Talk:Rind et al. controversy/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Rind et al. controversy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
WP:ANI posting
Note. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Discussion of sources
I have finished my trim, it took considerable time to remove the links to sites advocating child rape, repeated sources and unreliable sources. Please take more care when suggesting or linking sources - at minimum they should be reliable (which means no blogs and given the amount of scholarly coverage, newspapers should be used judiciously) and absolutely no links to pro-child rape websites either as primary sources or as convenience links to sources. I also removed the chunk of text pasted at the bottom, arguably a copyright violation and possibly irrelevant as it didn't seem to mention Rind et al. If a source is immediately useful, it would be much better to simply edit the main page to include it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- When I had to leave my work here on the TALK page unexpectedly yesterday, I saved my work, and mentioned that "I will tweak this page and check the links another time." That sentence would make it clear that my list was a work in progress.WP:GOODFAITH There were at least 85 links I had collected and placed in the new Sources Section. I thought I was contributing in good faith to the project, and was not being provocative. I genuinely believe that, at the outset, more information is better. And good people make their own sorts best themselves. I hadn't even looked at many of those links! I had spent the time to collect them. Now there are 25! WLU took ownership of my list and deleted about 60 links! WP:NICE Maybe he felt it was not necessary for me to see them. There were surely some duplicate sites and a few have already been used in the article, and thank you WLU for cleaning them out. I would have agreed to your doing this, but would have preferred that you ask me first. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. I would have liked to see what you considered unreliable sources, so I could learn what sources were unreliable, and what was posted on them. I ask that no one here remove 70 percent of a list I am working on without discussing that with me first. If I don't respond in two days, then go ahead and do what you must.
- There were no sites advocating child rape. I took offense at the large type and the repeated mention of child rape. What WLU removed were about a dozen links to relevant articles in the scholarly journals directly related to the controversy. Do you have all of the journal listings on the list as abstracts? Is that what took so long? And the total list is only 25? Is this another case where you seem to be saying that it is "far far better" to avoid giving the devil any unnecessary information from the web. The less Satan knows about the contents of the 60 removed websties, the easier it will be to keep the devil in check. The editors lack the background and context to know if the information in the deleted websites "are good or bad?" If this is where you are coming from, I find this infuriating!
- What about linking from this TALK page to The [Leadership Council on Sexual Abuse and Interpersonal Violence]? The Leadership Council is a nonprofit independent scientific organization composed of respected scientists, clinicians, educators, legal scholars, journalists, and public policy analysts. The Council is strongly opposed to child rape and abuse. On this page http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/rind/bak.html the site links to the full text of several samples of (but not that many) of Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman's Writings. The Council repeatedly links to full text articles in The RBT Files at the Ipce documentation site. The Wikipedia is not legally responsible for what the Leadership Council links to, so I assume there is no problem legally to link to this Leadership Council page, so readers may read the full text of the articles for themselves at this anti-rape site. Comment? Relevant policy? I'd like to get an authoritative opinion on this matter, as I don't trust WLU after seeing his deletion work here earlier. I smell censorship a second time.
- I was not "Dumping a massive, overwhelming and unwieldy list of sources" on anyone, and actually I would have preferred that everyone left my list alone while I was still working on it. What was the hurry? In the future, please first make some suggestions about how you wanted to improve it. WP:DONTBITE
- I found the repeated mention of child rape jarring, offensive, inappropriate, and unhelpful. WP:NICE The text above associates the banned articles with views about child rape that they do not hold. Associating those dozen or so researchers, who published originally in the scholarly journals (which are now deleted from the list), is to malign them and me.WP:CIVIL [Keep a Civil Cyber-tongue: Rude and abusive online behavior should not be met with silence]
- Rape by men has been documented as a weapon of terror in warfare Storr, Will (17 July 2011). "The rape of men". The Observer. Guardian.co.uk. Retrieved 17 July 2011.
Sexual violence is one of the most horrific weapons of war, an instrument of terror used against women. Yet huge numbers of men are also victims.
{{cite news}}: Text "Society" ignored (help); Text "The Observer" ignored (help) Today, associating a research study with rape and child rape in polite society is a new weapon of psychological warefare, domination, degradation and humiliation. Some of this degradation of the Rind research has already been documented in my wall of words. Publicly associating those innocent scholars with child rape, and whose scholarly work was deleted from my list, may be a form of "degradation ceremony." Source: Garfinkel J. (1956) ("Conditions of successful degradation ceremonies" American Journal of Sociology Volume 61, pp. 420-424) A degradation ceremony is assigning stigma to these journal authors for supporting the research of Rind et al.(1998), so no Wikipedia editor will want to see what these authors' wrote. A scientist or researcher who is publicly associated with child rape (as done above), is stigmatized, and by definition, a researcher or writer with a stigma is not quite human. They have been de-graded, and they are fundamentally flawed as human beings. They now have "a spoiled identity." This is all relevant to the experience of the Rind controversy.
- Rape by men has been documented as a weapon of terror in warfare Storr, Will (17 July 2011). "The rape of men". The Observer. Guardian.co.uk. Retrieved 17 July 2011.
- I haven't figured out how to put Sounds of Music into my edits.
- Imagine, as today's encore, this is Koko in Gilbert and Sullivan's Mikado:
- These scientists and writers all deleted from the list,
- I've got a little list,-- they never will be missed.
- As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
- I’ve got a little list--I’ve got a little list
- Of Victorian offenders who might well be underground,
- And who never would be missed--who never would be missed!
- I read the words: "Do not replace them." We'll do better than that. If the removed links are relevant, we'll WP:BEBOLD and find a way to integrate the trashed scholarly journal resources into the article. But only after reaching consensus on the TALK PAGE: consensus that the journal articles are, indeed, quality resources. Radvo (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Mostly WP:TLDR.
- Leadership council is not itself a WP:RS; at best it could be mined for sources that are reliable. Since there was a large amount of scholarly attention on the Rind et al. controversy, newspaper articles are generally not going to be appropriate; the only exception would be to note specific facts that are not noted in a scholarly journal. Personal and organizational websites would also not generally be considered reliable here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- I read the words: "Do not replace them." We'll do better than that. If the removed links are relevant, we'll WP:BEBOLD and find a way to integrate the trashed scholarly journal resources into the article. But only after reaching consensus on the TALK PAGE: consensus that the journal articles are, indeed, quality resources. Radvo (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- I like WLU's idea of privately mining for reliable scholarly journal sources at websites that would not be considered reliable for citing in articles by Wikipedia's high standard. I would suggest to editors here these four web sources as such mines. I suspect that a diligent scholar might be able to double the list of 25 reliable (academic journal) sources that WLU has collected above by careful "mining" at these four sites. Are there lurkers here who might volunteer to do the mining? Are there four lurkers here who would take one of the four to mine? Are there lurkers here who have scholarly journal access to the full text of these journal articles thru their university or other job related on-line libraries?
- http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/rind/bak.html Radvo (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Stop posting links to website that advocate for legalization of child rape. If you do so one more time, I will start a discussion at the administrators noticeboard which could result in your account being blocked. If you are willing to troll through child rape advocacy sites and pick out the sources they cite in their advocacy for being able to legally rape children, post those sources directly. The pro child rape sites themselves are not reliable, unnecessary, useless and is discourteous since it may end up with another editor having to explain to their family, friends or employer why they were visiting a site that advocates child rape. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/rind/bak.html Radvo (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- I like WLU's idea of privately mining for reliable scholarly journal sources at websites that would not be considered reliable for citing in articles by Wikipedia's high standard. I would suggest to editors here these four web sources as such mines. I suspect that a diligent scholar might be able to double the list of 25 reliable (academic journal) sources that WLU has collected above by careful "mining" at these four sites. Are there lurkers here who might volunteer to do the mining? Are there four lurkers here who would take one of the four to mine? Are there lurkers here who have scholarly journal access to the full text of these journal articles thru their university or other job related on-line libraries?
- We seek a Wikipedia:Third opinion (see also Wikipedia:Third opinion/User FAQ) about a dispute at Talk:Rind_et_al._controversy
- This Wikipedia article is about the publication of, and the controversy surrounding, a 1998 statistical analysis that challenges the majority view, and suggests a controversial, and sometimes highly emotional, minority view. The problem may involve policies related to Wikipedia:Fringe theories, though the Rind article was peered reviewed and published in a major journal. The controversy is reflected in difficult editor interactions. Maybe the reviewer will identify other problems or see the problem differently.
- Statement of problem 1 for the neutral Wikipedia:Third opinion: Is it permissible to link, from this TALK page, to 3 external websites that deal, in a detailed and scholarly way, with this same Rind et al. topic?
- Four (or more?) websites contain links to dozens of related articles from the scholarly journals; these articles are of considerable interest to editors and readers who find the Rind report and the related controversy interesting.
- Statement of problem 2 for the neutral Wikipedia:Third opinion: Is it permissible to link, for the editors' convenience on the TALK page, to the url's of scholarly articles, whose url's and text are found within the 4 external websites? The purpose of links on the TALK page is to further discussion and consensus building among a larger number of editors who may not have access to the journals WP:CONS? Another purpose of this is to reduce hostile and chaotic redactions and deletions. see WP:DELETE Three websites take a neutral to supportive view, and one website is strongly hostile to the minority view and a major contributor to the public controversy (1999 -- 2002).
- This is the information removed from the TALK page by WLU
- [Removed websites] One is highlighted; two are on the bottom left.
- [About 60 removed files.] All the deleted files are listed on the left side.
- WLU threatens the contributing editor with banishment if the removed material is returned to the Wikipedia TALK page for discussion and consensus building WP:CONS. The final Wikipedia article will not well reflect the minority viewpoint, and the ensuing controversy, if WLU's refusal, to allow the return of some of the deleted material, is allowed to stand.
- To Editor WLU: I seek your cooperation to resolve the dispute between us with a Wikipedia:Third opinion. Please edit the above statement of the problem, so that it fairly represents the problem for both sides. If you make major changes, please submit your version here before submitting to the reviewer. Herostratus and Truthinwriting are also invited to particupate in this statement and the process of seeking a third opinion. The problem statement may also be abbreviated to make it more concise. I will then submit it, unless you or Herostratus wishes to submit another version of this for a Wikipedia:Third opinion. If I don't receive a response to this request in three days, I will assume WLU is unwilling to use Wikipedia:Third opinion. I will then turn to another level of dispute resolution. Let's agree that either or both parties may go to a higher level of dispute resolution if he is unsatisfied with the Wikipedia:Third opinion about returning these deletions to the TALK page. Radvo (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Radvo, the short answer is NO, you cannot link to sites like IPCE, MHAMIC and others WLU removed. Yes they are convenient but no matter how you want to spin it, they are known pro-child molester websites. This creates a problem in that many readers and contributors to wikipedia read and edit from their work and university computers, where their internet usage is monitored and sites like this are flagged. By placing any link, even on Talk Pages, you create a risk that a person attempting to read and/or contribute might click on them either accidentally or out of ignorance of what they are, and thus expose themselves to inquiries within their company on why they are looking at pedophile sites. Furthermore, driving any net traffic originated from Wikipedia should be kept to a bare minimum, as that too is traceable. It doesn't matter if links to these sites are found elsewhere on Wikipedia; the should be removed unless the sole purpose of the link is to the organization itself, not scholarly papers they illegally post (in violation of copyright) and may or may not have altered from their original published content. Some of these site do remove sentences or even who paragraphs from these papers to serve their own agenda.Legitimus (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- To Editor WLU: I seek your cooperation to resolve the dispute between us with a Wikipedia:Third opinion. Please edit the above statement of the problem, so that it fairly represents the problem for both sides. If you make major changes, please submit your version here before submitting to the reviewer. Herostratus and Truthinwriting are also invited to particupate in this statement and the process of seeking a third opinion. The problem statement may also be abbreviated to make it more concise. I will then submit it, unless you or Herostratus wishes to submit another version of this for a Wikipedia:Third opinion. If I don't receive a response to this request in three days, I will assume WLU is unwilling to use Wikipedia:Third opinion. I will then turn to another level of dispute resolution. Let's agree that either or both parties may go to a higher level of dispute resolution if he is unsatisfied with the Wikipedia:Third opinion about returning these deletions to the TALK page. Radvo (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I've been relatively polite up until now. That ceases with the ANI posting. There is no fucking way that it will ever, ever be appropriate to link to sites advocating for child rape. For you to suggest, and keep linking to, and keep arguing for the inclusion of these sites is unacceptable. It doesn't matter how many people you want to step in - it's child rape, and if you don't see the problem with linking to those sites, you need to get off of this one. You're fucking right I'm not willing to wait for a third opinion, any sort of advocacy for child rape is wrong, and wikipedia is sullied by association if any of those child rape advocacy sites are ever included on our pages - including talk pages. If you want to link your IP address to sites advocating child rape and do the work of mining them for sources that could be included on the page, fine - post those sources. But there is ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING REASON for the actual sites to be linked. They will never be reliable, they are not a fringe theory that deserves minority coverage, they are advocating for something illegal, immoral and unethical that the wikipedia community has consistently said is unacceptable. They are not even convenient links as there is no guarantee the content has not been edited to present a bias.
I shouldn't have to make points based on policies and guidelines - wikipedia is a mainstream site and pedophilia is just about the most heinous crime found within the Western world. It is beyond common sense that continuing to link to these sites is worse than inappropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks WLU for taking nonsense like this on. For the record, of course you are correct. I don't want to randomly click links or I would clean them myself, but if you know of any inappropriate links posted here, please just remove them. Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Arbcom
- Note that this has been reported to arbcom per WP:CHILDPROTECT. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex
- Legitumus: I would like a semi-formal, neutral, third-party opinion, from a skilled Wikipedian, outside of this group of editors. Of course, I am eager to follow the rules, and accept the limitations on posting such links, as WLU has imposed. He is very experienced, and I respect that. But I don't trust him around censorship issues, and seek another opinion. I have searched the archives and could find a ruling on this matter. I'd like to know if there is such a ruling that limits access to other sites dealing with the Rind controversy. I am simply asking for a third party opinion about linking on the TALK page to webpages about the Rind et al. controversy, which is the topic here. That is not asking for too much.
- Legitimus makes a number of excellent points above, and the Wikipedia:Third opinion should read Legitimus' edit as part of the process. I acknowledge Legitimus's responsible feeling of protectiveness for readers of this TALK page who might expose themselves to embarrassing inquiries about why they were clicking on sites with many scholarly journal articles related to the Rind controversy. Legitmus acknowledges the link to a controversial membership organization may be justified, but only if the sole purpose of the link is to the organization itself. MHAMic is not an organization, and the link simply goes to a page entitled: "Everything you wanted to know about the Rind controversy." The NHAMic website takes a very different approach to the Rind controversy than the one here at Wikipeida, and some of the links have rotted, but Dr. Krammer makes some interesting points and provides many citations we don't use here. Legitimus also has valid objections on the copyright issue, and the possibility that the excellent, original scholarly documents at these external sites were tampered with, possibly to serve some unkonwn agenda. (If anyone notices some specific tampering like this at any of these Rind controversy sites, would they please post that information here?)
- http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/rind/bak.html (Stephanie Dallam's highly regarded advocacy group) links to about 15 scholarly articles at the IPCE site on that one page alone. I assume the Leadership Council programmer does this because The RBT [Rind, Bauserman, Tromovitch] Files at the Ipce documentation site are relevant to the Rind controversy, links very reliable, very functional, and very convenient. It would seem that if The Leadership Council, which was very involved in creating the Rind controvesry takes liberty to do this, we might be able to do this from here, if that does not violate Wikipedia policy. These websites are for the curious, the casual reader, not the serious researcher who needs original documents. Everything quoted from these articles and posted to Wikipeida should be checked carefully with the original document. Perhaps, it would be prudent to put a clear warning before that Leadership Council link, above, warning the causal reader that the 15 Ipce documentation links within that page, if clicked on, may be flagged by some monitoring system. Readers should not click on those Ipce links, if there is any question about the appropriateness of their curiosity or research at school or work. Would some reader please use experience to warn readers about this potential embarrassment? How would one succinctly word such a warning above? Radvo (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
What was this and this then? You have three experienced editors saying you should stop linking to these sites. Leadership council is still on this page, but is also not a reliable source. Drop it. How many times do I have to say it, links to sites that advocate child rape are unacceptable, will never be acceptable, and are never going to be valid convenience links. Ever. Sources do not need to be convenient, they must merely exist and be reliable. If readers have to visit a library instead of a webpage advocating for the rape of children, all except the child rapists will thank us. Fucking drop it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
| This exceeds TLDR and is not compatible with WP:TPG. See my comment below. Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Radvo: If you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement. This applies to talk and article pages. See Wikipedia:Copyright#Linking_to_copyrighted_works.
Wikipedia's approach to health-related topics is very conservative. The kinds of sources required to support health-related claims in this article include only, to all intents and purposes, scholarly reviews published in respected peer-reviewed journals. See WP:MEDRS.
Editing Wikipedia articles requires politeness, assumption of good faith on behalf of other editors, and a firm grasp of our editing policies (you must understand the policies you've been pointed to on this talk page, and quite a few others that will be pointed out to you as you transgress them). Particularly on controversial articles like this, the only practical way for a new editor to make significant change is to put the exact words of a proposed edit, alongside any existing text it may be replacing, and citing the WP:MEDRS-compliant source that says precisely what your edit says, but in different words and structure, on this talk page for others to consider. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Updated 04:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Actionable suggestion
Johnuniq wrote to Radov: "If there is ... an actionable suggestion for an improvement to this article, please post it in a new section." He then closed my edit and closed his comment from view. This message appears if you open my edit with the button on the right side:
"The following discussion has been closed."
