitate discussion. There is some material, in the previous TALK section, about TruthinWriting's proposals for the Introduction, his points (1), (2), (3) and (4). None of that is here. Truthinwriting had an idea to include more information about the samples; to simplify, none of the sample information has been pasted here either. This section focuses on Truthinwriting's proposals for his point (5), and the related discussion. Since there was so much extra material in the previous section, I cut and pasted only what I thought was relevant to discussing his point (5). All the original material is in the previous section, as previously posted. Maybe, some of you will find this shortened version helpful for making a decision about the wording for the adjustments to the Introduction. If any relevant material was accidentally omitted, I apologize in advance. If you want something additional included, please feel free to add or paste it below. I have put together a tentative composite of the entire Introduction (which Wikipedia calls Lead), with some small revisions throughout the entire text, at the end the paste below. The links do not work because of my cut and paste. Radvo

[Start of Paste ********************* This first part is from Truthinwriting]

numerous age of consent reform organizations / attorney usage): ...I am now wondering if a complete rewrite with that basic info included might be a better way to go vis-a-vis consensus among us? This is just off-the-top-of-my-head, but perhaps something like:

  • "After publication of the Rind et al. findings, there has been concern that the paper would be used by organizations that wish to change the age of consent laws (e.g., to lower the legal age of consent or to eliminate an age of consent for willing sexual relationships). Additionally there has been concern that the article would be misused in court to argue that little or no harm occurred, when in fact harm likely did occur in a given case before the court."

That wording probably needs work, but perhaps this way we can get away from some of the problems that have been being discussed.

Regarding (6: moving Ulrich replication higher into the Intro): I still think this is a good idea, but I am waiting for the dust to settle on (5) first.  :-) Truthinwriting

As I wrote that quick possible replacement text, I realized I didn't have any sources for it. Perhaps that is a problem; if so, we are back to deletion as the way to go. Something like you wrote (Radvo?) above [far below] is fine too, with a little adjustment, but might be hard to source as well. Nevertheless, the controversy probably would not have occurred if people were not worried about some sort of changes occurring, hence there must be some sources somewhere. I'll keep my eyes open. Truthinwriting (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The last sentence of the intro is currently presented with two sources. It currently reads:

  • "Numerous age of consent reform organizations have quoted the paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws, and defense attorneys have used the study to argue for minimizing harm in child sexual abuse cases."

This sentence strikes me as problematic in various ways. I have not read Spiegel's 2003 book (nor do I have a copy). Is anyone here familiar with it? I do have the other source as a word-searchable PDF (Ondersma et al. 2001), but it does not seem to mention anything about defense attorney usage.

Even if it is true that the Rind et al. paper was used in court cases, if that issue is to be raised on this Wikipedia page shouldn't it be balanced with more information and reasoning? After all, courts should use scientific evidence when it is available... [Joke deleted for brevity] [U]nless we know what those court cases were about, the current wording is potentially biasing or outright incorrect (e.g., you can not minimize harm when there is no harm). Further, the Rind et al. paper may have been used by prosecutors as well, since it provides information on when harm might occur and when it might not (hence only mentioning defense attorney usage seems unbalanced regarding something we probably have no reliable information about).

Additionally, I do not see a need for that particular sentence in the intro. Given that the intro reads fine without it, I suggest it be deleted since that will save a lot of work and contention for everyone. If something like the sentence should stay, perhaps a simple edit will make it less problematic. For example:

  • "Numerous age of consent reform organizations have quoted the paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws, and attorneys have used the study in court."

(6) The issue of moving a reference to the Ulrich replication study higher up into the page was also raised at one point. I don't know if that is critical or not, but I think it is a good idea and putting it at the end of the intro makes sense to me. [snip]

a new final paragraph of the intro might read something like:

  • "Rind et al. concluded with a statement that even though CSA may not result in harm, this does not mean it is not wrong or morally repugnant behavior and indicated that their findings did not imply current moral and legal prohibitions against CSA should be changed. [Delete: Numerous age of consent reform organizations have quoted the paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws, and attorneys have used the study in court.] Ulrich et al.[cite], seven years after the publication of the Rind et al. meta-analysis, published a replication of it in the Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice that confirmed Rind et al.'s main findings." Truthinwriting (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
                    • {NEXT--from Legitimus]

5 I will need to do some additional research about the legal case part of it. Off the top of my head, the cases where this study were invoked are all in defense; I have never heard of it being brought up by the prosecution or plaintiff. Furthermore, the parts I recall about a few cases were pretty shameless. In Arizona v. Steward, Steward was a teacher who'd molested multiple boys as young as 5 years old. He was a predator. Rind et al was quoted during the sentencing phase as an attempt to gain leniency by claiming the harm was minimal. In Watson v. Roman Catholic Church, the expert witness attempted to use Rind as a basis for his statement that there is no association between sexual abuse and maladjustment. Obviously a gross misstatement of Rind, but the defense team did it anyway. These two cases demonstrate minimization in one, and denial of harm in the other. There was at least one other case that used Rind as a defense tactic, but I don't recall and will have to look for it. I don't have much to say on (6) other than it seems unnecessary to work it into the lead. It is worth noting that the journal that published Ulrich's study (SRMHP) is not a well known one. Without saying too much about myself personally, I have access to arguably the largest scholarly library in the world, yet SRMHP is not carried in regular collections nor available online. I will have to special order it as a hardcopy in order to examine the details.Legitimus (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

                    • [NEXT--from Radvo]

The Rind article is mostly out of the radar for now. Regarding a direct connection between the Rind meta-analyses and advocacy for lowering or abolishing age of consent. I'd like to see a few specific quotes, or even one quote or one URL, verifying this direct connection to advocacy for abolishing or lowering age of consent. Can this claim of a direct connection be currently verified on line, or in the current literature? Has there been any published report of any of these groups anywhere adocating the lowering of the age in recent years? My impression is that the ages of consent have been rising in a few countries. This statement of linkage may have taken on the status of an urban myth; like propaganda, it is repeated so that everyone "knows" it is true, and there is no need for hard evidence. But where is the hard evidence on-line? in recent publications? If there is evidence, and someone has published that recently, the evidence should not be that hard to find. My impression from Wikipeida is that these activist groups are diminishing, and a few individuals maybe hang on to maintain a website for the group. Radvo (talk) 05:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have more Sources for what was happening with those Age of Consent organizations in 1998--2001, I have already challenged the NPOV and the veracity of the underlined text in the original sentence, and now in Truthinwriting's suggested edit. My impression is that it's just not true 13+ years later. And it is not fair (NPOV) to immediately associate the scholarly study in the Introduction with the political activism of tiny intensely despised fringe groups. Wikipedia would be perpetuating an Urban Legend, a guilt by association fallacy and a delusion that serves the purposes of those hostile to (and fearful of) this study, and its associated replication. For veracity, I'd like to see some updated argument from a hated advocacy organization today "quoting" the connection between the Rind study and legal reform. Does anyone have a current "quote"? We have no updated third party reference Source for such a direct connection to age of consent reform. I agree with Truthinwriting that we not include either the original or an edited sentence as part of the introduction. If something like this sentence should stay, this sentence is verifiable, a little bit more NPOV IMHO, and less likely be challenged for veracity "The International Pedophile and Child Emancipation documentation service enthusiastically documents the study, and attorneys have used the study in court. (cite)" The mission statement of the IPCE states the group is for scholarly documentation and discussion, and is NOT a [political] action organization. It does not advocate legal reform. Another matter: The first sentence is too long. To shorten it, I suggest deleting "that even though CSA may not result in harm, this does not mean it is not wrong or morally repugnant behavior." "Repugnant" injects editor bias and appears no where in the original Rind text; see original quote below. I substituted this text directly from the Rind original: "that lack of harmfulness does not imply lack of wrongfulness". For reference, here is a full quote that is found in 1998 Rind et al. on page 47:

Quote from Rind et al: 1998, page 47
Finally, it is important to consider implications of the current review for moral and legal positions on CSA. If it is true that wrongfulness in sexual matters does not imply harmfulness ( Money, 1979 ), then it is also true that lack of harmfulness does not imply lack of wrongfulness. Moral codes of a society with respect to sexual behavior need not be, and often have not been, based on considerations of psychological harmfulness or health (cf. Finkelhor, 1984 ). Similarly, legal codes may be, and have often been, unconnected to such considerations ( Kinsey et al., 1948 ). In this sense, the findings of the current review do not imply that moral or legal definitions of or views on behaviors currently classified as CSA should be abandoned or even altered. The current findings are relevant to moral and legal positions only to the extent that these positions are based on the presumption of psychological harm.
End quote from Rind et al. 1998, page 47

So, finally, here is another suggested version of the last paragraph of the introduction, for your consideration:

  • "Rind et al. concluded with a statement "that lack of harmfulness does not imply lack of wrongfulness"(cite p.47). They wrote that their research results did not imply that current moral and legal prohibitions against CSA should be changed. [Delete: The International Pedophile and Child Emancipation documentation service enthusiastically documents the study, and attorneys have used the study in court. (cite) ] Ulrich et al.[cite], seven years after the publication of the Rind et al. meta-analysis, replicated the study in the Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice and confirmed its main findings."

Radvo (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Questions: Do we need a corrected, and updated to 2011, NPOV source for the inappropriate use, in the US courts, of the Rind study by defense attorneys? Or does our attempt at verification, with this specific 2003 source, fail? Do we delete the sentence from the article's introduction if source verification fails with both cited sources (footnotes 4 [Spiegel] and 5 [Ondersma])? Might other editors help out? Radvo (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Another thought about the failed reference source, in the Introduction, for the clause:

  • "Numerous age of consent reform organizations have quoted the paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws"...

The earliest version of this idea seems to have been edited into the Introduction of this article on March 16th, 2006 as an unsourced opinion/observation, contributed by Will Beback. Later editors added to, revised, deleted, and rephrased Will Beback's clause, but none of these versions was correctly sourced or footnoted either. Since the clause is not properly sourced, and since I gave other reasons above to delete this clause, the clause should be removed. Radvo (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

                    • [NEXT from Will Beback]

Thanks for your note on my talk page. I don't recall the circumstances of my edit five years ago. The edit summary makes it appear that I was restoring text rather than adding it freshly. However I don't have time to research it. Will Beback talk 19:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

                    • [NEXT from Flyer22]

The line that says

  • "Numerous age of consent reform organizations have quoted the paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws, and defense attorneys have used the study to argue for minimizing harm in child sexual abuse cases."

should stay, or at least something like it. The first part presents a significant aspect of the topic and should be in the lead, per WP:LEAD, especially since it is covered lower in the article. The "defense attorneys" part of the line should probably stay as well, but I don't mind if that part is removed.

Thirdly, child asexual abuse -- specifically adults engaging in sexual activity with prepubescents or early pubescents -- is considered to cause harm by most of the psychological/medical community (and I'm not talking about 18-year-olds with 13-year-olds), which is why the Rind study was and is still so controversial...not just because of moral beliefs. ... Yes, Rind says that child sexual abuse may not cause harm, but that is the point. This article is supposed to be about what the Rind study reports and the reactions to that report. It cannot be helped that most researchers and the general public have severely criticized the findings. Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

About WP:LEAD, read it...the whole page if you need to. I'm the experienced Wikipedia editor here, unless you aren't as new as you claim to be, and I am letting you know that a piece of information you are trying to get removed from the lead belongs in the lead. WP:LEAD is clear about why. You say "There are no good sources for that idea. I don't like the idea because I don't think it is true." I say WP:Verifiability says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." This information is backed to reliable, published sources. And I don't know why you keep talking down to me, as though I am some under-educated idiot who just "goes with the flow." My belief that

  • "[n]umerous age of consent reform organizations have quoted the paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws"

has nothing to do with believing "urban legend." It has to do with what I have witnessed on forums among pedophiles and those like them advocating for ages of consent to be lowered. I witnessed this with my own eyes. It was not by word of mouth. But of course we go by reliable, published sources here at Wikipedia, not by personal experience.....Flyer22 (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

                    • [NEXT-- from Radvo]

This paragraph is just about the claim of a direct connection between Dr. Rind's meta-analysis and age of consent reform advocacy. Flyer22, you wrote above: "This information [about the direct connection between the Rind paper and advocacy for legal reform] is backed to reliable, published sources." The contested clause offers no such reliable sources in the footnotes, (or the page numbers cited are wrong or missing). Most of the full text in the two reliable sources, listed in footnotes 4 and 5, is available on line. The sources are reliable sources in general, but they don't specifically back up what is said in the article's Introduction. There is a difference between being a reliable source in general, and a reliable source backing a specific claim. Please correct me if I missed it. What is the page number in these two reference sources that "backs" up "this information?" Neither of these two sources ever even mentioned the Ipce or MHAMic websites. [SNIP, for brevity] Three organizations are identified in the article as advocacy organizations, but they are clearly fringe and NOT RELIABLE SOURCES! I looked at the MAHMic and Ipce sites. [SNIP for brevity] Well, SURPRISE! They are not age of consent advocacy organizations. Those fringe organizations are documentation services, they list, reference, and document publications and articles. I could not find any trace of evidence on these specific websites of advocacy for legal reform and associating legal change with the Rind study.

The introduction, IMHO, includes a fallacy called 'guilt by association' for the 6 researchers who authored the 3 studies. The 6 living authors are smeared with the accusation that they exonerate pedophiles. I gave a psychologist Carol Tarvis quote from a good source to support this claim of a "pedophile exoneration smear", but the reliable source was removed (with all my other edits). Where is the reliable source for that libel? Wikipedia itself? So, there is a BLP issue here, too.

I challenge any claim that NAMBLA uses the Rind study to support its political advocacy (in the Wikipedia Introduction) because the claim is not supported by a reliable source, as Wikipedia defines one. Flyer22 (above) teaches us that truth is not as important as supplying a reliable source. She teaches a hard lesson to swallow, but it's the correct lesson. [SNIP for brevity]. Radvo (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2011 (UT

                    • [NEXT -- from Flyer]

Truth is an issue for Wikipedia, which is why that part of the line of WP:Verifiability is currently contested (as seen with its "under discussion" tag). It's just that reliable sourcing and keeping people from objecting to things because they don't like it are more important.

If we take away the "age of consent" part that is in the lead and lower part of the article, there is still the matter of the fact that pedo-advocacy websites have used the Rind study to argue that child sexual abuse does not cause harm. Some of those very people used to edit Wikipedia before they were blocked and/or banned. We would also get random pedo-pushing editors (IPs or registered) citing Rind as their proof that child sexual abuse does not cause harm. And this is also the reason that the Rind study is even at the MHAMIC website. [SNIP of unrelated material for brevity] Flyer22 (talk) 11:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I've already explained to you why pedophiles supporting the Rind study belongs in the lead and in the lower part of the article. It is a significant aspect of this controversy...that some pedophile groups saw it as validation that their actions were not harming children. That is not original research, but fact. Fix the wording and/or take care of the sources, if problematic, and leave it in the article. If by "CSA industry," you mean all the researchers against child sexual abuse, I don't see how they were "humiliated when all of their research produced between 1966 and 1995 yielded the results Rind found." No, the were offended by Rind. Not embarrassed because Rind proved them wrong. Flyer22 (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

                    • [NEXT -- from Radvo]

That suggested text [by Truthwriting; first entry above] is brilliant, and insightful! It may be too original. This brilliant summary of the underlying issues should NOT be stated in Wikipedia's voice,... Rather, something like this should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where true and justified, described as widespread views... [I changed my mind on this edit; it this can be inserted without challenge, I support this edit, and have included it in the text of the full Introduction below .Radvo] Something like this (that follows) might be more easily sourced...

  • "There has been widespread concern], on radio talk shows, in small right wing advocacy and professional organizations, in newspaper and magazine articles, and even into the U.S, Congress. Critics feared that the Rind et al publications could be used to advocate effectively for some change in the age of consent laws. Deep concern was expressed about the possible injustice for the victim of CSA, and that the controversial results of the Rind studies would be misused, without appropriate skepticism, in court and with juries, to further harm the victims of CSA." (cite many sources.)

Someone please shorten that "off the cuff" remark for me, Radvo (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC) [Of course, this has the same problem as some of the other suggestions above. What is the reference source for this summary? Or is none needed?]

None of these efforts to discredit Rind contradict the simple fact Heather Ulrich et al. replicated the study in 2005, and came up with the identical results. That is very powerful information! I am delighted to read that you [Truthinwriting] see the importance of including the Ulrich replication in the Introduction. ... Radvo (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

[End of all Paste]

                      • The above summary was put together on December 28th, 2011 by Radvo.

New text: Here is my tentative composite from all of above, that may fail Wikipedia's verification requirement, but maybe this can be revised with the texts from reliable sources here. This is the entire Introduction, including some clarifying changes to the first and second paragraph.

