Talk:Rind et al. controversy

Dallam et al

I'm looking over Rind's rebuttal to Dallam et al. The response is so eviscerating that it's almost illegitimate to include Dallam's original criticisms at all. I'm almost inclined to simply state that Dallam et al. published a critique which turned out to be almost completely unfounded. Including all the details when they're so wrong seems like undue weight. Any thoughts? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I trust your judgment. Be bold. If there's blowback, I'll read the rebuttal. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Tremendous improvements to the Rind et al. Controvesy article! What has been done with the article in two days is truely amazing! A whole new tone! Much more NPOV. Great perspective and information.

I saw the changes to my Bold edits in the first two sections of the main article. No problem. Is it that WLU is unaware of the State condemnations of Rind's study, or you do not want to include information about the state level condemnations in the Lead becasue State condemnations are not mentioned and sourced in the body of the article?

WLU: The NARTH, the Family Research Council, the Learership Council (Dr. Fink, Stephanie Dallam et al.) were quietly, behind the scenes, lobbying and feeding their research to popular radio show host Dr. Laura (March 1999), the media, the State Legislatures, the U.S. House of Representatives (spring and summer 1999) before that research was published in a professional journal. The U.S. Congress did not have the demanding verification standards of Wikipedia, and has no problem with 'guilt by association' if it brings in the votes. So Congress and the State legislatures (Alaska, Oklahoma, Califonia, et al. I posted the condemnations from state websites above) took what was fed to them privately by lobbists, and may have thought to themselves: "This Rind study must be stamped on hard." "We'll get publicity showing Congress is taking the high moral road, and that brings in the votes." Some of that can be sourced. It was only after the Leadership Council got Stephanie Dallam to put her name on that research and publish it in a scholarly journal, that Rind et al. (and others) responded. For years, Wikipedia had undue weight

If you want to cover the controversy, however, you should include the Dallam arguments and critique in historic context and NPOV. The unanswered Dallam critique was what created the moral panic before the arguments were published and rebutted. If Congress had the current version of the Wikipedia article on Rind on line, there would never been the Congressional condemnation. (No Source; drop that!) Congress lacked the balance that comes with the patience and time of the scientific process. The scientific process should be pointed out. The Galileo history is also slightly relevant. Science is methodical, patient, non-hysterical.

BTW Rind et al. used the Library of Congress to track down some of the harder to find studies, but that was all the funding they received from any source for their meta-analyses. Self funding should be squeezed in the article, too. I'll try to locate my source for that.

It is important to cover the detail of the controvesy, even though we may see Dallam's critique differently now that we have read Rind's response, then the participants saw it then It occurred historically and we understand it now differently from reliable sources. The ideas in the Dallam critique and all that misinformed stuff that Dr. Laura said were all part of the creation of moral panic by the advocacy organizations. The public is well served if all of that critique is summarized and well sourced and published in the encyclopedia. The more NPOV these ideas are sourced and understood, the better the public is prepared to deal with the next advocacy group who figures it is in their interest to create and fan moral panic. Penn State's Philip Jenkin's books tie this tendency in American culture well together and Jenkins should be cited, so the public is much better informed about moral panic. More when I find the time.

I may have additional and a different point of view tomorrow.

Suggestion: Develop the new Spiegel arguments carefully, precisely, and source that Spiegel well with some juicy quotes. If Spiegel is about the Landis study, Truthinwriting will give you the Rind rebuttal to that. It's a wonderful story, when you get both sides and both sides should be told. The whole historic controversy will not make Spiegel look good unless you handle this as NPOV as you can. When the Galileo story is told, the Catholic Church is not insulted today. Radvo (talk) 11:32 pm, Today (UTC−5) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radvo (talk • contribs) 05:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd really like some feedback from more people before doing anything bold, this is more than a bit of a loaded question. There's a pretty readable overview from Rind's perspective here which spares reading the full 30-odd pages. There just doesn't seem to be much point to include such a voluminous discussion of erroneous criticisms, but it's both a large volume of text and a significant part of the controversy. Whether it's best dealt with via mere mention or deeper summary is an open question, I'll flag this discussion for other editors' comment.

I can't recall a mention of individual states condemning the study, please provide or point to sources that verify this. Also, while Rind et al. did suggest not all abuse is harmful, it is still not consensual by definition and is still illegal - care must be taken not to word the article in such a way that the abuse as portrayed as innocuous or harmless.

I see no reason to include information on self-funding at this point. Depending on what the source discussing this actually says, it might be worth including. The mere fact of financial source doesn't strike me as noteworthy. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm genuinely looking for lengthy-ish comments on this section as well as suggestions - I haven't made an actual decision yet and as much as I enjoy Anthony's blanket-style endorsement, I do feed off of detailed input. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This is really quite fascinating. I just read that book chapter WLU pointed to, and will do more reading over the next few days. It's important we get this right. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok re-read the Criticism and Response section to get a fresh idea and am approaching this as though I am a new reader. I noticed some parts are unattributed and in a few, there is no counter argument by Rind. Sample bias accusation seems a fair "give and take" because it offers both Dallam's side and Rind's in a way where the reader can decide which argument they buy. Dallam's assertions are also bolstered by Spiegel, so its clearly not some mad fringe view. Non-standardization of variables might be problematic. Rind's counterarguments are not attributed. In addition, does Rind have a counter/explanation for the last two studies, which include respondents over the age of 17? Statistical Errors is outside my expertise; people who get that sort of thing can edit that how they want, but one caution I have is that if I have trouble following it, a lay reader is going to skip it completely. The last mention of Dallam is under "Assertions of bias" though her remarks are unattributed to a source. However, she is not the sole source of those accusations. Anna Salter's book goes into even greater detail and provides sourcing for them.

