Talk:Rind et al. controversy

NPOV

The introductory paragraphs of the Rind et al. article currently contains this sentence, which I would like to remove, I bring this matter up here to first get feedback.

Here's the sentence I wish to remove, from near the beginning of the article.

"Numerous age of consent reform organizations have quoted the [Rind et al.] paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws, and defense attorneys have used the study to argue for minimizing harm in child sexual abuse cases.[4][5]"

The 2 sources (footnoted in 4 and 5) that support this statement are professionals but IMHO are not neutral observers; they are advocates for two different alternative views that have done much to sustain the controversy.

(1) Dr. Ondersma is associated with the advocacy group APSAAC, a professional group of CSA counselors. I was told that this advocacy group was formed, in part, to resist and counter the public and professional skepticism that questioned the mindless professional support of the ridiculous claims of preschool children in the McMartin Preschool case in California, et al.. The Ondersma group may be the guardians of the rhetoric, methods, and techniques that caused the moral panic around the preschool cases for a number of years. The counselors in this group made some people pretty mad, and IMHO they had to circle the wagons to protect themselves.

(2) Dr. Stephanie Dallam was with The Leadership Council. Those professionals organized, in part, to defend member therapists against malpractice lawsuits, These therapists (allegedly fraudulently, according to the lawsuits) diagnosed their patients with so called "recovered memories' of incest, and multiple personality disorder. This was another moral panic, that included the controversial recovered memories phenomenon. The Leadership Council has considerable professional interest in who controls the rhetoric about incest and CSA, especially in Congress, among judges, and in juries. This professional interest of The Leadership Council to control the rhetoric that gets to the legislatures and the courts sets off another buzzer in my head. These are not professionals with a neutral point of view; they have an agenda and want to protect their professional members from malpractice suites when things go wrong. It's a free country, and I support their right to organize,too. But I oppose the use of their rhetoric as a neutral and unbiased source.

The therapists associated with these two groups IMHO are not mainstream; the science associated with these therapists is not regarded, by their mainstream professional peers, as the strongest in the field. I hae no problem with developing alternative therapies, unless the professional members of these groups are getting a lot of malpractice suites filed against them. Then it is time for these professionals to get out and control the rhetoric. That sets off another buzzer in my head.

The sentence quoted above suggests there are "numerous" organizations that support age of consent reform. "Numerous" in nonsense if you read the Wikipedia article on Age of Consent reform organizations. Associating these tiny fringe groups with the Rind study is also nonsense. (The NAMbLA website now features a long review of Susan Clancy's book, The Abuse Myth. Is that reason for her book to now be condemned by the Congress, and by these two advocacy groups?)

Then the sentence in the Introduction of the Rind article mentions the Rind study being used in court. Now the alarm buzzer is loud and steady. For the people in The Leadership Council this controversy is about who controls the discourse in the legislatures and in the courts. If the Rind study gains any credibility or following in the public, then the professionals from The Leadership Council, who are being sued in court over repressed memories, will have more difficulty defending themselves against juries that may give huge damage awards in civil suits. I suspect this is what these groups are about.

These two advocacy groups have considerable interest in discrediting the Rind et al. studies by successfully associating the Rind research with controversy, with the condemnation by Congress, with "numerous" fringe pedophile advocacy organizations and to so-called pedophile activists. And with the use of the Rind study in courts of law. And with the current Wikipedia article that further destroys the credibility of the Rind research. (Except that Heather Ulrich duplicated the Rind study in 2005, and came up with the identical results. Go figure.) If the rhetoric of this Wikipedia article is transformed into an article with a more neutral point of view, this article will be probably nominated for deletion by the same people who put it up here originally.

The buzzer is quite loud and steady now.

I want to work to make this article a fair and balanced one. But then I expect that it will be taken down from Wikipeida, and have to exist in an independent site. Let's see how this comes out.

I speculate that some of the claims made by the advocates for these professionals, who may rightly fear lawsuits, to damage the credibility of the Rind study as valid court evidence. These two groups may be protecting members who were being sued (or might be sued in the future) and want their views in court to go unchallenged by the controversial Rind studies. These two groups see the Rind studies as a professional threat and thus a rival to be discredited. I see the earlier versions of the Wikipeida article as good public relations for these advocates. Some of the sources this article uses as neutral and quality sources are not IMHO disinterested, they are part of the kind of non-mainstream professional groups that created and maintain the controversy.

The reason I bring this up is the Wikipeida editors need reliable sources. The Wikipedia editors incorrectly IMHO regard Dallam and Ondersma as neutral sources. I don't think they are neutral sources for the purpose of sourcing this article. I think they are part of the reason these is a controversy; they weigh in heavily against the Rind study.

The views of Dr. Dallam and Dr. Ondersma are very much part of The Rind et al. controversy. I see them as protagonists, and they should not be Sources for the neutral introduction of the controversy.

So I want that biased sentence in the introduction to be deleted.

Please advise.

Radvo (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Revised and expanded Radvo (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The removal of my contributions on December 12th by two anonymous users, 193.169.145.61 and 193.169.145.48

All my contributions to this article were removed on December 12th. Here is the edit showing what was edited out. A reason given for these many removals was that I was allegedly "adding tags to things that are already cited or cited lower in the article."

I am confused and bewildered by the reasons for the drastic edit by the first anonymous editor. This was not a revert, redaction or "undo" of one particular post, but the first anonymous editor cherry picked each edit I made since my first post and removed them all.

If the "Citation Tag" or Tags were allegedly inappropriate, the specific tags themselves could have been challenged by the first anonymous editor with a credible explanation for the challenge. So, a more parsimonious and appropriate solution, IMHO, would have been for the anonymous editor to simply remove the erroneous "Citation Tag(s)" with a clear explanation, like e.g., "The footnote was already cited, or cited lower in the article." I could have checked that out, silently conceded my error and not contested the removal of the tag, or responded to the objection to my placement of the particular "Citation Tag." If that is too much for a new editor on this topic to ask, I make another suggestion below.

Most of the text that was removed by the two anonymous users, had nothing to do with "Citation Tags."

The restoration of the non-contested text involves a lot of unnecessary work -- for a second time. I seek this partial remedy: I ask that the anonymous editor at least identify the specific "Citation Tag(s)" in contest. All editors here and I have a right to know which "Citation Tag" or Tags provoked such an inappropriate response.

If any other editors here, who are "fit" and in good standing, wish to volunteer to do any part of that restoration work, please feel free to do so. Please do not restore any contested "Citation Tags" to the article; it would help to know which of the "Citation Tags" are contested. If the restoration or the requested assistance by volunteer editors to do the restoration is against a Wikipedia rule or policy that I don't know about, please follow the rules.

There is a discussion of my fitness to be an editor on this article at the very end of Flyer22's talk page The arguments do not focus on the quality of my contributions, but are abusive ad hominem attacks (also called personal abuse or personal attacks); "these usually involve insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions." See (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem_attack) An ad hominem attack violates the rules. An Edit War based on an Ad hominem attack cannot be justified, and, INHO, all removals should be reversed for this reason.

