Talk:Rind et al. controversy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Neutrality disputed

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

"On July 12, 1999, the United States House of Representatives passed HRC resolution 107 by a vote of 355 - 0, (with 13 Members voting "Present", the latter all members of the Democratic Partyref name = Baird) declaring sexual relations between children and adults are abusive and harmful, and condemned the study on the basis that it was being used by pro-pedophilia activists and organizations to promote and justify child sexual abuse."--Radvo (talk) 04:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

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

"Whereas pedophiles and organizations, such as the North American Man-Boy Love Association, that advocate laws to permit sex between adults and children are exploiting the study to promote and justify child sexual abuse...."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rind, Bruce, Tromovitch, Philip, & Bauserman, Robert, The Validity and Appropriateness of Methods, Analyses, and Conclusions in Rind et al. (1998): A Rebuttal of Victimological Critique From Ondersma et al. (2001) and Dallam et al. (2001); Psychological Bulletin, volume 127, number 6, pages 734-758, 2001.

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

Start quote from the WP:policy:

"If you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work....Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For this text:

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

Two citations are given to support this "stance" (this intellectual and emotional position) that "children cannot consent to sex". The two footnote citations are: --Radvo (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Sandfort, Theodorus G. Sex in pedophiliac relationships: An empirical investigation among of boys. Journal of Sex Research, Vol 20(2), May 1984, 123-142.doi doiLanding&uid=1985-06396-00 psycnet

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

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

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

The following quote is problemetatic for mainly two reasons

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some quotes here from the book chapter, page 69 ff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Juice: Take greater care when writing for the other side, or avoid doing this all together. Your edit suggests that the approach from the other side is simply some "belief." That there is no compassion, protectiveness, science on their side. If we do a fantastic job of Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent, we build good will and save ourselves a lot of future grief. Assume we are being closely monitored by dozens of watchers. See also WP:Controversy and Principle of charity. Please read and then tell me what you think about these three essays. I hope we can reduce the possibility of attacks on this article by trolls and angry people. I believe it is a tactical mistake to take out the fact that "numerous" studies have indeed found that children were harmed by CSA. Most of the 59 studies that Rind meta-analyzed "found" that "children" were "harmed" by sexual activity. We are dealing with very powerful beliefs here. It is simply wrong to deny all that research. Clinicians who counsel/treat abused kids, and work with adults who were abused as minors, see a lot of the harm caused by CSA experienced by their clients. You are not writing fairly for the other side by denying this research and just dismissing this professional and clinical experience by deleting it from the article. This research and clinical experience needs to be acknowledged and accepted in NPOV. If you can't do this with a great deal of tact and diplomacy (in harmony with the three essays I point you to), then please let others step in later and do this for the article. There is a lot of less controversial material we can work on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lifted out messy section for cleaning

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

--Subsequent research==

“ The United States Congress, numerous research studies, and professionals both in academia and in the clinic from the fields of psychology, psychiatry, counseling, and social work, both before and after Rind et al.'s and Ulrich et al.'s publications, have endorsed the societal belief in a casual link between child sexual abuse and harm. The then American Psychological Association CEO Raymond D. Fowler succinctly reiterated the prevailing view in a 1999 letter to Congressman Delay asserting "sexual activity between children and adults should never be considered or labeled as harmless or acceptable" and "that children cannot consent to sexual activity with adults." Others, like Rind et al. and Ulrich et al., counter that that prevailing "simplistic" view of CSA fails to completely account for the variety and complexity of documented sexual experience that many insist, for strong moral reasons, "cannot" be "considered" or "cannot" exist. ”

—Radvo (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)—Radvo (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)—Radvo (talk) 07:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)--Radvo (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)--Radvo (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC) --Radvo (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This post is in harmony with the suggestions of User:Anthonyhcole for making substantive changes to the Wikipedia article. Since CSA causing harm is controversial here, I have made a very detailed post.

Here are some citations and "direct quotations" that suggest some possibility of a causal link between CSA and "harm" in some persons/CSA victims under 18 years. The reader should understand that CSA refers to both child and adolescent sexual abuse to age 18! I suggest we select the strongest studies to provide additional support the first sentence above (as Juice suggested for this clean-up Section). This is an expansion, not a clean up. This scholarly research survey (below) is based on the recommended research/researchers suggested recently by Juice (farther above). This search for citations would benefit from some information on the other more recent meta-analyses in the last 15 years. There are many, including a recent one with data from over a million subjects! but I did not have the time to include them here. My post below is too long already for most editors.

.************************

Beitchman (1991) Qualitative Review of "short term effects", Research Support by Canadian Government.

“ Reviews 42 studies on the short- and long-term effects of child sexual abuse. Frequency and duration of abuse, abuse involving penetration, force, or violence, and a close relationship to the perpetrator appear to be the most harmful in terms of long-lasting effects on the child. The high prevalence of marital breakdown and psychopathology among parents of children who are sexually abused makes it difficult to determine the specific impact of sexual abuse over and above the effects of a disturbed home environment. Given the broad range of outcome among sexual abuse victims, as well as the methodological weaknesses present in many of the studies reviewed, it is not possible at this time to postulate the existence of a “post-sexual-abuse-syndrome” with a specific course or outcome. ”

Beitchman uses the words "sequelae" and "effects", but avoids the use of the words "cause" or "causes" in the abstract. Did they attend to confounding variables? --Radvo

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/014521349190038F

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1992-09360-001

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1959086

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=sUkVDAy8Vk4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA181&ots=zhiK_lmjn3&sig=auRwmbXvs9tvuLltPf2pUaH9QIY#v=onepage&q&f=false

Beitchman (1992) Qualitative Review of "long term effects", Research Support from the Canadian Gov't

Similar to the above.

“ the specific effects of sexual abuse, independent of force, threat of force, or such family variables as parental psychopathology, are still to be clarified. [Symptoms listed] but force and threat of force may be a necessary concomitant. Greater long-term harm is associated with abuse involving a father or stepfather and abuse involving penetration. Longer duration is associated with greater impact, and the use of force or threat of force is associated with greater harm. ...specific effects, independent of force, threatened force, or family variables such as parental psychopathology, are not yet clarified. ”

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/014521349290011F

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1992-27602-001%201992-27602-001

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1544021

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ444416&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ444416

.********************

Browne (1986)

“ Reviews studies that have tried to empirically confirm the effects of child sexual abuse cited in the clinical literature. In regard to initial effects, empirical studies have indicated reactions—in at least some portion of the victim population—of fear, anxiety, depression, anger and hostility, aggression, and sexually inappropriate behavior. Frequently reported long-term effects include depression and self-destructive behavior, anxiety, feelings of isolation and stigma, poor self-esteem, difficulty in trusting others, a tendency toward revictimization, substance abuse, and sexual maladjustment. The kinds of abuse that appear to be most damaging are experiences involving father figures, genital contact, and force ”

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/99/1/66/

http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0033-2909.99.1.66

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3704036

http://www.mendeley.com/research/impact-of-child-sexual-abuse-a-review-of-the-research/

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=105706

.*******************

Constantine (1981) Larry Constantine Book Chapter--Chapter title: "Effects of Early Sexual Experiences: A Review and Synthesis of Research Short Reviews" Constantine reviewed 30 independent investigations on this subject. Only five of the researchers concluded that there could be some long-term negative effects, but in these cases the subjects had been juvenile delinquents and psychopathic, and it was therefore difficult to distinguish between cause and effect. Where the sample studied was selected from the general population, no mention was made of negative results. Six of the researchers commented on positive long-term effects.

http://isbndb.com/d/person/constantine_larry_l/subject/children_sexual_behavior.html

http://lccn.loc.gov/81081395

http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v3=14&ti=1,14&SEQ=20120202103219&Search_Arg=Constantine%20Larry%20L&Search_Code=GKEY^*&CNT=25&PID=B_AyUdcyRTrL9uNd8kromyK08yjb&SID=

.*******************

Saunders (1992) All female subjects; no males. No control for confounding variables? child < 18 years old

“ Mental disorder lifetime prevalence risk ratios for child rape and molestation victims versus nonvictims ranged from 1.5 for major depressive episode to 6.7 for obsessive-compulsive disorder. ”

http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/7/2/189.short

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ507932&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ507932

https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=137650

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1992-43386-001%201992-43386-001

.********************

Levitt (1995)

“ not all victims are emotionally injured." "A substantial number of these investigations find that a majority of victims suffer no extensive harm. Other variables such as family dynamics are involved; there may be only a few cases in which emotional harm results from sexual abuse as a single factor. ”

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00207149508409958

http://direct.bl.uk/bld/PlaceOrder.do?UIN=026315165&ETOC=EN&from=searchengine

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1995-33434-001

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7737760

.*******************

Kendall-Tacket meta-analysis (1993): I (Radvo) suggest many in the CSA research community may feel this Kendall-Tackett study is one of the strongest of the older studies showing CSA causes harm.