So to sum up, Dallam doesn't appear to be wrong on all counts, but the paper perhaps doesn't have to be incorporated so prominently as the primary source of criticism. Regarding the stat issue, if Rind's counter sounds rock solid to you, perhaps we don't even need that sub-section.Legitimus (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The Dallam and Ondersma critiques imply that if Rind et al. (1998) had conducted the research without all those statistical and methodological flaws, the Rind results would have come out differently. That turned out to be a hoax. Rind responded convincingly (to those who understand statistics), and in great detail, that none of the criticisms were credible or valid. Rind is, IMHO, a mathematical genius, and his graduate advisor, Dr. Ralph Rosnow, was a highly regarded expert in meta-analysis. Ralph Rosnow served as the expert meta-analyst on the 1998 study. Most people have no clue about these mathematical things, and learn little from these sections of the Wikipedia article. These sections are layed out too expansively, revealing bias in favor of the discredited Dallam. Heather Ulrich (2005) accepted the criticisms and replicated the Rind study as best she could; she confirmed Rind's main findings. People understand that better. Rind and Ulrich both say CSA does not necessarily cause long term problems. Dallam's and Ondersma's criticisms are discredited. Ask Anthoneyhcole if he knows statistics, and whether he would comment in greater detail. Radvo (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope. I'm at the mercy of experts there. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to say, I've read Rind's rebuttal in the book and he pretty much demolishes Dallam's criticisms. Ondersma's criticisms I haven't read through, or any rebuttal by Rind. It's a considerable amount of highly technical reading to read Dallam's original critique along with Rind's reply, but I'll try to get through it. The "sample bias" section is I believe the only one I've read through and reworked, which might be why it reads a bit more smoothly. I'll have to do more reading and try to rework the rest. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, all parts of the controversy should be reported, even if, with hindsight, the criticism seems unfair or fully responded to. We are not engaged in Historical revisionism (negationism), nor should we be refining section after section of [sections#Avoid sections and articles focusing on .22criticisms.22 or .22controversies.22 contemporary criticism of the Rind Report|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Controversy sections] in violation of Wikipedia policy. All of this criticism should be presented as the history of the controversy. [neutral in form#Evolving concepts without a .22history.22 section Or consider revising|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be neutral in form] all this "criticism" with a proportional amount of "praise." There are a number of good sources that offer the Rind Report solid praise, and none of it has yet been included here. NPOV and WP:POVSTRUCTURE].

Regarding Legitimus's request about Rind's response to the criticism that, in the Meta-analysis, he included other researchers' studies that included college students reporting sexual experiences when they were 17 year old+. So what? What difference does that make?

Twenty of the 59 studies classified adolescents as old as 16 or 17 [years old] as "children" confusing the legal definition of the child (or the definition of the legal "minor") with the biological definition of the child. See footnote 1, Rind et al. (1998), column three of the Appendix.

There was a Rind response in the main article here at one time. The edit is quite specific. Legitumus deleted the unsourced response and the tag on August 8, 2008. See Legitimus's delete. Does Dallam claim that if Rind had omitted those 20 studies, the results and findings would tip over to her side? They wanted the Landis study taken out. And the results tipped away from what they expected. Why didn't Dallam do the calculation then herself to prove her point? She would have contributed something constructive to the literature instead of just being against what others had done. Why didn't Heather Ulrich omit these studies in her 2005 replication? Why is this 17 year old question important now?

The child abuse establishment sometimes and inconsistently defines "a child" up to age 19. Most readers of the article think "a child" is a person who has not yet reached puberty. An 8 year old, a 4 year old is a child. bzzzzz! WRONG! Not for the CSA crowd!

The failure to define the terms child, adolescent and CSA consistently "reflects the slippage of legal and moral constructs into scientific definitions (Okami, 1990, 1994). Basing scientific classifications of sexual behavior on legal and moral criteria ... has been confined to ... CSA." page 23 Rind et al. (1998)

"The term child sexual abuse has been used in the psychological literature to describe virtually all sexual interactions between children or adolescents and significantly older persons, as well as between same-age children or adolescents when coercion is involved. Quoted from Page 22, Footnote 1, (Rind et al. 1998)

"we have nevertheless retained it [the term CSA] for use in the current article because of its pervasive use in the scientific literature and because many researchers, as well as lay persons, view all types of sociolegally defined CSA as harmful. ...CSA is generally defined as a sexual interaction involving either physical contact or no contact (e.g., exhibitionism) between either a child or adolescent and someone significantly older, or between two peers who are children or adolescents when coercion is used." Rind et al. (1998) page 22. The authors clearly state that the term CSA included all forms of adolescent sexual abuse.

Rind's initial N = 35,703 college students. (Effect size data for psychological correlates were based on 15,824 participants [3,254 men from 18 samples and 12,570 women from 40 samples]) If Rind could have dropped 18 and 19 year old "children," maybe the final results would be a little different. Who knows? But the N of 35,703 is large; you'd have to drop a lot of subjects to get some kind of significant difference in the results. Dr. Dallam made the same mistake in her rebuttal to Rind; she cherrypicked other people's research studies with 19 year olds to make her points. This failure to define child and adolescent, in a consistent and scientifically valid way, and the confusion with moral and legal terms, reflects IMHO more on the imprecise standards in that area of scientific research.

What about the bias of the authors of the 59 studies? The 59 studies that Rind et al. meta-analysed were made with the intention of identifying and measuring harm. If these 59 studies were biased, the bias would be in the direction of identifying and measuring the harm. There is little evidence that any of these 59 studies were written by researchers who approached the research like a James Mathew Barrie (author of Peter Pan) or [Carroll#Suggestions of paedophilia Lewis Carroll|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis Carroll] (author of Alice in Wonderland). How does one balance the contempt, disdain, scorn and disrespect for the Report and its 3 authors. without entertaining the possibility that there was bias in the authors of the 59 studies? Is this confirmation bias? Heather Ulrich et al. replicated the study and came up with the same results. Was she also biased? It's 59 researchers on the one side, and 6 on the other. Whose going to win? Not the 59, in this case. It is puzzling, isn't it!?

