Quick response to WLU. I know you thnnk now that Dallam is thoroughly rebutted by Rind, but it's kind of hard to get used to us genuinely agreeing on something important. |
No conflict of interest, but I do have some direct contact. Some Info about the December 1998 Rotterdam conference, and about the libel attributed to Dr. Laura. |
||
Line 702: | Line 702: | ||
I would especially like to read Truthinwriting's response to this, if he is still watching these ideas. [[User:Radvo|Radvo]] ([[User talk:Radvo|talk]]) 21:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
I would especially like to read Truthinwriting's response to this, if he is still watching these ideas. [[User:Radvo|Radvo]] ([[User talk:Radvo|talk]]) 21:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
:I need to ask something important at this juncture. Do you have any personal association with Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch, or Robert Bauserman? Are you one of those three, or were you ever a colleague of any of them? Did you have anything to do with the work of these three related to this paper? The reason I ask is not a condemnation, but rather a matter of policy on [[WP:COI|conflicts of interest]]. You would not be blocked or punished in any way if you are, nor barred from editing this article, but rather it simply creates the necessity for proper disclosure and consideration for due weight. I highly recommend you read [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_not_to_handle_COI|this specific section]] of the COI policy as it reads almost exactly like our interactions with you thus far on this article. And for pete's sake, try to keep your reply under 1000 characters.[[User:Legitimus|Legitimus]] ([[User talk:Legitimus|talk]]) 22:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
:I need to ask something important at this juncture. Do you have any personal association with Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch, or Robert Bauserman? Are you one of those three, or were you ever a colleague of any of them? Did you have anything to do with the work of these three related to this paper? The reason I ask is not a condemnation, but rather a matter of policy on [[WP:COI|conflicts of interest]]. You would not be blocked or punished in any way if you are, nor barred from editing this article, but rather it simply creates the necessity for proper disclosure and consideration for due weight. I highly recommend you read [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_not_to_handle_COI|this specific section]] of the COI policy as it reads almost exactly like our interactions with you thus far on this article. And for pete's sake, try to keep your reply under 1000 characters.[[User:Legitimus|Legitimus]] ([[User talk:Legitimus|talk]]) 22:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
::I tried to post this before, and it seems not to have saved. So I am posting this a second time. If this is a duplicate, this was not intentional. |
|||
::Legitimus: I read [[WP:COI|conflicts of interest]] and liked: [Everyone] acts with love and neutrality to write a good article which is <u>acceptable to both reasonable critics and reasonable supporters</u> ... [where] reliance on solid sources, neutral language, etc., carries the day." You're right, my situation is a little like that. And I consider myself a reasonable Rind supporter outraged at the hatchet job that has been done on Rind et al. |
|||
::To answer: I am not Rind, Bauserman, or Tromovitch. I am not now and never was a colleague of any of them. I have already disclosed in my posts to this TALK page several times, that I have contacted Bruce Rind about this article in the past month. I asked Dr. Rind if he would read the "Findings in Brief" section that was written by Truthinwriting. |
|||
::I told Dr. Rind that the Wikipedia article about his paper was a hatchet job, and I was interested in making it more NPOV. I do not represent the views of Robert Bauserman or Philip Tromovitch, and have never discussed Wikipedia with either of them. Dr. Tromovitch has emigrated permanently to Japan, and I have heard rumors that he claimed to have been troubled by the mistreatment around the controversy. Rumor has it that Dr. Fowler, president of the APA at that time, also had a reaction after the controversy. Dr. Rind wasn't well aware of the Wikipedia article, and I had to coax him to read it. He felt the WP:article had so many serious errors that he wasn't interested in working on it. But I am! He says his responses are available in published sources for good faith editors. I asked him for some sources for the issue of "consent" and "willingness", and he e-mailed some scholarly articles. Particularly relevant discussion, he said, was found in: Rind, B., Tromovitch, Ph., & Bauserman, R., The Validity and Appropriateness of Methods, Analyses, and Conclusions in Rind et al. (1998): A Rebuttal of Victimological Critique From Ondersma et al. (2001) and Dallam et al. (2001); Psychological Bulletin, 127, 6, 734-758, 2001 |
