User talk:Truthinwriting

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Truthinwriting, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Rind et al. controversy. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Radvo (talk) 05:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Truthinwriting: I read version 2 of your proposed "Findings in Brief" posted earlier today to Rind et al. controversy. I very much appreciate the revision of your contribution, and I hope it is better received.. I continue to take the attitude that the public and some of the editors on Wikipedia may not agree with the results of the Rind et al. meta-analysis. Your summary serves the public well if it simply reflects, in a fair, verifiable (i.e., sourced) and unbiased way, what the Rind findings were. These findings are not bad news, just completely unexpected. You did a great job, but, if you agree, there may be a bit more tinkering on the text that I would like to discuss (privately?) with you. Your text feels very careful, but IMHO maybe a bit too heavily technical for the average reader. I don't know if that text can be dumbed down a bit without losing its precision. Of course, some readers are quite sophisticated, and would understand.

There is a way to get an e-mail to me via Wikipedia. Would you please try to figure the e-mail method out and send me an e-mail? This can be done anonymously I think thru Wikipedia. I'll try to do the same when I have more time. Alternatively, I will first allow the others on the Topic to respond to your second contribution, and then comment more in the TALK page. It would be easier for everyone if your text was posted in the normal way, and then allow people to cooperatively suggest different ideas. The Wiki software is just great for this.

BTW, I very much liked the last sentence in your first version, and your report on the critic's complaint about the inclusion of the old Landis study. The critics like to complain about the study, but it's great to have a two way conversation. I hope you can post some version of those ideas in another section of the topic someday. Radvo (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

response to radvo

Radvo, thank you for the welcome message and your other comments and support. You can send email to a Wikipedia user by going to their talk page, then expand (if not expanded) the "Toolbox" link in the menu on the left; there you will find an "E-mail this user" link. Note, however, that when you send email the recipient will be able to see not only your Wikipedia name, but also your email address. Furthermore, although "private", email is only private in the sense that it is not posted openly; administrators and such can see the contents if they want to look. BTW, I rarely check the email associated with my Wikipedia account (perhaps about once a month). If it does not seem to work, check your email options in your "user profile" under your "my preferences". Both users must have email enabled, I suspect (which is probably the default, hence it will probably work the first time without checking these things).

You mentioned a desire to make the summary less technical. I agree that in an ideal situation that would be best, however, my limited experience so far these past few weeks suggests that any simplifying might be challenged as being opinion, thus for the time being I suggest we leave it more technical, with a lot of numbers, since that should minimize disagreements. If the more technical summary becomes accepted and remains stable and uncontested for a few months, then a simplified but equally objective version might be worth a try. I just suspect that at this point, it will be hard to achieve a simplified version.

Regarding the Landis material, I took it out since although of great importance to the controversy, it is not really necessary for a brief summary section and I want to minimize contention. I do plan to add it elsewhere in the page, after the brief summary is posted and appears to be relatively stable. Truthinwriting (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

response to Truthinwriting

I very much like your interpersonal skills and deference. They win you cooperation at Wikipedia.

I found all the e-mail information you described above. Thanks. If you check your e-mail only once a month, that method of communication is not functional. You might just erase all this from your user talk after you read this. Or if I need to contact you by e-mail, maybe I'll let you know you should check your e-mail after I notify you here. I do not want to invade your personal privacy by getting access to your e-mail address without you permission. I thought from what I read that Wiki e-mail was anonymous. Have you actually sent wiki-e-mail? Once you had my e-mail address, there would be no need to use Wiki-email again. Just e-mail direct... I want my privacy, but I figure in this day, you can't get too much of it.

I will use your user talk page for now, and maybe a few more comments about your text will follow later.

Here's another version of the text you proposed. Does this version seem as accurate and accessible to you? "The proportion of later personal adjustment variance associated with CSA is 1/2 of 1% for males, and 1% for females. Therefore, the CSA experience(s) failed to explain, on average, 99% of a person's personal adjustment later in life." [end]

The numbers from these Rind studies counter the talk that is repeated in the dominant discourse. This information is deeply disturbing to many, but they need not be.

Some people are deeply affected by the CSA experience, and they benefit from being acknowledged, treated, and deserve our full emotional support and empathy. The Rind results do not negate any one individual's pain and suffering as a result of CSA. I wonder if some expression of sympathy and understanding might not make the Rind message more palatable to many. But how would that be "sourced"?

People were disturbed to learn that the earth is not flat. Some people are deeply disturbed and resistant to the talk of population explosion, climate change and global warming. Some few people also don't accept the belief that seat belts or giving up smoking cigarettes save lives. People feel free to ignore and attack what the scientist presents. They just don't want to hear it. There are somethings that a researcher may not say without getting people upset and even provoking their retaliation. A researcher just can't get no respect anymore!

The truth is important for the welfare of all. If the person is repeatedly told that he/she was irrevocably harmed by the CSA experience, I speculate that the constant repetition and widespread belief may sometimes cause a nocebo reaction, just like the harm that is potentially caused by voodoo and hypnosis. That is harmful, and causing people harm with false information is wrong! See the Clancy's book, The Trauma Myth. This is not encyclopedia talk...