(Aside to graduate students looking for a dissertation idea: Do a Rind-like meta-analysis for studies from 1996 to the present, but eliminate all studies that include sexual experiences in persons over 12 years of age. Publish the dissertation in Aramaic and for Pete's sake, don't file a copy with the Library of Congress :-) -- Radvo (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

According to the Edit Summary, Dallam's original criticisms were introduced into this article with this huge addition on August 25, 2005 here by User:SloContributorSince2005 who was later confirmed to be a WP:sockpuppet.

See the confirmation of sockpuppetry here. Strangely this particular edit to this topic does not appear in the edit history of User:SloContributorSince2005, but the edit summary on this topic here shows this name.

I propose to the currently active editors here that we remove all this Dallam sourced criticism from the current article simply because this Dallam sourced criticism was introduced, in bad faith, by a sockpuppet. There would be no need to discuss the quality or content of that huge addition, but only to determine by consensus that this edit was introduced by a editor who was later confirmed to be a sockpuppet. A sockpuppet should not be allowed to contribute to any Wikipedia article. NO sockpuppet should be rewarded by allowing his/her edit to remain in the article. Would the currently active editors please discuss this proposal, and come to a consensus about the removal of all material that was based on the huge contribution by this sockpuppet on August 25, 2005? --Radvo (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with this method. I think all edits should be reviewed on quality alone and only if they are lacking in that regard should they be removed. Juice Leskinen 08:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Juice: Based on your disagreement, and wanting to be collaborative, let me refine by proposal. It would be difficult to define "quality" by consensus for such a large amount of detailed material. All the edits based on users User:SloContributorSince2005 and DancingPhilosopher should be deleted from this topic. This proposal discourages editors from sock puppetry. All the deleted material is posted to a section of this TALK page. The current editors review all the deleted material for quality, cherry pick the edits that meet their personal idea of what a quality post would look like here and may repost material, rewrite the material, or integrate it with their own ideas, but this time the edit is associated with their own User name. Other editors review these restorations to the page as they are made, a little at a time, as if they were "new" edits. If the current editors feel the restored material lacks quality, or source, or whatever, the edit may be again be deleted by an editor. If the current editors feel the restored material is indeed quality, that material stays. And I nominate you as the volunteer to do the work of deleting the material that was edited (by this sock puppet), and you post all the deleted material to one or more section(s) of the TALK page. This new section on the TaLK page would be undated so the material would not be archived after 10 days. If the material is indeed quality, in the judgment of the current editors, by this method, that "quality" material will find its way back into the Topic. --Radvo (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this makes it way too easy to ban someone and remove all his edits, regardless of their quality. With the system as it is today, with no due process for regular users and admins with almost absolute power, the system might become even worse than it already is. I will however probably agree on most of the material you want to remove, so if you do remove material and add a good explanation of why the quality is poor, I will very likely support you. Juice Leskinen 11:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I also fear the arbitrary misuse of power and position by a few administrators who may misuse position and power to pursue their particular bias or agenda. But I believe, in general, that the fair and evenhanded enforcement of good rules makes quality editing here more possible. The history of this article shows there has been a lot of senseless and pointless destruction, obstruction, and mayhem. Wikipedia has, over the years, developed experience and rules that can bring some this mayhem under control. My proposal, for now, only deals with the work of sock puppets, persons who violate our trust by editing with two or more accounts at the same time to avoid being held to account. Talk more, and in general, about sockpuppeting.

I seek to begin to bring some order into the chaos and craziness here by taking a firm stand here against sockpuppeting. Do you support this rule? How can I win your support?.

You bring up other problems, too. I see other problems, but would prefer to deal with one problem at a time. The NPOV development of this article seems to be impeded by multiple editors working in tandem to own this article. See Circus. Some currently active editors here are part of a hidden collective of experienced users who pursue their POV rather than work on building consensus. Those who don't see things their way are cursed, redacted, and demeaned as lacking commonsense and even feared as potential child molesters. There is also unhappy nitpicking and pettifogging. This cabal or Tagteam repeatedly justifies its edits as "protecting children" from rape, though I doubt that any child has been forcibly raped because of anything written here over the years. Those editors who have read and understand Rind et al. run up against the cabal who refuse to sully themselves by reading Rind et al. To understand Rind et al. is to know what is "morally repugnant" and such information would put children at risk in violation of Wikipedia's Child Protection Policy. Not all these griefers are rude, and some may be unfailingly polite, while at the same time they support the disruption of the work of new editors here. They may game the rules, possibly following the letter but not the spirit, and they may violate unwritten social standards. We may eventually need help to clean this mess up. But I would like to start by recommitting ourselves to accepting Wikipedia's ban on sock puppeting. We can all make contributions to this encyclopedia within this rule.

I will negotiate further with you. Would you support such a rule if we added a grandfather clause and allowed all past contributions of sock puppets to remain in the article, but from now on, the edits of sock puppets will be removed (within reason) once they are discovered? The purpose of seeking consensus about this is to dicourage sock puppeting. If a sock puppet believes that if her sockpuppeting is discovered, all of her edits will be trashed, she will be less likely to sock puppet. That is a desirable goal, and may bring some order out of the chaos of the past.

