![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
All of this sourced material was removed by Petra with the unjustified charge of Original Research:
According to Coffey et al. (1996), this may be due in part to the stigma attached to child sexual abuse. [1]
...
Some research papers may shed light on the controversial disparity between rates of positive and neutral reaction in different studies of the topic. In Journal of Sex Research, Kilpatrick (1987) argues that some papers, in using clinical samples, fail to produce results that can be generalised to society as a whole:
(ends)
After ripping these passages, the user does not afford them the usual courtesy of needlessly reproducing them on talk.
I cannot speak in detail for the first passage which appears to be attributed and nothing of the sort, but my own passage below it would never be interpreted as such in a context where the article was not being revised for a unitary agenda. Claiming that a study (which points to the possibility of negative reactions in clinical samples being generalised) "may shed light" on the controversy of the disparity mentioned is self evident, as we have already established that the controversy stems from findings that contradict those of the victimological faithful. Simply saying that if correct, "this may be the cause of the established, contriversial disparity" is therefore not OR, but the basic art of article building, in an already source-saturated piece that is little better than a list of possible outcomes at the best of times. Lambton T/ C 17:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Reply to Lambton 18:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC): Lambton wrote " the online copy just acts as an access vesion of the document that has already been refrenced " [sic]
- that is incorrect. The MHAMic link is not a copy of the article. It is, as I explained above in this same section, an abstract and review of the study, written and self-published by the lay-person who runs the website. It is that person's personal interpretation of the study. Since that person is not an expert, his self-published website with his self-published opinion is not a reliable source.
Lambton also wrote: "I question the motives ... playing out of an agenda" - as I have asked you previously, please stop commenting on editors and focus on content. Thank you. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 19:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 23, No. 2, 1987, pp.173-196.
MHAMic rewords, but it does not, as Petra claimed, "offer its own brand of fringe analysis" on the article summary pages, as far as I can see. The actual text of Kilpatrick (1987) says: "If a woman seeks help because she has problems in social functioning, and she is then selected for study because she has a history of certain childhood sexual experiences, it is impossible to determine whether the problems in social and personal functioning are due to the childhood sexual experiences or to all the other things that may lead to the problem being treated. Another problem with this type of study is that it is not known how these cases differ from a nonclinical population. The same point could be made for using offender populations. Primarily, it may tend to create bias and limit the generalizability to other populations."
Petra commented that: "The previous statement, which implied that the social stigma all by itself could iatrogenically cause harm where otherwise there would be none, was a complete misreprentation of the studies to make a novel, OR-synthetic, controversial assertion that the sources don't support at all." This is false. The now-removed Coffey (1996) supports it:
Coffey |
---|
Regression analyses entering only the level of sexual activity to predict the mediator variables found that level of sexual activity was related to stigma [...] The level of sexual activity was also a direct predictor o1 the GSI when entered into a regression as the sole predictor [...] However, when level of sexual activity and the mediator variables were used in combination to predict GSI, this analysis yielded an X2 of .33, F(5,168) = 16.71, p < .0000 and the only predictors that accounted for unique variance in the GSI were two of the mediators. They were stigma (B = .36), F = 17.04, p < .001 and self-blame (B = .25), F = 11.99, p < .0007. The level of sexual activity was no longer a significant predictor of the GSI score when the mediators were entered into the equation. The results of this path analysis therefore indicate that the only mediational paths in predicting adjustment on the GSI were for level of sexual activity via stigma and self-blame. [...] Because the path analysis tests a particular mediation model it is also fair to say that these results support the hypothesis that stigma and self-blame may underlie the long-term negative impact of a child sexual abuse experience. [...] Clearly feelings of self-blame and stigma regarding child sexual abuse can linger long into adulthood. This sense of feeling ashamed, tainted, and blameworthy regarding the abuse may impact adjustment by affecting the survivor's core beliefs about their worth as a person. Struggling with these feelings may result in heightened levels of psychological distress. These findings further suggest that feelings of both stigma and serf-blame in adulthood are particularly affected by the level of sexual activity involved in the abusive experience. It may be that higher levels of sexual activity result in an increased sense of being "damaged goods" and tainted due to a greater sense of personal and societal violation. Certainly society considers intercourse to be the most taboo form of sexual contact with children. |
I cannot access Besharov (1981) [1] at the moment, but a reliable source cites it for their statement that: "Professionals responsible for responding to and treating sexually abused children must also recognize that not all abuse is traumatic or damaging. They must be careful not to promote psychological iatrogenesis through their presumption of trauma." --AnotherSolipsist ( talk) 20:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Not only am I against the polarising and inappropriate nature of the heading, but an opener that would have us believe that only two studies support the idea that not everyone suffers from CSA. This does not even take account of Rind (and the many studies analysed by it), Bender, etc. It even fails to mention who wrote one of the studies, or source it. Lambton T/ C 20:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
If we are talking about studies of CSA's effects, I would say that at least 1/3 of the research available points in the Rind direction - i.e. harm is not inevitable or serious/long lasting in the majority of cases--there's a difference between saying "there is a good prognosis for recovery" and "harm is not long lasting" (therefore it should be legal to prey on whomever I want, after all, they will get over it eventually, so how bad could it really be?). The first is already reflected in the article, based on the most up to date research. The second is a fringe view.
Congress pointed out that Rind published his paper to advance a position, and denounced both the position and the misuse of science to advance it. Rind et al also published in Paidika. Three other meta-analyses came out around the same time, and not one matched Rind. (Jumper, S 1995 ‘A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship of CSA to Adult Psychological Adjustment’ Child Abuse & Neglect vol. 19, pp. 715-728. Neumann, D, Houskamp, B, Pollock, V & Briere, J 1996 ‘The Long-Term Sequelae of Childhood Sexual Abuse in Women: A Meta-Analytic Review’ Child Maltreatment vol. 1, pp. 6-16. Oddone, E & Genuis, M (1996) A meta-analysis of the published research on the effects of child sexual abuse National Foundation for Family Research and Education, Calgary, Canada.) Rind represents a fringe view, and is used by proponents of a fringe view. The big difference between Rind and everybody else is that Rind is the only one who says if it happens between teenaged boys and adult men, it should sometimes be called "adult-child sex," because the negative effects are not "pervasive or long lasting." Neither science nor society agreed, and the weight of scientifiic opinion has not shifted since Rind published his paper ten years ago. You can't reconfigure the WP:WEIGHT of scientific opinion on your own--using Rind or any other study--in Wikipedia.- PetraSchelm ( talk) 18:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
"Minority views" would be a more accurate way to title the section in question; that was installed but has been reverted.
An editor above suggested "Fringe theories" - that would be even more accurate for something so unpopular and with so little support academically and socially. The title that was reverted to, "Controversial research", is inappropriate because there is no significant controversy. "Controversy" means active debate and disputes - but none of that is happening today. There was a bit of controversy when the Rind study first came out, but that's all settled down now and has been soundly rejected by the general public and the scientific community. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 00:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
(See comments about this section following the text from the article):
Typologies for child sex offenders have been used since the 1970s. Male offenders are typically classified by their motivation, which is usually assessed by reviewing their offense's characteristics. Phallometric tests may also be used to determine the abuser's level of pedophilic interest. [3] Groth et al. proposed a simple, dichotomous system in 1982 which classed offenders as either "regressed" or "fixated." [4]
Regressed offenders are primarily attracted to their own age group but are passively aroused by minors.
Other scenarios may include:
Fixated offenders are most often adult pedophiles who are maladaptive to accepted social norms. The etiology of pedophilia is not well-understood. The sexual acts are typically preconceived and are not alcohol or drug related.
The above moved to talk page for discussion. Much of it is off-topic for this article, and even the parts that are not off-topic are not clearly attributed. The two included references include a lot of information that goes beyond the summary in the above text; to try and summarize that content would become complicated and further diverge from the topic, into the area of identifying and treating offenders. With some careful reading, it could be summarized into a couple of sentences that may be useful, but with the full detail, it's excessive for this article. Much of the information in those references is about pedophilia and might be useful in that article; or there could be a separate article to explore in detail child sexual abuse offenders.