Another meta-analysis should be completed for all the self-reported college studies that were published after 1996 or so. Maybe that idea should be planted in the minds of graduate students who read this website. How to say and source that?

I didn't know about this policy before: [[1] I speculate that this policy was abused to banish editors from Wikipedia who support Rind too vigorously. I received a telephone call to that effect maybe a year or two ago. The caller asked me to help him, but I didn't. I'd love to hear what the other banished editors have to say,and what "words" caused their well hidden banishment by the pedo watch group that circles around the Rind website. All evidence of what the banished editors wrote has been removed from the website. You are so intelligent, tactful and deferential, I think the prognosis for your proposal is good.

As soon as you posted, this was noted, and Herostratus was notified (to delete your post?). [[2]]

I'd appreciate your opinion about something. I have some BLP (biography) issues to work out for Dr. Rind. I want to challenge a libelous statement and an inaccuracy in the Wiki-text. E. g. Dr. Laura's accusation about setting boys up for rape, and Dr. Rind himself never attended the Rotterdam ped. conference in December 1999, as inaccurately claimed and sourced in Salter's book. Dr. Laura may have said that, but do the BLP rules allow Wikipedia to repeat that libel? Any thoughts or advice about how to argue the BLP case, about tact and timing? I will wait until you are finished your work before bringing this up... Radvo (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Findings in Brief" section contributed to the Rind et al. Controversy topic. Consider revising & moving the summary of the Ulrich et al. study, too.

I very much liked your contribution to the Rind et al. topic, and especially the clarity of the percentages offered in the first paragraph. These findings are truly startling stated in this dramatic way. You also did a great job sourcing the many pages where all the data are found.

What a fantastic contribution! Congratulations! I hope your contribtuion sticks, and I think it will.

Legitimus added a contructive caveat about the variability of both the samples and the definition of CSA in the 59 studies. That's true, and sourced in the Rind study, too. Legitimus's contribution, IMHO, supports Rind et al's recommendation that the CSA construct be more rigorously defined in future studies. Exhibitionism and 17 year olds should not have been included in the CSA construct by the researchers of those earlier studies. But they were! To be useful for future research, the CSA construct should have greater reliability, validity and predictive qualities.

If Legitimus reads this, he/she should know that I applaud that addition to the Findings section, too. Radvo (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to the brilliant mathematical work of Rind, Bauserman and Tromovitch, the 2005 replication of the 1998 Rind meta-analysis by Heather Ulrich et al. could be mentioned in a more neutral point of view, and the summary could be placed much earlier in this Wikipedia topic. The complete Ulrich study is available on the web at The RBT Files section of the Ipce website. (According to Wikipeida, the Netherlands has a wrinkle in its copyright law that allows for the legal posting of copyrighted material to the web in the Netherlands, as long as it is not for profit. I am mildly skeptical, but don't know for sure.) Ulrich's replication study came up with mostly identical results, even after she corrected for some alleged sampling, statistical and methodological problems. Is that statement correct? Pointing out that the use of college samples as a flaw in the Rind study does not acknowledge that this was a flaw in all 59 studies that were meta-analyzed. But some readers might not know that clearly from reading the clumsy, non-NPOV Wikipedia summary of Ulrich et al.'s study. A neutral summary of Ulrich's paper could even appear right after the Rind study summary (that you wrote). Are you interested, willing and able to produce such a better summary of Ulrich's replication study? Could the long sentences be chopped up into shorter ones to make it easier to read? The dated and biased summary of Ulrich et al.'s study currently appears in the very last paragraph. That summary of Ulrich's work appears after many sections detailing the (out of date?) allegations of methodological and statistical flaws, for at least one of which Ulrich corrected. I have not read the history of the production of this section of the Wikipedia, but if it were readily found, I would like to read it. Here is what is found at the end of the Wikipedia article today:

[Start Quote] A study published in the Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice published [sic] attempted to replicate the Rind study, correcting for methodological and statistical problems identified by Dallam and others. It supported some of the Rind findings, both with respect to the percentage of variance in later psychological outcomes accounted for by sexual abuse and in relation to the finding that there was a gender difference in the experience of child sexual abuse, such that females reported more negative effects. However it also acknowledged the limitations of the findings (college student sample, self-report data), and did not endorse Rind's recommendation to abandon the use of the term 'child sexual abuse' in cases of apparent consent in favor of the term 'adult-child sex'. In their conclusion, the authors address the objection that Rind's work and their own would give support to those who deny that child sexual abuse can cause 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.' [43] [End Quote] Radvo (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday night

Congratulations on the Findings in Brief section! It's truly shocking that that is sticking. Maybe people are busy. What a fantastic improvement for the reader who is new to this study. I read your today's post at Rind Controversy. Great! You want to restore what was there. (Some of what you propose was already there, when Heros. removed all the earlier "Findings in brief" section.) Here's a file of interest: [Ulrich] I appreciate your emotional intelligence and patience. I may have a minor point of reaction, but need to think more about this. Maybe I'll leave well enough alone, and don't ruffle feathers. So no more from me here at this time. But maybe more as I reread what you wrote and give it more thought. Radvo (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead. Expand the 'Findings in Brief' section to include a summary of the entire article. Distain for using actual numbers. Lists of WP: that overwhelm the new editor.