What do other editors here think? --Radvo (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

As a general rule, I cannot support it. It may seem good to combat sock-puppets but I think any change should go in the opposite direction: lessening the power of the admins. If you want to remove all that users edits then go ahead, I have no complaints at all in this individual case. But if I see something removed that I believe is worth saving, then I will do so. Juice Leskinen 19:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Vote "Nay." The incident is so old that no lesson will be learned. I think your concept of "attribution" to a given user is off the mark a bit. Nobody looks 7 years in the past to discover which user added what. Frankly this smells of abusing the letter of policy rather than the respecting the spirit of it to further one's own ends. Let's just work on the text as it stands today.Legitimus (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline to support removal of edits by a sockpuppet. It is common to remove edits by banned users, but neither of the user names mentioned above appears at WP:BANNED so I see no evidence that they are banned. It is possible that someone could be defacto banned and their username not added to that list, but as it appears we are discussing edits performed in 2005 (ancient history for Wikipedia), the proposal to remove the edits simply because of who made them is not supportable. There is no reason to pursue that argument: just look at each paragraph and the sources and decide what edits should be made to improve the article. I'm not sure that is is possible, but if someone would care to post a short outline of the current text and why it is unsatisfactory (without unduly laboring the point), we could probably quickly agree on a proposed action (no, I'm not going to read all the stuff above to extract the issue). It would have been very helpful if the replies given in response to WLU's original message were more brief and more focused—that might have led to action two weeks ago. I suspect WLU is taking a break from this article for reasons that should be clear—however WLU may return to consider the changes made, and may join in. Johnuniq (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

The third paragraph of the Controversy Section begins with this sentence:

"On July 12, 1999, the United States House of Representatives passed HRC resolution 107 by a vote of 355 - 0, (with 13 Members voting "Present", the latter all members of the Democratic Partyref name = Baird) declaring sexual relations between children and adults are abusive and harmful, and condemned the study on the basis that it was being used by pro-pedophilia activists and organizations to promote and justify child sexual abuse."ref name="congress"cite web | author = United States Congress | year = 1999 | title = Whereas no segment of our society is more critical to the future of human survival than our children | format = PDF | work = 106th Congress, Resolution 107 | url = http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_bills&docid=f:hc107enr.txt.pdf

The casual reader may get the false impression that this was the most important, or the only reason. The last reason on the list in the Congressional original reads:

"Whereas 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...."

The reason the Rind et al. (1998) Report was condemned by Congress was cherry picked from the 17 reasons given by Congress. Cherry picking here violates giving due weight.

(This is the text of the entire Congressional condemnation, with all 17 reasons: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_bills&docid=f:hc107enr.txt.pdf)

The primary Congressional source is cited for this text, as above.WP:VERIFY An exact quote from some part of the government source might have been a better choice WP:FULLCITE, as this puts the onus for the attack on the scholarly paper squarely on Congress, where it belongs, not on the Wikipedia volunteer editor. No secondary or tertiary source is offered to justify the selection of this one particular reason given for the condemnation. This edit reinforces the 'Guilt by Association' fallacy, initiated by the U.S. Congress, in violation of the Wikipedia policy for NPOV. The Congress is publicly linking the Rind et al.(1998) paper with NAMbLA et al. Dr. Rind, Dr. Bauserman, and Dr. Tromovitch are responsible for their scholarship, mathematics and their integrity. They are not responsible for the short reviews that were posted on line and in the NAMbLa Bulletin 14 years ago. They are not responsible if the Ipce documentation service provides the full text of their study to many, so it is linked from the Ipce by The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence and the Prevent abuse now child advocacy site. Rearders have full access to the study at those websites. Is that something to shame the study's author's for? The authors are not responsible or to be blamed if individuals read and understand their report. The Report readers might do something most U.S. Congressmen and radio talk show hosts refused to do before condemning it.

I hope a revision will be discussed among the active editors. --Radvo (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Please pretend you are addressing intelligent adults, nearly all of whom are very experienced Wikipedia editors. There is no need for irrelevant images, and there is no need for pointless links. There is no need to say "Neutrality disputed" without first having a discussion about whatever point you are trying to make. After other editors disagree with something, then there may be a neutrality dispute. I think you are suggesting that some wording in the article should be changed. Please start again. Johnuniq (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

So...all that to say you think the wording should be changed? To what? You seem to have the impression that we are congress - it's not that formal, just change the page and see what the reaction is. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

That was a calm reaction. Thank you. Now we are getting somewhere, you actually asked me a question. In a few words I will give you my current but incomplete answer. It is much easier to work with people who are receptive.

I want to work with consensus and need to work my ideas out with other editors here on the TALK page, too. I would change the text to include something internal to the Report itself. We should look at all 17 Congressional objections and pick something(s) Rind et al. are directly responsible for reporting. They are not responsible for what NAMbLA and the Ipce do with the results of their study. This is just a brainstormed idea I had since writing all that above, and the idea also comes from our experience earlier this week. (The BRD exchange was very productive.) We could say that Congress condemned Rind et al. for reporting that willing boys were not harmed, or something else very controversial within the report. Rind did report that, and Congress did condemn them for something like that. I will have to study this more carefully and make some proposals. So the idea of "willing" gets introduced into the article, which you refused to allow before, and it is something that gets people genuinely upset. They think Rind deserved to be condemned for reporting that. From my perspective, this is like condemning the messenger for reporting what the math showed. So we don't shoot the messenger any more; big improvement. We just condemn them. I need to do my homework and look at the Condemnation to see if there are other juicy, but internal items, but will not do any more work on this today. I have to go out now. Let's let others contribute to this. I'll develop some various proposals and want feedback from others here. This, IMHO, is too controversial for BRD.

Note that when you respond to me reasonably, and ask for my opinion or suggestion, I need no wall of words to respond. I am very pleased with how this TALK is now going.Radvo (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I have highlighted text in the above which experienced editors would not use because it raises unnecessary issues and is not relevant to improving the article. I am happy for my edit to be undone (including removing this comment), but it may be useful to at least briefly see my suggestion. Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't pick something Rind et al. are directly responsible for reporting. The article is titled "Controversy" and it's about the controversy. We're really not in a position to say "Well, there was a notable controversy over XYZ, but it was over something the person didn't really do, so we're not going to report on it."