The discussion at Flyer22's{www.mhamic.org/rind/) talk page includes this sentence by the second anonymous editor: "the other anon is wrong! i just gave my response on the discussion page. i was edit warring, but i was justified." 107.20.1.111 (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)" I wonder from the last sentence in this quote here whether the two different anonymous editors are the same person using two different computers (with very similar IP addresses). Would an investigation of this suspicion be in order? If someone is violating the rules and policies, we want to know about that. We all expect that the rules are enforced in an even-handed way. See also (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks)

How do I raise the issue about the fitness of the two anonymous editors, for the two reasons cited above? Please advise. I don't see the anonymous's "response on the discussion page." I would like to read the "response on the discussion page," so I could better understand if I erred in placing any or all of the "Citations Tags", Since I am new here, and those were my first experiments with using "Citation Tags", I am willing to make this concession for now: just remove all the contested "citation tags" without any reason. I would go along with that to reduce the controversy, to build confidence in my good will, and to give me time and experience to understand what is possible here.

The discussion at the very end of Flyer22's talk pageconfuses two very different web-sites: Everything you wanted to know about the Rind Controversy is confused with a controversial bibliographic list of academic resources (mhamic.org). I had nothing to do with the creation and maintenance of either of those websites, but Everything you wanted to know about the Rind Controversy deals in depth with some aspects of the same Rind controversy as this Wikipedia article. So I bookmarked that link on, what I thought was, my private user page for further reference. I did not imagine that bookmarking that page in that way was against any Wikipedia policy here, or would motivate someone to cherry pick ALL of my past edits for removal. I have already removed that link from my user page and will not restore it. I hope this remedy helps to create a better climate for my future editing here.

I wish to make further quality contributions to this article, and I wish to learn and follow all Wikipedia rules and policies. I understand this article is a controversial issue; The word "controversy" appears in the article's title. I do not wish to be confrontational or make some editors here nervous. I wish to build confidence in my knowledge about this topic, in my good will, and in my willingness to work within Wikipedia's rules and policies. Radvo (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

IP 107.20.1.111 wasn't talking about this article. He or she was responding to a dispute going on at Sexual fetishism. Click on that IP and you'll see the user's contributions.

Confuses two very different web sites? Nuh-uh. www.mhamic.org/rind/ is www.mhamic.org/. It's just a different section of the same web site. I was right to revert you. Plus, you complain about cherry picking, but you were cherry picking at already sourced lines and skewing things. Leave me be. 193.169.145.59 (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I accept your correction about IP 107.20.1.111. You are right. I was confused, and I made a mistake, I apologize, and I will try to be more careful with anon IP addresses in the future.

And yes, You are absolutely right. (http://www.mhamic.org/rind/) is part of (http://www.mhamic.org/). I have removed the offending web-link from my User page. Would you allow the acceptability of a link to (http://www.mhamic.org/rind/) to go so some kind of arbitration? And we'll both live with the decision of the arbiter?

And yes, cherry picking is wrong. I want to be fair and not cherry pick. I was picking at already sourced lines, and skewing things up that were long ago settled on this page. Those were stupid moves on my part. You want me to leave you be, Okay... So I won't discuss my particular reservations with you. I'll drop the "Citation Tags," and I'll leave you be. I'll guess which Citation Tags you are referring to, and I will not put those "Citation Tags" back. I'll leave you be.

I'd like to put most of my other contributions back into the article's page, except for the specific "Citation Tags" that offend you. How about a deal? I leave you be, and you leave me be? I don't want to edit war with you. If there are particular posts I make (or citation tags that I insert) that you don't like, I will listen to you and try to respond sensitively.

I want to leave you be. Do we have a deal? Radvo (talk) 06:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I can only agree to you reinserting your edits with the following exceptions:

• Leave out your citation tags. You already appear open to that.

• Leave the POV-check out of the intro.

• Do not change "The paper was posted on numerous of advocacy websites such as International Pedophile and Child Emancipation (IPCE), the Male Homosexual Attraction to Minors information center (MHAMIC) and North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), and has been used to argue that the age of consent should be lowered or abolished."... to "...the study was, nevertheless, also used by a relatively small number of individuals and by fringe groups, referred to collectively here as advocates for pedophilia. The Rind et al. Report was posted, or its journal reference was cited, on advocacy websites, such as the extensive 'The RBT Files' Section of the International Pedophile and Child Emancipation (IPCE, now Ipce), the Male Homosexual Attraction to Minors information center (MHAMic) (website expanded to 'Everything You Wanted to Know about the Rind Controversy MHAMic'), and the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMbLA).

Relatively small number of individuals? No, what is there is more specific and precise. Referred to collectively here as advocates for pedophilia? No, it's not just here at Wikipedia that they are referred to that way. They are advocates for pedophilia, period. And I don't know why you added all those dead link tags. There are no dead links in that paragraph and the information is supported by the Dallam2001 source.

• Do not add "The current usage of the Rind et al. Report outside of scholarly discussions by these named websites can be Googled. The 'Net, and its use by activist individuals and fringe groups, is always changing. Inspection of these four websites in December 2012 does not find the results of the Rind et al. Report are used to specifically advocate lowering of age of consent laws. No specific ages are mentioned on these cited websites."

Even if true, this information is irrelevant and is WP:OR. What are you trying to do? Make it seem as though these websites no longer support the Rind study and that we don't know how low they are asking for the age of consent to be lowered? Just because the Rind study may not be highly discussed on these websites anymore doesn't mean that they no longer support it. Pedophiles will always support this study and skew it toward their POV.

• When you change "It has also been used in several court cases by child sexual offenders as a defense." to "The Rind et al. study has also been used in several court cases by child sexual offenders as a defense.", you do not have to place a citation tag there just because no recent source is placed beside it. You can change "has also been" to "was," since you are so concerned with the fact that the line gives the implication that this is still going on.

Those are my requests. 193.169.145.43 (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful and reasonable request. I read your message. What a relief! I can work with you. I agree with your requests. You have a deal.

Maybe I might quibble about a word or two. Give me a tiny bit of room to wiggle as I get back into returning this material to the article. Sometimes I think I like to improve what I wrote before. Make a careful read of what I put back up, and if you don't like what I do, just change the word or few words to what you like, and I'll consider your suggestion and probably yield to you for harmony's sake and let it stick. Or I'll send you a message on your user page to discuss. There was another anonymous user who also worked with you. Do I have requests from that other person, too? Radvo (talk) 05:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

To the appropriate Wikipedia authority or Administrator:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Woah woah woah woah. What the Sam Hill is going on here? These are not good links. You linked to MHAMic on your userpage and you were called on that and you find this surprising? We do not link to MHAMic any more than we link to Storm Front or whatever. Please use some basic common sense, thanks!

As the rest, could you try to be a little more succinct? There's a heck of a lot to read here. Anyway, we do not want to link to the NAMBLA web site and similar sites from the Wikipedia for any reason, I would say, period. These are primary sources for the material you want to cite anyway, which is usually discouraged. Find a reputable secondary source. Herostratus (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for response and your advise: Be succinct. I'll try that.

YES, I FOUND "BEING CALLED ON THAT" COMPLETELY SURPRISING! Cross my heart & hope to die! Talk more about "common sense". The author of that website lacked some common or political sense by not posting it independently, but it's wrong to reject ideas solely based on their origins.

"WE do not link to" the Storm Front or the NAMbLA. Well, SURPRISE! Wikipedia does link to both.

Correction # 1: [Stormfront] has functioning link to [Stormfront's external link] Fun to point out the facts. (Thanks; I feel like a argumentative teenager again!)