Correction: It was hardly open for anyone to see! I want my post opened up for discussion here. If frank discussion is refused here, alternatively, everything (the harassment, the libel,the vulgarity, and repeated insult, the tampering with my posted photo of McMartin, the archiving of my 10 day old edit to Archive2, the redacting of all my edits, etc.) will pulled together and presented at WP:WQA. It will take a couple of days to pull the detail of my mistreatment together, but this may be my best option to establish a better working climate here with all editors for the longer run. I will learn something for myself, too.
Anthonyhcole suggested an alternative way to go forward. Anthonyhcole wrote:
- "The kinds of sources required to support ... claims in this article include only scholarly reviews published in respected peer-reviewed journals. See WP:MEDRS. Particularly on controversial articles like this, the only practical way to make significant change is to put the exact words of a proposed edit, alongside any existing text it may be replacing, and citing the WP:MEDRS-compliant source that says precisely what your edit says, but in different words and structure, on this talk page for others to consider."
- Radow adds to this: This includes redactions and major deletions. Every major move, and certainly every redaction of old material, is made with reasonable discussion and consensus.
- "The kinds of sources required to support ... claims in this article include only scholarly reviews published in respected peer-reviewed journals. See WP:MEDRS. Particularly on controversial articles like this, the only practical way to make significant change is to put the exact words of a proposed edit, alongside any existing text it may be replacing, and citing the WP:MEDRS-compliant source that says precisely what your edit says, but in different words and structure, on this talk page for others to consider."
This suggests how we might work together on this article in the future. See the full text of Anthonyhcole's edit above. I support this. What do other active editors here think about this recommendation? Do Herostratus, Truthinwriting, Legitimus, Johnuniq and other currently active editors, agree to this "Cole recommendation"? Or does anyone have any modification to the Cole recommendation to suggest? Correct me if I'm wrong, I am under the impression that we already discussed, and tentatively agreed, in the past month, that there are different parts of this Rind et al. article. One part summarizes the Rind study, so the reader receives a good summary of what the study reported. The other part of our article relates, in a NPOV, the controversy. Especially for the part of the article that reports the summary of the Rind meta-analysis, and the WP:Lead, do we agree to give up using WP:BEBOLD and work as Anthonyhcole suggests? IMHO, WP:BEBOLD is not appropriate for such a sensitive, controversial, and difficult-to-grasp mathematical study. See also WP:TECHNICAL and fringe results; outside the mainstream of common sense, as, IMHO, the ideas in these articles may also help editors.
Those who have read and understand meta-analysis (see WP:TECHNICAL), are in a position to write good numbers to summarize it for the Wikipedia reader. Encyclopedia articles should not "tell lies to children" in the sense of giving editors an easy path to the feeling that they understand something, at the price that what they then understand is wrong." IMHO, some of what editors believe is true about the Rind study is false. One has to read the study, and even then, without the background in meta-analysis and research methods, it is hard to understand.
Anthonyhcole suggests, "you must understand the policies you've been pointed to on this talk page..." That does not only apply to me. Editors don't have to agree about a topic to collaborate on a great article. It takes mutual respect and a willingness to abide by referenced sources and site policy. No editor, no matter how experienced, or how much he feels he owns this topic, sets policy without consensus or reference to written Wikipedia references. Sustained discussion shows that I am trying to identify the problems, clarify my thoughts and situation here, and find solutions. For a much longer version of this edit, see the version that Johnuniq hid from view without my permission or consent WP:TALK, And Johnuniq closed the discussion of my longer post without adequate justification. I protest the lack of consensus, but am willing to move on, if we now get back to editing work.
Aside 1:I will not to knowingly post any URL's or scholarly articles that violate copyright laws, even in a secondary way. Avoiding copyright violation is Wikipedia policy, and the right thing to do! This has nothing to do with false accusations of advocacy of child rape, The Leadership Council is apparently guilty of the same copyright violations as Everything you wanted to know about The Rind Controversy, (that is, the Rind part of mhamic.org,) so it cannot be linked for journal article listings from the Leadership Council either.
Aside2: Johnuniq suggests that "reports about editor behavior are started at WP:WQA" As started above, I am the victim of impolite, uncivil and other difficult communications and I seek redress. We can settle this here, or we can settle this at [WP:WQA]. I resent some of the language and insult that has been directed towards me. I feel bullied out of posting real work on the main page here. Herostratus, WLU, and one IP address will be named in my complaint. I will take my time to throughly document my case from various locations on Wikipedia. I will post it at WP:WQA.
This may be a lengthly process because I am collecting so much detail. I may postpone or change my mind, if things shape up here, preferring instead to edit, with dignity and respect, the main article than go through a lengthly process. Let's see how things go here in the next few days.... Radvo (talk)
- Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion
Hello, Rind et al. controversy. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
- Yeah, I'm still not reading it. If you are ever going to gain consensus for your contributions on talk pages, they need to be shorter. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Assertions of bias
"Stephanie Dallam and Anne Salter have pointed out that Rind and Bauserman have had associations with age of consent reform organizations." Isn't this an invalid guilt-by-association argument? I can't remeber, but i think Rind responded to this in some way. 85.183.82.188 (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is an ad hominem attack, but the best thing would be to include Rind et al's reply to it. Wikipedia isn't about saying which argument is right and which is wrong, it's about documenting the discussion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I know. Hence i was asking if somebody remembers Rinds reply to it, because i think he did. 85.183.82.188 (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm looking through Rind's rebuttal papers, and while they have counter-arguments to most matters, they do not appear to address that issue. I'll have to look into this further.Legitimus (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm working on this now and am also having problems locating a response. This was apparently made in at least two publications by Salter, once in her 2003 book and another time in her article and later book chapter "Science or Propaganda?" (p. 109). Given the timing of the controversy, the first source came out after much of the flurry had died down. Tracking things by the "Cited by..." links in google scholar doesn't help, but Rind does have a book chapter which discusses this and does not seem to be cited on the page. Perhaps it addresses this, I'll give it a read when I have the time. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Condemnation of Rind et al. (1998) by State Legislatures & by the U.S. Congress.
Click here to see the names of a number of State legislatures that condemned, or considered condemning, the Rind et al. (1998) study in the Spring of 1999.. This matter has not been well researched here, and needs a volunteer to email the advocates for this effort and find the exact texts of those State resolutions on line. The sample of additional states includes possibly Delaware, Illinois, New Jersey, Oregon, and Pennsylvania.
The media debate climaxed in the unprecedented condemnation of a research paper by government legislatures in the Spring and Summer of 1999. There was much overlap in the texts of the condemnations of the various legislatures, as if they all came from the same source. The State of Alaska was first on May 11, 1999 with (CSHJR 36).[1] Alaska Bill No 36 state of Alaska
- "the Alaska State Legislature condemns and denounces all suggestions in the recently published study by the American Psychological Association that indicates sexual relationships between adults and willing children are less harmful than believed and might even be positive for "willing" children,
A similar resolution passed the Oklahoma state senate on the 27th day of May, 1999[2]
Oklahoma expressed concern that
- "information endangering to children is being made public and, in some instances, may be given unwarranted or unintended credibility through release under professional titles or through professional organizations."
The Rind et al. (1998) paper was condemned by the federal government, starting with the United States House of Representatives (HCR 107) on July 12, 1999, The vote in favor of the resolution in the House was 355-0, with 13 Members voting "present".[3] does not verify text - WLU The vote in the U.S. House of Representatives was followed two weeks later by a voice voice in the United States Senate. Bill 106 Bill 106[4] It passed the Senate concurrently on July 30th, 1999 U.S. House of Representatives & Senate concurrent resolution. The Federal government condemnation included this language about harm, and using the Rind report in the criminal law:
- Whereas all credible studies in this area, including those published by the American Psychological Association, condemn child sexual abuse as criminal and harmful to children;
- Whereas the American Psychological Association should be congratulated for publicly clarifying its opposition to any adult- child sexual relations, which will help to deny pedophiles from citing ‘‘A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples’’ in a legal defense
- "Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress
- (1) condemns and denounces all suggestions in the article ‘‘A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples’’ that indicate that sexual relationships between adults and ‘‘willing’’ children are less harmful than believed and might be positive for ‘‘willing’’ children (Psychological Bulletin, vol. 124, No. 1, July 1998);
- (2) vigorously opposes any public policy or legislative attempts to normalize adult-child sex or to lower the age of consent."
California. Resolution, SJR 17, condemning Rind et al. (1998) 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 attorney hired by the advocacy group called The Leadership Council, [Stephanie Dallam, Dr. Fink, et al.] which [with the Family Council?], may have been coaching the legislatures. Details of this coaching of legislatures appears in one of the books in the Sources list.
- 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)
- 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.
Radvo (talk) 05:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Why has all the above been posted here? Material in an article should be based on secondary sources. If there is a suggestion that the article contain extracts from legislation, the situation is no way—articles do not contain items cherry picked by editors to show some point of view. Please do not use reference notation on talk pages: just show a link or a title if required. Johnuniq (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- We can use primary sources judiciously, and I think saying "X, Y and Z states also condemned the study" is permissible. All that is really necessary are source documents for each state that condemned the study, though a single source that gives all would obviously be helpful. The above text is pretty hard to read, I can't really tell what is opinion and what is quoted from a source, I'll try to sort through it later. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
re NAMBLA
Radvo, what's your reason for changing "NAMBLA" to "NAMbLA" in the article? Herostratus (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Making a section heading like that must be deeply offensive to WLU. A message on my talk page would have been more respectful of WLU's sensitivities. "Wikipedia is sullied by association if any of those child rape advocacy sites are ever included on our pages - including talk pages."
- Even after WLU deleted the word with that formatting on January 15, Herostratus and Johnuniq want me to explain some formating on text that was already removed. Give me a break! I guess you weren't paying attention to WLU's deleting.
- We've been playing BRDDDDDDDDD for a month now! I'm clearly enjoying the game, but WLU wants to stop all this dddddddddd and get some editing done here, and I am eager to engage him and learn from him. He had done a fantastic job last week. He did a great job on the Carol Tavris edit before he messed it up. I should have left it the way it was. BTW, I know you are very experienced editors, but a little reminder now and then never hurt anyone. Because tensions are high and this is a controversial topic, please discuss your ideas on how to improve the article here on this TALK page -- before you post them and before you redact anything. I highly recommend Anthonyhcole's method described above. Take a look at it and tell me what you think.
- Okay. I'm a nice guy. I assume you are intelligent if I give you a good hint: I observed recently that MHAMIC is correctly formated MHAMic. IPCE is correctly formated Ipce. When I was a boy, we called them "Negros", and that word was not a pejorative word then. Now we call them "Black"s because that's what they prefer. People prefer to name themselves. We don't call them "gypsies" any more either. My mother taught me that people have a right to name themselves. I respected her, and let her teach me this. I guess I extend her teaching a bit: organizations use whatever letter formatting they choose. Since this is the authoritative Wikipedia, I thought we'd better get the letter formatting (upper case; lower case) right for the esteemed readers of this fantastic encyclopedia.
- I trust the hint will help a lot. Good luck in figuring out the reason! I not only assume good faith, I assume high intelligence. Here's hoping you won't disappoint.
- Johnuniq: You wrote above: "I have previously mentioned some of the points I have just had to repeat." Darn. I've forgotten. Remind me: I don't recall asking you to repeat anything for me. What about my writing gives you the impression that repetition makes me more receptive to you the second time around? I don't feel respected by you, so I don't attend closely to what you write. I learned this from WLU: if you don't like someone, you don't read carefully what she writes. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." Good teachers know that a receptive student is a lot easier to teach. What can you do to make me want to rise to your high standards? What can I do to make you more receptive to what I write? I am feeling like I am being stalked by you, and would rather you just leave me alone and focus on the editing. You and I are co-editors. Let's see what you can do for Wikipedia. After I see some of your work for Wikipedia here, I'll have a better picture. Radvo (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- We don't follow the logo typography of organizations. Our article on Macy's for instance is not titled Macy*s notwithstanding that that's how they style it. Acronyms are given in full upper case. As it says at top of the NAMBLA article "The capital M and lowercase b symbolize a man and a boy", which you likely know. That you'd override the typography rules used by Wikipedia (or most any other publication) to render the name of the organization in this way is idiosyncratic... and instructive. Herostratus (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- The title of this section is wrong and misleading. This discussion is mostly about typography.
- The argument would not need much discussion if you had researched a WP:Soucre. This is BRDDDDDDiscuss ad nauseum, too. Even after the word has been deleted from the text.
- The Ohio State University capitalizes the first letter in "The", even though this capitalization of "The" is not standard. See university usage here in [in second paragraph]. The linguistics department decides this.
- [CLAiT] is what the group calls itself, with a lower case "i" among the capital letters. Something distinctive.
- The Macy's example is not an example of mixed upper and lower case letters. Macy*s is a substitution of an * for an '. If "we" were were to respect Macy*s wishes about how it wants to name itself, "we" would use Macy*s. No big deal for me, but apparently a big deal for Macy*s. I lean towards allowing groups to name themselves, but this is not that important to dicsuss this longer. Why these groups do this (and why you named yourself Herostratus) is irrelevant to getting the typography and the name right on Wikipedia.
- About the title of this section.
- Associating this mathematically brilliant research study with despised advocacy groups is a weapon of psychological warfare, domination, degradation and humiliation. This is not NPOV. WLU has gotten some of the message and has now removed the organization names from the article. That is a big step in the neutral direction. Publicly associating the Rind et al. study with advocacy organizations is a form of "degradation ceremony." (Scholarly Source: Garfinkel J. (1956) "Conditions of successful degradation ceremonies" American Journal of Sociology Volume 61, pp. 420-424) A degradation ceremony is assigning stigma to this research study because of the organizations that support the controversial research (the weak, tiny advocacy groups) and those institutions that despise it (the powerful U.S. Congress), A scientist or researcher who is publicly associated, by Wikipedia, with despised advocacy organizations and Congressional condemnation is stigmatized, and by definition, researchers with a stigma are not quite human, and need not be respected as such. So the Dr. Laura libel can be rephrased in the editor's words in violation of BLP. Everything else about the stigmatized researcher is viewed thru that dark lens. It's something like urinating on the dead body of the enemy soldier you just killed. Dehumanizing the enemy is how the military conditions soldiers in basic training to kill the enemy and destroy property. It is also a way to survive in battle. The opposition must be de-graded, and they are fundamentally flawed as human beings. They now have "a spoiled identity." This is all relevant IMHO to the experience of the Rind controversy. Editors here might to take great care to report the controversy NPOV and not be part of the "degradation ceremony" of psychological warfare against the study. Radvo (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
First Paragraph of the Controversies Section
I integrated the content of two sections that were sourced by Carol Tavris's article in Society. I made a complex edit, and put that edit into the first paragraph of the Controversies section.
WLU reverted it because of too much analysis and too much verbiage.
I moved a photo, and was beginning to edit to make things more concise as requested. Before I could even begin to post by work to reduce the verbiage, I was reverted a second time. Dontbite I will file a complaint if this continues.
Johnuniq objected to wording in the second sentence. I immediately removed the entire sentence. I was following BRD.
I then made a number of edits to remove analysis and verbage to meet WLU's objection.
I would like to discuss the paragraph, as it now exits after my series of edits to make this more concise. How can we work to improve this paragraph?
Please discuss the issues you have with the edit here on this talk page and work things out. Please be specific. I will consider and negotiate future changes. Please do not revert this again until you discuss. I prefer to make the discussed changes myself. If you don't like what I have done the next time, we can continue the discussion here.
I am using WLU's preferred mode of working. He refuses Anthonhcole's suggestion that we discuss things first, as I would prefer. I believe we should all follow the same rules. See my previous attempts to get some discussion going about how editors work on this topic.
I am using what I understand to be BRD..
Radvo (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Could we agree here that before an editor reverts another editor's work, the editor who plans to revert should open a new section and explain the revert in detail BEFORE the revert is made. Then if an editor gets reverted, he/she can go immediately to the talk page and find out the problem. After I was twice reverted today, I looked on the TALK page,and saw no detail for the reason for the reverts, so I assumed I was being reverted for the reasons in the edit summaries, and that was all the feedback I was going to get. So, I used the information in the edit summary to make the requested changes. And I was reverted a second time as I was making the changes. I had get back to my work to make the changes requested. That is why I twice reverted to get back to my work to make it more concise, and to removed the sentence that was objected to. What do editors here think of this proposal? Radvo (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you have a proposal to change the way that Wikipedia works, please present it at WP:VPR. Until such a proposal is accepted, the correct procedure is that an editor who makes a change that is contested (such as being reverted with any kind of reason) needs to justify their change on the article talk page. Other editors may choose to join that discussion. There is nothing in the above two posts that actually belongs on this talk page: just explain why a change is required and respond to any comments. Johnuniq (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- I reverted again because there is a lot wrong with the changes to the controversy section. BRD stands for Bold, Revert, Discuss. After two reverts by two separate people, it's time to discuss - not force in more changes. Keep in mind Radvo, that you are not the only editor on the page, you do not own it and there are other editors with much, much more experience than you. We don't revert idly, and if two are reverting you, that's an indication your edits aren't appropriate. However, I at least bear some culpability for the problems as I did make the first revert. I think an experienced editor would have immediately seen the changes as problematic and why the edit summary was sufficient explanation and my apologies for not giving a more detailed rationale for the revert. It's a shit response to give "I'm an experienced editor" as a reason for a revert, but there's not a lot of specific policies on exact page contents; hopefully this explanation will be sufficiently convincing, or other editors will agree with me. Here are my objections to the changes, in no particular order:
- Carol Tavris is completely tangential to the controversy section. Her paper was already used to verify that NARTH objected to the study. Her opinion should not be included in the controversy section as she was not a significant player as it unfolded. Her attributed opinion is appropriate somewhere else in the page, but I admit the "usage outside" section is not ideal. Her picture shouldn't appear anywhere on the page.