                    • [Start of text -- revision to the proposed introduction]
  • The Rind et al. controversy was a unique, historical debate in scientific literature, public media, and the United States government, regarding a 1998 peer reviewed research paper on child sexual abuse (CSA) that conducted a statistical meta-analysis of 58 independent samples, totaling 15,824 college students.[1] The paper was written by researchers Bruce Rind (PhD), Philip Tromovitch (MA) and Robert Bauserman (PhD). The authors had collected 59 studies (N = 35,703 college student participants [13,704 men and 21,999 women]) that is, every research study on child sexual abuse (CSA) that was cataloged for the years between 1956 and 1995 inclusive. There were 36 published studies, 21 unpublished doctoral dissertations, and 2 unpublished master's theses. The 1998 study followed a related 1997 meta-analysis by Rind and Tromovitch in the Journal of Sex Research that examined 10 independent samples designed to be nationally representative, based on data from more than 8,500 participants.[2] Four of the seven included studies came from the United States, and one each came from Great Britain, Canada, and Spain. [Added sentence:] Many in the public, and in the media, were offended, even outraged, by the publication in July 1998 of the former study in the Psychological Bulletin, the flagship scholarly publication of the American Psychological Association (APA). The media debate climaxed in the unprecedented condemnation of the paper by the State of Alaska (CSHJR 36) on May 11, 1999, by the United States House of Representatives (HCR 107) on July 12, 1999, and by the United States Senate concurrently on July 30th, 1999. This raised concern in the social science research community over the "chilling effect" the Congressional condemnation would have on publication of future controversial research results. state of Alaska, U.S. House of Representatives, and U.S. House of Representatives & Senate concurrent resolution
  • The authors' stated goal was "...to address the question: In the population of persons with a history of child sexual abuse (CSA), does this experience cause intense psychological harm on a widespread basis for both genders?" Some of the authors' more controversial conclusions were that child sexual abuse (CSA] does not necessarily cause intense, pervasive harm to the child;[3] that the reason the [delete "current"; substitute] prevailing view of child sexual abuse (CSA) was not substantiated by their empirical scrutiny was because the construct validity of CSA, as it had been variously defined by other researchers, was poor [delete: "of questionable scientific validity"]; and that [delete "the psychological damage caused by;" substitute:] the poorer adjustment associated with the abusive encounters depends on whether the encounter was consensual [delete "or not"]. The authors suggested that their discussion "does not imply that the construct [of] CSA should be abandoned, but only that it should be used less indiscriminately to achieve better scientific validity." [1 page 46] Radvo (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC) [1]
  • Rind et al. concluded with a statement that CSA may not result in harm, but the "lack of harmfulness does not imply [a] lack of wrongfulness"(1 cite p.47). They wrote that their research results, [produced primarily for their professional peers so that the predictive value and scientific validity of the CSA construct might be improved, for the benefit of children,] did not imply that current moral and legal prohibitions against Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) should be changed. The International Pedophile and Child Emancipation documentation service enthusiastically documents the study and the controversy on its website. There has been concern that the paper would be used by organizations that advocate change to the age of consent laws (e.g., to eventually lower the legal age of consent or to eliminate an age of consent for willing sexual relationships)(cite source of this claim). Additionally there has been concern that the article would be [mis]used in court to argue that little or no harm to the minor occurred, when, in fact, harm may have [delete "likely did"] occurred in a given case before the court(cite source of this claim).
                    • [End of text of revision to the proposed introduction]

Revisions, comments, suggestions, and objections of all editors are invited for discussion here. Radvo (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for balance, for one phrase, found in the 'Findings in brief' Section. Also, non-legal alternative sought for the word "offenses."

About the edit contributed by Legitimus on December 15, 2011.

She added to the 'Findings in brief' section: "The definition of CSA varied significantly between samples, most including victims as old as 17, and also included non-contact offenses (such as exhibitionism)." [1]

About the last clause: "The [Rind et al. 1998] definition of CSA ...included non-contact offenses (such as exhibitionism)."

On page 29, the word "offenses" does not appear. "Offenses" is a legal term. We don't have information that all of these acts of CSA were legally prosecuted. The many samples were college students, not prisoners. To avoid introducing confusion, a non-legal term might be used instead of "offenses."

Rind et al. 1998 states: "Types of CSA ... varied from study to study, including [CSA] acts such as an invitation to do something sexual, exhibitionism, fondling, masturbation, oral sex, attempted intercourse, and completed intercourse." The researchers also added: "the prevalence of less severe types is likely to be underestimated."( Rind 1998, page 30)

The common sense implication of including the "non-contact offenses (such as exhibitionism)" clause is that Rind et al. used a definition of CSA that was too broad, and the overly broad definition of CSA included everything, 17 year olds (who are not children), invitations to sex, and, maybe, including the kitchen sink! So the reader of the Wikipedia might come to the conclusion, as expected by common sense, that Rind's faulty and varied definitions of CSA were the reason why the "CSA construct" failed to predict expected harm in the effect size calculations.

However, such an implication, perhaps wrongly suggested by including this clause, is not supported by the study itself on page 44-45. "Multiple regression analyses showed that the intensity of the relationship between CSA and adjustment varied reliably as a function of gender, level of consent, and the interaction of these two factors. ... It is noteworthy that neither the level of contact nor the interaction between gender and level of contact was related to intensity. These latter results failed to provide support for the common [sense] belief that contact sex is more harmful than noncontact sex or that contact sex for girls is especially harmful"[underlining added to the original].

"The near-zero correlation between penetration and outcome is consistent with the multiple regression analysis finding that contact sex did not moderate adjustment. This result provides empirical support for Finkelhor's (1979 , p. 103) [Finkelhor,D. (1979). Sexually victimized children. New York: The Free Press.Page 103] observation that our society's view of intercourse as the most damaging form of CSA is 'a well-ingrained prejudice' unsupported by research." To ensure that the Wikipedia article does not wrongly validate factual misinformation about what the study reports and perpetuate a "well-ingrained prejudice," (identified by Finkelhor) the clause identified here from the Findings in Brief section should be carefully balanced with information that comes from Rind et al. 1998 (pages 29, 30, 44, 45) and Finkelhor 1979 (page 103).

Since this section is entitled, Findings in brief, it reflects what is presented in Rind et al. 1998. Information that contradicts the presentation of Rind et al. 1998 and Finkelhor 1979, is not included in this "Findings in Brief" section, but is included in the article in other sections. The way the text now reads may correctly reflect the "Findings in brief", but that one identified clause may need additional balance information, so the reader does not make a wrong inference that the Rind et al. 1998 results came from so many non-contact offenses (that the reader may wrongly think are less likely to be harmful).

I may not have phrased this fully, tactfully or NPOV enough. I may not have the wording above exactly correct, according to other pages of Rind 1998 or various Wikipedia guidelines. If so, I apologize. Please check and correct. This is a work in progress on the TALK page, and other editors are invited to correct and improve this information with additional text, corrections, and page numbers. Radvo (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

(This is NOT about the Introduction, or the Lead!)
The "Findings in brief" Section currently contains this sentence, sourced on page 29 of Footnote 1:
"The definition of CSA varied significantly between samples, most including victims as old as 17, and also included non-contact offenses (such as exhibitionism)." [2]
Based on Legitimus' edit, Truthinwriting's comments below, and my comments above, I propose this alternative, from the top. This may need further work and abbreviation. Or maybe the confusion with the legal and biolgoical definition of the child should better be placed in the new Definitional Issues section, proposed by Truthinwriting at the end of his post immediately below.
==Findings in brief==
Prior to publishing the 1998 Rind et al. meta-analysis that was based on college student samples[3], Rind and Tromovitch published a meta-analysis based on national samples[4]. The 1998 manuscript replicated the overall, nationally representative findings regarding the association between experiencing one or more episodes categorized as CSA and later psychological adjustment.[5] The definitions of CSA varied significantly among the 59 studies. Twenty of the 59 studies classified adolescents as old as 16 as "children" confusing the legal definition of the child (or the legal minor) with the biological definition. The sexual experiences also included verbal "invitations to do something sexual" and exhibitionism, both of which do not involve touching. However, paradoxically, the 1998 Rind et al. "results failed to provide [statistical] support for the common [sense] belief that contact sex is more [clinically/scientifically measurably] harmful than noncontact sex." Rind et al. 1998, p. 27, 29-30 & 44-45 Appendix third column [6] Radvo (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


Truthinwriting responds: . Happy New Year! (and more thoughts, responses, & comments)

If the "several" versus "a number of" versus <the actual number of samples&participants> is settled, skip to my next paragraph now. If it is still being discussed: I have one of the Oxford English dictionaries on my computer and it specifically lists "a number of" as meaning "several", which it specifically defines as "more than two but not many". My sense growing up in the U.S. is that several is usually referring to something in the single digits and a number of might be larger but still carries the implication of relatively-speaking, few. Hence as I mentioned before "a number of" appears to be incorrect, the exact numbers are objective and neutral and provide facts from which a reader can judge the scope for themself, hence the exact numbers seem to be the way to go.

Regarding the concern about "valorizing" the study, I don't see how any of the edits being discussed would valorize anything. The two topics were: including the exact number of samples/participants and the wording "designed to be nationally representative". These are both objective facts and are important, basic information for the Wikipedia reader. I doubt readers would see either as valorizing, but if they did it would probably be because they (i.e., the reader) were drawing a conclusion based on the facts. As I understand it, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia that provides facts with a NPOV, so that people can draw their own conclusions. So as long as we maintain a NPOV, provide relevant facts, and keep our personal interpretations to a minimum, we should be on solid ground for informing the public and meeting the goals of both Wikipedia and the page. So in summary on this "valorizing" issue, I don't see any problem; the biggest danger, perhaps, is that we'll selectively omit facts that readers should have to make informed conclusions (hence my bias for always including more information, and more specific information, rather than less; this should also help minimize concerns about cherry-picking).

Regarding the "attorney use"-type material in the Lead, I have nothing really new to say. There must have been concerns about change or there would have been no controversy, but we need to have verifiable sources for the page. Hence I still favor deletion or rewording to an indefinite-phrasing that will not need sourcing, perhaps something like: "Perhaps the controversy occurred, in part, because of concern about the use of the study to argue for changes in the law ...". Writing it that way ("Perhaps ..., in part, ...") might allow the basic idea to be included but reduce problems with sourcing. Or would this still need to be sourced? Radvo offered an "off the cuff" possible phrasing and asked for comments/edits, following is my quick adjustment of that (posted above at 00:15, 27 December 2011). Mostly I just removed a few adjectives that could be interpreted as unsourced conclusions and refocused the wording on the 1998 study which was where the controversy was focused (if memory serves, there were few, if any, criticisms of the national study).

"There had been concern, expressed on radio talk shows, in right wing advocacy organizations, in newspaper and magazine articles, and even in the U.S. Congress. Critics appeared to fear that the Rind et al. 1998 meta-analysis could be used to advocate effectively for change in the age of consent laws. Concern was expressed about possible injustice for victims of CSA, and that the controversial results of the Rind et al. study might be misused in court, without appropriate skepticism, to the detriment of victims of CSA."

I read the sourced pages of the Spiegel book (thanks for pointing out they are available on the web!), and they do not support the current wording, but they might partially support the above wording. However, if the above is okay without sources, then perhaps that is the way to go.

Radvo suggested a revised version of the Lead (posted above on 00:26, 29 December 2011). I have no major objections to it as a replacement, though I have a lot of minor word-choice type suggestions I will want to make if we use it. I won't offer those suggestions now, since it will be a waste of time if we don't move toward that offering and I want to relax more during this winter break, but I support it and I'd be happy to go over it and repost it here if people want to see how I recommend it be adjusted.

Re: alternatives to the word "offenses": That word does imply a legal offense, especially given the mention of laws, Congress, and so on in the upper part of the page, hence we should avoid it where practical. Additionally, many of the events that were categorized as CSA might not even have been illegal in the jurisdiction where they occurred, hence the page should probably avoid anything that indicates something was illegal or not, unless we are sure about it (e.g., a sexual relationship between a 16-year-old and a 26-year-old might be legal but categorized as CSA under one of the CSA definitions used by the researchers). As for alternative wording: "event", "incident", or "experience" might work, especially if preceded by the adjective "sexual".

The sentence in question is currently worded: "The definition of CSA varied significantly between samples, most including victims as old as 17, and also included non-contact offenses (such as exhibitionism)."

I think any of the three above alternatives works well here. My larger concern with this sentence is the use of the word "victims". Many of these people did not view themselves as victims and in a case such as the example above (16 w/ 26) the word victim would just be incorrect. Hence I suggest changing victim to individuals or people, since victim would violate NPOV and be incorrect in many cases.

The most recent concern raised dealt with concern about misrepresenting the makeup of the samples (e.g., all having overly wide definitions) and that this may have been careless or a fault of Rind et al. (at least, I think that was the concern; I was not clear on exactly which phrase was at issue). For the most part, the data and issue related to this probably belongs as a separate entry in the "Criticism and response" section, rather than in the "Findings in brief" section. Hence I suggest someone put together a sourced "Criticism and response" sub-section titled something like Definitional issues, and include a sourced criticism (I'm sure I can find one for this) with a sourced Rind et al. response (or relevant information from the original article, if it is there; again, I'm sure I can find this if I look for it). Truthinwriting (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


The first sentence of the Intro. reads, as I am now writing:
[Start quote]
The Rind et al. controversy was a unique historical debate in scientific literature, public media, and the US government, regarding a 1998 peer reviewed paper on child sexual abuse (CSA) that conducted a meta-analysis of 58 independent samples of college students containing data on over 15,000 individuals.[1)


On May 10, 1933, Nazis in Berlin burned works by leftists and other authors considered "un-German," including thousands of books looted from the library of Hirschfeld's Institut für Sexualwissenschaft.
Symbol of the "New York Society for the Suppression of Vice", advocating book-burning
It was on this page that Galileo first noted an observation of the moons of Jupiter. This observation upset the notion that all celestial bodies must revolve around the Earth. "According to Stephen Hawking, Galileo probably bears more of the responsibility for the birth of modern science than anybody else, and Albert Einstein called him the father of modern science." See article on Galileo.
Book burning following the 1973 coup that installed the Pinochet regime in Chile
Books burned by the Nazis, on display at Yad Vashem
Including more information, exact numbers, photos, newreels is the way to go for a popular on-line encyclopedia, as long as editors are not "valorizing" or exaggerating the numbers or words in a way that cannot be verified in the reference sources (viz. Footnotes 1 and 2). Including exact information about the number of samples is not "valorizing" (giving artificial or undeserved support to) the number of samples, as long as the numbers are sourced correctly in footnote 1 and 2. Herostratus offered no credible reference source that has challenged the accuracy of the sample numbers that Truthinwriting correctly finds in footnote 1. (Nor has Herostratus offered a source that supports any counter-claim that the samples used for the calculations offered in the 1997 paper [footnote 2] were not statistically "representative" of the total populations of the nations of Spain, England, Canada, or the USA. "Nationally representative" is the claim of the authors of the 10 original studies that the 1997 paper (footnote 2) used. No credible source has challenged the accuracy of these multiple authors' claims.) For these reasons, I was confident I did the right thing by redacting Herostratus' unjustified removal of Truthinwriting's earlier edit to the start of the Introduction. Herostratus's alleged "charge" of "valorizing" of the samples in the 10 original sources of the 1997 meta-analysis, even if true, was not properly sourced. His redaction of the entire edit was IMHO unjustified, and is noted here. Herostratus presented no verifiable or published account that the samples cited in the 1997 paper (footnote 2) were random, convenience, prison, or clinical samples. So until a verifiable source claims otherwise, they are "nationally representative samples" just as the authors of the original 10 studies claimed them to be.
I offer still another version of the start of the Introduction, divided into "a number of" sentences, for your kind consideration. I beg your indulgence and patience. As part of a possible compromise, I dropped Truthinwriting's "58 samples", and I included "a substantial number of" to this version to demonstrate my willingness to compromise with Flyer22 and Herostratus's persistence. Since I am also accused of producing a "wall of words", and since Herostatus reminded us all about The Stormfront, and since I have been advised that sarcasm is okay in the TALK section, all of these sources gave me an idea to include photos to break up my text and attract everyone's attention. How do I credit the source of my photos; these are all from three Wikipedia articles. I am looking to include the entire newsreel from which this photo was taken, for added interest. I hope everyone is happy, and this is all properly sourced. Of course, anyone can remove this edit again. I just want it known here that I am offering this text compromise (below) to my fellow editors here at this time.
Warning: I am not well known here for my ability to write concisely; you'll need another editor for that. :-) The one sentence at the start of the Introduction quoted above, has now become "a number of" sentences, but not that many. :-)
"When the Nazis took power, they attacked Hirschfeld's Institut für Sexualwissenschaft in Berlin, Germany, on May 6, 1933, and burned many of its books. The press-library pictures and archival newsreel film of the Nazi book-burning seen [in Germany even] today are believed to be of Hirschfeld's library and records." Quote and photo are copied here from Wikipedia's article on Dr. Magnus Hirshfeld who built a library of Sexual Science (Sexology), that contained several samples of (but not THAT many) books before the Nazi's burned "a number of" them. Many Germans, and citizens of several samples of nations included in the Allied Nations who defeated the Nazi's haven't forgotten a sample of images like this one here, though no source has been found to accurately document the specific number of books burned. So only the images are included, without the number of books burned.]
Besides Alaska, a number of State legislatures but not that many, condemned, or considered condemning, the study, too. This needs research to find the exact texts of those State resolutions on line. The sample of states includes possibly California, Delaware, Illinois, New Jersey, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. What do you think? Should a list of these state legislatures be included in the article? Is there a volunteer editor who might offer to do this research? I remember reading, some time ago, a list of the U.S. State legislatures that condemned the study was published in a German language account of the Rind et al. controversy, a German article that I cannot now easily relocate to get that list of States. I imagine that some Germans may be particularly sensitive to the alleged abuse of power, for moral reasons, by the U.S. government to condemn on independent, self-funded research study, distributed in a well-respected professional publication. Anyone want to rewrite this paragraph in NPOV, and without the sarcasm, and insert that into the article, too? Vounteers? Or do these photos and the inclusion of a newsreel suffice, and that way we avoid the wall of words for those who refuse to read the original studies? BTW, legislatures condemning mathematical studies smells like the current equivalent of book burning. Book burning is no longer politcally correct, and violates ecological considerations and may contribute too much to global warming. :-) Aside: This is an attempt to be funny. This may not work on the Internet....
[Start of still another version of the proposed "Lead" or Introduction.]
The Rind et al. controversy was a unique, historical debate in scientific literature and public media, and climaxed with condemnation of a mathematically-based, research study by legislative bodies of government in the USA. The controversy was particularly intense, in the popular media, between March and July 30, 1999, but continues until today. The focus is a 1998 peer-reviewed research paper on child sexual abuse (CSA) that scrutinized data, in various mathematical ways, from every known research study on child sexual abuse (CSA) that was cataloged in the USA between 1956 and 1995 inclusive. The search yielded 36 studies from the published professional literature, 21 unpublished doctoral dissertations, and 2 unpublished master's theses. The study included various statistical analyses of a substantial number of different independent samples. One of the controversial calculations was for "effect size", calculated from the self reports of 15,824 college students, (3,254 men from 18 independent samples and 12,570 woman from 40 independent samples).[1]
[end of proposal for your kind consideration.]
Aside: For more information on moralistic pogroms to suppress sinful, unpopular and taboo ideas, and to locate the source of 3 images in this edit, see also Wikipedia's article on book burning. See also Judith Reisman's decades-long campaign to discredit Alfred Kinsey.
I hope everyone is happy and enjoyed the pictures, and that no one is offended by a bit of playful sarcasm. Radvo (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC) Revised, photos added, and rearranged by Radvo (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

'Criticism and response': Subsection: Definitions

This section is for discussing issues around definitions, or definitional issues.

