![]() | 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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I cannot see why this article is needed as it is. First of all, an encyclopedia cannot cover every controversial journal article. Second, since "Rind" most likely has written more than one article, the title of this article is inappropriate. Third, if any of this article is needed at all, it should be covered under "child sexual abuse" or so in a paragraph about controversies over the scientific research of harmfulness of abuse. Get-back-world-respect 01:58, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rind et al for discussion on whether the article shoiuld be deleted. Andrewa 20:31, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I've created a redirect from A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples, which was suggested as a better name on VfD. I agree that some will search under this name, so this redir is appropriate at least.
But the suggestion was for the article to be moved there. This is still possible, we should discuss it here not on VfD and if the decision is that it should be moved there I'll help as I've now made it more difficult.
I'm also guessing of course that the article will be kept, if not then we'll have a redir to delete too. Andrewa 20:31, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Could somebody who has really read this article elaborate on what it says and what are it's bases, how the study was done and what are Rind's conclusions, because right now there is almost nothing but critisism of the study. That if anything is not very scientific and least of all encyclopedic. 84.253.253.245 ( talk) 16:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
To me the anecdote about the scientists talking about common sense and the comment on it are grossly inappropriate. No one would describe it as "common sense" that the world is flat. It is just what one would think without proper examination. "Common sense" as I would interprete what she reportedly said is just that she was not convinced by the study, which does not mean that she would have said the earth was flat had she seen a photo taken by a satelite. For this and other reasons I add a neutrality dispute note. Get-back-world-respect 01:21, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In my opinion, "Rind, et al." is a very bad name for this article. Normally, the title of the paper in question would be the best title for the article. Considering the length of the official title of this study, however, I would suggest renaming this article "The Rind Report", which seems to be how it is often referred to in the media. -- Zanthalon 04:39, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yesterday I went to Berlin's meeting of wikipedians and spoke with the head of the German wikipedia organization, Kurt Jansson. He said that the problems with the articles related to pedophilia and abuse were well known for quite some time and probably started with a posting in a forum for pedophiles about wikipedia as a great opportunity to spread the message that sex with adults is helpful for children. He already mentioned it in an interview with a newspaper in order to increase awareness of the problem. In the German pages the most notorious abuser is de:Benutzer:Mondlichtschatten, his english version - or at least one of them - is user:Moon_light_shadow. Here user:Zanthalon seems to play the main role. Checking their contribution lists tells easily which articles need a complete rewrite: List of self-identified pederasts and pedophiles, Childlove movement, pedophilia, Child sexuality, Child pornography, Child sexual abuse, Capturing the Friedmans, Rind et al.. I put the german articles on the list of articles that lack neutrality and need more care - the latter was immediately reverted by guess who. Please help taking care of the trouble. Get-back-world-respect 12:35, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If the articles were written by people supportive of pedophilia and/or ephebophilia, it does not invalidate them. Whether or not someone is abusing wikipedia depends on the accuracy of their work; therefore, it's impossible to determine the accuracy of someone's work by determining whether or not they abuse wikipedia (or by calling them a pedophile). The article should be judged by its own merits, and it does not attempt to show that "sex with adults is helpful for children." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.88.104 ( talk) 06:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Making an entirely knew section called "Rejection of Report Claims" is redundant. We already have a section call "Critics". If there is anything new to add in the way of speculation over the falsity of the report's claims, they should be inserted there.
Read articles before you just start appending stuff to the end of them please. Thanks. Corax 00:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The current article is in a state of disorganization and imbalance. I have been working as time allows to present Rind's responses to the criticisms leveled in the "criticisms" subsection.
It is important for people making edits to understand that the article is NOT a debate page, nor is it a Wiki talk page. If you are going to add VALID and COMPREHENSIBLE criticisms, make it CONCISE and integrate it with existing text. do not simply nest it onto the response of the existing criticisms.
Secondly, terms such as "straw man" are highly POV, and they should not be included in any Wiki articles unless it is clearly represented as somebody's opinion.
The article will be overhauled soon so as to have better organization and more balance. That is, the article will explain what the article says and not just some confused critics' ideas of what the article says. It will explain the methodology, the conclusions, and the politiciziation of the conclusions. Additionally, it will discuss criticisms and Rind's responses to those criticisms -- with EQUAL time given to both. Corax 04:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Why is there a link to pedophilia in ==See also==? 24ip | lolol 18:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Aren't the perpetrators of child sexual abuse pedophiles? - Willmcw 20:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I follow your argument. In one post you say that "I have no desire to have sex with children, and I'm sure not all pedophiles do", while in the next post you say that a pedophile is someone who is primarily sexually attracted to children." Are you saying that someone whose sexual attraction to children is secondary is not a pedophile, That pedophile don't necessarily desire sex with children, that the majority of child sexual abusers are not primarily sexually attracted to children, and therefore a study on child sexual abuse has nothing to do with pedophiles? There seems like quite a stretch. - Willmcw 23:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Also, I see that this study is used as a reference for our article on
pedophilia. Would that be an incorrect linkage too? -
Willmcw
00:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
May I remove the category? 24ip | lolol 22:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
It's very important to cite the Leaderchip Council critique of Rind et al. (1998), but it is misleading to cite it without Rind et al's response.
The problem is that the critisims contained in the article "Science Or Propaganda" are entirely based on critiques Rind et al. had previously rebutted.
In fact, there is no need to read Rind et al.'s responses to realize Dallam et al. are dishonest.
- For example, about the selection bias: In their 1998 article, Rind et al have NEVER claimed their college samples were representative of the general populationnd they indeed claim that "Despite all the empirically based similarities between the college and national populations, it is tempting to speculate that certain differences exist. Persons with extremely harmful CSA episodes may be unable to attend college or remain there once they have begun. In this way, surveys of college students may miss extreme cases of CSA, limiting the generalizability of findings from the college population. Nevertheless, the results of the current review, while not demonstrating equivalence between the two populations, strongly suggest that the gulf between them is narrow, and much narrower than child abuse researchers have generally acknowledged." (Rind et al.(1998), p.42). Rind et al's critiques ignore results coming from Rind et al.(1997) based on national samples.
- The blame of "Statistical Errors and possible manufacture of results" can be directed to Dallam et al. instead of Rind et al. By reading the original article, it can be concluded that Dallam et al. wittingly distorted Rind et al.'s claims.
Dallam et al. claim that "It is important to note that .03 was the exact difference in magnitude that Rind et al. reported between male and female effect sizes (r = .07 and r = .10, respectively). Because lower effect sizes indicate better adjustment, Rind et al. reported that a major findings of their study was that "self-reported reactions to and effects from CSA indicated that . . . men reacted much less negatively than women" (p. 22). After correcting for attenuation due to base rate differences, Dallam et al. reported that effect sizes for males corresponded to r = .11, which is practically identical to the corrected effect size for females, r = .12."
But guess what Rind, Bauserman and Tromovitch claim in their meta-analysis ! "The contrast between the female (r u= .10) and male (r u= .07) unbiased effect size estimates, based on 14,578 participants, was nonsignificant ...."' [(Rind et al.(1998), p.33)]. Effect sizes r =.07 for males and r =.10 for females were based on all samples they had. Among these were samples resctricted to unwanted experiences and others contained people with wanted and unwanted experiences. They divided their samples into two categories, "unwanted only" and "all level of consent" and reanalyzed the contrast between males and females. They claim that "Finally, for all types of consent, the contrast between the female (r u= .11) and male (r u= .04) effect size estimates, based on 11,320 participants, was statistically significant ... " (Rind et al.(1998), p. 34) Thus THIS is the analysis from which Rind et al. conluded that "effects from CSA indicated that . . . men reacted much less negatively than women" (Rind et al.(1998), p. 22)
By the way, concerning the correction of effect-sizes due to low base rates Dallam et al. talk about, Rind et al. demonstrate in their response (see infra) hat this is innapropriate. Anyway Rind et al. redo their analyse with corrected effect-sizes and demonstrate the constrast between "unwanted" and "all level of consent" in male samples is significant. (see reference infra)
- Before the Leadeship Council published their article in the Pscyhological Bulletin (Dallam et al.(2001), they took an active part in the condemnation of Rind et al.(1998) by Congress.
In 2000, Rind et al. demonstrated that The Leadership Council deceived the Congress members with worthless and UNPUBLISHED critisism (read
Rind et al. 2000)
Dallam et al.(2001) looked more serious but was as much flawed. Why was it published in the Pychological Bulletin then ? Only to enable Rind and his colleagues to rebut it. This what they do in Rind et al.(2001)
Thus the article "Science or propaganda" which is based on "Dallam et al.(2001)", is not rebuttal of the controversial report.
References to add:
Rind, B., Tromovitch, Ph. & Bauserman, R. (2000)
Condemnation of a scientific article: A chronology and refutation of the attacks and a discussion of threats to the integrety of science,
Sexuality & Culture, 4-2, Spring 2000
Dallam, S.J., Gleaves, D.H., Cepeda-Benito, A., Silberg, J.L., Kraemer, H.C. & Spiegel, D.(2001) The Effects of Child Sexual Abuse: Comment on Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998); Psychological Bulletin, 127, 6, 715-733, 2001
Rind, B., Tromovitch, Ph., & Bauserman, R. (2001) The Validity and Appropriateness of Methods, Analyses, and Conclusions in Rind et al. (1998): A Rebuttal of Victimological Critique From Ondersma et al. (2001) and Dallam et al. (2001); Psychological Bulletin, 127, 6, 734-758, 2001
I have updated the criticisms portion of the article not only by reformating it, but also by including Rind's rebuttals to criticisms leveled by Dallam et al. Before this revision, the "criticisms" section was little more than a copy-paste job of an article published by the "Leadership Council." That oversight has now been remedied. Corax 00:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
A separate study that Rind was also on, dated 1997, is mentioned in the introduction to this article. Now I read the article child sexual abuse, and when it mentions Rind et al., it says "1998", and I wondered if it was confused with 1997, since when I tried comparing the two, I found it harder to tell them apart. I don't really understand the distinction between the two, because their descriptions seem fairly overlapping; "A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse (CSA) using college samples" (1998) seems almost indistinguishable in its goal from "A meta-analytic review of findings from national samples on psychological correlates of child sexual abuse" (1997). The only noticeable difference seems to be where the data is originally from (college samples vs. national samples). Can someone explain the distinction better? Phoenix-forgotten 11:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Why are there links to pedophilia and ephebophilia in the ==See also= section? Where does Rind et al. mention pedophilia? What further relevant information on the harm of child sexual abuse do the pedophilia and ephebophilia articles have to offer? TrueMirror 23:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (24.224.etc)
If I'm reading this right:
you are now trying to define pedophiles as proponents of changing or eliminating age-of-consent laws. Very no. TrueMirror 22:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Will Beback has correctly noted that Rind et al has been used by people who advocate revising age-of-consent laws. He believes that this fact is noteworthy enough to receive mention in the introduction. For lack of a better place in the article, I have no problem with this. However he has twice phrased the introductory passage in a way that is unsatisfactory. The version I rendered reads: Proponents of changing or eliminating age-of-consent laws often make use of reports such as Rind et al. in contending that adult-minor sexual relationships do not always cause psychological harm for the minor. This statement is entirely factual and points out one of the main factors contributing to the article's controversy in the general public.
Will Beback insists on an alternate version which reads as follows: Proponents of changing or eliminating age-of-consent laws, such as pedophiles, often make use of reports such as Rind et al. as part of pedophile activism, in contending that adult-minor sexual relationships do not always cause psychological harm for the minor. This rendering has two problems. First, it has a factual problem. It implies that all pedophiles advocate for changing or eliminating age-of-consent laws. Unless Will has proof for this implication, he needs to qualify the word "pedophiles" by preceding it with the word "some." Even then, his rendering faces a second problem, one of containing a blatant POV. Besides some pedophiles, many other people advocate eliminating age-of-consent laws. The youth rights group ASFAR, some ephebophiles, and -- yes -- some heterosexual adults also advocate retooling age-of-consent laws, citing Rind's studies to bolster their varied positions. Consequently, mentioning only that pedophiles reference the study in support of revising age-of-consent laws, while failing to mention specifically other groups or people who also do so, has the imbedded POV that pedophiles' use of the study is noteworthy but not ephebophiles' use of the study. It therefore legitimizes the POV perception that Rind's study is an "emancipation proclamation" for pedophiles, rather than an empirical study that has informed the political positions of some pedophiles and some members of other demographic groups. Such text is in violation of Wikipedia policy and, consequently, merits immediate removal. Corax 01:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Needs to read less like a timeline. -- DanielCD 19:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch. The article is assoiated with both child sexual abuse and pedophilia. WP:PAW works on articles related to both topics. IMO, if you stop 100 people on the street and ask them if pedophilia and sexual abuse are related the overwhelming majority will say yes. The argument that they are not related is hypertechnical and not helpful for reaching consensus.
See also is a navigational tool to help users find information. See also like categories is not information of fact about the article. (See arbcom ruling on this. Ruling) See also points a user toward information that might be of interest related to the original article topic. It isn't a stretch to think that people reading this article may have an interest in the subject of adults desiring to have sex with children. Would someone please add the Pedophilia back to See also. FloNight talk 01:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
-- Prosfilaes 03:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Where is this coming from?
Well, I don't mind reinserting it. See also sections are for related topics and this is an obvious one. · Katefan0 (scribble)/ poll 04:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
24.224.153.40 you are refusing to accept that there are multiple meaning of the word pedophilia. WP:NPOV says that it is important for WP to present all of the definitions of the word. Not just the one a particular editor prefers. Pedophilia means a sexual attraction to children or having sexual relations with children. FloNight talk 01:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
From WP pedophilia article: Outside the medical community, the term pedophile is frequently used to denote not only people meeting the medical definition but, also, people who are sexually attracted to adolescents and not prepubescents, as well as people who have engaged in sexual activity with a child. Some scholars refer to a sexual interest in adolescents as ephebophilia.[1] Clealy the definition is broader than you say. -- FloNight talk 01:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The only reason anyone knows this study exists is because people hyped it being about pedophiles. The hype is most of the story here, and the hype has to do with the public definition of "pedophilia". I'm not sure that means it merits a link to a medical condition though. Just wanted to mention that with stuff like this, what seems to be the subject is not necessarily the whole case. In a large sense, this article is about the hype, not the actual study. -- DanielCD 02:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The connection to pedophilia is indirect, through pedophilia's connection to CSA. So why not let the readers be directed to pedophilia after going through the see also link to Childhood Sexual Abuse? Crazywolf 20:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I think this article should be renamed to reflect the public contraversy. I think this is the better option since it is the reason that the article is well known. This particular study on its own merits is not otherwise remarkable. Another opition is naming it to the correct title. FloNight talk 15:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if this article is the appropriate place, but one thing worth expanding on is the controversy concerning the publication of Lilienfeld's 2002 American Psychologist article on the APA response to Rind et al. (1998). It may be worth an entirely new article, as it is more concerning publication, peer review, and APA adding insult (further [deserved] scorn from the scientific community) to injury (its own spineless capituation to outside influence) concerning the Rind et al. issue. I could work on it but, as you may tell, I might have POV problems... Solitary refinement 19:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I have a couple of issues with this passage in the "Controversy" section:
The questions I have have here are:
This article talks more about the criticism of the study/review than what is said in the study. Therefore there are some POV problems. There is nothing wrong with criticism obviously, but majority of the article shouldn't be devoted to it. If someone can add what is said in the study more clearly, then it can balance the neutrality that this article needs. I may just do this (depending on how much time I have). Zachorious 05:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
This seems odd:
How can a 2007 paper be a reference for a 1998 statement? Herostratus ( talk) 01:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The off-topic sentence is still in the article. It needs to be removed, or moved to a section for later responses, since it is a later re-interpretation of the original Rind study. I'm not making this edit right now, but this is an open item that needs to be addressed. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 22:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest changing the title of this page to Rind et al. (1998) child sexual abuse meta-analysis controversy, or something similar.
The controversy resulting from the study is what makes the study notable. There are thousands of studies every year that are not notable enough for an article, even when they are important studies.
This particular study was condemned by Congress and stirred huge controversy in other ways as well, that's why it's notable enough for an article, so the controversy should be reflected in the title.
I recommend the title change be implemented soon. Comments? -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 17:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, done, per this discussion. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 22:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
'When Worlds Collide' at http://facstaff.bloomu.edu/jleitzel/classes/adolesnt/lilienfeld_2002.pdf disputes the methodological criticisms against "A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse (CSA) using college samples"
"A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse (CSA) using college samples" fails to factor in adverse delayed reactions to child sexual abuse (CSA) because that goes beyond the scope of the study which is of shorter term correlations.
-- AaronAgassi ( talk) 6:42, 1 March 2008
I've archived the entire page since it looks like the last comment was made in 2008. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 16:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
How much of the criticism is based on a single article by Dallam? Seems like a lot, her name is mentioned 5-10 times in the article.
WLU
(t)
(c) Wikipedia's rules:
simple/
complex
16:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
As I state in my edit summary, I removed the leadership council documents because they are an advocacy organization, not a scholarly one. Scholarly analysis of a scholarly document should come from scholarly sources. In addition, they are analyzing the paper, not the controversey (arguably, could be a reference but I'd rather not). Leadership council is also, from what I've seen, a fairly partisan advocacy organization. I can't see them being a medically reliable source for a page like this one. Both papers, the 1997 related one and 1998 one this page is about were peer-reviewed and it's appropriate that criticism come from peer-reviewed scholars.