- The words "The provocative information in the jargon-laden meta-analysis did not languish for long unnoticed in the professional journal (circulation 6,000)" are far to editorial to be appropriate, in addition to being extraordinarily purple.
- Calling NARTH's response an "attack" is also inappropriately editorial and not neutral; while 'criticize' is inherently nonpejorative, 'attack' is. The inclusion of their opinion on what causes homosexuality (seduction by a man) is also wrong for this section - controversy should be a more-or-less chronological discussion of Rind et al's publication and the public reaction.
- The inclusion of the repressed memory reaction in the controversy section looks inappropriate, I have yet to see a source that includes them as part of the original controversy; Tavris does not. Remember, we are bound by what we can verify, not what is true. The repressed memory groups may have reacted strongly and immediately, but until we can attribute this to a source, it should not be included in the controversy section.
- Attributions of why people reacted to the controversy, specifically the fear of malpractice lawsuits, is also too much detial for what is essentially a minor, and from what I can tell, late-coming group in the debate.
- Overall, way, way, way too much analysis of one social psychologist, much I as liked Mistakes were Made. This diff shows a comparison of the before-and-after text made on one of my subpages. The changes are essentially what I summarized above, a bunch of out-of-order opinion from Tavris with way too much emphasis on the recovered-memory crowd. This is particularly a bad choice since I haven't seen any other sources that associate the recovered memory/DID movement so strongly with the initial or even subsequent reaction. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- I reverted again because there is a lot wrong with the changes to the controversy section. BRD stands for Bold, Revert, Discuss. After two reverts by two separate people, it's time to discuss - not force in more changes. Keep in mind Radvo, that you are not the only editor on the page, you do not own it and there are other editors with much, much more experience than you. We don't revert idly, and if two are reverting you, that's an indication your edits aren't appropriate. However, I at least bear some culpability for the problems as I did make the first revert. I think an experienced editor would have immediately seen the changes as problematic and why the edit summary was sufficient explanation and my apologies for not giving a more detailed rationale for the revert. It's a shit response to give "I'm an experienced editor" as a reason for a revert, but there's not a lot of specific policies on exact page contents; hopefully this explanation will be sufficiently convincing, or other editors will agree with me. Here are my objections to the changes, in no particular order:
- You have some of this wrong. [Spokesperson Stephanie Dallam = Leadership Council] = Repressed Memory Crowd = Fear of malpractice suits. They are all tied together behind spokesperson Stephanie Dallam who then took the arguments that were not shot down and wrote her propaganda paper in 2002, (which you like so well here). Everyone of her co-authors was from the repressed memory crowd at the advocacy group, Or is my memory failing me here? The Leadership Council. They all failed to disclose their ties and connection to this advocacy group in their "research paper". If a half dozen Nxxxxa members published a paper in a scholarly journal, it would be important for readers to know that all the co-authors were members of that advocacy group, so readers might be alert for biases. I suspect from what you wrote above that you did not know much of this before I told you. Somewhere in the Wikipedia article that references the Dallam article, Wikipedia should disclose that all of Dallam's co-authors were members of the repressed memory crowd (The Leadership Council). These were the advocate "consultants" to Dr. Laura in the Spring 1999 and lobbyists thru the summer 1999 with the State legislatures and U.S. Congress. They were hiding their biases behind their degrees, and IMHO neurotically projecting this out to Rind et al. No Source. No original research. Drop that. These groups and their allies orchestrated the moral panic with their non-peer-reviewed garbage. Caraol Tavris was in Los Angeles and didn't have names of people and organizations out there when she first published the earlier version of her article in the Los Angeles Times. I'll respond more with good Sources if I can easily find them. Do you want to do this in chronological order? Can you make a flow chart in another section from December 1998 thru September 1999? We can put the events of the chronology on the flow chart in the correct order.
- I agree on the chronology mix up in the article here. Otherwise, however, I have a response for all your other points. It will be long. Will you read it?
- Wikipedia is sullied, by association, if moral panic advocacy sites are linked from our pages - including talk pages. Moral panic is immoral.
- pas de touché Radvo (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Dallam isn't specifically mentioned by Tavris, making your observation a synthesis.
- Where the hell do you get the idea that I "like" Dallam's paper? Did you not post a comment in the section I started above that discussed removing Dallam outright? I think it's a biased piece of shit that's thoroughly rebutted by Rind.
- And I still don't think it's worth including Tavris' specific commentary in the controversy section. Leadership council isn't the kind of major player that the religious fundamentalists or Congress are. Not worth a mention and no specific attributions can be made to any actions they took. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sloppy wording about "you". I think I was referring to the collective "you" of editors who put all that Dallam material into the article in the more distant past. I am very pleased that you write this way about Dallam. If we can get this cleaned up I can die and go to heaven. The question now is how to get the Dallam stuff cleaned up without all hell breaking loose. The point you make about synthesis is one to ponder more. Radvo (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Consensual, willing, harmless. Reporting this accurately and NPOV
WLU: We are reporting the Rind results. You removed from the article something about willing and consensual. There are two separate phenomena: (1) harm and (2) willingness. Rind found them to be statistically correlated. Maybe you would use words like: they are "inherently related" to each other. Rind is impossible to understand if you insist that CSA (as variably defined) is not consensual by definition. Some things you already are convinced of causes a lot of cognitive dissonance for you. The problem may be, in part, with the definition of willing, consensual, CSA, but let's just accept the Rind results as they are. The critique comes later. A made-up example: a 21 year old has a sexual relationship with a 15 year old. The 15 year old experiences the sex as consensual, willing, harmless. There are no measures showing the 15 year old is harmed, traumatized. When the 15 year old gets to college, the individual completes a questionnaire and reports things as experienced. The experience was, in some places, not "consensual" by law; it was immoral by many accepted and respected standards. But it may very well have been willing if the person reports it that way on a questionnaire. The researcher, nevertheless, says, because of the ages involved, this is CSA. The researcher and Rind think of a case like this as consensual CSA. You resist that idea very stongly, but if you want to understand Rind, you cannot reject what he reports because of some definition you have. Rind gets the data of that experience with the study from the professional literature, and puts that study in his "mixed" category; these studies have samples that included both consenting and non-consenting subjects. You are fighting the source if you don't accept these mixed samples (of consensual and non-consensual CSA). Accept the Source, as is. Critique later. You wrote above:
"while Rind et al. did suggest not all abuse is harmful, it is still not consensual by definition ... - care must be taken not to word the article in such a way that the abuse as portrayed as innocuous or harmless".
That's non-sense! You don't know or understand the study. I don't know how to tell you this without your getting upset: In Rind's study, some CSA, as it is sometimes and variably defined by the authors of the 59 studies, is harmless, not harmful. In the example I gave above, you can imagine that some college student, included in some CSA study, was at one time the 15 year old, (These were self reports by college students.) Your prior definitions are irrelevant to reporting what the Source (and the authors of the 59 studies) report. The definition of CSA is not up to you. The variable definition of CSA was up to the researchers who completed the 59 studies. (This poor construct of CSA gets discussed as a problem later.) This goes farther: Rind suggested that one reason CSA is not harmful has to do with "willingness". If you refuse to permit that a relationship between a 21 year old and a 15 year old might be perceived by both participants as willing and harmless, you cannot understand and accept what Rind reports. If simply accepting and understanding what Rind wrote is a problem for you, maybe you should be editing another topic. Rind has to go with the data from the 15,000 subjects. You resist and interfere with what the source reports. It would also be easier if you stopped trying to critique the results and the CSA construct. Save that for later after you understand what Rind did. Can you understand and accept this? Rind wrote:
"These finding indicated that inclusion of willingness eliminated the relationship [between CSA and malajustment] in the mixed category (that is, studies by other researchers that included consenting and non-consenting subjects), implying that willingness itself was not [statistically] associated with psychological maladjustment in the case of males." Source: http://books.google.ca/books?lr=&id=NqT0GCxUDJsC&q=willingness#v=snippet&q=willingness&f=false Advances in social & organizational psychology: a tribute to Ralph Rosnow By Donald A. Hantula January 4, 2006 Routledge Taylor and Francis Group ISBN 10 0805855904 page 172. Radvo (talk) 9:22 pm, Today (UTC−5) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radvo (talk • contribs) 02:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Radvo (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Fine, but WLU is an experienced editor who knows that personal opinions are not adequate for writing an article at Wikipedia (and there is no need to worry about causing upset—that only occurs when somone repeatedly posts long passages that are not focused on what can be done to improve the article). What text in the article has a problem? What source provides what information that shows there is a problem? Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Force and coercion, the words I chose, remove the word consent - children by definition can not consent to sex with adults. Force and coercion contain the idea that the child is unwilling without giving any impression that they are making informed choices. We are not bound to stick exactly to the wording of the source text, and I think this wording includes the appropriate nuances while avoiding the politically and popularly loaded idea of a child being able to give consent to sex with an adult. I'm sticking by it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH Juice Leskinen (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Rind et al.'s response to the Congressional Condemnation
Rind et al. did respond to the U.S. Congress. In fact, some of this response should be used to balance the Congressional condemnation in the article. Here is the Rind et al. response:
Claiming among other things that "all credible studies in this area ... condemn child sexual abuse as criminal and harmful to children," and citing a 1982 Supreme Court opinion that expressed this view, House Congressional Resolution 107 proclaimed our study to be "severely flawed." It condemned and denounced "all suggestions in the article ... that indicate that sexual relationships between adults and 'willing' children are less harmful than believed and might be positive for 'willing' children."
[snip]
This [Congressional] resolution was built on the criticisms made by NARTH, "Dr. Laura," the Family Research Council, and The Leadership Council. Its specific comments and wording were heavily drawn from the Alaska resolution, which was itself based on some of these criticisms. Given that we have just shown these criticisms to be without merit [see citation below], the characterization of our study as "severely flawed" must be seen as invalid.
It is not the case that all credible studies have concluded harm, as our review amply demonstrated, unless concluding harm is viewed as a prerequisite to judging a study "credible."
The 1982 Supreme Court opinion was made when CSA research was relatively scant and unsophisticated; in our review, almost all the studies (57 of 59) were published after 1982.
Willingness is in fact relevant to outcome. We neither stated nor implied that CSA might be positive for willing children, as "positive" in this context connotes beneficial. Instead, we accurately summarized what the students themselves reported in terms of perceived reactions and effects, some of which were positive.
Finally, using the best methodology involves being strongly grounded in methodological logic (specifically regarding issues of generalizability and causality) and statistical precision, qualities that characterized our review above most others.
[End]
Source of the above: Rind, B; Tromovitch P; Bauserman R (2000). "Condemnation of a scientific article: A chronology and refutation of the attacks and a discussion of threats to the integrity of science". Sexuality and Culture 4 (2): 1–62. doi:10.1007/s12119-000-1025-5 page 42-3. This article provides a great deal of detail and is highly recommended to other editors here. --Radvo (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Here is another quote that is Rind's response to Congress:
The fact that the U.S. government condemned our review indicates nothing negative about the review's merits, although our critics have often advanced this specious argument. The history of science and philosophy is filled with important and even great works that have conflicted with prevailing opinion and have then been condemned, banned, or burned following campaigns by moral crusaders and power holders. If anything, such treatment speaks to a work's genuine merit, rather than to its invalidity. Source: Rosnow R. L; Hantala,D.A. Advances in social and organizational Psychology: a Tribute to Ralph L. Rosnow Page 190.
Explain the study. Or break this topic up into 2 separate topics?
The second post to this TALK page, more that 3 years ago, asked for an explanation of the study. Too much controversy and negativity was a problem here from the very start. This negativity chases new editors away. Bite
That old post reads:
- Could somebody who has really read this article elaborate on what it says and what are it's bases, how the study was done and what are Rind's conclusions, because right now there is almost nothing but criticism of the study. That, if anything, is not very scientific and least of all encyclopedic. 84.253.253.245 ([index.php?title=User_talk:84.253.253.245&action=edit&redlink=1 talk]) 12:00 pm, 29 August 2008, Friday (3 years, 4 months, 20 days ago) (UTC−4)
Lots of progress has been made in three years, but I am not satisfied with the removal of most of Truthinwriting's 'Findings in brief' section by an editor who probably has not read the study, refuses to read it, and is not qualified to write a short summary of the findings or results. He doesn't know that he doesn't know the material and he doesn't know that I know he doesn't know the material. Telling how many participants were included in the study and how many studies were meta-analyzed is good, but we had to discuss that at great length to even get that in the article. What about the Rind results? There is little about the results in the current page.
Truthinwriting has read the study, and even understands it. I alerted Dr. Rind to this "Findings in Brief' summary, he read it, and said it was a good summary of the results of the 32 page jargon laden study. What is the problem with including it here? The 'Finding in brief' section was removed without Truthinwriting's consent or mine. We are lectured about consensus, and then Herostratus and WLU work without consensus, or even asking for consensus.
How about an appendix summarizing the entire study, not just the study itself.
Or start an entirely new topic starting with the Findings in brief section and a very professional tone. And then dealing only with the methodological and statistical problems on that page. Why should editors who have read and understood the study have to educate editors about the very basics of the study because the inexperienced editors refusal to do their homework? We can't do their homework for others. If the Pedophile Article Watch sends someone over to oversee things, we editors of the new page will demand from the appropriate Adminstration authority that the PAW representative must have read and understood the 1997 and 1998 papers. Otherwise that PAW representative is unwelcome to edit content of the paper and certainly not redact what editors who read the study may write. The new page would avoid discussing the controversy outside the scholarly circles. (The current article could deal more thoroughly with The Family Research Council, The Leadership Council, Radio Talk show hosts Dr. Laura and Dom Giordano, the state and Congressional condemnation, the lobbying, the fear of malpractice suites, etc.
Should we split this article in two and start a new page with just the Rindings in Brief section, and only editors who have read and understood the study may participate and edit. Others will be redacted unless they make unusually talented posts based on good secondary sources. Maybe in a year or two, the two articles might be merged together again.
The "controversy part" can stay here, and editors here need to read only the dozens of secondary sources, not the original Rind material? They can continue with The Leadership Council's fetish of linking the Rind article with advocacy organizations,, etc. as they have for years. The professionals I am looking to work with may not want to sully their professional experience and credentials with this biased crap, and the BRDDDDD.. I would rather work with peers and professionals above my pay grade, psychologists, sexologists, and statisticians who can handle the complexity and the significance of this powerful material.
BRD is not appropriate for people who have not read the study. There is just too much to explain. The Anthonyhcole method is superior, but we have no consensun on using it.
I would especially like to read Truthinwriting's response to this, if he is still watching these ideas. Radvo (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I need to ask something important at this juncture. Do you have any personal association with Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch, or Robert Bauserman? Are you one of those three, or were you ever a colleague of any of them? Did you have anything to do with the work of these three related to this paper? The reason I ask is not a condemnation, but rather a matter of policy on conflicts of interest. You would not be blocked or punished in any way if you are, nor barred from editing this article, but rather it simply creates the necessity for proper disclosure and consideration for due weight. I highly recommend you read this specific section of the COI policy as it reads almost exactly like our interactions with you thus far on this article. And for pete's sake, try to keep your reply under 1000 characters. Legitimus (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I tried to post this before, and it seems not to have saved. So I am posting this a second time. If this is a duplicate, this was not intentional.
- Legitimus: I read conflicts of interest and liked: [Everyone] acts with love and neutrality to write a good article which is acceptable to both reasonable critics and reasonable supporters ... [where] reliance on solid sources, neutral language, etc., carries the day." You're right, my situation is a little like that. And I consider myself a reasonable Rind supporter outraged at the hatchet job that has been done on Rind et al.
- To answer: I am not Rind, Bauserman, or Tromovitch. I am not now and never was a colleague of any of them. I have already disclosed in my posts to this TALK page several times, that I have contacted Bruce Rind about this article in the past month. I asked Dr. Rind if he would read the "Findings in Brief" section that was written by Truthinwriting.
- I told Dr. Rind that the Wikipedia article about his paper was a hatchet job, and I was interested in making it more NPOV. I do not represent the views of Robert Bauserman or Philip Tromovitch, and have never discussed Wikipedia with either of them. Dr. Tromovitch has emigrated permanently to Japan, and I have heard rumors that he claimed to have been troubled by the mistreatment around the controversy. Rumor has it that Dr. Fowler, president of the APA at that time, also had a reaction after the controversy. Dr. Rind wasn't well aware of the Wikipedia article, and I had to coax him to read it. He felt the WP: article had so many serious errors that he wasn't interested in working on it. But I am! He says his responses are available in published sources for good faith editors. I asked him for some sources for the issue of "consent" and "willingness", and he e-mailed some scholarly articles. Particularly relevant discussion, he said, was found in: Rind, B., Tromovitch, Ph., & Bauserman, R., The Validity and Appropriateness of Methods, Analyses, and Conclusions in Rind et al. (1998): A Rebuttal of Victimological Critique From Ondersma et al. (2001) and Dallam et al. (2001); Psychological Bulletin, 127, 6, 734-758, 2001
- I do not have a conflict of interest, but I do have access to Dr. Rind by telephone and e-mail. I want to use this access to ask him, from time to time, if he could refer me to reliable secondary sources (he has a great memory). He tolerates my work on Wikipedia as long as I don't drain him about the Wikipedia article with lots of requests and time. It is good that editors know of my contact with Dr. Rind, as we will both go to BLP with complaints about this article if this doesn't get cleaned up eventually in harmony with Wikipedia BLP policies.