That "[Rind et al] are not responsible for what NAMbLA and the Ipce do with the results of their study" is arguably not true. Everyone is potentially responsible for results following from their actions, depending on the action. If I leave a paper bag on my front porch and somebody takes it and suffocates a person with it, I'm not responsible because a reasonable person wouldn't foresee that. If I leave a loaded gun on my front porch and somebody takes it and shoots a person with it, I am responsible because a reasonable person would foresee that. If Rind et al were completely blindsided by NAMBLA etc. picking up on their work, this would show a remarkable lack of foresight and intelligence. This is not usually considered a mitigating circumstance. "Yes I left a loaded gun on my front porch, but I'm just stupid and careless by nature, so this should be forgiven" would probably not be a successful defense.

As far as the Congressional document, the material cited in the article is the 17th of the 17 points, and the previous points are partly in the nature of leading up to it, and it's a reasonable description of their primary objection, if you don't want to quote the entire document which we don't. "Whereas the spiritual, mental, and physical well-being of children are parents' sacred duty" and so forth are points that Congress wanted to make, but aren't the main point of this document. Politically speaking, that NAMBLA etc. was, or was believe to be, using the document was certainly a prime motivation for the resolution. If it was just gathering dust on a shelf unread and unremarked on, the resolution would not have been proposed. Herostratus (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I don't really want to read a bunch of unnecessary text so perhaps this doesn't reflect the full discussion but...I think it's fair to note congress' condemnation, as well as any reply from the author or other involved party that rebuts it (briefly, i.e. "Rind replied that their position was misrepresented). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU wrote: "it's fair to note Congress' condemnation"... I'm puzzled by the word "fair". Please elaborate. I was not suggesting that all mention of the Congressional condemnation be removed just because Rind et al. have not had their response to Congress acknowledged in the article. The Congressional condemnation was very much part of the controversy, and it would be "unfair" to the reader NOT to mention it.

WLU: Are you suggesting that the main article not cite ANY of the 17 reason's" (Whereas's) for the Congressional condemnation? Does your response imply a possible solution: the removal of the words:

"and condemned the study on the basis that it was being used by pro-pedophilia activists and organizations to promote and justify child sexual abuse."?

If that is what WLU is proposing, I would go along with WLU's suggestion (at least for now). If that is what WLU is suggesting, that suggestion is an improvement because it removes the 'Guilt by Association' fallacy from Wikipedia's article. See Herostratus argumentation about liability of Rind above. He seems to be suggesting that it is Rind's fault that the advocates for pedophiles have used the Rind report. Maybe it would be very interesting to know what Rind would say in his defense. I guess he would say that more high-quality research is needed, but there is no funding for more research.

IF what WLU is proposing is indeed that we remove the text I object to, do other editors agree to WLU's suggestion that no specific reasons (Whereas's) from the condemnation be quoted or reworded in the main article? Let's reach a WK:consensus on this matter here on the TALK page, before WLU removes those words, and before the “ Dubious Tag” is removed from the main article. I'd like to hear the opinion of others.

I do not recall reading any public or private response from Rind et al. to Congress itself. (Aside: That would be disrespectful and fool-hardy for the researchers . The Congress had already abused its position of power, it would do it again, esp. if provoked by a researcher who "spoke back" to them.) Do any editors here know of a response from any of the three researcher to Congress? If not, WLU's suggestion that we offer the researchers' response to Congress is not going to work--because there was none. Researchers who talk back to Congress get no free lunch! The 1998 paper was not government funded; it was self-funded.

Dr. Rind et al. did respond in detail to their professional peers, Dr. Dallam and Dr. Ondersma.

"Congressional members are well aware of the control they can exert over research, since much of the funding comes from governmental grants. Scientists are at the mercy of those in power and, at least for now, those in power are often at the mercy of the [moral panic reflected in the] public press."

Source of this quote: "Congressional censure of a research paper: Return of the inquisition?" Kenneth K Berry; Jason Berry Skeptical Inquirer November December, 1999 (Citation not certain; needs further research)

Here is the citation for one article which those interested here should read to understand this controversy from Rind et al.'s side:

Rind, Bruce, Tromovitch, Philip, & Bauserman, Robert, 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, volume 127, number 6, pages 734-758, 2001.

The full text of this article in available on the web, but I an unable by law to provide readers a link to it. I do not know if the article has been posted to the web in violation of U.S. copyright law. Linking in the United States, to a page that may be illegally distributing the full text of a journal article sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. (Aside) The relevant WP:policy is in the second paragraph here: [to copyrighted works Linking to copyrighted works]

Start quote from the WP:policy:

"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 in the United States."

However, foreign translators, whose countries have different copyright laws regarding “contributary infringement,” should check with the laws of their countries before linking to the full text of this scholarly article on line. (I have been informed, by some gossip, that these pages are being translated into foreign languages, one language does not use our alphabet. The Internet gives people in foreign countries more power to get access to information and entertainment via the web.

Regarding the removal of the Template:Dubious tag. That Tag alert editors that the phrase has been verified with a primary source (the Congressional Record) but a secondary source needs to be found, to ascertain which of the 17 whereas's is more authoritative and serious. This is not for the editor to cherrypick. The previous editor chose Whereas # 17, and I labeled this a Wikipedia:Disputed statement. The neutrality of choosing that phrase over the 16 others is also in question, please look at Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. I feel my work has again been disrespected by the removal of that TAG without first resolving the matter here on the TALK by consensus. The matter is not resolved to my satisfaction. Also, if the consensus here is that there is no problem, then the message can be removed. Does anyone object to my placing the DUBIOUS TAG back up? Radvo (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Why post here? Did you see the comments at the bottom?

Please stop quoting policies to experienced editors—we know what they say! For a link problem, just say something like "there is a site with X, but I can't link to a copyvio" (much shorter and more understandable).