I've also removed the other external links - from what I could tell they were basically citations of the papers and they're already referenced. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 19:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The article currently reads a bit too much like it's saying Rind et al was wrong, and they're a bunch of pedophiles. It was a huge controversy and lots of people disagree, but it's still cited as reasonable science by other articles. The extensive criticism section is quite heavy-handed, particularly considering it's mostly from a single journal (Journal of Child Sexual Abuse) and Rind et al responded to all of the points with "Um, you're kinda criticizing our methods by ignoring the parts that justify our methodological choices." The "assertion of bias" section in particular ends with a bit too much "oh, and they're child-raping pedophiles" which is really, really ad hominen. The "however" makes me cringe, because it looks like "however, what they are really trying to do is make it acceptable for a father to rape his daughter". I've removed the lead-in sentence and I'm not sure of Paidika actually promoted pedophilia (I've asked JAR for a clarification). Was the conference Rind and Bauserman attended really a pedophile advocacy conference, or is that Salter's description of it? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 02:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The starting point of Paidika is necessarily our consciousness of ourselves as paedophiles. . . . But to speak today of paedophilia, which we understand to be consensual intergenerational sexual relationships, is to speak of the politics of oppression. . . . This is the milieu in which we are enmeshed, the fabric of our daily life and struggle. . . . Through publication of scholarly studies, thoroughly documented and carefully reasoned, we intend to demonstrate that paedophilia has been, and remains, a legitimate and productive part of the totality of human experience. ("Statement of Purpose," pp. 2-3)
After the publication of their meta-analysis in Psychological Bulletin , Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman were the keynote speakers for an advocacy conference in the Netherlands . According to an announcement in the International Pedophile and Child Emancipation (IPCE) Newsletter, [10] the conference was being convened "expressly to throw light on the more positive side" of "adult-nonadult sexual contacts" ("The Other Side of the Coin," September 1998). The conference was hosted by the Foundation for Church Social Work in Paulus Kerk, Rotterdam , an organization headed by outspoken pedophile advocate Rev. Hans Visser. [11] An overview of the conference appeared in an article in the local Rotterdam newspaper titled: "Dominee Visser Pleit voor het [*page 125*] Aanvaarden van Pedofilie [Reverend Visser Pleads for the Acceptance of Pedophilia]" ("Dominee Visser," December 18, 1998). The conference also featured talks by two members of Paidika's editorial board, Drs. Gert Hekma and Alex van Naerssen.
"Rind et al. was thoroughly rejected by its first set of peer-reviewers for the Psychological Bulletin; the authors were asked not to resubmit the paper (personal communication with original reviewer who wishes to remain anonymous). Apparently, Rind et al. resubmitted the paper after a change in editors, and the paper was given to a new set of reviewers. At least one of these reviewers also rejected the article. It remains unclear what portion (if any) of the second set of reviewers recommended the paper for publication."
I'm reading through Lilienfeld, 2002 and a big part of the discussion is the numerous errors made by "Dr" Laura and other public representatives. I wonder if it's worth reviewing them either briefly or at length, and in what section they would go. I was originally thinking of the first section, but perhaps in a "Public reception" section of Criticisms? It's from pages 183-4 of Lilienfeld. It may be a bit too far towards the "educating the public" side of things. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 16:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
When the study entered public debate due to the efforts of Schlessinger and others' attempts to disparage its results and conclusions, a large number of common fallacies were made. By criticizing the study due to its perceived potential to cause the normalization of pedophilia, Schlessinger applied the argument from adverse consequences, in which the validity of the study due to its possible consequences. By criticizing one of the study's authors, Schlessinger applied the genetic fallacy, in which the study's validity was questioned due to its source. The argument that the study should not have been published due to its contradiction of conventional wisdom, Schlessinger used an argumentum ad populum, in which the acceptance of a proposition within the general public is given more prominence than the reasoning behind it. The study was also subject to biased assimilation, in which the degree of criticism applied was greater due to it contradicting a pre-existing belief. These errors were made repeatedly while the study was discussed in public and only corrected through the announcement by the AAAS. (Lilienfeld, 2002)
The citation needed tag I added to the description of NARTH was removed with the edit summary, "it's in the heavily referenced wikipedia page. Period". That was clearly inappropriate, as Wikipedia cannot use itself as a source, so I have readded the tag. In addition, though it's not of great importance, I note that the edit summary used to revert me was somewhat rude: "Period" implies a refusal to engage in further argument, which is generally not an option on Wikipedia. I hope that is not the actual position of the user who performed the revert. BG 21:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
In addition: the NARTH article does not contain any sourced information to the effect that this organization "advocates eliminating homosexuality using psychotherapy." Probably NARTH as an organization does aim at this, but it's not their official position so far as I know. They would be more likely to say that they advocate conversion therapy for gay people who want to change, which is not, obviously, the same thing as using conversion therapy to eliminate homosexuality completely. BG 21:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The lead mentions pro-pedophilia activism using the paper but the body doesn't. Any extra info to expand on this in the body? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 22:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
There appear to be a lot of missing sources, criticsms and rebuttals to Rind et al, particularly when including replies by authors and replies to replies. I'm going to start a table here for future reference and inclusion. I've also commented out the criticisms by Holmes and Slap - I don't think it's the original article I've added a citation to, and I can't tell if the original pubmed url was to the initial article or an author reply by Holmes and Slap or by Rind et al commenting (the original link appeared to be Rind et al commenting, which makes it a citation of a citation, meaning the original statement by Holmes and Slap wasn't acutally there). If anyone knows or can sort it out (I can't find the fulltexts for most of the issues), please uncomment it with the appropriate citation. I'd also like to include DOIs if possible, but they appear rather hard to track down. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 13:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Citation | Year | Used |
---|---|---|
Rind, B (2001). "The validity and appropriateness of methods, analyses, and conclusions in Rind et al. (1998): A rebuttal of victimological critique from Ondersma et al. (2001) and Dallam et al. (2001)".
Psychological Bulletin. 127 (6): 734–58.
PMID
11726069. {{
cite journal}} : Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)
|
2001 | 1 |
Rind, B (2000). "Condemnation of a scientific article: A chronology and refutation of the attacks and a discussion of threats to the integrity of science". Sexuality & Culture. 4 (2): 1–62.
doi:
10.1007/s12119-000-1025-5. {{
cite journal}} : Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)
|
2000 | 1 |
Rind, B (2000). "Science versus orthodoxy: Anatomy of the congressional condemnation of a scientific article and reflections on remedies for future ideological attacks". Applied and Preventive Psychology. 9 (4): 211–226.
doi:
10.1016/S0962-1849(00)80001-3. {{
cite journal}} : Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)
|
2000 | 0 |
Spiegel, D (2000). "The price of abusing children and numbers". Sexuality & Culture. 4 (2): 63–6. doi: 10.1007/s12119-000-1026-4. | 2000 | 0 |
Rind, B (2001). "Moralistic psychiatry, procrustes' bed, and the science of child sexual abuse: A response to Spiegel". Sexuality & Culture. 5 (1): 79–89.
doi:
10.1007/s12119-001-1012-5. {{
cite journal}} : Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)
|
2001 | 0 |
Dallam, SJ (2001). "The effects of child sexual abuse: Comment on Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998)". Psychological bulletin. 127 (6): 715–33.
PMID
11726068. {{
cite journal}} : Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)
|
2001 | 0 |
Sher, KJ (2002). "Publication of Rind et al. (1998). The editors' perspective".
The American Psychologist. 57 (3): 206–10.
PMID
11905121. {{
cite journal}} : Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)
|
2002 | 0 |
Rind, B (1999). "Interpretation of research on sexual abuse of boys".
JAMA. 281 (23): 2185.
PMID
10376568. {{
cite journal}} : Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)
|
1999 | 0 |
Oellerich, TD (2000). "Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman: Politically incorrect—Scientifically correct". Sexuality $ Culture. 4 (2): 67–81. doi: 10.1007/s12119-000-1027-3. | 2000 | 0 |
Rind, B (2000). "Debunking the false allegation of "statistical abuse": A reply to Speigel". Sexuality & Culture. 4 (2): 101–111.
doi:
10.1007/s12119-000-1029-1. {{
cite journal}} : Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)
|
2000 | 0 |
NOTE:Conference presentation, dubious reliability; I think it's the one cited by Salter
|
1998 | 0 |
Speigel, D (2000). "Real effects of real child sexual abuse". Sexuality & Culture. 4 (4): 99–105. doi: 10.1007/s12119-000-1006-8. | 2000 | 0 |
Hyde, JS (2003). "The use of meta-analysis in understanding the effects of child sexual abuse". Sexual development in childhood: Volume 7 of The Kinsey Institute series.
Indiana University Press. pp. 82–91.
ISBN
0253342430. {{
cite book}} : External link in (
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (
help)
|
2003 | 0 |
Baird, BN (2002). "Politics, operant conditioning, Galileo, and the American Psychological Association's response to Rind et al. (1998)". The American Psychologist. 57 (3): 189–92. PMID 11905117. | 2002 | 0 |
Grover, S (2003). "On Power Differentials and Children's Rights: A Dissonance Interpretation of the Rind and Associates (1998) Study on Child Sexual Abuse". Ethical Human Sciences and Services. 5 (1): 21–33. | 2003 | 0 |
Pittenger, DJ (2003). "Intellectual freedom and editorial responsibilities within the context of controversial research". Ethics & Behavior. 13 (2): 105–25. PMID 14552312. | 2003 | 0 |
Mirkin, H (2000). "Sex, science, and sin: The Rind report, sexual politics and American scholarship". Sexuality & Culture. 4 (2): 82–100. doi: 10.1007/s12119-000-1028-2. | 2000 | 0 |
Sternberg, RJ (2002). "Everything you need to know to understand the current controversies you learned from psychological research. A comment on the Rind and Lilienfeld controversies". The American Psychologist. 57 (3): 193–7. PMID 11905118. | 2002 | 0 |
The table as created by me was from as search of the three authors' names between 1998 and 2003. One issue to be concerned about is those that cite rather than discuss. Another is that there's obviously much more to the criticisms and discussion than the public reaction and Dallam et al.'s criticisms. The third is the difference between the controversy and the study - arguably the controversy is a separate issue from the study; if the pages are split, then the criticisms would go on one page and the controversy on another. On the other hand, it also makes sense to simply have a section on public response to the study. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 14:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)Sexual abuse of boys appears to be common, underreported, underrecognized, and undertreated. Future study requires clearer definitions of abuse, improved sampling, more rigorous data collection, more sophisticated data analyses, and better assessment of management and treatment strategies. Regardless, health care professionals should be more aware of and sensitive to the possibility of sexual abuse in their male patients.
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)Discussion Closed - User Indefinitely Blocked |
---|
Regarding Jack-A-Roe and Will Beback's strange reversion of my edits to the article, the reversions were strictly against Wikipedia policy. If I continue to be edited I will raise this issue again. In the meantime if you have specific problems, you must discuss them here or I will continue to insert my well-documented edits until this page is locked by Wikipedia. My points were more heavily sourced than many statements in the original entry itself. I botched the tag for one of the references, but it should be obvious I was attempting to reference the original work by Rind with the tag "rindetal". If someone could clean the tag I'd appreciate it. I pruned some of the points attributed to Ondersma, because they were not relevant to Rind's original paper. The original article was about whether lasting, intense, and pervasive harm is experienced. Whether there is temporary harm or not was not investigated in the study -- invalidating Ondersma's claim that Rind's study was fallacious for not having considered the possibility the person had some kind of support (family, therapist, medication, etc.). If the subjects showed no evidence of harm at the time they filled out their questionnaire, then if they had been harmed at one point then it was temporary and not lasting. Also, for Ondersma's claim to be true that the harm these experiencers have is not "diagnosable", then a few questions are in order. What accepted psychological scale or instrument is he trying to imply is better than the ones that were used in the 56 studies? He in effect throws out most of the field of psychology by questioning the scales which those 56 studies used. Also, what does he say about the fact that all previous CSA research had indeed used the same definition (same questionnaires) regarding "harm" and had indeed attributed this harm causally to CSA? This is why Ondersma's points were not taken seriously by the community, and were seen as a knee-jerk, unscientific reaction. My edit in the section on clinical and legal samples clarified the real reason why one must use population-representative epidemiological data, when assessing psychological correlates. Any scientist in any field can tell you why you cannot use a non-representative sample when assessing correlates. You can only use clinical and legal samples for anecdotal information. You cannot draw conclusions about the general population from them. Period. Also, you cannot draw conclusions from studies that did not perform statistical control using confounding variables. Period. All studies that claimed a link between CSA and harm either defined CSA as unwanted only, used non-representative (clinical or legal) samples, or did not control for confounding variables. Period. In fact, at least one study published decades ago that controlled for confounding variables found that CSA actually improved school performance. In the last paragraph I corrected the old version of this wiki entry by saying that no research has ever contradicted the findings of the Rind study. This stands true. If anyone has any objection, they can raise it here, and we'll just have to have an in depth discussion about the merits. There was one very small study post-1998 which McNally, in his book Remembering Trauma, suggested contradicted Rind's findings, but in fact it did not. It was a study of twins discordant for CSA. If anyone was thinking of using that study as an example, then we can hash it out here and include that in the wiki entry, though I don't think we will need to go to that depth. Just read anything by Finkelhor, who is an outspoken moral critic of consensual sex between minors and adults, and you will see that he quite openly and plainly states that there is no association between CSA (using a definition including both wanted and unwanted CSA) and psychological harm. Psychword ( talk) 05:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Psychword
Summary of my edits Conceptual Issues section 1. Assertion that Rind set up a straw man by refuting "lasting, intense pervasive harm" when it was already known that reactions are varied. This is a meaningless criticism because lots of published studies, as well as the Congressional and state resolutions on the study, all claimed the universality of severe harm. How does Rind set up a straw man, when so many people clearly believe that harm is a necessary outcome of a childhood sexual experience with an adult? 2. "The reactions of victims in their adult lives have been found to be extremely varied, ranging from severe to nearly unnoticeable, and many pathologies are not diagnosable in the strictly clinical sense Rind uses." If they are not diagnosable using any instrument, then that implies they are not detectable – and thus no study would have shown any such pathologies. This statement does not belong in the wiki entry if there is no proof of it in any study. It is just someone's opinion. If somebody can say "they just didn't detect the harm", then anybody can say anything. I also removed the word victim. Many researchers use the term CSA/victim for self-reported unwanted / negative experiences, and use other terms for wanted CSA/positive experiences. For instance, Dolezal uses the term CSE (child sexual experience) when the study participant indicates the experience was positive or willing. I added percentages to clarify the existing claim about reactions being varied ("negative in 70% of females, to positive or neutral in 70% of males"). These numbers come from the meta-analysis. 3. "Victims often have a flawed or distorted appraisal of their abuse, and fail to connect distressing and sometimes debilitating pathologies with their experiences." There is no proof that pathologies are linked causally to their CSA experience. That is one of the main points Rind makes. The type of symptoms they may have can be caused by a wide range of other things, some of which are confounded with predisposition to experiencing CSA. That was one of the main points of the study to begin with. Whoever wrote this statement clearly has either not read or not understood the study. Previous works by David Finkelhor, by Harrison Pope, and by Michael Persinger discuss the CSA/harm confound problem. Pope, for instance, realized that people with current psychological problems may not really know what the causes of those problems are, but often look into their past to try to figure out what the causes might be. Persinger, a physiological psychologist, understood that all manner of physiological predispositions can cause adult-onset psychological problems, and those predispositions could be conflated with CSA. 4. "Further, these studies make no accounting for emotional support of the victim's family, clinical treatment of the victim prior to the study, or personal resiliency, which can easily account for less severe outcomes." The harm was not lasting, if any circumstances mitigated the impact. Rind set out to study whether there was "lasting, intense, pervasive harm". His study does not say anything about temporary, short-term harm. Assertions of Bias section 1. "They defended their deliberate choice of non-legal and non-clinical samples, accordingly avoiding individuals who received psychological treatment or were engaged in legal proceedings as a way of correcting this bias through the use of a sample of college students." This statement (“accordingly avoiding individuals...”) is patently false. They did not “avoid” anyone. (Actually, the clinical and legal samples avoided a lot of people -- especially a lot of people who engaged mutually in the experience.) The 56 original studies did sample people who had psychological treatment, as well as people who had been engaged in legal proceedings, in the proportion those people present themselves in the general population. If they did not examine whether these variables impacted adult maladjustment, it’s probably because they did not exist in the original datasets. As I said previously, in order to assess correlates you must use random samples. If 90% of murderers drive white cars, does it mean that 90% of people who drive white cars are murderers? No. To know what percent of people who drive white cars are murderers, you must assess the general population, not just the population of known murderers. It's very simple, and it's amazing how many people just don't seem to understand this concept. 2. “Stephanie Dallam and Anne Salter have...” This needs to be balanced by a statement that this is an ad hominem attack. 3. Paidika: nonscholarly vs scholarly. I believe many of the editorial board members were academics. The mission statement was in the first issue only, not in subsequent issues and it is not clear whether authors submitting to later issues knew about the mission statement from the first issue. Further, many people who appeared in the journal were not associated with any "movement" of any sort and would probably not want to be associated with any "movement." Subsequent Research and Legacy section 1. There is no conflicting evidence that has ever been published that contradicts the findings of the original study (more on that below). 2. Added mention that David Finkelhor, an outspoken critic of consensual sex between adults and minors, has long been arguing there is no universal causal link between CSA and psychological adjustment. 3. Whoever added the McNally reference did not read McNally’s original source. He merely mentioned a single study of discordant twins saying it appeared contradictory with Rind. In fact that study (a single study of a few dozen women) did not contradict any of Rind’s findings – twins are not representative of the general population (neither is a female-only sample). Also to me it is not clear whether their statistical control variables (“family discord”) were as robust as the controls in the 56 studies in Rind’s meta-analysis; finally the sample size was extremely small (~40 people versus thousands). 4. Rate of consent – many studies present rates of consent i.e. level of willingness. Studies that say minors “cannot consent” are clearly making a moral or conceptual statement, not a scientific one. 5. Even with robust CSA and robust family environment variables, the majority of the variance of adult psychopathology is not explained in any CSA study I've ever seen (and I'm pretty well read in this area), making any further claims of causality, even with unwanted-only CSA, very dubious until the unexplained causes of harm are explained. 6. Omission of many other recent studies, for instance gay samples like Dolezal, Carballo-Dieguez, etc., where the subjects' self-reported appraisal of the experience is respected. 7. Citing a single textbook as representing widespread views about Rind's work today is not correct. It would be better to use the citation index impact figure for the Rind study as a measure of how much it matters now. That is the whole purpose of journal article impact figures. I also question the use of the term "modern," which implies that works from the 1990s are not "modern." It would be better to use the term "current" as "modern" has a pejorative connotation. 8. "Uncountable studies and work in the field of psychology from long both before and after Rind et al.'s publication have supported the stance that children ... are harmed by it." This is the main issue I have with this wiki entry: especially the claim of causal harm. The main point of the original study was that the "causal" harm being argued by some researchers and advocates was an artifact falsely created by individuals who made causal claims without statistical control and without using representative samples. The purportedly causal association goes away with statistical control. Family environment variables have 12 times the explanatory power as CSA in explaining adult psychological problems. Studies with proper statistical control and representative samples have been available for decades. Some researchers chose not to perform adequate statistical control, but went on to claim causality nontheless. Other researchers did not claim causality, but advocates misinterpreted their data and claimed causality anyway. Will Beback, on a different page, has suggested blocking my account because of the edits I made. He suggested this without informing me that my edits were being discussed elsewhere. Unsubstantiated claims have been made there about my edits making "false" points. For now, I will refrain from edits until we reach consensus here regarding my above points. Psychword ( talk) 22:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Psychword
|
I looked at this website: Male Homosexual Attraction to Minors information center (MHAMIC) and it looked like honest research to me with high standards for inclusion. Why are people trying to say it's advocating anything? Can someone provide a genuine reference to this effect or any clear information on that site that refers to itself this way? If people are out there trying to provide the best possible info on a topic, and it doesn't meet someone's "poltically correct" criteria, it just gets dismissed as "advocacy". This seems to be the term people apply to any scientific discussion, such as the Rind et al. study itself.