- As far as specific edits go, Dr. Rind focused on the December 1998 meeting at the Pauluskirk (St. Paul's Church) in Rotterdam. All the rest of this edit is from talking with him, and you can monitor me via the TALK page on these matters. We think Salter/Dallam based their claim that Dr. Rind attended that meeting on an unreliable e-mail newsletter that was dated before the conference date. That email newsletter (I think it is still on line) was inviting people to the conference, & the conference planners were expecting Dr. Rind to come, since the major focus of the conference was his 1998 paper that was condemned by Congress. This seems to be of considerable interest in Northern Europe. (Der Spiegel, the German equivalent of Time magazine, ran a large article on the Congressional condemnation at the time.) Dr. Rind himself, in fact, did not attend the Rotterdam conference, and Wikipedia has been wrong on this fact for years. The conference was just another one of those things that this unusual pastor did, based on his understanding of his religion. The December 1998 Rotterdam conference was open to the public but attended mostly by clinicians and academics who wanted hear a talk about that jargon laden 1998 paper. Native English speakers can't understand it, and these were native Dutch speakers, some of whom learned enough English in school to understand the spoken English word. People who were not well educated in English or statistics would not be attracted to attend, and would not understand much if they did. The pastor (Name like Visser if I remember correctly) of that church reached out to outcasts: pedophiles, AIDs patients, drug addicts, illegal aliens, the homeless particularly those who were not being well cared for by the Dutch safety net. I believe this conference and the speakers are documented in Dutch newspaper articles published after the conference, I do not imagine that they would have said after the conference that Dr. Rind attended, when in fact he was not physically there. I believe both Dallam and Salter quoted the Dutch papers, but did not correct their error. The conference was about the Rind paper, not about Pedophilia, and was not for a pedophile audience. The citation for the paper presented at the conference is listed on this TALK page, and I believe it has all three authors' names on it. The citation was in WLU's chart, and may be in the archives2 as of today. If you read the paper, you may find that the word pedophilia does not appear once. You can assume you have the consent of the authors regarding to access that paper, if you want it and need formal permission, Dr. Rind may arrange this for you. It is available on line. The authors will give Wikipedia full access to it, if desired. I have not been too interested in working on this Rotterdam conference error, but may get around researching it if I get access to the sources. Dutch newspapers are not easily accessible here, and I don't read Dutch.
- Dr. Rind acknowledges that Dr. Laura libeled her on her radio show, but he would prefer that Wikipedia quoted her libel directly rather have some editor summarize the libel Dr. Laura spoke. Does someone still have the libel that Dr. Laura offered on her radio show? Dr. Rind feels that if you don't have the direct quote from Dr. Laura, you should drop it. I will work on this some other time, too. When we get to that part. I feel Dr. Rind should work to clean the BLP stuff up, but he is busy.
- Full disclosure: I do NOT know personally know who Truthinwriting is, and Dr. Rind does not know him either. I had been lurking, off and on, at the Rind et al. stie, and when I saw Truthinwriting's post at the beginning of December/end of November, I decided to join him and clean this article up. Radvo (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, without a source discussing Dr. Rind's involvement or lack thereof with the conference, the point remains up. However, if there has ever been any discussion of this in a reliable source, I would be very, very happy to include it. An attributed statement by Dr. Rind rebutting Dallam's statement about his alleged attendence at the conference would be adequate in my mind - this would include a posting he made on a personal website or blog if he has one (unlikely, particularly given the controersy itself is over a decade old). This is one of those rare cases where WP: V may be a disadvantage.
- You may want to look into the WP:OTRS, it's possible an e-mail to the wikimedia foundation may be acceptable. It's a bit of a long shot, and I've never seen anything like it happen in my experience, but you never know. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Sadly, Radvo seem to have read the actual study and thus almost anything he contributes here will be based on that, rather than popular opinion which is what Wikipedia should represent. Juice Leskinen (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Good lord! Somebody basing an article on a peer reviewed source! What will we dooooooooooo!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I would encourage anyone connected with Radvo to explain that posting long screeds is unhelpful—really unhelpful, as it makes it too difficult to see any substantive point. Yes, this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but there are many hundreds of contentious topics here which all go through the phase evident recently in this article: new editors arrive to right great wrongs but they seldom take the time to listen to experienced editors, and eventually find themselves blocked as being unable to collaborate. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I don't believe Radvo for a second he's not Dr. Rind. He posts the same way he lectures when I had his class at Temple back in '07 or '08, with the rambling topics and lack of structure. I used to fall asleep in that class. Plus, Radvo talks to Dr. Rind on the phone and has his personal e-mail? That's mighty convenient. And his obvious fervor for painting Rind and this paper as "brilliant"... given Rind's entire publication history for the past 15 years has been nothing but responses and counter-claim pieces on this paper, with a few on restaurant tipping for flavor. I mean who do you think you're fooling? Not that there's anything wrong with it if you are Dr. Rind. The COI policy isn't like the pedo policy; you can still edit. But the other users deserve to know who they are dealing with when someone so vehemently tries to defend this factually accurate but sociologically moronic paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.231.63.96 (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please refrain from such speculation, assume good faith. Juice Leskinen (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
BLP NPF
The Controversy Section contains this clause:
- Laura Schlessinger ... questioned the motives of the authors, WP:NPF asserting the purpose of the study was to allow the homosexual rape of children." WP:AVOIDVICTIM
Dr. Rind, Dr. Tromovitch, and Dr. Bauserman are not public figures and are relatively unknown. This statement is an insult, inflammatory and offensive, and repeating this in the Wikipedia article prejudices the reader from judging the Rind Report on its scientific merit.
Dr. Rind asks the editors here to please delete this repetition of Dr. Laura's libelous statement.
If this cannot be settled with the editors directly, the discussion here, and this appeal, will be taken to the BLP noticeboard. --Radvo (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- It would be much more effective to use simple English with no drama when explaining concerns (and a simple, neutral heading). Do you have a proposal? Use impressive links and BIG fonts and mentions of noticeboards after an inappropriate response occurs. I have no motivation to even try to work out what you are getting at. Johnuniq (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmmm. It does look libelous and unjustified. And I would question Schlessinger's standing to make a statement like that. Did she offer any proof or supporting evidence? On the other hand, I don't think it's a WP:BLP issue (I could be wrong about that, and the passage might not be good for other reasons), because 1) while Schlessinger isn't an expert on the subject (I don't think) and is kind of an _____, she is a well-known social commentator so (for better or worse) what she says about stuff is generally notable, and 2) while Rind is not exactly a major public figure, he was kind of made a public figure by this event; while he may not want to be a public figure, sometimes we don't get a choice in these things. It's not like Schlessinger was picking a random citizen and making fun of his hat. She's entitled to respond to publicly published material, I guess, including second-guessing motivation, I suppose.
- However, the BLP noticeboard may feel differently and it'd be justified to bring this up there and see what they say. If the subject is personally distressed that's an important point. Herostratus (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Laura claimed many things, but the most unfounded and insulting is being used. I replaced it with another claim from the same source that does not have the same level of personal attack. Juice Leskinen (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Laura said what she said. Why censor it just because it was insulting to a specific person? This site is filled with quotations and "summaries of views" where one person insults another. Those don't get censored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.231.63.96 (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's wikipedia policy, learn to love it. Juice Leskinen (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Laura said what she said. Why censor it just because it was insulting to a specific person? This site is filled with quotations and "summaries of views" where one person insults another. Those don't get censored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.231.63.96 (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Laura claimed many things, but the most unfounded and insulting is being used. I replaced it with another claim from the same source that does not have the same level of personal attack. Juice Leskinen (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Replication of Rind et al. (1998) by Heather Ulrich. The sentence, mentioning the replication, is at the end of the lead, but has formatting that makes it invisible to the casual reader.
WLU made one sentence, at the end of the Lead, describing the Ulrich et al. (2005) replication of Rind et al. (1998), invisible to the reader. But that sentence still can be seen when in edit mode. Here is WLU's edit. WLU's edit summary was: "SRMHP not pubmed indexed, which calls for considerable caution."
WLU: Can you point to a WP: policy that states we cannot use, in the Lead, as a reliable secondary source, a scholarly journal that is not "pubmed indexed"? I looked but could not find any Wikipedia guidance on that. I would like to see that policy myself. Do you, or any other editor here, have the WP:URL? If there is no adequate response here, I will seek a neutral third opinion outside this TALK section.
The hidden sentence reads:
- Ulrich et al., seven years after the publication of the Rind et al. (1998) meta-analysis, replicated the study in the The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice and confirmed its main findings. ref: cite journal | url = http://www.srmhp.org/0402/child-abuse.html | title = Child Sexual Abuse: A Replication of the Meta-analytic Examination of Child Sexual Abuse by Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998)| date = 2005-06 | volume = 4 | issue = 2 | last = Ulrich | first = Heather | coauthors = Randolph Mickey, Acheson Shawn | journal = The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice
Some of our previous TALK about SRMHP pasted here:
- 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) 10:03 pm, 18 December 2011, Sunday (1 month, 5 days ago) (UTC−5)
- Radvo interjected: 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 [correction: now 7] times in the Wikipedia's 'Rind et al. controversy' topic; it's footnoted ...: "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 [http://www.srmhp.org/0101/raison-detre.html SRMHP: Our Raison d’Être] Radvo (talk) 1:25 am, 31 December 2011, Saturday (23 days ago) (UTC−5)
- 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) 10:03 pm, 18 December 2011, Sunday (1 month, 5 days ago) (UTC−5)
WLU: This is speculation: SRMHP's editor, Dr. Scott O. Lilienfild, may be widely regarded as a fiercely independent whistle blower, and may have alienated the medical and psychological community with "his" muckraking Journal that aggressively exposes unsupported claims in the medical and social science disciplines. "The establishment", in turn, may refuse his journal a listing on Pubmed. That might be a way for "the establishment" to retaliate against him because of his aggressive whistle-blowing approach to pseudoscience. Or Dr. Lilienfeld may just fiercely guard his independence, and refuses to submit to some Pubmed requirement for listing. He quit the APA when, at first, the organization refused to publish his embarrassing [to the APA] article: Lilienfeld, S O (2002). "When Worlds Collide: Social Science, Politics and the Rind et al. (1998) Child Abuse Meta-Analysis" (PDF). The American Psychologist 57 (3): 177–187. PMID 11905116. Archived from the original on 2003–04–29.
(BTW, Rind et al. controversy quotes this Lilienfeld article 7 times; so there is no "considerable caution" about using him as a source when he writes for the American Psychologist, just "considerable caution" about the journal he edits.) Should I e-mail Dr. Lilienfeld and ask him why his journal is not pubmed listed? On the other hand, I cannot imagine an answer from Dr. Lilienfield that would make your "considerable caution" about SRMHP any less.
I have noticed that, to avoid the controversy, a group of on-line psychiatrists referenced Ulrich et al. (2005-6) with the full citation and abstract—instead of citing the controversial Rind et al. (1998). Take a look at this psychiatrist's post to an Internet help forum. Here's the link. He/she mentions Rind et al. (1998), but does not give its citation or its abstract. This psychiatrist points out to his client that the Rind study was replicated (without giving a citation to the original) and then gives the full citation and link to the abstract for the Ulrich replication. This psychiatrist argues that the successful replication of Rind et al. (1998) is a strong argument for the validity of the results of the later. This on-line psychiatrist gives me the impression that he/she thinks the non-controversial replication is even more important than the original because it is not tainted with the controversy and Congressional condemnation.
Here's the link again. Please read the text to the bottom; I want all editors here to see that this independent psychiatrist has a very different "attitude" toward Rind et al. (1998) and Heather et al. (2005-6) than the editors here who are sympathetic to the unwarranted aggression I associate with editors, like Herostratus, associated with the Pedophile Article Watch PAW. I would love to have this psychiatrist join Wikipedia and bring his sympathetic attitude here, to counterbalance the disrespectful PAW attitudes, but I will NOT invite him to edit here, as that would be WP:MEAT.
In case the link I gave twice above does not work, here is the relevant part:
[Start quote from Psychforums.com: "Ask a Psychiatrist"]
- Rind's meta-analysis was definitive because it collated results of every study extant in the literature up to that time which met criteria for inclusion [1956 to 1994]. Meta-analysis is one of the strongest tools in science. Criticisms of the meta-analysis have been roundly refuted. Furthermore, its results have been confirmed:
- [http://www.srmhp.org/0402/child-abuse.html A Replication of the Meta-analytic Examination of Child Sexual Abuse by Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998)]
- by Heather Ulrich, Mickey Randolph, and Shawn Acheson
- Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, Fall 2005
[End quote]
In the interest of full disclosure: I am not the psychiatrist who wrote that response on line. No COI.
I ask the editors here to comment on my desire to make again visible, in the Lead, the one sentence about Ulrich's replication (This sentence is also pasted into the first indented paragraph above). --Radvo (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
It's very simple: The article more than meets Wikipedias criteria for inclusion. A much lower standard is in place here, you could pretty much use a newspaper article as a source here. That being said, if there is anything in the actual study that is dubious then it could be well worth discussing and might in the end lead us to remove it from the article. Until then, it remains a valid source. Juice Leskinen (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
That is, go ahead and make your edit unless some spectacular counter-argument comes up in the near future. Juice Leskinen (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'd like to read it first at least, but other than that, I've softened on the matter. If I get the full copy from special collections and it has some terrible flaw to it, I'll let you all know. Legitimus (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Legitimus: I'm delighted to read that you have softened on this matter.
- Thanks, Juice, for the encouragement.
- This response is about making this ONE sentence visible in the Lead to the causal reader:
- Ulrich et al., seven years after the publication of the Rind et al. (1998) meta-analysis, replicated the study as her Master's Thesis, published it in the The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, and confirmed its main findings. [The on-line journal in which the replication was published is not PubMed listed.] cite journal | url = http://www.srmhp.org/0402/child-abuse.html | title = Child Sexual Abuse: A Replication of the Meta-analytic Examination of Child Sexual Abuse by Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998)| date = 2005-06 | volume = 4 | issue = 2 | last = Ulrich | first = Heather | coauthors = Randolph Mickey, Acheson Shawn | journal = The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice
- This is an example of the Anthonyhcole method of editing, a method I would like us all to adopt instead of BRD.
- An earlier version of Ulrich's published paper was scholar. google. com/+CHILD+SEXUAL+ABUSE+A+Replication+of+the+Meta-analytic+Examination+of+Child+Sexual+Abuse+by+Rind,+Tromovitch,+and+Bauserman+%281998%29&hl=en&as_sdt=0,39 Heather Marie Ulrich's 2004 MA Thesis, at the Western Carolina University. A copy of this thesis is available in the Hunter Library of Western Carolina University, CULLOWHEE, NC 28723 United States
- WLU removed reference to the Ulrich's replication article from the Lead. The article was published in Amherst, NY by Prometheus Books, in an e-journal (N. B. This is an on-line Internet resource, which is also available in print), published twice a year. The journal's full name is: The scientific review of mental health practice: objective investigations of controversial and unorthodox claims in clinical psychology, psychiatry and social work National Library of Medicine Unique ID: 101137832 [serial] ISSN: 1538-4985 (Print and on-line); LCCN: 2002212537; OCoLC: 48819025.
- There is nothing dubious about the Ulrich et al. study or the journal in which it was published. The published version of Ulrich's article is itself a replication of an MA thesis, presumably under the supervision of Ulrich's Master's thesis advisor. Heather Ulrich's M. A. thesis and the published article are a replication of the Rind et al. meta-analysis (1998), using Dallam and Ondersma's published critique (extensively covered in the main article here). I assume that the Ulrich article was again carefully scrutinized by The SRMHP editor, Dr. Scott Lilienfeld, and other peer reviewers before it was accepted for publication in The SRMHP. Ulrich et al. (2005-6) came up with identical meta-analytical results to Rind et al. (1998). Not only did Rind refute all the Dallam and Ondersma criticism (See Rind, B; Tromovitch P; Bauserman R (2001). "The validity and appropriateness of methods, analyses, and conclusions in Rind et al. (1998): A rebuttal of victimological critique from Ondersma et al. (2001) and Dallam et al. (2001)" (PDF). Psychological Bulletin 127 (6): 734–58. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.6.734. PMID 11726069.), but even when all the criticisms were accepted by Ulrich et al. (2005-6), the Ulrich replication showed that none of the criticism made any difference in the results of the calculations. (BTW, the APA had its own statisticians go over the calculations after Rind et al. first published them; and the American Association for the Advancement of Science looked at the calculations again and also found nothing wrong with them!) It is highly unlikely that Heather Ulrich and her team, her M. A. thesis advisor (out there in wilds of the Carolinas) skewed the results with the same "bias" attributed by Dallam et al. to the Rind et al. team. Neither Rind, nor Ulrich, nor her two male co-authors, nor her MA thesis advisor, nor the APA statistician(s), nor the AAAS, nor Scott Lillienfeld, nor the peer reviewers of the Psychological Bulletin and the SRMHP can all be accused of bias and cherrypicking the studies that were included in the meta-analysis. Rind et al. and Ulrich et al. included all the college sample studies published between 1956 and 1995 inclusive, which had data they could use.