Hello, Truthinwriting. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

There is discussion at Rind et al. about what should be included in the MOS:LEAD. Take a look and learn about WPLEAD, so you are not outfoxed by use of all those bracket letters of the alphabet, the coded Wikipedia discourse.

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."

I am interested to learn more about the resistance/disdain among Rind-detractor editors at 'Rind et al. controversy' for the use of real numbers in the edits, esp. in the MOS:LEAD. One speculation is that refusing to give numbers and refusing to give informative, accurate information is a way to show contempt for the mathematics based article (in violation of NPOV), i.e., mathematical results for which the editor has contempt. Despite the good news. The biased editor might think: Just don't give the numbers from the article the light of day, but give the methodological critique all the coverage that can be mustered, until it becomes TLTR. Then include the replication of the mathematics by Ulrich.... :-( I guess I can play any game for a while... But we are more in charge if we chose the game.

Another way to think of the Rind study detractors is they need to "attack the bearer of good tidings." or "Shoot the messenger." You (Truthinwriting) are distrusted as an editor because you are not playing that game. You play the game of: "going where the numbers take you." Hence, the opposition attack (by the numerically challenged?), (unconsciously motivated?), on your attempt to bring numbers into the lead and into the article. Even a few basic numbers seem to be threatening to their agenda. Now, all we have to do is find a Wikipedia policy guideline WP:FTN (Follow the Numbers) and quote it a few times on the TALK page, and we'll make progress in giving another side to the controversy. :-)

You brought up the idea of writing a section that describes the full Rind et al. (1998) in greater detail, rather than just summarize the 'Findings in Brief'. I like that idea, if that is what must be done to get more accurate, factual and numerical information, about the Rind study, someplace into the article. The article may be a Wikipedia:Coatrack. The criticism of cherry picking

Shortcut

WP:CHERRY

has already been mentioned (neurotically projected onto you) in past weeks. Cherry picking all that material from Dallam is clear bias. Often the main tool of a coatrack article is fact picking. Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the controversy, this coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support the particular bias and propaganda of Dallam and The Leadership Council.

Any attempt to re-edit the 'Findings in Brief' section, without first collectively discussing the edit on the TALK page, is a violation of consensus WP:con, Let's take a firm stand if this should happen, and the two of us reach up thru the Wikipedia heirarchy WP:DR WP:refar and fight tooth and nail that Wikepedia wp:con and wp:agfstandards be observed. I can collect some of them. If there are only four current editors in the dispute, we have a chance to win, and set the tone for the future. Once fought firmly, this appeals process will establish clearly for future editors that this article will not tolerate the kind of dumping, redacting, insensitive editing of controversial claims, without some rough consensus, etc. This may be a better way to spend time than fighting against "several samples" and "a number of" which is spending a lot of energy on low level editing. Your thoughts on strategy?

Wikipedia style seems to require that your edits to the TALK pages include a lot of reference back to policies and guidelines. It's like talking in code, reassuring readers that the writer knows of the cherry picked policies and guidelines she likes.

There are lots of ways for old time editors to play "Gotcha" to new editors. It is easy to quote some policy or guideline against a new editor; just dip into the lists of all these policies and guidelines and use whatever fits. Have you seen all these? Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines, Wikipedia:Template messages Wikipedia:Manual of Style

I sent you e-mail. You can response briefly by e-mail, to see how it works. I tried it once, and it seemed to work fine. Radvo (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Truthinwriting. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

I sent you a second e-mail, correcting a mistake. Apparently, Rind did compare the published studies and unpublished dissertations already in their 1998 paper. What I wrote earlier was wrong.

Also, click on statement of Wikipedia policy in next sentence, as it clearly and intelligently discusses WP:Lead as it relates to technical articles. What you are writing is technical for most people.

Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable.

I found this polivy supportive of your work and helpful to understand some of the concerns of the other editors. "Strive to make each part of every article as accessible as possible to the widest audience of readers who are likely to be interested in that material." "Some topics are intrinsically hard or require a great deal of prior knowledge gained through years of further education or training. It is unreasonable to expect a comprehensive article on such subjects to be accessible to all readers. However, effort should still be made to make the article as accessible as possible, with particular emphasis on the lead section."

The part of the article that accurately summarizes the "findings" or the entire study, need not be as accessible to the general reader as the controversy parts. This could be stated upfront, so the less educated reader can go directly to the juicy controversy...

Thanks for everything you are doing for that Rind et al. article. Radvo (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, then appeal by emailing the Arbitration Committee (direct address: arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Administrators: This block may not be modified or lifted without the express prior written consent of the Arbitration Committee. Questions about this block should be directed to the Committee's mailing list.