Define "CSA": The definitions of CSA varied among 59 studies

Haugaard, J.J., “The challenge of defining child sexual abuse,” American Psychologist, vol. 55, no. 9, 2000, pp. 1036-1039.

Ames, A. & Houston, D.A., "Legal, social, and biological definitions of pedophilia," Archives of Sexual Behavior, vol. 19, 1990, pp. 333-342.

Researchers from Indiana University elaborate on the distinction between child molestation and pedophilia, writing that confusion of the two hinders scientific understanding.

Feierman, J., "Introduction and A Biosocial Overview," in Feierman, J., ed., Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990a, pp. 1-68.

Jay Feierman of the University of New Mexico defines pedophilia, pedosexual behavior, ephebophilia, hebephilia, and ephebosexual behavior. He also discusses the relationship between adult-minor sexual behavior and child sexual abuse in terms of consent and harm.

Fergusson, D.M. & Mullen, P.E., Childhood sexual abuse: An evidence based perspective, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 1999.

David M. Fergusson and Paul E. Mullen describe the way in which CSA is defined based on normative moral standards, and explain why there can never be a single universal definition of CSA. They criticize the popular belief among professionals and the public that CSA is a syndrome identifiable by certain symptoms. They also find fault with "trite conclusions" about CSA that are "chanted like sacred mantras." They propose a straightforward scientific approach to definitional problems.

Freund, K., "Assessment of pedophilia," in Cook, M. & Howells, K. (Eds.), Adult sexual interest in children, London: Academic Press, 1981, pp. 139-179.

Kurt Freund of the University of Toronto makes a distinction between pedophilia and hebephilia, and describes misleading conclusions that result from criminological research which confuses pedophilia with pedosexual behavior.

Green, R., “Is pedophilia a mental disorder?”, Archives of Sexual Behavior, vol. 31, no. 6, 2002, pp. 467-471.

British sexologist Richard Green describes changing definitions of pedophilia in successive editions of DSM and writes that the current definition is logically incoherent. He writes that it fails to meet the DSM’s own criteria for classification as a mental disorder.

Haugaard, J.J. & Emery, R.E., "Methodological issues in child sexual abuse research," Child Abuse & Neglect, vol. 13, 1989, pp. 89-100.

University of Virginia researchers describe their study which found that the definition of CSA significantly affects findings regarding the prevalence and consequences of CSA.

Okami, P. & Goldberg, A., "Personality Correlates of Pedophilia: Are They Reliable Indicators?", Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 29, No. 3, 1992, pp. 297-328.

UCLA researchers describe common inconsistent usage of the terms child and pedophilia--usage based on law and morality rather than science. They explain in detail why sex offenders against children are most likely a very different group of people from pedophiles. They also criticize the use of terms that suggest violence to refer to adult-child sexual interactions when overwhelming data show a lack of force or violence in such interactions. They argue in favor of making a distinction between actual violence and moral violation.

Sandfort, T., Boys on their contacts with men: A study of sexually expressed friendships, New York: Global Academic Publishers, 1987.

University of Utrecht researcher Theodorus Sandfort defines children according to Dutch law as those under age 16, and accordingly defines pedophile and pedosexuality. He argues in favor of limiting the term abuse to situations in which the adult uses his power or some other method to compel the child to have sex with him.

West, D.J. & Woodhouse, T.P., "Sexual encounters between boys and adults," in Li, C.K., West, D.J., & Woodhouse, T.P., Children’s sexual encounters with adults, London: Duckworth, 1990, pp. 3-137.

British researchers describe varying definitions of "child" and "abuse" found among researchers, and argue against the use of the blanket term "abuse" for all sexual contacts between minors and adults. Criticism and Response

Truthinwriting wrote: The most recent concern raised dealt with concern about misrepresenting the makeup of the samples (e.g., all having overly wide definitions) and that this may have been careless or a fault of Rind et al. (at least, I think that was the concern; I was not clear on exactly which phrase was at issue). For the most part, the data and issue related to this probably belongs as a separate entry in the "Criticism and response" section... Hence I suggest someone put together a sourced "Criticism and response" sub-section titled something like Definitional issues, and include a sourced criticism (I'm sure I can find one for this) with a sourced Rind et al. response (or relevant information from the original article, if it is there; again, I'm sure I can find this if I look for it). Truthinwriting (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Radvo wrote: The sexual experiences (CSA) ... included verbal "invitations to do something sexual" and exhibitionism, both of which do not involve [any] touching. Go to last section: Appendix, to see a list of the definitions.

See also the Section above entitled: Request for balance, for one phrase, found in the 'Findings in brief' Section. Also, non-legal alternative sought for the word "offenses."

This discussion of CSA [see below] is quoted from page 22 and 23 of Rind et al. (1998)
An important first step is to discuss terminology. The term child sexual abuse has been used in the psychological literature to describe virtually all sexual interactions between children or adolescents and significantly older persons, as well as between same-age children or adolescents when coercion is involved. The indiscriminate use of this term and related terms such as victim and perpetrator has been criticized because of concerns about scientific validity (e.g., Kilpatrick, 1987 ; Nelson, 1989 ; Okami, 1990 ; Rind & Bauserman, 1993 ). Kilpatrick argued that researchers have often failed to distinguish between "abuse" as harm done to a child or adolescent and "abuse" as a violation of social norms, which is problematic because it cannot be assumed that violations of social norms lead to harm. Similarly, Money (1979) observed that our society has tended to equate "wrongfulness" with harmfulness in sexual matters, but harmfulness cannot be inferred from wrongfulness. Nelson argued that the indiscriminate use of terms suggesting force, coercion, and harm reflects and maintains the belief that these interactions are always harmful, thereby threatening an objective appraisal of them. Rind and Bauserman demonstrated experimentally that appraisals of nonnegative sexual interactions between adults and adolescents described in scientific reports can be biased by the use of negatively loaded terms such as CSA.
Problems of scientific validity of the term CSA are perhaps most apparent when contrasting cases such as the repeated rape of a 5-year-old girl by her father and the willing sexual involvement of a mature 15-year-old adolescent boy with an unrelated adult. Although the former case represents a clear violation of the person with implications for serious harm, the latter may represent only a violation of social norms with no implication for personal harm (Bauserman & Rind, 1997 ). By combining events likely to produce harm with those that are not into a unitary category of CSA, valid understanding of the pathogenicity of CSA is threatened ( Okami, 1994 ). The tendency by researchers to label cases such as the latter as abuse reflects the slippage of legal and moral constructs into scientific definitions ( Okami, 1990, 1994 ). Basing scientific classifications of sexual behavior on legal and moral criteria was pervasive a half century ago ( Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948 ); more recently, this practice has been confined to a much smaller set of sexual behaviors, particularly those labeled CSA.
With these caveats in mind regarding the scientific shortcomings of the term CSA, we have nevertheless retained it for use in the current article because of its pervasive use in the scientific literature and because many researchers as well as lay persons view all types of sociolegally defined CSA as harmful. On the basis of the terminology used in studies reviewed in the current article, CSA is generally defined as a sexual interaction involving either physical contact or no contact (e.g., exhibitionism) between either a child or adolescent and someone significantly older, or between two peers who are children or adolescents when coercion is used.

[end quote]

Define "Child" The Definition of "the child" in CSA varied in the 59 studies, sometimes using the legal definition and sometimes using the biological definition.

Criticism and Response

Radvo wrote: Twenty of the 59 studies classified adolescents as old as 16 or 17 [years old] as "children" confusing the legal definition of the child (or the definition of the legal "minor") with the biological definition. See the column three of the appendix of footnote 1; http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.htm

Define "Offenses" Do we use that here in this article only as its meaning in the law?

Radvo (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

TLDR

Flyer22 asked me to have a look, I'm only just getting to it.

The page above is so horribly long I am reluctant to even try to read it. My preference is to edit the main page boldly and see what the result is. I've made some changes; the biggest difference is to remove the numbers - these sorts of details are appropriate for the body, not the lead. Even for the body, the numbers aren't necessarily a great idea (it would help if they were commented on by other sources to indicate if, and why they are significant) as it's a lot of detail for what is essentially a methodological issue.

The actual changes since November 12th have been relatively minimal (after mine). The biggest one is obviously the addition of the "findings in brief" section. I don't think the section is a great idea - it's too much detail, and the general reader of wikipedia would lack the background and context to know if the findings mentioned are good or bad. I think it would be better to interstitch the relevant details with the criticisms rather than attempt to duplicate the paper's abstract.

I've been looking for an excuse to review this page for a while now, I'll use this interest as a kick in the ass. I'll see if I have the leisure time to work on a rewrite. If my edits were excessively objectionable, then consider this a blanket permission to revert and (sigh) direct me to the appropriate section of the talk page above. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU, welcome to the discussion.
Regarding the "Findings in brief section": I think it is needed and should be kept. Smaller, detailed points should of course be made in the "Criticism and response" section, but I think a broad overview is necessary or the details will make no coherent sense to readers. Thus the "Findings in brief" section is quite important. I think it should present the basics of the studies so the readers know what was done, focusing on general information relevant to the criticisms and responses, then in the "Criticism and response" section more details can be provided. My current thinking is that as this page develops (we haven't really started serious work on the "Criticism and response" section yet), we may find we should add further background into the "Findings in brief section", or relocate material from there into the appropriate "Criticism and response" subsections. Those changes can evolve naturally as we work on the rest of the page.
Regarding the Lead: There has been a lot of back-and-forth and editing/redacting of late. To minimize edit-skirmishes it may be best to post your suggested new version here on the talk page first, for comments. Also note that Radvo has proposed a new version as well. Truthinwriting (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Please thread your posts for ease of readability per the talk page guidelines.
I don't have an issue with the section being kept, but plan on modifying it considerably - it's too long, too detailed and too specific. Wikipedia's audience is the average, world-wide reader and not academics, and pages should be written in a summary style that assumes no specialized knowledge on the part of the reader. Less important than a specific P value is the fact that it is, or is not, significant - and far more important is the reaction to the specific points. It's far, far better to summarize with prose than include unnecessary information. We are not a collection of indiscriminate information; it is our job as editors to make sure readers understand the issues without having to take an intro course in stats or research methodologies.
The above page is an enormous mess which discourages reading. It's a bit of a dick move, but I plan on ignoring much of it unless I absolutely have to read it. In practice, WP:BRD works pretty well and I don't mind working through edit summaries. Wikipedia articles have a relatively standard language and structure which we should adhere to - and that structure doesn't inovlve a laborious discussion of unnecessary methodological minutae. Regarding the actual number of studies included in the lead, a link to meta analysis exists and a meta-analysis is an amalgamation of multiple studies. There's no need to mention how many in the lead itself, that's a detail for the body. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm also not a fan of the "Findings in brief" section (and said so at the time), on this basis:
  • It's too long and detailed. The article is not, itself, notable beyond the controversy, so there's no need to go into that level of detail.
  • And it's possibly not possible to describe the study satisfactorily; any précis is by nature a simplification under editorial judgement and thus runs the risk of being slanted one way or the other. Better to let readers who are really interested in the details to read the study themselves and draw their own conclusions.
  • And in fact it's not clear to me that the section is not slanted. It was written by User:Truthinwriting who I think may be fairly described as an admirer of the study. I mean it looks OK but its really above my pay grade to actually judge this, and I don't really trust User:Truthinwriting or any editor to provide a genuinely accurate précis.
My inclination also is to delete the section. Herostratus (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Another option might be to quote the abstract in full (if it's not a WP:COPYVIO); it would be useful to have a summary of the actual source of the controversy and I would expect it to be necessary when putting the later criticisms into context. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


Hi WLU. Weclome back to the Rind et al. controversy. Thank you very much for sharing the two items in the new Sources section. They are fantastic!
You wrote: The above page is an enormous mess which discourages reading. It's a bit of a dick move, but I plan on ignoring much of it unless I absolutely have to read it.
I am responsible for the wall of words in this TALK page. I respect that you are a volunteer. You have to do nothing.
Historic russian censorship. Book "Notes of my life by N.I. Grech", published in St. Petersburg 1886 by A.S. Suvorin. The censored text was replaced by dots. The general reader would lack "the background and context" to know the difference between "good or bad".
Censored pre-press proof of two articles from "Notícias da Amadora", a Portuguese newspaper, 1970. Similarly today, the general reader of the Wikipedia lacks the context and the background to understand the results of the Rind et al. (1998) meta-analysis. So the Congressional condemnation and the humiliating critique of the methodology may be reported in great detail, but not much of the Rind results.
I liked all of those numbers that you removed from the article. We've been working on the beginning of the article for a month, and they have already been redacted twice and replaced. Some of what you removed was already the second version. The Findings in Brief is also in its second version. I think a Findings in Brief section is absolutely essential, and, as Herostratus wrote, one that fairly presents what Rind et al. wrote. I share his distrust that this has been done fairly in the past. Sorry you missed what we have been doing. But now we are dealing with bias and trust. That should be interesting, too. Your removing the material AGAIN was,IMHO, to use your words, "a bit of a dick move." If you were invited here by Flyer22, we know where you are coming from. There is a lot of dumping and trashing going on around here. I am willing to work, as part of a team of editors, to assume good faith, to help clean this up. If necessary, bring in "depute resolution" to help establish rules and order here.
Look at the article again. "A lot of detail for what is essentially a methodological issue" comes in the 5 sections entitled: Criticism and response, Sample bias accusation, Non-standardization of variables, Statistical errors, Conceptual issues. TLTR, I'd say. Are you in any way responsible for offering these five sections to the reader who has not had a graduate course in social science research design? Are those 5 sections "too much detail, and the general reader of wikipedia would lack the background and context to know if the findings mentioned are good or bad?" I thought I was helping to write an article about a controvesial research study. Do you assume that the reader of the encyclopedia lacks the ability to decide what is good or bad? And that you have their cooperation to make moral decisions for them about how much good solid information they may get from an encyclopedia? Are you a clergy person who has license to practice your profession while voluneering as an editor? If the reader has access to the American Psychologist and read the detailed responses to Dallam by Rind et al. in 2001 and 2002, that reader wouldn't need to get her information from the Wikipedia. Either the reader of the Wikipedia is stupid and must be denied the numbers or she's eager to learn something that is challenging but carefully sourced and crafted NPOV. You can't have her both ways. I didn't think that stupid people take much time to look up moral panics about jargon-laden research articles. The Rind et al. (1998) article is hard to come by and hard to read. Only 6,000 copies of that issue of the Psychological Bulletin were printed, and most of them were mailed to libraries and academic psychologists. Editors here have a serious moral obligation to do what is good and avoid what is bad. I thought we would present the facts, trust the readers' intelligence and moral judgement, and let the readers decide based on a complete and fair presentations of the facts. More about the moral issues later. They were also discussed in the wall of words that you missed.
Satan, as seen in Codex Gigas. Demons are generally seen as evil beings, and Satan as greatest of these (in the Christian tradition). It is far far better to avoid giving the devil any unnecessary information. The less Satan knows about the details of the Rind et al. results, the easier it will be to keep the devil-within-us-all in hell, where he belongs. The general reader would lack the background and context to know if Rind et al. (1998), or Truthinwriting's summary of the Rind 'Findings in brief', "are good or bad".
WLU wrote: "It's far, far better to summarize with prose than include unnecessary information." Do I correctly smell censorship? That attitude towards the esteemed reader of the Wikipedia feels arrogant and patronizing to me. We like to work towards consensus if possible. Yours sounds like the kind of question that comes from someone who has not understood what Rind and Ulrich have written. Be honest. Have you done your homework? Have you read the Rind 1997 & 1998 papers? and the Ulrich 2005 paper? It would be unethical for an editor to "summarize with prose" the complicated research work that she has not carefully read or understood. How are you at statistics? This is a moral issue for me, and I trust you agree. I strongly disagree that you assume you have the consensus to proceed with a rewrite before you work things out here on the TALK page, as Truthinwriting politely asks. I don't trust you to do this work in an unbiased and fair way, as you have been very involved in this article before, and it is a mess. Herostratus doesn't trust Truthinwriting. We have a lot of work to do building trust. The less you "summarize with prose" for the reader with your unknown biases and the more you just give some basic numbers and facts, the better the Wikipedia reader will like the final product we collectively produce. Let's be more aware that this is a controversial issue, and controversy continues here unless we keep our biases in check.
Herostratus: The article is notable in itself, and the person who told you otherwise seriously mislead you. It crunch the numbers of every research study that was based on college samples that was produced between 1956 and 2005! It was heavily criticised by Dallan, Ondersma, et al. Stephanie Ulrich et al. accepted all the criticisms, redid the study correcting for what she could, and the results were identical. She could not correct for all the smaples being college students, but that was what the CSA establishment produced during those years. Let's hope the future produces more nationally representative samples.
Herostratus wrote of his deep distrust of our ability to do this work fairly:
it's possibly not possible to describe the study satisfactorily; any précis is by nature a simplification under editorial judgment and thus runs the risk of being slanted one way or the other. Better to let readers who are really interested in the details to read the study themselves and draw their own conclusions.
And in fact it's not clear to me that the section is not slanted. It was written by User:Truthinwriting who I think may be fairly described as an admirer of the study. I mean it looks OK but its really above my pay grade to actually judge this, and I don't really trust User:Truthinwriting or any editor to provide a genuinely accurate précis.
Thank you Herostratus for your honesty. The last part is genuinely human and fair. With this kind of honesty we are getting somewhere. Trust is the problem here, and Herostratus states this well. I don't want to be part of any article that is "valorizing" or puts the article down. I like the idea of NPOV. And I can appreciate that Herostratus, like many Wikipedia reader, does not trust his own capacity to make a fair assessment of the slant. This kind of distrust is widespread in places like Rommania, where the former dictator manipulated the citizens for years. I know this might sound crazy coming from me, but to Herostratus I would say: Trust your distrust. People are being manipulated, and lied to, and lied to with statistics all the time. Be skeptical. Skepticism and relying on credible sources is helpful to the work this team of editors.
But this skepticism is not like deciding whether Communism is a good system, whether Islam is the true faith, or whether that woman would make me a good wife. This is a more simple problem: Let me suggest this. We don't have to have some abstract standard like "genuinely accurate" That is too high a standard that we are not able to agree on or even know. A acceptable precis is one that the authors feel is genuinely accurate. None of you have to feel it's "genuinely accurate." Truthinwriting may feel it is genuinely accuaate, but he admires the article. Who can trust him then? I propose this as the standard: The orginal authors have to feel it is genuinely accurate. Taking the Psych Bulletin abstract from the article is a great idea on that score, because Bruce Rind wrote that abstract himself. It's accurate because the major author wrote that himself. The Wikipedia reader now already has access to that APA abstract at the end of the footnote.
I took the liberty to make Dr. Rind aware of the Wikipedia site and Truthinwriting's "Findings in Brief" section. Dr Rind read it (and Wikipedia's entire Rind et al. article) carefully. Dr. Rind thinks the Findings In Brief section is a genuinely accurate precis of the full article. How can I build your trust that what I wrote here in this paragraph is true and accurate without violating his personal privacy? I'd tell you about what he said about the rest of the article, but I am trying to avoid writing a wall of words for you.
This doesn't completely solve the moral issue. Let me speculate about what the moral issue is. It's 1942. Herostratus is living in the house where Anne Frank lived in Amsterdam. He knows he has to be very careful about what he says, because if he says the wrong thing, the Nazi's will search the house and find Anne and the rest of the Jewish family, and they will all be shipped off to the concentration camps. But the problem is not him alone. He has to deal with others who want to say too much. Herostratus fears that Truthinwriting and I are talking too much. Too much talk could be dangerous for Anne and the family. It's better to just say little or nothing. This is not about censorship, viewed in this way. This is about keeping your mouth shut and not talking too much with the public. It's about protecting Anne Frank. There is nothing wrong with saying that Anne is hidden upstairs in that small part of the house, except in the minds of the wrong people (like the Nazi soldiers walking down the street), this is information that is very dangerous for Anne and family. I think it is important that you do what you believe to be morally right. If suppression of the Rind results is the moral thing to do, then we must all do the moral thing. I would be wrong to ask you to allow me to talk or write in a way that you think puts Anne Frank in danger with my big mouth, or my wall of words. If this is the moral delema, we have to talk about this some more and come to some consensus.
WLu wrote: it would be useful to have a summary of the actual source of the controversy.
Here is my summary of "the actual source of the controvery" from my perspective. Take from this what the consensus will bear:
Dr. Carol Tavris wrote: For these psychological clinicians "to use the 'exoneration of pedophiles' argument to try to suppress the (Rind et al. 1998) article's important findings, and to smear the article's authors by impugning their scholarship and motives, is particularly reprehensible."[7]For more about this social psychologist, see the Wikipedia article on Carol Tavris