I could be wrong, but "advocacy" is a term now being used to dismiss something that people don't agree with. I DO NOT dispute the legitimate usage of the term as applied to harmful organizations like NAMBLA though. Don't get me wrong. But what is the definition of "advocacy" being used here? Can we see some criteria? -- 70.112.54.22 ( talk) 04:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Legitimus,
Regarding your deletion of the Arreola study:
(1) What exactly did you mean by 'over-inclusive CSA measurement'?
(2) Since Rind's main conclusion was that positive or neutral outcomes exist in the population as a whole (which is unaffected by the nature of the sample), why would this other study and the particular quote I made from it, which seems to back up that conclusion, be irrelevant? Researcher1000 ( talk) 05:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I reverted the addition of this section, for a couple of reasons.
First of all, the article is not really about the study per se. I think that years ago the article was named "Rind et al (1998)" or something, but it was decided (rightly, I'd say) that the study itself is not particularly notable. It was just a paper in a journal, not a especially notable journal such as Nature or whtever, and just a meta-study at that, a kind of review of existing literature.
What is (slightly) notable is that it became controversial and there was some stuff written and said about the study. Fine, but drilling down in great depth on the study itself in probably not really called for. We can talk about including a little more info if it seems helpful, though. Also, the material itself is not really ideal, with some speculation on Rind et al's motivations, and is basically an unsourced analysis of the paper, which may be correct in part but is unsourced, and also seems a little bit more on the cheerleady side than I'd like to see ("The researchers were criticized for...suggesting that [other] researchers use more scientifically valid definitions of CSA" for instance), which brings me to the second point.
There's the meta-issue of, this article and this subject has a history here, and we want to be real careful here, and there are some red flags. These were the editors first edits here, and this is a pretty fraught subject, and so that sets off a little buzzer in my head. (Actually, the editor had one previous edit, in 2009, and it was to the article Adult where he added a quite long unsourced essay the gist of which that persons who have begun puberty are adults and that other uses of the term are mistakes, which is probably not true and which sets off another little buzzer in my head.) The editor's name is "Truthinwriting", and given the subject matter this sets off another little buzzer in my head. I've covered this subject a long time here and my experience is that, when we have a user with a username with with Truth or Freedom or so forth in it, on this subject, it just doesn't usually end well. So not to say there's anything wrong with any of this, but that's a couple buzzers too many, and I think this probably a path we don't want to be going down. Herostratus ( talk) 06:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you to all for your comments. I am gaining a better understanding of Wikipedia, procedures, and concerns. After reading the above comments, I have edited my contribution with an eye toward avoiding things that might be seen as opinion or disputable, and adding a lot of citations/sources to specific pages and tables. The new version is less than 600 words (I think it grew in size because it takes more words to spell out facts than to summarize them in a way that might be challenged as opinion). I also removed some useful information, but I hope in the future to add it elsewhere in the page where it will be more appropriate.
The issue of "cherry-picking" was raised. I suspect a major point of the open-edit policy of Wikipedia is to ensure that cherry-picking will be quickly noticed and balancing information will be added. Indeed, one can always point to a fact one does not like and say it was cherry-picked; the test though is whether or not balancing facts can be presented. I do not believe I cherry-picked anything, but if anything in my summary seems out of balance, please let me know and I'll try to address the concerns or explain why I think it should be included in the brief summary.
Regarding citation style, I understand I should use "short citations". I have searched the PsycInfo bibliographic database and it seems there is only one Rind et al. 1998 (the college meta-analysis) and only one Rind & Tromovitch 1997 (the national meta-analysis), thus I suggest short citations without titles, since the titles appear in the full citations and should not be ambiguous now or in the future.
Following is my proposed new version, without properly formatted citations (lower page numbers are referring to Rind et al. 1998; higher page numbers are to Rind & Tromovitch 1997):
Findings in Brief
Prior to publishing the 1998 Rind et al. meta-analysis that was based on college samples[re-cite], Rind and Tromovitch published a meta-analysis based on national samples[re-cite]. The 1998 manuscript replicated the overall, nationally representative findings regarding the association between experiencing one or more episodes categorized as CSA and later psychological adjustment.[p. 42] Both the national studies and the college studies showed only a small overall average association between CSA and impairment (on a scale of 0 to 100, the association was less than 1.0; separated by gender it was approximately 0.5 for males and 1.0 for females; correlation rs=.07 and .10, respectively).[p. 31, 33, Table 4 & p. 248, Table 6] Most social science research is designed so that on average, 1 out of 20 findings will be statistical outliers if the research is perfectly conducted. The 10 national samples contained 1 statistical outlier; the 54 college samples contained 3 statistical outliers, as expected in social science research; after removing these outliers, the findings across both male and female samples (both within the national samples and the college samples) were highly consistent (i.e., homogeneous), thus the small averages are not the result of mixing studies with markedly different findings.[p. 31, 33, Table 4 and see p. 248-249] Even when the researchers included the statistical outliers, the overall result was small.[p. 31] In addition to the overall analyses, in the college study the researchers examined the 18 most studied, alleged symptoms of having experienced CSA (e.g., self-esteem problems, anxiety, depression, eating disorders, sexual problems, etc.). Fifteen out of eighteen of these data sets were homogeneous after outlier removal, and all 18 average associations were small both before and after outlier removal.[p. 32 Table 3]
The researchers conducted the college meta-analysis in part because the college studies provided data regarding causality which was lacking in the national studies.[pp. 25, 42] The analyses of these data showed that CSA was unlikely to be the major causal variable, if it is a causal variable at all.[p. 39-40, Table 12] In studies that controlled for any confounding variables, less than 1 in 5 attempts to find a statistically significant finding between CSA and harm did so.[p. 40] Poor family environments and other confounding variables were found to be 9-fold better explanations for the small associations that were found in the main analyses, suggesting that the causal association between CSA and harm is small at most, but perhaps zero in the typical case.[p. 39-40]
In addition to the meta-analyses that compared people who experienced CSA with controls, the researchers also summarized the available data on peoples' reactions to the experiences that were labeled as CSA by researchers. They found that nearly one-third of females and two-thirds of males who had an experience that was labeled as CSA, reported that the experience was neutral or positive.[p. 36, Table 7]
The researchers pointed out that a likely reason their findings were counter to expectations that CSA causes prevalent, intense harm, regardless of gender,[p. 238-239; see also p. 23-26] was at least in part due to the use of definitions of CSA that are of questionable scientific validity.[p. 46] The authors then suggested that researchers label willing sexual encounters that were experienced positively as "adult-child sex" and that other experiences such as unwanted and negative experiences be labeled as "child sexual abuse" so that researchers would be more likely to achieve a valid understanding of the heterogeneous behaviors currently grouped under the CSA label.[p. 46-47] The authors then closed their article pointing out that although scientists should use definitions that produce better scientific validity, this did not mean that "moral or legal definitions of or views on ... CSA should be abandoned or even altered."[p. 47] Truthinwriting ( talk) 13:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
It has been a few days since I posted my revised and sourced version of the "Findings in Brief" here on the talk page. I'll wait a few more days so people have more time to comment, if they wish. If there seems to be no serious problem, I'll then format the citations and edit it into the article page, probably in about 3 days. FYI. Truthinwriting ( talk) 05:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
How can the controversy, caused by the Rind et al. article, best be described, using reliable sources? Not by repeating the same ideas and same advocate sources in two different parts of the article!
The third paragraph from the top (starting with the words "Rind et al. concluded") and the entire section further down entitled "Usage outside of scholarly discussions" cover the same ideas with different detail. This repetition, in two different parts of this article, give these ideas, and their advocacy sources, undue weight. By repeating the two ideas (the mention by tiny, fringe, advocacy groups that have almost no followers and the article's use for the defense in a few legal cases), misrepresent the views of the Rind article by the high-quality, reliable academic sources that commented on, and added to, the controversy. Besides Dr. Dallam and Dr. Ondersma, who are given a lot of space in this Wikipedia article, much of the voluminous published commentary (see the two websites mentioned below in this Section), after the first year, ignored these two aspects of the early controversy. So that observation sets off a little buzzer in my head. Why are the pedoactivist and court aspects so important to Dr. Dallam and Dr. Ondersma. I speculate on this more in the next section. Radvo ( talk) 06:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
In the Rind article's section entitled ==Usage outside of scholarly discussions==, there are 4 websites listed; three were inserted by other editors. The fourth evolved out of one of the original three, and is devoted solely to the Rind controversy. These websites belong to the kinds of activist groups that Dallam asserts use the Rind et al. report. This section of the Wikipedia article claims that web-sites like these use the Rind report "outside of scholarly discussion." Two of these websites are devoted to the controversy in greater detail than this website. But I was today unable to verify on these websites any use of the Rind results to specifically advocate any lowering of age in age-of-consent laws in any state legislature. This part of Dahlam's 2001 claim is probably outdated. So, I note this in the text of the article. This accusation sets off another little buzzer in my head.
(Editorial: Foreigners who live under different laws should know that in the United States of America, we have a viable democracy and a wonderful Constitution that allows any of its citizens to advocate a change in the age-of-consent law. Citizens can form a flat earth society, become Communists, and read Mao's Little Red Book. Parts of this Wikipedia Rind et al. article may give foreigners the impression that advocacy of legal reform by citizens here is not permitted or illegal. This is not true. In Stalanist Russia, these activists would probably have been executed or banished to Siberia long ago. But if Justin Bieber, who I believe is 17 years old, was a U.S. citizen, and lived in a state that had an age of consent set at 18, he could organize, with his girlfriend and his millions of fans, to have the age of consent law reset at 17. It is wrong IMHO to give foreigners the impression that, if Justin Bieber did this in the USA, his age of consent reform activism would be taboo, illegal, an attempt to normalize pedophilia, or an advocacy of inappropriate relationships with children. The tiny number of pedophile activists in the USA are covered in their political activism, by the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. I have always been a proud member of the ACLU.)
For future verification purposes, the four websites, included in this "Usage outside of scholarly discussions" Section, should be easily accessible to the reader, to show that Dallam is no longer relevant regarding the association of the Rind report with specific age-of-consent reform advocacy. I did not remove from the Wikipedia article the assertion that Dallam made in 2001, as her claim about the websites' usage may have been verifiable then.
The Wikipedia reader of the Rind article/page can get to the NAMbLA web-site with two mouse clicks, via the Wikipedia article on NAMbLA, which in turn gives the functioning web-link to the organizational website. I could not see on the NAMbLA site how any description of the results of the Rind study were used to advocate age of consent reform. Can anyone here find what Dr. Dallam claims? (BTW, Susan Clancy's book, The Abuse Myth, has not been condemned by the U.S. Congress because Peter Herman from NAMbLA reviews it on NAMbLA's website. This sets off another little buzzer in my head. Why was the Rind report condemned for being reviewed by the NAMbLA web-site and Clancy and others who books were reviewed were not.) Age-of-consent organizations "that have not dissolved have only minimal membership and have ceased their activities other than through a few websites." See [age of consent reform].
If functional outside web-links were added to the three other websites in that Section (i.e., to Ipce, MHAMic, Everything you wanted...), the Wikipedia reader of this article might, with the click of the mouse, verify the current web use of the Rind Report, viz. its "use outside of scholarly discussions". The Wikipedia articles on two of these groups have been deleted, so the links are broken.
Of particular interest to those who contribute to this Rind controversy article might be these two websites (below), which also deal with the Rind controversy:
[ Everything you wanted to know about The Rind Controversy MHAMic]
The text describing the controversy is interesting, and provides IMHO a much more rich and complex version of the controversy than provided here on Wikipedia. It would be great if Wikipeida editors got some additional quality sources for the Wikipedia article from this website.
The other web-link is:
This Dutch web-site holds scores of articles directly related to the controversy, distributed in a confusing collection of "Libraries" that are not immediately apparant. I've read that the Netherlands is country where sharing files without profit is legal.[ See Section entitled 'Countries where sharing files in legal'] There are still more articles on associated web-pages than are listed on the Introductory page. This website can be used for further private research by editors and interested readers here. There is at least one original article there about the Rind controversy, and some math education for people who want to understand meta-analysis. I believe the web site was maintained from the start by Dr. Frans Gieles, with what may be a tiny group of Dutch and German volunteers. Besides English, there are Dutch, French, Spanish and German language articles about the Rind Report. I once saw a foreign language article in Latvia, where the author claimed something like America had lost its place as the champion of democracy because the Rind report was condemned by the Congress. Herostratus may think there was a little controversy about the Rind article, and its condemnation by the Congress, but he may be poorly informed about how foreigners were watching this with dismay.
I would like to fix the web-links in the article to these external websites, but want to first get feedback about the permissibility from the editors or administrators here who know the copyright and other rules. The NAMbLA web-link in the article works, so I assume this link is not in violation of Wiki-pedia's Child Protection Policy. Since the Section is about the use of these 4 websites for verification purposes of claims by a third party, it may be acceptable under Wikipedia's rules to link to them. Radvo ( talk) 01:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The introductory paragraphs of the Rind et al. article currently contains this sentence, which I would like to remove, I bring this matter up here to first get feedback.
Here's the sentence I wish to remove, from near the beginning of the article.
"Numerous age of consent reform organizations have quoted the [Rind et al.] paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws, and defense attorneys have used the study to argue for minimizing harm in child sexual abuse cases.[4][5]"
The 2 sources (footnoted in 4 and 5) that support this statement are professionals but IMHO are not neutral observers; they are advocates for two different alternative views that have done much to sustain the controversy.
(1) Dr. Ondersma is associated with the advocacy group APSAAC, a professional group of CSA counselors. I was told that this advocacy group was formed, in part, to resist and counter the public and professional skepticism that questioned the mindless professional support of the ridiculous claims of preschool children in the McMartin Preschool case in California, et al.. The Ondersma group may be the guardians of the rhetoric, methods, and techniques that caused the moral panic around the preschool cases for a number of years. The counselors in this group made some people pretty mad, and IMHO they had to circle the wagons to protect themselves.