“ all victims were 18 years of age or younger. approximately one-third of victims had no symptoms. Penetration, the duration and frequency of the abuse, force, the relationship of the perpetrator to the child, and maternal support affected the degree of symptomatology. About two-thirds of the children [and adolescents] show recovery during the first 12-18 months. The findings suggest the absence of any specific syndrome in children who have been sexually abused and no single traumatizing process. ”

Kendall Tackett

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=1618180949832200453&hl=en&num=100&as_sdt=1,39&as_ylo=1993&as_yhi=1993&as_vis=1

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/113/1/164/

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=136072 National Criminal Justice Service Reference Service Author abstract modified.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=z-S4LrvYnCQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA31&ots=ayMWW9sZMz&sig=hijhzXbTkU2IG89Pe2XYG_Ax6Ig#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=sUkVDAy8Vk4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA236&ots=zhiK_lqml4&sig=DkVOH6ZW2XS4Ln3hqScSXAM1aEs#v=onepage&q&f=false

.******************

Rind et al. (2001) had lengthly criticism of this Kendall-Tackett meta-analysis, and claimed they had worked hard to improve on it. To balance the inclusion of Kendall-Tackett (1993), some response from Rind et al. (1998) is justified. The underlining (below) was done by me, and was not in the original article.

Starting with page 748, the rest of this is quoted from

http://psych.colorado.edu/~willcutt/res_meth/Rind_2001.pdf Rind, Bruce, Tromovitch, Philip, & Bauserman, Robert, The Validity and Appropriateness of Methods, Analyses, and Conclusions in Rind et al. (1998): A Rebuttal of Victimological Critique From Ondersma et al. (2001) and Dallam et al. (2001); Psychological Bulletin, volume 127, number 6, pages 734-758, 2001.

“ The last review article on CSA to appear in Psychological Bulletin before ours was that by Kendall- Tackett et al. (1993). This review has been widely cited in the psychology and psychiatry fields as key evidence for the pervasive and intensely harmful effects of CSA. In the same vein, both Dallam et al. (2001) and Ondersma et al. (2001) cited this review as authoritative.

... they accepted its methods and findings uncritically.

We argue that this lack of scrutiny of Kendall-Tackett et al. and simultaneous intense scrutiny of our review represents selective criticism, for much is to be criticized in the Kendall-Tackett et al. review. ...

the Kendall-Tackett et al. (1993) mean effect sizes were .57 for emotional and .63 for behavioral problems. These results were based on sexual abuse treatment samples, not nonclinical samples. Compared with nonclinical junior and senior high school students, however, these effect sizes were highly anomalous, being 2.86 and 3.77 SDs above the mean effect sizes for all studies combined. Clearly, the Kendall-Tackett et al. samples were outliers, highly unrepresentative of the general population of minors. The results from our meta-analyses of national and college samples (Rind & Tromovitch, 1997; Rind et al., 1998), on the other hand, were almost identical to the unbiased effect size estimates of the nonclinical junior and senior high students, as they were to the nonclinical samples that Dallam et al. (2001) mentioned Table 8, which we summarized in Table 6.

In our review, we paid explicit attention to the issue of external validity, making appropriate comparisons between college and national samples. By contrast, Kendall- Tackett et al. completely ignored the issue of external validity, except in a single footnote near the beginning of their review. Consigning such reference to a single footnote and ignoring this important issue entirely in their Discussion section created the impression that their findings were more broadly relevant [to the broader, "normal" population of the USA] than they actually were.

In sum, our review was relatively strong in its treatment of external validity, whereas theirs was weak. Critics of our review on this issue would have more balanced arguments if they applied their criticisms equally to reviews that favor their point of view, rather than accepting them uncritically.

"Internal" Validity

Our review of the college studies was a critical review of causality. It added to previous meta-analytic reviews, where causality could not be analyzed because the primary studies had provided insufficient data on third variables and statistical control (Jumper, 1995; Neumann et al., 1996). Both Jumper and Neumann et al. pointed to the need for future research to address this weakness.

Our review was one such response to this problem, made possible by the fact that the college studies had sufficient relevant data. Whether our findings regarding causality hold up in future investigations is less important than the fact that they formed a central focus of our presentation, as they should have.

The Kendall-Tackett et al. (1993) review, on the other hand, has been par for the course of victimological research on CSA, accepting more or less uncritically CSA's causal role. This [Kendall-Tackett] review included various studies based on daycare satanic ritual abuse (SRA), such as one on the McMartin preschool children (Kelly, 1993), in which nearly half the children fell in the clinical range of PTSD symptomatology. However, the McMartin case has been so thoroughly discredited as a case of implanted memories of abuse rather than real abuse (e.g., Nathan, 1990; Nathan & Snedeker, 1995) that it seems negligent for Kendall-Tackett et al. not to have informed their readers specifically that these were McMartin data and must be viewed with skepticism.

The dramatic effects in this [McMartin daycare] case were attributed to CSA, when in fact they were in greatest likelihood iatrogenic (i.e., induced in the children as the result of hysterical words and reactions of their parents and the professionals]. They also included a review of SRA cases by Kelley (1989), in which again nearly half the children were in the clinical range of PTSD symptomatology, and once again we are given the impression CSA has dramatic effects, when clear alternative explanations are apparent. For instance, Kelley ( 1990) showed that parents of these children were highly disturbed, which suggests that they may have been passing the anxiety on to their children or seeing it in them even if not there. Kendall- Tackett et al. themselves acknowledged that the mothers' judgments about their children's symptoms were highly related to their own level of distress and willingness to believe the children - most reports on child symptoms came from parent-completed checklists.

Kendall- Tackett et al. (1993) dismissed parental reporting bias, noting that therapist judgments were similar, although children's self-reports were much less negative and mothers' reports were poorly related to their children's reports. But because of researcher bias, including demand characteristics and expectancy effects (R. Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1969; Rosnow & Rosenthal, 1997), one cannot assume the validity of therapist judgment, especially given Kendall-Tackett et al.'s note of biased reporting: "Unfortunately, few investigators have reported on ... asymptomatic children, perhaps out of concern that such figures might be misinterpreted or misused" (p. 168).

Aside from discussing this issue of measurement validity, which is relevant to internal validity , Kendall-Tackett et al. never directly addressed the issue of causality; rather, they just assumed it. They assumed it so strongly that they attributed the large percentage of asymptomatic children in their studies to insensitive measures rather than lack of caused harm. [They were so sure that CSA casued harm, that they attributed the lack of harm in about 1/3 or the children to Kendall-Tackett's inability to find the harm if only they could find some goo way to identify and measure it! It was no where to be found!]

Additionally, Kendall-Tackett et al. (1993) inflated the impression that CSA causes harm by calling sexualized behavior a symptom - this was the most common symptom they found. But sexualized behavior is not a symptom of disease or distress - arguing that it is constitutes a value judgment.

As Ford and Beach ( 1951) observed [large snip]

Although inferring causality from correlational data is fraught with problems because of unexamined third variables, one is on much stronger ground in inferring lack of support for causality when factors are no longer correlated after statistical control, because a requirement of causation is correlation.

Our review, which followed this logic in assessing causality, represents an advance over the Kendall- Tackett et al. (1993) review, which by contrast paid scant attention to causality - just assuming it instead - and inflated the impression of causal effects with some questionable data, measures, and definitions of harm. Critics of our review, to be balanced, should also discuss the weaknesses of the Kendall- Tackett et al. review, as well as the many other similar reviews.

”

--Radvo (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You are doing a great job Radvo, I might be leaving soon so I feel good knowing that you are on top of things here. Take care. Juice L 17:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. You are familiar with the scholarly literature, and, in that way, you can be very helpful to the project work here. Thanks for your positive contributions to this article. I hope you can contribute to Wikipedia some more. Be well. --Radvo (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC) --Radvo (talk) 02:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Dallam et al

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{Sockpuppet|DancingPhilosopher|confirmed}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, Legitmus, for this response. This makes sense, and I concede. I withdraw my suggestion. "Let's just work on the text as it stands today." We are left with the problem of how to rewrite (abbreviate?) several detailed Sections containing the Dallam methodological and statistical criticisms, in light of the detailed Rind responses, without causing a huge editor controversy and many hurt feelings. --Radvo (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppet removed

• User:Juice Leskinen has been blocked as a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet, and contributions should be critically evaluated in light of that. Jclemens (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

We were misinformed that: "There is no policy or guideline to support removal of edits by a sockpuppet

And we were advised: Frankly this smells of abusing the letter of policy rather than the respecting the spirit of it to further one's own ends.