Do not place tags and stuff until a reasonable amount of discussion has occurred. How would it look if editors A and B spent several days editing an article, and A tagged B's edits, and B tagged A's edits? It's absurd. There is an active discussion here, so proceed with the discussion and stop worrying about tags. If there is some text to be disputed, note it here. Thinks about tags if the discussion stops for a few days without a clear consensus.

Perhaps you are not reading the comments on this page? For example, there is an unanswered question dated "06:59, 15 January 2012", and I have previously mentioned some of the points I have just had to repeat. Johnuniq (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Brevity, please, brevity. In my quick skim I thought Herostratus and Johnuniq were advocating the removal of the condemnation. Looks like I was wrong. Rind and Bauserman's association with Paidika should remain, I'd like to expand it to include any comment by Rind or others on his side of things. We can use primary sources to essentially verify what the person or entity (in this case, Congress) actually said. I have a copy of Rind et al's response. Congress's 17 points lead up to the conclusion, and I think a fair summary of that conclusion is that Congress condemned it for, among other things, being used to promote Nambla's hideous agenda. There's other stuff in the resolution, but I think those are the important points. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU: Thanks for sharing your view. What secondary source can you cite to confirm your view, and Herostratus' view, that "Congress's 17 points lead up to the conclusion." As an experienced editor you know: It does not matter what your view is, It doesn't matter that I think: No way do the 16 earlier points lead up to #17. It doesn't matter if it's true. What matters is whether you have a secondary source that claims that Congress's 16 points all lead up to the conclusion in #17! If you don't have a secondary source, if you only have a primary source, you may not WP:cherrypick one. Here's another argument for this discussion: You feel strongly that "Wikipedia is sullied by association if any of those child rape advocacy sites are ever included on our pages - including talk pages." In harmony with that view, you removed these words from the main article on January 15: "such as the International Pedophile and Child Emancipation documentation service (Ipce), the Male Homosexual Attraction to Minors information center (MHAMic), the Danish Pedophile Association (D.P.A. Gruppe 04), and the North American Man/Boy Love Association." Your edit comment, to justify the removal of those words, was "I don't think we need to list them" Again you imply that what you think comes out of the article is the criteria here. This is what has been happening here since early December. Who owns this board, anyway? I happened to strongly agree with your deletion, so I didn't mention that until now. I ask you to go still further. To be consistent, you should remove these words, too: "and condemned the study on the basis that it was being used by pro-pedophilia activists and organizations." Just because Congress "sullied" itself in associating that esteemed institution by naming that organization in its #17, this article does not have "sully itself" even a little to call attention to those group's existence. This Rind article is about a jargon-ladened meta-analysis that few have read and even fewer understand. But my main point is: You have no secondary source to justify your WP:cherrypicking # 17.Radvo (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC) --Radvo (talk) 06:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources are reliable sources for straightforward, descriptive statements about themselves. For other facts, like which ones on the list of 17 are the most relevant, or whether this list crescendos and climaxes into # 17, this primary source gives no clue. For such interpretive edits, this primary source is not a reliable source. I have been advised that there is no WP:cherrypicking, and this would apply to the list of 17 "whereas's", without citing a secondary source. This sentence in the main article has no room for a soapbox. While the primary objective of Wikipedia is to collaboratively build an encyclopedia, collaboration is dependent to a certain degree of confidence in other editors' evenhandedness, fairness, and judgment. --Radvo (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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." 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)

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. MLA Citation Style Overview & Tips Examples APA Citation Style Overview & Tips Examples

--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)

Request for page numbers for the footnote. The full text of the scholarly articles is provided to our WP:editors for this purpose. If 5 words cannot be verified in these 2 secondary sources, I would like to remove those five words from the article.

This is an example of the User:Anthonyhcole (talk) method of editing, which I recommend all editors use in this controversial topic. I have been inspired by Juice's recent successful edit to imitate him here. Keep in mind, in reading this Section, that the Rind et al. (1998) meta-analysis included about 20 studies that defined "child," as in CSA, up to age 18! This is not Wikipedia's or the common sense definition of a child. And when Dallam refuted Rind, she was quoting some studies that included 19 year olds!!

For this text:

"Numerous studies and professional clinical experience in the field of psychology, both before and after Rind et al.'s publications, have long supported the stance that children cannot consent to sexual activity and are harmed by it..."

Two citations are given to support this "stance" (this intellectual and emotional position) that "children cannot consent to sex". The two footnote citations are:

There are no "quotes" or page numbers for the two footnotes that support this uncompromising claim, and I would like some help from other editors here. As a fact checker, I challenge this claim is supported in either of these two research studies. Would an editor lurking here please find, and add, to the footnotes, the page numbers from the two citations above, i.e., that quote, or refer to, the scientific research that verifies this assertion? I have supplied the full text of the two references above for your search. Just click on the journal article's name. Lacking that, would someone provide the sentence or sentences in these two articles that support this claim. Claims on Wikipedia must be WP:verifiable in the secondary source.

Aside: My list above, made with Google Scholar (see above section), shows the Holmes and Slap article to be relatively heavily cited in the scholarly literature, but that study does not make the claim that the former WP:editor says it does. Maybe I overlooked it, so that's why I discuss it here.

I have been advised in two messages from Elen of the Roads (talk) from WP:arbitration that "citing academic research which challenges current society norms or legislation...must be true academic research" and "[b]y and large, if it's [i.e., the scholarly research is] published on a university site, it's probably not a copyvio." I have complied with the letter and the spirit of both her requests here.

BTW, for balance, here is research that specifically studied consent in a non-representative sample of 10 to 16 year old boys. Note that a 16 year old is an adolescent and most probably not a pre-pubescent or biological child.