(2) Dr. Stephanie Dallam was with The Leadership Council. Those professionals organized, in part, to defend member therapists against malpractice lawsuits, These therapists (allegedly fraudulently, according to the lawsuits) diagnosed their patients with so called "recovered memories' of incest, and multiple personality disorder. This was another moral panic, that included the controversial recovered memories phenomenon. The Leadership Council has considerable professional interest in who controls the rhetoric about incest and CSA, especially in Congress, among judges, and in juries. This professional interest of The Leadership Council to control the rhetoric that gets to the legislatures and the courts sets off another buzzer in my head. These are not professionals with a neutral point of view; they have an agenda and want to protect their professional members from malpractice suites when things go wrong. It's a free country, and I support their right to organize,too. But I oppose the use of their rhetoric as a neutral and unbiased source.
The therapists associated with these two groups IMHO are not mainstream; the science associated with these therapists is not regarded, by their mainstream professional peers, as the strongest in the field. I hae no problem with developing alternative therapies, unless the professional members of these groups are getting a lot of malpractice suites filed against them. Then it is time for these professionals to get out and control the rhetoric. That sets off another buzzer in my head.
The sentence quoted above suggests there are "numerous" organizations that support age of consent reform. "Numerous" in nonsense if you read the Wikipedia article on Age of Consent reform organizations. Associating these tiny fringe groups with the Rind study is also nonsense. (The NAMbLA website now features a long review of Susan Clancy's book, The Abuse Myth. Is that reason for her book to now be condemned by the Congress, and by these two advocacy groups?)
Then the sentence in the Introduction of the Rind article mentions the Rind study being used in court. Now the alarm buzzer is loud and steady. For the people in The Leadership Council this controversy is about who controls the discourse in the legislatures and in the courts. If the Rind study gains any credibility or following in the public, then the professionals from The Leadership Council, who are being sued in court over repressed memories, will have more difficulty defending themselves against juries that may give huge damage awards in civil suits. I suspect this is what these groups are about.
These two advocacy groups have considerable interest in discrediting the Rind et al. studies by successfully associating the Rind research with controversy, with the condemnation by Congress, with "numerous" fringe pedophile advocacy organizations and to so-called pedophile activists. And with the use of the Rind study in courts of law. And with the current Wikipedia article that further destroys the credibility of the Rind research. (Except that Heather Ulrich duplicated the Rind study in 2005, and came up with the identical results. Go figure.) If the rhetoric of this Wikipedia article is transformed into an article with a more neutral point of view, this article will be probably nominated for deletion by the same people who put it up here originally.
The buzzer is quite loud and steady now.
I want to work to make this article a fair and balanced one. But then I expect that it will be taken down from Wikipeida, and have to exist in an independent site. Let's see how this comes out.
I speculate that some of the claims made by the advocates for these professionals, who may rightly fear lawsuits, to damage the credibility of the Rind study as valid court evidence. These two groups may be protecting members who were being sued (or might be sued in the future) and want their views in court to go unchallenged by the controversial Rind studies. These two groups see the Rind studies as a professional threat and thus a rival to be discredited. I see the earlier versions of the Wikipeida article as good public relations for these advocates. Some of the sources this article uses as neutral and quality sources are not IMHO disinterested, they are part of the kind of non-mainstream professional groups that created and maintain the controversy.
The reason I bring this up is the Wikipeida editors need reliable sources. The Wikipedia editors incorrectly IMHO regard Dallam and Ondersma as neutral sources. I don't think they are neutral sources for the purpose of sourcing this article. I think they are part of the reason these is a controversy; they weigh in heavily against the Rind study.
The views of Dr. Dallam and Dr. Ondersma are very much part of The Rind et al. controversy. I see them as protagonists, and they should not be Sources for the neutral introduction of the controversy.
So I want that biased sentence in the introduction to be deleted.
Please advise.
Radvo ( talk) 23:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Revised and expanded Radvo ( talk) 00:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I want to bring the dead external web-links in the [ 'Usage outside of scholarly discussion' Section] to the attention of a Wikipedia administrator within the next week, unless this matter can reach some strong consensus here on the TALK page. I am not so familiar with the rules and policies and how they are implemented, but eager to learn the rules and operate within them.
To the appropriate Wikipedia authority or Administrator:
I am a new editor, as of the beginning of December. I need an authoritative answer from an administrator (or similar). I asked about this on the TALK page, and I now raise this matter with an administrator.
In the section [ 'Usage outside of scholarly discussion' in Wikipedia's Rind et al. Controversy article], three websites are named; one link is active; two links are dead, one link should be upgraded to a different section of the website.
All four websites are active here, so editors may see the active links that might be placed into the article: [ NAMbLA] [ The RBT Files at Ipce], [ The Male Homosexual Attraction to Minors Information Center MHAMic] [ Everything you wanted to know about The Rind Controversy MHAMic] This last is a different section of the previous website; the latter deals only with the Rind et al controversy. If by posting these links here I have violated any rule or policy, please delete only the active links immediately.
The question I have is about the permissibility of making these web-links active in the article itself.
According to Dr. Dallam, a highly esteemed, anti-Rind advocate, often used as a reliable source to explain the controversy in this article, these websites were allegedly and inappropriately misusing Rind's scholarly article for political advantage, and these websites are identified in the Wikipedia article for verification purposes. The NAMbLA link in the article works thru another Wikipedia article; with just two clicks of the mouse, one is on the NAMbLA website. The other external links do not work in the article. Since these are links to the work of unknowns, they are NOT referred to in the article as reliable sources. The three links are named, so the Wikipedia reader can verify for him-herself the alleged misuse of the Rind scholarly article on these fringe and non-mainstream websites. The links are associated by Dr. Dallam with tiny fringe organizations that advocate age-of-consent reform. The web-links are external to, and heatedly controversial within, Wikipedia.
Here's my question that needs an authoritative answer: Assuming the consensus of editors of this article is to keep this section of the article as it is, would fixing these dead external links violate any Wikipedia rule, viz. regarding Copyright, using quality sources for verification, or the Wikipedia Policy on Child Protection? Or would active external links be too controversial, and therefore unwanted? I just what to know. If the consensus is to not make these links active, I will obviously have to yield to the consensus.
An alternative view of the editing might go like this: Naming and activating these links might be like placing active external links to variations of the Flat Earth Society, clearly a fringe group, within which nested web-sites are links to many articles from mainstream sources that are allegedly being cited "inappropriately" for the political purposes of the 'Belief in the Earth is Flat Revival'. The purpose of associating the study with favorable reviews and citations by variations of the Flat Earth Society is solely to discredit the study's authors, especially, as noted twice in the article, in court (i.e., with judges and juries). The Wikipedia article and the controversy are maybe saying: "The Rind et al. 1998 meta-analysis must be discredited and trashed because it is 'trumpeted' by the Flat Earth Society on its website."
The first Wikipedia paragraph in the 'Usage outside...' Section is IMHO a "guilt by association" fallacy, a kind of ad hominem attack on Rind et al., a claim that a former Wikipedia editor feels is necessary to repeat in Wikipeida's voice in this Wikipedia article to give the fallacious argument additional weight. The argument goes like this: The mathematical research produced by the Rind et al trio was reviewed or cited favorably on the website of these 3 despicable fringe groups. Therefore, the Wikipedia must also come, by implication, to guilt by association, that Rind et al (and Heather Ulrich et al.) must be morally wrong and despicable like those tiny fringe groups." I edited an alternative version of this section that may be mostly reinstated.
I am considering an alternative edit: The entire "Usage outside of scholarly discussion" section should be dropped from the Wikipedia article entirely. That may not reach consensus either. If the article is rewritten in a NPOV to avoid sullying the reputation of the esteemed Wikepedia with the ad hominem and "guilt by association" attack on Rind et al., and, by implication, on Heather Ulrich et al. (who did a replication of the calculations in 2005, and arrived at identical results) (all six authors are covered by relevant [ BLP policies]), then I want to know if the dead external links must remain inactive to comply with one or more Wikipedia rules or policies.
There is another aspect to this: I bookmarked [ Everything you wanted to know about The Rind Controversy MHAMic] on my personal page so I could easily find that link again, and was attacked for that, and all my contributions to this article were cherry picked out of the article by two anonymous editors. I have since removed that link from my user page, and have no intention of putting it back there. I speculate that its the source of the text, and the link to a controversial bibliography that is most protested. But I like the quality source links in the article. Radvo ( talk) 01:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The introductory paragraphs of the Rind et al. article currently contains this sentence, which I would like to remove, I bring this matter up here to first get feedback.
Here's the sentence I wish to remove, from near the beginning of the article.
"Numerous age of consent reform organizations have quoted the [Rind et al.] paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws, and defense attorneys have used the study to argue for minimizing harm in child sexual abuse cases.[4][5]"
The 2 sources (footnoted in 4 and 5) that support this statement are professionals but IMHO are not neutral observers; they are advocates for two different alternative views that have done much to sustain the controversy.
(1) Dr. Ondersma is associated with the advocacy group APSAAC, a professional group of CSA counselors. I was told that this advocacy group was formed, in part, to resist and counter the public and professional skepticism that questioned the mindless professional support of the ridiculous claims of preschool children in the McMartin Preschool case in California, et al.. The Ondersma group may be the guardians of the rhetoric, methods, and techniques that caused the moral panic around the preschool cases for a number of years. The counselors in this group made some people pretty mad, and IMHO they had to circle the wagons to protect themselves.
(2) Dr. Stephanie Dallam was with The Leadership Council. Those professionals organized, in part, to defend member therapists against malpractice lawsuits, These therapists (allegedly fraudulently, according to the lawsuits) diagnosed their patients with so called "recovered memories' of incest, and multiple personality disorder. This was another moral panic, that included the controversial recovered memories phenomenon. The Leadership Council has considerable professional interest in who controls the rhetoric about incest and CSA, especially in Congress, among judges, and in juries. This professional interest of The Leadership Council to control the rhetoric that gets to the legislatures and the courts sets off another buzzer in my head. These are not professionals with a neutral point of view; they have an agenda and want to protect their professional members from malpractice suites when things go wrong. It's a free country, and I support their right to organize,too. But I oppose the use of their rhetoric as a neutral and unbiased source.
The therapists associated with these two groups IMHO are not mainstream; the science associated with these therapists is not regarded, by their mainstream professional peers, as the strongest in the field. I hae no problem with developing alternative therapies, unless the professional members of these groups are getting a lot of malpractice suites filed against them. Then it is time for these professionals to get out and control the rhetoric. That sets off another buzzer in my head.
The sentence quoted above suggests there are "numerous" organizations that support age of consent reform. "Numerous" in nonsense if you read the Wikipedia article on Age of Consent reform organizations. Associating these tiny fringe groups with the Rind study is also nonsense. (The NAMbLA website now features a long review of Susan Clancy's book, The Abuse Myth. Is that reason for her book to now be condemned by the Congress, and by these two advocacy groups?)
Then the sentence in the Introduction of the Rind article mentions the Rind study being used in court. Now the alarm buzzer is loud and steady. For the people in The Leadership Council this controversy is about who controls the discourse in the legislatures and in the courts. If the Rind study gains any credibility or following in the public, then the professionals from The Leadership Council, who are being sued in court over repressed memories, will have more difficulty defending themselves against juries that may give huge damage awards in civil suits. I suspect this is what these groups are about.
These two advocacy groups have considerable interest in discrediting the Rind et al. studies by successfully associating the Rind research with controversy, with the condemnation by Congress, with "numerous" fringe pedophile advocacy organizations and to so-called pedophile activists. And with the use of the Rind study in courts of law. And with the current Wikipedia article that further destroys the credibility of the Rind research. (Except that Heather Ulrich duplicated the Rind study in 2005, and came up with the identical results. Go figure.) If the rhetoric of this Wikipedia article is transformed into an article with a more neutral point of view, this article will be probably nominated for deletion by the same people who put it up here originally.
The buzzer is quite loud and steady now.
I want to work to make this article a fair and balanced one. But then I expect that it will be taken down from Wikipeida, and have to exist in an independent site. Let's see how this comes out.
I speculate that some of the claims made by the advocates for these professionals, who may rightly fear lawsuits, to damage the credibility of the Rind study as valid court evidence. These two groups may be protecting members who were being sued (or might be sued in the future) and want their views in court to go unchallenged by the controversial Rind studies. These two groups see the Rind studies as a professional threat and thus a rival to be discredited. I see the earlier versions of the Wikipeida article as good public relations for these advocates. Some of the sources this article uses as neutral and quality sources are not IMHO disinterested, they are part of the kind of non-mainstream professional groups that created and maintain the controversy.
The reason I bring this up is the Wikipeida editors need reliable sources. The Wikipedia editors incorrectly IMHO regard Dallam and Ondersma as neutral sources. I don't think they are neutral sources for the purpose of sourcing this article. I think they are part of the reason these is a controversy; they weigh in heavily against the Rind study.
The views of Dr. Dallam and Dr. Ondersma are very much part of The Rind et al. controversy. I see them as protagonists, and they should not be Sources for the neutral introduction of the controversy.
So I want that biased sentence in the introduction to be deleted.
Please advise.
Radvo ( talk) 23:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Revised and expanded Radvo ( talk) 00:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
All my contributions to this article were removed on December 12th. Here is the edit showing what was edited out. A reason given for these many removals was that I was allegedly "adding tags to things that are already cited or cited lower in the article."
I am confused and bewildered by the reasons for the drastic edit by the first anonymous editor. This was not a revert, redaction or "undo" of one particular post, but the first anonymous editor cherry picked each edit I made since my first post and removed them all.
If the "Citation Tag" or Tags were allegedly inappropriate, the specific tags themselves could have been challenged by the first anonymous editor with a credible explanation for the challenge. So, a more parsimonious and appropriate solution, IMHO, would have been for the anonymous editor to simply remove the erroneous "Citation Tag(s)" with a clear explanation, like e.g., "The footnote was already cited, or cited lower in the article." I could have checked that out, silently conceded my error and not contested the removal of the tag, or responded to the objection to my placement of the particular "Citation Tag." If that is too much for a new editor on this topic to ask, I make another suggestion below.
Most of the text that was removed by the two anonymous users, had nothing to do with "Citation Tags."
The restoration of the non-contested text involves a lot of unnecessary work -- for a second time. I seek this partial remedy: I ask that the anonymous editor at least identify the specific "Citation Tag(s)" in contest. All editors here and I have a right to know which "Citation Tag" or Tags provoked such an inappropriate response.
If any other editors here, who are "fit" and in good standing, wish to volunteer to do any part of that restoration work, please feel free to do so. Please do not restore any contested "Citation Tags" to the article; it would help to know which of the "Citation Tags" are contested. If the restoration or the requested assistance by volunteer editors to do the restoration is against a Wikipedia rule or policy that I don't know about, please follow the rules.
There is a discussion of my fitness to be an editor on this article at the very end of Flyer22's talk page The arguments do not focus on the quality of my contributions, but are abusive ad hominem attacks (also called personal abuse or personal attacks); "these usually involve insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions." See ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem_attack) An ad hominem attack violates the rules. An Edit War based on an Ad hominem attack cannot be justified, and, INHO, all removals should be reversed for this reason.
The discussion at Flyer22's{www.mhamic.org/rind/) talk page includes this sentence by the second anonymous editor: "the other anon is wrong! i just gave my response on the discussion page. i was edit warring, but i was justified." 107.20.1.111 ( talk) 22:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)" I wonder from the last sentence in this quote here whether the two different anonymous editors are the same person using two different computers (with very similar IP addresses). Would an investigation of this suspicion be in order? If someone is violating the rules and policies, we want to know about that. We all expect that the rules are enforced in an even-handed way. See also ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks)
How do I raise the issue about the fitness of the two anonymous editors, for the two reasons cited above? Please advise.
I don't see the anonymous's "response on the discussion page." I would like to read the "response on the discussion page," so I could better understand if I erred in placing any or all of the "Citations Tags",
Since I am new here, and those were my first experiments with using "Citation Tags", I am willing to make this concession for now: just remove all the contested "citation tags" without any reason. I would go along with that to reduce the controversy, to build confidence in my good will, and to give me time and experience to understand what is possible here.
The discussion at the very end of Flyer22's talk pageconfuses two very different web-sites: Everything you wanted to know about the Rind Controversy is confused with a controversial bibliographic list of academic resources ( mhamic.org). I had nothing to do with the creation and maintenance of either of those websites, but Everything you wanted to know about the Rind Controversy deals in depth with some aspects of the same Rind controversy as this Wikipedia article. So I bookmarked that link on, what I thought was, my private user page for further reference. I did not imagine that bookmarking that page in that way was against any Wikipedia policy here, or would motivate someone to cherry pick ALL of my past edits for removal. I have already removed that link from my user page and will not restore it. I hope this remedy helps to create a better climate for my future editing here.