Legitimus promptly removed the sockpuppet's edit without further discussion! Please show me the policy about sockpuppet edits in writing, You can't have it both ways, depending on your ends. --Radvo (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Your above comments are totally incorrect. It's a trivial issue, but FYI what I said was 100% accurate. Jclemens advised that certain edits should be "critically evaluated"—he did not say "removed". Of course all edits should be critically evaluated, but as I earlier wrote, only banned users are routinely reverted. It should be assumed that Legitimus was editing to improve the article. It would be better to stick to discussing content and sources, and to ask about procedures when wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, not all sockpuppets are equal. Juice was a sock [snip] (the admins traced his account) and the edits were all recent. Whereas the other I referred to in the previous thread were 7 years old and were at worst, placed there by someone being overenthusiastic about an article the was critical of Rind, faulty or not. One is considerably more heinous than the other.Legitimus (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is heinous, negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material.

“ These scientists and writers all deleted from the list,

I've got a little list,-- they never will be missed.

As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,

I’ve got a little list--I’ve got a little list

Of Victorian offenders who might well be underground,

And who never would be missed--who never would be missed!

”

Legitimus: The administrator who reveals libelous information to you is unfit to be an administrator and lacks adequate respect for BLP and related policy. Who was the administrator who told you that? Is the administrative willing to be the source of this libel, and subject himself/herself to a libel suit? Did said administrator advise you to announce his/her reason for the block on this talk page in that way? Isn't being a sock puppet enough reason to be blocked? What was your motivation for making such a public claim? Suppose an administrator said to me: I blocked that editor because he was a Muslim, and most probably is a terrorist, too. Why would I repeat that on this talk page even if it were true? To demonstrate to other editors my NPOV and my special fitness to edit this article in a harsh way? Your apparent lack of neutrality and your experience could be well used in other areas where your biases wouldn't matter. And your application of the sock puppet rule might be more even handed if you left this topic and left it to truthinwriting and other editors of that high quality. See also Herostratus' proposal failed

I do not support violation of the rules. However, Juice knew his scholarly sources, and that was valuable here. Editors have not bothered to read Rind et al. (1998) yet still feel "entitled" to summarize the findings. Another repeatedly harasses me with comments and directions that I did not invite nor are they specific enough to be helpful. Is nagging me supposed to make volunteering here more enjoyable? I have yet to see a constructive contribution of a source or useful positive edit from Johnuniq! I propose a topic ban for any editor who repeatedly refuses to do homework required for competence in this topic.

Legitimus: There I must give you credit. You actually went through the trouble of getting the Ulrich article; I really appreciated that effort to check that out. Did Johnuniq read Ulrich?

Juice's contributions were nothing like the non-"trivial," "faulty," and un"critically" received edits of sockpuppet SloContributorSince2005: here Nothing Dallam claims in Wikipedia article stands the test of time and several sections of Dalllam critiques gives undue weight to crtique that has been thoroughly discredited. And the repressed memory foundation Dallam fronted for is disintegrating, closed its office, due to law suits, huge awards given to plaintiffs in court, and widespread scientific discretization. I would initiate more action here, and enjoy volunteering here more, if I had more editors to work with. But the editors who are critical of Dallam and supportive of Rind have all been consistently banned or chased away by uncivil behavior. I am not a masochist, and I will make a greater effort to get rid of the non-consensual sadists and tormentors I dis-invited from nagging me. At least Dallam demonstrated that she read and understood much of Rind. Dallam and I could go back and forth with the claims and counter-claims. I cannot say that for most anti-Rind editors here; they don't know very much and they don't know that I know that they don't know much. Well-read editors get banned, and ignorant ones, who refuse to do their homework to qualify for the job, can edit an encyclopedia! NOT! Whose stupid perversion of Wikipedia spirit is that? How do I get to talk with Jimbo Wales to tell him what's wrong around here? Radvo (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Making long and pointy comments is not in any way helpful—what are you trying to achieve? You don't have to make friends to edit Wikipedia, but why repeatedly post extracts from procedures? Wikipedia is not a set of rules, and to really understand how things work here you need to spend serious time in a variety of settings (different types of articles, noticeboards, and more). You know a lot more about the topic of this article than I do, and I know a lot more about Wikipedia than you do. If I wanted to know something about this issue, I would ask editors here. If you want to know something about Wikipedia's procedures, you should try asking (here will do). The irony of the situation is that your first post in this section provided a diff of my comment (visible above with timestamp 02:37, 29 January 2012)—you are claiming that what I said is wrong, when all you have to do is read it again and you will see that everything is clearly set out and nothing is incorrect. My reply included "if someone would care to post a short outline of the current text and why it is unsatisfactory (without unduly laboring the point), we could probably quickly agree on a proposed action". Content is not removed simply because it originated from a sockpuppet in 2005. However, it can be immediately removed if it is unsuitable—just briefly explain what text, and why it is unsuitable (please don't comment on other stuff while doing so as that just makes your point hard to see).

Re the redaction of the description used by Legitimus: I agree that the text was more blunt than necessary, and I am happy for it to be removed, but FYI whenever there is a reasonable suspicion of, shall we say, a certain kind of advocacy, the editor is blocked. One clue is that the message above is from Jclemens (a member of WP:ARBCOM). This is not the place to explain all that, but using G&S mixed with various misunderstandings is not productive (no one told Legitimus anything—just as I read the clues, so would Legitimus). Please don't use this page to talk about that—I am just providing this background for your information. Johnuniq (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Johnniq: Nothing Dallam claims in the Wikipedia article stands the test of time and several sections of Dallam critiques give undue weight to the Dallam critique that has been thoroughly discredited. Source: the thoroughly discussed (in the past month) Chapter 9 of the Rosnow book: Advances in social and organizational Psychology.

Johnniq: If you had done your homework before you posted, you would have known that we had already read and discussed Chapter 9 with WLU and Legitimus. You don't even read the posts here.

Legitmus: BTW: Dr. Rosnow was Rind's mentor at Temple U. when Rind was a graduate student, Dr. Rosnow is an internationally recognized master and pioneer at meta-analysis, now retired. Dallam is [redacted]] to know that she doesn't know meta-analysis. She made 36 attacks on Rind et al., and none of them were valid. The sock puppet put a very long edit to the main page that gives undue weight to Dallam's garbage critique of statistics and methodology, and some of that sockpuppet's detail should be removed except to document the controversy and Dallam's faulty press announcement that she successfully attacked the statistics and methodology.

Johniq: Legitimus and WLU have already discussed this in detail here. I repeat this to again show that Johnniq's agenda is not to inform himself or participate in a constructive way in editing this topic here. You know nothing, have not read the previous TALK page, yet hang out here and has lots to say about nothing. Please disclose your hidden agenda on this topic here so all might more clearly know what you are really up to with your comments on the TALK page. Radvo (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Please show respect for other editors. If you believe I have missed something, just say so without framing it in terms of some defect that I may have (it's also useful to copy/paste a timestamp to a discussion visible on this talk page to help others search for it—diffs are not necessary and are less helpful). You are correct that I am not reading everything on this page, but that is because there is so much posted that is off-topic and, when commenting about Wikipedia, obviously incorrect. As an example, please see your post at 00:56, 15 January 2012 above, where I highlighted text that should not be used: before posting a message, why not read it through a couple of times and delete all words which are not strictly on-topic for improving the article? Yes, with posts like these, I am breaching my own advice—I hope that by doing so the usage of this page will improve. Re Dallam: I thought your comment (08:30, 6 February 2012) contained a continuation of a suggestion that certain material introduced in 2005 should be removed? To help other editors, it would be better to use plain language and not talk about past issues (that is, if there is an outstanding issue that needs to be discussed, just raise it). If you want to know about my agenda, please ask on my talk page (although the answer would not be of much interest, I'm afraid). Johnuniq (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Practice and policy are not in sync on this Talk Page. Proposal for a welcome message.