Correction # 2: The Wikipedia Rind topic has an active link to [NAMbLA], and that Wikipedia page, in turn, links directly to NAMbLA's external website. Please, check it out: NAMbLA is two mouse clicks away from the Rind article. Really! I wrote that already twice above; sorry you missed it because I was not succinct. My fault.

Correction # 3: I bookmarked [Everything you wanted to know about The Rind Controversy MHAMic]. Please give me basic common courtesy and please do not confuse the public with the two different sections of MHAMic. Look! The page I bookmarked is something like [Wikipedia's Rind et al. Controversy article], but less focus on the Dallam criticisms (which Rind et al. fully refuted already in 2001 and which Ulrich et al. already corrected for in the 2005 replication. In [Everything you wanted to know about The Rind Controversy MHAMic], one can learn something: the Rind controversy was more than what Wikipedia has to say about it so far.

Correction # 4: The 3 primary web-sources, with active links, were inserted in the article by other editor(s). Two links now broken. The burden to find "secondary sources" was the other editors'. Period?

BTW, the allies already beat the original Storm Front 66 years ago; Storm Front lost. Irrelevant? You injected the White Supremacists/Neo-Nazi's into this. Sorry, it's late, and I feel prickly. Enough.

"A little more succinct" was fun. Please, no offense intended. If this retort was not polite or respectful enough, it was 'The Sam Hill' who made me do it. I'll be extra nice next time, after I get some sleep. Promise. Cheers. Radvo (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposing some adjustments to the Intro

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feedback on this is welcome and desired.

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

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

1-4 sound ok. 5 I will need to do some additional research about the legal case part of it. Off the top of my head, the cases where this study were invoked are all in defense; I have never heard of it being brought up by the prosecution or plaintiff. Furthermore, the parts I recall about a few cases were pretty shameless. In Arizona v. Steward, Steward was a teacher who'd molested multiple boys as young as 5 years old. He was a predator. Rind et al was quoted during the sentencing phase as an attempt to gain leniency by claiming the harm was minimal. In Watson v. Roman Catholic Church, the expert witness attempted to use Rind as a basis for his statement that there is no association between sexual abuse and maladjustment. Obviously a gross misstatement of Rind, but the defense team did it anyway. These two cases demonstrate minimization in one, and denial of harm in the other. There was at least one other case that used Rind as a defense tactic, but I don't recall and will have to look for it.

I don't have much to say on (6) other than it seems unnecessary to work it into the lead. It is worth noting that the journal that published Ulrich's study (SRMHP) is not a well known one. Without saying too much about myself personally, I have access to arguably the largest scholarly library in the world, yet SRMHP is not carried in regular collections nor available online. I will have to special order it as a hardcopy in order to examine the details.Legitimus (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Did you intend this post to be in response to one of the other threads above? I don't see that particular topic in this one.Legitimus (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Legitimus, I am responding to this thread. Truthinwriting wrote: "(5) The last sentence of the intro...currently reads: "Numerous age of consent reform organizations have quoted the paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws, ...." Truthinwriting continued "This sentence strikes me as problematic.... I suggest it be deleted... If something like the sentence should stay, perhaps a simple edit.... For example: "Numerous age of consent reform organizations have quoted the paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws, and attorneys have used the study in court."

I don't have more Sources for what was happening with those AOC organizations in 1998--2001, I have already challenged the NPOV and the veracity of the underlined text in the original sentence, and now in Truthinwriting's suggested edit. My impression is that it's just not true 13+ years later. And it is not fair (NPOV) to immediately associate the scholarly study in the Introduction with the political activism of tiny intensely despised fringe groups. Wikipedia would be perpetuating an Urban Legend, a guilt by association fallacy and a delusion that serves the purposes of those hostile to (and fearful of) this study, and its associated replication. For veracity, I'd like to see some updated argument from a hated advocacy organization today "quoting" the connection between the Rind study and legal reform. Does anyone have a current "quote"? We have no updated third party reference Source for such a direct connection to age of consent reform.

I agree with Truthinwriting that we not include either the original or an edited sentence as part of the introduction.

If something like this sentence should stay, this sentence is verifiable, a little bit more NPOV IMHO, and less likely be challenged for veracity "The International Pedophile and Child Emancipation documentation service enthusiastically documents the study, and attorneys have used the study in court. (cite)"

The mission statement of the IPCE states the group is for scholarly documentation and discussion, and is NOT a [political] action organization. It does not advocate legal reform.

Another matter: The first sentence is too long. To shorten it, I suggest deleting "that even though CSA may not result in harm, this does not mean it is not wrong or morally repugnant behavior." "Repugnant" injects editor bias and appears no where in the original Rind text; see original quote below. I substituted this text directly from the Rind original: "that lack of harmfulness does not imply lack of wrongfulness". For reference, here is a full quote that is found in 1998 Rind et al. on page 47:

Quote from Rind et al: 1998, page 47

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

End quote from Rind et al. 1998, page 47

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

"Rind et al. concluded with a statement "that lack of harmfulness does not imply lack of wrongfulness"(cite p.47). They wrote that their research results did not imply that current moral and legal prohibitions against CSA should be changed. [Delete: The International Pedophile and Child Emancipation documentation service enthusiastically documents the study, and attorneys have used the study in court. (cite) ] Ulrich et al.[cite], seven years after the publication of the Rind et al. meta-analysis, replicated the study in the Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice and confirmed its main findings."Radvo (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Addition: The three authors of Rind et al. are named at the beginning of the Introduction, but information was redacted for two authors when Herostratus removed the first version of the Findings in Brief. The degree status at the time of publication was: Philip Tromovitch (MA) and Robert Bauserman (PhD) Radvo (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned signature added by Radvo (talk • contribs) 23:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC) Radvo (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Truthinwriting asked, at the start of this TALK section, viz. in his/her # (5) above, about Josepf Spiegel's 2003 book. Truthinwriting wants to use this source to verify the misuse of the Rind study in court by defense attorneys, i.e., outside of scholarly discussions, (Both the source, and the placement of the fact into the introduction of the article, are being questioned and discussed here.) Much of Spiegel's 2003 book is available free on line, including pages 3 and 9, cited in footnote 4. (The clever former Wikipedia editor very kindly inserted, for everyone's convenience, full copies of the two cited pages right into the footnote. Thanks so much to that conscientious former editor for making clear in the footnote, the page numbers in the book found on line. The Internet and the fantastic Wikipedia software make it convenient, in this case, for the Wikipedia editor to instantly verify information at the on-line source.)

Viewer discretion advised. See page 3, and page 9 which I copied here to the TALK page from the article's footnote # 4. Shocking information! Absolutely appalling! This long chronological list in Josef Spiegel's book is NOT for children's eyes! I am only copying the citation from the footnote and am not responsible for the lack of common sense and the failure of appropriate censorship in this footnote. [Okay... First I'm shocked and appalled. Now I'm joking. Take a look at the items listed in the earlier years on that list. I won't tell your mother that you found this list on Wikipedia. I'll get serious again.]

But information about misuse in court of the Rind study was not on the two pages cited. The two cited pages say something other than what is contained in the sentence in the last paragraph of the article's introduction. Maybe someone here can verify that the cited page sources back up the sentence in the article. (I was so upset by pages 4 thru 7 that I could barely finish my research on these two cited pages in Spiegel. It must be "The Sam Hill" in me, that made me read Dr. Siegel's whole list. It's not funny! I'll stop this. Sorry. Back to business.)