|||
::I do not have a conflict of interest, but I do have access to Dr. Rind by telephone and e-mail. I want to use this access to ask him, from time to time, if he could refer me to reliable secondary sources (he has a great memory). He tolerates my work on Wikipedia as long as I don't drain him about the Wikipedia article with lots of requests and time. It is good that editors know of my contact with Dr. Rind, as we will both go to BLP with complaints about this article if this doesn't get cleaned up eventually in harmony with Wikipedia BLP policies. |
|||
::As far as specific edits go, Dr. Rind focused on the December 1998 meeting at the Pauluskirk (St. Paul's Church) in Rotterdam. All the rest of this edit is from talking with him, and you can monitor me via the TALK page on these matters. We think Salter/Dallam based their claim that Dr. Rind attended that meeting on an unreliable e-mail newsletter that was <u>dated</u> before the conference date. That email newsletter (I think it is still on line) was inviting people to the conference, & the conference planners were expecting Dr. Rind to come, since the major focus of the conference was his 1998 paper that was condemned by Congress. This seems to be of considerable interest in Northern Europe. (Der Spiegel, the German equivalent of Time magazine, ran a large article on the Congressional condemnation at the time.) Dr. Rind himself, in fact, did not attend the Rotterdam conference, and Wikipedia has been wrong on this fact for years. The conference was just another one of those things that this unusual pastor did, based on his understanding of his religion. The December 1998 Rotterdam conference was open to the public but attended mostly by clinicians and academics who wanted hear a talk about that jargon laden 1998 paper. Native English speakers can't understand it, and these were native Dutch speakers, some of whom learned enough English in school to understand the spoken English word. People who were not well educated in English or statistics would not be attracted to attend, and would not understand much if they did. The pastor (Name like Visser if I remember correctly) of that church reached out to outcasts: pedophiles, AIDs patients, drug addicts, illegal aliens, the homeless particularly those who were not being well cared for by the Dutch safety net. I believe this conference and the speakers are documented in Dutch newspaper articles published after the conference, I do not imagine that they would have said after the conference that Dr. Rind attended, when in fact he was not physically there. I believe both Dallam and Salter quoted the Dutch papers, but did not correct their error. The conference was about the Rind paper, not about Pedophilia, and was not for a pedophile audience. The citation for the paper presented at the conference is listed on this TALK page, and I believe it has all three authors' names on it. The citation was in WLU's chart, and may be in the archives2 as of today. If you read the paper, you may find that the word pedophilia does not appear once. You can assume you have the consent of the authors regarding to access that paper, if you want it and need formal permission, Dr. Rind may arrange this for you. It is available on line. The authors will give Wikipedia full access to it, if desired. I have not been too interested in working on this Rotterdam conference error, but may get around researching it if I get access to the sources. Dutch newspapers are not easily accessible here, and I don't read Dutch. |
|||
::Dr. Rind acknowledges that Dr. Laura libeled her on her radio show, but he would prefer that Wikipedia quoted her libel directly rather have some editor summarize the libel Dr. Laura spoke. Does someone still have the libel that Dr. Laura offered on her radio show? Dr. Rind feels that if you don't have the direct quote from Dr. Laura, you should drop it. I will work on this some other time, too. When we get to that part. I feel Dr. Rind should work to clean the BLP stuff up, but he is busy. |
|||
::Full disclosure: I do NOT know personally know who Truthinwriting is, and Dr. Rind does not know him either. I had been lurking, off and on, at the Rind et al. stie, and when I saw Truthinwriting's post at the beginning of December/end of November, I decided to join him and clean this article up. [[User:Radvo|Radvo]] ([[User talk:Radvo|talk]]) 04:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:01, 18 January 2012
Pedophilia Article Watch (defunct) | ||||
|
Proposing some adjustments to the Intro
Unless there is discussion that leads me to hold off or change my plan, in a few days I plan to make the following four adjustments to the introductory paragraphs on the article page. For readers looking for a concise read of this post, items (1), (2), and (3) are probably not contentious, and the result of doing items (4), (5) and (6) are presented in the last paragraph below.