<message moved to user talk: Radvo>

It may be acceptable to move the above to a userspace subpage (like your User:Radvo/Sandbox), but personal advice is not acceptable here. I have not examined the above (the many long posts on this page discourage participation), but the advice may not even be acceptable in userspace because it goes too far with a battleground mentality (are you suggesting that those participating here act capriciously?). Please decide whether to move it very soon because it cannot stay here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the post. It is not acceptable to post that kind of thing on an article talk page. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 04:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Johnuniq, OoBunnies!, and experienced editors here sometimes act capriciously, and my patience with the censorship, the arbitrariness and lack of consensus based rationale is wearing thin. Would OoBunnies please respect my contribution to this encyclopedia and put my text back where I posted it, so other editors here can read it if they like? If any editor believes this in violation of a rule, please cite for me the URL and sentence or arbitrator's decision that forbids this.

Please assume that I am eager to know and follow the rules and assume that have done so to the extent that I know them. This WP:POLICY is in the spirit that a person is innocent until proven guilty. No specific written rule has been cited for the removal. The capriciousness here is like in a Fascist state. Everything is against the rules, but most violations are ignored unless an editor is a pro-Rind new user who does not subscribe to the Dallam mistakes and Rind et al. defamation endorsed by years of past biased anti-Rind editing. Don't Bite. In violation of Wiki-Etiquette, Johnuniq (talk) misrepresents my letter above as "personal advise". There are no new users here to advise; this page is semi-protected. I want to discuss policy regarding new users while things are quiet here.

Anyone is licensed to copy my contribution, but since I believe I still co-own the copyright, I deny anyone permission to remove my original until I am shown what rule this violates. Johnuniq is a volunteer, he can refuse to read what he doesn't want to read. But it is a violation of etiquette, copyright law, and common decency to remove another editor's post from the TALK page (which [[User talk:Johnuniq|talk] has the gall to announce he has not "examined.") Is that supposed to be an excuse for mindless tampering on a page that deals with a relatively controversial topic?

My intention was:

• (1) to inform other editors here, in advance, what I was planning to do,
• (2) inviting other editors to comment on or edit the letter, if they want, so it represents the other editors' thinking about this somehow, if they chose to contribute.
• (3) to raise the issue of rational and fair enforcement of the rules for new comers.

I speculate that there are "rules" that other editors fantasize exist, but, in fact, since they cannot be cited, I suspect they are not written rules or policies at all, but something the suits the partisan ends of particular editors who cannot get their particular POV to stick in a more legitimate way. As some may have already notices, I don't submit to unfair, Fascistic demands. Anyone here have any problem with that, I would like to discuss that in a civil way at your convenience.

I would like to place a revised version of the welcome letter onto the user page of new editors who arrive to post on this page. I would like to invite other editor comments on the letter before I produce a revised, more concise version, with perhaps more welcoming and less battlefield mentality. If anyone objects, I would like to hear this now while other things are relatively quiet here.

This letter was just the first BOLD draft. Editors have to see the letter to discuss it! Maybe discussing the letter will result in changes that the letter will not be needed. --Radvo (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I will reply on your talk page, Radvo. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 03:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a couple points: we're not entirely rule-bound, no. It's a wiki not a court of law. Also, I'd recommend going light on throwing around words such as fascism etc., and in particular I'd be careful when using legal-type language such as "violation of... copyright law" and so forth. Herostratus (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, the letter in question violates the policy WP:BATTLEGROUND, the behavioral guideline WP:AGF, and the essays WP:WALLS and WP:TLDR. As for revoking copyright permissions, please look immediately under the edit window. In both article space and talk pages, the caption reads "By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." JanetteDoe (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Rind's response to Drs. Holmes and Slap. Pasted here with author permission.

As I noted above, calculations from Google Scholar demonstrated that there is considerable professional interest in citing the Holmes and Slap article, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Rind et al. responded to them in the same journal. Maybe a few words could be mentioned in the 'Subsequent research and legacy' Section about this study, and Rind et al's response to it. I pasted the short Rind response below.

Rind, Bruce; Bauserman, Robert; Tromovitch, Philip (1999 06 16). "Interpretation of Research on Sexual Abuse of Boys" (author reply). JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association (AMA) 281 (23): p. 2185. doi:doi:10.1001%2Fjama.281.23.2185. PMID 10376568.

Interpretation of Research on Sexual Abuse of Boys

To the Editor: In our 3 published literature reviews on the sexual abuse of boys,^1-3 we documented, and then avoided, methodological shortcomings of previous reviews. Drs Holmes and Slap,⁴ however, repeated these shortcomings, thereby compromising the value of their review. First, in examining “sequelae,” they relied too heavily on clinical samples, which are highly atypical and do not generalize as we have shown both narratively¹ and statistically^2,3 in our reviews of the nonclinical literature. In 2 meta-analyses, one on national samples and another on college samples, we found that the sexual abuse – adjustment association for boys is small (r = 0.07). By contrast, associations in clinical samples are frequently medium to large. Holmes and Slap paid inadequate attention to clinical vs nonclinical distinctions and generalizability issues. Second, the authors failed to distinguish between willing and unwanted sexual abuse. This accounts in part for their finding adverse outcomes along with nonnegative perceptions “perplexing. ” The confusion dissolves when willingness is taken into account. We showed that for boys in nonclinical populations, willing relations are generally experienced positively or neutrally and are not associated with maladjustment.^1,3 Third, the review by Holmes and Slap was imprecise; it gave the incorrect impression that general population studies yield the same ominous picture as clinical studies. We obtained almost all of the student samples they cited and found, via meta-analysis, that sexual abuse – adjustment associations were small: psychological distress (r = 0.11, K = 6 samples, N = 9891), sexual problems (r = 0.14, K = 6, N = 9453), and substance use (r = 0.07, K = 5, N = 30 700). These associations, although based almost exclusively on unwanted sexual abuse, are far smaller than those found in clinical populations. Finally, except for a brief comment, the authors inadequately considered alternative (ie, non-causal) explanations for sexual abuse – adjustment relations. They discussed family environment as a risk factor for sexual abuse, but not for symptoms. In our meta-analyses, we showed that family environment (r = 0.29) is considerably stronger than sexual abuse (r = 0.07) in predicting symptoms; its statistical control often eliminates sexual abuse – symptom relations.3 Thus, these relations may be spurious in the typical case, i.e,, a poor family or social environment may predispose minors to counternormative behavior (including sexual abuse) and also may produce maladjustment.^2,3 Historically, mental health professionals have been too quick to conclude that “taboo” sex causes harm (eg, masturbation and homosexuality). Caution is needed regarding events classified as sexual abuse, especially those that are perceived non-negatively and are willingly engaged in.⁵

Bruce Rind, PhD Robert Bauserman, PhD Philip Tromovitch, MA Temple University Philadelphia, PA

1. Bauserman R, Rind B. Psychological correlates of male child and adolescent sexual experiences with adults: a review of the nonclinical literature. Arch Sex Behav. 1997; 26:105-141.

2. Rind B, Tromovitch P. A meta-analytic review of findings from national samples on psychological correlates of child sexual abuse. J Sex Res. 1997;34:237-255.

3. Rind B, Tromovitch P, Bauserman R. A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples. Psychol Bull. 1998;124: 22-53.

4. Holmes WC, Slap GB. Sexual abuse of boys: definition, prevalence, correlates, sequelae, and management. JAMA. 1998;280:1855-1862.

5. West DJ. Boys and sexual abuse: an English opinion. Arch Sex Behav. 1998; 27:539-559. --Radvo (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

June 2000 Sexuality & Culture

I will be expanding this article over the next few weeks, focussing on the debate in the June 2000 issue of Sexuality & Culture. This issue published Rind et al.'s reply to the criticism directed at the original article, and also 4 articles expanding on the discussion related to the original meta-analysis that haven't yet been covered in this Wiki page. I am improving this article as a part of WikiProject Psychology.

I'll also take a look at improving the pre-existing material, fixing dead links etc. Vuorrem (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The Implications

One thing I think is worthy of addressing in this article is what the implications are supposed to be, what the authors were trying to prove and what they did intended their conclusion to be used for. For example, the main paper in question ends with the sentence: "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." But it's not clear why Rind said that. One or more users on this talk page has expressed deep knowledge of Dr. Rind's motivations, so please if you can elaborate, do so. This dovetails into what others have interpreted or were supposed to interpret from this study if one where to take it's findings at face value. There are non-controversial conclusions one could draw from this study regardless of what it's author's say. Like that measures of CSA in the past studies have critical problems to them that allowed these "shocking" results. Or that self-report data on CSA and psychological harm is useless (due to rationalization and sub-clinical interpersonal problems). If you're familiar with sources that touch on this, please mention them.Legitimus (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

As a cautionary note, just because people imply they have "deep knowledge" of Dr. Rind's motives, they would need to be well sourced. Otherwise we engage in heresay and potential libel, which is not appropriate. If someone has a well-sourced bit of information (such as an interview he gave on the record, perhaps) that's reasonable. Otherwise I'm not sure what value people who claim to have "deep knowledge" would bring to this if it is merely their word. Avalongod (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC).