A section on child abuse offenders is certainly useful in this article, and with more research we can find a lot of on-topic information about who it is that perpetrates the abuse; but those two references are limited in what they can provide in that regard. One of them is a survey of other literature with short summaries, so it can be a good lead-off point for finding more info, but the other one even states in its intro that it was written in 1985 and that much progresss has been made since then so the info is presented by them mainly for historical context.
I'm not saying it's crucial to leave this stuff out, but if it's used, it needs to be edited to clearly summarize the sources and avoid partial lists of points pulled out of longer lists within the sources. Better yet, it would be used as a starting point and more current research would be located and summarized to report on characteristics of offenders - who are they? what is their relationship to the abused children? how do they gain access? etc. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 17:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The above is an accurate description of the cited material. It has since morphed into something that is definitely not:
First, the newer version would require a meta-analysis as a source, since it makes a claim regarding the content of CSA literature as a whole (i.e., that only a few researchers using samples totalling less than 100 have disputed unanimous negativity). Since that claim is false, I'm pretty sure such a meta-analysis will not be found. A very large number of studies show that less-than-everyone looks upon their abuse negatively (10 are reviewed in the "Current Reflections" section of Bruce Rind's most slandered study).
Further, these studies concern specifically positive reactions, not just reactions that lack negativity. Reverted.
The next problem is an addition. While I do not object to the inclusion of Mrazek's criticism, the sentence preceding it violates WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK ("experts in the field of child sexual abuse"). Specific names (Mrazek, Finkelhor, William Masters), accompanied by their qualifications, must be used, and their "criticisms" should be accurately represented. Finkelhor, for instance, hardly deserves mention, since he's commenting on policy implications, not the methodology of Sandfort (which he says is "probably valid"). We don't mention any implications, so what is he supposed to be responding to?
Finally, an original red herring seems to be made against Okami. WP:V. --AnotherSolipsist ( talk) 20:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I restored the sentence with two other mainstream sources. The first, Kendler, reviews noncausal explanations for the association, while favouring a causal explanation, and the second, by John Briere and Diana Elliott, says: "The most critical issue is well known to behavioral scientists: Does the statistical relationship between abuse and later distress reflect a causal phenomenon (i.e., does childhood sexual abuse have negative psychological impact), or is the relationship caused by other variables such as concomitant family dysfunction or the impact of other events during or after the abuse?" Given that they argue it's the former, and their history of research demonstrating the deleterious associations of CSA, they are not "PPAs." --AnotherSolipsist ( talk) 22:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all, anything you and AS agree on without input from anybody else is not "consensus." Sescondly, you have added "controversial" to this statement:
"Child sexual abuse has been associated with depression,[3] post-traumatic stress disorder,[4] anxiety,[5] propensity to re-victimization in adulthood,[6] and physical injury to the child, among other things"
Nothing, for example, in Atoosa et al, which found depression corresponded to severity of abuse (and unwanted sex for teens,) not children) but was primarily a study of CSA across ethnic groups, changes a general statement about child sexual abuse in general in the lead into a "controversy."- PetraSchelm ( talk) 22:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This reference moved from the article for discussion:
The above reference does not support the sentence it footnotes: " The nature of this association is controversial."
The paper does not question association of symptoms with CSA, that is not its focus. It examines possible confounding variables in studying those effects, and concludes as follows:
Basically, the study says that families for which sexual abuse is reported are often seriously messed up anyway (not surprising), so better methods of research are needed to figure out which of the messes caused which of the problems. There is no repudiation that the CSA is associated with those effects. That's not a controversy, it's just a call for additional research. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 23:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This reference is used in several places in the article:
The above reference does not support this text it footnotes: " The nature of this association is controversial."
The paper concludes as follows:
Since it does not support the text, the footnote has been removed. The other uses of the reference in the article have not been changed. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 23:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The idea was to cite references that support a causal relationship between CSA and adult psychological adjustment, yet document the existence of controversy over that.--Exactly. And that's setting up a straw man that doesn't exist. Refinements in the research that can better assist practititoners and clients are being conducted to help clients, not to "question assumptions of harm," and trying to twist them to suit that purpose is pov pushing (of a fringe view) and cherrypicking random studies to make a syn argument.- PetraSchelm ( talk) 02:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
"A spectrum of responses are possible based on the circumstances of the abuse." This revision retains none of the original's meaning. It's a seperate sentence which should be debated on its own merits. However, I would agree to using less inflammatory wording, if that's possible. How's this: "There are several hypotheses on the causality of this association."
--AnotherSolipsist (
talk)
17:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
coatrack section moved to talk page: "Controversial research" |
---|
Some studies suggest that some people reporting experiences of childhood or adolescent sexual contact with adults had maintained some at least partially positive feelings about those experiences. [5] [6] One was conducted in 1981 by Dr. Theo Sandfort, who interviewed 25 boys aged 10 to 16 who were currently involved in sexual relationships with adult men. The interviews took place in the homes of the men, although the men were not present in the interviews. According to the researcher, "The boys overwhelmingly experienced their sexual contact with the older partner as pleasant; such negative feelings as occurred had mainly to do with their social surroundings which they knew disapproved of such contacts." [7] Dr. David Mrazek, co-editor of Sexually Abused Children and Their Families, attacked the Sandfort research as unethical, saying: "In this study, the researchers joined with members of the National Pedophile Workshop to 'study' the boys who were the sexual 'partners' of its members. There is no evidence that human subject safeguards were a paramount concern. However, there is ample evidence that the study was politically motivated to 'reform' legislation." [8] Child sexual abuse researcher Dr. David Finkelhor also criticized the Sandfort research, pointing to the numerous studies which show adult-child sexual contact to be a predictor of later depression, suicidal behavior, dissociative disorders, alcohol and drug abuse, and sexual problems. [9] In 1998, Bruce Rind, PhD argued in his study known as Rind et al. that not all cases of "adult-child sex" should be termed child sexual abuse. This study was condemned by the United States Congress, an event which marked the first time in U.S. history that Congress officially condemned a study published in a major scientific journal. [10] Rind's study was a meta-analysis of 15 studies using college students that found that boys reacted positively in 37% of the cases, while girls reacted positively in 11% of the cases. [11] The methodology and conclusions drawn by this study has been criticized by many researchers [12], including Dallam et al., who stated "After a careful examination of the evidence, it is concluded that Rind et al. can best be described as an advocacy article that inappropriately uses science in an attempt to legitimize its findings." (2002). [13] The study has also received some support for its scientific validity, though not necessarily its conclusions. [14] One study found that most men formerly involved in woman-boy sexual relations evaluate their experience as positive upon reflection. [15] There is contrasting evidence that some children who initially report positive feelings will sometimes go on to reassess their abuse in a negative light. 38% of the 53 men studied by Urquiza (1987) said that they viewed their experience as positive at the time, but only 15% retained this attitude. [16] One exploratory questionnaire-based study of 63 men and women who self-identified as maintaining at least a partial positive feeling about sexual abuse during their childhood or adolescence suggested a wide range of possible effects in adult life. Of the 63 subjects, 41% recalled feelings of guilt, 35% said they were frightened at the time, and 29% reported feelings of shame. [6] Russell (1986) speculated that the perception of a sexually abusive event as 'positive' could stem from a mechanism for coping with traumatic experiences. [17] |
"An article might have a disproportionately large "criticism" section, giving the impression that the nominal subject is hotly contested by many people, when in fact the criticism is merely selected opinions and the section creates an artificial controversy. This, too, gives the reader a false impression about reality even though the details may be true."- PetraSchelm ( talk) 20:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I agree that the controversy section is being given far too much weight in the article. The controversy itself is a tiny minority view. Perhaps Rind should be given a sentence or two, but more condemning of Rind, since more papers and the media both roundly condemned the study. ResearchEditor ( talk) 02:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The following sentence can find a place in the section on psychological effects, but it does not belong in the intro:
There are several hypotheses on the causality of this association. [18] [19] [20] A spectrum of responses are possible, based on the circumstances of the abuse. [21]
In the intro, it's a distraction that goes off into subtle details and obscures the main topic. The intro is to provide an overview and context for the rest of the article. There is no controversy that children are harmed by sexual abuse; the intro doesn't need to say there is a "spectrum of responses"; it already lists many examples. There is room elsewhere in the article for exploring details of how science is tracking the sequelae and how research is working to discover the way the effects are caused and how to improve treatments. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 23:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a very general statement, fitting of the lead. To exclude it would mislead the reader into believing that the nature of these associations has been ascertained definitely. It would be like noting in the Marijuana article that "smoking has been associated with schizophrenia" without adding a caveat to that for another 15kb of text. --AnotherSolipsist ( talk) 15:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Arne Frederiksen and other pro-paed whacks are not relevant, Petra, and you're obsessive mentioning of them qualifies as a red herring. The sources cited are reliable and highly notable (one quarter of CSA victims deserve at least a few sentences devoted to their outcomes). --AnotherSolipsist ( talk) 16:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a long, circular history of repeating the same tired OR fringe arguments at this article:- PetraSchelm ( talk) 17:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Child_sexual_abuse&diff=prev&oldid=128426968
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Child_sexual_abuse&diff=prev&oldid=128416675
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Child_sexual_abuse&diff=prev&oldid=132121661
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Child_sexual_abuse/Archive_4&diff=prev&oldid=132123769
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Child_sexual_abuse&diff=prev&oldid=132131399
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Child_sexual_abuse&diff=prev&oldid=130160888
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pedophilia&diff=prev&oldid=128001231
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Child_sexual_abuse&diff=prev&oldid=127936763
I'm reposting my comment from Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard here, for posterity. It's in response to Petra's claim that Rind has faded into total obscurity on all but pro-paedophile websites.