- Reverting WLU, without first discussing with him, is not necessary. I don't want to do to any editor, what I don't want the other editors to do. I can't figure out how WLU's making the Ulrich sentence invisible at the end of the Lead benefits the article, and I am asking him for clarification. I will wait for further word from Legitumus and WLU.
- Ulrich's findings are not consistent with Rind et al. controversy, Section 3.5, Assertions of bias. Ulrich's results are not consistent with the Pedophile Article Watch's and Dallam's suspicion that this study leaves the reader with "the impression that the piece was an endorsement of pedophilia" The results of the Ulrich's Master's Thesis and Ulrich et al. (2005-6) study were not "condemned ... as advocating for the normalization of pedophilia." (She would have never gotten her Master's degree if it had!)
- We could mention, in the main article. that The SRMHP, in which the article was published, is primarily an on-line journal and is not pubmed listed. So readers who care about such things, know this. We might also mention, somewhere, how many times this Rind et al. and Ulrich et al. meta-analysis was formally scrutinized by competent people for error and bias. --Radvo (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)—Radvo (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Alright alright, no need to beat the subject to death. You paint certain users like they're nutcases for trying to protect kids. We had a very, very serious problem here at one point. Serious like people went to prison. It's not really the case anymore and the Pedophile Article Watch is basically defunct now, due to their not being as pressing of a problem anymore. It's cool now, we just have a cautious approach to new editors.
- If you want all of us to get along well and come to rational consensus, you have to stop being so over-dramatic and posting these long rants. Sometimes when you add these 14,000 character posts I just tune it out because I don't have the time and the content is largely redundant. Legitimus (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- So now if you don't like our edits, we don't get blocked anymore, we go to jail. Is this Monopoly, and we have to be careful not to land on the 'Go to Jail' corner of this board? :-)
- If you want all of us to get along well and come to a rational consensus, editors here may have to stop feigning that they don't understand that 58 samples and 59 studies are not the same as "several" samples and "a number of" studies.
- I wrote paragraphs explaining that a "nationally representative sample" is not the same as a convenience sample, a forensic sample, or a clinical sample. Rind spent pages explaining that; if an editor had read Rind, I wouldn't have to repeat that here.
- (I saw all that talk with that new user at the Pedophilia TALK page. His being blocked for what he wrote on the TALK page pissed me off. Assume good faith and don't bite. NOT! How did all that contribute to editing that page?)
- Reading and summarizing Dallam at length is not enough IMHO to qualify an editor to edit here, since Dallam was stupid to take Rind & Rosnow on at their own meta-analysis game. So what are we doing about Dallam now?
- And when Truthinwriting summarizes the Rind et al. findings for us, TWICE, we trash his Findings? The way Truthinwriting was mistreated here was a bite. I know again it wasn't you, but... Radvo (talk) 10:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Chronology
July 1998 - the paper by Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch and Robert Bauserman was published in Psychological Bulletin.
December 1998 - the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) criticized the study for its methodology and conclusions. Criticism of it began to appear on the internet.
March, 1999 - it was then attacked by The Wanderer, a Catholic religious newspaper, talk show host Dom Giordano, and Dr. Laura Schlessinger. In response, the APA declared in a press statement that "the sexual abuse of children is wrong and harmful to its victims" and that "the findings of a research project within an APA journal is in no way an endorsement."
In an internal APA email refFowler, R. (1999). "RE: APA statements". Child Maltreatment Researchers (Mailing List), Retrieved from http://www.ndacan.cornell.edu/cmrlpostings/msg01569.html/ref the President of the APA, Raymond Fowler, wrote
Many critics have demanded that APA repudiate the study. Because the article has attracted so much attention, we have carefully reviewed the process by which it was approved for publication and the soundness of the methodology and analysis. This study passed the journal's rigorous peer review process and has, since the controversy, been reviewed again by an expert in statistical analysis who affirmed that it meets current standards and that the methodology, which is widely used by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to develop guidelines, is sound.
June 9, 1999 - the president of the APA, Raymond Fowler, announced in an open letter to Representative Tom DeLay that there was to be an independent review of the controversial paper.
July 12, 1999] - the United States House of Representatives unanimously passed a resolution declaring that "sexual relations between children and adults are abusive, exploitive, and reprehensible, and should never be considered or labeled as harmless or acceptable." It condemned the study specifically on the grounds that "pedophiles and organizations, such as the North American Man-Boy Love Association, that advocate laws to permit sex between adults and children are exploiting the study to promote and justify child sexual abuse." [1] The resolution was passed unanimously in the Senate.
September 15, 1999 - the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), whom APA under political pressure had asked for an independent review of the article, did refuse to review the article again in order to respond to its political rejection saying that: We see no reason to second guess the process of peer review used by the APA journal in its decision to publish the article in question. While not without its imperfections, peer review is well established as a standard mechanism for maintaining the flow of scientific information that scientists can refer to, critique or build on. After examining all the materials available to the committee, we saw no clear evidence of improper application of methodology or other questionable practices on the part of the article's authors.
The Committee also wishes to express its grave concerns with the politicization of the debate over the article's methods and findings. In reviewing the set of background materials available to us, we found it deeply disconcerting that so many of the comments made by those in the political arena and in the media indicate a lack of understanding of the analysis presented by the authors or misrepresented the article's findings. All citizens, especially those in a position of public trust, have a responsibility to be accurate about the evidence that informs their public statements. We see little indication of that from the most vocal on this matter, behaviour that the Committee finds very distressing.
The AAAS's Committee of Scientific Freedom and Responsibility reported that they "saw no clear evidence of improper application of methodology or other questionable practices on the part of the article's authors." However, AAAS also added that "if there were such problems, uncovering them would be the task of those reviewing it prior to publication or to readers of the published article" and attached the following disclaimer: "The fact that the Committee has chosen not to proceed with an evaluation of the article in the Psychological Bulletin should not be seen either as endorsement or criticism of it." (p. 3)
March 2002 - The fact that politics has intervened in the field of science has raised many from researchers concerned about its implications for the independence of the scientific peer-reviewing process. Some, including two Psychological Bulletin editors, call Raymond Fowler's June 9 letter a capitulation to political pressure. The affair was also later discussed in issue of another APA journal, American Psychologist.--Radvo (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Is the a new section you want to add or what are we supposed to do here? --Juice Leskinen (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is simply an earlier version of the main page that I copied from the history of this page back to here. There is a lot of material that was posted to the main page and then, IMHO, kind of chaotically removed again. I wanted to make a time-line from July 1998 through, say, 2002, so editors can get a more holistic sense of the chronology of events. This above could be the beginning of such a time-line. As you come across dates, please consider adding them into the time line above. This chronological picture, when more detailed and complete. may be useful in the future. Something like this may be non-controversial, and, therefore, "safer" to work on... --Radvo (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Should consent be explained?
Rind et al. mentions consent and this is quite a controversial issue that has been completely erased from the current article. Few people seem to understand what they actually claimed and get all riled up over their overactive imaginations. Is it possible to explain it so people understand and including it in the article, or does peoples brains just shut-off when the topic is brought before their eyes?
(feel free to read the original article if you have no idea what I'm talking about)—Juice Leskinen (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Indeed many facets of this work seem to get hung up on both terminology and unfortunate implications. What specifically did you have in mind? I am reading the original text and I am not clear how consent is defined according to the paper. Legitimus (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- They expand on it here: http://psych.colorado.edu/~willcutt/res_meth/Rind_2001.pdf page 752 section Consent. To make a long story short, they are not talking about informed consent but what they term simple consent which is much less strict and is something children and adolescents are capable of. Juice Leskinen (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that the word itself, "consent, " is a heavily loaded word, in legal and medical circles, and to the general public. Rind can argue til he's blue in the face in his 2001 rebuttal paper, it will not change the fact that saying the children "consented" is going to sound very bad. Remember, this article is supposed to be targeted at non-professionals. If the subject is to be integrated, the words must be chosen carefully. Legitimus (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- That is why I was wondering if it can be explained in the article. It shouldn't be impossible to add a info-box or simple description in the needed sections. To me, it sounds a lot better than "censoring" information because the readers are too ignorant. I mean, that's a pretty bleak picture of what Wikipedia is all about. --Juice Leskinen (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- All agreed? I'll go ahead and add it once I have some time over. Perhaps in the weekend. Please let me know if there is any issues with this in the coming days. --Juice Leskinen (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Give it a shot. If I have an issue with the wording, I'll try an edit, rather than revert. Legitimus (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Legitimus: Is this an example of your cautious approach to new editors? Give me a break! I assume good faith, but, based on the long history in "a number of" archives that I have read, I fear this is a setup!
- Juice Leskinen: Welcome again to Rind et al. Controversy. I am glad you want to contribute to Wikipedia. Better a little fire to warm us than a great one that will burn us. IMHO, you are being set up with WP:ROPE. Don't take it. Elucidating Dr. Rind's concept of consent/willingness is an extremely difficult and controversial concept to take on as a new editor to this topic. Legitimus's earlier cautions are well advised. Even Dr. Rind no longer uses the word consent, he uses "willing." I strongly discourage this difficult topic, as your new focus, if you want to survive long term as an editor here. As on the Pedophilia topic, the edits here are tightly controlled by mainstream editors. Pro-Rind editors are soon blocked and banned by those who know the administrators and the rules. A month ago Truthinwriting and I could not convince the old time editors, who were playing dumb, and who clearly WP:OWN this board, that 59 is quite a bit more than "several". Even small improvements have to be fiercely fought for. The cabal here conned the professor into writing a summary of the Rind et al. study (1998) findings twice, and then deleted it all. The professor probably has better things to do with his volunteer time, thank you very much. He understands and accepts the ownership problem, so he politely disappeared and will contribute his expertise elsewhere. See the archives. Please post simple, non-controversial edits first here on the TALK page. Read the Archives and learn how things work here. Take it easy. you don't want to write things that will cause the main article to become protected. Discontent with the public is only the first step in making progress; your attitude toward the public also needs some further work. Take care what you put on your TALK page and in your SANDBOX as everything about you is being aggressively scrutinized. As a new editor, you cannot assume you are being treated in good faith. It just does not work that way around here. For example, Work on WP: OWNERSHIP issues; you won't be banned for doing that!
- Here is an enigma to contemplate from Epicurus, from the 3rd Century B. C. "Do not spoil what you have by desiring what you have not; but remember that what you now have was once among the things only hoped for." There are people around the world watching this board closely, and translating the main board every day. They are rooting for you to make genuine contributions to Wikipedia, but you have to survive as an editor to contribute. Radvo (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, you are probably right that this is a trap. I will avoid the subject for now. Juice Leskinen (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Whatever. I'm not an admin and so cannot block people. That is other user's decisions. And I was more than forthcoming with my warnings about how it was not a good idea, but if someone is going to insist, I do not enjoy arguing with people. It's not setting someone up to convey the message "OK fine, don't listen to me. But don't say I didn't warn you."Legitimus (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, you are probably right that this is a trap. I will avoid the subject for now. Juice Leskinen (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Popular media documentation of the Rind et al. (1998) controvery.
Giordano: Psychiatrists driving him mad Giordano, Dom. "Giordano: Psychiatrists driving him mad." News Gleaner (Philadelphia, PA) 25 Jun. 2003, News: NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
PITTS CONDEMNS CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE REPORT LAWMAKERS DISTORT FINDINGS, AUTHORS SAY Schreiber, Ernest. "PITTS CONDEMNS CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE REPORT LAWMAKERS DISTORT FINDINGS, AUTHORS SAY." Lancaster New Era (PA) 22 May, 1999, L: A-6. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
LOCAL STUDY ON PEDOPHILIA IS RAISING A NATIONAL FUROR Burling, Stacey. "LOCAL STUDY ON PEDOPHILIA IS RAISING A NATIONAL FUROR." Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA) 10 Jun. 1999, SF, NATIONAL: A01. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
HOUSE DECRIES A CHILD-SEXUAL-ABUSE STUDY THE REPORT, PUBLISHED LAST YEAR, SAID THAT LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF THE ENCOUNTERS WERE NOT AS SERIOUS AS MANY BELIEVED. Burling, Stacey. "HOUSE DECRIES A CHILD-SEXUAL-ABUSE STUDY THE REPORT, PUBLISHED LAST YEAR, SAID THAT LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF THE ENCOUNTERS WERE NOT AS SERIOUS AS MANY BELIEVED.." Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA) 13 Jul. 1999, SF, NATIONAL: A11. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
DESPITE STIR, SEX-ABUSE STUDY WON'T BE REVIEWED SOME SAW THE WORK AS PRO-PEDOPHILIA. A GROUP ASKED TO REVIEW IT SAID IT COULD FIND NO REASON TO. Burling, Stacey. "DESPITE STIR, SEX-ABUSE STUDY WON'T BE REVIEWED SOME SAW THE WORK AS PRO-PEDOPHILIA. A GROUP ASKED TO REVIEW IT SAID IT COULD FIND NO REASON TO.." Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA) 17 Nov. 1999, SF, NATIONAL: A20. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Object to lowering age of consent [Last Name], [First Name]. "Object to lowering age of consent." Reporter, The (Lansdale, PA) 8 Jun. 2002, News: NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Sex, age, consent and the courts Staff Writer, MATT PACENZA. "Sex, age, consent and the courts." Times Union, The (Albany, NY) 7 Aug. 2005, 3, Main: A1. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Life's journey is a myth-busting affair - PSYCHOLOGY Duffy, Michael. "Life's journey is a myth-busting affair - PSYCHOLOGY." Sydney Morning Herald, The (Australia) 13 Mar. 2010, First, Spectrum: 12. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
AROUND TOWN [Last Name], [First Name]. "AROUND TOWN." Sun, The: Lisle (IL) 9 Jun. 2006, AROUND TOWN: 9. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
A Question of Resilience Times, New York. "A Question of Resilience." Ocala Star-Banner (FL) 30 Apr. 2006,: NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
THE ABRAMS REPORT For December 15, 2005 Abrams, Dan. "THE ABRAMS REPORT For December 15, 2005." MSNBC 15 Dec. 2005, News, International: NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012. (part 1)
THE ABRAMS REPORT For December 15, 2005 Abrams, Dan. "THE ABRAMS REPORT For December 15, 2005." MSNBC 15 Dec. 2005, News, International: NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012. (part 2)
Professors' book on homosexuality will be published [Last Name], [First Name]. "Professors' book on homosexuality will be published." Chronicle Herald, The (Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada) 14 Oct. 2005, Nova Scotia: B7. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
American publisher kills Acadia profs' tome on history of gay sex [Last Name], [First Name]. "American publisher kills Acadia profs' tome on history of gay sex." Chronicle Herald, The (Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada) 1 Oct. 2005, Front: NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
The Trauma Society - I. II. III. IV. V. Satel, Sally. "The Trauma Society - I. II. III. IV. V.." New Republic, The 19 May, 2003, Books & The Arts: NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Why we’re still in the dark about sex The Hartford Courant, GARRET CONDON. "Why we’re still in the dark about sex." Repository, The (Canton, OH) 8 Oct. 2002, Lifestyle: NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