I understand. My remark about "deep knowledge" was a veiled invitation to a user that was on this article for a while who claimed to know Dr. Rind. This is categorically inappropriate and largely worthless, but I and other users were forced to play along with this Randy in Boise for several months until ultimately he was indef blocked. I did not know he was blocked when I wrote this.

I do really hope that someone can provide a sourced insight into the "whys" of this study though.Legitimus (talk) 11:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

in order to know Lind's motivations or implications we could read one of his last articles: "Pederasty, or sexual relations between men and adolescent boys, is condemned in our society as an unqualified evil that maims and destroys... Current psychological and psychiatric theorizing have pronounced and promoted the former view, while ignoring the vast array of cross-cultural data related to the latter view. Mental health opinion has also ignored a wealth of cross-species data with important parallels... The empirical data show that pederasty is not only not predestined to injure, but can benefit the adolescent when practiced according to the ancient Greek form. Cross-cultural and cross-species data show the extensiveness of pederasty in the natural world, as well as its functional rather than pathological nature in these societies and species... The animal data suggest that the seeds for pederasty were planted at the dawn of humanity. The human data suggest that pederasty came to serve a mentoring function." [2]--2.40.171.159 (talk) 10:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Minor Typo

In the "Criticism and response" section, under the heading "Non-standardization of variables", third paragraph, second sentence, the word "reject" should be "rejects".

It's a really minor typo, and i would fix it myself, but the article is semi-protected and I don't currently have permission. If someone could change this, that would be awesome. The Great and Powerful Qbr12 (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a grammar expert but I believe it is used that way because the phrase "Rind et al" is intended to be plural. So imagine if it said "Rind, Bauserman and Tromovitch reject this claim."Legitimus (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that's it in a nutshell. Flyer22 (talk) 05:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

NARTH and homosexuality

NARTH's claim is that homosexuality is caused by seduction. While the degree to which nature, nurture, genes, environment and epigenetics are responsible for being gay is a subject of debate - I'm fairly certain "seduction" is not an explanation that is taken seriously by any real researchers. Irrespective, Tavris' own article verifies the falseness of their claim, but rather than wordsmith I've just put in a quote. I do think it is neutral and important to note that their beliefs are wrong. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Look I'm too stupid to set this up the right way but there's a typo in the article:

the findings of the current review do not imply that moral or legal definitions of or [sic] views on behaviors

'or' should be 'our'

fix it

Following "or" with [sic] means that the it was misspelled in the original text and that the mistake is being preserved. 63.143.216.178 (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Minor edits suggested

This text:

When this research, the U.S. Congress, and the APA refer to CSA and "children" in the context of sexual relations with adults, they are not referring simply to biological (prepubescent) children but to 16 to 18 old adolescents as well.[7]

would be more clear and more accurate if it read like this:

When this research, the U.S. Congress, and the APA refer to CSA and "children" in the context of sexual relations with adults, they are not referring simply to biological (prepubescent) children but to adolescents under the age of consent as well, which varies between 16 and 18 years old in the U.S.[7]

(I confirmed the ages with the Wikipedia article on Age of Consent in North America. Not a regular editor; not sure if I should link to that as well?)

(192.0.204.205 (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC))

And in that case, the last sentence of the previous paragraph:

Integrating the sometimes disparate and conflicting definitions, CSA was defined as "a sexual interaction involving either physical contact or no contact (e.g., exhibitionism) between either a child or adolescent and someone significantly older, or between two peers who are children or adolescents when coercion is used." "Child" was sometimes defined, not biologically, but as underaged or as a minor under the legal age of consent, which in some states of the USA is 18 years old.

should probably be shortened by removing the phrase: "which in some states of the USA is 18 years old"

(192.0.204.205 (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC))

In this paragraph:

Social psychologist Carol Tavris noted several other groups that reacted negatively to the study. The anti-homosexuality group National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), who "[endorse] the long-discredited psychoanalytic notion that homosexuality is a mental disorder and that it is a result of seduction in childhood by an adult",[8] objected to the study's implications that boys who are sexually abused are not traumatized for life and become homosexuals in the process.

the final phrase of the final sentence appears to give a meaning opposite to what was intended, and should probably read:

objected to the study's implications that boys who are sexually abused are not traumatized for life and do not become homosexuals in the process.

(192.0.204.205 (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC))

These seem reasonable. I have made the suggested changes with a few minor alterations.Legitimus (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rind et al. controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug99/as4.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130425185855/http://snifferdogonline.com/reports/Child%20Abuse,%20Sexuality%20and%20Violence/Onanism%20and%20child%20sexual%20abuse%20-%20A%20comparative%20study%20of%20two%20hypotheses.pdf to http://snifferdogonline.com/reports/Child%20Abuse,%20Sexuality%20and%20Violence/Onanism%20and%20child%20sexual%20abuse%20-%20A%20comparative%20study%20of%20two%20hypotheses.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Weight?

Considering that this paper is so widely rejected, why is there so much more weight on the counter-arguments than the criticisms? Most of the counter-arguments look like they are simply dismissals of the criticisms at hand to begin with. This whole thing feels like it's trying really hard to defend the paper. TheDracologist (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's kind a political football. It's been worked over a bit -- if you look, there are four archive pages for this talk pages, and they're full of discussion. I guess there are some people who believe the paper and wish that it was generally accepted... people feel strongly about the subject, and so about the paper. So there's maybe some of that in there. You're welcome to try to improve it if you're inclined. Herostratus (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah this is true. Some of those counter-arguments are artifacts from when certain fringe-y types were still allowed to edit this type of article (now banned). The nature of wikipedia often forces us to compromise with the incompetent and/or insane to reach consensus. By the time the wackos had been permanently dealt with, most of us were exhausted and could not remember who put what in the article, and were just glad it was over. We removed the bogus sources and fringe opinion pieces, but some things are still attributed to reliable sources. For example, there are a few scientists (that are not one of the original the authors) that at least take a stance that the paper showed there were problems with earlier research, even if they felt the overall paper was poor and driven by an unsavory agenda. What sort of changes do you have in mind? Since you appear new to this topic area, I will mention I have the ability to obtain full-text copies of almost any scientific papers if you need a source checked out.Legitimus (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Mostly changes to the length of the response paragraphs and/or removal of some of them. Maybe even criticisms of his responses if we're going to do the whole rebuttal thing, but that could end up just making things messy. Also, either the language on the criticisms needs to be less weak or the responses need to be less definitive-sounding. TheDracologist (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I made a few changes, but I'm a little worried I'm going about this all wrong. Please don't be mad if I made a bigger mess than we started with. TheDracologist (talk) 05:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The Radvo (talk · contribs) and Juice Leskinen (talk · contribs) accounts, which are indefinitely blocked, are mainly responsible for the current state of the article. The current state of the article, however, is not that bad. There should be some counterarguments. I reverted your changes because not only am I highly skeptical of the timing of the creation of your account (for a few reasons) and I don't think you're a newbie, I'm not convinced that your edits were for the best. You stated that "there [is] so much more weight on the counter-arguments than the criticisms", but the article is mostly filled with criticism material. I think we should work out here on the talk page what should and/or shouldn't be cut. I'd rather Legitimus do the cutting since he's very familiar with the paper. Yes, I'm generally suspicious of "new editors" taking an interest in this article and/or other child sexual abuse topics and that is because I have consistently had reason to be (and that goes for the ones who tried to win my trust as well). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand the idea of healthy skepticism, especially when it comes to sensitive topics like this, but I really did just stumble onto the entire debacle around pedophilia-related articles and decide to see if there was anything I could do to help clean it up. The main "red flag" that made me concerned about bias and weight here was the way criticisms were given "scare quotes" and the way it felt like those in support of the paper were trying to get the last word in. NPOV is a sort of special interest for me and I understand that because of this, I could end up looking more suspicious than your average new editor. Is there any way to prove that I really am just a new user? TheDracologist (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Instead of messing with the criticisms and counter arguments, I'm just going to try and neutralize the language a bit. Just small changes to the various synonyms for said used here. If any there are any problems, we can talk more. Maybe we should ask Legitimus for help with this page. TheDracologist (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

If you want to continue to state that you are a new editor, I can't stop you, but the way you edit tells me that you are not a new editor. Don't try to convince me that you are. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I worry a lot about rules and the possibility of accidentally breaking them, so I try to read up on the rules that might apply to what I'm doing. I guess it's working insofar as keeping the rules is concerned, but I never considered that it might backfire like this... TheDracologist (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for cleaning up the typos in my last edit. TheDracologist (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I've heard all of the explanations about why a new account doesn't edit like a newbie. And yet none of those explanations fit when I identify an account as not being new. Like I stated, I'm not interested in your arguments about being a newbie. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry. TheDracologist (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Introduction remains unclear about Rind's findings and conclusions

In the intro, the Rind paper is described with the following sentences:

The authors stated their goal was to determine whether CSA caused pervasive, significant psychological harm for both males and females, controversially concluding that the harm caused by child sexual abuse was not necessarily intense or pervasive,[3] that the prevailing construct of CSA was not scientifically valid, as it failed empirical verification, and that the psychological damage caused by the abusive encounters depends on other factors such as the degree of coercion or force involved.[1] The authors concluded that even though CSA may not result in lifelong, significant harm to all victims, this does not mean it is not morally wrong and indicated that their findings did not imply current moral and legal prohibitions against CSA should be changed.