The following sentence from the article includes misleading information:
The Mayo Clinic also reported in their peer-reviewed journal that 95% of child sexual abuse incidents are committed by the 88% of child molestation offenders who meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia, citing data from a 2001 book published by Xlibris, a self-publishing company.
The misleading information is this part:
citing data from a 2001 book published by Xlibris, a self-publishing company.
It's misleading for several reasons:
The misleading and off-topic distraction about Xlibris does not belong in the sentence reporting the statement of the peer-reviewed Mayo Clinic Proceedings journal and has been removed. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 06:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The text in the section on pedophilia was clumsy - it included repeated content and excess attributions that did not add anything to the understanding of the topic (for example, mentioning the APA and WHO in the topic sentence of the first paragraph was not useful to the reader).
I've done a copyedit of the section.
I'm mentioning it here to note of my intention for that edit. My purpose was to improve the readability, reduce confusion, and leave out unimportant details that did improve the communication of information. I think the meaning is intact and it reads much better now.
Also added a couple dictionary references and fixed the formatting of some references that were messed up and duplicated.
As far as I can tell, all the references are still in place (other than the three identical references to the DSM that I combined into one); if any got dropped it was not intentional. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 09:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I've edited this sentence in the intro to add a general overview of the statistics from the Mayo Clinic, without including the details.
That was a follow-up to a prior version I had added earlier, where another editor moved the information out of the intro, with an edit summary indicating that the editor wanted more of a summary approach in the lead.
So, I'm OK with omitting that set of statistics from the lead - but the general content based on that reliable source is important for context in the lead. So rather than re-insert the details, I summarized it, included the footnote, and copyedited the full sentence to improve readability. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 09:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Jovin Lambton's edit was appropriate. "Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text." ( WP:V)
The data cited in the Mayo Report was not peer-reviewed. The authors could not possibly have possibly have performed an equivelent review, because the self-published book that reports it is lacking in detail in methodology. Meanwhile, a vast quantity of peer-reviewed research published in reputable journals, some of which is cited by Okami and Howells in our article, contradicts the claim. These studies are not outdated. "Child Pornography Offenses Are a Valid Diagnostic Indicator of Pedophilia" (2006), in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, found that child molestation, unlike child pornography, was not a valid diagnostic indicator of paedophilia. Only a minority of the abusers studied showed preferential attraction to children.
The weight of evidence should be represented. Dozens and dozens of peer-reviewed studies would seem to outweigh one self-published, nonscientific book (or even a citation to that book!) -- AnotherSolipsist ( talk) 18:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
“ | When reviewing research studies on pedophilia, it must be remembered that there is a strong potential for sampling biases. Many studies obtained their pedophilic or sexual offender populations from prisons or legally mandated sexual treatment groups. This sampling raises questions about the subjects’ willingness to be honest and/or to incriminate themselves on self-report surveys. | ” |
If "many studies" only considered populations that had already had some form of law enforcement contact over their adult-child activities, then it's not reasonable to derive the percentage of pedophiles who are child molesters from these figures, though it should be possible to derive the percentage of child molesters who are pedophiles. -- SSB ohio 15:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
“ | The prison populations also exclude pedophiles who have not been caught, those whose level of offense was not severe enough to result in jail time, those who could control their impulses, and those who were more financially successful and better able to prevail in their legal troubles through the retention of private attorneys. | ” |
Again, a selection bias is inadvertently created that skews the sample toward molesters of lower intellectual and socioeconomic status, as well as underrepresenting pedophiles who "resist temptation" and don't offend. -- SSB ohio 15:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
“ | An estimated 1 in 20 cases of child sexual abuse is reported or identified. | ” |
Similarly, since 5% of cases are reported or identified, then the data on the other 95% is absent. Are these cases ones where smart pedophiles use their skills to molest children with impunity or are these pedophiles who have the impulse to sexually abuse children but resist acting on it? The research doesn't (& can't) tell us.
My overall feeling is that these three quotes qualify the information this source provides. Because of that, use of facts & figures from this source should probably be qualified by the limitations it acknowledges. -- SSB ohio 15:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
“ | Pedophiles are either severely distressed by these sexual urges, experience interpersonal difficulties because of them, or act on them. Pedophiles usually come to medical or legal attention by committing an act against a child because most do not find their sexual fantasies distressing or ego-dystonic enough to voluntarily seek treatment. | ” |
I see two useful points to take away from this passage:
“ | An estimated 88% of child molesters and 95% of molestations (one person, multiple acts) are committed by individuals who now or in the future will also meet criteria for pedophilia. | ” |
“ | Pedophilic child molesters on average commit 10 times more sexual acts against children than nonpedophilic child molesters. | ” |
“ | Studies and case reports indicate that 30% to 80% of individuals who viewed child pornography and 76% of individuals who were arrested for Internet child pornography had molested a child. | ” |
Presented to inform the discussion. -- SSB ohio 21:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for providing some of the interesting material from the source. If anyone is interested in more, the full text is available on line at the following link:
-- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 21:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps there are good/experienced editors who look at this page, who might be interested in taking a look at two (very) different articles: Roman Catholic sex abuse cases and Scouting sex abuse cases. Some fresh contributions might be useful. Testbed ( talk) 20:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact—the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate.
~ Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structures_that_can_imply_a_point_of_view -- AnotherSolipsist ( talk) 17:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I've protected the page for a week because of edit warring. The history was a mess, and is exactly how not to do things here. We discuss, not edit war. Anyway, let's try and get this sorted out. I'm aware of a discussion on the fringe theories noticeboard about this - could someone link it to me? I'd also like to here some suggested text for the introduction pasage so hopefully we can get a compromise.