STUDIES PUSH CHANGE IN SOCIETY'S VIEW OF PEDOPHILIA O'KEEFE, MARK. "STUDIES PUSH CHANGE IN SOCIETY'S VIEW OF PEDOPHILIA." St. Paul Pioneer Press (MN) 17 Jun. 2002, City, EXPRESS: F6. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Internet Child Porn: DARK IMAGES; Obsessed viewers defy categorization Kita, Walter. "Internet Child Porn: DARK IMAGES; Obsessed viewers defy categorization." New Haven Register (CT) 5 May, 2002, Main News: a1. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Promoting pedophilia - Attempts to legitimize adult-child sex on rise McCain, Robert Stacy. "Promoting pedophilia - Attempts to legitimize adult-child sex on rise." The Washington Times 19 Apr. 2002, NATION CULTURE, ET CETERA: A02. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Professor's views on pedophilia draw fire - UMKC faculty member's writings suggest not all sex with children is 'evil. ' [Last Name], [First Name]. "Professor's views on pedophilia draw fire - UMKC faculty member's writings suggest not all sex with children is 'evil. '." Columbia Daily Tribune (MO) 1 Apr. 2002,: NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
UMKC scholar's views on pedophilia rile many FRANEY, LYNN. "UMKC scholar's views on pedophilia rile many." Kansas City Star, The (MO) 1 Apr. 2002, METROPOLITAN, METRO: B1. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Group drops plans for review of controversial child sex-abuse study Burling, Stacey. "Group drops plans for review of controversial child sex-abuse study." The Dallas Morning News 3 Dec. 1999, THIRD, NEWS: 51A. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Psychologists abandon child sex-abuse study Cite 'politicization' Knight Ridder Newspapers, Stacey Burling. "Psychologists abandon child sex-abuse study Cite 'politicization'." Charleston Gazette (WV) 28 Nov. 1999,: P11D. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
K6740 BC-MED-SEXABUSE 11-17 072 [Last Name], [First Name]. "K6740 BC-MED-SEXABUSE 11-17 072." Hawk Eye, The (Burlington, IA) 21 Nov. 1999, National: NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Group drops plans for review of child sex-abuse study BURLING, STACEY. "Group drops plans for review of child sex-abuse study." Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 21 Nov. 1999, Early, A News: 14. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
APA [Last Name], [First Name]. "APA." Hawk Eye, The (Burlington, IA) 16 Nov. 1999, Commentary: NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
MENTAL HEALTH STUDIES RILE CONSERVATIVES SCRIPPS HOWARD, JOAN LOWY. "MENTAL HEALTH STUDIES RILE CONSERVATIVES." Plain Dealer, The (Cleveland, OH) 21 Aug. 1999, FINAL / ALL, RELIGION: 3F. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Battle over values heats up News Service, Scripps Howard. "Battle over values heats up." The Cincinnati Post 19 Aug. 1999, Final, News: 6A. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
CHRISTIAN RIGHT'S HACKLES RAISED BY SEX STUDIES LOWY, JOAN. "CHRISTIAN RIGHT'S HACKLES RAISED BY SEX STUDIES." Scripps Howard News Service 18 Aug. 1999, Scripps Howard News ServiceNational/Health Science Technology: NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Controversies cloud APA convention - Premier psychological body's reports on child abuse still draw criticism Duin, Julia. "Controversies cloud APA convention - Premier psychological body's reports on child abuse still draw criticism." The Washington Times 12 Aug. 1999, 2, A CULTURE, ET CETERA: A2. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
MISGUIDED UPROAR OVER SEXUAL ABUSE STUDY MUDDIES WATERS TAVRIS, CAROL. "MISGUIDED UPROAR OVER SEXUAL ABUSE STUDY MUDDIES WATERS." Sun-Sentinel 23 Jul. 1999, Broward Metro, EDITORIAL: 23A. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Advocates for the good win with time, effort Wade F. Horn, Dr.. "Advocates for the good win with time, effort." The Washington Times 29 Jun. 1999, 2, E FAMILY TIMES FATHERLY ADVICE: E2. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Legitimizing Pedophilia Opens Door to Predators LaRue, Jan. "Legitimizing Pedophilia Opens Door to Predators." The Washington Times 14 Jun. 1999, Vol. 15, No. 22, FAIR COMMENT: 28. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Child sex abuse report draws fire New York Times Service, Erica Goode. "Child sex abuse report draws fire." Charleston Gazette (WV) 13 Jun. 1999,: P16A. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Child sex abuse finds a defender Byrne, Dennis. "Child sex abuse finds a defender." Chicago Sun-Times 13 Jun. 1999, LATE SPORTS FINAL, EDITORIAL: 33. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Report brings flurry of criticismReport on child sex abuse trivializes its effects, critics claimBy ERICA GOODE [Last Name], [First Name]. "Report brings flurry of criticismReport on child sex abuse trivializes its effects, critics claimBy ERICA GOODE." Salina Journal, The (KS) 13 Jun. 1999, News: NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Outrage over study forces retreat on research [Last Name], [First Name]. "Outrage over study forces retreat on research." Hutchinson News, The (KS) 11 Jun. 1999,: NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
APA buckles under criticism MYERS, JIM. "APA buckles under criticism." Tulsa World 11 Jun. 1999, Final Home Edition, NEWS: 8. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Science falls to advocacy Cobb, Dan. "Science falls to advocacy." Victoria Advocate, The (TX) 11 Jun. 1999,: 10A. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
AMERICA STILL IN THE DARK ABOUT SEX - POLITICAL AGENDAS CRIMP RESEARCH INTO BEHAVIOR CONDON, GARRET. "AMERICA STILL IN THE DARK ABOUT SEX - POLITICAL AGENDAS CRIMP RESEARCH INTO BEHAVIOR." Hartford Courant, The (CT) 30 May, 2002, 7 SPORTS FINAL, MAIN: A1. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
How low will we go? Tolerance of pedophilia looms as next step in descent Thomas, Cal. "How low will we go? Tolerance of pedophilia looms as next step in descent." Sun, The (Baltimore, MD) 26 Nov. 2003, FINAL, EDITORIAL: 17A. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
How low will we go? Tolerance of pedophilia looms as next step in descent Thomas, Cal. "How low will we go? Tolerance of pedophilia looms as next step in descent." Sun, The (Baltimore, MD) 26 Nov. 2003, FINAL, EDITORIAL: 17A. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
AMERICA STILL IN THE DARK ABOUT SEX - POLITICAL AGENDAS CRIMP RESEARCH INTO BEHAVIOR CONDON, GARRET. "AMERICA STILL IN THE DARK ABOUT SEX - POLITICAL AGENDAS CRIMP RESEARCH INTO BEHAVIOR." Hartford Courant, The (CT) 30 May, 2002, 7 SPORTS FINAL, MAIN: A1. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Report brings flurry of criticismReport on child sex abuse trivializes its effects, critics claimBy ERICA GOODE [Last Name], [First Name]. "Report brings flurry of criticismReport on child sex abuse trivializes its effects, critics claimBy ERICA GOODE." Salina Journal, The (KS) 13 Jun. 1999, News: NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Legitimizing Pedophilia Opens Door to Predators LaRue, Jan. "Legitimizing Pedophilia Opens Door to Predators." The Washington Times 14 Jun. 1999, Vol. 15, No. 22, FAIR COMMENT: 28. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Advocates for the good win with time, effort Wade F. Horn, Dr.. "Advocates for the good win with time, effort." The Washington Times 29 Jun. 1999, 2, E FAMILY TIMES FATHERLY ADVICE: E2. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
MISGUIDED UPROAR OVER SEXUAL ABUSE STUDY MUDDIES WATERS TAVRIS, CAROL. "MISGUIDED UPROAR OVER SEXUAL ABUSE STUDY MUDDIES WATERS." Sun-Sentinel 23 Jul. 1999, Broward Metro, EDITORIAL: 23A. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Controversies cloud APA convention - Premier psychological body's reports on child abuse still draw criticism Duin, Julia. "Controversies cloud APA convention - Premier psychological body's reports on child abuse still draw criticism." The Washington Times 12 Aug. 1999, 2, A CULTURE, ET CETERA: A2. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
CHRISTIAN RIGHT'S HACKLES RAISED BY SEX STUDIES LOWY, JOAN. "CHRISTIAN RIGHT'S HACKLES RAISED BY SEX STUDIES." Scripps Howard News Service 18 Aug. 1999, Scripps Howard News ServiceNational/Health Science Technology: NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Battle over values heats up News Service, Scripps Howard. "Battle over values heats up." The Cincinnati Post 19 Aug. 1999, Final, News: 6A. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
MENTAL HEALTH STUDIES RILE CONSERVATIVES SCRIPPS HOWARD, JOAN LOWY. "MENTAL HEALTH STUDIES RILE CONSERVATIVES." Plain Dealer, The (Cleveland, OH) 21 Aug. 1999, FINAL / ALL, RELIGION: 3F. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
APA [Last Name], [First Name]. "APA." Hawk Eye, The (Burlington, IA) 16 Nov. 1999, Commentary: NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Group drops plans for review of child sex-abuse study BURLING, STACEY. "Group drops plans for review of child sex-abuse study." Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 21 Nov. 1999, Early, A News: 14. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
K6740 BC-MED-SEXABUSE 11-17 072 [Last Name], [First Name]. "K6740 BC-MED-SEXABUSE 11-17 072." Hawk Eye, The (Burlington, IA) 21 Nov. 1999, National: NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Psychologists abandon child sex-abuse study Cite 'politicization' Knight Ridder Newspapers, Stacey Burling."Psychologists abandon child sex-abuse study Cite 'politicization'." Charleston Gazette (WV) 28 Nov. 1999,: P11D. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Group drops plans for review of controversial child sex-abuse study Burling, Stacey. "Group drops plans for review of controversial child sex-abuse study." The Dallas Morning News 3 Dec. 1999, THIRD, NEWS: 51A. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
UMKC scholar's views on pedophilia rile many FRANEY, LYNN. "UMKC scholar's views on pedophilia rile many." Kansas City Star, The (MO) 1 Apr. 2002, METROPOLITAN, METRO: B1. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Professor's views on pedophilia draw fire - UMKC faculty member's writings suggest not all sex with children is 'evil. ' [Last Name], [First Name]. "Professor's views on pedophilia draw fire - UMKC faculty member's writings suggest not all sex with children is 'evil. '." Columbia Daily Tribune (MO) 1 Apr. 2002,: NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Promoting pedophilia - Attempts to legitimize adult-child sex on rise McCain, Robert Stacy. "Promoting pedophilia - Attempts to legitimize adult-child sex on rise." The Washington Times 19 Apr. 2002, NATION CULTURE, ET CETERA: A02. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Internet Child Porn: DARK IMAGES; Obsessed viewers defy categorization Kita, Walter. "Internet Child Porn: DARK IMAGES; Obsessed viewers defy categorization." New Haven Register (CT) 5 May, 2002, Main News: a1. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
STUDIES PUSH CHANGE IN SOCIETY'S VIEW OF PEDOPHILIA O'KEEFE, MARK. "STUDIES PUSH CHANGE IN SOCIETY'S VIEW OF PEDOPHILIA." St. Paul Pioneer Press (MN) 17 Jun. 2002, City, EXPRESS: F6. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Why we’re still in the dark about sex The Hartford Courant, GARRET CONDON. "Why we’re still in the dark about sex." Repository, The (Canton, OH) 8 Oct. 2002, Lifestyle: NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
The Trauma Society - I. II. III. IV. V. Satel, Sally. "The Trauma Society - I. II. III. IV. V.." New Republic, The 19 May, 2003, Books & The Arts: NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
American publisher kills Acadia profs' tome on history of gay sex [Last Name], [First Name]. "American publisher kills Acadia profs' tome on history of gay sex." Chronicle Herald, The (Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada) 1 Oct. 2005, Front: NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Professors' book on homosexuality will be published [Last Name], [First Name]. "Professors' book on homosexuality will be published." Chronicle Herald, The (Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada) 14 Oct. 2005, Nova Scotia: B7. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
THE ABRAMS REPORT For December 15, 2005 Abrams, Dan. "THE ABRAMS REPORT For December 15, 2005." MSNBC 15 Dec. 2005, News, International: NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
THE ABRAMS REPORT For December 15, 2005 Abrams, Dan. "THE ABRAMS REPORT For December 15, 2005." MSNBC 15 Dec. 2005, News, International: NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
A Question of Resilience Times, New York. "A Question of Resilience." Ocala Star-Banner (FL) 30 Apr. 2006,: NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
AROUND TOWN [Last Name], [First Name]. "AROUND TOWN." Sun, The: Lisle (IL) 9 Jun. 2006, AROUND TOWN: 9. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Giordano: Psychiatrists driving him mad Giordano, Dom. "Giordano: Psychiatrists driving him mad." News Gleaner (Philadelphia, PA) 25 Jun. 2003, News: NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
HOUSE DECRIES A CHILD-SEXUAL-ABUSE STUDY THE REPORT, PUBLISHED LAST YEAR, SAID THAT LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF THE ENCOUNTERS WERE NOT AS SERIOUS AS MANY BELIEVED. Burling, Stacey. "HOUSE DECRIES A CHILD-SEXUAL-ABUSE STUDY THE REPORT, PUBLISHED LAST YEAR, SAID THAT LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF THE ENCOUNTERS WERE NOT AS SERIOUS AS MANY BELIEVED.." Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA) 13 Jul. 1999, SF, NATIONAL: A11. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
DESPITE STIR, SEX-ABUSE STUDY WON'T BE REVIEWED SOME SAW THE WORK AS PRO-PEDOPHILIA. A GROUP ASKED TO REVIEW IT SAID IT COULD FIND NO REASON TO. Burling, Stacey. "DESPITE STIR, SEX-ABUSE STUDY WON'T BE REVIEWED SOME SAW THE WORK AS PRO-PEDOPHILIA. A GROUP ASKED TO REVIEW IT SAID IT COULD FIND NO REASON TO.." Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA) 17 Nov. 1999, SF, NATIONAL: A20. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Object to lowering age of consent [Last Name], [First Name]. "Object to lowering age of consent." Reporter, The (Lansdale, PA) 8 Jun. 2002, News: NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Sex, age, consent and the courts Staff Writer, MATT PACENZA. "Sex, age, consent and the courts." Times Union, The (Albany, NY) 7 Aug. 2005, 3, Main: A1. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Psychology group regrets publishing pedophilia report - Practice not always harmful, article said Duin, Julia. "Psychology group regrets publishing pedophilia report - Practice not always harmful, article said." The Washington Times 10 Jun. 1999, 2, A NATION: A10. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Outrage over study forces retreat on research [Last Name], [First Name]. "Outrage over study forces retreat on research." Associated Press Archive 10 Jun. 1999,: NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Coburn condemns psychological study MYERS, JIM. "Coburn condemns psychological study." Tulsa World 2 Jun. 1999, Final Home Edition, NEWS: 11. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Thank Heaven for Little Boys Plotz, David. "Thank Heaven for Little Boys." Slate (USA) 28 May, 1999, strange bedfellow: NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Hill joins pedophilia-study critics - Lawmakers urge professional journal to disavow report Duin, Julia. "Hill joins pedophilia-study critics - Lawmakers urge professional journal to disavow report." The Washington Times 13 May, 1999, 2, A NATION: A4. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Baffling conclusions about child sex abuse Wade F. Horn, Dr.. "Baffling conclusions about child sex abuse." The Washington Times 20 Apr. 1999, 2, E FAMILY TIMES FATHERLY ADVICE: E2. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Pedophilia made to look benign Laura Schlessinger, Dr.. "Pedophilia made to look benign." The Washington Times 20 Apr. 1999, 2, E FAMILY TIMES TALKING WITH DR. LAURA: E1. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
PEDOPHILIA STUDY IS 'JUNK SCIENCE' SCHLESSINGER, DR. LAURA. "PEDOPHILIA STUDY IS 'JUNK SCIENCE'." Post-Tribune (IN) 18 Apr. 1999, ALL, LIFESTYLE: D7. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Sexual-abuse study disgusts concerned dad Schlessinger, Dr. Laura. "Sexual-abuse study disgusts concerned dad." The Dallas Morning News 15 Apr. 1999, THIRD, TODAY: 8C. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Apparition of Lolita nation? Saunders, Debra. "Apparition of Lolita nation?." The Washington Times 28 Mar. 1999, 2, B COMMENTARY: B4. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Lolita Nation SAUNDERS, DEBRA J.. "Lolita Nation." THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE 28 Mar. 1999, SUNDAY, EDITORIAL: 7. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Critics assail study affirming pedophilia - Reaction flares on Internet, talk radio Duin, Julia. "Critics assail study affirming pedophilia - Reaction flares on Internet, talk radio." The Washington Times 23 Mar. 1999, 2, A: A1. NewsBank. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
| HOW TO CITE NEWSBANK |
| NewsBank and Readex republish electronic articles and documents that were originally published in a wide variety of sources and formats. Specific guidelines on how to create bibliographic citations for article types common in NewsBank and Readex products are given here. Start by choosing either MLA or APA citation style.
The information in this Help file is based on reference material published by THE OWL at Purdue in the MLA and APA Formatting and Style Guides and Supplements to both the Hacker and Lunsford Handbooks on Documenting Sources. For more information, see the additional links in the Citation Sources Used section of Help. Note on Indentation: For both APA and MLA style, these guidelines follow patterns of indenting citations three spaces after the initial line. Other authorities use different indentation standards. For more information, check with your instructor about his or her preferences, or you may choose to consult any of the references listed in Citation Sources Used. For more information on how to export articles, see Export Articles. |
--Radvo (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
December 18th 1998 conference sponsored by the Rev. Hans Visser, Pauluskerk, Rotterdam
A symposium, entitled De Andere Kant van de Medaille. Over de Vraag: Is Pedofilie Misbruik van Kinderen? (The Other Side of the Coin. About the Question: Is Pedophilia Child Abuse?) was held in Rotterdam on December 18, 1998: an academic paper, written by Bruce Rind, Robert Bauserman, and Philip Tromovitch, was read in English at this conference; the paper reported on the two meta-analyses and was titled An Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Based on Nonclinical Samples
The Pauluskerk (St. Paul's Church) is a parish of the Netherlands Reformed Church, located in Rotterdam. For twenty years, the Church, in association with the interdenominational Foundation for Church Social Work, and its pastor the Rev. Hans Visser] advocated for, and spiritually ministered to, drug addicts, the homeless, refugees, illegal aliens, transvestites, transsexuals, and adults attracted to minors. A biography was written about Rev. Visser and his charitable work with these outcasts, and he has himself written at least 19 books, of which 10 have world catolog numbers. The Pastor states in his church's brochure that, just as the church does not advocate drug use, but attempts "to eliminate a burden on drug users, " the church does not advocate sexual acts between adults and minors, and certainly not sexual abuse, but "seeks to nuance the present hysterical persecution of pedophiles as a sexual minority, and begin a dialogue with both them and society about what is truly abusive behavior, and how pedophile sexuality can be exercised responsibly and ethically." (Reference source: Misunderstood Intimacy: A Pastoral Approach to Pedophilia, Rotterdam: Stichting voor Kerkelijk Sociale Arbeid, 1999, p. 4).