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

(Aside: See the lower half of this Wikipedia page, about Citation Tags Just curious... Do editors ever use these citation tags in their work on this article? I was "messing around" to learn about these, inserting a few of these, and later my great fun did not end well. I agreed to not reassert those particular "citation tags" as part of the informal dispute resolution process. The Citation Tags made sense to me at the time, and actually still do. But consensus rules! )

P.S. My apologies to Dr. Josef Siegel. Never mind, Dr. Siegel. You can always blame the editor. Editors are known to screw things up. I was poking at the old things on page 3 -7 in your book to lighten things up here. (Uh Oh! Oh boy!... What are the rules about poking fun at a reference source that fails to confirm their assigned sentence in the Wikipedia?) I'm giggling again thinking about all those shameful and shocking things on page 3 - 7 of Dr. Spiegel's chronological list. Editing the Wikipeida was not supposed to be like this! I'd better quit. That's all Folks. Radvo (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Another thought about the failed reference source, in the Introduction, for the clause: "Numerous age of consent reform organizations have quoted the paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws"... The earliest version of this idea seems to have been edited into the Introduction of this article on March 16th, 2006 as an unsourced opinion/observation, contributed by Will Beback. Later editors added to, revised, deleted, and rephrased Will Beback's clause, but none of these versions was correctly sourced or footnoted either. Since the clause is not properly sourced, and since I gave other reasons above to delete this clause, the clause should be removed. Radvo (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Regarding this edit, just add the exact number or add "various." There is no need to put a "not in citation given" qualification when there is a source backing that there were more than a few college students.

The line that says "Numerous age of consent reform organizations have quoted the paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws, and defense attorneys have used the study to argue for minimizing harm in child sexual abuse cases." should stay, or at least something like it. The first part presents a significant aspect of the topic and should be in the lead, per WP:LEAD, especially since it is covered lower in the article. The "defense attorneys" part of the line should probably stay as well, but I don't mind if that part is removed.

Thirdly, child asexual abuse -- specifically adults engaging in sexual activity with prepubescents or early pubescents -- is considered to cause harm by most of the psychological/medical community (and I'm not talking about 18-year-olds with 13-year-olds), which is why the Rind study was and is still so controversial...not just because of moral beliefs. So hearing stuff like "...and defense attorneys have appropriately used the study to argue that harm did not occur in their client's case, due to the willingness of the minor's participation and the enjoyment the young person received as a result of their interactions." by Truthinwriting or any suggestion that child sexual abuse is not harmful is beyond ludicrous to me. Call it my bias if you will, but I would prefer that you two stop making suggestions like that. Yes, Rind says that child sexual abuse may not cause harm, but that is the point. This article is supposed to be about what the Rind study reports and the reactions to that report. It cannot be helped that most researchers and the general public have severely criticized the findings.

Lastly: Radvo, yes, you need to stop giving such long replies, though it seems you have recently stopped yourself on that front. I still have yet to read all of what you stated at my talk page, though I may read it later today or the next. I can't promise that I'll respond there because the issues are being worked out here. As seen above, I just commented on what I think should be in the lead, I'll say that I agree with the IP (the 193.169. IPs are obviously the same person) about how you should not go about editing. Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Flyer22, I appreciate the pleasant tone, the friendly, "common sense" advice. Thank you very much. I would love to build a good working relationship with you, so the article becomes much better.

I wrote you before to explain about "samples". What I wrote you was not that long. The source abstract says in the second sentence: "59 studies based on college samples". Editor WLU may have incorrectly abbreviated this in editing to "several samples" on 9/18/2009. Writing science articles and articles about controversy by volunteers and consensus has its limitations.

You suggest that I just add the exact number of surveyed individuals (it's 35,703) or add the word "various." Thanks, but that does not help. Study this. Consider this a lesson in statistics.

Maybe it's like this: you know little about aeronautical engineering, but you offer me friendly advise about how to fix my plane that you are quite confident will be helpful. And I fear that you will damage the plane with your ideas.

I would make a fool of myself among statisticians and sexologists reading the Wikipedia if I just accepted your kind advise. I could not get away with the excuse that "Flyer22 suggested this in a kindly way, and I wanted to get along with her." It's got to be right! And "several samples" is just wrong. You don't know this. and I know that you don't know this. Are you receptive to learning meta-analysis? Have you read the Rind paper? That should be one of the rules. All editors should read the paper. Do you have a copy?

It's like this: you are part of a group that is writing an article about the controversy over the Koran. But you have not read the Koran, and you can't read it in it's original language. And you don't want to learn the language. You want to control what the encyclopedia might say, but you don't have to be a Koran scholar to do that.

It's also like this for me: If I were a surgeon, and I were operating on your mother to save her life, and you "helpfully" gave me some rusty, dirty knives from your garden to perform the surgery, I would refuse to do the operation with those tools. Your offer of your garden knives comes from the heart and is well meant, but your kind offer does not measure up to the surgery standards I have learned that might save your mother's life. I would not let you control what tools I may use to perform the operation. I might want to teach you something about introducing germs and disease during surgery, but you might not be receptive. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make her drink.

In your paragraph two, I hope you "don't mind if"...WP:Lead specifies that the lead be written "according to reliable, published sources." Here's my bias: There are no good sources for that idea. I don't like the idea because I don't think it is true; it's kind of an urban legend or propaganda that gets repeated over and over, so everyone (including you) believes it. I think that clause contains a guilt by association fallacy for the 6 authors of the meta-analyses and its replication. And for the APA itself. I think the idea might be a delusion, spread, originally and in part, by some of the persons who hate and fear the results of the study.

Your paragraph three: Who gets to edit this article? Who can join as an editor? Suppose researcher Heather Ulrich joins this editor's discussion, and just suppose she writes you quite emphatically: "Child sexual abuse does not necessarily lead to long-term harm! I am quite emphatic about that. I know this from a lot of research work I did. Get over it, Flyer22.' You feel passionately that "any suggestion that child sexual abuse is not harmful is beyond ludicrous," Is researcher Heather Ulrich beyond ludicrous and unfit to edit this article? Does she get banned as an editor from Wikipedia because she expressed her views? Her research supports Rind. Is that her privilege, or is that "beyond ludicrous"? Are you willing to work with editors whose views on the absence of harm, are "beyond ludicrous'? Or do you let them do a little work and then find some excuse to get rid of them?

It's like this: suppose I am a passionate believer of a religion, and I announce that any suggestion that my religion is not the one true faith is "beyond ludicrous". Suppose I believe passionately that strong believers in all other religions are "beyond ludicrous" and are best banished from the working group. Am I "fit" to work on an encyclopedia article about religious controversies and wars? Probably not. I would more likely recreate the "religious war "in the working group.

Truthinwriting's playful speculation about attorneys made me wince a bit. I want to learn the limits of humor here. Do you have any good jokes that push the limits a little less?

I am still shocked that IP193.169 took the time to cherry pick all my edits out! I am hoping someone else will volunteer to do the restoration work. I don't have much interest in doing it. Trash all my work once, shame on you. Trash my work twice, shame on me. YOu must have had some interesting group history here... I am not interested in edit wars.