Ryan Postlethwaite
18:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Introduction...? I don't know about that, but here's my suggestion for what we were warring over:
-- AnotherSolipsist ( talk) 19:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
again, this is not about "coatrack" (an article going completely off topic), but about WP:DUE: the presentation of fringe views as having more credibility or support than they do in fact have. I agree with PetraSchelm that we mappear to be looking at (on or off wiki) pro-pedophile activism, and I do suggest that the material should be moved to that article, with a brief summary here. This is also about the age of consent. Let's say that in "civilized" countries, this varies between 14 and 18 years. It is a huge difference if the victim is aged 2, 10, 14 or 17. The article seems to ignore this almost completely. What is "child abuse" in California may be perfectly legal consensual sex in Spain (if the 'victim' is aged 14 to 16). dab (𒁳) 20:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
n 1998, Bruce Rind, PhD argued in his study known as Rind et al. that a minority of cases between adolescent males and adults should be called "adult child sex." This study was condemned by the United States Congress, an event which marked the first time in U.S. history that Congress officially condemned a study published in a major scientific journal. [30] Rind's study was a meta-analysis of 15 studies using college students that found that boys reacted positively in 37% of the cases, while girls reacted positively in 11% of the cases, only in the short term. [11] The methodology and conclusions drawn by this study has been criticized by many researchers [12], including Dallam et al., who stated "After a careful examination of the evidence, it is concluded that Rind et al. can best be described as an advocacy article that inappropriately uses science in an attempt to legitimize its findings." (2002). [31] The study has also received some support for its scientific validity, though not necessarily its conclusions. [32]
OriginalIn 1998, Bruce Rind, PhD argued in his study known as Rind et al. that not all cases of "adult-child sex" should be termed child sexual abuse. This study was condemned by the United States Congress, an event which marked the first time in U.S. history that Congress officially condemned a study published in a major scientific journal. [36] Rind's study was a meta-analysis of 15 studies using college students that found that boys reacted positively in 37% of the cases, while girls reacted positively in 11% of the cases. [11] The methodology and conclusions drawn by this study has been criticized by many researchers [12], including Dallam et al., who stated "After a careful examination of the evidence, it is concluded that Rind et al. can best be described as an advocacy article that inappropriately uses science in an attempt to legitimize its findings." (2002). [37] The study has also received some support for its scientific validity, though not necessarily its conclusions. [38] One study found that most men formerly involved in woman-boy sexual relations evaluate their experience as positive upon reflection. [39] There is contrasting evidence that some children who initially report positive feelings will sometimes go on to reassess their abuse in a negative light. 38% of the 53 men studied by Urquiza (1987) said that they viewed their experience as positive at the time, but only 15% retained this attitude. [40] One exploratory questionnaire-based study of 63 men and women who self-identified as maintaining at least a partial positive feeling about sexual abuse during their childhood or adolescence suggested a wide range of possible effects in adult life. Of the 63 subjects, 41% recalled feelings of guilt, 35% said they were frightened at the time, and 29% reported feelings of shame. [6] Russell (1986) speculated that the perception of a sexually abusive event as 'positive' could stem from a mechanism for coping with traumatic experiences. [41] |
EditedIn 1998, Rind et al, a peer-reviewed literature review written by three researchers, appeared in the Psychological Bulletin. This meta-analysis reviewed 15 studies based on college students' experiences of " precocious sexual contacts" [42] and, among others, drew the conclusion that "for boys in nonclinical populations, willing relations are generally experienced positively or neutrally and are not associated with maladjustment." [11] The United States House of Representatives criticized the study's methods and conclusions in a 1998 Non-binding resolution. [43] Scientific critics have disputed the study's definitions of willing relations [44] and sexual abuse. [45] In one example, Rind's determination that boys reacted positively in 37% of the cases studied, while girls reacted positively in 11% [11] was challenged because it didn't correct for the higher base rate of abuse in male children, [45] engendering a "misleading" [45] finding. Another criticism is that Rind's perceived advocacy of value-neutral terminology (for example referring to child sexual abuse as adult-child sex) is being used to bolster the pro-pedophile activist position taken by organizations like NAMBLA. [12] That said, the publication of Rind et al has been tacitly or implicitly defended by well-regarded organizations, [46] [47] [43] other scientists [48] and Congressman Brian N. Baird. [43] |
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
We see no reason to second guess the process of peer review used by the APA journal in its decision to publish the article in question. While not without its imperfections, peer review is well established as a standard mechanism for maintaining the flow of scientific information that scientists can refer to, critique or build on. After examining all the materials available to the committee, we saw no clear evidence of improper application of methodology or other questionable practices on the part of the article's authors. [...] The Committee also wishes to express its grave concerns with the politicization of the debate over the article's methods and findings. In reviewing the set of background materials available to us, we found it deeply disconcerting that so many of the comments made by those in the political arena and in the media indicate a lack of understanding of the analysis presented by the authors or misrepresented the article's findings. All citizens, especially those in a position of public trust, have a responsibility to be accurate about the evidence that informs their public statements. We see little indication of that from the most vocal on this matter, behaviour that the Committee finds very distressing.
They go on to consider actions they could have taken to minimize the mischaracterizations of the study's findings and conclusions ...
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |eric=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |psychnet=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
After I entered my comments below, further editing was done to the edited version above. The changes were minor so did not create confusion, but let's consider a method for updating the text as we proceed with the discussion.
I suggest that if substantive edits are made after anyone comments on a particular version - instead of editing the existing text, a new version be added. If the edited version above is changed after people comment on it, their comment might not apply to the re-edited version.
An alternate method could be to use strike-through's or square brackets to show the changes; that would take less space but could get confusing. Either way though, let's consider the effect on editor's comments when changing the version they commented on. Thanks.... -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 19:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's my contribution. I tried to give an idea of the (deep) flaws in the Rind study while not getting too bogged down in who said what. I left that (more or less) to the references. I drew inspiration from both of the editors' efforts above mine. Please let me know what you think. -- SSB ohio 19:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
←I appreciate this careful effort, but unfortunately, I can't concur with the use of the edited version as presented above. Here are some problems I've noticed so far (may not be a complete list):
For those reasons, I cannot support the use of the edited version above unless these issues are addressed with a new version. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 17:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The article at History of child sexual abuse is almost 100% unsourced original research, reads like an essay. The actual solid historical information could easily fit into a two paragraph section of this article. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 03:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
←Merge completed based on above consensus. For completeness, I checked the incoming links to History of child sexual abuse and found it to be an orphan page, ie, no links from mainspace pages. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 04:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
One thing I'm concerned about is that one day after Ssb proposed his version here, Jovin Lambton deleted Rind et al from the pro-pedophile activism article: [11]. I have just restored it. While I still think Ssb's version is very good, I'm concerned that having Rind et al summarized in the CSA article is seen as an either/or proposition, either in CSA or PPA (not by SSb, but by Jovin), and that having a summary paragraph in CSA is not an encyclopedic goal , but an activist goal. Let's take a closer look at the summarized version that is currently in PPA article. Also, think about how to incorporate SSb version into the summary currently used in PPA article, and perhaps discuss which article is most appropriate encyclopedic location for summary. - PetraSchelm ( talk) 18:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
“ | In 1998, the American Psychological Association published a peer-reviewed paper ( Rind et al) written by researchers Rind, Tromovich and Bauserman. | ” |
“ | Rind et al, a 1998 peer-reviewed study written by three researchers appeared in the Psychological Bulletin. | ” |
“ | In 1998, the American Psychological Association published a literature review written by three researchers (collectively, Rind et al) in the peer-reviewed Psychological Bulletin. | ” |
(reracking indent) Jack, I've addressed each of these concerns in detail above. I was wondering if you could look them over and give me your thoughts? If not, I can re-form responses down here, as well. I worry that this talk page has too much repetition for me to add more. Suffice it to say, I've responded to concerns about undue weight and about fringe theories, among others. -- SSB ohio 21:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
A 1998 meta-analysis by Rind et al generated controversy by suggesting that child sexual abuse does not in general cause harm; that some college students reported such encounters as positive experiences; and that the extent of psychological damage depends on whether or not the child described the encounter as consensual. < rind footnote > The study was criticized in published reviews by scientists for flawed methodology and conclusions;<dallam and other footnotes> following extensive publicity, the US Congress condemned the study for its conclusions and for providing material used by pedophile organizations to justify their activities.< congress footnote >
This is some quick research I did over breakfast. I looked at Google, crafting a search term ("Rind et al" -climate -"global warming" 1998) to exclude similarly named climate research, and found the following:
A caveat: This demonstrates that the study is written about in scholarly & nonscholarly works, but notability isn't a numeric test; it's a judgment call. -- SSB ohio 11:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
(Slightly less google scholar hits than Herman. And we don't have a paragraph on the publication of A Sourcebook on Childhood Sexual Abuse, which was very notable and influential in 1986.) - PetraSchelm ( talk) 16:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
EditorsPerspective
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Fowler
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).AAAS
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).APAletters
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
All of this sourced material was removed by Petra with the unjustified charge of Original Research:
According to Coffey et al. (1996), this may be due in part to the stigma attached to child sexual abuse. [1]
...
