Talk:Rind et al. controversy

MHAMIC

I looked at this website: Male Homosexual Attraction to Minors information center (MHAMIC) and it looked like honest research to me with high standards for inclusion. Why are people trying to say it's advocating anything? Can someone provide a genuine reference to this effect or any clear information on that site that refers to itself this way? If people are out there trying to provide the best possible info on a topic, and it doesn't meet someone's "poltically correct" criteria, it just gets dismissed as "advocacy". This seems to be the term people apply to any scientific discussion, such as the Rind et al. study itself.

I could be wrong, but "advocacy" is a term now being used to dismiss something that people don't agree with. I DO NOT dispute the legitimate usage of the term as applied to harmful organizations like NAMBLA though. Don't get me wrong. But what is the definition of "advocacy" being used here? Can we see some criteria? --70.112.54.22 (talk) 04:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

A quick search with Google shows that the site is included in at least one list of sites, the rest of which appear to be advocacy sites.[1] I didn't add the sentence in question, but I don't think it should be altered without a clear reason.   Will Beback  talk  04:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I still think that's merely an opinion, but I won't alter it again unless I can prove it. --70.112.54.22 (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Arreola study

Legitimus,

Regarding your deletion of the Arreola study:

(1) What exactly did you mean by 'over-inclusive CSA measurement'?

(2) Since Rind's main conclusion was that positive or neutral outcomes exist in the population as a whole (which is unaffected by the nature of the sample), why would this other study and the particular quote I made from it, which seems to back up that conclusion, be irrelevant? Researcher1000 (talk) 05:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The measurements of that study classify CSA as any sexual contact before the age of 18, without any mention of whether this is with an adult or another minor. That's absurdly over inclusive, and clearly was influenced by the fact that the researchers were based in California. California has unique statutory rape laws that make any sexual contact before age 18 illegal, even if the partner is also under 18 (which creates a double-offense). Such a law is rare and practically unheard of outside that state. Most places have an age of consent of 16 and have very clear exceptions when the situation is two underage people together. I do not know of any source claiming that consensual sex at age 16 or 17 would be tantamount to sexual abuse, meaning that if Rind were truly referring to such a thing, it would be a blatant straw-man. I should also point out the study appears to exclude contact before age 14, the common age that makes the distinction between child sexual abuse and statutory rape.

I also feel the quotation and material as presented with the edit were misleading as to the primary findings and intent of Arreola's paper. The paper is specifically about gay and bisexual men (which comprise 3.5% of the population, even less since the study is males only). Furthermore, the quotation refers to a self-report measure of well-being (notoriously inaccurate in sex abuse survivors) and ignores the sentence from the paper's abstract: "The consensual- and forced-sex groups had higher rates of substance use and transmission risk than the no-sex group."

So a more honest and complete disclosure would be "consensual" homosexual sex before 18 makes one think one is better off in life, but also leads to increased drug use and HIV. The edit appeared to give the impression that sex for anyone under 18 was good for that person overall.Legitimus (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

redaction of "The Study's Findings in Brief" section

I reverted the addition of this section, for a couple of reasons.

First of all, the article is not really about the study per se. I think that years ago the article was named "Rind et al (1998)" or something, but it was decided (rightly, I'd say) that the study itself is not particularly notable. It was just a paper in a journal, not a especially notable journal such as Nature or whtever, and just a meta-study at that, a kind of review of existing literature.

What is (slightly) notable is that it became controversial and there was some stuff written and said about the study. Fine, but drilling down in great depth on the study itself in probably not really called for. We can talk about including a little more info if it seems helpful, though. Also, the material itself is not really ideal, with some speculation on Rind et al's motivations, and is basically an unsourced analysis of the paper, which may be correct in part but is unsourced, and also seems a little bit more on the cheerleady side than I'd like to see ("The researchers were criticized for...suggesting that [other] researchers use more scientifically valid definitions of CSA" for instance), which brings me to the second point.

There's the meta-issue of, this article and this subject has a history here, and we want to be real careful here, and there are some red flags. These were the editors first edits here, and this is a pretty fraught subject, and so that sets off a little buzzer in my head. (Actually, the editor had one previous edit, in 2009, and it was to the article Adult where he added a quite long unsourced essay the gist of which that persons who have begun puberty are adults and that other uses of the term are mistakes, which is probably not true and which sets off another little buzzer in my head.) The editor's name is "Truthinwriting", and given the subject matter this sets off another little buzzer in my head. I've covered this subject a long time here and my experience is that, when we have a user with a username with with Truth or Freedom or so forth in it, on this subject, it just doesn't usually end well. So not to say there's anything wrong with any of this, but that's a couple buzzers too many, and I think this probably a path we don't want to be going down. Herostratus (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Addition of "Findings in Brief" section

Herostratus,

I assume I should write to the broader community of readers, rather than addressing you directly. Please pardon my writing style if this is not culturally correct, and let me know so I can adjust my writing style for future posts/responses.