I wish to make further quality contributions to this article, and I wish to learn and follow all Wikipedia rules and policies. I understand this article is a controversial issue; The word "controversy" appears in the article's title. I do not wish to be confrontational or make some editors here nervous. I wish to build confidence in my knowledge about this topic, in my good will, and in my willingness to work within Wikipedia's rules and policies. Radvo ( talk) 02:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | 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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I cannot see why this article is needed as it is. First of all, an encyclopedia cannot cover every controversial journal article. Second, since "Rind" most likely has written more than one article, the title of this article is inappropriate. Third, if any of this article is needed at all, it should be covered under "child sexual abuse" or so in a paragraph about controversies over the scientific research of harmfulness of abuse. Get-back-world-respect 01:58, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rind et al for discussion on whether the article shoiuld be deleted. Andrewa 20:31, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I've created a redirect from A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples, which was suggested as a better name on VfD. I agree that some will search under this name, so this redir is appropriate at least.
But the suggestion was for the article to be moved there. This is still possible, we should discuss it here not on VfD and if the decision is that it should be moved there I'll help as I've now made it more difficult.
I'm also guessing of course that the article will be kept, if not then we'll have a redir to delete too. Andrewa 20:31, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Could somebody who has really read this article elaborate on what it says and what are it's bases, how the study was done and what are Rind's conclusions, because right now there is almost nothing but critisism of the study. That if anything is not very scientific and least of all encyclopedic. 84.253.253.245 ( talk) 16:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
To me the anecdote about the scientists talking about common sense and the comment on it are grossly inappropriate. No one would describe it as "common sense" that the world is flat. It is just what one would think without proper examination. "Common sense" as I would interprete what she reportedly said is just that she was not convinced by the study, which does not mean that she would have said the earth was flat had she seen a photo taken by a satelite. For this and other reasons I add a neutrality dispute note. Get-back-world-respect 01:21, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In my opinion, "Rind, et al." is a very bad name for this article. Normally, the title of the paper in question would be the best title for the article. Considering the length of the official title of this study, however, I would suggest renaming this article "The Rind Report", which seems to be how it is often referred to in the media. -- Zanthalon 04:39, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yesterday I went to Berlin's meeting of wikipedians and spoke with the head of the German wikipedia organization, Kurt Jansson. He said that the problems with the articles related to pedophilia and abuse were well known for quite some time and probably started with a posting in a forum for pedophiles about wikipedia as a great opportunity to spread the message that sex with adults is helpful for children. He already mentioned it in an interview with a newspaper in order to increase awareness of the problem. In the German pages the most notorious abuser is de:Benutzer:Mondlichtschatten, his english version - or at least one of them - is user:Moon_light_shadow. Here user:Zanthalon seems to play the main role. Checking their contribution lists tells easily which articles need a complete rewrite: List of self-identified pederasts and pedophiles, Childlove movement, pedophilia, Child sexuality, Child pornography, Child sexual abuse, Capturing the Friedmans, Rind et al.. I put the german articles on the list of articles that lack neutrality and need more care - the latter was immediately reverted by guess who. Please help taking care of the trouble. Get-back-world-respect 12:35, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If the articles were written by people supportive of pedophilia and/or ephebophilia, it does not invalidate them. Whether or not someone is abusing wikipedia depends on the accuracy of their work; therefore, it's impossible to determine the accuracy of someone's work by determining whether or not they abuse wikipedia (or by calling them a pedophile). The article should be judged by its own merits, and it does not attempt to show that "sex with adults is helpful for children." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.88.104 ( talk) 06:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Making an entirely knew section called "Rejection of Report Claims" is redundant. We already have a section call "Critics". If there is anything new to add in the way of speculation over the falsity of the report's claims, they should be inserted there.
Read articles before you just start appending stuff to the end of them please. Thanks. Corax 00:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The current article is in a state of disorganization and imbalance. I have been working as time allows to present Rind's responses to the criticisms leveled in the "criticisms" subsection.
It is important for people making edits to understand that the article is NOT a debate page, nor is it a Wiki talk page. If you are going to add VALID and COMPREHENSIBLE criticisms, make it CONCISE and integrate it with existing text. do not simply nest it onto the response of the existing criticisms.
Secondly, terms such as "straw man" are highly POV, and they should not be included in any Wiki articles unless it is clearly represented as somebody's opinion.
The article will be overhauled soon so as to have better organization and more balance. That is, the article will explain what the article says and not just some confused critics' ideas of what the article says. It will explain the methodology, the conclusions, and the politiciziation of the conclusions. Additionally, it will discuss criticisms and Rind's responses to those criticisms -- with EQUAL time given to both. Corax 04:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Why is there a link to pedophilia in ==See also==? 24ip | lolol 18:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Aren't the perpetrators of child sexual abuse pedophiles? - Willmcw 20:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I follow your argument. In one post you say that "I have no desire to have sex with children, and I'm sure not all pedophiles do", while in the next post you say that a pedophile is someone who is primarily sexually attracted to children." Are you saying that someone whose sexual attraction to children is secondary is not a pedophile, That pedophile don't necessarily desire sex with children, that the majority of child sexual abusers are not primarily sexually attracted to children, and therefore a study on child sexual abuse has nothing to do with pedophiles? There seems like quite a stretch. - Willmcw 23:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Also, I see that this study is used as a reference for our article on
pedophilia. Would that be an incorrect linkage too? -
Willmcw
00:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
May I remove the category? 24ip | lolol 22:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
It's very important to cite the Leaderchip Council critique of Rind et al. (1998), but it is misleading to cite it without Rind et al's response.
The problem is that the critisims contained in the article "Science Or Propaganda" are entirely based on critiques Rind et al. had previously rebutted.
In fact, there is no need to read Rind et al.'s responses to realize Dallam et al. are dishonest.
- For example, about the selection bias: In their 1998 article, Rind et al have NEVER claimed their college samples were representative of the general populationnd they indeed claim that "Despite all the empirically based similarities between the college and national populations, it is tempting to speculate that certain differences exist. Persons with extremely harmful CSA episodes may be unable to attend college or remain there once they have begun. In this way, surveys of college students may miss extreme cases of CSA, limiting the generalizability of findings from the college population. Nevertheless, the results of the current review, while not demonstrating equivalence between the two populations, strongly suggest that the gulf between them is narrow, and much narrower than child abuse researchers have generally acknowledged." (Rind et al.(1998), p.42). Rind et al's critiques ignore results coming from Rind et al.(1997) based on national samples.
- The blame of "Statistical Errors and possible manufacture of results" can be directed to Dallam et al. instead of Rind et al. By reading the original article, it can be concluded that Dallam et al. wittingly distorted Rind et al.'s claims.
Dallam et al. claim that "It is important to note that .03 was the exact difference in magnitude that Rind et al. reported between male and female effect sizes (r = .07 and r = .10, respectively). Because lower effect sizes indicate better adjustment, Rind et al. reported that a major findings of their study was that "self-reported reactions to and effects from CSA indicated that . . . men reacted much less negatively than women" (p. 22). After correcting for attenuation due to base rate differences, Dallam et al. reported that effect sizes for males corresponded to r = .11, which is practically identical to the corrected effect size for females, r = .12."
But guess what Rind, Bauserman and Tromovitch claim in their meta-analysis ! "The contrast between the female (r u= .10) and male (r u= .07) unbiased effect size estimates, based on 14,578 participants, was nonsignificant ...."' [(Rind et al.(1998), p.33)]. Effect sizes r =.07 for males and r =.10 for females were based on all samples they had. Among these were samples resctricted to unwanted experiences and others contained people with wanted and unwanted experiences. They divided their samples into two categories, "unwanted only" and "all level of consent" and reanalyzed the contrast between males and females. They claim that "Finally, for all types of consent, the contrast between the female (r u= .11) and male (r u= .04) effect size estimates, based on 11,320 participants, was statistically significant ... " (Rind et al.(1998), p. 34) Thus THIS is the analysis from which Rind et al. conluded that "effects from CSA indicated that . . . men reacted much less negatively than women" (Rind et al.(1998), p. 22)
By the way, concerning the correction of effect-sizes due to low base rates Dallam et al. talk about, Rind et al. demonstrate in their response (see infra) hat this is innapropriate. Anyway Rind et al. redo their analyse with corrected effect-sizes and demonstrate the constrast between "unwanted" and "all level of consent" in male samples is significant. (see reference infra)
- Before the Leadeship Council published their article in the Pscyhological Bulletin (Dallam et al.(2001), they took an active part in the condemnation of Rind et al.(1998) by Congress.
In 2000, Rind et al. demonstrated that The Leadership Council deceived the Congress members with worthless and UNPUBLISHED critisism (read
Rind et al. 2000)
Dallam et al.(2001) looked more serious but was as much flawed. Why was it published in the Pychological Bulletin then ? Only to enable Rind and his colleagues to rebut it. This what they do in Rind et al.(2001)
Thus the article "Science or propaganda" which is based on "Dallam et al.(2001)", is not rebuttal of the controversial report.
References to add:
Rind, B., Tromovitch, Ph. & Bauserman, R. (2000)
Condemnation of a scientific article: A chronology and refutation of the attacks and a discussion of threats to the integrety of science,
Sexuality & Culture, 4-2, Spring 2000
Dallam, S.J., Gleaves, D.H., Cepeda-Benito, A., Silberg, J.L., Kraemer, H.C. & Spiegel, D.(2001) The Effects of Child Sexual Abuse: Comment on Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998); Psychological Bulletin, 127, 6, 715-733, 2001
Rind, B., Tromovitch, Ph., & Bauserman, R. (2001) The Validity and Appropriateness of Methods, Analyses, and Conclusions in Rind et al. (1998): A Rebuttal of Victimological Critique From Ondersma et al. (2001) and Dallam et al. (2001); Psychological Bulletin, 127, 6, 734-758, 2001
I have updated the criticisms portion of the article not only by reformating it, but also by including Rind's rebuttals to criticisms leveled by Dallam et al. Before this revision, the "criticisms" section was little more than a copy-paste job of an article published by the "Leadership Council." That oversight has now been remedied. Corax 00:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
A separate study that Rind was also on, dated 1997, is mentioned in the introduction to this article. Now I read the article child sexual abuse, and when it mentions Rind et al., it says "1998", and I wondered if it was confused with 1997, since when I tried comparing the two, I found it harder to tell them apart. I don't really understand the distinction between the two, because their descriptions seem fairly overlapping; "A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse (CSA) using college samples" (1998) seems almost indistinguishable in its goal from "A meta-analytic review of findings from national samples on psychological correlates of child sexual abuse" (1997). The only noticeable difference seems to be where the data is originally from (college samples vs. national samples). Can someone explain the distinction better? Phoenix-forgotten 11:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Why are there links to pedophilia and ephebophilia in the ==See also= section? Where does Rind et al. mention pedophilia? What further relevant information on the harm of child sexual abuse do the pedophilia and ephebophilia articles have to offer? TrueMirror 23:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (24.224.etc)
If I'm reading this right:
you are now trying to define pedophiles as proponents of changing or eliminating age-of-consent laws. Very no. TrueMirror 22:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Will Beback has correctly noted that Rind et al has been used by people who advocate revising age-of-consent laws. He believes that this fact is noteworthy enough to receive mention in the introduction. For lack of a better place in the article, I have no problem with this. However he has twice phrased the introductory passage in a way that is unsatisfactory. The version I rendered reads: Proponents of changing or eliminating age-of-consent laws often make use of reports such as Rind et al. in contending that adult-minor sexual relationships do not always cause psychological harm for the minor. This statement is entirely factual and points out one of the main factors contributing to the article's controversy in the general public.
Will Beback insists on an alternate version which reads as follows: Proponents of changing or eliminating age-of-consent laws, such as pedophiles, often make use of reports such as Rind et al. as part of pedophile activism, in contending that adult-minor sexual relationships do not always cause psychological harm for the minor. This rendering has two problems. First, it has a factual problem. It implies that all pedophiles advocate for changing or eliminating age-of-consent laws. Unless Will has proof for this implication, he needs to qualify the word "pedophiles" by preceding it with the word "some." Even then, his rendering faces a second problem, one of containing a blatant POV. Besides some pedophiles, many other people advocate eliminating age-of-consent laws. The youth rights group ASFAR, some ephebophiles, and -- yes -- some heterosexual adults also advocate retooling age-of-consent laws, citing Rind's studies to bolster their varied positions. Consequently, mentioning only that pedophiles reference the study in support of revising age-of-consent laws, while failing to mention specifically other groups or people who also do so, has the imbedded POV that pedophiles' use of the study is noteworthy but not ephebophiles' use of the study. It therefore legitimizes the POV perception that Rind's study is an "emancipation proclamation" for pedophiles, rather than an empirical study that has informed the political positions of some pedophiles and some members of other demographic groups. Such text is in violation of Wikipedia policy and, consequently, merits immediate removal. Corax 01:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Needs to read less like a timeline. -- DanielCD 19:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch. The article is assoiated with both child sexual abuse and pedophilia. WP:PAW works on articles related to both topics. IMO, if you stop 100 people on the street and ask them if pedophilia and sexual abuse are related the overwhelming majority will say yes. The argument that they are not related is hypertechnical and not helpful for reaching consensus.
See also is a navigational tool to help users find information. See also like categories is not information of fact about the article. (See arbcom ruling on this. Ruling) See also points a user toward information that might be of interest related to the original article topic. It isn't a stretch to think that people reading this article may have an interest in the subject of adults desiring to have sex with children. Would someone please add the Pedophilia back to See also. FloNight talk 01:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
-- Prosfilaes 03:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Where is this coming from?
Well, I don't mind reinserting it. See also sections are for related topics and this is an obvious one. · Katefan0 (scribble)/ poll 04:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
24.224.153.40 you are refusing to accept that there are multiple meaning of the word pedophilia. WP:NPOV says that it is important for WP to present all of the definitions of the word. Not just the one a particular editor prefers. Pedophilia means a sexual attraction to children or having sexual relations with children. FloNight talk 01:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
From WP pedophilia article: Outside the medical community, the term pedophile is frequently used to denote not only people meeting the medical definition but, also, people who are sexually attracted to adolescents and not prepubescents, as well as people who have engaged in sexual activity with a child. Some scholars refer to a sexual interest in adolescents as ephebophilia.[1] Clealy the definition is broader than you say. -- FloNight talk 01:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The only reason anyone knows this study exists is because people hyped it being about pedophiles. The hype is most of the story here, and the hype has to do with the public definition of "pedophilia". I'm not sure that means it merits a link to a medical condition though. Just wanted to mention that with stuff like this, what seems to be the subject is not necessarily the whole case. In a large sense, this article is about the hype, not the actual study. -- DanielCD 02:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The connection to pedophilia is indirect, through pedophilia's connection to CSA. So why not let the readers be directed to pedophilia after going through the see also link to Childhood Sexual Abuse? Crazywolf 20:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I think this article should be renamed to reflect the public contraversy. I think this is the better option since it is the reason that the article is well known. This particular study on its own merits is not otherwise remarkable. Another opition is naming it to the correct title. FloNight talk 15:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if this article is the appropriate place, but one thing worth expanding on is the controversy concerning the publication of Lilienfeld's 2002 American Psychologist article on the APA response to Rind et al. (1998). It may be worth an entirely new article, as it is more concerning publication, peer review, and APA adding insult (further [deserved] scorn from the scientific community) to injury (its own spineless capituation to outside influence) concerning the Rind et al. issue. I could work on it but, as you may tell, I might have POV problems... Solitary refinement 19:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I have a couple of issues with this passage in the "Controversy" section:
The questions I have have here are:
This article talks more about the criticism of the study/review than what is said in the study. Therefore there are some POV problems. There is nothing wrong with criticism obviously, but majority of the article shouldn't be devoted to it. If someone can add what is said in the study more clearly, then it can balance the neutrality that this article needs. I may just do this (depending on how much time I have). Zachorious 05:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
This seems odd:
How can a 2007 paper be a reference for a 1998 statement? Herostratus ( talk) 01:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The off-topic sentence is still in the article. It needs to be removed, or moved to a section for later responses, since it is a later re-interpretation of the original Rind study. I'm not making this edit right now, but this is an open item that needs to be addressed. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 22:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest changing the title of this page to Rind et al. (1998) child sexual abuse meta-analysis controversy, or something similar.
The controversy resulting from the study is what makes the study notable. There are thousands of studies every year that are not notable enough for an article, even when they are important studies.
This particular study was condemned by Congress and stirred huge controversy in other ways as well, that's why it's notable enough for an article, so the controversy should be reflected in the title.
I recommend the title change be implemented soon. Comments? -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 17:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, done, per this discussion. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 22:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
'When Worlds Collide' at http://facstaff.bloomu.edu/jleitzel/classes/adolesnt/lilienfeld_2002.pdf disputes the methodological criticisms against "A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse (CSA) using college samples"
"A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse (CSA) using college samples" fails to factor in adverse delayed reactions to child sexual abuse (CSA) because that goes beyond the scope of the study which is of shorter term correlations.
-- AaronAgassi ( talk) 6:42, 1 March 2008
I've archived the entire page since it looks like the last comment was made in 2008. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 16:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
How much of the criticism is based on a single article by Dallam? Seems like a lot, her name is mentioned 5-10 times in the article.
WLU
(t)
(c) Wikipedia's rules:
simple/
complex
16:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
As I state in my edit summary, I removed the leadership council documents because they are an advocacy organization, not a scholarly one. Scholarly analysis of a scholarly document should come from scholarly sources. In addition, they are analyzing the paper, not the controversey (arguably, could be a reference but I'd rather not). Leadership council is also, from what I've seen, a fairly partisan advocacy organization. I can't see them being a medically reliable source for a page like this one. Both papers, the 1997 related one and 1998 one this page is about were peer-reviewed and it's appropriate that criticism come from peer-reviewed scholars.