Some research papers may shed light on the controversial disparity between rates of positive and neutral reaction in different studies of the topic. In Journal of Sex Research, Kilpatrick (1987) argues that some papers, in using clinical samples, fail to produce results that can be generalised to society as a whole:
(ends)
After ripping these passages, the user does not afford them the usual courtesy of needlessly reproducing them on talk.
I cannot speak in detail for the first passage which appears to be attributed and nothing of the sort, but my own passage below it would never be interpreted as such in a context where the article was not being revised for a unitary agenda. Claiming that a study (which points to the possibility of negative reactions in clinical samples being generalised) "may shed light" on the controversy of the disparity mentioned is self evident, as we have already established that the controversy stems from findings that contradict those of the victimological faithful. Simply saying that if correct, "this may be the cause of the established, contriversial disparity" is therefore not OR, but the basic art of article building, in an already source-saturated piece that is little better than a list of possible outcomes at the best of times. Lambton T/ C 17:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Reply to Lambton 18:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC): Lambton wrote " the online copy just acts as an access vesion of the document that has already been refrenced " [sic]
- that is incorrect. The MHAMic link is not a copy of the article. It is, as I explained above in this same section, an abstract and review of the study, written and self-published by the lay-person who runs the website. It is that person's personal interpretation of the study. Since that person is not an expert, his self-published website with his self-published opinion is not a reliable source.
Lambton also wrote: "I question the motives ... playing out of an agenda" - as I have asked you previously, please stop commenting on editors and focus on content. Thank you. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 19:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 23, No. 2, 1987, pp.173-196.
MHAMic rewords, but it does not, as Petra claimed, "offer its own brand of fringe analysis" on the article summary pages, as far as I can see. The actual text of Kilpatrick (1987) says: "If a woman seeks help because she has problems in social functioning, and she is then selected for study because she has a history of certain childhood sexual experiences, it is impossible to determine whether the problems in social and personal functioning are due to the childhood sexual experiences or to all the other things that may lead to the problem being treated. Another problem with this type of study is that it is not known how these cases differ from a nonclinical population. The same point could be made for using offender populations. Primarily, it may tend to create bias and limit the generalizability to other populations."
Petra commented that: "The previous statement, which implied that the social stigma all by itself could iatrogenically cause harm where otherwise there would be none, was a complete misreprentation of the studies to make a novel, OR-synthetic, controversial assertion that the sources don't support at all." This is false. The now-removed Coffey (1996) supports it:
Coffey |
---|
Regression analyses entering only the level of sexual activity to predict the mediator variables found that level of sexual activity was related to stigma [...] The level of sexual activity was also a direct predictor o1 the GSI when entered into a regression as the sole predictor [...] However, when level of sexual activity and the mediator variables were used in combination to predict GSI, this analysis yielded an X2 of .33, F(5,168) = 16.71, p < .0000 and the only predictors that accounted for unique variance in the GSI were two of the mediators. They were stigma (B = .36), F = 17.04, p < .001 and self-blame (B = .25), F = 11.99, p < .0007. The level of sexual activity was no longer a significant predictor of the GSI score when the mediators were entered into the equation. The results of this path analysis therefore indicate that the only mediational paths in predicting adjustment on the GSI were for level of sexual activity via stigma and self-blame. [...] Because the path analysis tests a particular mediation model it is also fair to say that these results support the hypothesis that stigma and self-blame may underlie the long-term negative impact of a child sexual abuse experience. [...] Clearly feelings of self-blame and stigma regarding child sexual abuse can linger long into adulthood. This sense of feeling ashamed, tainted, and blameworthy regarding the abuse may impact adjustment by affecting the survivor's core beliefs about their worth as a person. Struggling with these feelings may result in heightened levels of psychological distress. These findings further suggest that feelings of both stigma and serf-blame in adulthood are particularly affected by the level of sexual activity involved in the abusive experience. It may be that higher levels of sexual activity result in an increased sense of being "damaged goods" and tainted due to a greater sense of personal and societal violation. Certainly society considers intercourse to be the most taboo form of sexual contact with children. |
I cannot access Besharov (1981) [1] at the moment, but a reliable source cites it for their statement that: "Professionals responsible for responding to and treating sexually abused children must also recognize that not all abuse is traumatic or damaging. They must be careful not to promote psychological iatrogenesis through their presumption of trauma." --AnotherSolipsist ( talk) 20:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Not only am I against the polarising and inappropriate nature of the heading, but an opener that would have us believe that only two studies support the idea that not everyone suffers from CSA. This does not even take account of Rind (and the many studies analysed by it), Bender, etc. It even fails to mention who wrote one of the studies, or source it. Lambton T/ C 20:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
If we are talking about studies of CSA's effects, I would say that at least 1/3 of the research available points in the Rind direction - i.e. harm is not inevitable or serious/long lasting in the majority of cases--there's a difference between saying "there is a good prognosis for recovery" and "harm is not long lasting" (therefore it should be legal to prey on whomever I want, after all, they will get over it eventually, so how bad could it really be?). The first is already reflected in the article, based on the most up to date research. The second is a fringe view.
Congress pointed out that Rind published his paper to advance a position, and denounced both the position and the misuse of science to advance it. Rind et al also published in Paidika. Three other meta-analyses came out around the same time, and not one matched Rind. (Jumper, S 1995 ‘A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship of CSA to Adult Psychological Adjustment’ Child Abuse & Neglect vol. 19, pp. 715-728. Neumann, D, Houskamp, B, Pollock, V & Briere, J 1996 ‘The Long-Term Sequelae of Childhood Sexual Abuse in Women: A Meta-Analytic Review’ Child Maltreatment vol. 1, pp. 6-16. Oddone, E & Genuis, M (1996) A meta-analysis of the published research on the effects of child sexual abuse National Foundation for Family Research and Education, Calgary, Canada.) Rind represents a fringe view, and is used by proponents of a fringe view. The big difference between Rind and everybody else is that Rind is the only one who says if it happens between teenaged boys and adult men, it should sometimes be called "adult-child sex," because the negative effects are not "pervasive or long lasting." Neither science nor society agreed, and the weight of scientifiic opinion has not shifted since Rind published his paper ten years ago. You can't reconfigure the WP:WEIGHT of scientific opinion on your own--using Rind or any other study--in Wikipedia.- PetraSchelm ( talk) 18:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
"Minority views" would be a more accurate way to title the section in question; that was installed but has been reverted.
An editor above suggested "Fringe theories" - that would be even more accurate for something so unpopular and with so little support academically and socially. The title that was reverted to, "Controversial research", is inappropriate because there is no significant controversy. "Controversy" means active debate and disputes - but none of that is happening today. There was a bit of controversy when the Rind study first came out, but that's all settled down now and has been soundly rejected by the general public and the scientific community. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 00:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
(See comments about this section following the text from the article):
Typologies for child sex offenders have been used since the 1970s. Male offenders are typically classified by their motivation, which is usually assessed by reviewing their offense's characteristics. Phallometric tests may also be used to determine the abuser's level of pedophilic interest. [3] Groth et al. proposed a simple, dichotomous system in 1982 which classed offenders as either "regressed" or "fixated." [4]
Regressed offenders are primarily attracted to their own age group but are passively aroused by minors.
Other scenarios may include:
Fixated offenders are most often adult pedophiles who are maladaptive to accepted social norms. The etiology of pedophilia is not well-understood. The sexual acts are typically preconceived and are not alcohol or drug related.
The above moved to talk page for discussion. Much of it is off-topic for this article, and even the parts that are not off-topic are not clearly attributed. The two included references include a lot of information that goes beyond the summary in the above text; to try and summarize that content would become complicated and further diverge from the topic, into the area of identifying and treating offenders. With some careful reading, it could be summarized into a couple of sentences that may be useful, but with the full detail, it's excessive for this article. Much of the information in those references is about pedophilia and might be useful in that article; or there could be a separate article to explore in detail child sexual abuse offenders.