Stephanie Dallam (2002) (Pg 129) reported that the Rev. Hans Visser edited a book with the same name as the conference, and the author devoted a section of the book to describing the results of Rind et al.'s (1998) research. For roughly 15 years, from the late 1980's until about 2004 (needs research to confirm dates), the legal age of consent in the Netherlands was 12 years of age. --Radvo (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)—Radvo (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Page number & quote if possible
"In the behavioral sciences, modern works may make passing reference to the study, but largely ignore its more controversial conclusions. [33] "
This reference seems to lead to a book, usually a page number is proper when using books. Can someone give the page number and preferable a quite of the text used to support the statement in the article. The reason I wonder is because this does seem to clash a bit with reality so it would be good to see that this really holds up to scrutiny. --Juice Leskinen (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
If anyone feels strongly about keeping the quoted text, please let me know because I aim to remove it fairly soon unless someone can explain exactly how the source relates to the text. Juice Leskinen (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC) I own that book. I do not have it with me at this moment, but I can get it later today. It's a general psychology book (which was chosen because it offers the most basic views of the field in general) and contains a chapter section on abuse. All I remember is the Rind study is cited once, for a sentence that is something to do with coercion increasing the severity of later mental health issues. Will report back later. Legitimus (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Juice: I was curious myself to know how often the Rind et al. (1998) paper is cited in the scholarly literature. 'Google Scholar' counts the number of times an article is cited in the professional literature.
- In front of each citation in the list below in this Section, is the number of times the article has been cited by other scholars in the professional literature. These are the citations in "our" footnotes for the Rind et al. controversy article, arranged by the number of times the article was cited (as of today) in numerically descending order (i. e., highest # of cites to 0).
717 Rind, B; Tromovitch P, Bauserman R (1998). "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples". Psychological Bulletin 124 (1): 22–53
326 McNally, RJ (2003). "Progress and controversy in the study of posttraumatic stress disorder" (PDF). Annual Review of Psychology 54: 229–252.
277 Holmes, WC; Slap GB (1999). "Sexual abuse of boys: definition, prevalence, correlates, sequelae, and management". Journal of the American Medical Association 280
195 Rind, B; Tromovitch P (1997). "A meta-analytic review of findings from national samples on psychological correlates of child sexual abuse". The Journal of Sex Research34 (3): 237–255.
92 Salter, A (2003). Predators: pedophiles, rapists, and other sex offenders: who they are, how they operate, and how we can protect ourselves and our children. New York: Basic Books
87 Lilienfeld, SO (2002). "When Worlds Collide: Social Science, Politics and the Rind et al. (1998) Child Abuse Meta-Analysis" (PDF). The American Psychologist 57 (3): 177–187. PMID 11905116
80 Dallam, SJ; et al. (2001). "The effects of child sexual abuse: Comment on Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998)" (PDF). Psychological bulletin 127 (6): 715–33
77 Ondersma SJ et al. (November 2001). "Sex with children is abuse: Comment on Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998)"] (PDF). Psychol Bull 127 (6): 707–14.
42 Rind, B; Bauserman R; Tromovitch P (2001). "The condemned meta-analysis on child sexual abuse; Good science and long-overdue skepticism". Skeptical Inquirer: 68–72.
42 Rind, B; Tromovitch P; Bauserman R (2001). "The validity and appropriateness of methods, analyses, and conclusions in Rind et al. (1998): A rebuttal of victimological critique fPsychological Bulletin 127
32 Senn, TE; Carey, MP; Vanable, PA; Coury-Doniger, P; Urban, M (Oct 2007). "Characteristics of Sexual Abuse in Childhood and Adolescence Influence Sexual Risk Behavior in Adulthood". Arch Sex Behav 36 (5)
31 Spiegel, J (2003). Sexual Abuse of Males: The Sam Model of Theory and Practice. Routledge. pp. 9. ISBN 1560324031
31 Rind, B; Tromovitch P; Bauserman R (2000). "Condemnation of a scientific article: A chronology and refutation of the attacks and a discussion of threats to the integrit. Sexuality and Culture 4 (2): 1–62.
21 Garrison, E. G.; Kobor, P. C. (2002). "Weathering a political storm. A contextual perspective on a psychological research controversy". The American psychologist 57 (3): 165–175
13 Dallam, SJ (2001). "Science or Propaganda? An Examination of Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman". Journal of Child Sexual Abuse (Haworth Press) 9 (3/4): 109–134.
10 Baird, B. N. (2002). "Politics, operant conditioning, Galileo, and the American Psychological Association's response to Rind et al. (1998)". The American psychologist 57 (3): 189–19
9 Spiegel, D. (2000). "Suffer the children: Long-term effects of sexual abuse". Society 37 (4): 18–12. doi: doi:10.1007%2FBF02912286
8 Tavris, C. (2000). "The uproar over sexual abuse research and its findings". Society 37 (4): 15–17. doi: doi:10.1007%2FBF02912285
5 Tice, PP; Whittenburg JA, Baker G, Lemmey DE. (2000). "The real controversy about child sexual abuse research: Contradictory findings and critical issues not
5 Whitfield CL; Silberg JL; Fink PJ. Misinformation concerning child sexual abuse and adult survivors.
5 Whittenburg, JA; Tice PP; Baker G; Lemmey DE (2000). "A critical appraisal of the 1998 meta-analytic review of child sexual abuse outcomes reported by Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman". Journal of Child S
2 Rind, B (2006). "Meta Analysis, Moral Panic, Congressional Condemnation, and Science: A Personal Journey". Rosnow RL; Hantula DA. Advances in social & organizational psychology: a tribute to Ralph Rosnow
0 Dallam In Whitfield CL; Silberg JL; Fink PJ. Misinformation concerning child sexual abuse and adult survivors. Routledge
0 Ulrich, Heather (June 9, 2007). "Examining the variability in the long term adjustment of child sexual abuse victims" (PDF). University of Montana
no listing on Google Advance scholar: Wood, Samuel H.; Wood, Ellen Meiksins; Boyd, Denise (2008). The world of psychology. Boston, Mass.: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon
no listing on Google Advance scholar: Ulrich, Heather; Randolph Mickey, Acheson Shawn (2005-06). "Child Sexual Abuse: A Replication of the Meta-analytic Examination of Child Sexual Abuse by Rind, Tromo—Radvo (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
It could be that the scholarly community and the public interested in this topic do not know of Heather Ulrich et al.'s replication of Rind et al. (1998). Even Google Scholar doesn't know about Ulrich, though it does report on other articles in The SRMHP. Wikipedia, with its larger public readership, would provide a useful service to science and to the public by immediately spreading the information about Ulrich's replication and creating interest in it. There is currently one sentence at the end of the Lead that has formatting that makes that sentence about Ulrich's replication invisible to the public. We would like to know if editors would object if we make that sentence now visible. User Legisimus wants to read Ulrich et al. first, we'll wait for her. What about the opinion of User WLU who placed the formating around the sentence, and what is the opinion about this suggestion among other editors?
The relatively high scholarly interest above in Holmes and Slap's article, entitled "Sexual abuse of boys: definition, prevalence, correlates, sequelae, and management" might be especially noted. The scholarly community, and the public, will be well served if we attend somewhat more to the sexual abuse of boys in our Wikipedia article. What do Rind et al., and their critics, and the controversy have to offer to the public and scientific community, on this matter of scholarly interest? There is such relevant information in both the scholarly articles, and in the other secondary media resources that document the controversy, if editors here were willing to focus and study these scholarly and other secondary sources for that specific information, too. Radvo (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)—Radvo (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have obtained Ulrich in full (with considerable difficulty I might add). Suffice it to say the SRMHP does very much seem a fringe journal with a very small following, but the science seems to hold up. For example they have an study I liked that largely discredited the so-called "Dodo bird verdict." And another very interesting study within the subject of repressed/recovered memories that takes things in fresh direction rather than supporting either side of the debate.
- Anyhow, Ulrich's work sounds ok to me. I only use the term "ok" because I am not a stat expert. It's not an easy subject to read. She has several remarks within the work that stand out as of interest in light of conversations had on this talk page so far:
| “ | The analysis and conclusions by Rind et al. (1998) proved to be extremely controversial. Pedophilia advocacy groups used the study to support their view that sexual encounters between children and adults are not detrimental and therefore should be legal. | ” |
| “ | The initial meta-analysis of the 18 psychological correlates yielded very similar results in both metaanalyses. Both studies indicated all correlates to be significant except for locus of control. However, the current meta-analysis found that self-esteem was not a significant correlate. After correcting for the homogeneity of the variance, we found that only six of the correlates remained significant. This finding differs from Rind et al.'s (1998) findings as a result of differing methods used to correct for heterogeneous variances....Therefore, Rind et al.'s (1998) finding that 17 of the 18 psychological correlates were significantly associated with child sexual abuse was not supported in the current meta-analysis. | ” |
| “ | However, the current meta-analysis found that the psychological correlates that were reported as a function of family factors that could be computed were statistically significant. | ” |
- Closing paragraph:
| “ | Some individuals may argue that Rind et al.'s (1998) analysis and this reexamination provide support for those who question or deny that child sexual abuse can sometimes be associated with severe psychological harm. The authors of the current research would hesitate to support such a general statement. Instead, our results, and the results of the Rind et al. meta-analysis, can be interpreted as providing a hopeful and positive message to therapists, parents, and children. Child sexual abuse does not necessarily lead to long-term harm. The finding that there is a possibility of a positive prognosis for future adjustment in child sexual abuse victims can play an integral part in therapy. We suggest that future research focus on the potential moderating variables (i. e., family environment characteristics, therapeutic interventions, or possible genetic predispositions) that enable certain individuals to be resilient in the face of sexual abuse. | ” |
- I have no objection to including of Ulrich's work the lead, provided the mention accurately reflects her findings. Legitimus (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Rind, Tromovitch, & Bauserman concluded...
We ask the question: "How can this controversial article, its results, the views of its 3 authors, best be described?" It is not the editors' job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own, or the majority, view and then defend those edits against all comers. This article, about the controversial Rind Report, will ideally describe the study, the results, and the 3 authors' views, no matter how misguided or repugnant they are to some readers.
Because this topic is controversial and likely to be WP: CHALLENGED, an editor will remove material that is WP: UNSOURCED. Opinions must be WP:SUBSTANTIATED And editors are limited in the extent they may present their own point of view. Wikipedia pages may not be used for any form of advocacy.
The earlier contested sentence reads, in part:
- The authors Rind et al. (1998) concluded that... this does not mean it is not wrong or morally repugnant behavior.
What did Rind et al. (1998) conclude? This is settled by quoting, or paraphrasing, as accurately and as fairly as possible, what Dr. Rind, Dr. Tromovitch, and Dr. Bauserman concluded in Rind et al. (1998). Those who have not read the study may not insert their own words. They will be challenged.
Take care to WP: NOTADVOCATE a particular view as the view of the authors if it is not found in the source.
Here is the citation: Rind, B; Tromovitch P, Bauserman R (1998). "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples". Psychological Bulletin 124 (1): 22–53. doi: doi:10.1037%2F0033-2909.124.1.22. PMID 9670820. Link of the full text of the study..
- From time to time, college libraries put the Rind et al. (1998) article on the web through their University Reserve Systems. So, Boston College currently has photocopies of the original article on the web, but the link will come down again. If WP:editors want to read the study off-line, consider downloading it to your computer while it is still on the web. Here's the currently active link:
A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples.Psychological Bulletin 124 (1): 22–53. doi: doi:10.1037%2F0033-2909.124.1.22. PMID 9670820.
- To "assume good faith" is not enough to contribute to a discussion of this jargon ladened study. Editors who have not even read the study and editors who do not understand this study, IMHO, lack the WP:COMPETENCE to edit this page when editors make edits about the study itself. If an editor openly declares that he/she refuses to read Rind and Tromovitch (1997), Rind et al. (1998), or Ulrich et al. (2005-6), what is he/she doing here? Also, an editor who openly admits that he/she cannot understand the studies after reading them, he/she has already demonstrated incompetence. Inspection of the archives here, shows that technical and academic incompetence is a major cause of disruption to this TALK and WP:editing here. No amount of WP:goodfaith by other editors fixes this incompetence problem. Editors who delve into areas that require statistical competence and an understanding of research methods in the social sciences may operate better where they're capable. We all have different skill sets. Because an editor may be a well-meaning vigilante that seeks to prevent the rape of children (a very desirable goal) does not mean that he/she is also competent to edit the part of this article dealing with Findings, statistics, and research methods in the social sciences. This is the kind of mistake that Dallam made, and Rind walked all over her. There are parts of this article that still reflect Dallam's mistake of taking on Rind mathematically. One of the basic rules of conflict is to take on battles that you have a good chance of winning. Rind and Rosnow know meta-analysis; there are few people who can beat them at that "game." Opponents from moral philosophy, primatology, anthropology, history, sexology, developmental psychology may have a better chance of "scoring some points" in this article. But in math and statistics and research methods, a certain skill set is assumed that is much lacking. No contest! --Radvo (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
"Morally repugnant" is not substantiated in Rind et al. (1998), but it is easy to substantiate that majority viewpoint with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. Instead of edit waring, does anyone have the beginnings of a proposal for including this idea of "morally repugnant"? Just don't attribute them to Rind, Bauserman, or Tromovitch; they wrote the source and they didn't use the term. That "morally repugnant" has to be attributed to another secondary source.
Here are, IMHO, three relevant quotes from Rind et al. (1998).
Quote from Page 47, the last page.
- 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).
Two quotes from page 45:
- "In science, abuse implies that particular actions or inactions of an intentional nature are likely to cause [scientifically measureable] harm to an individual (cf. Kilpatrick, 1987 ; Money & Weinrich, 1983 ). Classifying a behavior as abuse simply because it is generally viewed as immoral, or defined as illegal, is problematic."
- "This history of conflating morality and law with science in the area of human sexuality, by psychologists and others, indicates a strong need for caution."
End
(Aside #1)
I would like include somehow in the main article, Rind et al's, Kilpatrick's, Money's & Weinrich's scientific definition "abuse." See the middle quote above. We accept how "abuse" is defined morally and in the law. How to define "abuse" for the scientists who measure its effects and want to predict its effects? By definition, the scientist cannot measure moral or spiritual harm, so if CSA is defined only morally or legally, it has no predictive value. The scientist has to come up with a definition that he/she can measure.
(Aside #2)
-- Something different --
Males and females (on average) view CSA differently.
Quote form Page 43
- "Schultz and Jones (1983) noted that men tended to see these [CSA] sexual experiences as an adventure and as curiosity-satisfying, whereas most women saw it [CSA] as an invasion of their body or a moral wrong. ... These gender differences in reactions to CSA experiences are consistent with more general gender differences in response to sex among young persons. ... These differences are likely due to an interaction between biologically based gender differences and social learning of traditional sex roles ( Fischer & Lazerson, 1984 ). Researchers (e. g., Kinsey et al., 1948 ; Sorensen, 1973 ) have repeatedly reported that boys are more sexually active than girls .... Social norms tend to encourage sexual expression in adolescent boys but have traditionally emphasized romance and nurturance in girls ( Fischer & Lazerson, 1984 ). Thus, it is unsurprising that men and women should show similar differences in their reactions to CSA."—Radvo (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
What is your point? Do you want to remove the sentence "The authors Rind et al. (1998) concluded that... this does not mean it is not wrong or morally repugnant behavior"? That's reasonable I suppose. Herostratus (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, I'd be leery of relying too much on interpreting the primary source. Is there a not source such a "John Erudite Neutralreporter noted that Rind had said such-and-such" or something? That'd be better. (Granted, this applies also to extracting from the Congressional Motion, where we were on "opposite sides" of the issue, so I dunno. But we do want to be real careful re interpreting primary sources.) Herostratus (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Radvo, but while this particular example is quite easy and obvious I do believe that some of the things they wrote are simply to controversial to be written about in a NPOV perspective on Wikipedia. Juice Leskinen (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Juice: Welcome to Rind et al. Thanks for the new Dr. Laura quote, and your reasons for your edit. I added more to it from another source. You wrote: "Too controversial to be written about in a NPOV?" There is a tremendous amount of verbal skill here. We can work on this together on the TALK page before editing on the main page. WP:GOODFAITH Give us one or two for instances, easy ones for starters, please. Some unsolicited advise: Don't engage in struggles on the main page that you cannot win. They like BRD, but "they" play a hard game around here when you do the Bold. --Radvo (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Better leave it be. I think the only thing that can be done here is damage control. Juice Leskinen (talk) 07:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to add sources
Well, Radvo, you added a load of claims in the following edit: [5] most of which are not supported by the sources we have now. My cleaning of that section fixed that problem. You now recreated it. So, feel free to either clean it up again, and/or add sources that correspond to the claims you have made.
Thanks. Juice Leskinen 20:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
No personal attacks
"Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor." No personal attacks Juice Leskinen 21:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- From WP:No personal attacks: "There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion...
- There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate. Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack."
- From Wikipedia:TALK#Others.27 comments: "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived."