The Rind et al. controversy was one of the moral panics, spread by the media and the advocacy groups, from time to time, this panic unique because it involves a jargon-laden mathematical based article in the scientific literature, Few people have access to the article, have read it, or would understand it even if they did. They rely on people they trust to interpret it for them. This moral panic followed similar well documented moral panics around Satanic ritual abuse and Day-care sex-abuse hysteria in the 1980's and early 1990's. These hysteriae and moral panics command considerable interest and are well documented in the Wikipedia. (See the McMartin_preschool_trial, the Kern county child abuse cases, the Outreau trial a similar case in France, Peter Hugh McGregor Elliscase, a similar case in New Zealand, the Wee Care Nursery School case, the Wenatchee child abuse prosecutions, the South Ronaldsay child abuse scandal a similar legal case from rural Scotland. People did serious time in prison, but many of the so called perpetrators were exonerated in the end. These moral panics were followed in the 1990's by a very different kind of moral panic that involved Dissociative identity disorder, Multiple Personality Disorder, confabulation, recovered memory syndrome, False memory syndrome, and similar Memory Controversies. These things got the clinicians involved in them in serious civil law suits, and they were losing their shirts. This maybe even involved Dissociative identity disorder in popular culture; many enjoy a good mystery. Some of this was focused on remembering childhood incest, as a form of therapy. The psychiatrists, psychotherapists, and clinicians, who were involved in the later, were in 1999 creating and maintaining the controversy around the Rind et al. report (working thru the legislatures, through Stephanie Dallam, and several their advocacy organizations, many named in this article). The clinicians were being hit with law suits for psychiatric malpractice, and saw Rind's work as a threat in court that had to be neutralized. No one was being imprisoned, but financial security for some therapists was being seriously threatened. So they brought out the big guns, and put Stephanie Dallam out front. Social psychologist [Carol Tarvis] called them on this from the very start, offering this interesting detail: "These clinicians want to kill the Rind study because they fear that it will be used to support malpractice claims against their fellow therapists." Dr. Tarvis wrote in Society magazine [8]: "Indeed, a group of them, whose members read like a "Who's Who" in the multiple personality disorder and recovered-memories business, made this fear explicit in a memo to the CEO of the American Psychological Association: "In addition to the fact that we, as a group, wish to protect the integrity of psychotherapy, we also want to protect good psychotherapists from attack and from financial ruin as a result of [civil law] suits that are costly both financially and emotionally."

So there, that's one editors version of the source of the controversy. For me, it's not about exoneration of pedophiles. The word pedophile doen't appear in any of the articles. It's not some deep and complicated conspiracy or mystery.
Welcome back WLU to the Rind Controversy. I hope the final Wikipedia product is something we can all be proud of. I can't promise that you won't have to read as long as I am still here. I'll see what I can do to keep things more concise. Cheers!
About the graphics, I am new, as of a month ago, and I'm trying to learn about these. Maybe I can get some consensus, when we are closer to being finished, to include "a number," but not THAT many, of, the best of them in the finished article. A wall of words is a problem. Maybe people will just read the captions under the photos and graphics.
Technical question: How do we get those little edit choices on the right side of the screen after each section in the article, so an editor can edit only one section at a time? Radvo (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


Radvo, thanks for consulting with Rind about the article, that's useful input.
WLU and everyone: Some of the differing viewpoints here rest on the issue of how much detail (e.g., numbers) should be presented, especially given that the Wikipedia audience is quite broad. In principle, I agree that less detail is probably better, but in practice I do not think that is workable for this specific page. For example, consider the back-and-forth we've recently had (and still seem to be having) about "several" versus "a number of" versus giving exact, sourced numbers. Rind et al. used virtually every college sample available for their analysis -- it was effectively comprehensive for the sample type they were looking at. But if we write "... conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of college student samples..." I worry that the accuracy and verifiability of the statement will be challenged. That the study was comprehensive is true, but is it sourceable? The readers need to know the scope of the analysis to understand the controversy (there would have been no controversy if it was a small analysis) so we need to indicate the scope. Since the numbers are completely objective (NPOV), and are easily sourceable (verifiability), they are probably the best way to handle this type of thing so we don't have to argue over the wording. Or am I being overly concerned and using "comprehensive" would not bother anyone? (Separate from what I am saying in this paragraph is the question of where those numbers should appear; for example, perhaps "Findings in brief" should be changed to "Rind et al. in brief" and the numbers moved to that section, in order to keep the Lead short.)
Another, related issue is whether or not there is a "slant" to the writing. This concern can be raised for every part of the article page, indeed, in my view the page is very slanted and misleading (this is not an accusation, we each learned info from different incomplete sources hence the usefulness of us all working together!); perhaps other editors see the slant going a different direction. I am hoping we can all agree on objective presentation of the relevant information, and the easiest way to do that is presenting the facts, which in the case of a scientific topic, means some numbers.
“Sociopolitical Biases in the Contemporary Scientific Literature on Adult Human Sexual Behavior with Children and Adolescents,” in Feierman, J. (ed.), Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990, pp. 91-121. Radvo (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The idea of including the published abstract is not my first choice, but neither would I object to it. Based on my experience in academia I suspect the authors would have no objection to our using it, but the corporate publishing house might see it as a copyright violation, hence trying to use the official abstract might be more trouble than it is worth. I do not object to other editors looking into this issue though and reporting back, I'm just not overly hopeful. Additionally, by writing the section ourselves we can include precisely the background needed to understand the controversy and the sub-sections in the "Criticism and response" section. Since that later section will be evolving, we may need to add more background info and use of the official abstract might get in the way of that. Indeed, when I wrote my drafts of that section I was thinking ahead to future edits of the "Criticism and response" section, but I thought I should focus on one thing at a time. Truthinwriting (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Please read WP:TLDR, WP:V, WP:UNDUE and please stop including irrelevant images in your posts - I want to minimize the amound of reading I have to do. The fact that the numbers have been removed several times suggests a lack of consensus (WP:CONSENSUS) regarding their inclusion. I have pointed to several policies and guidelines that support their removal. Can you point to any that support including such a level of detail in the lead section (WP:LEAD)? Failing to develop a consensus would suggest we use some form of dispute resolution (WP:DR), so I would suggest familiarizing yourself with them. I assume you are working with good intentions (WP:AGF), but that doesn't mean you are familiar with the polices, guidelines, formatting and style of wikipedia, which matter far more than editor opinions in nearly every case. We don't lay out what is "good" or "bad" for the reader, we use reliable sources (WP:RS) to verify (WP:V) what published experts have said without doing our own analysis or extrapolation regarding those sources (WP:OR). Our own opinion is nigh-worthless, we must cite others. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (WP:ENC) a tertiary source compiled from secondary sources (WP:PSTS). Our exact job is to extract meaningful information from Dallam et al. and summarize it. Readers come here so they don't have to read Dallam et al. We have no moral obligation, and we are not a soapbox (WP:SOAP). We do our best to summarize things from a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) by using and citing sources in relative proportion to their reliability, status and reputation without giving undue weight (WP:UNDUE) to minority opinions - scholarly publications get more weight than a newspaper article which gets more weight than a website (it is far more complicated than that, but in practice this is normally fairly reasonable to work out).
I'm really not interested in reading a wall of editor opinion. We base our work on policies, guidelines (WP:P&G) and sources (WP:V). Please become familiar with and reference all three whenever relevant, since they determine page content, not opinion.
Truthinwriting, the opinion of the authors regarding our use of their abstract is not relevant, WP:COPYVIO is.
Both Radvo and Truthinwriting, you have less than 200 edits total to your names. I have 47,000. That doesn't make me right, but it does mean I've got a lot of experience in this. My experience tells me that this entire, lengthy discussion will not be fruitful unless you familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines being cited. If you are going to spend time editing wikipedia, please spend at least a portion of that time reading through the policies and making an effort to refer to them in your talk page postings and edit summaries. You may also find this essay useful as a basic overview to editing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources

Tangent

This is just a section to list the sources that might be found that are not currently integrated on the page. Don't bother using the {{reflist}} template, it just makes things more complicated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Our ability to comment, summarize or discuss may be hamstrung by a lack of full-text sources, expecially to dozens of articles in the professional journals. We may need some help sorting thru all this, and picking out what is most useful. So, just to get things started, I have included convenience links to web sites until we can sort out how editors can access the full text in the professional journals. If this is not permitted for temprary use on a TALK page and forbidden by Wikipedia policy, please let me know what the policy is. I want to work completely within the rules and policies. Radvo.

I meant this section to be a convenient way of housing sources that are not already included on the page. Dumping sources already used is not helpful. Dumping a massive, overwhelming and unwieldy list of sources is also unhelpful. Much better would be to integrate them onto the page. We are supposed to assume that the uses of sources by other editors is accurate and acceptable unless faced with evidence to the contrary. If, however, such evidence does appear, that's pretty much grounds for a page ban if not outright block if it's judged to be deliberate.
Pretty much any convenience link to a source hosted on a page that advocates for the rape of children is immediately, completely and utterly out. The Wikimedia foundation looks very dimly on any sort of child rape advocacy; linking to these sorts of sites, even on talk pages is a TERRIBLE idea. If a source is not found on the main page, please DO NOT include a convenience link to a website that advocates for child rape, instead include a reference to the actual source and we'll track it down some other way. There are ways to access sources on wikipedia, in addition to simply using a physical library. Note that a source not being accessible to all parties does not mean they can't be used; sources must be reliable, not convenient.
I'm going to try to sort through the below links to make them more manageable. The first thing I did was remove all convenience links to sites advocating child rape. If I find any more, I will remove those as well. Do not replace them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU kindly contributed this chart (below) to the Rind et al. Controversy on September 29, 2009. To save editors unnecessary work, I returned this chart here from Archive 1. It seems that this material was not used. Possibly because of lack of interest by those who have access to the journals, and/or the lack of access to the full text of the articles by those who have the interest. Radvo

Citation Year Used
Rind, B (2000). "Science versus orthodoxy: Anatomy of the congressional condemnation of a scientific article and reflections on remedies for future ideological attacks". Applied and Preventive Psychology. 9 (4): 211–226. doi:10.1016/S0962-1849(00)80001-3. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) 2000 0
Spiegel, D (2000). "The price of abusing children and numbers". Sexuality & Culture. 4 (2): 63–6. doi:10.1007/s12119-000-1026-4. 2000 0
Rind, B (2001). "Moralistic psychiatry, procrustes' bed, and the science of child sexual abuse: A response to Spiegel". Sexuality & Culture. 5 (1): 79–89. doi:10.1007/s12119-001-1012-5. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) 2001 0
Sher, KJ (2002). "Publication of Rind et al. (1998). The editors' perspective". The American Psychologist. 57 (3): 206–10. PMID 11905121. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) 2002 0
Rind, B (1999). "Interpretation of research on sexual abuse of boys". JAMA. 281 (23): 2185. PMID 10376568. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) 1999 0
Oellerich, TD (2000). "Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman: Politically incorrect—Scientifically correct". Sexuality & Culture. 4 (2): 67–81. doi:10.1007/s12119-000-1027-3. 2000 0
Rind, B (2000). "Debunking the false allegation of "statistical abuse": A reply to Speigel". Sexuality & Culture. 4 (2): 101–111. doi:10.1007/s12119-000-1029-1. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) 2000 0
NOTE:Conference presentation, dubious reliability; I think it's the one cited by Salter 1998 0
Speigel, D (2000). "Real effects of real child sexual abuse". Sexuality & Culture. 4 (4): 99–105. doi:10.1007/s12119-000-1006-8. 2000 0
Hyde, JS (2003). "The use of meta-analysis in understanding the effects of child sexual abuse". Sexual development in childhood: Volume 7 of The Kinsey Institute series. Indiana University Press. pp. 82–91. ISBN 0253342430. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help) 2003 0
Baird, BN (2002). "Politics, operant conditioning, Galileo, and the American Psychological Association's response to Rind et al. (1998)". The American Psychologist. 57 (3): 189–92. PMID 11905117. 2002 0
Grover, S (2003). "On Power Differentials and Children's Rights: A Dissonance Interpretation of the Rind and Associates (1998) Study on Child Sexual Abuse". Ethical Human Sciences and Services. 5 (1): 21–33. 2003 0
Pittenger, DJ (2003). "Intellectual freedom and editorial responsibilities within the context of controversial research". Ethics & Behavior. 13 (2): 105–25. PMID 14552312. 2003 0
Mirkin, H (2000). "Sex, science, and sin: The Rind report, sexual politics and American scholarship". Sexuality & Culture. 4 (2): 82–100. doi:10.1007/s12119-000-1028-2. 2000 0
Sternberg, RJ (2002). "Everything you need to know to understand the current controversies you learned from psychological research. A comment on the Rind and Lilienfeld controversies". The American Psychologist. 57 (3): 193–7. PMID 11905118. 2002 0

I have to quit now. I will tweak this page and check the links another time. Radvo (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposing some adjustments to the Intro

Unless there is discussion that leads me to hold off or change my plan, in a few days I plan to make the following four adjustments to the introductory paragraphs on the article page. For readers looking for a concise read of this post, items (1), (2), and (3) are probably not contentious, and the result of doing items (4), (5) and (6) are presented in the last paragraph below.

(1) The first sentence says the 1998 paper was based on "several" samples, but this is not correct. I plan to adjust the wording to include the specific data from the primary analyses. Current wording: "...several samples of college students."; proposed wording: "...58 independent samples of college students containing data on over 15,000 individuals.".

(2) The second sentence of the introduction mentions the 1997 national meta-analysis, but provides almost no information about it. To have informed readers of Wikipedia who have the relevant background to understand the controversy, I plan to add an additional phrase at the end of the current sentence which lets readers know the scope of that article in a parallel fashion to the prior sentence on the 1998 college paper. Suggested addition: "... that examined 10 independent samples designed to be nationally representative based on data from more than 8,500 participants."

(3) The second paragraph uses the phrasing "the construct of CSA was questionably valid;". I think that wording my be hard to understand for some readers, hence I plan to change it to: "the construct of CSA as it had been defined by researchers was of questionable scientific validity;".

(4) The first sentence of the last paragraph contains the wording "...and denied that their findings implied current moral...". The use of the word denied has a negative valence suggesting Rind et al. acted improperly. The word denied might be appropriate in other contexts (e.g., when they responded to a criticism) but this intro is not yet dealing with specific criticisms. Hence I plan to change the wording to: "... and indicated that their findings did not imply current moral..."

I hope to make the above four edits in a few days.