Slight correction: I do not "need" to stop giving such long replies. I want to stop writing replies to people that are not receptive and replies that people don't read because the replies are too long. Radvo (talk) 08:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Radvo, you did leave a long reply on my talk page. And, for the record, I am receptive to long replies. Long replies are something that a person should get used to if they are going to edit Wikipedia. It's just that yours, until you were asked to tone down your usual length, are very long. It is a pain to have to reply to such long replies. Just because I can be receptive to them doesn't mean that I always am or look forward to them.

Yes, adding the exact number or "various" does help. It helps to remove your assertion that "several" is not in the citation given. We use "various" all the time on or off Wikipedia. Just like we use "several" to imply a number that is a little over a few. We don't list every person or example when there are well over just a few. We either state "several," "various" or give the exact number. It has nothing to do with a lesson in statistics. So if you are "[making a fool of yourself] among statisticians and sexologists reading the Wikipedia if [you] just accepted [my] kind advi[c]e," then so is most of Wikipedia and the writing world at large. And maybe WLU added "several" because, as the Meta-analysis article states, "In statistics, a meta-analysis combines the results of several studies that address a set of related research hypotheses." Seriously, what do you suggest we do if we are not to give the exact number or use "several" or "various"? Leave your "not in citation given" qualification in? That is not a solution, and certainly not better than my suggestions. No where did I state that "several samples" is right, but that you would take my objections to your edits to assert that "[I] don't know this" and "y[ou] know that [I] don't know this" and to go on about how unsuitable I am to edit this article because I don't understand this subject is beyond the pale. I'm not even going to answer your questions, since your mind is set on "Flyer22 does not understand this." I suppose my view that child sexual abuse is harmful is because I don't understand that topic either? Hmm. What I will say is this: Editors do not have to be "experts" on any given topic to edit those topics here at Wikipedia, but I understand child sexual abuse (as well as pedophilia) extremely well. You can (and will) believe what you want, however.

About WP:LEAD, read it...the whole page if you need to. I'm the experienced Wikipedia editor here, unless you aren't as new as you claim to be, and I am letting you know that a piece of information you are trying to get removed from the lead belongs in the lead. WP:LEAD is clear about why. You say "There are no good sources for that idea. I don't like the idea because I don't think it is true." I say WP:Verifiability says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." This information is backed to reliable, published sources. And I don't know why you keep talking down to me, as though I am some under-educated idiot who just "goes with the flow." My belief that "[n]umerous age of consent reform organizations have quoted the paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws" has nothing to do with believing "urban legend." It has to do with what I have witnessed on forums among pedophiles and those like them advocating for ages of consent to be lowered. I witnessed this with my own eyes. It was not by word of mouth. But of course we go by reliable, published sources here at Wikipedia, not by personal experience.

Who gets to edit this article? Well, admitted pedophiles do not. So anyone who is a pedophile but does not admit to it or give implication that they are a pedophile while here at Wikipedia, is home free. If researcher Heather Ulrich joins this discussion and says what you suggested, I would emphatically disagree with her, just like the general consensus in the psychological/medical community disagrees, and point out that her personal opinion should have nothing to do with this article. That's the point you seem to be missing. Your personal views about child sexual abuse do not belong here, and neither do mine. If you do not feel that child sexual abuse causes harm, then keep it to yourself, and I will make sure to keep mine to myself as well. I can work with editors of differing opinions just fine, and do so all the time at this site, but I am not willing to work with admitted pedophiles or child sexual abusers...unless they consider child sexual abuse to be wrong. Not all pedophiles are happy to be pedophiles or support child sexual abuse, after all. As for editors who don't believe child sexual abuse causes harm... Well, as long as they are following the Wikipedia policies and guidelines and not injecting their POV, then I can work with them. Your analogy that I am unfit to edit this article because I believe that child sexual abuse causes harm is also beyond the pale. Most people who have edited this article believe that child sexual abuse causes harm, including the current ones...with maybe the exception of you and Truthinwriting. You call Truthinwriting's scenario playful; I call it something else. And I'm not convinced that it made you "wince a bit" when you read it.

We will not be forming a good working relationship. And if you have to wonder why, all you need to do is look to your response to me above. I will, however, be asking Will Beback and WLU to weigh in here...since this discussion is partly about their edits. Flyer22 (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Flyer22, for your thoughtful response. You have strong opinions about many things, and I respect them. You give us much to think about. I will give more thought to all this.

Let's deal first with the statistics. Truthinwriting suggested, at the start of this thread, in his (1) above, replacing the contested words "several samples" with this: "58 independent samples of college students containing data on over 15,000 individuals." Legitimus and I agree with Truthinwriting's improvement. I checked my copies of Rind et al., and Truthinwriting is correct. You suggested specific numbers; will those do? Truthinwriting will simply remove/erase the citation tag, as he is replacing the error. Once we agree that the replacement text is properly sourced, the "citation tag" will be removed by the editor, (i.e., Truthinwriting), while making the correction. Does this appropriately deal with concerns about "several samples" and that citation tag? Radvo (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Flyer22, You write: "We either state "several," "various" or give the exact number." Yes, Flyer22, Truthinwriting opted for your last choice; he gives some exact numbers. Fifty nine gives a better idea of the scale of the meta-analysis, and 59 is more than "several". Here is a more correct use of the phrase "several samples." "Several samples" of your responses suggest that you do not know that some editors understand meta-analysis, have read the entire Rind study, and understand its mathematical results. Meta-analysis is a challenging and sophisticated mathematical endeavor; it takes years of math education to work into it. You are surely quite expert in many areas, and your many years of editing here on the Wikipedia could be helpful in advising Truthinwriting whether his suggested edit might make things a little clearer for the average Wikipedia reader. You write very well.

Here's the shocking part you bring home to me: Truth is not the issue; for Wikipedia, what is paramount are the reliable sources. That's a difficult point for me to accept and use, but I am willing to let you, Flyer22, teach me this about how a Wikipedia editor works. I looked further into this. Of course, Flyer22, you are right. I was arrogant and ignorant to think in my normal way here. I thought from my own observation that when something I personally observe is not true, what I think is false has to come out of the encyclopedia article. Thinking like an encyclopedia editor is different from how a scientist works; the scientist trusts her observations and measurements and goes where the observed data lead. My experience is not a "reliable source" for what gets taken out of a Wikipeida article. Flyer22, you are the long-time, experienced editor, and apparently you know what you are talking about, in Wikipedia matters where you have long experience. I will not progress if I am not more docile and receptive to quality instruction. I failed to see that when I wrote my post above. I apologize for the patronizing and arrogant tone. This 'editor-of-reliable-sources' mode is for me a foreign way of thinking, but I can learn this. Editors of an encyclopedia represent the views of reliable sources. It's not "To thine own self be true." It's be true to the most reliable and mainstream sources. Okay. I hope I learned this correctly from the source you provided. Thank you for raising my consciousness about this. Okay. I cannot immediately cite a reliable source that proves that what is in the Introduction is false. I'll be like a student now, testing out the teacher to see if what I am learning works when the tables are turned around.

No reliable source is offered that backs up the contested clause in the Introduction! I trust my own experience there!

The next two paragraphs are NOT about the harmfulness of CSA. That's a contentious, controversial issue, and this issue upsets you. Let's not go there. Repeat: harm to the child from CSA is NOT what the next two paragraphs are about. Please stay with me and narrowly focused.