I've also removed the other external links - from what I could tell they were basically citations of the papers and they're already referenced. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 19:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The article currently reads a bit too much like it's saying Rind et al was wrong, and they're a bunch of pedophiles. It was a huge controversy and lots of people disagree, but it's still cited as reasonable science by other articles. The extensive criticism section is quite heavy-handed, particularly considering it's mostly from a single journal (Journal of Child Sexual Abuse) and Rind et al responded to all of the points with "Um, you're kinda criticizing our methods by ignoring the parts that justify our methodological choices." The "assertion of bias" section in particular ends with a bit too much "oh, and they're child-raping pedophiles" which is really, really ad hominen. The "however" makes me cringe, because it looks like "however, what they are really trying to do is make it acceptable for a father to rape his daughter". I've removed the lead-in sentence and I'm not sure of Paidika actually promoted pedophilia (I've asked JAR for a clarification). Was the conference Rind and Bauserman attended really a pedophile advocacy conference, or is that Salter's description of it? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 02:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The starting point of Paidika is necessarily our consciousness of ourselves as paedophiles. . . . But to speak today of paedophilia, which we understand to be consensual intergenerational sexual relationships, is to speak of the politics of oppression. . . . This is the milieu in which we are enmeshed, the fabric of our daily life and struggle. . . . Through publication of scholarly studies, thoroughly documented and carefully reasoned, we intend to demonstrate that paedophilia has been, and remains, a legitimate and productive part of the totality of human experience. ("Statement of Purpose," pp. 2-3)
After the publication of their meta-analysis in Psychological Bulletin , Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman were the keynote speakers for an advocacy conference in the Netherlands . According to an announcement in the International Pedophile and Child Emancipation (IPCE) Newsletter, [10] the conference was being convened "expressly to throw light on the more positive side" of "adult-nonadult sexual contacts" ("The Other Side of the Coin," September 1998). The conference was hosted by the Foundation for Church Social Work in Paulus Kerk, Rotterdam , an organization headed by outspoken pedophile advocate Rev. Hans Visser. [11] An overview of the conference appeared in an article in the local Rotterdam newspaper titled: "Dominee Visser Pleit voor het [*page 125*] Aanvaarden van Pedofilie [Reverend Visser Pleads for the Acceptance of Pedophilia]" ("Dominee Visser," December 18, 1998). The conference also featured talks by two members of Paidika's editorial board, Drs. Gert Hekma and Alex van Naerssen.
"Rind et al. was thoroughly rejected by its first set of peer-reviewers for the Psychological Bulletin; the authors were asked not to resubmit the paper (personal communication with original reviewer who wishes to remain anonymous). Apparently, Rind et al. resubmitted the paper after a change in editors, and the paper was given to a new set of reviewers. At least one of these reviewers also rejected the article. It remains unclear what portion (if any) of the second set of reviewers recommended the paper for publication."
I'm reading through Lilienfeld, 2002 and a big part of the discussion is the numerous errors made by "Dr" Laura and other public representatives. I wonder if it's worth reviewing them either briefly or at length, and in what section they would go. I was originally thinking of the first section, but perhaps in a "Public reception" section of Criticisms? It's from pages 183-4 of Lilienfeld. It may be a bit too far towards the "educating the public" side of things. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 16:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
When the study entered public debate due to the efforts of Schlessinger and others' attempts to disparage its results and conclusions, a large number of common fallacies were made. By criticizing the study due to its perceived potential to cause the normalization of pedophilia, Schlessinger applied the argument from adverse consequences, in which the validity of the study due to its possible consequences. By criticizing one of the study's authors, Schlessinger applied the genetic fallacy, in which the study's validity was questioned due to its source. The argument that the study should not have been published due to its contradiction of conventional wisdom, Schlessinger used an argumentum ad populum, in which the acceptance of a proposition within the general public is given more prominence than the reasoning behind it. The study was also subject to biased assimilation, in which the degree of criticism applied was greater due to it contradicting a pre-existing belief. These errors were made repeatedly while the study was discussed in public and only corrected through the announcement by the AAAS. (Lilienfeld, 2002)
The citation needed tag I added to the description of NARTH was removed with the edit summary, "it's in the heavily referenced wikipedia page. Period". That was clearly inappropriate, as Wikipedia cannot use itself as a source, so I have readded the tag. In addition, though it's not of great importance, I note that the edit summary used to revert me was somewhat rude: "Period" implies a refusal to engage in further argument, which is generally not an option on Wikipedia. I hope that is not the actual position of the user who performed the revert. BG 21:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
In addition: the NARTH article does not contain any sourced information to the effect that this organization "advocates eliminating homosexuality using psychotherapy." Probably NARTH as an organization does aim at this, but it's not their official position so far as I know. They would be more likely to say that they advocate conversion therapy for gay people who want to change, which is not, obviously, the same thing as using conversion therapy to eliminate homosexuality completely. BG 21:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The lead mentions pro-pedophilia activism using the paper but the body doesn't. Any extra info to expand on this in the body? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 22:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
There appear to be a lot of missing sources, criticsms and rebuttals to Rind et al, particularly when including replies by authors and replies to replies. I'm going to start a table here for future reference and inclusion. I've also commented out the criticisms by Holmes and Slap - I don't think it's the original article I've added a citation to, and I can't tell if the original pubmed url was to the initial article or an author reply by Holmes and Slap or by Rind et al commenting (the original link appeared to be Rind et al commenting, which makes it a citation of a citation, meaning the original statement by Holmes and Slap wasn't acutally there). If anyone knows or can sort it out (I can't find the fulltexts for most of the issues), please uncomment it with the appropriate citation. I'd also like to include DOIs if possible, but they appear rather hard to track down. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 13:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Citation | Year | Used |
---|---|---|
Rind, B (2001). "The validity and appropriateness of methods, analyses, and conclusions in Rind et al. (1998): A rebuttal of victimological critique from Ondersma et al. (2001) and Dallam et al. (2001)".
Psychological Bulletin. 127 (6): 734–58.
PMID
11726069. {{
cite journal}} : Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)
|
2001 | 1 |
Rind, B (2000). "Condemnation of a scientific article: A chronology and refutation of the attacks and a discussion of threats to the integrity of science". Sexuality & Culture. 4 (2): 1–62.
doi:
10.1007/s12119-000-1025-5. {{
cite journal}} : Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)
|
2000 | 1 |
Rind, B (2000). "Science versus orthodoxy: Anatomy of the congressional condemnation of a scientific article and reflections on remedies for future ideological attacks". Applied and Preventive Psychology. 9 (4): 211–226.
doi:
10.1016/S0962-1849(00)80001-3. {{
cite journal}} : Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)
|
2000 | 0 |
Spiegel, D (2000). "The price of abusing children and numbers". Sexuality & Culture. 4 (2): 63–6. doi: 10.1007/s12119-000-1026-4. | 2000 | 0 |
Rind, B (2001). "Moralistic psychiatry, procrustes' bed, and the science of child sexual abuse: A response to Spiegel". Sexuality & Culture. 5 (1): 79–89.
doi:
10.1007/s12119-001-1012-5. {{
cite journal}} : Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)
|
2001 | 0 |
Dallam, SJ (2001). "The effects of child sexual abuse: Comment on Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998)". Psychological bulletin. 127 (6): 715–33.
PMID
11726068. {{
cite journal}} : Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)
|
2001 | 0 |
Sher, KJ (2002). "Publication of Rind et al. (1998). The editors' perspective".
The American Psychologist. 57 (3): 206–10.
PMID
11905121. {{
cite journal}} : Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)
|
2002 | 0 |
Rind, B (1999). "Interpretation of research on sexual abuse of boys".
JAMA. 281 (23): 2185.
PMID
10376568. {{
cite journal}} : Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)
|
1999 | 0 |
Oellerich, TD (2000). "Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman: Politically incorrect—Scientifically correct". Sexuality $ Culture. 4 (2): 67–81. doi: 10.1007/s12119-000-1027-3. | 2000 | 0 |
Rind, B (2000). "Debunking the false allegation of "statistical abuse": A reply to Speigel". Sexuality & Culture. 4 (2): 101–111.
doi:
10.1007/s12119-000-1029-1. {{
cite journal}} : Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)
|
2000 | 0 |
NOTE:Conference presentation, dubious reliability; I think it's the one cited by Salter
|
1998 | 0 |
Speigel, D (2000). "Real effects of real child sexual abuse". Sexuality & Culture. 4 (4): 99–105. doi: 10.1007/s12119-000-1006-8. | 2000 | 0 |
Hyde, JS (2003). "The use of meta-analysis in understanding the effects of child sexual abuse". Sexual development in childhood: Volume 7 of The Kinsey Institute series.
Indiana University Press. pp. 82–91.
ISBN
0253342430. {{
cite book}} : External link in (
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (
help)
|
2003 | 0 |
Baird, BN (2002). "Politics, operant conditioning, Galileo, and the American Psychological Association's response to Rind et al. (1998)". The American Psychologist. 57 (3): 189–92. PMID 11905117. | 2002 | 0 |
Grover, S (2003). "On Power Differentials and Children's Rights: A Dissonance Interpretation of the Rind and Associates (1998) Study on Child Sexual Abuse". Ethical Human Sciences and Services. 5 (1): 21–33. | 2003 | 0 |
Pittenger, DJ (2003). "Intellectual freedom and editorial responsibilities within the context of controversial research". Ethics & Behavior. 13 (2): 105–25. PMID 14552312. | 2003 | 0 |
Mirkin, H (2000). "Sex, science, and sin: The Rind report, sexual politics and American scholarship". Sexuality & Culture. 4 (2): 82–100. doi: 10.1007/s12119-000-1028-2. | 2000 | 0 |
Sternberg, RJ (2002). "Everything you need to know to understand the current controversies you learned from psychological research. A comment on the Rind and Lilienfeld controversies". The American Psychologist. 57 (3): 193–7. PMID 11905118. | 2002 | 0 |
The table as created by me was from as search of the three authors' names between 1998 and 2003. One issue to be concerned about is those that cite rather than discuss. Another is that there's obviously much more to the criticisms and discussion than the public reaction and Dallam et al.'s criticisms. The third is the difference between the controversy and the study - arguably the controversy is a separate issue from the study; if the pages are split, then the criticisms would go on one page and the controversy on another. On the other hand, it also makes sense to simply have a section on public response to the study. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 14:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)Sexual abuse of boys appears to be common, underreported, underrecognized, and undertreated. Future study requires clearer definitions of abuse, improved sampling, more rigorous data collection, more sophisticated data analyses, and better assessment of management and treatment strategies. Regardless, health care professionals should be more aware of and sensitive to the possibility of sexual abuse in their male patients.
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)Discussion Closed - User Indefinitely Blocked |
---|
Regarding Jack-A-Roe and Will Beback's strange reversion of my edits to the article, the reversions were strictly against Wikipedia policy. If I continue to be edited I will raise this issue again. In the meantime if you have specific problems, you must discuss them here or I will continue to insert my well-documented edits until this page is locked by Wikipedia. My points were more heavily sourced than many statements in the original entry itself. I botched the tag for one of the references, but it should be obvious I was attempting to reference the original work by Rind with the tag "rindetal". If someone could clean the tag I'd appreciate it. I pruned some of the points attributed to Ondersma, because they were not relevant to Rind's original paper. The original article was about whether lasting, intense, and pervasive harm is experienced. Whether there is temporary harm or not was not investigated in the study -- invalidating Ondersma's claim that Rind's study was fallacious for not having considered the possibility the person had some kind of support (family, therapist, medication, etc.). If the subjects showed no evidence of harm at the time they filled out their questionnaire, then if they had been harmed at one point then it was temporary and not lasting. Also, for Ondersma's claim to be true that the harm these experiencers have is not "diagnosable", then a few questions are in order. What accepted psychological scale or instrument is he trying to imply is better than the ones that were used in the 56 studies? He in effect throws out most of the field of psychology by questioning the scales which those 56 studies used. Also, what does he say about the fact that all previous CSA research had indeed used the same definition (same questionnaires) regarding "harm" and had indeed attributed this harm causally to CSA? This is why Ondersma's points were not taken seriously by the community, and were seen as a knee-jerk, unscientific reaction. My edit in the section on clinical and legal samples clarified the real reason why one must use population-representative epidemiological data, when assessing psychological correlates. Any scientist in any field can tell you why you cannot use a non-representative sample when assessing correlates. You can only use clinical and legal samples for anecdotal information. You cannot draw conclusions about the general population from them. Period. Also, you cannot draw conclusions from studies that did not perform statistical control using confounding variables. Period. All studies that claimed a link between CSA and harm either defined CSA as unwanted only, used non-representative (clinical or legal) samples, or did not control for confounding variables. Period. In fact, at least one study published decades ago that controlled for confounding variables found that CSA actually improved school performance. In the last paragraph I corrected the old version of this wiki entry by saying that no research has ever contradicted the findings of the Rind study. This stands true. If anyone has any objection, they can raise it here, and we'll just have to have an in depth discussion about the merits. There was one very small study post-1998 which McNally, in his book Remembering Trauma, suggested contradicted Rind's findings, but in fact it did not. It was a study of twins discordant for CSA. If anyone was thinking of using that study as an example, then we can hash it out here and include that in the wiki entry, though I don't think we will need to go to that depth. Just read anything by Finkelhor, who is an outspoken moral critic of consensual sex between minors and adults, and you will see that he quite openly and plainly states that there is no association between CSA (using a definition including both wanted and unwanted CSA) and psychological harm. Psychword ( talk) 05:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Psychword
Summary of my edits Conceptual Issues section 1. Assertion that Rind set up a straw man by refuting "lasting, intense pervasive harm" when it was already known that reactions are varied. This is a meaningless criticism because lots of published studies, as well as the Congressional and state resolutions on the study, all claimed the universality of severe harm. How does Rind set up a straw man, when so many people clearly believe that harm is a necessary outcome of a childhood sexual experience with an adult? 2. "The reactions of victims in their adult lives have been found to be extremely varied, ranging from severe to nearly unnoticeable, and many pathologies are not diagnosable in the strictly clinical sense Rind uses." If they are not diagnosable using any instrument, then that implies they are not detectable – and thus no study would have shown any such pathologies. This statement does not belong in the wiki entry if there is no proof of it in any study. It is just someone's opinion. If somebody can say "they just didn't detect the harm", then anybody can say anything. I also removed the word victim. Many researchers use the term CSA/victim for self-reported unwanted / negative experiences, and use other terms for wanted CSA/positive experiences. For instance, Dolezal uses the term CSE (child sexual experience) when the study participant indicates the experience was positive or willing. I added percentages to clarify the existing claim about reactions being varied ("negative in 70% of females, to positive or neutral in 70% of males"). These numbers come from the meta-analysis. 3. "Victims often have a flawed or distorted appraisal of their abuse, and fail to connect distressing and sometimes debilitating pathologies with their experiences." There is no proof that pathologies are linked causally to their CSA experience. That is one of the main points Rind makes. The type of symptoms they may have can be caused by a wide range of other things, some of which are confounded with predisposition to experiencing CSA. That was one of the main points of the study to begin with. Whoever wrote this statement clearly has either not read or not understood the study. Previous works by David Finkelhor, by Harrison Pope, and by Michael Persinger discuss the CSA/harm confound problem. Pope, for instance, realized that people with current psychological problems may not really know what the causes of those problems are, but often look into their past to try to figure out what the causes might be. Persinger, a physiological psychologist, understood that all manner of physiological predispositions can cause adult-onset psychological problems, and those predispositions could be conflated with CSA. 4. "Further, these studies make no accounting for emotional support of the victim's family, clinical treatment of the victim prior to the study, or personal resiliency, which can easily account for less severe outcomes." The harm was not lasting, if any circumstances mitigated the impact. Rind set out to study whether there was "lasting, intense, pervasive harm". His study does not say anything about temporary, short-term harm. Assertions of Bias section 1. "They defended their deliberate choice of non-legal and non-clinical samples, accordingly avoiding individuals who received psychological treatment or were engaged in legal proceedings as a way of correcting this bias through the use of a sample of college students." This statement (“accordingly avoiding individuals...”) is patently false. They did not “avoid” anyone. (Actually, the clinical and legal samples avoided a lot of people -- especially a lot of people who engaged mutually in the experience.) The 56 original studies did sample people who had psychological treatment, as well as people who had been engaged in legal proceedings, in the proportion those people present themselves in the general population. If they did not examine whether these variables impacted adult maladjustment, it’s probably because they did not exist in the original datasets. As I said previously, in order to assess correlates you must use random samples. If 90% of murderers drive white cars, does it mean that 90% of people who drive white cars are murderers? No. To know what percent of people who drive white cars are murderers, you must assess the general population, not just the population of known murderers. It's very simple, and it's amazing how many people just don't seem to understand this concept. 2. “Stephanie Dallam and Anne Salter have...” This needs to be balanced by a statement that this is an ad hominem attack. 3. Paidika: nonscholarly vs scholarly. I believe many of the editorial board members were academics. The mission statement was in the first issue only, not in subsequent issues and it is not clear whether authors submitting to later issues knew about the mission statement from the first issue. Further, many people who appeared in the journal were not associated with any "movement" of any sort and would probably not want to be associated with any "movement." Subsequent Research and Legacy section 1. There is no conflicting evidence that has ever been published that contradicts the findings of the original study (more on that below). 2. Added mention that David Finkelhor, an outspoken critic of consensual sex between adults and minors, has long been arguing there is no universal causal link between CSA and psychological adjustment. 3. Whoever added the McNally reference did not read McNally’s original source. He merely mentioned a single study of discordant twins saying it appeared contradictory with Rind. In fact that study (a single study of a few dozen women) did not contradict any of Rind’s findings – twins are not representative of the general population (neither is a female-only sample). Also to me it is not clear whether their statistical control variables (“family discord”) were as robust as the controls in the 56 studies in Rind’s meta-analysis; finally the sample size was extremely small (~40 people versus thousands). 4. Rate of consent – many studies present rates of consent i.e. level of willingness. Studies that say minors “cannot consent” are clearly making a moral or conceptual statement, not a scientific one. 5. Even with robust CSA and robust family environment variables, the majority of the variance of adult psychopathology is not explained in any CSA study I've ever seen (and I'm pretty well read in this area), making any further claims of causality, even with unwanted-only CSA, very dubious until the unexplained causes of harm are explained. 6. Omission of many other recent studies, for instance gay samples like Dolezal, Carballo-Dieguez, etc., where the subjects' self-reported appraisal of the experience is respected. 7. Citing a single textbook as representing widespread views about Rind's work today is not correct. It would be better to use the citation index impact figure for the Rind study as a measure of how much it matters now. That is the whole purpose of journal article impact figures. I also question the use of the term "modern," which implies that works from the 1990s are not "modern." It would be better to use the term "current" as "modern" has a pejorative connotation. 8. "Uncountable studies and work in the field of psychology from long both before and after Rind et al.'s publication have supported the stance that children ... are harmed by it." This is the main issue I have with this wiki entry: especially the claim of causal harm. The main point of the original study was that the "causal" harm being argued by some researchers and advocates was an artifact falsely created by individuals who made causal claims without statistical control and without using representative samples. The purportedly causal association goes away with statistical control. Family environment variables have 12 times the explanatory power as CSA in explaining adult psychological problems. Studies with proper statistical control and representative samples have been available for decades. Some researchers chose not to perform adequate statistical control, but went on to claim causality nontheless. Other researchers did not claim causality, but advocates misinterpreted their data and claimed causality anyway. Will Beback, on a different page, has suggested blocking my account because of the edits I made. He suggested this without informing me that my edits were being discussed elsewhere. Unsubstantiated claims have been made there about my edits making "false" points. For now, I will refrain from edits until we reach consensus here regarding my above points. Psychword ( talk) 22:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Psychword
|
I looked at this website: Male Homosexual Attraction to Minors information center (MHAMIC) and it looked like honest research to me with high standards for inclusion. Why are people trying to say it's advocating anything? Can someone provide a genuine reference to this effect or any clear information on that site that refers to itself this way? If people are out there trying to provide the best possible info on a topic, and it doesn't meet someone's "poltically correct" criteria, it just gets dismissed as "advocacy". This seems to be the term people apply to any scientific discussion, such as the Rind et al. study itself.