(5) The last sentence of the intro is currently presented with two sources. It currently reads: "Numerous age of consent reform organizations have quoted the paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws, and defense attorneys have used the study to argue for minimizing harm in child sexual abuse cases." This sentence strikes me as problematic in various ways. I have not read Spiegel's 2003 book (nor do I have a copy). Is anyone here familiar with it? I do have the other source as a word-searchable PDF (Ondersma et al. 2001), but it does not seem to mention anything about defense attorney usage.

Even if it is true that the Rind et al. paper was used in court cases, if that issue is to be raised on this Wikipedia page shouldn't it be balanced with more information and reasoning? After all, courts should use scientific evidence when it is available, hence more accurate wording might be "...and defense attorneys have appropriately used the study to argue that harm did not occur in their client's case, due to the willingness of the minor's participation and the enjoyment the young person received as a result of their interactions." No, don't worry, I am not suggesting we actually write anything like that on the page but I present it here to make the point that unless we know what those court cases were about, the current wording is potentially biasing or outright incorrect (e.g., you can not minimize harm when there is no harm). Further, the Rind et al. paper may have been used by prosecutors as well, since it provides information on when harm might occur and when it might not (hence only mentioning defense attorney usage seems unbalanced regarding something we probably have no reliable information about).

Radvo interjects for Truthinwriting regarding (5):
Re: this discussion about defense attorneys using (misusing?) the Rind et al (1998) study. Does this belong this way in the WP:Lead? The current WP:Lead currently reads: "defense attorneys have used the study to argue for minimizing harm in child sexual abuse cases." If I were such a defense attorney in most states except California, and wanted to earn my high fee from my client, I would also point out to the judge and jury that "Rind and his colleagues were not the first or only researchers to report [that] not all victims of child sexual abuse suffer serious and lasting psychological damage. Other researchers also report many respondents showed few or no symptoms and found the relationship between adult-child sexual contact and later physical or psychological problems to be highly complex (e.g., Berliner & Conte, 1993; Beitchman, et al, 1991, 1992; Dolezal, & Carballo-Dieguez, 2002; Finkelhor, 1990; Friedrich, Whiteside, & Talley, 2004; Levitt & Pinnell, 1995; Parker & Parker, 1991; Pope & Hudson, 1992; Runtz, 2002; Stander, Olson, & Merrill, 2002)." (Quoted from http://ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume16/j16_2.htm; see the full URL for full citations of the studies mentioned in the last sentence.) If the editors here of this article want to keep that fact in the WP:Lead, then that fact should be balanced with this additional information that Rind et al. 1998 are not alone as messengers of this arguably "good news" for the generic victim (on average) in the solid, professional, well-respected journal literature. Rind et al. were three of "a number of" or "several samples" of well respected University and clinical researchers, but I am not going to count them up for you. If you want to know the exact number of them, and you have the experience and context to balance the exact number information, you'll have to count the number of researchers yourself. I don't want to supply you with "unnecessary" information.  :-)
If I were an attorney who needed to maintain "a good relationship" with my state legislature, I would not do this in California. Resolution, SJR 17, condemning Rind et al. (1998) like both Houses of the United States Congress, the states of Alaska, Oklahoma, and maybe several other States (needs more research for reliable sources), passed the California Senate on September 3, 1999, by a vote of 40-0. Emphasizing the possible use of the Rind et al. study in the local courts, California's resolution includes a non-binding request that defense attorneys and courts disregard the controversial Rind report. (These ideas may have come from the advocacy group called The Leadership Council, [Stephanie Dallam, Dr. Fink, et al.] [which uses the RBT Files at the Ipce documentation service for full text articles about Rind et al,] which [with the Family Council, Narth, etc.?] may have been coaching the legislatures with their bias (scientific information?) all along the way. This last part needs more research to verify the later in the professional journals and other well-regarded source literature, to meet Wikipedia's high verification standards.) Herostratus's distrust of the scientists' bias is also warranted in this part of the story of the controversy. (He does well to trust his distrust.) Here's the relevant part of California's resolution condemning Rind et al.:
...WHEREAS, The American Psychological Association in July 1998, published a review of 59 studies of college aged students which may be construed to indicate that some sexual relationships between adults and children may be less harmful than believed, and that some of the college students viewed their experiences as positive at the time they occurred, or positive when reflecting back on them,
Resolved, [among others] That the Legislature requests California defense attorneys and California courts to disregard the study when dealing with [criminal court] cases involving child abuse and child molestation... Reference: California State Senator Haynes (Introduced May 17, 1999; Amended July 6, August 24, August 31). "SJR 17". Resolution. California Senate. Retrieved January 3, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
End of Radvo's insertion. Radvo (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

[Truthinwriting continues:] Additionally, I do not see a need for that particular sentence in the intro. Given that the intro reads fine without it, I suggest it be deleted since that will save a lot of work and contention for everyone. If something like the sentence should stay, perhaps a simple edit will make it less problematic. For example: "Numerous age of consent reform organizations have quoted the paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws, and attorneys have used the study in court."

Feedback on this is welcome and desired.

(6) The issue of moving a reference to the Ulrich replication study higher up into the page was also raised at one point. I don't know if that is critical or not, but I think it is a good idea and putting it at the end of the intro makes sense to me. I have not yet obtained a copy of the Ulrich paper hence I have only read the abstract, but even that seems clear enough to add a note about it at the end of the intro.

Considering (4), (5), and (6), a new final paragraph of the intro might read something like: "Rind et al. concluded with a statement that even though CSA may not result in harm, this does not mean it is not wrong or morally repugnant behavior and indicated that their findings did not imply current moral and legal prohibitions against CSA should be changed. [Delete: Numerous age of consent reform organizations have quoted the paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws, and attorneys have used the study in court.] Ulrich et al.[cite], seven years after the publication of the Rind et al. meta-analysis, published a replication of it in the Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice that confirmed Rind et al.'s main findings." Truthinwriting (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


1-4 sound ok. 5 I will need to do some additional research about the legal case part of it. Off the top of my head, the cases where this study were invoked are all in defense; I have never heard of it being brought up by the prosecution or plaintiff. Furthermore, the parts I recall about a few cases were pretty shameless. In Arizona v. Steward, Steward was a teacher who'd molested multiple boys as young as 5 years old. He was a predator. Rind et al was quoted during the sentencing phase as an attempt to gain leniency by claiming the harm was minimal. In Watson v. Roman Catholic Church, the expert witness attempted to use Rind as a basis for his statement that there is no association between sexual abuse and maladjustment. Obviously a gross misstatement of Rind, but the defense team did it anyway. These two cases demonstrate minimization in one, and denial of harm in the other. There was at least one other case that used Rind as a defense tactic, but I don't recall and will have to look for it.
I don't have much to say on (6) other than it seems unnecessary to work it into the lead. It is worth noting that the journal that published Ulrich's study (SRMHP) is not a well known one. Without saying too much about myself personally, I have access to arguably the largest scholarly library in the world, yet SRMHP is not carried in regular collections nor available online. I will have to special order it as a hardcopy in order to examine the details.Legitimus (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Radvo interjects:
The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice is edited by Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D., of Emory University. Dr. Lilienfeld is the author of an important related article, cited three times in the Wikipedia's 'Rind et al. controversy' topic; it's footnote 24: "When Worlds Collide: Social Science, Politics, and the Rind et al. (1998) Child Abuse Meta-Analysis" American Psychologist, 2002, Vol. 57, No. 3, 176-188, 2002
"The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice (SRMHP) is the only peer-reviewed journal devoted exclusively to distinguishing scientifically supported claims from scientifically unsupported claims in clinical psychology, psychiatry, social work, and allied disciplines. It applies the best tools of science and reason to objectively evaluate novel, controversial, and untested mental health claims." See SRMHP: Our Raison d’Être Radvo (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
[End of interjection by Radvo]

[Comment by Radvo:]