This paragraph is just about the claim of a direct connection between Dr. Rind's meta-analysis and age of consent reform advocacy. Flyer22, you wrote above: "This information [about the direct connection between the Rind paper and advocacy for legal reform] is backed to reliable, published sources." The contested clause offers no such reliable sources in the footnotes, (or the page numbers cited are wrong or missing). Most of the full text in the two reliable sources, listed in footnotes 4 and 5, is available on line. The sources are reliable sources in general, but they don't specifically back up what is said in the article's Introduction. There is a difference between being a reliable source in general, and a reliable source backing a specific claim. Please correct me if I missed it. What is the page number in these two reference sources that "backs" up "this information?" Neither of these two sources ever even mentioned the Ipce or MHAMic websites. I challenge the credibility of the editor(s) who provided those sources to support the claim in that clause. Do you know if editors who make claims that cannot be verified in the sources they provide, get banished by administrators for their unreliability or misinformation? We might get some work done here if we clean house of editors who do not back up their claims with reliable sources.

Three organizations are identified in the article as advocacy organizations, but they are clearly fringe and NOT RELIABLE SOURCES! I looked at the MAHMic and Ipce sites. (Last I checked, this is still a free country, and the two groups are immoral by most peoples' standards, but not illegal organizations.) Well, SURPRISE! They are not age of consent advocacy organizations. Those fringe organizations are documentation services, they list, reference, and document publications and articles. I could not find any trace of evidence on these specific websites of advocacy for legal reform and associating legal change with the Rind study.

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

I challenge any claim that NAMBLA uses the Rind study to support its political advocacy (in the Wikipedia Introduction) because the claim is not supported by a reliable source, as Wikipedia defines one. Flyer22 (above) teaches us that truth is not as important as supplying a reliable source. She teaches a hard lesson to swallow, but it's the correct lesson. Maybe I willl file a complaint with administration that certain past editors are unreliable and incompetent; they make claims that are not supported with reliable sources. It's still wrong even if it is done by consensus in this article.

How am I doing, Flyer22? Did I learn the specific lesson about truth vs. reliable sources well? I'm a grade grubber. Can I get an "A"? If I don't yet get an A, can I do some "makeup work" to improve my grade? For extra credit, how about if I get a former editor or two banned for making unverifiable claims? Can I get an A+ then? I have to do a few banishments before I can join the gang. What's my next lesson, teacher? I am receptive enough to learning from a long time expert? Any chance that I someday can earn some of the many stars you have on your user page? The many stars you have on your personal page make you look very good. Do you think I can eventually become an administrator, too, someday? Shoot for the stars.

Aside # 1, in response to Flyer22: About kids and harm.... For the record: sexual abuse, physical abuse, verbal abuse, child abandonment, child neglect, rape are wrong and harmful. I saw on the TV that at least 30,000 little kids died untimely deaths while their families were escaping from starvation in Somalia and fleeing to Kenya, this year. For those kids, their untimely death was harmful. None of those kids will get any holiday gifts this year! They are dead. Many kids were abandoned during flight to die alone. Billions of kids on earth, live on less than one dollar a day for everything! A billion is a thousand million. Such extreme poverty is harmful to kids! Few are so mathematically challenged that they do not understand billions! Such untimely death and extreme poverty for "several samples" of children is wrong. And all those millions of abortions harmed the fetuses. The harm to the fetuses could clearly be measured! And divorce causes a lot of measurable harm for children, too. All this harm is wrong, All this harm to children upsets me very much. I'll keep this conservative moral stance mostly to myself. I shared this in case you were wondering...

Aside # 2: Regarding something else Flyer22 wrote above, yes, I have heard that USA media personality Dan Savage has labeled pedophiles who never offend as "Gold Star Pedophiles." Does anyone use that, or a similar phrase, on Wikipedia for pedophiles who live within the law and accept society's moral norms in their private, sexual lives? The term IMHO is patronizing; it's like saying, "She's one of the few blacks who might be considered a credit to the Negroid race," but the concept of a "Gold Star pedophile" does introduce the public to a new concept, too. That's an idea for a new Wikipedia page. But I want to keep out of these fringe asides; I want to focus my energy, for now, on improving this Rind article.

Okay Okay. I failed to keep this short. I give myself less than an A+ for conciseness, and send myself to my bedroom! It's so late again anyway! Radvo (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, there's a lot of material, but if I understand aright, one of the disputes is over the use of the word "several". Well "several" is a common enough English term with a fairly well understood meaning. I know what it means. You (Radvo) know what it means. If I'm getting this right, it also has a technical meaning in statistics, or else no meaning in statistics and is thus abjured by statisticians. Fine. But this is not a statistics journal. It's a general-purpose encyclopedia. Lots of common English terms also have technical scientific meanings. We can still use them in their plain meaning. We can write "The political situation in 1623 was in flux" and if someone objects "Flux has a precise meaning, and the statement means that the political situation in 1623 was undergoing a certain rate of transfer of energy through some surface, which makes no sense, and anyway is not useful if the exact transfer rate is not given", this is pedantry and not helpful.

I don't have a strong opinion on replacing "several" with some precise number, but I don't see that as necessarily improving comprehension and so I'm OK with keeping "several". If the objection is that the number of studies is too large to be reasonably described as "several" that's possibly reasonable I suppose. I haven't seen that as being the objection, though.

But by no means should the statement be tagged with "not in citation" marker, for a couple of reasons. First of all, it's not true that it's not in the citation (after all, Rind did analyze several studies, and indicated this in the paper) and since it's not true we probably shouldn't say it. Second of all, what a reader would take away from this would likely be "Oh, not several, must have been just one, or perhaps one or two". So it's misleading and for this reason I've removed it. Herostratus (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the number of (other researchers') studies in Rind et al's controversial 1998 paper is too large to be reasonably described as "several." Flyer22 wrote that Wikipedia's generic article on Meta-analysis uses the word "several"; that use may have been the source of WLU's error; see quote below. The number 59. and a few other numbers Truthinwriting proposes, are genuinely helpful, and improve accuracy and comprehension for all. Fifty nine also gives the ordinary reader some idea of the scale of the (untypically) large 1998 meta-analysis. You express a bit of uncertainty in your second last sentence above. Please see Truthinwriting's # 1 and 2 above. Rind & T. did publish a related meta-analysis, in a different journal, the year before. That other meta-analysis was smaller, similar in results, was not the primary focus of the controversy, and the subjects in the ten samples/studies were not U.S. college students. So, it's true that Rind did publish two similar meta-analyses in different journals, one in '97 and one in '98. That is all quite clear in Truthinwriting's proposed revision above. The word "several" in the first paragraph of this Wikipedia article, however, does not refer to these two different Rind meta-analyses. "Several samples" incorrectly refers to the 59 studies used in Rind's 1998 meta-analysis. Flyer22 suggested above that the Wikipedia may have been the source of the mistaken use of "several" by editor WLU: Flyer22 wrote: "And maybe WLU added "several" because, as the Meta-analysis article states, "In statistics, a meta-analysis combines the results of several studies that address a set of related research hypotheses." Who knows how this mistake was introduced into this article, but "several samples" is definitely misleading and wrong! Wikipedia desearves much better. It would have been easier and less laborious to get these simple numbers right in the article the first time, than for me to explain to you concisely the complexities of the mistake and how the correction should be made. Truthinwriting understands all this, and has made an excellent proposal. Radvo (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Radvo (talk) 23:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh OK, well it wasn't clear that this was the objection. Wiktionary, the free dictionary, gives one of the definitions of "several" as "Consisting of a number more than two or three but not very many". Whether 59 is "very many" or not depends on the context I guess, but it's a pretty big number I guess. This all kind of seems like semantic nitpicking to me, but if you feel it's important, OK. I changed "several" to "a number of", this is OK with me and hopefully everyone is happy now? Herostratus (talk) 04:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Herostratus: The objection to "several samples" was discussed by Truthinwritng, Legitmus, Flyer22, and me for days in multiple locations, and we already have agreement on some replacement text. Your insertion was made without consulting with those Editors who are working on this. Nor did you check with me since I placed the Tag there and gave details in this TALK page above. See numbered items at the beginning of this thread. We are happy to include your best ideas into the group decision. But I feel you have ignored some of my concerns above. Here again are three of them:

• "A number" underestimates 59; the number of studies is too large to be reasonably described as "a number".
• "A number" misreads the esteemed reader of the Wikipedia about the extent of the coverage of the professional literature included in the 1998 meta-analysis, and,
• as the citation tag that you prematurely removed correctly noted, "several samples" and "a number of" do not accurately reflect both the full text and the abstract of the Source in footnote 1. The source says something other than what Herostratus inserted into the article. Herostratus removed that citation tag, removed the incorrect text and replaced it with text that did not respond to my detailed objections above. I feel ignored and disrespected by your removal of the tag without replacing the text properly. The Wikipedia is not well served by this.

The Wiktionary, the semantic nitpicking, and 'what I feel is important' are all less relevant, as none of these are the source in the footnote. (Flyer22 has been most gratiously been teaching me about Sourcing.) What does the source say? Legitimus, Truthinwriting and I have already agreed that some of the text in the numbered items above reflects what should be placed into the article from the Source. Can you cite a page in the source that justifies your insertion of "a number" over the text we have already agreed on (except we have no final response yet from Flyer22).

BTW Footnote 1 offers the on-line abstracts from APA PsychNET & PubMed.gov. The suggestion proposed at the start of this thread is better supported by the 2nd sentence in both abstracts in the footnote: "59 studies based on college samples". Click on the numbers at the end of footnote 1. We are glad to read that you hope that everyone in this discussion will be happy with the final edit. More important, however, than everyone being happy is: are we agreed that the text of the article accurately reflects the source? The Wikipedia is well served with an accurate and well sourced exposition, and some awareness of, attentiveness to group consensus.

I will not have access to this account for a few days. Enjoy. Radvo (talk) 08:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Radvo, I don't see "a number of" as problematic, and, like Herostratus, your objections to "various" and "a number of" seem like semantic nitpicking to me as well. "Several," for example, doesn't have to be in a source for us to use it to describe seven or more researchers. But I agree that "several" is not a good use in this case, and I've already gone over the fact that "[w]e don't list every person or example when there are well over just a few. We either state 'several,' 'various' or give the exact number." So, yes, "58 independent samples of college students containing data on over 15,000 individuals" works for me too. As for what I stated about "several samples," again it has nothing to do with my not understanding meta-analysis. It is not a meta-analysis issue. I get that it is for you, but...

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

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

I never said that I was a "long time expert." I said "experienced Wikipedia editor."

No, editors who add material that does not support their text are not blocked/banned, unless they have a significant history of doing so. Sometimes, adding sources that don't support the text can be an "accident," after all. But after a certain number of these "accidents," the editor can be deemed harmful to the project and then blocked/banned.

You don't have to tell me that: "For the record: sexual abuse, physical abuse, verbal abuse, child abandonment, child neglect, rape are wrong and harmful." That's common sense. Flyer22 (talk) 11:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with "a number". Unlike "several" no effective upper limit is implied. "Most stars in the Milky Way are type M or K, but there are a number of type G stars as well" is a perfectly acceptable and normal sentence where "a number of" means "many millions". "A number of jellyfish have washed up on the California coast recently" or "Most species that have existed are now extinct, but a number are still extant"; here "a number" means many thousands. So hmmm, what do you want? Myriad? Plethora? Whatever it is, you can't always get exactly what you want, so why not accept the reasonable compromise of "a number of", OK? (If, on the other hand, it is actually true that we "already have agreement on some replacement text" then why are we talking about this? Simply use the text that everyone has agreed on!). Herostratus (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Herostratus: Thanks for your reasonable and, in the end, conciliatory contribution to this discussion. You certainly do know your words. By your suggesting, "simply use the text that everyone has agreed on!" may we assume that, since a number of editors already agree, we have your agreement, too? The citation tag from the first paragraph is gone. I don't want to annoy with such tags, but to invite discussion, as above. As you write, when we can't get exactly the words we want into an article, we negotiate a reasonable compromise. No problem. I hope to return your concession sometime. Thanks again.

Flyer22: You're "experienced," not "expert." That's cute; charming humility. Page 3 from the Joesf Spiegel book (footnote 4) is IMHO an "accident"; it sources nothing.

Science is argued in court and used by fringe groups. So how exactly does that fact belong in this article?

Regarding the appeal to Common sense to support any claim. I don't think common sense is used much in court or by fringe groups. How does common sense belong in this article? The introduction to Wikipedia's article on common sense curiously and shockingly states: "Often ideas that may be considered to be true by common sense are in fact false." Courts and fringe groups need stronger arguments than an appeal to common sense, and so does this article.

Truthinwriting: Herostratus suggests we proceed. Are you ready with the proposed adjustments to the Into.? Radvo (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Those four items constitute the editing changes I made today.

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

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

Thanks Truthinwriting: That was a fantastic contribution. I hope I am not opening up 'a can of worms' with this point for my own clarification. I have been confused by the words "samples" and "studies," and maybe others are, too. My apologies to everyone for my confusion. There were 59 usable college studies, and that was what I was writing about for the first sentence, but Truthinwriing correctly summarizes, in the very first sentence, that there were 58 independent samples used to calculate one of the controversial results. I am correct is claiming there were 59 studies and thought the reader should be informed of that in the first sentence. And Truthinwiting's sample numbers are correct: 18 male samples and 40 female samples = 58 samples. There were 59 usable college studies gathered from the scholarly literature vs, 58 independent samples used to produce a result that was the focus of the controversy. Truthinwriting summarized that one in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article. Did I get this now right about the 58 samples and the 59 studies? Maybe this first sentence needs further revision to clarify 'study" and "sample" for the reader.

Truthinwriting writes in (1) above: "Rind et al. used nearly 100% of the extent college-sample studies, their search of the literature was nearly exhaustive (regrettably, I suspect my source for this was one of their talks, rather than the paper itself)."

Let's first clear up the confusion here about the words "samples" and "studies." "Samples" and "studies" are NOT the same thing! A rough calculation of the number of samples in the various calculations is actually over 250. See the bulleted list showing numbers of samples below; I just added up the number of samples in that list. Was that correct? The actual number of samples is not very useful information, except that is was more than "several" or "a number of" them. The extent of the search for other researchers' studies is more interesting for the reader and can be adequately sourced on page 27 of the 1998 Rind paper (footnote 1). This information is not yet included in the introduction, but it is a simple fact that readers understand. Maybe "59 studies" should be included in the early part of the introduction. It might also be pointed out that the 59 studies were not done by researchers who were advocates of age of consent reform, and the research was not done by self identified pedophiles. The 59 studies Rind collected reflected the biases of the CSA industry; he stripped away the rhetoric and looked at their numbers. I always thought that was kind of important information: what is the source, and what were the possible biases in the numbers in the 59 studies that Rind meta-analysed? You gotta believe that not a single one of the 59 studies in this meta-analysis were produced by any of the three named pedophile advocacy organizations! The whole CSA industry was humiliated when all of their research produced between 1966 and 1995 yielded the results Rind found. That's millions of dollars in grant sponsored research that was confronted by a single meta-analyses! The CSA industry was taken aback, and there was a lot of cognitive dissonance!