Later the intro says:

Heather Marie Ulrich, with two colleagues, replicated it in The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice and confirmed its main findings, but did not endorse its authors' conclusions.

I find the conjunction of these two paragraphs confusing, because it is not clear to me what exactly were Rind's main findings, which Ulrich confirmed, and what were Rind's conclusions, which Ulrich did not endorse. AxelBoldt (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The statement 'but did not endorse its authors' conclusions' is misleading. Ulrich et al. broadly corroborated the findings of Rind et al. and supported its conclusions. (See the Ulrich study. The link provided in this Wikipedia article only leads to an abstract, but the full text can be found here: https://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/rbt_replica/frame.htm.) If a claim to the contrary is to be made, it will need to be substantiated. DrAdonis (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Is anyone going to edit this, or shall I go ahead and do it myself? I'm a newbie here. DrAdonis (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

If you were an actual newbie, you wouldn't have stated, "I'm a newbie here." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

What I'm saying is I don't know the protocol. Do you just go ahead and edit something you know to be wrong, or does there have to be some sort of consensus on the Talk page first? There is no basis for the assertion 'but did not endorse its authors' conclusions'. I'm basing that on having read (and understood) both Rind and Ulrich. Because I know the assertion to be misleading, I am suggesting that evidence be found to support it. The 'evidence' presented is simply a link to an abstract of Ulrich, which does not back up the assertion at all. On that basis, I propose the more accurate statement 'and broadly corroborated the findings of Rind et al. and supported its conclusions' be included instead. This can be evidenced by a link to the full text of Ulrich (see above). All I'm asking is whether I can just dive right in and edit (including the link) or I should wait for some sort of consensus. DrAdonis (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

One issue is your link, which is to the website of International Pedophile and Child Emancipation (IPCE), a known pedophile and pro-child sex organization. It is for this reason that it is prohibited as a source, combined with the fact that the text is copyrighted and thus illegally reproduced, and the fact that the site also subtly alters the text to suite its agenda., something I can confirm as I have a purchased paper copy of Ulrich. These variables naturally make long-time editors on Wikipedia suspicious of any user linking to it.

To the specific point of this thread, Ulrich did not endorse Rind's assertions about "willing sexual experiences accompanied by positive reactions" or Rind's proposal of labeling these "adult-child sex." Ulrich instead argued for the results should be interpreted in the context of supporting variables such as psychological therapy and resilience, and that there is hope for victims.Legitimus (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I see. I had no idea about the IPCE (I simply Googled the study). That makes me wary, and I can understand why Wikipedia would deem this an unreliable source (though the Ulrich study itself, if unaltered by any party with an agenda, is a reliable source). Still, should we not be more specific about the nature of the non-endorsement, as AxelBoldt suggests above? As it stands, the current formulation raises legitimate questions about the difference between findings and conclusions. It's also exceedingly vague; unless the version of Ulrich to which I linked was largely fabricated, it certainly endorses more of Rind's conclusions than it rejects. I think there is room in this Wikipedia article for more detail on this point, and given that we can't link to the actual study (because it's pay-for only), we should at least cite it to back up our points. DrAdonis (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I've made some minor changes that hopefully will help. Note that the second paragraph of the last section in the article contains the details of Ulrich's conclusions.Legitimus (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. It's certainly a step in the right direction. I read the inclusion of the word 'necessarily' as a welcome concession to AxelBoldt's (and my) points, though also as a commitment to keeping the 'legitimate questions about the difference between findings and conclusions' vague (perhaps for fear of taking the article off on a tangent). In light of the potential bias mentioned above (on the part of IPCE), I would like to obtain a copy of the text of Ulrich et al. and study it in detail (also comparing it to the text as presented on IPCE's site). That will take some time, but the aim will be commitment to objectivity. DrAdonis (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Just want to point out the lead is supposed to be "vague." Details are intended to be in the body of the article.Legitimus (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I have a copy of the original Ulrich study. I am going to perform a detailed comparison of the text with the version presented on IPCE's website to see whether the charge of subtle alteration is justified. Obviously if anyone would like to point me in the direction of particular differences I will welcome this. Kurt Scheveningen (talk) 09:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I have now completed a meticulous comparison of the original of Ulrich et al. (2005) and the text of the study as presented on IPCE’s website. Before presenting my findings, I wish to stress that the purpose of this exercise is not to advocate for or against using a source that promotes any particular agenda, nor to advocate for or against using a source that illegally reproduces a copyrighted text. The sole purpose of this exercise was to examine whether or not the charge of the source subtly altering the text to suit its agenda can be upheld.

My findings are as follows. With one exception, there are no differences that alter the purport, findings, conclusions or recommendations of Ulrich et al. (2005). The one difference that does misrepresent the original pertains to a heading on page 43 of the study, ‘Family Environment and Child Sexual Abuse’, which in IPCE’s version has been rendered ‘Child Sexuality, Environment and Abuse‘. It is unclear why this change has been made, as there is nothing within that section that differs from the original.

In terms of differences that exist without altering the purport, findings, conclusions or recommendations of Ulrich et al. (2005), these pertain almost exclusively to what might be termed differences of emphasis; the text as presented on IPCE’s website contains numerous instances of italicized words, non-headings rendered as headings that weren’t in the original text, clauses in a different colour to highlight elements of Ulrich et al., or list-style numbering of points made. Though this produces emphasis absent in the original text, without exception these do not alter the purport, findings, conclusions or recommendations of the study in any way. Moreover, they are far from subtle.

Three minor differences that look to be simple oversights were found, namely ‘sexual abuse’ rather than ‘child sexual abuse’ (page 38), ‘suicidal ideation’ rather than ‘suicidal ideation and behavior’ (page 40), and ‘intensive’ rather than ‘intense’ (page 42). Finally, two helpful differences were found. On page 37, a 1981 study by Constantine is mentioned in the original; the IPCE version inserts ‘[1979 &]’ before the 1981, providing a further reference. Given the use of square brackets, it is clear that this is not an attempt to mislead. And on page 45, Ulrich et al. state incorrectly that ‘studies and reasons for omission are presented in Table 8’, when in actual fact they are presented in Table 9. IPCE’s text corrects this error.

All in all, I would contend that the charge of subtle alteration to suit a partisan agenda can be only partially upheld. The change of heading (‘Child Sexuality, Environment and Abuse’) constitutes a significant alteration that would go unnoticed by a reader unfamiliar with the original. Nonetheless, this is the only covert alteration that has any bearing on the purport of the text, and it does not misrepresent its findings, conclusions or recommendations. Kurt Scheveningen (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rind et al. controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303173920/http://bama.ua.edu/~sprentic/607%20Garrison%20%26%20Kobor-2002.htm to http://bama.ua.edu/~sprentic/607%20Garrison%20%26%20Kobor-2002.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Censoring Sex Research

2016 book out from Routledge, with follow-up research on this subject. Maybe useful. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Please provide a link and your assessment of the book. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Good lord no! I can barely get through a few pages at a time, I’m certainly not going to review it! But this might help. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

So on a quick glance, it is relevant to the article topic at least. But that raises the next question, which is, do we need it? Is there something you want to add to the article that's not already in there, for which this book would be a source? I did note the reliability of this source is somewhat less than many of those in the article: It is a book, rather than a medical journal (not a huge ding but still, no peer review so the authors are free to spout any opinion they wish without oversight or evidence), and second, the authors are professors of classical antiquities, not doctors or psychologists or another profession specializing in mental health.Legitimus (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

It’s a book filled with researchers across disciplines with the sole purpose of re-examining Rind’s research, and Rind responding to the points raised. All done in a scholarly fashion. I’ll quote another editor who summed it up better than me, “There's basically a 0% chance that anyone who's edited or written books published by T&F and Wiley will have written anything except solid scholarly work.” Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I have looked over this book. [3] First off, I agree with Legitimus' concerns. Additionally, the book hardly talks about the Rind controversy. It is about a separate, later paper he wrote arguing that pederasty (adult men having sex with pubescent boys) is beneficial and evolved. He engages in cherry picking, specious biological arguments, and cultural relativism to do so. The book is heavily skewed in favor of Rind's ideas, as the foreword and introduction, as well as most of the follow up essays, make clear. It has a clear agenda of pro-pederasty activism. It was not published by T&F or Wiley and regardless, it doesn't matter what some editor supposedly said. So it should not be included in this article. Crossroads1 (talk) 02:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that the publisher is indeed an imprint of T & F but I readily accept that it’s likely not a good match here. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The sentence in Controversy Section

"The first substantial public reaction was a December 1998 criticism by the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, an organization dedicated to the discredited view that homosexuality is a mental illness that can be cured by psychotherapy."