A section on child abuse offenders is certainly useful in this article, and with more research we can find a lot of on-topic information about who it is that perpetrates the abuse; but those two references are limited in what they can provide in that regard. One of them is a survey of other literature with short summaries, so it can be a good lead-off point for finding more info, but the other one even states in its intro that it was written in 1985 and that much progresss has been made since then so the info is presented by them mainly for historical context.
I'm not saying it's crucial to leave this stuff out, but if it's used, it needs to be edited to clearly summarize the sources and avoid partial lists of points pulled out of longer lists within the sources. Better yet, it would be used as a starting point and more current research would be located and summarized to report on characteristics of offenders - who are they? what is their relationship to the abused children? how do they gain access? etc. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 17:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The above is an accurate description of the cited material. It has since morphed into something that is definitely not:
First, the newer version would require a meta-analysis as a source, since it makes a claim regarding the content of CSA literature as a whole (i.e., that only a few researchers using samples totalling less than 100 have disputed unanimous negativity). Since that claim is false, I'm pretty sure such a meta-analysis will not be found. A very large number of studies show that less-than-everyone looks upon their abuse negatively (10 are reviewed in the "Current Reflections" section of Bruce Rind's most slandered study).
Further, these studies concern specifically positive reactions, not just reactions that lack negativity. Reverted.
The next problem is an addition. While I do not object to the inclusion of Mrazek's criticism, the sentence preceding it violates WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK ("experts in the field of child sexual abuse"). Specific names (Mrazek, Finkelhor, William Masters), accompanied by their qualifications, must be used, and their "criticisms" should be accurately represented. Finkelhor, for instance, hardly deserves mention, since he's commenting on policy implications, not the methodology of Sandfort (which he says is "probably valid"). We don't mention any implications, so what is he supposed to be responding to?
Finally, an original red herring seems to be made against Okami. WP:V. --AnotherSolipsist ( talk) 20:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I restored the sentence with two other mainstream sources. The first, Kendler, reviews noncausal explanations for the association, while favouring a causal explanation, and the second, by John Briere and Diana Elliott, says: "The most critical issue is well known to behavioral scientists: Does the statistical relationship between abuse and later distress reflect a causal phenomenon (i.e., does childhood sexual abuse have negative psychological impact), or is the relationship caused by other variables such as concomitant family dysfunction or the impact of other events during or after the abuse?" Given that they argue it's the former, and their history of research demonstrating the deleterious associations of CSA, they are not "PPAs." --AnotherSolipsist ( talk) 22:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all, anything you and AS agree on without input from anybody else is not "consensus." Sescondly, you have added "controversial" to this statement:
"Child sexual abuse has been associated with depression,[3] post-traumatic stress disorder,[4] anxiety,[5] propensity to re-victimization in adulthood,[6] and physical injury to the child, among other things"
Nothing, for example, in Atoosa et al, which found depression corresponded to severity of abuse (and unwanted sex for teens,) not children) but was primarily a study of CSA across ethnic groups, changes a general statement about child sexual abuse in general in the lead into a "controversy."- PetraSchelm ( talk) 22:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This reference moved from the article for discussion:
The above reference does not support the sentence it footnotes: " The nature of this association is controversial."
The paper does not question association of symptoms with CSA, that is not its focus. It examines possible confounding variables in studying those effects, and concludes as follows:
Basically, the study says that families for which sexual abuse is reported are often seriously messed up anyway (not surprising), so better methods of research are needed to figure out which of the messes caused which of the problems. There is no repudiation that the CSA is associated with those effects. That's not a controversy, it's just a call for additional research. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 23:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This reference is used in several places in the article:
The above reference does not support this text it footnotes: " The nature of this association is controversial."
The paper concludes as follows:
Since it does not support the text, the footnote has been removed. The other uses of the reference in the article have not been changed. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 23:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The idea was to cite references that support a causal relationship between CSA and adult psychological adjustment, yet document the existence of controversy over that.--Exactly. And that's setting up a straw man that doesn't exist. Refinements in the research that can better assist practititoners and clients are being conducted to help clients, not to "question assumptions of harm," and trying to twist them to suit that purpose is pov pushing (of a fringe view) and cherrypicking random studies to make a syn argument.- PetraSchelm ( talk) 02:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
"A spectrum of responses are possible based on the circumstances of the abuse." This revision retains none of the original's meaning. It's a seperate sentence which should be debated on its own merits. However, I would agree to using less inflammatory wording, if that's possible. How's this: "There are several hypotheses on the causality of this association."
--AnotherSolipsist (
talk)
17:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
coatrack section moved to talk page: "Controversial research" |
---|
Some studies suggest that some people reporting experiences of childhood or adolescent sexual contact with adults had maintained some at least partially positive feelings about those experiences. [5] [6] One was conducted in 1981 by Dr. Theo Sandfort, who interviewed 25 boys aged 10 to 16 who were currently involved in sexual relationships with adult men. The interviews took place in the homes of the men, although the men were not present in the interviews. According to the researcher, "The boys overwhelmingly experienced their sexual contact with the older partner as pleasant; such negative feelings as occurred had mainly to do with their social surroundings which they knew disapproved of such contacts." [7] Dr. David Mrazek, co-editor of Sexually Abused Children and Their Families, attacked the Sandfort research as unethical, saying: "In this study, the researchers joined with members of the National Pedophile Workshop to 'study' the boys who were the sexual 'partners' of its members. There is no evidence that human subject safeguards were a paramount concern. However, there is ample evidence that the study was politically motivated to 'reform' legislation." [8] Child sexual abuse researcher Dr. David Finkelhor also criticized the Sandfort research, pointing to the numerous studies which show adult-child sexual contact to be a predictor of later depression, suicidal behavior, dissociative disorders, alcohol and drug abuse, and sexual problems. [9] In 1998, Bruce Rind, PhD argued in his study known as Rind et al. that not all cases of "adult-child sex" should be termed child sexual abuse. This study was condemned by the United States Congress, an event which marked the first time in U.S. history that Congress officially condemned a study published in a major scientific journal. [10] Rind's study was a meta-analysis of 15 studies using college students that found that boys reacted positively in 37% of the cases, while girls reacted positively in 11% of the cases. [11] The methodology and conclusions drawn by this study has been criticized by many researchers [12], including Dallam et al., who stated "After a careful examination of the evidence, it is concluded that Rind et al. can best be described as an advocacy article that inappropriately uses science in an attempt to legitimize its findings." (2002). [13] The study has also received some support for its scientific validity, though not necessarily its conclusions. [14] One study found that most men formerly involved in woman-boy sexual relations evaluate their experience as positive upon reflection. [15] There is contrasting evidence that some children who initially report positive feelings will sometimes go on to reassess their abuse in a negative light. 38% of the 53 men studied by Urquiza (1987) said that they viewed their experience as positive at the time, but only 15% retained this attitude. [16] One exploratory questionnaire-based study of 63 men and women who self-identified as maintaining at least a partial positive feeling about sexual abuse during their childhood or adolescence suggested a wide range of possible effects in adult life. Of the 63 subjects, 41% recalled feelings of guilt, 35% said they were frightened at the time, and 29% reported feelings of shame. [6] Russell (1986) speculated that the perception of a sexually abusive event as 'positive' could stem from a mechanism for coping with traumatic experiences. [17] |
"An article might have a disproportionately large "criticism" section, giving the impression that the nominal subject is hotly contested by many people, when in fact the criticism is merely selected opinions and the section creates an artificial controversy. This, too, gives the reader a false impression about reality even though the details may be true."- PetraSchelm ( talk) 20:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I agree that the controversy section is being given far too much weight in the article. The controversy itself is a tiny minority view. Perhaps Rind should be given a sentence or two, but more condemning of Rind, since more papers and the media both roundly condemned the study. ResearchEditor ( talk) 02:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The following sentence can find a place in the section on psychological effects, but it does not belong in the intro:
There are several hypotheses on the causality of this association. [18] [19] [20] A spectrum of responses are possible, based on the circumstances of the abuse. [21]
In the intro, it's a distraction that goes off into subtle details and obscures the main topic. The intro is to provide an overview and context for the rest of the article. There is no controversy that children are harmed by sexual abuse; the intro doesn't need to say there is a "spectrum of responses"; it already lists many examples. There is room elsewhere in the article for exploring details of how science is tracking the sequelae and how research is working to discover the way the effects are caused and how to improve treatments. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 23:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a very general statement, fitting of the lead. To exclude it would mislead the reader into believing that the nature of these associations has been ascertained definitely. It would be like noting in the Marijuana article that "smoking has been associated with schizophrenia" without adding a caveat to that for another 15kb of text. --AnotherSolipsist ( talk) 15:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Arne Frederiksen and other pro-paed whacks are not relevant, Petra, and you're obsessive mentioning of them qualifies as a red herring. The sources cited are reliable and highly notable (one quarter of CSA victims deserve at least a few sentences devoted to their outcomes). --AnotherSolipsist ( talk) 16:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a long, circular history of repeating the same tired OR fringe arguments at this article:- PetraSchelm ( talk) 17:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Child_sexual_abuse&diff=prev&oldid=128426968
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Child_sexual_abuse&diff=prev&oldid=128416675
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Child_sexual_abuse&diff=prev&oldid=132121661
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Child_sexual_abuse/Archive_4&diff=prev&oldid=132123769
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Child_sexual_abuse&diff=prev&oldid=132131399
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Child_sexual_abuse&diff=prev&oldid=130160888
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pedophilia&diff=prev&oldid=128001231
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Child_sexual_abuse&diff=prev&oldid=127936763
I'm reposting my comment from Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard here, for posterity. It's in response to Petra's claim that Rind has faded into total obscurity on all but pro-paedophile websites.