The Rind article is mostly out of the radar for now. Regarding a direct connection between the Rind meta-analyses and advocacy for lowering or abolishing age of consent. I'd like to see a few specific quotes, or even one quote or one URL, verifying this direct connection to advocacy for abolishing or lowering age of consent. Can this claim of a direct connection be currently verified on line, or in the current literature? Has there been any published report of any of these groups anywhere adocating the lowering of the age in recent years? My impression is that the ages of consent have been rising in a few countries. This statement of linkage may have taken on the status of an urban myth; like propaganda, it is repeated so that everyone "knows" it is true, and there is no need for hard evidence. But where is the hard evidence on-line? in recent publications? If there is evidence, and someone has published that recently, the evidence should not be that hard to find. My impression from Wikipeida is that these activist groups are diminishing, and a few individuals maybe hang on to maintain a website for the group. Radvo (talk) 05:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Did you intend this post to be in response to one of the other threads above? I don't see that particular topic in this one.Legitimus (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Legitimus, I am responding to this thread. Truthinwriting wrote: "(5) The last sentence of the intro...currently reads: "Numerous age of consent reform organizations have quoted the paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws, ...." Truthinwriting continued "This sentence strikes me as problematic.... I suggest it be deleted... If something like the sentence should stay, perhaps a simple edit.... For example: "Numerous age of consent reform organizations have quoted the paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws, and attorneys have used the study in court."
I don't have more Sources for what was happening with those AOC organizations in 1998--2001, I have already challenged the NPOV and the veracity of the underlined text in the original sentence, and now in Truthinwriting's suggested edit. My impression is that it's just not true 13+ years later. And it is not fair (NPOV) to immediately associate the scholarly study in the Introduction with the political activism of tiny intensely despised fringe groups. Wikipedia would be perpetuating an Urban Legend, a guilt by association fallacy and a delusion that serves the purposes of those hostile to (and fearful of) this study, and its associated replication. For veracity, I'd like to see some updated argument from a hated advocacy organization today "quoting" the connection between the Rind study and legal reform. Does anyone have a current "quote"? We have no updated third party reference Source for such a direct connection to age of consent reform.
I agree with Truthinwriting that we not include either the original or an edited sentence as part of the introduction.
If something like this sentence should stay, this sentence is verifiable, a little bit more NPOV IMHO, and less likely be challenged for veracity "The International Pedophile and Child Emancipation documentation service enthusiastically documents the study, and attorneys have used the study in court. (cite)"
The mission statement of the IPCE states the group is for scholarly documentation and discussion, and is NOT a [political] action organization. It does not advocate legal reform.
Another matter: The first sentence is too long. To shorten it, I suggest deleting "that even though CSA may not result in harm, this does not mean it is not wrong or morally repugnant behavior." "Repugnant" injects editor bias and appears no where in the original Rind text; see original quote below. I substituted this text directly from the Rind original: "that lack of harmfulness does not imply lack of wrongfulness". For reference, here is a full quote that is found in 1998 Rind et al. on page 47:
Quote from Rind et al: 1998, page 47
Finally, it is important to consider implications of the current review for moral and legal positions on CSA. If it is true that wrongfulness in sexual matters does not imply harmfulness ( Money, 1979 ), then it is also true that lack of harmfulness does not imply lack of wrongfulness. Moral codes of a society with respect to sexual behavior need not be, and often have not been, based on considerations of psychological harmfulness or health (cf. Finkelhor, 1984 ). Similarly, legal codes may be, and have often been, unconnected to such considerations ( Kinsey et al., 1948 ). In this sense, the findings of the current review do not imply that moral or legal definitions of or views on behaviors currently classified as CSA should be abandoned or even altered. The current findings are relevant to moral and legal positions only to the extent that these positions are based on the presumption of psychological harm.
End quote from Rind et al. 1998, page 47
So, finally, here is another suggested version of the last paragraph of the introduction, for your consideration:
"Rind et al. concluded with a statement "that lack of harmfulness does not imply lack of wrongfulness"(cite p.47). They wrote that their research results did not imply that current moral and legal prohibitions against CSA should be changed. [Delete: The International Pedophile and Child Emancipation documentation service enthusiastically documents the study, and attorneys have used the study in court. (cite) ] Ulrich et al.[cite], seven years after the publication of the Rind et al. meta-analysis, replicated the study in the Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice and confirmed its main findings."Radvo (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Addition: The three authors of Rind et al. are named at the beginning of the Introduction, but information was redacted for two authors when Herostratus removed the first version of the Findings in Brief. The degree status at the time of publication was: Philip Tromovitch (MA) and Robert Bauserman (PhD) Radvo (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned signature added by Radvo (talk • contribs) 23:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC) Radvo (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Truthinwriting asked, at the start of this TALK section, viz. in his/her # (5) above, about Josepf Spiegel's 2003 book. Truthinwriting wants to use this source to verify the misuse of the Rind study in court by defense attorneys, i.e., outside of scholarly discussions, (Both the source, and the placement of the fact into the introduction of the article, are being questioned and discussed here.) Much of Spiegel's 2003 book is available free on line, including pages 3 and 9, cited in footnote 4. (The clever former Wikipedia editor very kindly inserted, for everyone's convenience, full copies of the two cited pages right into the footnote. Thanks so much to that conscientious former editor for making clear in the footnote, the page numbers in the book found on line. The Internet and the fantastic Wikipedia software make it convenient, in this case, for the Wikipedia editor to instantly verify information at the on-line source.)
Viewer discretion advised. See page 3, and page 9 which I copied here to the TALK page from the article's footnote # 4. Shocking information! Absolutely appalling! This long chronological list in Josef Spiegel's book is NOT for children's eyes! I am only copying the citation from the footnote and am not responsible for the lack of common sense and the failure of appropriate censorship in this footnote. [Okay... First I'm shocked and appalled. Now I'm joking. Take a look at the items listed in the earlier years on that list. I won't tell your mother that you found this list on Wikipedia. I'll get serious again.]
But information about misuse in court of the Rind study was not on the two pages cited. The two cited pages say something other than what is contained in the sentence in the last paragraph of the article's introduction. Maybe someone here can verify that the cited page sources back up the sentence in the article. (I was so upset by pages 4 thru 7 that I could barely finish my research on these two cited pages in Spiegel. It must be "The Sam Hill" in me, that made me read Dr. Siegel's whole list. It's not funny! I'll stop this. Sorry. Back to business.)
Questions: Do we need a corrected, and updated to 2011, NPOV source for the inappropriate use, in the US courts, of the Rind study by defense attorneys? Or does our attempt at verification, with this specific 2003 source, fail? Do we delete the sentence from the article's introduction if source verification fails with both cited sources (footnotes 4 [Spiegel] and 5 [Ondersma])? Might other editors help out? End
(Aside: See the lower half of this Wikipedia page, about Citation Tags Just curious... Do editors ever use these citation tags in their work on this article? I was "messing around" to learn about these, inserting a few of these, and later my great fun did not end well. I agreed to not reassert those particular "citation tags" as part of the informal dispute resolution process. The Citation Tags made sense to me at the time, and actually still do. But consensus rules! )
P.S. My apologies to Dr. Josef Siegel. Never mind, Dr. Siegel. You can always blame the editor. Editors are known to screw things up. I was poking at the old things on page 3 -7 in your book to lighten things up here. (Uh Oh! Oh boy!... What are the rules about poking fun at a reference source that fails to confirm their assigned sentence in the Wikipedia?) I'm giggling again thinking about all those shameful and shocking things on page 3 - 7 of Dr. Spiegel's chronological list. Editing the Wikipeida was not supposed to be like this! I'd better quit. That's all Folks. Radvo (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Another thought about the failed reference source, in the Introduction, for the clause: "Numerous age of consent reform organizations have quoted the paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws"... The earliest version of this idea seems to have been edited into the Introduction of this article on March 16th, 2006 as an unsourced opinion/observation, contributed by Will Beback. Later editors added to, revised, deleted, and rephrased Will Beback's clause, but none of these versions was correctly sourced or footnoted either. Since the clause is not properly sourced, and since I gave other reasons above to delete this clause, the clause should be removed. Radvo (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your note on my talk page. I don't recall the circumstances of my edit five years ago. The edit summary makes it appear that I was restoring text rather than adding it freshly. However I don't have time to research it.   Will Beback  talk  19:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, just add the exact number or add "various." There is no need to put a "not in citation given" qualification when there is a source backing that there were more than a few college students.
The line that says "Numerous age of consent reform organizations have quoted the paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws, and defense attorneys have used the study to argue for minimizing harm in child sexual abuse cases." should stay, or at least something like it. The first part presents a significant aspect of the topic and should be in the lead, per WP:LEAD, especially since it is covered lower in the article. The "defense attorneys" part of the line should probably stay as well, but I don't mind if that part is removed.
Thirdly, child asexual abuse -- specifically adults engaging in sexual activity with prepubescents or early pubescents -- is considered to cause harm by most of the psychological/medical community (and I'm not talking about 18-year-olds with 13-year-olds), which is why the Rind study was and is still so controversial...not just because of moral beliefs. So hearing stuff like "...and defense attorneys have appropriately used the study to argue that harm did not occur in their client's case, due to the willingness of the minor's participation and the enjoyment the young person received as a result of their interactions." by Truthinwriting or any suggestion that child sexual abuse is not harmful is beyond ludicrous to me. Call it my bias if you will, but I would prefer that you two stop making suggestions like that. Yes, Rind says that child sexual abuse may not cause harm, but that is the point. This article is supposed to be about what the Rind study reports and the reactions to that report. It cannot be helped that most researchers and the general public have severely criticized the findings.
Lastly: Radvo, yes, you need to stop giving such long replies, though it seems you have recently stopped yourself on that front. I still have yet to read all of what you stated at my talk page, though I may read it later today or the next. I can't promise that I'll respond there because the issues are being worked out here. As seen above, I just commented on what I think should be in the lead, I'll say that I agree with the IP (the 193.169. IPs are obviously the same person) about how you should not go about editing. Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Flyer22, I appreciate the pleasant tone, the friendly, "common sense" advice. Thank you very much. I would love to build a good working relationship with you, so the article becomes much better.
I wrote you before to explain about "samples". What I wrote you was not that long. The source abstract says in the second sentence: "59 studies based on college samples". Editor WLU may have incorrectly abbreviated this in editing to "several samples" on 9/18/2009. Writing science articles and articles about controversy by volunteers and consensus has its limitations.
You suggest that I just add the exact number of surveyed individuals (it's 35,703) or add the word "various." Thanks, but that does not help. Study this. Consider this a lesson in statistics.
Maybe it's like this: you know little about aeronautical engineering, but you offer me friendly advise about how to fix my plane that you are quite confident will be helpful. And I fear that you will damage the plane with your ideas.
I would make a fool of myself among statisticians and sexologists reading the Wikipedia if I just accepted your kind advise. I could not get away with the excuse that "Flyer22 suggested this in a kindly way, and I wanted to get along with her." It's got to be right! And "several samples" is just wrong. You don't know this. and I know that you don't know this. Are you receptive to learning meta-analysis? Have you read the Rind paper? That should be one of the rules. All editors should read the paper. Do you have a copy?
It's like this: you are part of a group that is writing an article about the controversy over the Koran. But you have not read the Koran, and you can't read it in it's original language. And you don't want to learn the language. You want to control what the encyclopedia might say, but you don't have to be a Koran scholar to do that.
It's also like this for me: If I were a surgeon, and I were operating on your mother to save her life, and you "helpfully" gave me some rusty, dirty knives from your garden to perform the surgery, I would refuse to do the operation with those tools. Your offer of your garden knives comes from the heart and is well meant, but your kind offer does not measure up to the surgery standards I have learned that might save your mother's life. I would not let you control what tools I may use to perform the operation. I might want to teach you something about introducing germs and disease during surgery, but you might not be receptive. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make her drink.
In your paragraph two, I hope you "don't mind if"...WP:Lead specifies that the lead be written "according to reliable, published sources." Here's my bias: There are no good sources for that idea. I don't like the idea because I don't think it is true; it's kind of an urban legend or propaganda that gets repeated over and over, so everyone (including you) believes it. I think that clause contains a guilt by association fallacy for the 6 authors of the meta-analyses and its replication. And for the APA itself. I think the idea might be a delusion, spread, originally and in part, by some of the persons who hate and fear the results of the study.
Your paragraph three: Who gets to edit this article? Who can join as an editor? Suppose researcher Heather Ulrich joins this editor's discussion, and just suppose she writes you quite emphatically: "Child sexual abuse does not necessarily lead to long-term harm! I am quite emphatic about that. I know this from a lot of research work I did. Get over it, Flyer22.' You feel passionately that "any suggestion that child sexual abuse is not harmful is beyond ludicrous," Is researcher Heather Ulrich beyond ludicrous and unfit to edit this article? Does she get banned as an editor from Wikipedia because she expressed her views? Her research supports Rind. Is that her privilege, or is that "beyond ludicrous"? Are you willing to work with editors whose views on the absence of harm, are "beyond ludicrous'? Or do you let them do a little work and then find some excuse to get rid of them?
It's like this: suppose I am a passionate believer of a religion, and I announce that any suggestion that my religion is not the one true faith is "beyond ludicrous". Suppose I believe passionately that strong believers in all other religions are "beyond ludicrous" and are best banished from the working group. Am I "fit" to work on an encyclopedia article about religious controversies and wars? Probably not. I would more likely recreate the "religious war "in the working group.
Truthinwriting's playful speculation about attorneys made me wince a bit. I want to learn the limits of humor here. Do you have any good jokes that push the limits a little less?
I am still shocked that IP193.169 took the time to cherry pick all my edits out! I am hoping someone else will volunteer to do the restoration work. I don't have much interest in doing it. Trash all my work once, shame on you. Trash my work twice, shame on me. YOu must have had some interesting group history here... I am not interested in edit wars.
Slight correction: I do not "need" to stop giving such long replies. I want to stop writing replies to people that are not receptive and replies that people don't read because the replies are too long. Radvo (talk) 08:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Radvo, you did leave a long reply on my talk page. And, for the record, I am receptive to long replies. Long replies are something that a person should get used to if they are going to edit Wikipedia. It's just that yours, until you were asked to tone down your usual length, are very long. It is a pain to have to reply to such long replies. Just because I can be receptive to them doesn't mean that I always am or look forward to them.
Yes, adding the exact number or "various" does help. It helps to remove your assertion that "several" is not in the citation given. We use "various" all the time on or off Wikipedia. Just like we use "several" to imply a number that is a little over a few. We don't list every person or example when there are well over just a few. We either state "several," "various" or give the exact number. It has nothing to do with a lesson in statistics. So if you are "[making a fool of yourself] among statisticians and sexologists reading the Wikipedia if [you] just accepted [my] kind advi[c]e," then so is most of Wikipedia and the writing world at large. And maybe WLU added "several" because, as the Meta-analysis article states, "In statistics, a meta-analysis combines the results of several studies that address a set of related research hypotheses." Seriously, what do you suggest we do if we are not to give the exact number or use "several" or "various"? Leave your "not in citation given" qualification in? That is not a solution, and certainly not better than my suggestions. No where did I state that "several samples" is right, but that you would take my objections to your edits to assert that "[I] don't know this" and "y[ou] know that [I] don't know this" and to go on about how unsuitable I am to edit this article because I don't understand this subject is beyond the pale. I'm not even going to answer your questions, since your mind is set on "Flyer22 does not understand this." I suppose my view that child sexual abuse is harmful is because I don't understand that topic either? Hmm. What I will say is this: Editors do not have to be "experts" on any given topic to edit those topics here at Wikipedia, but I understand child sexual abuse (as well as pedophilia) extremely well. You can (and will) believe what you want, however.
About WP:LEAD, read it...the whole page if you need to. I'm the experienced Wikipedia editor here, unless you aren't as new as you claim to be, and I am letting you know that a piece of information you are trying to get removed from the lead belongs in the lead. WP:LEAD is clear about why. You say "There are no good sources for that idea. I don't like the idea because I don't think it is true." I say WP:Verifiability says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." This information is backed to reliable, published sources. And I don't know why you keep talking down to me, as though I am some under-educated idiot who just "goes with the flow." My belief that "[n]umerous age of consent reform organizations have quoted the paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws" has nothing to do with believing "urban legend." It has to do with what I have witnessed on forums among pedophiles and those like them advocating for ages of consent to be lowered. I witnessed this with my own eyes. It was not by word of mouth. But of course we go by reliable, published sources here at Wikipedia, not by personal experience.
Who gets to edit this article? Well, admitted pedophiles do not. So anyone who is a pedophile but does not admit to it or give implication that they are a pedophile while here at Wikipedia, is home free. If researcher Heather Ulrich joins this discussion and says what you suggested, I would emphatically disagree with her, just like the general consensus in the psychological/medical community disagrees, and point out that her personal opinion should have nothing to do with this article. That's the point you seem to be missing. Your personal views about child sexual abuse do not belong here, and neither do mine. If you do not feel that child sexual abuse causes harm, then keep it to yourself, and I will make sure to keep mine to myself as well. I can work with editors of differing opinions just fine, and do so all the time at this site, but I am not willing to work with admitted pedophiles or child sexual abusers...unless they consider child sexual abuse to be wrong. Not all pedophiles are happy to be pedophiles or support child sexual abuse, after all. As for editors who don't believe child sexual abuse causes harm... Well, as long as they are following the Wikipedia policies and guidelines and not injecting their POV, then I can work with them. Your analogy that I am unfit to edit this article because I believe that child sexual abuse causes harm is also beyond the pale. Most people who have edited this article believe that child sexual abuse causes harm, including the current ones...with maybe the exception of you and Truthinwriting. You call Truthinwriting's scenario playful; I call it something else. And I'm not convinced that it made you "wince a bit" when you read it.
We will not be forming a good working relationship. And if you have to wonder why, all you need to do is look to your response to me above. I will, however, be asking Will Beback and WLU to weigh in here...since this discussion is partly about their edits. Flyer22 (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Flyer22, for your thoughtful response. You have strong opinions about many things, and I respect them. You give us much to think about. I will give more thought to all this.
Let's deal first with the statistics. Truthinwriting suggested, at the start of this thread, in his (1) above, replacing the contested words "several samples" with this: "58 independent samples of college students containing data on over 15,000 individuals." Legitimus and I agree with Truthinwriting's improvement. I checked my copies of Rind et al., and Truthinwriting is correct. You suggested specific numbers; will those do? Truthinwriting will simply remove/erase the citation tag, as he is replacing the error. Once we agree that the replacement text is properly sourced, the "citation tag" will be removed by the editor, (i.e., Truthinwriting), while making the correction. Does this appropriately deal with concerns about "several samples" and that citation tag? Radvo (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Flyer22, You write: "We either state "several," "various" or give the exact number." Yes, Flyer22, Truthinwriting opted for your last choice; he gives some exact numbers. Fifty nine gives a better idea of the scale of the meta-analysis, and 59 is more than "several". Here is a more correct use of the phrase "several samples." "Several samples" of your responses suggest that you do not know that some editors understand meta-analysis, have read the entire Rind study, and understand its mathematical results. Meta-analysis is a challenging and sophisticated mathematical endeavor; it takes years of math education to work into it. You are surely quite expert in many areas, and your many years of editing here on the Wikipedia could be helpful in advising Truthinwriting whether his suggested edit might make things a little clearer for the average Wikipedia reader. You write very well.
Here's the shocking part you bring home to me: Truth is not the issue; for Wikipedia, what is paramount are the reliable sources. That's a difficult point for me to accept and use, but I am willing to let you, Flyer22, teach me this about how a Wikipedia editor works. I looked further into this. Of course, Flyer22, you are right. I was arrogant and ignorant to think in my normal way here. I thought from my own observation that when something I personally observe is not true, what I think is false has to come out of the encyclopedia article. Thinking like an encyclopedia editor is different from how a scientist works; the scientist trusts her observations and measurements and goes where the observed data lead. My experience is not a "reliable source" for what gets taken out of a Wikipeida article. Flyer22, you are the long-time, experienced editor, and apparently you know what you are talking about, in Wikipedia matters where you have long experience. I will not progress if I am not more docile and receptive to quality instruction. I failed to see that when I wrote my post above. I apologize for the patronizing and arrogant tone. This 'editor-of-reliable-sources' mode is for me a foreign way of thinking, but I can learn this. Editors of an encyclopedia represent the views of reliable sources. It's not "To thine own self be true." It's be true to the most reliable and mainstream sources. Okay. I hope I learned this correctly from the source you provided. Thank you for raising my consciousness about this. Okay. I cannot immediately cite a reliable source that proves that what is in the Introduction is false. I'll be like a student now, testing out the teacher to see if what I am learning works when the tables are turned around.
No reliable source is offered that backs up the contested clause in the Introduction! I trust my own experience there!
The next two paragraphs are NOT about the harmfulness of CSA. That's a contentious, controversial issue, and this issue upsets you. Let's not go there. Repeat: harm to the child from CSA is NOT what the next two paragraphs are about. Please stay with me and narrowly focused.
This paragraph is just about the claim of a direct connection between Dr. Rind's meta-analysis and age of consent reform advocacy. Flyer22, you wrote above: "This information [about the direct connection between the Rind paper and advocacy for legal reform] is backed to reliable, published sources." The contested clause offers no such reliable sources in the footnotes, (or the page numbers cited are wrong or missing). Most of the full text in the two reliable sources, listed in footnotes 4 and 5, is available on line. The sources are reliable sources in general, but they don't specifically back up what is said in the article's Introduction. There is a difference between being a reliable source in general, and a reliable source backing a specific claim. Please correct me if I missed it. What is the page number in these two reference sources that "backs" up "this information?" Neither of these two sources ever even mentioned the Ipce or MHAMic websites. I challenge the credibility of the editor(s) who provided those sources to support the claim in that clause. Do you know if editors who make claims that cannot be verified in the sources they provide, get banished by administrators for their unreliability or misinformation? We might get some work done here if we clean house of editors who do not back up their claims with reliable sources.
Three organizations are identified in the article as advocacy organizations, but they are clearly fringe and NOT RELIABLE SOURCES! I looked at the MAHMic and Ipce sites. (Last I checked, this is still a free country, and the two groups are immoral by most peoples' standards, but not illegal organizations.) Well, SURPRISE! They are not age of consent advocacy organizations. Those fringe organizations are documentation services, they list, reference, and document publications and articles. I could not find any trace of evidence on these specific websites of advocacy for legal reform and associating legal change with the Rind study.
The introduction, IMHO, includes a fallacy called 'guilt by association' for the 6 researchers who authored the 3 studies. The living authors are smeared with the accusation that they exonerate pedophiles. I gave a psychologist Carol Tarvis quote to support this claim of a peodphile advocacy smear, but the reliable source was removed with all my other edits. Where is the reliable source for that libel? Wikipedia itself? So, there is a BLP issue here, too.
I challenge any claim that NAMBLA uses the Rind study to support its political advocacy (in the Wikipedia Introduction) because the claim is not supported by a reliable source, as Wikipedia defines one. Flyer22 (above) teaches us that truth is not as important as supplying a reliable source. She teaches a hard lesson to swallow, but it's the correct lesson. Maybe I willl file a complaint with administration that certain past editors are unreliable and incompetent; they make claims that are not supported with reliable sources. It's still wrong even if it is done by consensus in this article.
How am I doing, Flyer22? Did I learn the specific lesson about truth vs. reliable sources well? I'm a grade grubber. Can I get an "A"? If I don't yet get an A, can I do some "makeup work" to improve my grade? For extra credit, how about if I get a former editor or two banned for making unverifiable claims? Can I get an A+ then? I have to do a few banishments before I can join the gang. What's my next lesson, teacher? I am receptive enough to learning from a long time expert? Any chance that I someday can earn some of the many stars you have on your user page? The many stars you have on your personal page make you look very good. Do you think I can eventually become an administrator, too, someday? Shoot for the stars.
Aside # 1, in response to Flyer22: About kids and harm.... For the record: sexual abuse, physical abuse, verbal abuse, child abandonment, child neglect, rape are wrong and harmful. I saw on the TV that at least 30,000 little kids died untimely deaths while their families were escaping from starvation in Somalia, and fleeing to Kenya, this year. For those kids, their untimely death was harmful. None of those kids will get any holiday gifts this year! They are dead. Many kids were abandoned during flight to die alone. Billions of kids on earth, live on less than one dollar a day for everything! A billion is a thousand million. Such extreme poverty is harmful to billions of kids! Few are so mathematically challenged that they do not understand billions! Such untimely death and extreme poverty for "several samples" of children is wrong. And all those millions of abortions harmed the fetuses. The harm to the fetuses could clearly be measured! But no need for a study; the harm is "common sense." And divorce causes a lot of measurable harm for children, too. The harm can be documented in reliable published sources. All this harm is wrong, All this harm to children upsets me very much. I'll keep this conservative moral stance mostly to myself. I shared this in case Flyer22 was wondering...
Aside # 2: Regarding something else Flyer22 wrote above, yes, I have heard that USA media personality, Dan Savage, has labeled pedophiles who never offend as "Gold Star Pedophiles." Does anyone use that, or a similar phrase, on Wikipedia for pedophiles who live within the law and accept society's moral norms in their private, sexual lives? The term, IMHO, is patronizing; it's like saying, "She's one of the few blacks who might be considered a credit to the Negroid race," but the concept of a "Gold Star pedophile" does introduce the public to a new concept, too. That's an idea for a new Wikipedia page. But I want to keep out of these fringe asides; I want to focus my energy, for now, on improving this Rind article.
Okay, Okay. I failed to keep this short. I give myself less than an A+ for conciseness, and send myself to my bedroom! It's so late again anyway! Radvo (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, there's a lot of material, but if I understand aright, one of the disputes is over the use of the word "several". Well "several" is a common enough English term with a fairly well understood meaning. I know what it means. You (Radvo) know what it means. If I'm getting this right, it also has a technical meaning in statistics, or else no meaning in statistics and is thus abjured by statisticians. Fine. But this is not a statistics journal. It's a general-purpose encyclopedia. Lots of common English terms also have technical scientific meanings. We can still use them in their plain meaning. We can write "The political situation in 1623 was in flux" and if someone objects "Flux has a precise meaning, and the statement means that the political situation in 1623 was undergoing a certain rate of transfer of energy through some surface, which makes no sense, and anyway is not useful if the exact transfer rate is not given", this is pedantry and not helpful.
I don't have a strong opinion on replacing "several" with some precise number, but I don't see that as necessarily improving comprehension, and so I'm OK with keeping "several". If the objection is that the number of studies is too large to be reasonably described as "several" that's possibly reasonable I suppose. I haven't seen that as being the objection, though.
But by no means should the statement be tagged with "not in citation" marker, for a couple of reasons. First of all, it's not true that it's not in the citation (after all, Rind did analyze several studies, and indicated this in the paper) and since it's not true we probably shouldn't say it. Second of all, what a reader would take away from this would likely be "Oh, not several, must have been just one, or perhaps one or two". So it's misleading and for this reason I've removed it. Herostratus (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the number of (other researchers') studies and the number of samples in Rind et al's controversial 1998 paper is too large to be reasonably described as "several." Flyer22 wrote that Wikipedia's generic article on Meta-analysis uses the word "several"; that use may have been the source of WLU's error; see quote below. The number 58. and a few other numbers Truthinwriting proposes, are genuinely helpful, and improve accuracy and comprehension for all. Fifty eight also gives the ordinary reader some idea of the scale of the (atypically) large 1998 meta-analysis. You express a bit of uncertainty in your second last sentence above. Please see Truthinwriting's # 1 and 2 above. Rind & Tromovitich did publish a related meta-analysis, in a different journal, the year before. That other meta-analysis was smaller, similar in results, was not the primary focus of the controversy, and the subjects in the ten samples/studies were not U.S. college students. So, it's true that Rind did publish two similar meta-analyses in different journals, one in '97 and one in '98. That is all quite clear in Truthinwriting's proposed revision above. The word "several" in the first paragraph of this Wikipedia article, however, does not refer to these two different Rind meta-analyses. "Several samples" imprecisely refers to 58 student samples (culled form 59 studies) used in Rind's 1998 meta-analysis. Flyer22 suggested above that the Wikipedia may have been the source of the mistaken use of "several" by editor WLU: Flyer22 wrote: "And maybe WLU added "several" because, as the Meta-analysis article states, "In statistics, a meta-analysis combines the results of several studies that address a set of related research hypotheses." Who knows how this mistake was introduced into this article, but "several samples" is definitely misleading and wrong! Wikipedia desearves much better. It would have been easier and less laborious to get these simple numbers right in the article the first time, than for me to explain to you concisely the complexities of the mistake and how the correction should be made. Truthinwriting understands all this, and has made an excellent proposal. Radvo (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Radvo (talk) 23:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh OK, well it wasn't clear that this was the objection. Wiktionary, the free dictionary, gives one of the definitions of "several" as "Consisting of a number more than two or three but not very many". Whether 58 is "very many" or not depends on the context I guess, but it's a pretty big number I guess. This all kind of seems like semantic nitpicking to me, but if you feel it's important, OK. I changed "several" to "a number of", this is OK with me and hopefully everyone is happy now? Herostratus (talk) 04:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Herostratus: The objection to "several samples" was discussed by Truthinwritng, Legitmus, Flyer22, and me for days in multiple locations, here on the TALK page, and we already have agreement on some replacement text. Your insertion was made without consulting with those 4 editors who are working on this. Nor did you check with me since I placed the Tag there and gave detailed reasons for the insertion in this TALK page above. See numbered items at the beginning of this thread. We are happy to include your best ideas into the group decision. But I feel you have ignored some of my concerns above. Here again are three of them:
  • "A number" underestimates 59; the number of studies 59 and the number of samples (58) are too large to be reasonably described as "a number".
  • "A number" misleads the esteemed reader of the Wikipedia about the extent of the coverage of the professional literature included in the 1998 meta-analysis, and,
  • as the citation tag that you prematurely removed correctly noted, "several samples" and "a number of" do not accurately reflect both the full text and the abstract of the Source in footnote 1. The source says something other than what Herostratus inserted into the article. Herostratus removed that citation tag, removed the incorrect text and replaced it with text that did not respond to my detailed objections above. I feel ignored and disrespected by your removal of the tag without replacing the text properly. The Wikipedia is not well served by this.
The Wiktionary, the semantic nitpicking, and 'what I feel is important' are all less relevant, as none of these are the source in the footnote 1. (Flyer22 has been most graciously been teaching me about Sourcing.) What does the source say? Legitimus, Truthinwriting, and I have already agreed that some of the text in the numbered items above reflects what should be placed into the article from the Source. Can you cite a page in the source that justifies your insertion of "a number" over the text we have already agreed on (except, we have no final response yet from Flyer22).
BTW Footnote 1 offers the on-line abstracts from APA PsychNET & PubMed.gov. The suggestion proposed at the start of this thread is better supported by the 2nd sentence in both abstracts in the footnote: "59 studies based on college samples". Click on the numbers at the end of footnote 1. We are glad to read that you hope that everyone in this discussion will be happy with the final edit. More important, however, than everyone being happy is: are we agreed that the text of the article accurately reflects the source? The Wikipedia is well served with an accurate and well sourced exposition, and some awareness of, attentiveness to group consensus.
Radvo (talk) 08:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Radvo, I don't see "a number of" as problematic, and, like Herostratus, your objections to "various" and "a number of" seem like semantic nitpicking to me as well. "Several," for example, doesn't have to be in a source for us to use it to describe seven or more researchers. But I agree that "several" is not a good use in this case, and I've already gone over the fact that "[w]e don't list every person or example when there are well over just a few. We either state 'several,' 'various' or give the exact number." So, yes, "58 independent samples of college students containing data on over 15,000 individuals" works for me too. As for what I stated about "several samples," again it has nothing to do with my not understanding meta-analysis. It is not a meta-analysis issue. I get that it is for you, but...
Moving on: Truth is an issue for Wikipedia, which is why that part of the line of WP:Verifiability is currently contested (as seen with its "under discussion" tag). It's just that reliable sourcing and keeping people from objecting to things because they don't like it are more important.
If we take away the "age of consent" part that is in the lead and lower part of the article, there is still the matter of the fact that pedo-advocacy websites have used the Rind study to argue that child sexual abuse does not cause harm. Some of those very people used to edit Wikipedia before they were blocked and/or banned. We would also get random pedo-pushing editors (IPs or registered) citing Rind as their proof that child sexual abuse does not cause harm. And this is also the reason that the Rind study is even at the MHAMIC website.
I never said that I was a "long time expert." I said "experienced Wikipedia editor."
No, editors who add material that does not support their text are not blocked/banned, unless they have a significant history of doing so. Sometimes, adding sources that don't support the text can be an "accident," after all. But after a certain number of these "accidents," the editor can be deemed harmful to the project and then blocked/banned.
You don't have to tell me that: "For the record: sexual abuse, physical abuse, verbal abuse, child abandonment, child neglect, rape are wrong and harmful." That's common sense. Flyer22 (talk) 11:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with "a number". Unlike "several" no effective upper limit is implied. "Most stars in the Milky Way are type M or K, but there are a number of type G stars as well" is a perfectly acceptable and normal sentence where "a number of" means "many millions". "A number of jellyfish have washed up on the California coast recently" or "Most species that have existed are now extinct, but a number are still extant"; here "a number" means many thousands. So hmmm, what do you want? Myriad? Plethora? Whatever it is, you can't always get exactly what you want, so why not accept the reasonable compromise of "a number of", OK? (If, on the other hand, it is actually true that we "already have agreement on some replacement text" then why are we talking about this? Simply use the text that everyone has agreed on!). Herostratus (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Herostratus: Thanks for your reasonable and, in the end, conciliatory contribution to this discussion. You certainly do know your words. By your suggesting, "simply use the text that everyone has agreed on!" may we assume that, since a number of editors already agree, we have your agreement, too? The 'citation tag' from the first paragraph is gone. I don't want to annoy with such tags, but to invite discussion, as above. As you write, when we can't get exactly the words we want into an article, we negotiate a reasonable compromise. No problem. I hope to return your concession sometime. Thanks again.
Flyer22: You're "experienced," not "expert." That's cute; charming humility. Page 3 from the Joesf Spiegel book (footnote 4) is, IMHO, an "accident"; it sources nothing.
Science is argued in court and used by fringe groups. So how exactly does that fact belong in this article?
Regarding the appeal to Common sense to support any claim. I don't think common sense is used much in court or by fringe groups. How does common sense belong in this article? The introduction to Wikipedia's article on common sense, curiously and shockingly, states: "Often ideas that may be considered to be true by common sense are in fact false." Courts and fringe groups need stronger arguments than an appeal to common sense, and so does this article.
Truthinwriting: Herostratus suggests we proceed. Are you ready with the proposed adjustments to the Into.? Radvo (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Section break