Sandfort, Theodorus G. Sex in pedophiliac relationships: An empirical investigation among of boys. Journal of Sex Research, Vol 20(2), May 1984, 123-142.doi psycnet

Dr. Theo Sandfort published research on children's and adolescent's capacity to consent, and he may be a published researcher who holds the WP:fringe/minority view on this. It could be that Sandfort's research is "too fringe" to include in this topic. However either the claim that "children cannot consent to sex" should be removed (because this simple fact has not yet be empirically studied and is not, INMHO, scientifically verified in either of these two sources i.e., beyond a simple verbal assertion), or this mainstream widely-supported belief should be balanced with the fringe scientific view of Theo Sandfort's empirical study.

This request for page numbers above is relevant to the Rind et al. (1998) study, and to the controversy, because the Rind et al. study also discussed consent and "willingness," and they made some controversial recommendation about future language use.

IMHO, this issue of "cannot consent to sex" should be dropped from the article, as too controversial for a family encyclopedia, or both sides should be carefully presented to the reader when the issue of "willingness" is again fully discussed. It is maybe unwise to discuss this controversial issue at this time. In that case, I ask permission to remove the 5 words "cannot consent to sexual activity" as an assertion that is not supported on specific pages in either of the two scholarly articles cited. This can be brought up at some future date when there are more editors here who are more familiar with the verifiable research literature, are willing to take the time to read it, and understand it. Radvo (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The following quote is problemetatic for mainly two reasons

"Numerous studies and professional clinical experience in the field of psychology, both before and after Rind et al.'s publications, have long supported the stance that children cannot consent to sexual activity and are harmed by it..."

1) It sounds like the "numerous studies" scientifically support that children cannot consent to sex. This is wrong, and the authors admit themselves that it is not a scientific position but a societal belief (see end of first column on page 711 in Ondersma). So it should be rewritten or removed.

2) The statement that they claim that children are harmed by it is also wrong. They do not claim this at all. In fact, they are very open with that many children are not harmed by sex, and this has been the mainstream position since Finkelhors 1979 study which set off the new paradigm in CSA research.

So, let's consider Sandfort's research on consent. Is it fringe? Not at all, he is not the only one who has done such research, Paul Okami, Rind et al., Constantine, Coxell among many others have dealt with the topic scientifically. This means that it is not FRINGE by wikipedia standards but an alternate theory and significant theory which is valid for inclusion if we want to. But again, some censoring might be in order because the US is in a constant state of panic regarding this topic so if we add the consent-information in a unbiased fashion, I assume that we can expect the article to be constantly attacked by hysterical people. Juice Leskinen 06:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You know the academic literature. That's great. But take a look at the chapter about the Rind et al. controversy in this book: Fundamental differences: feminists talk back to social conservatives By Cynthia Burack, Jyl J. Josephson http://books.google.com/books?id=FYtEQr8nFsUC&pg=PA78&dq=%22bruce+rind%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wTUmT5nKN6nr0gG2_NGyDQ&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBA#v=snippet&q=76&f=false

That book chapter was also published as an article, entitled "Politics of Child Sexual Abuse Research" by Janice Haaken and Sharon Lamb in Society magazine Volume 37, Number 4, 7-14, DOI: 10.1007/BF02912284 See also http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=p4r9gl1acdp036l2&size=largest

Some quotes here from the book chapter, page 69 ff

A newsletter of the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children published a commentary (footnoted) responding to the [Rind et al.] uproar by pointing out that those in the sexual abuse research community have actually known for some time [i.e., before Rind's paper was published) that a significant number of sexually abused children have no measurable long-term negative outcomes.(another footnote).

So who is afraid of Rind et al.? Who needs Okami and Coxell for this Wikipedia article, if Rind's findings are supported by such a CSA research establishment newsletter? Rind is no big deal they are saying, we knew that already! :-)

Rind et al. seem to be advocating "believing" the college student.

He may have learned that from all the media hype about "believing the children" during the McMartin Day Care fiasco.

"women researchers have exalted women's individual experiences as an equal and viable source of knowledge to empirical inquiry, not only because empiricism is fraught with biases and often in the hands of men but because empiricism can never answer some questions that are vital to women's lives."

Can we include such ideas in the article somehow? Maybe we can argue that a college student's and an adolescent's individual experiences are another "equal and viable source of knowledge" to empirical inquiry, too.

more tomorrow, and I'll fix those link then, too. So what action do we now take? --Radvo (talk) 08:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the matter is too complex to be possible to have in the article. The whole consent and what it means, what scientists actually believe about harm and so forth. It is so far removed from what the public believes that it would take 10 pages to explain it properly since you would essentially need to put in a historical context, explain moral questions, legal aspects, and the confusion of these, not to mention technical research issues, and all to a brainwashed public who most likely is willing to spend less than 20 seconds reading anything. It can't be done.

Let's just delete it. I'd rather have an incomplete article than one spreading falsehood. Obviously, this article has been butchered at some point and the best we can hope is to clean some of it up. Juice Leskinen 11:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Juice: Take greater care when writing for the other side, or avoid doing this all together. Your edit suggests that the approach from the other side is simply some "belief." That there is no compassion, protectiveness, science on their side. If we do a fantastic job of Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent, we build good will and save ourselves a lot of future grief. Assume we are being closely monitored by dozens of watchers. See also WP:Controversy and Principle of charity. Please read and then tell me what you think about these three essays. I hope we can reduce the possibility of attacks on this article by trolls and angry people. 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. We are dealing with very powerful beliefs here. It is simply wrong to deny all that research. Clinicians who counsel/treat abused kids, and work with adults who were abused as minors, see a lot of the harm caused by CSA experienced by their clients. You are not writing fairly for the other side by denying this research and just dismissing this professional and clinical experience by deleting it from the article. This research and clinical experience needs to be acknowledged and accepted in NPOV. If you can't do this with a great deal of tact and diplomacy (in harmony with the three essays I point you to), then please let others step in later and do this for the article. There is a lot of less controversial material we can work on.