Regardless of accuracy of the statement, I am unsure how the part (italicised by me) helps reader to understand the content. Yes, the organiziation may have discredited homosexuality but I don't understand how it relates to its criticism of the relevant paper. Even if it relates, I think the content fails to establish that relationship. Best regards --V. E. (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Subtle bias?

After reading over Salter's criticism of the Rind study, it seems to me that our article here exhibits subtle bias. Reading it, you get the impression that the study only was criticized after conservatives noticed it, that they are the primary critics, and that Ulrich replicated it and so there is a good chance that Rind's study was basically accurate. There is far too much emphasis given to the Ulrich paper and to conservatives' views. Salter for one notes that the first set of peer reviewers rejected the study and that the meta-analysis is itself an outlier among similar meta-analyses, two things not mentioned here. I know other sex researchers have criticized the study as well. We seem to have a false balance situation on our hands. We should make clear that other psychologists are the foremost critics from an academic standpoint, give more explanatory weight to their criticisms, some of which are already cited in the article but not elaborated on, and emphasize other researchers' opinions besides Ulrich. I do hope to eventually make some of these changes and remove undue emphasis, but I want to make other editors aware so they can assist.

Edited to add: I see that another editor raised similar concerns above under "Weight?" The page information statistics reveal that the banned user Radvo has significant authorship. So there does seem to be room for improvement. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

That is most likely true. Considering there were still links to IPCE hiding in the sources, I don't doubt that some of Radvo's damage is still present in the article. Some of the material I clipped out was more thank likely from that, but I haven't had the time to give the whole article a strong critical read.Legitimus (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I never got the sense that the article gives too much weight to conservatives' views. What conservatives? I think the article is very clear that the Rind et al. perspective is the outlier in the academic literature. But Radvo (see his contributions here) did take a "must balance the negative with positive" approach. The Truthinwriting account was also a problem. Starting with Talk:Rind et al. controversy/Archive 1#redaction of "The Study's Findings in Brief" section and going on to Talk:Rind et al. controversy/Archive 2, Talk:Rind et al. controversy/Archive 3 and Talk:Rind et al. controversy/Archive 4, you can see what went down. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The article does focus somewhat on conservatives, and the "Controversy" section begins, in part, by stating, "though strong reactions were ultimately demonstrated by social conservatives / religious fundamentalists, and psychotherapists and psychiatrists who treat victims of sexual abuse who were concerned about the implications." But, on the political side, it clearly wasn't just Republicans/conservatives who condemned the paper. However the matter first blew up as controversial is something to mention, but if there is overemphasis on Republicans/conservatives, that should be fixed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

As an example, it states that "Numerous studies and professional clinical experience in the field of psychology, both before and after Rind et al.'s publications, have long supported the stance that children cannot consent to sexual activity and that child and adolescent sexual abuse cause harm." No citations are given for this vital statement. In contrast to this, the article elaborates a great deal on the Ulrich paper, seemingly trying to vindicate the Rind paper. It mentions NARTH in detail twice. Tavris' views are given too much weight, especially since it makes it sound like the only critics are NARTH and disreputable recovered/repressed memory therapists. There may be other issues as I have only superficially read it. None of these are overly deep rooted problems, but as I said, I think we need to add material about what other academics think, such as Salter, and reduce the weight given to Rind and those who agree with him. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinging User:James Cantor. If you have time, would love to get your thoughts on this matter, as well as any suggestions for papers and material to add to make clear the due weight of Rind's ideas. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, folks. I'm happy to add my basic thoughts, but my off-wiki life at the moment won't let me get very involved in the discussion. From where I sit, views here don't really fall along liberal/conservative lines at all. Rather, they fall along extremist vs. moderate lines. Moderates and neutrals in the field believe Rind's evidence and support his conclusions. Extremist conservatives express only very punitive attitudes, reducing the issue to good and evil, with this being the biggest evil of all. Extremist liberals express unbridled support for victims, rejecting any evidence or idea that (again) fails to match their over simplified understanding of the issue. The conservatives are more concerned with (or motivated by) irrational anger, while the liberals are more concerned with (or motivated by) virtue signalling. The facts of the issue are lost by both extremes.

The great misunderstanding people have about this issue is understandable. The evidence suggests that it's not the sexual/physical contact that damages children, but the coercion and manipulation of the child to gain sexual access to them which does. The professionals who come into contact with victims the most (mental health professionals) are, naturally, the most familiar with the victims who were damaged the most: That's why they are in therapy in the first place. What Rind showed (or, more accurately, the many studies contained within the Rind meta-analysis showed) was that victims do not automatically become "damaged goods" destined to a life of depression and woe. It only looks that way to professionals, because they are the ones we are most likely to see. Because this idea does not perfectly support the extremist views, it gets rejected by all extremists, liberal and conservative alike.

I hope that's a help!— James Cantor (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

James Cantor, I think what Crossroads1 is looking for is commentary on what is generally accepted in the academic/medical literature. As you know, people (especially pedophiles and child sexual abusers) have used the Rind paper to suggest or argue that child sexual abuse causes no harm or that the only harm that is caused is the stigma (as in "the victims only come to view it as wrong and/or harmful because other people do"). The lead of this article states that Rind et al.'s definition of harm "has been subject to debate because it only examined long-term psychological effects, and harm can result in a number of ways, including short-term or medical harm (for example, sexually transmitted infections or injuries), a likelihood of revictimization, and the amount of time the victim spent attending therapy for the abuse." It's sourced to this 2013 "Child Abuse and Neglect: Second Edition" reference, from Psychology Press, that I used for that piece sometime back. It is also often the case that when the victim becomes a late teenager or adult, they view the sexual activity as having been child sexual abuse because they did not have the cognitive ability to actually consent as a child. If they had been a late teenager or adult, they state that the sexual activity with the perpetrator would not have happened. So now, with the cognitive ability they didn't have as a child, they know that they were taken advantage of and it was victimization. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

And when a paper like Rind is including teenagers as old as age 16, which is the age of consent in many places, in its definition of "child" with regard to child sexual abuse, it is hardly the same thing as considering the effects of child sexual abuse on a child of age 6. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

As for "It only looks that way to professionals, because they are the ones we are most likely to see.", I'm not clear on if you mean that the professionals (usually) see the victims as "'damaged goods' destined to a life of depression and woe," or that they are able to see that this may not be the case because they are professionals. It seems you meant the former since you stated, "The professionals who come into contact with victims the most (mental health professionals) are, naturally, the most familiar with the victims who were damaged the most." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, User:James Cantor, thanks for the reply, but Flyer22 Reborn explained more what I am looking for. Also, a big part of my concern is that the article seems to cherry pick Ulrich's study as confirmation, but as Dallam's response to Rind points out, as the book Predators by Salter mentions on p. 65, Rind's findings are themselves outliers. While Rind is technically correct that people are not permanently damaged goods as a result, as you stated, the coercion and manipulation does cause harm. Given the significant authorship by a banned user that remains in this article, it would benefit from other meta-analyses of the non-clinical general population besides Rind and Ulrich, as well as sources showing that disagreement with his ideas that consensual adult-child sex can exist, and that CSA is only harmful because culture says so, extends beyond conservatives, NARTH, and recovered memory therapists. If you had any such sources to suggest, that would be very helpful. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