I could be wrong, but "advocacy" is a term now being used to dismiss something that people don't agree with. I DO NOT dispute the legitimate usage of the term as applied to harmful organizations like NAMBLA though. Don't get me wrong. But what is the definition of "advocacy" being used here? Can we see some criteria? -- 70.112.54.22 ( talk) 04:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Legitimus,
Regarding your deletion of the Arreola study:
(1) What exactly did you mean by 'over-inclusive CSA measurement'?
(2) Since Rind's main conclusion was that positive or neutral outcomes exist in the population as a whole (which is unaffected by the nature of the sample), why would this other study and the particular quote I made from it, which seems to back up that conclusion, be irrelevant? Researcher1000 ( talk) 05:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I reverted the addition of this section, for a couple of reasons.
First of all, the article is not really about the study per se. I think that years ago the article was named "Rind et al (1998)" or something, but it was decided (rightly, I'd say) that the study itself is not particularly notable. It was just a paper in a journal, not a especially notable journal such as Nature or whtever, and just a meta-study at that, a kind of review of existing literature.
What is (slightly) notable is that it became controversial and there was some stuff written and said about the study. Fine, but drilling down in great depth on the study itself in probably not really called for. We can talk about including a little more info if it seems helpful, though. Also, the material itself is not really ideal, with some speculation on Rind et al's motivations, and is basically an unsourced analysis of the paper, which may be correct in part but is unsourced, and also seems a little bit more on the cheerleady side than I'd like to see ("The researchers were criticized for...suggesting that [other] researchers use more scientifically valid definitions of CSA" for instance), which brings me to the second point.
There's the meta-issue of, this article and this subject has a history here, and we want to be real careful here, and there are some red flags. These were the editors first edits here, and this is a pretty fraught subject, and so that sets off a little buzzer in my head. (Actually, the editor had one previous edit, in 2009, and it was to the article Adult where he added a quite long unsourced essay the gist of which that persons who have begun puberty are adults and that other uses of the term are mistakes, which is probably not true and which sets off another little buzzer in my head.) The editor's name is "Truthinwriting", and given the subject matter this sets off another little buzzer in my head. I've covered this subject a long time here and my experience is that, when we have a user with a username with with Truth or Freedom or so forth in it, on this subject, it just doesn't usually end well. So not to say there's anything wrong with any of this, but that's a couple buzzers too many, and I think this probably a path we don't want to be going down. Herostratus ( talk) 06:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you to all for your comments. I am gaining a better understanding of Wikipedia, procedures, and concerns. After reading the above comments, I have edited my contribution with an eye toward avoiding things that might be seen as opinion or disputable, and adding a lot of citations/sources to specific pages and tables. The new version is less than 600 words (I think it grew in size because it takes more words to spell out facts than to summarize them in a way that might be challenged as opinion). I also removed some useful information, but I hope in the future to add it elsewhere in the page where it will be more appropriate.
The issue of "cherry-picking" was raised. I suspect a major point of the open-edit policy of Wikipedia is to ensure that cherry-picking will be quickly noticed and balancing information will be added. Indeed, one can always point to a fact one does not like and say it was cherry-picked; the test though is whether or not balancing facts can be presented. I do not believe I cherry-picked anything, but if anything in my summary seems out of balance, please let me know and I'll try to address the concerns or explain why I think it should be included in the brief summary.
Regarding citation style, I understand I should use "short citations". I have searched the PsycInfo bibliographic database and it seems there is only one Rind et al. 1998 (the college meta-analysis) and only one Rind & Tromovitch 1997 (the national meta-analysis), thus I suggest short citations without titles, since the titles appear in the full citations and should not be ambiguous now or in the future.
Following is my proposed new version, without properly formatted citations (lower page numbers are referring to Rind et al. 1998; higher page numbers are to Rind & Tromovitch 1997):
Findings in Brief
Prior to publishing the 1998 Rind et al. meta-analysis that was based on college samples[re-cite], Rind and Tromovitch published a meta-analysis based on national samples[re-cite]. The 1998 manuscript replicated the overall, nationally representative findings regarding the association between experiencing one or more episodes categorized as CSA and later psychological adjustment.[p. 42] Both the national studies and the college studies showed only a small overall average association between CSA and impairment (on a scale of 0 to 100, the association was less than 1.0; separated by gender it was approximately 0.5 for males and 1.0 for females; correlation rs=.07 and .10, respectively).[p. 31, 33, Table 4 & p. 248, Table 6] Most social science research is designed so that on average, 1 out of 20 findings will be statistical outliers if the research is perfectly conducted. The 10 national samples contained 1 statistical outlier; the 54 college samples contained 3 statistical outliers, as expected in social science research; after removing these outliers, the findings across both male and female samples (both within the national samples and the college samples) were highly consistent (i.e., homogeneous), thus the small averages are not the result of mixing studies with markedly different findings.[p. 31, 33, Table 4 and see p. 248-249] Even when the researchers included the statistical outliers, the overall result was small.[p. 31] In addition to the overall analyses, in the college study the researchers examined the 18 most studied, alleged symptoms of having experienced CSA (e.g., self-esteem problems, anxiety, depression, eating disorders, sexual problems, etc.). Fifteen out of eighteen of these data sets were homogeneous after outlier removal, and all 18 average associations were small both before and after outlier removal.[p. 32 Table 3]
The researchers conducted the college meta-analysis in part because the college studies provided data regarding causality which was lacking in the national studies.[pp. 25, 42] The analyses of these data showed that CSA was unlikely to be the major causal variable, if it is a causal variable at all.[p. 39-40, Table 12] In studies that controlled for any confounding variables, less than 1 in 5 attempts to find a statistically significant finding between CSA and harm did so.[p. 40] Poor family environments and other confounding variables were found to be 9-fold better explanations for the small associations that were found in the main analyses, suggesting that the causal association between CSA and harm is small at most, but perhaps zero in the typical case.[p. 39-40]
In addition to the meta-analyses that compared people who experienced CSA with controls, the researchers also summarized the available data on peoples' reactions to the experiences that were labeled as CSA by researchers. They found that nearly one-third of females and two-thirds of males who had an experience that was labeled as CSA, reported that the experience was neutral or positive.[p. 36, Table 7]
The researchers pointed out that a likely reason their findings were counter to expectations that CSA causes prevalent, intense harm, regardless of gender,[p. 238-239; see also p. 23-26] was at least in part due to the use of definitions of CSA that are of questionable scientific validity.[p. 46] The authors then suggested that researchers label willing sexual encounters that were experienced positively as "adult-child sex" and that other experiences such as unwanted and negative experiences be labeled as "child sexual abuse" so that researchers would be more likely to achieve a valid understanding of the heterogeneous behaviors currently grouped under the CSA label.[p. 46-47] The authors then closed their article pointing out that although scientists should use definitions that produce better scientific validity, this did not mean that "moral or legal definitions of or views on ... CSA should be abandoned or even altered."[p. 47] Truthinwriting ( talk) 13:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
It has been a few days since I posted my revised and sourced version of the "Findings in Brief" here on the talk page. I'll wait a few more days so people have more time to comment, if they wish. If there seems to be no serious problem, I'll then format the citations and edit it into the article page, probably in about 3 days. FYI. Truthinwriting ( talk) 05:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
How can the controversy, caused by the Rind et al. article, best be described, using reliable sources? Not by repeating the same ideas and same advocate sources in two different parts of the article!
The third paragraph from the top (starting with the words "Rind et al. concluded") and the entire section further down entitled "Usage outside of scholarly discussions" cover the same ideas with different detail. This repetition, in two different parts of this article, give these ideas, and their advocacy sources, undue weight. By repeating the two ideas (the mention by tiny, fringe, advocacy groups that have almost no followers and the article's use for the defense in a few legal cases), misrepresent the views of the Rind article by the high-quality, reliable academic sources that commented on, and added to, the controversy. Besides Dr. Dallam and Dr. Ondersma, who are given a lot of space in this Wikipedia article, much of the voluminous published commentary (see the two websites mentioned below in this Section), after the first year, ignored these two aspects of the early controversy. So that observation sets off a little buzzer in my head. Why are the pedoactivist and court aspects so important to Dr. Dallam and Dr. Ondersma. I speculate on this more in the next section. Radvo ( talk) 06:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
In the Rind article's section entitled ==Usage outside of scholarly discussions==, there are 4 websites listed; three were inserted by other editors. The fourth evolved out of one of the original three, and is devoted solely to the Rind controversy. These websites belong to the kinds of activist groups that Dallam asserts use the Rind et al. report. This section of the Wikipedia article claims that web-sites like these use the Rind report "outside of scholarly discussion." Two of these websites are devoted to the controversy in greater detail than this website. But I was today unable to verify on these websites any use of the Rind results to specifically advocate any lowering of age in age-of-consent laws in any state legislature. This part of Dahlam's 2001 claim is probably outdated. So, I note this in the text of the article. This accusation sets off another little buzzer in my head.
(Editorial: Foreigners who live under different laws should know that in the United States of America, we have a viable democracy and a wonderful Constitution that allows any of its citizens to advocate a change in the age-of-consent law. Citizens can form a flat earth society, become Communists, and read Mao's Little Red Book. Parts of this Wikipedia Rind et al. article may give foreigners the impression that advocacy of legal reform by citizens here is not permitted or illegal. This is not true. In Stalanist Russia, these activists would probably have been executed or banished to Siberia long ago. But if Justin Bieber, who I believe is 17 years old, was a U.S. citizen, and lived in a state that had an age of consent set at 18, he could organize, with his girlfriend and his millions of fans, to have the age of consent law reset at 17. It is wrong IMHO to give foreigners the impression that, if Justin Bieber did this in the USA, his age of consent reform activism would be taboo, illegal, an attempt to normalize pedophilia, or an advocacy of inappropriate relationships with children. The tiny number of pedophile activists in the USA are covered in their political activism, by the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. I have always been a proud member of the ACLU.)
For future verification purposes, the four websites, included in this "Usage outside of scholarly discussions" Section, should be easily accessible to the reader, to show that Dallam is no longer relevant regarding the association of the Rind report with specific age-of-consent reform advocacy. I did not remove from the Wikipedia article the assertion that Dallam made in 2001, as her claim about the websites' usage may have been verifiable then.
The Wikipedia reader of the Rind article/page can get to the NAMbLA web-site with two mouse clicks, via the Wikipedia article on NAMbLA, which in turn gives the functioning web-link to the organizational website. I could not see on the NAMbLA site how any description of the results of the Rind study were used to advocate age of consent reform. Can anyone here find what Dr. Dallam claims? (BTW, Susan Clancy's book, The Abuse Myth, has not been condemned by the U.S. Congress because Peter Herman from NAMbLA reviews it on NAMbLA's website. This sets off another little buzzer in my head. Why was the Rind report condemned for being reviewed by the NAMbLA web-site and Clancy and others who books were reviewed were not.) Age-of-consent organizations "that have not dissolved have only minimal membership and have ceased their activities other than through a few websites." See [age of consent reform].
If functional outside web-links were added to the three other websites in that Section (i.e., to Ipce, MHAMic, Everything you wanted...), the Wikipedia reader of this article might, with the click of the mouse, verify the current web use of the Rind Report, viz. its "use outside of scholarly discussions". The Wikipedia articles on two of these groups have been deleted, so the links are broken.
Of particular interest to those who contribute to this Rind controversy article might be these two websites (below), which also deal with the Rind controversy:
[ Everything you wanted to know about The Rind Controversy MHAMic]
The text describing the controversy is interesting, and provides IMHO a much more rich and complex version of the controversy than provided here on Wikipedia. It would be great if Wikipeida editors got some additional quality sources for the Wikipedia article from this website.
The other web-link is:
This Dutch web-site holds scores of articles directly related to the controversy, distributed in a confusing collection of "Libraries" that are not immediately apparant. I've read that the Netherlands is country where sharing files without profit is legal.[ See Section entitled 'Countries where sharing files in legal'] There are still more articles on associated web-pages than are listed on the Introductory page. This website can be used for further private research by editors and interested readers here. There is at least one original article there about the Rind controversy, and some math education for people who want to understand meta-analysis. I believe the web site was maintained from the start by Dr. Frans Gieles, with what may be a tiny group of Dutch and German volunteers. Besides English, there are Dutch, French, Spanish and German language articles about the Rind Report. I once saw a foreign language article in Latvia, where the author claimed something like America had lost its place as the champion of democracy because the Rind report was condemned by the Congress. Herostratus may think there was a little controversy about the Rind article, and its condemnation by the Congress, but he may be poorly informed about how foreigners were watching this with dismay.
I would like to fix the web-links in the article to these external websites, but want to first get feedback about the permissibility from the editors or administrators here who know the copyright and other rules. The NAMbLA web-link in the article works, so I assume this link is not in violation of Wiki-pedia's Child Protection Policy. Since the Section is about the use of these 4 websites for verification purposes of claims by a third party, it may be acceptable under Wikipedia's rules to link to them. Radvo ( talk) 01:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The introductory paragraphs of the Rind et al. article currently contains this sentence, which I would like to remove, I bring this matter up here to first get feedback.
Here's the sentence I wish to remove, from near the beginning of the article.
"Numerous age of consent reform organizations have quoted the [Rind et al.] paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws, and defense attorneys have used the study to argue for minimizing harm in child sexual abuse cases.[4][5]"
The 2 sources (footnoted in 4 and 5) that support this statement are professionals but IMHO are not neutral observers; they are advocates for two different alternative views that have done much to sustain the controversy.
(1) Dr. Ondersma is associated with the advocacy group APSAAC, a professional group of CSA counselors. I was told that this advocacy group was formed, in part, to resist and counter the public and professional skepticism that questioned the mindless professional support of the ridiculous claims of preschool children in the McMartin Preschool case in California, et al.. The Ondersma group may be the guardians of the rhetoric, methods, and techniques that caused the moral panic around the preschool cases for a number of years. The counselors in this group made some people pretty mad, and IMHO they had to circle the wagons to protect themselves.