I don't like your word "supported". That word might give the public the wrong impression. Finklehor et al., The Congress, the public argues, but provided no serous empirical research "support" to back up the claim.

Is your newly edited sentence WP:verified by Ondersma and Holmes & Slap? Do you now have page numbers to "support" the sentence, as it now stands? I started this Section with that question... Do we have excellent secondary sources to make these claims? --Radvo (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC) --Radvo (talk) 04:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The current state of the article is much more supported by the sources than the previous version. I even used their own words to describe it. They themselves openly express that it is a societal belief.

You can include the harm bit if you like, but don't write it like it is something that Rind et al. doesn't believe. EVERYONE in that field KNOWS and OPENLY ADMITS that pretty much every study show that some amount of the children studied show signs of harm coming from somewhere. However, if you want to dig into the causal issues here, you would have HUGE controversy on your hands and it simply doesn't belong in this article. You can try to add it in the infamous Child sexual abuse article (and you will fail) Juice Leskinen 08:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Juice Leskinen 08:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that, Radvo. And here I originally thought you two were very likely in cahoots. You have shown yourself to be more neutral than one would think. [redacted] "[S]ome amount of the children studied show signs of harm coming from somewhere"? Oh boy. The great majority of children who are sexually abused show signs that the abuse harmed them. It's called "abuse" for a reason. 194.170.28.240 (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Write that again and you will be reported. As far as harm is concerned, you assume what is to be proven. That is not the scientific way. Juice Leskinen 20:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You are not allowed to strike through my comments. See WP:TALK. We can focus on an editor's edits, and, if I believe your edits to be pushing a certain POV, I am free to say so here at Wikipedia. Reporting me won't stop me from stating what I consider your edits to be. I said your edits are typical of pedo POV-pushing. This is easily proven by comparing your edits to users who were blocked and/or banned for that type of editing. Radvo called out your extremely biased editing, and I elaborated on it. So sue me. If I'm blocked, it won't be because I said your edits reflect a certain POV. 194.170.28.241 (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Besides, what you just wrote proves that you have missed the whole debate that this article is involved in. So you may want to pause your crusade until you have read up on the subject? Just a suggestion. Juice Leskinen 20:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. 194.170.28.240 (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's all you got. At least read the original article once. Please. Juice Leskinen 21:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No and I've already read it. And I told you to leave my comments alone. If anyone needs to be reported, it's you. I can comment on what I consider to be the nature of your edits all I want. Editors' edits are called POV-pushing all the time, and calling them personal attacks is no reason for removal. People other than you must categorize them as personal attacks before they can be removed, since what is and what is not a personal attack is often subjective. Hell, per WP:TALK, simple incivility is no reason to remove any comment. I won't stop calling your edits what I have before, no matter what IP I am using, and you cannot stop me. 194.170.28.241 (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that you need to know the science to know if someone is POV-pushing. You have no such knowledge, so you are just launching unfounded personal attacks. You for example seem to believe it is POV-pushing to question the causal link between CSA and harm, but this is something that mainstream scientists have done for over 40-years. You simple have no idea what you are talking about here. Juice Leskinen 22:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

My criticism of your edits has nothing to do with not knowing science. I know science, and so does Radvo, who also called out your POV-pushing. So hush it up. 194.170.28.241 (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

So you do understand the causal debate? Then what exactly in my edit was controversial? Juice Leskinen 22:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand what Radvo stated about your edit? What he stated is why your edit was "controversial"/unacceptable. You would do well to again read what he stated and try to understand why he criticized your edit, although people of your extreme POV have a difficult time understanding it. If I were to say any more than that, it would be redundant. 194.170.28.239 (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I completely understand the way he misunderstood my edit. I have been doing this for many years and there a reason why I rather have articles such as this deleted, and it is because it is very difficult for laymen to understand the often subtle scientific issues involved, which leads to misunderstandings and the kind of hysteria we see here. The statement I removed initially was either meaningless or false. The causal statement fixed that problem once I added it. You guys really should abstain from editing this article until you understand such issues. Juice Leskinen 22:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Radvo has demonstrated very well that he understands this topic and its issues. You, on the other hand? I can't agree, and it's not because I don't understand. You tell us that you have been doing this for many years. What, am I to believe that you are an expert on these matters? If so, I can't believe it. Here's one example[1] of why not. In any case, you have been editing very heavily from one POV since you showed up. So has Radvo, but he has at least been more neutral, and has accurately cited sources the majority of time. He has also shown a better understanding of Wikipedia practices than you. But you go ahead and keep insisting that you are right. It's fun watching you and Radvo battle it out, and Radvo so effortlessly show his superiority over you on the subject. 194.170.28.240 (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That was (I thought) a very obvious joke. But I guess I forgot i was on Wikipedia...

Look, I have dealt with such cheap shots before and all it does is bore me. Juice Leskinen 23:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to add sources

Well, Radvo, you added a load of claims in the following edit: [2] 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,[3] 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.[4] 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)

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 include 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)

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.

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)

= Lifted out messy section for cleaning

This section needs some serious cleaning. The sources no longer applies to the text. Juice L 11:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Subsequent research==

“ The U.S. Congress, numerous research studies, and professionals in academia and in the clinic from the fields of psychology, psychiatry, counseling, and social work, both before and after Rind et al.'s and Ulrich et al.'s publications, have endorsed the societal belief in a casual link between child sexual abuse and harm. The then American Psychological Association CEO Raymond D. Fowler succinctly reiterated the prevailing view in a 1999 letter to Congressman Delay "that children cannot consent to sexual activity with adults." Others, like Rind et al. and Ulrich et al., counter that that prevailing "simplistic" view of CSA fails to completely account for the variety and complexity of documented sexual experience that many insist, for strong moral reasons, "cannot" exist. ”