(Came here on a random wiki-walk) I figure that this list of articles which cite Rind et al. might contain sources you seek, but among 1311 publications it's going to be difficult to pick out good sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for that. That is worth digging into as we go forward here. I already looked at some of those a while back for an AfD for the author of this study. That is how I found out that academics who discuss this incident are often critical of the paper. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I hesitate to say anything too specific about individual RS’s, as there are very, very many, and I don’t want to mis-ascribe anything to anyone. Also, the issue is quite controversial and easily dominated by relatively vocal extremists, slanting any apparent consensus. The extremes in the field are pretty clear: extremist pedophile activists (unlike the virtuous pedophiles) try to understate the potential harm whereas extremist victim advocates often overstate it. From where I sit, the majority view (if not consensus) is moderate: (1) It is in families or situations with poor supervision and general abuse where trouble happens, and there is no way to disentangle what causes what. (2) Especially among adolescent boys and older men, there is comparatively little evidence of harm. This latter view is especially touchy because it suggests that there should be different ages of consent for males and females. The criticisms are reasonable, but they are not reasons to reject the basic finding: They are reasons not to overstate it. I hope that’s a help.— James Cantor (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. At the risk of going off topic, I did want to comment on this: Especially among adolescent boys and older men, there is comparatively little evidence of harm. This seems surprising because a good majority of adolescent boys have no sexual interest in adult men (i.e. are heterosexual), so if an adult male gets them to engage in sex, there must generally be some kind of coercion involved. True, the boy at the time might acquiesce for various reasons, and later in life, when surveyed, may say it was neutral or even positive so as to maintain their masculinity and such. Many cases exist where just that happens but later on they realize they were used, etc. But, because there was coercion, what you said earlier would apply: The evidence suggests that it's...the coercion and manipulation of the child to gain sexual access to them which does. Wouldn't it? Not referring here to cases where the boy is nearer the age of majority, and/or happened to have enough agency and really did give meaningful consent despite being below the legal cutoff. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, you are correct to highlight that---I should have made it more explicit. The instances demonstrating comparatively little harm are indeed gay male youth (adolescent) engaging in sexual contact with older (gay) men. Straight male youth (adolescent) who acquiesce to sexual contact with older (gay) men generally do so for money or drugs. Although these group typically has behavioural problems, those problems preceded rather than are caused by the sexual interactions. They typically would feel ashamed by having engaged in it, but they wouldn't say that it was itself a cause of harm or that their johns were themselves victimizers in the predatory way commonly depicted. Much more harm follows cases involving sexual contact with prepubescent boys, however, as well as in cases involving girls of any age.— James Cantor (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Pinging Legitimus to get his thoughts on these matters as well. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

To be honest I'm a bit lost here on what's being debated. What exactly do we want to change in the article?Legitimus (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for being vague. Was curious what your take was on the Rind study itself, as well as on the matters mentioned by Cantor in his last two comments (Flyer22 Reborn did however post a quote from you below). Also, if you did have any references you think would be good to add, or any thoughts on the edits that have been made so far, certainly those would be welcome. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Many of my opinions on the study are incorporated into the "Conceptual issues" section because they were shared by other professionals. One being that the overall hypothesis being tested is a straw man. And while I have to be careful about how I phrase this due to wikipedia policy on slander, I do not think highly of Rind as a person, and can't help but notice he relocated to a nation where the age of consent is 14. I also plotted out my take on the range of reaction some years ago, and it's a little different. Basically that reactions to the paper fall into four camps, representing both the extremes and the middle on "is the study good or not." The extreme on the pro side is of course, egosyntonic pedophiles. No further explanation needed. The extreme on the anti side I feel was the political Right. Their reaction was overblown and largely fueled by homophobia. The middle-pro portion I think would be mental health researchers. That is, people who acknowledge the paper does show problems with prior research not having proper definitions or consistent measurements. This camp would still argue that sexual relations with underage people is wrong. The middle-anti portion would be mental health clinicians. These people are the boots on the ground dealing with the very real trauma caused by sexual abuse, and often have insight that isn't in systemic papers, because they observe them directly. So the paper was a slap in the face to them and their patients. This camp would also be highly concerned about the paper's misuse by pedophile organizations and by accused child abusers in the legal system attempting to obtain sentencing leniency. I did a little bit of a search on papers citing Rind et al and there a few I'm looking into, though they don't seem to reveal anything particularly noteworthy other than presenting evidence of harm, like this one. This French paper follows others in exploring Rind et al's findings on gender differences, without bringing up more questionable aspects.Legitimus (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, this was helpful. Agreed with you on Rind as a person. If one looks at the topic of most of his research papers, especially the one that is the focus of the book mentioned in the discussion before this one, a clear pattern emerges. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

It is being speculated here that Rind has a sexual interest in children; whether or not this is true should have little bearing on the evaluation of his work. While it is true that somebody might be motivated to argue in a way that benefits themself, the truth should reveal itself through the science alone. We can easily turn this on its head and point out that those who are not sexually attracted to children might be arguing against Rind to satisfy their own personal feelings. Throughout history, people have (and continue to) argue against homosexuality, presumably purely on the basis of personal repulsion. And yet we now know better than to ignore defenders of homosexuality on the basis that they are are, themselves, gay. 89.240.87.180 (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not quite in agreement with James on the "moderate" view, depending on how we define "moderate" and in what context (for example, young children vs. teenagers). The secondary literature is not what I would call moderate when speaking of prepubescent children, which seems to align with James stating "much more harm follows cases involving sexual contact with prepubescent boys." Young children vs. teenagers is why I mentioned the age of consent above and that an adult being sexual with a child of age 6 is hardly comparable to an adult being sexual with a 16-year-old. Going back to harm, I do take note that James stated "adolescent boys and older men." Child sexual abuse and statutory rape with regard to boys and men is obviously a different topic than child sexual abuse and statutory rape with regard to boys and women. As seen at Talk:Child sexual abuse/Archive 8#Is a boy abused by a woman less traumatic than a girl abused by a man?, an editor stated, "I think a man abusing a girl would be more intrusive and damaging than a boy abused by a woman. Mainly because of (a) double standards in society which say a male receiving sex is admirable, and (b) because physically, it would probably not be painful for a boy to have intercourse with a woman." Legitimus stated, "Don't forget same-sex abuse. With that included, you have 4 different types. You also have to factor in age ranges, both prepubescent and peri-pubescent. And the manner of the abuse (use of violence, object-rape, blackmail, abuse of trust). Also consider men and women often manifest different symptoms as the result of the abuse, or the same symptoms are reacted to differently by peers (e.g. sexual compulsion has a gender double standard, despite it being equally unhealthy for men and women). And if you think girls under-report abuse, boys are far worse. From that matrix, as you can see is generally not possible to make a gross generalization based on gender alone. It does abused men a disservice to claim such a thing, for even if were supported even slightly in the data, it implies abused boys are less worthy of rights and empathy. It is effectively a form of minimisation." And in a different discussion, I stated, "Yes, it's common for boys to think of the sexual activity with an adult woman as a having been a positive experience, but there are societal reasons for that (in addition to perhaps biological reasons) and it doesn't make the matter any less child sexual abuse or statutory rape. It doesn't automatically mean that the boy will not have psychological issues when older as a result of the sexual activity." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

"Usage outside of scholarly discussions" heading

Every blue moon, the MarconiCheese account shows up to change the "Usage outside of scholarly discussions" heading to the vague "Reaction" heading. The first time the account did it, "Popular reaction" was used instead. Here is the account on July 17, 2013. Here is the account on October 18, 2016. And here is the account on August 10, 2017.

I'm not sure why the account keeps changing the heading to "Reaction" (although I have my suspicion), but I keep reverting because "Reaction" is vague and almost the whole article is about reactions. And "Popular reaction" is misleading. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I personally will be far more blunt: This section is meant to cover reactions/opinions of the paper by unscientific fringe elements. Namely: pedophiles, bigots, and quack therapists. The sort of people who clearly have agendas outside of scientific inquiry and whose opinions are purely in the service of those agendas. It is therefore imperative that the section title remain fairly explicit as it is, and not trivialized to vagueness with titles such as "reaction."Legitimus (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I applaud your bluntness. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

[Sorry that I can't use the p word directly; I'm being blocked by an "unconstructive" filter...] I appreciate it, but don't applaud it. This whole article is about a peer reviewed, replicated scientific analysis whose contents can undoubtedly be taken as supportive of the arguments made by people who are just as entitled to argue for their cause as anybody else. Regardless whether you agree or disagree with the conclusions, to turn around and in the same breath label these arguments as unscientific and bigoted is surely illogical. If you can't argue from a scientific publication without being called a fringe bigot, what can you argue from? Is only mainstream opinion allowed? I only see an attempt to tar these people with the bigot brush, even when they are making arguments from what can reasonably be considered legitimate evidence. 89.240.87.180 (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)