The following sentence from the article includes misleading information:
The Mayo Clinic also reported in their peer-reviewed journal that 95% of child sexual abuse incidents are committed by the 88% of child molestation offenders who meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia, citing data from a 2001 book published by Xlibris, a self-publishing company.
The misleading information is this part:
citing data from a 2001 book published by Xlibris, a self-publishing company.
It's misleading for several reasons:
The misleading and off-topic distraction about Xlibris does not belong in the sentence reporting the statement of the peer-reviewed Mayo Clinic Proceedings journal and has been removed. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 06:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The text in the section on pedophilia was clumsy - it included repeated content and excess attributions that did not add anything to the understanding of the topic (for example, mentioning the APA and WHO in the topic sentence of the first paragraph was not useful to the reader).
I've done a copyedit of the section.
I'm mentioning it here to note of my intention for that edit. My purpose was to improve the readability, reduce confusion, and leave out unimportant details that did improve the communication of information. I think the meaning is intact and it reads much better now.
Also added a couple dictionary references and fixed the formatting of some references that were messed up and duplicated.
As far as I can tell, all the references are still in place (other than the three identical references to the DSM that I combined into one); if any got dropped it was not intentional. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 09:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I've edited this sentence in the intro to add a general overview of the statistics from the Mayo Clinic, without including the details.
That was a follow-up to a prior version I had added earlier, where another editor moved the information out of the intro, with an edit summary indicating that the editor wanted more of a summary approach in the lead.
So, I'm OK with omitting that set of statistics from the lead - but the general content based on that reliable source is important for context in the lead. So rather than re-insert the details, I summarized it, included the footnote, and copyedited the full sentence to improve readability. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 09:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Jovin Lambton's edit was appropriate. "Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text." ( WP:V)
The data cited in the Mayo Report was not peer-reviewed. The authors could not possibly have possibly have performed an equivelent review, because the self-published book that reports it is lacking in detail in methodology. Meanwhile, a vast quantity of peer-reviewed research published in reputable journals, some of which is cited by Okami and Howells in our article, contradicts the claim. These studies are not outdated. "Child Pornography Offenses Are a Valid Diagnostic Indicator of Pedophilia" (2006), in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, found that child molestation, unlike child pornography, was not a valid diagnostic indicator of paedophilia. Only a minority of the abusers studied showed preferential attraction to children.
The weight of evidence should be represented. Dozens and dozens of peer-reviewed studies would seem to outweigh one self-published, nonscientific book (or even a citation to that book!) -- AnotherSolipsist ( talk) 18:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
“ | When reviewing research studies on pedophilia, it must be remembered that there is a strong potential for sampling biases. Many studies obtained their pedophilic or sexual offender populations from prisons or legally mandated sexual treatment groups. This sampling raises questions about the subjects’ willingness to be honest and/or to incriminate themselves on self-report surveys. | ” |
If "many studies" only considered populations that had already had some form of law enforcement contact over their adult-child activities, then it's not reasonable to derive the percentage of pedophiles who are child molesters from these figures, though it should be possible to derive the percentage of child molesters who are pedophiles. -- SSB ohio 15:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
“ | The prison populations also exclude pedophiles who have not been caught, those whose level of offense was not severe enough to result in jail time, those who could control their impulses, and those who were more financially successful and better able to prevail in their legal troubles through the retention of private attorneys. | ” |
Again, a selection bias is inadvertently created that skews the sample toward molesters of lower intellectual and socioeconomic status, as well as underrepresenting pedophiles who "resist temptation" and don't offend. -- SSB ohio 15:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
“ | An estimated 1 in 20 cases of child sexual abuse is reported or identified. | ” |
Similarly, since 5% of cases are reported or identified, then the data on the other 95% is absent. Are these cases ones where smart pedophiles use their skills to molest children with impunity or are these pedophiles who have the impulse to sexually abuse children but resist acting on it? The research doesn't (& can't) tell us.
My overall feeling is that these three quotes qualify the information this source provides. Because of that, use of facts & figures from this source should probably be qualified by the limitations it acknowledges. -- SSB ohio 15:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
“ | Pedophiles are either severely distressed by these sexual urges, experience interpersonal difficulties because of them, or act on them. Pedophiles usually come to medical or legal attention by committing an act against a child because most do not find their sexual fantasies distressing or ego-dystonic enough to voluntarily seek treatment. | ” |
I see two useful points to take away from this passage:
“ | An estimated 88% of child molesters and 95% of molestations (one person, multiple acts) are committed by individuals who now or in the future will also meet criteria for pedophilia. | ” |
“ | Pedophilic child molesters on average commit 10 times more sexual acts against children than nonpedophilic child molesters. | ” |
“ | Studies and case reports indicate that 30% to 80% of individuals who viewed child pornography and 76% of individuals who were arrested for Internet child pornography had molested a child. | ” |
Presented to inform the discussion. -- SSB ohio 21:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for providing some of the interesting material from the source. If anyone is interested in more, the full text is available on line at the following link:
-- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 21:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps there are good/experienced editors who look at this page, who might be interested in taking a look at two (very) different articles: Roman Catholic sex abuse cases and Scouting sex abuse cases. Some fresh contributions might be useful. Testbed ( talk) 20:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact—the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate.
~ Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structures_that_can_imply_a_point_of_view -- AnotherSolipsist ( talk) 17:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I've protected the page for a week because of edit warring. The history was a mess, and is exactly how not to do things here. We discuss, not edit war. Anyway, let's try and get this sorted out. I'm aware of a discussion on the fringe theories noticeboard about this - could someone link it to me? I'd also like to here some suggested text for the introduction pasage so hopefully we can get a compromise.