I just made four edits as per my TALK posting a week ago.

(1) Re: "several". Although "a number of" or similar wording is an improvement over "several", it still carries an implication of "not that many, at least, relatively speaking". The example of G-type stars is a good example, because is shows that in comparison to type M & K stars, relatively speaking, there are few G-type stars. Rind et al. used nearly 100% of the extent college-sample studies, their search of the literature was nearly exhaustive (regrettably, I suspect my source for this was one of their talks, rather than the paper itself). Although discussions may still be ongoing, since it sounds like there is no serious objection to using the exact numbers from the article I have edited them in as I proposed a week ago.

(2) I didn't notice any objections to (2), though perhaps they were waiting for a decision on (1) to be made first. In any case, I did add the parallel information on the national meta-analysis, as proposed.

(3) I didn't notice any objections to (3). I adjusted the wording as proposed.

(4) I didn't notice any objections to (4). I adjusted the wording as proposed.

Those four items constitute the editing changes I made today.

Regarding (5: numerous age of consent reform organizations / attorney usage): I still think the current wording is problematic for reasons presented earlier. I am now wondering if a complete rewrite with that basic info included might be a better way to go vis-a-vis consensus among us? This is just off-the-top-of-my-head, but perhaps something like: "After publication of the Rind et al. findings, there has been concern that the paper would be used by organizations that wish to change the age of consent laws (e.g., to lower the legal age of consent or to eliminate an age of consent for willing sexual relationships). Additionally there has been concern that the article would be misused in court to argue that little or no harm occurred, when in fact harm likely did occur in a given case before the court." That wording probably needs work, but perhaps this way we can get away from some of the problems that have been being discussed.

Regarding (6: moving Ulrich replication higher into the Intro): I still think this is a good idea, but I am waiting for the dust to settle on (5) first.  :-) Truthinwriting (talk) 07:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Truthinwriting: That was a fantastic contribution. I hope I am not opening up 'a can of worms' with this point for my own clarification. I have been confused by the words "samples" and "studies," and maybe others are, too. My apologies to everyone for my confusion. There were 59 usable college studies, and that was what I was writing about for the first sentence, but Truthinwriing correctly summarizes, in the very first sentence, that there were 58 independent samples used to calculate the effect sizes, one of the controversial results. I am correct is claiming there were 59 studies and thought the reader should be informed of that in the first sentence. And Truthinwiting's sample numbers for the calculation of the effect sizes are correct: 18 male samples and 40 female samples = 58 samples. There were 59 usable college student studies gathered from the scholarly literature vs, 58 independent samples used to produce the effect size result that was the focus of the controversy. Truthinwriting summarized that samples used for the effect size calculation in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article. Did I get this now right about the 58 samples and the 59 studies? Maybe this first sentence needs further revision to clarify 'study" and "sample" for the reader.
Truthinwriting writes in (1) above: "Rind et al. used nearly 100% of the extent college-sample studies, their search of the literature was nearly exhaustive (regrettably, I suspect my source for this was one of their talks, rather than the paper itself)."
Let's first clear up the confusion here about the words "samples" and "studies." "Samples" and "studies" are NOT the same thing! A rough calculation of the number of samples in the various calculations is actually over 250. See the bulleted list showing numbers of samples below; I just added up the number of samples in that list. Was that correct? The actual number of samples is not very useful information, except that is was more than "several" or "a number of" them. The extent of the search for other researchers' studies is more interesting for the reader and can be adequately sourced on page 27 of the 1998 Rind paper (footnote 1). This information is not yet included in the introduction, but it is a simple fact that readers understand. Maybe "59 studies" should be included in the early part of the introduction. It might also be pointed out that the 59 studies were not done by researchers who were advocates of age of consent reform, and the research was not done by self identified pedophiles. The 59 studies Rind collected reflected the biases of the CSA industry; he stripped away the rhetoric and looked at their numbers. I always thought that was kind of important information: what is the source, and what were the possible biases in the numbers in the 59 studies that Rind meta-analysed? You gotta believe that not a single one of the 59 studies in this meta-analysis were produced by any of the three named pedophile advocacy organizations! The whole CSA industry was humiliated when all of their research produced between 1966 and 1995 yielded the results Rind found. That's millions of dollars in grant sponsored research that was confronted by a single meta-analyses! The CSA industry was taken aback, and there was a lot of cognitive dissonance!
Maybe, for additional accuracy and detail, Truthinwriting could somewhere insert the specific time window of the literature search; the 1998 Rind study included a search for other researchers' studies dated from 1966 or 1974 to 1995 that could be found with the named search engines. Since the Wikipedia article is being updated now in 2011, it is more precise to note that none of the (college student) studies published in 1996 or later were included in the 1998 meta-analysis. Rind et al. could not include research studies that were not yet published when they completed the research work published in 1998. I also don't know, off hand, if any (college student) studies were included in Rind 1998 that were dated before 1966. Minor point.
Here is a direct quotation from page 27 of the 1998 Rind et al. Meta-analysis (footnote 1) that demonstrates the inclusiveness of the search to find the 59 studies: Other researchers' "Studies were obtained by conducting computerized database searches of PsycLIT from 1974 to 1995, Sociofile from 1974 to 1995, PsycInfo from 1967 to 1995, Dissertation Abstracts International up to 1995, and ERIC from 1966 to 1995. ... Reference lists of all obtained studies were read to locate additional studies." So, Truthinwriting's use of the word "nearly" is better understood here in the original source, and it refers to the number of other researchers' studies, not the 250+ samples used for the calculations. (BTW, The full text of the 1998 study is available at several different URL's on line.)
By including 21 unpublished doctoral level graduate dissertations and 2 unpublished masters level theses in the 1998 Rind study, controversy was created. The critics seemed to say the authors of Rind 1998 included too many studies dated within the time window of 1966 to 1995. This controversy, over the inclusion of the 21 doctoral dissertations and 2 Master's level (and Rind's defense of their inclusion), should also be included later on in Wikipedia's description in the controversy section. Is there an editor lurking here who would volunteer to further research on-line this controversy about the inclusion of the doctoral and masters theses (i.e., stduies) and make a suggested addition of this aspect of the controversy for this article? For starters, I quote from page 27 the Rind 1998 paper: "Applying the above criteria produced 59 usable studies .., consisting of 36 published studies, 21 unpublished dissertations, and 2 unpublished master's theses."(36 + 21 + 2 = 59)
Neither Truthinwriting's summary, nor the lengthy discussion here (e.g., the relative number of g type stars, of the phrases "several samples" and "a number of") adequately captures the extent of either the 59 studies or the 250 + samples, the complexity and the vast coverage of this research. That part of the TALK above was, so far, IMHO a tempest in a teapot; spending lots of time and energy on such TALK chases away as editors, scholars, sexologists, and statisticians who have read and understood this Rind 1998 report. Busy professionals don't want to discuss this with passionate editors who have not read and understood this report, who don't understand that the number of studies (59) is different from the number of samples used in the most controversial study (58) and the total number of samples (250+). Some editors are more interested in the power to redact contributions that do not fit their control of the agenda to make sure that everything here is politically correct. Scientists and statisticians cannot do the reading for those who refuse to read themselves, and confuse the number of samples with the number of studies. If Wikipedia is doing an article about the controversy around a politically incorrect study, then the reader deserves an accurate and NPOV exposition of its politically incorrect results. The source of the 59 studies might also be pointed out: what journals were producing these studies. None of these 59 studies were originally published in Paidika, the Journal of Pedophilia, so we know that pedophile bias was not included in these studies. The numbers reflect the biases of the mainstream publications, and they did not like the results when the politically correct rhetoric was stripped away from the numbers.
I do see the possibility of including Herostratus's fantastic skill with words to capture some of this bias, complexity, and extent of the coverage in the 1998 study. If Herostratus were willing to contribute further to this paragraph, I would ask him to convey some of this complexity of the samples and extent of the coverage of the studies in a sentence or two.
(BTW, and as noted above, I believe Truthinwriting presents in his sentence in the first paragrpha only one aspect of this complex study. For reference, I have underlined below that sentence Truthinwriting summarized in the very first paragraph. Did I understand what Truthinwriting was summarizing correctly?) I quote again from Rind 1998. I was focusing with my "citation tag" on conveying the idea that there were 59 usable studies found in the literature search; and all of these studies were from the mainstream journals in the CSA field. Truthinwriting is focused on something else: the result that I underlined in the bulleted list below. Quote from Rind 1998: "These (59) studies yielded
  • 70 independent samples for estimating prevalence rates,
  • 54 independent samples for computing 54 sample-level and 214 symptom-level effect sizes,
  • 21 independent samples that provided retrospectively recalled reaction data,
  • 10 independent samples that provided data on current reflections, and
  • 11 independent samples that provided data on self-reported effects.
  • Prevalence rates were based on 35,703 participants (13,704 men and 21,999 women).
  • Effect size data for psychological correlates were based on 15,824 participants (3,254 men from 18 SAMPLES and 12,570 women from 40 Samples). (This calculation is summarized in the first paragraph, as the result of this calculation may have been the most controversial. Do I understand the inclusion of this "58" in the very first paragraph correctly?)
  • Reaction and self-reported effects data were based on 3,136 participants (783 men from 13 samples and 2,353 women from 14 samples)."
I want to again credit the experienced editor Flyer22 for helping me to learn this matter of verifiability, in the published source, by leading me to the correct source for information. I want to give credit where credit is due. Thanks Flyer22.
Regarding (5) above. That suggested text is brilliant, and insightful! But I am going to call you on that for use here as it may be too original. You may be stating your very thoughtful clinical understanding of the underlying issues as facts that can be sourced in mainstream publications. This brilliant summary of the underlying issues should NOT be stated in Wikipedia's voice, Truthinwriting would do well as a brilliant psychotherapist to capture the underlying meanings, rather than teaching research methods. Rather, something like this should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where true and justified, described as widespread views. Please develop and publish such insightful arguments somewhere else; sorry but no original insights may be allowed here. This may not be the time and place for such thoughtful insights, I imagine your suggestion could be very therapeutic for some readers. There is so much less controversial and more basic work that can be done to genuinely improve this article in the near future. Here you can offer a more acceptable contribution if you can supply the arguments for your opponent.
Something like this (that follows) might be more easily sourced. I hope I am not bending over backwards too far that I annoy you, too: "There has been widespread concern, on radio talk shows, in small ringht wing advocacy and professional organizations, in newspaper and magazine articles, and even into the U.S, Congress. Critics feared that the Rind et al publications could be used to advocate effectively for some change in the age of consent laws. Deep concern was expressed about the possible injustice for the victim of CSA, and that the controversial results of the Rind studies would be misused, without appropriate skepticism, in court and with juries, to further harm the victims of CSA." (cite many sources.) Someone please shorten that "off the cuff" remark for me, Radvo (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Truthinwriting: Please see Writing for your opponent That will keep you out of POV troubles. I revised some of my previous post above. 06:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Following are some quick thoughts/responses to the above.

Samples versus Studies: A researcher might collect multiple samples (e.g., male and female; college and community and prison) but publish the research as a single article. In this case there is one study, but more than one sample. A researcher might collect one sample, but publish multiple articles based on the data. In this case there is one sample, but more than one study. Generally, scientists want to know the number of independent samples, not the number of publications.

In casual writing, "studies" and "samples" are often used interchangeably, but perhaps we should be more specific.