Maybe, for additional accuracy and detail, Truthinwriting could somewhere insert the specific time window of the literature search; the 1998 Rind study included a search for other researchers' studies dated from 1966 or 1974 to 1995 that could be found with the named search engines. Since the Wikipedia article is being updated now in 2011, it is more precise to note that none of the (college student) studies published in 1996 or later were included in the 1998 meta-analysis. Rind et al. could not include research studies that were not yet published when they completed the research work published in 1998. I also don't know, off hand, if any (college student) studies were included in Rind 1998 that were dated before 1966. Minor point.

Here is a direct quotation from page 27 of the 1998 Rind et al. Meta-analysis (footnote 1) that demonstrates the inclusiveness of the search to find the 59 studies: Other researchers' "Studies were obtained by conducting computerized database searches of PsycLIT from 1974 to 1995, Sociofile from 1974 to 1995, PsycInfo from 1967 to 1995, Dissertation Abstracts International up to 1995, and ERIC from 1966 to 1995. ... Reference lists of all obtained studies were read to locate additional studies." So, Truthinwriting's use of the word "nearly" is better understood here in the original source, and it refers to the number of other researchers' studies, not the 250+ samples used for the calculations. (BTW, The full text of the 1998 study is available at several different URL's on line.)

By including 21 unpublished doctoral level graduate dissertations and 2 unpublished masters level theses in the 1998 Rind study, controversy was created. The critics seemed to say the authors of Rind 1998 included too many studies dated within the time window of 1966 to 1995. This controversy, over the inclusion of the 21 doctoral dissertations and 2 Master's level (and Rind's defense of their inclusion), should also be included later on in Wikipedia's description in the controversy section. Is there an editor lurking here who would volunteer to further research on-line this controversy about the inclusion of the doctoral and masters theses (i.e., stduies) and make a suggested addition of this aspect of the controversy for this article? For starters, I quote from page 27 the Rind 1998 paper: "Applying the above criteria produced 59 usable studies .., consisting of 36 published studies, 21 unpublished dissertations, and 2 unpublished master's theses."(36 + 21 + 2 = 59)

Neither Truthinwriting's summary, nor the lengthy discussion here (e.g., the relative number of g type stars, of the phrases "several samples" and "a number of") adequately captures the extent of either the 59 studies or the 250 + samples, the complexity and the vast coverage of this research. That part of the TALK above was, so far, IMHO a tempest in a teapot; spending lots of time and energy on such TALK chases away as editors, scholars, sexologists, and statisticians who have read and understood this Rind 1998 report. Busy professionals don't want to discuss this with passionate editors who have not read and understood this report, who don't understand that the number of studies (59) is different from the number of samples used in the most controversial study (58) and the total number of samples (250+). Some editors are more interested in the power to redact contributions that do not fit their control of the agenda to make sure that everything here is politically correct. Scientists and statisticians cannot do the reading for those who refuse to read themselves, and confuse the number of samples with the number of studies. If Wikipedia is doing an article about the controversy around a politically incorrect study, then the reader deserves an accurate and NPOV exposition of its politically incorrect results. The source of the 59 studies might also be pointed out: what journals were producing these studies. None of these 59 studies were originally published in Paidika, the Journal of Pedophilia, so we know that pedophile bias was not included in these studies. The numbers reflect the biases of the mainstream publications, and they did not like the results when the politically correct rhetoric was stripped away from the numbers.

I do see the possibility of including Herostratus's fantastic skill with words to capture some of this bias, complexity, and extent of the coverage in the 1998 study. If Herostratus were willing to contribute further to this paragraph, I would ask him to convey some of this complexity of the samples and extent of the coverage of the studies in a sentence or two.

(BTW, and as noted above, I believe Truthinwriting presents in his sentence in the first paragrpha only one aspect of this complex study. For reference, I have underlined below that sentence Truthinwriting summarized in the very first paragraph. Did I understand what Truthinwriting was summarizing correctly?) I quote again from Rind 1998. I was focusing with my "citation tag" on conveying the idea that there were 59 usable studies found in the literature search; and all of these studies were from the mainstream journals in the CSA field. Truthinwriting is focused on something else: the result that I underlined in the bulleted list below. Quote from Rind 1998: "These (59) studies yielded

• 70 independent samples for estimating prevalence rates,
• 54 independent samples for computing 54 sample-level and 214 symptom-level effect sizes,
• 21 independent samples that provided retrospectively recalled reaction data,
• 10 independent samples that provided data on current reflections, and
• 11 independent samples that provided data on self-reported effects.
• Prevalence rates were based on 35,703 participants (13,704 men and 21,999 women).
• Effect size data for psychological correlates were based on 15,824 participants (3,254 men from 18 SAMPLES and 12,570 women from 40 Samples). (This calculation is summarized in the first paragraph, as the result of this calculation may have been the most controversial. Do I understand the inclusion of this "58" in the very first paragraph correctly?)
• Reaction and self-reported effects data were based on 3,136 participants (783 men from 13 samples and 2,353 women from 14 samples)."

I want to again credit the experienced editor Flyer22 for helping me to learn this matter of verifiability, in the published source, by leading me to the correct source for information. I want to give credit where credit is due. Thanks Flyer22.

Regarding (5) above. That suggested text is brilliant, and insightful! But I am going to call you on that for use here as it may be too original. You may be stating your very thoughtful clinical understanding of the underlying issues as facts that can be sourced in mainstream publications. This brilliant summary of the underlying issues should NOT be stated in Wikipedia's voice, Truthinwriting would do well as a brilliant psychotherapist to capture the underlying meanings, rather than teaching research methods. Rather, something like this should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where true and justified, described as widespread views. Please develop and publish such insightful arguments somewhere else; sorry but no original insights may be allowed here. This may not be the time and place for such thoughtful insights, I imagine your suggestion could be very therapeutic for some readers. There is so much less controversial and more basic work that can be done to genuinely improve this article in the near future. Here you can offer a more acceptable contribution if you can supply the arguments for your opponent.

Something like this (that follows) might be more easily sourced. I hope I am not bending over backwards too far that I annoy you, too: "There has been widespread concern, on radio talk shows, in small ringht wing advocacy and professional organizations, in newspaper and magazine articles, and even into the U.S, Congress. Critics feared that the Rind et al publications could be used to advocate effectively for some change in the age of consent laws. Deep concern was expressed about the possible injustice for the victim of CSA, and that the controversial results of the Rind studies would be misused, without appropriate skepticism, in court and with juries, to further harm the victims of CSA." (cite many sources.) Someone please shorten that "off the cuff" remark for me, Radvo (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Truthinwriting: Please see Writing for your opponent That will keep you out of POV troubles. I revised some of my previous post above. 06:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Following are some quick thoughts/responses to the above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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