Ryan Postlethwaite
18:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Introduction...? I don't know about that, but here's my suggestion for what we were warring over:
-- AnotherSolipsist ( talk) 19:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
again, this is not about "coatrack" (an article going completely off topic), but about WP:DUE: the presentation of fringe views as having more credibility or support than they do in fact have. I agree with PetraSchelm that we mappear to be looking at (on or off wiki) pro-pedophile activism, and I do suggest that the material should be moved to that article, with a brief summary here. This is also about the age of consent. Let's say that in "civilized" countries, this varies between 14 and 18 years. It is a huge difference if the victim is aged 2, 10, 14 or 17. The article seems to ignore this almost completely. What is "child abuse" in California may be perfectly legal consensual sex in Spain (if the 'victim' is aged 14 to 16). dab (𒁳) 20:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
n 1998, Bruce Rind, PhD argued in his study known as Rind et al. that a minority of cases between adolescent males and adults should be called "adult child sex." This study was condemned by the United States Congress, an event which marked the first time in U.S. history that Congress officially condemned a study published in a major scientific journal. [30] Rind's study was a meta-analysis of 15 studies using college students that found that boys reacted positively in 37% of the cases, while girls reacted positively in 11% of the cases, only in the short term. [11] The methodology and conclusions drawn by this study has been criticized by many researchers [12], including Dallam et al., who stated "After a careful examination of the evidence, it is concluded that Rind et al. can best be described as an advocacy article that inappropriately uses science in an attempt to legitimize its findings." (2002). [31] The study has also received some support for its scientific validity, though not necessarily its conclusions. [32]
OriginalIn 1998, Bruce Rind, PhD argued in his study known as Rind et al. that not all cases of "adult-child sex" should be termed child sexual abuse. This study was condemned by the United States Congress, an event which marked the first time in U.S. history that Congress officially condemned a study published in a major scientific journal. [36] Rind's study was a meta-analysis of 15 studies using college students that found that boys reacted positively in 37% of the cases, while girls reacted positively in 11% of the cases. [11] The methodology and conclusions drawn by this study has been criticized by many researchers [12], including Dallam et al., who stated "After a careful examination of the evidence, it is concluded that Rind et al. can best be described as an advocacy article that inappropriately uses science in an attempt to legitimize its findings." (2002). [37] The study has also received some support for its scientific validity, though not necessarily its conclusions. [38] One study found that most men formerly involved in woman-boy sexual relations evaluate their experience as positive upon reflection. [39] There is contrasting evidence that some children who initially report positive feelings will sometimes go on to reassess their abuse in a negative light. 38% of the 53 men studied by Urquiza (1987) said that they viewed their experience as positive at the time, but only 15% retained this attitude. [40] One exploratory questionnaire-based study of 63 men and women who self-identified as maintaining at least a partial positive feeling about sexual abuse during their childhood or adolescence suggested a wide range of possible effects in adult life. Of the 63 subjects, 41% recalled feelings of guilt, 35% said they were frightened at the time, and 29% reported feelings of shame. [6] Russell (1986) speculated that the perception of a sexually abusive event as 'positive' could stem from a mechanism for coping with traumatic experiences. [41] |
EditedIn 1998, Rind et al, a peer-reviewed literature review written by three researchers, appeared in the Psychological Bulletin. This meta-analysis reviewed 15 studies based on college students' experiences of " precocious sexual contacts" [42] and, among others, drew the conclusion that "for boys in nonclinical populations, willing relations are generally experienced positively or neutrally and are not associated with maladjustment." [11] The United States House of Representatives criticized the study's methods and conclusions in a 1998 Non-binding resolution. [43] Scientific critics have disputed the study's definitions of willing relations [44] and sexual abuse. [45] In one example, Rind's determination that boys reacted positively in 37% of the cases studied, while girls reacted positively in 11% [11] was challenged because it didn't correct for the higher base rate of abuse in male children, [45] engendering a "misleading" [45] finding. Another criticism is that Rind's perceived advocacy of value-neutral terminology (for example referring to child sexual abuse as adult-child sex) is being used to bolster the pro-pedophile activist position taken by organizations like NAMBLA. [12] That said, the publication of Rind et al has been tacitly or implicitly defended by well-regarded organizations, [46] [47] [43] other scientists [48] and Congressman Brian N. Baird. [43] |
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
We see no reason to second guess the process of peer review used by the APA journal in its decision to publish the article in question. While not without its imperfections, peer review is well established as a standard mechanism for maintaining the flow of scientific information that scientists can refer to, critique or build on. After examining all the materials available to the committee, we saw no clear evidence of improper application of methodology or other questionable practices on the part of the article's authors. [...] The Committee also wishes to express its grave concerns with the politicization of the debate over the article's methods and findings. In reviewing the set of background materials available to us, we found it deeply disconcerting that so many of the comments made by those in the political arena and in the media indicate a lack of understanding of the analysis presented by the authors or misrepresented the article's findings. All citizens, especially those in a position of public trust, have a responsibility to be accurate about the evidence that informs their public statements. We see little indication of that from the most vocal on this matter, behaviour that the Committee finds very distressing.
They go on to consider actions they could have taken to minimize the mischaracterizations of the study's findings and conclusions ...
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |eric=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |psychnet=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
After I entered my comments below, further editing was done to the edited version above. The changes were minor so did not create confusion, but let's consider a method for updating the text as we proceed with the discussion.
I suggest that if substantive edits are made after anyone comments on a particular version - instead of editing the existing text, a new version be added. If the edited version above is changed after people comment on it, their comment might not apply to the re-edited version.
An alternate method could be to use strike-through's or square brackets to show the changes; that would take less space but could get confusing. Either way though, let's consider the effect on editor's comments when changing the version they commented on. Thanks.... -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 19:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's my contribution. I tried to give an idea of the (deep) flaws in the Rind study while not getting too bogged down in who said what. I left that (more or less) to the references. I drew inspiration from both of the editors' efforts above mine. Please let me know what you think. -- SSB ohio 19:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
←I appreciate this careful effort, but unfortunately, I can't concur with the use of the edited version as presented above. Here are some problems I've noticed so far (may not be a complete list):
For those reasons, I cannot support the use of the edited version above unless these issues are addressed with a new version. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 17:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The article at History of child sexual abuse is almost 100% unsourced original research, reads like an essay. The actual solid historical information could easily fit into a two paragraph section of this article. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 03:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
←Merge completed based on above consensus. For completeness, I checked the incoming links to History of child sexual abuse and found it to be an orphan page, ie, no links from mainspace pages. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 04:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
One thing I'm concerned about is that one day after Ssb proposed his version here, Jovin Lambton deleted Rind et al from the pro-pedophile activism article: [11]. I have just restored it. While I still think Ssb's version is very good, I'm concerned that having Rind et al summarized in the CSA article is seen as an either/or proposition, either in CSA or PPA (not by SSb, but by Jovin), and that having a summary paragraph in CSA is not an encyclopedic goal , but an activist goal. Let's take a closer look at the summarized version that is currently in PPA article. Also, think about how to incorporate SSb version into the summary currently used in PPA article, and perhaps discuss which article is most appropriate encyclopedic location for summary. - PetraSchelm ( talk) 18:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
“ | In 1998, the American Psychological Association published a peer-reviewed paper ( Rind et al) written by researchers Rind, Tromovich and Bauserman. | ” |
“ | Rind et al, a 1998 peer-reviewed study written by three researchers appeared in the Psychological Bulletin. | ” |
“ | In 1998, the American Psychological Association published a literature review written by three researchers (collectively, Rind et al) in the peer-reviewed Psychological Bulletin. | ” |
(reracking indent) Jack, I've addressed each of these concerns in detail above. I was wondering if you could look them over and give me your thoughts? If not, I can re-form responses down here, as well. I worry that this talk page has too much repetition for me to add more. Suffice it to say, I've responded to concerns about undue weight and about fringe theories, among others. -- SSB ohio 21:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
A 1998 meta-analysis by Rind et al generated controversy by suggesting that child sexual abuse does not in general cause harm; that some college students reported such encounters as positive experiences; and that the extent of psychological damage depends on whether or not the child described the encounter as consensual. < rind footnote > The study was criticized in published reviews by scientists for flawed methodology and conclusions;<dallam and other footnotes> following extensive publicity, the US Congress condemned the study for its conclusions and for providing material used by pedophile organizations to justify their activities.< congress footnote >
This is some quick research I did over breakfast. I looked at Google, crafting a search term ("Rind et al" -climate -"global warming" 1998) to exclude similarly named climate research, and found the following:
A caveat: This demonstrates that the study is written about in scholarly & nonscholarly works, but notability isn't a numeric test; it's a judgment call. -- SSB ohio 11:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
(Slightly less google scholar hits than Herman. And we don't have a paragraph on the publication of A Sourcebook on Childhood Sexual Abuse, which was very notable and influential in 1986.) - PetraSchelm ( talk) 16:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
EditorsPerspective
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Fowler
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).AAAS
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).APAletters
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).