(2) Dr. Stephanie Dallam was with The Leadership Council. Those professionals organized, in part, to defend member therapists against malpractice lawsuits, These therapists (allegedly fraudulently, according to the lawsuits) diagnosed their patients with so called "recovered memories' of incest, and multiple personality disorder. This was another moral panic, that included the controversial recovered memories phenomenon. The Leadership Council has considerable professional interest in who controls the rhetoric about incest and CSA, especially in Congress, among judges, and in juries. This professional interest of The Leadership Council to control the rhetoric that gets to the legislatures and the courts sets off another buzzer in my head. These are not professionals with a neutral point of view; they have an agenda and want to protect their professional members from malpractice suites when things go wrong. It's a free country, and I support their right to organize,too. But I oppose the use of their rhetoric as a neutral and unbiased source.
The therapists associated with these two groups IMHO are not mainstream; the science associated with these therapists is not regarded, by their mainstream professional peers, as the strongest in the field. I hae no problem with developing alternative therapies, unless the professional members of these groups are getting a lot of malpractice suites filed against them. Then it is time for these professionals to get out and control the rhetoric. That sets off another buzzer in my head.
The sentence quoted above suggests there are "numerous" organizations that support age of consent reform. "Numerous" in nonsense if you read the Wikipedia article on Age of Consent reform organizations. Associating these tiny fringe groups with the Rind study is also nonsense. (The NAMbLA website now features a long review of Susan Clancy's book, The Abuse Myth. Is that reason for her book to now be condemned by the Congress, and by these two advocacy groups?)
Then the sentence in the Introduction of the Rind article mentions the Rind study being used in court. Now the alarm buzzer is loud and steady. For the people in The Leadership Council this controversy is about who controls the discourse in the legislatures and in the courts. If the Rind study gains any credibility or following in the public, then the professionals from The Leadership Council, who are being sued in court over repressed memories, will have more difficulty defending themselves against juries that may give huge damage awards in civil suits. I suspect this is what these groups are about.
These two advocacy groups have considerable interest in discrediting the Rind et al. studies by successfully associating the Rind research with controversy, with the condemnation by Congress, with "numerous" fringe pedophile advocacy organizations and to so-called pedophile activists. And with the use of the Rind study in courts of law. And with the current Wikipedia article that further destroys the credibility of the Rind research. (Except that Heather Ulrich duplicated the Rind study in 2005, and came up with the identical results. Go figure.) If the rhetoric of this Wikipedia article is transformed into an article with a more neutral point of view, this article will be probably nominated for deletion by the same people who put it up here originally.
The buzzer is quite loud and steady now.
I want to work to make this article a fair and balanced one. But then I expect that it will be taken down from Wikipeida, and have to exist in an independent site. Let's see how this comes out.
I speculate that some of the claims made by the advocates for these professionals, who may rightly fear lawsuits, to damage the credibility of the Rind study as valid court evidence. These two groups may be protecting members who were being sued (or might be sued in the future) and want their views in court to go unchallenged by the controversial Rind studies. These two groups see the Rind studies as a professional threat and thus a rival to be discredited. I see the earlier versions of the Wikipeida article as good public relations for these advocates. Some of the sources this article uses as neutral and quality sources are not IMHO disinterested, they are part of the kind of non-mainstream professional groups that created and maintain the controversy.
The reason I bring this up is the Wikipeida editors need reliable sources. The Wikipedia editors incorrectly IMHO regard Dallam and Ondersma as neutral sources. I don't think they are neutral sources for the purpose of sourcing this article. I think they are part of the reason these is a controversy; they weigh in heavily against the Rind study.
The views of Dr. Dallam and Dr. Ondersma are very much part of The Rind et al. controversy. I see them as protagonists, and they should not be Sources for the neutral introduction of the controversy.
So I want that biased sentence in the introduction to be deleted.
Please advise.
Radvo ( talk) 23:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Revised and expanded Radvo ( talk) 00:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I want to bring the dead external web-links in the [ 'Usage outside of scholarly discussion' Section] to the attention of a Wikipedia administrator within the next week, unless this matter can reach some strong consensus here on the TALK page. I am not so familiar with the rules and policies and how they are implemented, but eager to learn the rules and operate within them.
To the appropriate Wikipedia authority or Administrator:
I am a new editor, as of the beginning of December. I need an authoritative answer from an administrator (or similar). I asked about this on the TALK page, and I now raise this matter with an administrator.
In the section [ 'Usage outside of scholarly discussion' in Wikipedia's Rind et al. Controversy article], three websites are named; one link is active; two links are dead, one link should be upgraded to a different section of the website.
All four websites are active here, so editors may see the active links that might be placed into the article: [ NAMbLA] [ The RBT Files at Ipce], [ The Male Homosexual Attraction to Minors Information Center MHAMic] [ Everything you wanted to know about The Rind Controversy MHAMic] This last is a different section of the previous website; the latter deals only with the Rind et al controversy. If by posting these links here I have violated any rule or policy, please delete only the active links immediately.
The question I have is about the permissibility of making these web-links active in the article itself.
According to Dr. Dallam, a highly esteemed, anti-Rind advocate, often used as a reliable source to explain the controversy in this article, these websites were allegedly and inappropriately misusing Rind's scholarly article for political advantage, and these websites are identified in the Wikipedia article for verification purposes. The NAMbLA link in the article works thru another Wikipedia article; with just two clicks of the mouse, one is on the NAMbLA website. The other external links do not work in the article. Since these are links to the work of unknowns, they are NOT referred to in the article as reliable sources. The three links are named, so the Wikipedia reader can verify for him-herself the alleged misuse of the Rind scholarly article on these fringe and non-mainstream websites. The links are associated by Dr. Dallam with tiny fringe organizations that advocate age-of-consent reform. The web-links are external to, and heatedly controversial within, Wikipedia.
Here's my question that needs an authoritative answer: Assuming the consensus of editors of this article is to keep this section of the article as it is, would fixing these dead external links violate any Wikipedia rule, viz. regarding Copyright, using quality sources for verification, or the Wikipedia Policy on Child Protection? Or would active external links be too controversial, and therefore unwanted? I just what to know. If the consensus is to not make these links active, I will obviously have to yield to the consensus.
An alternative view of the editing might go like this: Naming and activating these links might be like placing active external links to variations of the Flat Earth Society, clearly a fringe group, within which nested web-sites are links to many articles from mainstream sources that are allegedly being cited "inappropriately" for the political purposes of the 'Belief in the Earth is Flat Revival'. The purpose of associating the study with favorable reviews and citations by variations of the Flat Earth Society is solely to discredit the study's authors, especially, as noted twice in the article, in court (i.e., with judges and juries). The Wikipedia article and the controversy are maybe saying: "The Rind et al. 1998 meta-analysis must be discredited and trashed because it is 'trumpeted' by the Flat Earth Society on its website."
The first Wikipedia paragraph in the 'Usage outside...' Section is IMHO a "guilt by association" fallacy, a kind of ad hominem attack on Rind et al., a claim that a former Wikipedia editor feels is necessary to repeat in Wikipeida's voice in this Wikipedia article to give the fallacious argument additional weight. The argument goes like this: The mathematical research produced by the Rind et al trio was reviewed or cited favorably on the website of these 3 despicable fringe groups. Therefore, the Wikipedia must also come, by implication, to guilt by association, that Rind et al (and Heather Ulrich et al.) must be morally wrong and despicable like those tiny fringe groups." I edited an alternative version of this section that may be mostly reinstated.
I am considering an alternative edit: The entire "Usage outside of scholarly discussion" section should be dropped from the Wikipedia article entirely. That may not reach consensus either. If the article is rewritten in a NPOV to avoid sullying the reputation of the esteemed Wikepedia with the ad hominem and "guilt by association" attack on Rind et al., and, by implication, on Heather Ulrich et al. (who did a replication of the calculations in 2005, and arrived at identical results) (all six authors are covered by relevant [ BLP policies]), then I want to know if the dead external links must remain inactive to comply with one or more Wikipedia rules or policies.
There is another aspect to this: I bookmarked [ Everything you wanted to know about The Rind Controversy MHAMic] on my personal page so I could easily find that link again, and was attacked for that, and all my contributions to this article were cherry picked out of the article by two anonymous editors. I have since removed that link from my user page, and have no intention of putting it back there. I speculate that its the source of the text, and the link to a controversial bibliography that is most protested. But I like the quality source links in the article. Radvo ( talk) 01:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The introductory paragraphs of the Rind et al. article currently contains this sentence, which I would like to remove, I bring this matter up here to first get feedback.
Here's the sentence I wish to remove, from near the beginning of the article.
"Numerous age of consent reform organizations have quoted the [Rind et al.] paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws, and defense attorneys have used the study to argue for minimizing harm in child sexual abuse cases.[4][5]"
The 2 sources (footnoted in 4 and 5) that support this statement are professionals but IMHO are not neutral observers; they are advocates for two different alternative views that have done much to sustain the controversy.
(1) Dr. Ondersma is associated with the advocacy group APSAAC, a professional group of CSA counselors. I was told that this advocacy group was formed, in part, to resist and counter the public and professional skepticism that questioned the mindless professional support of the ridiculous claims of preschool children in the McMartin Preschool case in California, et al.. The Ondersma group may be the guardians of the rhetoric, methods, and techniques that caused the moral panic around the preschool cases for a number of years. The counselors in this group made some people pretty mad, and IMHO they had to circle the wagons to protect themselves.
(2) Dr. Stephanie Dallam was with The Leadership Council. Those professionals organized, in part, to defend member therapists against malpractice lawsuits, These therapists (allegedly fraudulently, according to the lawsuits) diagnosed their patients with so called "recovered memories' of incest, and multiple personality disorder. This was another moral panic, that included the controversial recovered memories phenomenon. The Leadership Council has considerable professional interest in who controls the rhetoric about incest and CSA, especially in Congress, among judges, and in juries. This professional interest of The Leadership Council to control the rhetoric that gets to the legislatures and the courts sets off another buzzer in my head. These are not professionals with a neutral point of view; they have an agenda and want to protect their professional members from malpractice suites when things go wrong. It's a free country, and I support their right to organize,too. But I oppose the use of their rhetoric as a neutral and unbiased source.
The therapists associated with these two groups IMHO are not mainstream; the science associated with these therapists is not regarded, by their mainstream professional peers, as the strongest in the field. I hae no problem with developing alternative therapies, unless the professional members of these groups are getting a lot of malpractice suites filed against them. Then it is time for these professionals to get out and control the rhetoric. That sets off another buzzer in my head.
The sentence quoted above suggests there are "numerous" organizations that support age of consent reform. "Numerous" in nonsense if you read the Wikipedia article on Age of Consent reform organizations. Associating these tiny fringe groups with the Rind study is also nonsense. (The NAMbLA website now features a long review of Susan Clancy's book, The Abuse Myth. Is that reason for her book to now be condemned by the Congress, and by these two advocacy groups?)
Then the sentence in the Introduction of the Rind article mentions the Rind study being used in court. Now the alarm buzzer is loud and steady. For the people in The Leadership Council this controversy is about who controls the discourse in the legislatures and in the courts. If the Rind study gains any credibility or following in the public, then the professionals from The Leadership Council, who are being sued in court over repressed memories, will have more difficulty defending themselves against juries that may give huge damage awards in civil suits. I suspect this is what these groups are about.
These two advocacy groups have considerable interest in discrediting the Rind et al. studies by successfully associating the Rind research with controversy, with the condemnation by Congress, with "numerous" fringe pedophile advocacy organizations and to so-called pedophile activists. And with the use of the Rind study in courts of law. And with the current Wikipedia article that further destroys the credibility of the Rind research. (Except that Heather Ulrich duplicated the Rind study in 2005, and came up with the identical results. Go figure.) If the rhetoric of this Wikipedia article is transformed into an article with a more neutral point of view, this article will be probably nominated for deletion by the same people who put it up here originally.
The buzzer is quite loud and steady now.
I want to work to make this article a fair and balanced one. But then I expect that it will be taken down from Wikipeida, and have to exist in an independent site. Let's see how this comes out.
I speculate that some of the claims made by the advocates for these professionals, who may rightly fear lawsuits, to damage the credibility of the Rind study as valid court evidence. These two groups may be protecting members who were being sued (or might be sued in the future) and want their views in court to go unchallenged by the controversial Rind studies. These two groups see the Rind studies as a professional threat and thus a rival to be discredited. I see the earlier versions of the Wikipeida article as good public relations for these advocates. Some of the sources this article uses as neutral and quality sources are not IMHO disinterested, they are part of the kind of non-mainstream professional groups that created and maintain the controversy.
The reason I bring this up is the Wikipeida editors need reliable sources. The Wikipedia editors incorrectly IMHO regard Dallam and Ondersma as neutral sources. I don't think they are neutral sources for the purpose of sourcing this article. I think they are part of the reason these is a controversy; they weigh in heavily against the Rind study.
The views of Dr. Dallam and Dr. Ondersma are very much part of The Rind et al. controversy. I see them as protagonists, and they should not be Sources for the neutral introduction of the controversy.
So I want that biased sentence in the introduction to be deleted.
Please advise.
Radvo ( talk) 23:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Revised and expanded Radvo ( talk) 00:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
All my contributions to this article were removed on December 12th. Here is the edit showing what was edited out. A reason given for these many removals was that I was allegedly "adding tags to things that are already cited or cited lower in the article."
I am confused and bewildered by the reasons for the drastic edit by the first anonymous editor. This was not a revert, redaction or "undo" of one particular post, but the first anonymous editor cherry picked each edit I made since my first post and removed them all.
If the "Citation Tag" or Tags were allegedly inappropriate, the specific tags themselves could have been challenged by the first anonymous editor with a credible explanation for the challenge. So, a more parsimonious and appropriate solution, IMHO, would have been for the anonymous editor to simply remove the erroneous "Citation Tag(s)" with a clear explanation, like e.g., "The footnote was already cited, or cited lower in the article." I could have checked that out, silently conceded my error and not contested the removal of the tag, or responded to the objection to my placement of the particular "Citation Tag." If that is too much for a new editor on this topic to ask, I make another suggestion below.
Most of the text that was removed by the two anonymous users, had nothing to do with "Citation Tags."
The restoration of the non-contested text involves a lot of unnecessary work -- for a second time. I seek this partial remedy: I ask that the anonymous editor at least identify the specific "Citation Tag(s)" in contest. All editors here and I have a right to know which "Citation Tag" or Tags provoked such an inappropriate response.
If any other editors here, who are "fit" and in good standing, wish to volunteer to do any part of that restoration work, please feel free to do so. Please do not restore any contested "Citation Tags" to the article; it would help to know which of the "Citation Tags" are contested. If the restoration or the requested assistance by volunteer editors to do the restoration is against a Wikipedia rule or policy that I don't know about, please follow the rules.
There is a discussion of my fitness to be an editor on this article at the very end of Flyer22's talk page The arguments do not focus on the quality of my contributions, but are abusive ad hominem attacks (also called personal abuse or personal attacks); "these usually involve insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions." See ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem_attack) An ad hominem attack violates the rules. An Edit War based on an Ad hominem attack cannot be justified, and, INHO, all removals should be reversed for this reason.
The discussion at Flyer22's{www.mhamic.org/rind/) talk page includes this sentence by the second anonymous editor: "the other anon is wrong! i just gave my response on the discussion page. i was edit warring, but i was justified." 107.20.1.111 ( talk) 22:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)" I wonder from the last sentence in this quote here whether the two different anonymous editors are the same person using two different computers (with very similar IP addresses). Would an investigation of this suspicion be in order? If someone is violating the rules and policies, we want to know about that. We all expect that the rules are enforced in an even-handed way. See also ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks)
How do I raise the issue about the fitness of the two anonymous editors, for the two reasons cited above? Please advise.
I don't see the anonymous's "response on the discussion page." I would like to read the "response on the discussion page," so I could better understand if I erred in placing any or all of the "Citations Tags",
Since I am new here, and those were my first experiments with using "Citation Tags", I am willing to make this concession for now: just remove all the contested "citation tags" without any reason. I would go along with that to reduce the controversy, to build confidence in my good will, and to give me time and experience to understand what is possible here.
The discussion at the very end of Flyer22's talk pageconfuses two very different web-sites: Everything you wanted to know about the Rind Controversy is confused with a controversial bibliographic list of academic resources ( mhamic.org). I had nothing to do with the creation and maintenance of either of those websites, but Everything you wanted to know about the Rind Controversy deals in depth with some aspects of the same Rind controversy as this Wikipedia article. So I bookmarked that link on, what I thought was, my private user page for further reference. I did not imagine that bookmarking that page in that way was against any Wikipedia policy here, or would motivate someone to cherry pick ALL of my past edits for removal. I have already removed that link from my user page and will not restore it. I hope this remedy helps to create a better climate for my future editing here.
I wish to make further quality contributions to this article, and I wish to learn and follow all Wikipedia rules and policies. I understand this article is a controversial issue; The word "controversy" appears in the article's title. I do not wish to be confrontational or make some editors here nervous. I wish to build confidence in my knowledge about this topic, in my good will, and in my willingness to work within Wikipedia's rules and policies. Radvo ( talk) 02:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)