A note on "independent" samples: If a researcher collects some data (1 sample) and publishes results, then collects more data in the same way and adds it to the prior data set (still 1 sample, but now it has a larger N), then the two samples (the earlier one and the larger later one) are not independent because there is overlap in their makeup. In general, non-independent samples are extremely problematic to deal with, since data that was in the earlier waves will be over represented if the non-independent samples are combined.

Additional note on the meaning of independent in Rind et al.: The above bulleted list looks correct (but I did not check it), but note that the independence is by bullet. A given sample may have been used in different analyses (e.g., compared with controls for the main meta-analysis, and used again for tabulating retrospectively recalled reaction data). Thus the 250+ number sounds too large and might be confusing. However, to capture the scope of the Rind et al. analyses, listing the totals separately, as in the above bulleted list, might be good.

College studies prior to 1966: I believe there was exactly one. Landis (1956). Rind et al. were criticized for including it. I believe more information on the Landis study and the controversy should be added to the page, but I have not started to work on that yet (but hope to within the foreseeable future).

Controversy over using so many studies and/or dissertations: I don't recall there being any controversy over this, or perhaps I just missed it. That they went to the trouble of collecting all the dissertations and theses and including them, and statistically comparing the results of the published versus unpublished research, is great. This information might be good to add somewhere, but I don't recall it being part of the controversy. Hence my quick thought is, do we want it in the Intro or Findings in Brief section? I always lean toward more information is better, hence I think adding it to the Intro is a good idea.

Re: comment on (5) above: As I wrote that quick possible replacement text, I realized I didn't have any sources for it. Perhaps that is a problem; if so, we are back to deletion as the way to go. Something like you wrote (Radvo?) above is fine too, with a little adjustment, but might be hard to source as well. Nevertheless, the controversy probably would not have occurred if people were not worried about some sort of changes occurring, hence there must be some sources somewhere. I'll keep my eyes open. Truthinwriting (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


Thanks, Truthinwriting, for the helpful response above. Truthinwriting's distinguishes between "independent sample," "sample," and "study.". Let's not use the words "study" and "sample" interchangeably. The distinction between "sample" and "independent sample" is important, too. I foolishly counted 250 samples, but I figure now, from what you wrote, that the samples are not independent of all the samples in the entire list, despite the fact that the word "independent" was right in front of the word "samples'. The number of "independent samples" in each bulleted line means independent of other samples within the same bulleted line. Truthinwriting's words clarify things for me a lot. Thanks again.
My quick impression about Landis, J. (1956). Experiences of 500 children with adult sexual deviation. Psychiatric Quarterly Supplement, 30, 9
Yes, Truthinwriting, I do remember now your edit about the Landis (1956) study; Landis (1956) is relevant to the controversy. Your edit was improperly removed from the article for flimsy. unrelated reasons (like you were just a new editor, and your Wikipedia name had "Truth" in it! Give me a break!). You added this, IMHO, excellent and verifiable edit to the article on November 30th:
"The researchers [Rind et al 1998] were later criticized (see below) for including an old study by Landis (1956). If that study is removed, the percentage of males who report that their CSA experience was positive exceeds 50% with over 75% reporting positive or neutral reactions to the sexual experience."
Your edit is NPOV, verifiable and IS part of the controversy. Maybe there are people who lurk here who feel such a statement is deeply troubling for them, and it should be censored, and that you are an unfit editor for reporting the result of that calculation. This is the game of "Who gets to control the words and the discourse around here?" Such an offended editor may call in Herostratus to do the dirty work of removing your edit and making up some irrelevant reason for the removal that you quietly accept. They will not be supported by administration in their efforts at censorship, so they make up other silly reasons. Maybe you could write your edit in a way that is less offensive to sensitive ears: that the Rind critic(s) who objected to the inclusion of Landis (1956) did not get the change in the results that they were expecting. The critic(s) may have been more interested in getting the results they wanted. and when that didn't happen, they wanted to forget about Landis (1956). Maybe they want you to forget about Landis too, and not bring it up in the article again. But this article is about the history of the controversy, and the objection to Landis is part of the history and should somehow be included. That the results didn't turn out the way the critic wanted should be included, too. This is an encyclopedia, not the extension of some advocacy group! The fact is that this controversy makes the researchers associated with it look bad. There are long sections in the current article that make Rind et al. look stupid for all their alleged statistical and methodological mistakes; never mind that they effectively answered all the criticisms in 2001. They don't control the discourse here; they control the discourse in the scholarly journals. Maybe some philosophy of Habermas is relevant here. Are there any editors lurking here who see how Habermas is relevant? All of this is part of the controversy and should be presented in NPOV. Landis (1956) was part of the controversy, and your excellent edit should be returned to the article, in some non-offensive way, as soon as it can be sourced with page number. The history here shows disruptive redacting in this article that needs to be brought under control with appropriate application of rules and policies, probably with administrative help.
This all makes me feel like the kids today who are bullied in school, and there is little the bullied kids can do alone to stop the bullies.
My memory is that Rind et al. themselves did that particular re-calculation, i.e., without the Landis data, and published the results of the recalculation in a peer review journal in one of the brilliant, well-argued responses. I don't have time to look for the source and page number just now. Truthinwriting's edit about Landis (1956) was improperly removed from the article without giving the editor a reasonable time to find the source and page number for it. This was unfair, but we need to better understand what is possible here. That edit should be promptly returned in some inoffensive way to the article with the source and page number in an appropriate place. Maybe I might put the two sentences about the Landis study together for better coherence and more effective impact. Below, in the Wikipedia article, we already find this sentence:
"In regard to the Landis study, Rind et al.[1998] note that it has been used by many other sex researchers (e.g., Finkelhor, Fishman, Fromuth & Burkhart, Sarbo, and others) as an example of an early study about child sexual abuse."
There may be real problem going on here about what an editor may write. Maybe, because some things are just too upsetting for some readers, an editor can't write in an article: "The calculation of the data without the Landis data showed that the percentage of boys, who report that their sexual experience with the older male was positive, exceeds 50%." Maybe reporting something like that is something like those who are unable to listen to any kind of racism or holocaust denial. An editor may not say something, even if the calculations says it is true, that lurkers here feel is so terrible that an editor may not say it. I am guessing that maybe an editor may not report a scientific finding that half the boys in the meta-analysis (without the Landis study included in the data) report that their sexual experience with an adult was positive. So, if this speculation is correct, just don't say that for now. Dumb in down somehow, so some people are not offended. The protracted argument about "several samples" and "a number of" is instructive and may be a metaphore for this larger issue of what words an editor might use to describe her reality and the facts. I think I am getting the message. Herostratus, and the people who support his dirty work, want control over how clearly you can report on the Rind controversy here. The dictate the words you may use, and you submit. Maybe we can push the limits, and still make the article better. And they will tolerate our work, esp. if we attract other editors who, at least, have read and understand the Rind paper and are familiar with the controversy. It won't be easy to hold onto our own words and our own experience of reality, but we may be able to find some way work with Herostratus, and to avoid offending the persons who are sensitive. Meanwhile, let's do what we can, with what we have, to genuinely improve this article, and carefully follow the rules. I accept, support, and want to work within the child protection policy here at Wikipedia. I do not want to make trouble for anyone. I am not here to hurt or offend anyone. I hope we can negotiate some middle ground to make this article intelligent, inoffensive and interesting.
The source and page number is not given by the editor who contributed that earlier Landis edit. My impression is that that edit could also easily be sourced, and with page number. But that is probably not necessary if it is not challenged. So the inclusion of the old Landis study is already recognized in the Wikipedia article as part of the controversy. Herostratus, and another editor here, simply wanted you to cite the page numbers in your "Findings in Brief" section. Once you did that, for the "Findings in Brief" edit, your great new section was not removed from the article. That is, IMHO, a fair request, and sets a high standard of verification for this article about a controversy, a high standard that has been missing. Maybe we have some rules here that all might follow equally. Rule: Do not write facts or use words that genuinely upset people. Cite page number(s) in your source or have your edit challenged as unverified or unverifiable (with a citation tag), and possibly have your edit removed (not immediately) after a specified period of time (two months?) after being challenged. This article about the controversy will improve if every challenged or controversial statement is properly sourced with page number(s). There is some existing material in this article that could be challenged and removed if the editor who contributed the material is unable or unwilling to provide the page number in the reliable source, after a reasonable period of time (two months?). This article will benefit from such an aggressive approach to sourcing, if it is applied evenhandedly. I wonder if that is possible. What do the other editors think of this suggestion for a rule here?
About the inclusion of doctoral desertations and theses in Rind (1998): off the top of my head. Ray Fowler, then president of the APA, said the Rind 1998 study had passed peer review and was published in the Psych. Bulletin. That standard was enough, and his Gold Standard. So the critics responded that, in effect, if being peer reviewed and published in a prestigious journal are the Gold standard, then the dissertations and theses were not up to the Fowler standard because these were reviewed by the respective psychology departments at the various universities, and that is not peer review! So the critic(s) were applying the Fowler standard to the dissertations and claimed that Rind et al. (1998) should not have included the unpublished dissertations at all because they were not up to that peer review standard. This critique of including the dissertations, as part of the Rind controversy, can be verified and sourced for the Wikipedia article, with page number.
This next is off the top of my head, too. We can play the game of "That is too offensive for me to read in this article", too. I may test a bit to see if that is the game that is being played here. I don't have the time to source this now, and will retract this if I am proven to be wrong with url's, sources and page numbers. So, also in response to Ray Fowler's gold standard for an acceptable article, a false rumor was spread right here on Wikipedia, in this very article, that the Rind et al. 1998 article was first refused for publication by the Psych Bulletin and Rind et al. were refused the right to resubmit after revision. So in effect, the rumor was saying that the Rind article did not measure up to Fowler's standard; the first set of Psych Bulletin reviewers. according to this false rumor, may have indeed thought of it as unworthy of publication. So, the false rumor has it that, the paper was rejected for publication, and only by trickery did it get published. I found that slander and its publication here on Wikipedia, in violation of BLP policy, offensive. Where's the moral panic button? Beep Beep The false rumor here had it that the article was resubmitted and accepted at the Psych Bulletin, but only after new editors took over at the Psych Bulletin, and then the article was accepted after a second peer review. I checked with Dr. Rind himself about this false rumor in this Wikipedia article some time ago, and he denied it. He said he submitted the 1998 article, and it was accepted in the normal way (with revisions, as the peer reviewers requested. It was the questioning from the peer reviewers that led Rind et al. to suggest that he recommend that the construct of CSA be tightened up to improve its "validity"). (BTW, Dr. Rind also told me he did not attend the December 1999 Rotterdam pedophile conference as falsely mentioned in this article; that false rumor spread here to discredit his scientific neutrality is sourced by an otherwise unreliable e-mail newsletter by a tiny, intensely-hated-here, fringe group in Holland. If it is not true and if it is not properly sourced, then the libel, if offensive, should be taken out.) And the Dr. Laura libel is repeated in this article without giving her exact radio quote. The libel should be in Dr. Laura's exact words, not some Wikipedia editor's reformulation of the libel. I find all of that in this article offensive. The standard around here may be: what is offensive to some editor should be taken out. The Wikipedia editor(s) responsible for adding false rumors and libel to this Wikipedia article can easily be investigated and identified. Flyer22 advises us above that sourcing "accidents" like this happen, but they become a problem when "accidents" like this are repeated as a pattern."I am offended by what you write", so you who offend me are unfit to edit and have to go. The end result might be that we all have the power to get things removed from the article because we are offended. Is that the result we want? Hmmmm I'd rather that we come to a mutual understanding here that the creation of "moral panic" is immoral.
This alleged effort by editors of this aricle to discredit Rind et al. with false rumor and libel, in violation of the BLP policies,should be reported in this article. These libels here on Wikipedia are part of the controversy. If a NPOV account of this controversy are redacted, I would like to see the reason that justifies the redaction.
None of these efforts to discredit Rind can contradict the simple fact Heather Ulrich et al. replicated the study in 2005, and came up with the identical results. I am delighted to read that you see the importance of including the Ulrich replication in the Introduction. This controversy may be put into perspective with transparancy, decency, and the scientific method, not with censorship, libel and false rumor. The question of timing may be crucial. I could use ideas and some help. Are there lurkers here who have something constructive to contribute? Radvo (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


Radvo, I don't know what you mean about the common sense part of your statement. I was responding to what you said about sexual abuse, physical abuse, verbal abuse, child abandonment, child neglect, and rape all being harmful. It's common sense that all these things are harmful. And, yes, common sense is often used in courtrooms...such as with jurors piecing together a circumstantial evidence case. And I've already explained to you why pedophiles supporting the Rind study belongs in the lead and in the lower part of the article. It is a significant aspect of this controversy...that some pedophile groups saw it as validation that their actions were not harming children. That is not original research, but fact. Fix the wording and/or take care of the sources, if problematic, and leave it in the article. If by "CSA industry," you mean all the researchers against child sexual abuse, I don't see how they were "humiliated when all of their research produced between 1966 and 1995 yielded the results Rind found." No, the were offended by Rind. Not embarrassed because Rind proved them wrong.
Truthinwriting, "a number of" does not carry the implication of "not that many," as explained by Herostratus. But that's fixed now, so...
To you both, I am out of this discussion. Refer to Herostratus or Legitimus for changes you think are likely to be contested. Flyer22 (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Right, "a number" is OK. It's already a compromise from "several" which IMO was already OK, but whatever. "A number" just means "some number" and there's not implication of quantity; if you don't like the stars then consider the jellyfish, and anyway please don't claim consensus when there isn't. Let's leave it at that, OK? The effect of the edit there and the "designed to be nationally representative" bit (also redacted) have the effect of valorizing Rind et al and that's not where we want to be going here. The other edits are OK I guess. Herostratus (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
If we wanted to denigrate, defame, attack the reputation of, deny the importance, or diss the validity of this study and its authors, "A number is ok" There is no consensus about trashing this article as a team. You work have been working alone on your own agenda... "a number" would be fine, "several samples" would be better if we want to show our contempt for these brilliant mathematical studies. But trashing this study in the introduction is not where the consensus of the editors is going with this article. And we want to work for consensus. Granted: "A number" is indeed a bit better than "several samples", for all the reasons you have given. But that is irrelevant. I know that you know that. But you are wasting your time and ours with your irrelevant speculation about jellyfish and stars. Though that is a bit amusing how talented you are with words and ideas. I know that you know better than this, and in time we will get anonyed enough to take action against you with the adminstration. It's all documented here,and I have the time and patience to build a detailed case if necessary. Deprecating and denigration this study by inserting words like "a number" is not presenting the study in a NPOV, in violation of Wikipedia guidance. "A number" is just another way to show contempt for the study and its authors, and that is not what we, as a consensus, are about here.
I'm thinking that we should add that there were 36 published studies, 21 unpublished doctoral dissertations, and 2 unpublished master's theses in the 1998 study. What do you think? :::Truthinwriting has summarized information in the most controversial effect size calculation. I have underlined that information below. We think we need to put more information about samples into this introduction to give the reader a better idea of what this study is about. We are discussing how much of this we could summarize for the reader, and still make it accessible. If you want to compromise, we would like to start with this information here, and move towards the middle. For the (59) studies of the 1998 study yielded
  • 70 independent samples for estimating prevalence rates,
  • 54 independent samples for computing 54 sample-level and 214 symptom-level effect sizes,
  • 21 independent samples that provided retrospectively recalled reaction data,
  • 10 independent samples that provided data on current reflections, and
  • 11 independent samples that provided data on self-reported effects.
  • Prevalence rates were based on 35,703 participants (13,704 men and 21,999 women).
  • Effect size data for psychological correlates were based on 15,824 participants (3,254 men from 18 SAMPLES and 12,570 women from 40 Samples). (This calculation is summarized in the first paragraph, as the result of this calculation may have been the most controversial.)
  • Reaction and self-reported effects data were based on 3,136 participants (783 men from 13 samples and 2,353 women from 14 samples)." Let's work together towards the middle.
When Rind and Tromovitch 1997 worked with 10 nationally representative samples, that means that the population of interest is the entire population of the country in question and that the "several samples" reflect this in their structure. The related 1997 meta-analysis] by Rind and Tromovitch in the Journal of Sex Research examined 10 independent samples designed to be nationally representative, based on data from more than 8,500 participants. Four of the seven included studies came from the United States, and one each came from Great Britain, Canada, and Spain. At its best then the nationally representative sample will “look like” the population of those countries, irrespective of how it is viewed by the statistician. The numbers of men vs. women will match the national proportions, the percentage in each age group or each region will exactly match the population etc. On non-demographic measures of the sample should match the population. To achieve this, textbook theory requires a large random sample and a high response rate to minimize systematic error and reduce the risk of unsystematic error resulting from bias. Would you please use your skill with words and come up with a mutually agreeable summary of this paragraph?
Herostratus: If you want to compromise, let's negotiate. This above is the starting position. Let's now move towards the middle and compromise on what the text in the article might be.
Working with nationally representative samples has nothing to do with valorizing Rind and Tromovitch's 1997 study. If you had inquired about nationally representative samples, I would have explained it here to you, as I have above. Please ask before you redact our work. We appreciate your working together with us as a team, but I expect you to add energy and contributions. Your cooperation and your good will are valued here. Radvo (talk) 09:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Rind et al. 1998, p. 29
  2. ^ Rind et al. 1998, p. 29
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Rindetal was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference RindTromovitch was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Rind et al. 1998, p. 42
  6. ^ Rind et al. 1998, p. 29-30 & 44-45, Appendix, third column
  7. ^ Tarvis, Carol (2002). "The uproar over sexual abuse research and its findings". Society. 37 (4). SpringerLink: 15–17. doi:10.1007/BF02912285. Retrieved 12-10-2011. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  8. ^ Tarvis, Carol (2002). "The uproar over sexual abuse research and its findings". Society. 37 (4). SpringerLink: 15–17. doi:10.1007/BF02912285. Retrieved 12-10-2011. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rind_et_al._controversy/Archive_2&oldid=1069867619"