- Juice Leskinen should leave my comments alone, [6] especially the most recent comment by me made in that section. 194.170.28.239 (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I reported it and I will await their response. If that level of attacks is accepted then I have no real problem with that. I have been to places far worse and I can respond in kind. It is however my hope that we could keep the discussion focused on the actual article. Juice Leskinen 22:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Focusing on the actual article is what I am doing. But that comes with focusing on the edits to the article. 194.170.28.240 (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- I did a simple thing: I read the sources used, look at what they said and edited the article according to that. I happily added their perspective on causal harm when there was some complains. Personally I think that topic is too difficult (as we can see by all misunderstandings by both you and Radvo) to handle but I was willing to add it anyway. I also wrote in a comment that everyone in the field admits that there are children who show harm, coming from somewhere. It may seem strange but there is a huge debate about where the harm actually comes from. Even proponents of "your" perspective like David Finkelhor often writes that a causal link cannot not be established and that many children do not appear to be harmed. So, from a scientific point of view you are actually on the verge of being fringe. Juice Leskinen 22:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing fringe about stating that the majority of children are harmed by child sexual abuse. That is the mainstream psychological and scientific view. Also refer to Radvo's response to you again. [7] The more you talk, the more I am convinced of just what type of editor you are. Just like the others, you won't last long here. Nope. Despite how clever you think you are. 194.170.28.241 (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- You are making a causal claim which very few mainstream scientists dare to do. If you read the studies carefully, you will find that very often do they add disclaimers about what causal inferences can be made. This is why it is so hard to deal with articles such as these, because it involves actually reading the scientific literature, something that very few here have done. Juice Leskinen 22:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's not true that very few mainstream scientists make the claim that the majority of children are harmed by child sexual abuse. The Child sexual abuse article is a testament to that. But I suppose it depends on your definition of "scientists." 194.170.28.241 (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a valid reference. Try again. Juice Leskinen 23:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not its own reference. Its articles are generally supported by reliable references. So you need to try again to discredit the fact that the mainstream psychological and scientific view is that child sexual abuse causes harm. Rind et al. is a controversy for a reason, you know. Not just because the majority of non-experts believe that child sexual abuse causes harm. You aren't going to find many experts saying that child sexual abuse will not cause harm or that there's a good chance it won't or hasn't caused harm. 194.170.28.239 (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a valid reference. Try again. Juice Leskinen 23:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's not true that very few mainstream scientists make the claim that the majority of children are harmed by child sexual abuse. The Child sexual abuse article is a testament to that. But I suppose it depends on your definition of "scientists." 194.170.28.241 (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- You are making a causal claim which very few mainstream scientists dare to do. If you read the studies carefully, you will find that very often do they add disclaimers about what causal inferences can be made. This is why it is so hard to deal with articles such as these, because it involves actually reading the scientific literature, something that very few here have done. Juice Leskinen 22:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing fringe about stating that the majority of children are harmed by child sexual abuse. That is the mainstream psychological and scientific view. Also refer to Radvo's response to you again. [7] The more you talk, the more I am convinced of just what type of editor you are. Just like the others, you won't last long here. Nope. Despite how clever you think you are. 194.170.28.241 (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- I did a simple thing: I read the sources used, look at what they said and edited the article according to that. I happily added their perspective on causal harm when there was some complains. Personally I think that topic is too difficult (as we can see by all misunderstandings by both you and Radvo) to handle but I was willing to add it anyway. I also wrote in a comment that everyone in the field admits that there are children who show harm, coming from somewhere. It may seem strange but there is a huge debate about where the harm actually comes from. Even proponents of "your" perspective like David Finkelhor often writes that a causal link cannot not be established and that many children do not appear to be harmed. So, from a scientific point of view you are actually on the verge of being fringe. Juice Leskinen 22:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Focusing on the actual article is what I am doing. But that comes with focusing on the edits to the article. 194.170.28.240 (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I reported it and I will await their response. If that level of attacks is accepted then I have no real problem with that. I have been to places far worse and I can respond in kind. It is however my hope that we could keep the discussion focused on the actual article. Juice Leskinen 22:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi 194. Welcome to Rind et al. controversy. Thanks for all the compliments above. You can be very gracious and complimentary, and it's nice to read that part of you that likes to complment, too. Haven't we met here before? I have a lot of demands on my time just now, so no long sceed now, but I want to at least acknowledge that I have read all of the above. When I was a kid I used to get in verbal spats like that. This makes me feel like a kid again. I may respond in a bit childish way here. I hope this does not offend anyone.
Juice took some words about "CSA causing harm" out of the article. I argued with him that its removal was a mistake. At first, he added the words to the sentence "societal belief" and claimed that Ondersma was the source. That was great. Then he thought about it some more, and then he put those words about "CSA causing harm" back in. He did that himself because he wanted to be responsive and collaborative. You may not have seen that, because once he put those words about "harm" back in, I felt he was giving me "permission" to immediately elaborated on what he wrote—before you probably even saw it. (Now I am on the carpet with him for going too far. I'll find some sources or delete some text to respond to his complaint tomorrow.) Are you happy with how things in the edit turned out for now? If you are, we couldn't have done it without Juice's expert help. We had to go thru that process. That's the genius of Wikipedia. Would you change or improve the wording still more somehow in that sentence? Are you feeling good that the majority view is getting some coverage here, too? Or if it's not yet perfect, can we work together to improve that sentence some more? Maybe Juice will even help us, if we take his views into consideration and we ask him in a nice way. We would be honored is you would choose to collaborate with us in making a great article. You've lurked enough. That shows your interest in what is going on here. We have work to do... Use your talents to help us as you can. Give this a try.
Juice: You obviously know the scholarly literature. I want you to do what you have to do so you stick around. There is a little flag on your signature; you may be especially watched. You're the kid with the eyeglasses on this board who does the homework. We need you to make this article "good." But if I can give you a bit of unsolicited advise: when you have having a fight with someone, the person who is cussing you out, may not be too receptive to learning some of the finer points of the scholarly literature from you at that time. Because of the special scrutiny you are being given, it might be best to just walk away. But I read what you wrote, and I thought that stuff you were writing was very insightful! I understand what you were saying, and I think I might agree with you. So: Help me; teach me. I will try to make a good student for you. Here's a crazy idea. Since you know the literature, suppose you do User:194 a favor. Give him/her a couple of juicy facts and studies from the literature that User:194 wants to hear. There are some decent studies that claim harm; but, okay already, they aren't your favorites. Share some of that scholarly information with him/her here. Imagine that Wikipedia has just retained you at $1,000. per hour to make User:194's case on this board. For that kind of money, with your mastery of the literature, you could come up with lots of studies and arguments and make a great case for him/her. Use your skills and mastery of the literature to help to make an excellent brief. Defense attorneys do this for their clients all the time. You can do this because you know a lot, and importantly you probably know the weaknesses of your own case, too. If you build User:194's trust, if you build a lot of political capital on this board, User:194 might, in time, get to tolerate you—because you are useful in getting User:194's voice heard, When you took words out of the article, I speculate she may have felt you were silencing her voice. She wasn't going to have that. She made her voice very clearly known. So give her a voice in the article, and he/she may find you kind of useful. And she won't have to cuss you out to get a rise out of you. In time, he/she might even return the favor, he/she might let you know how you can more effectively make your case, what places in the argument you may not go, and how to survive here, too.
Here's a minor research study I saw today; it piqued my interest and mild amusement: Girls who are sexually abused are 25% more likely to carry weapons as adolescents. The researcher actually claimed there is a direct causal effect. See Annie Oakley's girls. I figure those adolescent are damn sure, now that they are bigger and teen, they are not going to let anyone abuse them again! Now that's a form of resilience and strong locus of control we can appreciate in such a girl. The weapon gives the feeling that no one will take advantage of her again. That's a kind of comfort such a girl may need. Both of you: how many kids are harmed by sexual abuse is a matter of fact, not to be settled by a shouting match. Even one child who is harmed by child rape (or anything else) is one child too many! Children need our love and our protection. And "it takes a village to raise a child", and we can all do our part to make the community and the world safer and happier for children. We don't want to write anything in the main article that puts kids in danger of harm. I like to think that facts are our friends, and it's wrong to shoot the messenger who brings us facts that we cannot tolerate! Since you guys broke some rules, I figured I would follow this rule WP: IGNORE writing this. But I meant well. When you guys are finished quarreling, I'll be ready to get back to the work of collaboratively making this article better. Specific suggestions on how to improve that sentence, and how to get out of the hot seat with Juice, are especially welcome Let's give more effort to getting along and working collaboratively together... --Radvo (talk) 03:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Radvo, I'm a guy. And the sentence is fine as is. I wasn't cussing Juice out. I just don't feel that Juice should be working on this article. There isn't a thing that will change my opinion on that. You do not need Juice to make this a good article. If Juice were working on this article alone, I am very sure that it would be one big biased article pretending that the belief that child sexual abuse is harmful is just that—a belief—and not something based on studies. 194.170.28.239 (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- In the same way that the emerging mental health profession claimed self-evident conclusions in their investigations of onanism, victimologists claimed solid evidence of a causal connection between CSA and subsequent emotional and psychological problems. However, a careful and thorough reading of some of the outstanding reviews of the literature on the demonstrable effects of CSA (Beitchman et al., 1991, 1992; Browne & Finkelhor, 1986; Constantine, 1981; Conte, 1985; Kendall-Tackett et al., 1993; Kilpatrick, 1992; Rind & Tromovitch, 1997; Rind et al., 1998) suggest that many victimological authors have made unsubstantiated assertions resulting in erroneous observations and conclusions, thus undermining their own hypothesis (Levitt & Pinnell, 1995). That includes hundreds of studies, but I guess your gut-feeling will outweigh any empirical evidence. Juice Leskinen 16:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Does any of that prove that many experts say that child sexual abuse will not cause harm or that there's a good chance it won't or hasn't caused harm? No. And I can't believe you had the nerve to cite Rind, when Rind's study is the very study that is debated/disputed by many experts. That's the whole point of this article. But even Rind doesn't say that child sexual abuse is not likely to cause harm. We all know that there is a minority that supports the view that child sexual abuse may not cause harm and therefore Rind's findings, but that is all they are—a minority. And of course they will insist that they are right, and other experts were or are still drawing "unsubstantiated assertions resulting in erroneous observations and conclusions." The point is that child sexual abuse not causing harm is not mainstream, and not just because society considers child sexual abuse to be wrong. 194.170.28.239 (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- That a causal connection has not been established is the mainstream opinion among scientists. You can read the literature reviews if you are in doubt. Go ahead. Juice Leskinen 16:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- I was not debating a casual connection. I was debating whether or not most experts say that child sexual abuse causes harm. And most, if not all, do (even counting the ones who say it may not always cause harm). Most studies show harm, in one way or another. As Radvo said, "I believe it is a tactical mistake to take out the fact that 'numerous' studies have indeed found that children were harmed by CSA. Most of the 59 studies that Rind meta-analyzed 'found' that 'children' were 'harmed' by sexual activity." That experts have not consistently determined what the harm is, aside from the usual psychological problems they report, does not make it any less true that harm is typically involved. That is what I was saying. The mainstream view among 'scientists' is that child sexual abuse causes harm. I know this by having read the literature, in addition to having dealt with it hands-on. But just so you know, I wouldn't read any cherry-picked sources by you for proof of anything. 194.170.28.241 (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- So you do not claim causal connection, so what we then have is that some children show harm coming from somewhere, which is what I wrote from the start and that you where so dramatic about. The circle is closed. Juice Leskinen 20:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- I was not debating a casual connection. I was debating whether or not most experts say that child sexual abuse causes harm. And most, if not all, do (even counting the ones who say it may not always cause harm). Most studies show harm, in one way or another. As Radvo said, "I believe it is a tactical mistake to take out the fact that 'numerous' studies have indeed found that children were harmed by CSA. Most of the 59 studies that Rind meta-analyzed 'found' that 'children' were 'harmed' by sexual activity." That experts have not consistently determined what the harm is, aside from the usual psychological problems they report, does not make it any less true that harm is typically involved. That is what I was saying. The mainstream view among 'scientists' is that child sexual abuse causes harm. I know this by having read the literature, in addition to having dealt with it hands-on. But just so you know, I wouldn't read any cherry-picked sources by you for proof of anything. 194.170.28.241 (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- That a causal connection has not been established is the mainstream opinion among scientists. You can read the literature reviews if you are in doubt. Go ahead. Juice Leskinen 16:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Does any of that prove that many experts say that child sexual abuse will not cause harm or that there's a good chance it won't or hasn't caused harm? No. And I can't believe you had the nerve to cite Rind, when Rind's study is the very study that is debated/disputed by many experts. That's the whole point of this article. But even Rind doesn't say that child sexual abuse is not likely to cause harm. We all know that there is a minority that supports the view that child sexual abuse may not cause harm and therefore Rind's findings, but that is all they are—a minority. And of course they will insist that they are right, and other experts were or are still drawing "unsubstantiated assertions resulting in erroneous observations and conclusions." The point is that child sexual abuse not causing harm is not mainstream, and not just because society considers child sexual abuse to be wrong. 194.170.28.239 (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- In the same way that the emerging mental health profession claimed self-evident conclusions in their investigations of onanism, victimologists claimed solid evidence of a causal connection between CSA and subsequent emotional and psychological problems. However, a careful and thorough reading of some of the outstanding reviews of the literature on the demonstrable effects of CSA (Beitchman et al., 1991, 1992; Browne & Finkelhor, 1986; Constantine, 1981; Conte, 1985; Kendall-Tackett et al., 1993; Kilpatrick, 1992; Rind & Tromovitch, 1997; Rind et al., 1998) suggest that many victimological authors have made unsubstantiated assertions resulting in erroneous observations and conclusions, thus undermining their own hypothesis (Levitt & Pinnell, 1995). That includes hundreds of studies, but I guess your gut-feeling will outweigh any empirical evidence. Juice Leskinen 16:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, we do not have "some" children harmed by child sexual abuse. We have the majority of, if not all of, children harmed by child sexual abuse in one way or another, which is the prevailing view among experts. And you would do well to stop acting like experts have no idea what type of harm child sexual abuse causes. You keep saying "from somewhere" like they have no clue as to its effects. The fact that child sexual abuse has a different effect on some children does little to deny the reality that some of the same types of effects have been consistently observed in victims of child sexual abuse. You know damn well why I was "so dramatic" about your edit. I wasn't the only one who was "so dramatic" about it either. But you go right ahead and keep ignoring that. Doing so only shows how delusional you are about this topic, much like you pointing me to studies (such as Rind) that are heavily disputed. The mainstream psychological view is not that "some children" are harmed by child sexual abuse. It's that "children" are harmed by child sexual abuse, as in general. Prepubescent children in particular. 213.175.169.130 (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Progress! A majority of girls, but not boys. Harmed in some way or another yes. I agree to this, Rind agrees to this, pretty everyone does. No one has ever disputed this. However once you add—harmed BY child sexual abuse, you are making a causal claim which puts you squarely in a minority position. Sure, you can find some researchers who do make such claims, but they are in a small minority and they do not have an easy task defending their positions. Juice L 06:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Do you realize how ridiculous your argument sounds right now? The majority of girls, not boys, are harmed from something when an adult engages in sex with them, but it may not be the sex that has caused the harm? You sound absolutely unhinged. The harm is coming "from somewhere, " but it's not the sexual activity that caused it? Really, so if the sexual activity had not occurred, the psychological problems that a lot of child sexual abuse victims suffer from would still be there? Even though these victims attribute some, sometimes all, of their psychological problems to child sexual abuse? Highly unlikely. Research has shown that these problems are often a product of the child sexual abuse. The majority of researchers back this; they back that child sexual abuse causes harm. To act like the majority of researchers do not attribute child sexual abuse to harm is simply false. Absurdity at its best. They are not the minority, and it's insane to say that they are. This article shows they are not the minority. The Child sexual abuse article, with its many references, shows they are not the minority, no matter how much you and those like you think that the article is biased. The majority of the psychological community rejected Rind's conclusions about child sexual abuse. That's what most of this article is about. We get it, we get it. You support Rind's, and those of similar sentiments', conclusions about child sexual abuse, but you should stop acting like that view is the majority view among psychologists; it isn't. And citing sources you believe agree with you doesn't make it so. I can't wait until you try to pull this crap at the Child sexual abuse and Pedophilia articles.
- Progress! A majority of girls, but not boys. Harmed in some way or another yes. I agree to this, Rind agrees to this, pretty everyone does. No one has ever disputed this. However once you add—harmed BY child sexual abuse, you are making a causal claim which puts you squarely in a minority position. Sure, you can find some researchers who do make such claims, but they are in a small minority and they do not have an easy task defending their positions. Juice L 06:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Anyway, a troll/horrible editor is trying to get this talk page semi-protected, so I may have to wait a week or more before replying to you again. 221.130.162.48 (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Again, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. People like you is why we have to spend so much time cleaning these articles up so that they do not spread the kind of disinformation that for example the child sexual abuse article does right now. And again, the causal claims are not backed up in science, you just made it up. Bye bye. Juice L 14:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Again, Wikipedia is not its own reference. Like an editor on your talk page told you, its articles are supposed to be supported by reliable sources. That's what the articles I referred to are supported by. I was referring to those sources. Your constant attempt to try and negate that and make it sound like I'm going by Wikipedia's word and not the word of reliable sources is very humorous. Editors like you, who are "new" users yourselves and therefore have no business giving advice to new users anyway, are the reason for most of Wikipedia's problems. Like pedophiles showing up here to claim that they can sexually abuse children all they want and it likely won't cause any harm. Like people believing that Wikipedia is unreliable because it generally makes up its own text. Wikipedia doesn't generally fabricate anything. My saying that most psychologists maintain that child sexual abuse causes harm is also not a fabrication. The only fabrication in this discussion has been your claim that child sexual is generally not shown to cause harm and that most psychologists support that view. C'omn, try to put that type of wording into this article and the other ones I mentioned. I dare you. Your arguments on this matter and the way you are generally quick to respond at this talk page tells me all I need to know about you anyway. 221.130.162.48 (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Again, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. People like you is why we have to spend so much time cleaning these articles up so that they do not spread the kind of disinformation that for example the child sexual abuse article does right now. And again, the causal claims are not backed up in science, you just made it up. Bye bye. Juice L 14:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)