Herostratus removed/reverted the section I added titled "The Study's Findings in Brief". Here I go over Herostratus' objections and concerns, and request that the section be put back as written. I'll number, summarize, and address the concerns one-by-one as well as address a few comments Herostratus made that are not directly related to editing the page, but are relevant to understanding the Rind et al. study and the controversy.

Concern #1: The section may not be needed since the topic of the page is the controversy rather than the findings; Herostratus wrote "drilling down in great depth on the study itself is probably not really called for".

Response to Concern #1: I agree that this page should focus on the controversy rather than the study's findings, however, I do not believe one can objectively understand the controversy without a basic understanding of the study's findings. That is why I added this section. To keep it short, I tried to limit myself to about 500 words (I think it was 499 according to Microsoft). To keep it highly relevant to the page, I focused on facts that appear to be highly relevant to the controversy/criticisms as presented on the page. I did not go into great detail about the study or the hundreds (?) of analyses presented in it. I still believe a brief summary is needed if the page is to provide readers with unbiased information, and I believe my summary is a good, objective contribution.

Aside #1: Although not of great editing relevance, Herostratus stated the Rind et al. study "...was just a paper in a journal, not a especially notable journal such as Nature or whatever...".

Response: Actually, it was published in "Psychological Bulletin", which I believe is generally very highly regarded among psychologists. I have heard (but have no citation or confirmation) that it was tied for the most respected journal in the field of psychology (the other top one being "The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology", if I remember correctly). Indeed, I doubt there would have been much controversy if the authors had published in a lesser journal. But this is not relevant to the edit, just an FYI.

Aside #2: Herostratus also stated "and just a meta-study at that,..."

Actually, a properly conducted meta-analysis is far more important in science than any single primary study on the same topic. Its findings will be broader, more informative, and much more likely to be accurate than any individual study. That is why meta-analyses are so important. Although I do not think my credentials should be used as proof that I am correct, let me mention that I am a full professor and have taught both introductory research methods and statistics. We can talk more about the power and import of meta-analysis, but it does not seem relevant to the edits or the page, hence I'll stop here for now.

Concern #2: Herostratus wrote that the section I added "is not really ideal, with some speculation on Rind et al's motivations, and is basically an unsourced analysis of the paper...".

Response to Concern #2: I'm not certain what is meant by "unsourced", but I will proceed under the assumption that Herostratus means I did not provide enough citations. If that is the case, then I can add them. Perhaps my sense of what needs to be cited and what does not, differs from the Wikipedia community. Most of the facts I presented come from the Rind et al. report itself, which was cited. But if adding references with specific pages references is desired, I can certainly try to do so. However, although I played in the sandbox, I don't see how one goes about adding the same basic citation (e.g., Rind et al.) with a specific page reference. Can someone point me to that information? If not, I can just put the page references in parentheses as part of the main text itself. Regarding Herostratus' assertion that I speculated on Rind et al.'s motivations, I don't see anywhere that I did that. For example, I wrote "The researchers conducted the college meta-analysis in part because the college studies provided data regarding causality which was lacking in the national studies." If that is what Herostratus is referring to, perhaps the problem is that I need to keep re-citing the Rind et al. study with specific page references. That information comes from page 25 (bottom right paragraph). Please advise on what level of citation detail is desired in these pages, and technically how to best insert that information.

Concern #3: Herostratus thought that some of my writing seemed to be "a little bit more on the cheerleady side..." and gave a partial quotation of one sentence I wrote.

Response to Concern #3: The sentence in question merely presented two facts, without opinion or, I believe, cheering, hence I don't think it needs to be removed or modified. The facts were (1) that Rind et al. were criticized for reporting the small findings & (2) that Rind et al. were criticized for suggesting that researchers use more scientifically valid definitions of CSA. The sentence I wrote was: "The researchers were criticized for reporting the small findings and were additionally criticized for suggesting that researchers use more scientifically valid definitions of CSA." I don't see any cheerleading there, and believe it presents relevant facts to understanding the type of controversy that occurred. I could expand upon that sentence, but I wanted to keep the section brief.

Concern and Response #4: Herostratus referred to there being a history about this page, but I am not familiar with it and it does not seem to display on this Discussion page which only has about 3 posts. Herostratus correctly points out that I have little experience with Wiki editing, but I don't see how that is relevant (feel free to educate me!). Herostratus is concerned about my user name, but I wanted something meaningful and that's what I chose, again, it's not relevant to editing the page.

I request guidance on the level of detail wanted in citations, and that the section be put back. If someone wants to go to the trouble of putting it back then editing it to include "[citation needed]" everywhere one is desired, I will try to monitor the page and add the citations within a few days. I'm just worried that it will be hard to read the page if every line has a citation, and almost all of them are to the same source (the Rind et al. study).

Truthinwriting (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)