(1) The first sentence says the 1998 paper was based on "several" samples, but this is not correct. I plan to adjust the wording to include the specific data from the primary analyses. Current wording: "...several samples of college students."; proposed wording: "...58 independent samples of college students containing data on over 15,000 individuals.".
(2) The second sentence of the introduction mentions the 1997 national meta-analysis, but provides almost no information about it. To have informed readers of Wikipedia who have the relevant background to understand the controversy, I plan to add an additional phrase at the end of the current sentence which lets readers know the scope of that article in a parallel fashion to the prior sentence on the 1998 college paper. Suggested addition: "... that examined 10 independent samples designed to be nationally representative based on data from more than 8,500 participants."
(3) The second paragraph uses the phrasing "the construct of CSA was questionably valid;". I think that wording my be hard to understand for some readers, hence I plan to change it to: "the construct of CSA as it had been defined by researchers was of questionable scientific validity;".
(4) The first sentence of the last paragraph contains the wording "...and denied that their findings implied current moral...". The use of the word denied has a negative valence suggesting Rind et al. acted improperly. The word denied might be appropriate in other contexts (e.g., when they responded to a criticism) but this intro is not yet dealing with specific criticisms. Hence I plan to change the wording to: "... and indicated that their findings did not imply current moral..."
I hope to make the above four edits in a few days.
(5) The last sentence of the intro is currently presented with two sources. It currently reads: "Numerous age of consent reform organizations have quoted the paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws, and defense attorneys have used the study to argue for minimizing harm in child sexual abuse cases." This sentence strikes me as problematic in various ways. I have not read Spiegel's 2003 book (nor do I have a copy). Is anyone here familiar with it? I do have the other source as a word-searchable PDF (Ondersma et al. 2001), but it does not seem to mention anything about defense attorney usage.
Even if it is true that the Rind et al. paper was used in court cases, if that issue is to be raised on this Wikipedia page shouldn't it be balanced with more information and reasoning? After all, courts should use scientific evidence when it is available, hence more accurate wording might be "...and defense attorneys have appropriately used the study to argue that harm did not occur in their client's case, due to the willingness of the minor's participation and the enjoyment the young person received as a result of their interactions." No, don't worry, I am not suggesting we actually write anything like that on the page but I present it here to make the point that unless we know what those court cases were about, the current wording is potentially biasing or outright incorrect (e.g., you can not minimize harm when there is no harm). Further, the Rind et al. paper may have been used by prosecutors as well, since it provides information on when harm might occur and when it might not (hence only mentioning defense attorney usage seems unbalanced regarding something we probably have no reliable information about).
- Radvo interjects for Truthinwriting regarding (5):
- Re: this discussion about defense attorneys using (misusing?) the Rind et al (1998) study. Does this belong this way in the WP:Lead? The current WP:Lead currently reads: "defense attorneys have used the study to argue for minimizing harm in child sexual abuse cases." If I were such a defense attorney in most states except California, and wanted to earn my high fee from my client, I would also point out to the judge and jury that "Rind and his colleagues were not the first or only researchers to report [that] not all victims of child sexual abuse suffer serious and lasting psychological damage. Other researchers also report many respondents showed few or no symptoms and found the relationship between adult-child sexual contact and later physical or psychological problems to be highly complex (e.g., Berliner & Conte, 1993; Beitchman, et al, 1991, 1992; Dolezal, & Carballo-Dieguez, 2002; Finkelhor, 1990; Friedrich, Whiteside, & Talley, 2004; Levitt & Pinnell, 1995; Parker & Parker, 1991; Pope & Hudson, 1992; Runtz, 2002; Stander, Olson, & Merrill, 2002)." (Quoted from http://ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume16/j16_2.htm; see the full URL for full citations of the studies mentioned in the last sentence.) If the editors here of this article want to keep that fact in the WP:Lead, then that fact should be balanced with this additional information that Rind et al. 1998 are not alone as messengers of this arguably "good news" for the generic victim (on average) in the solid, professional, well-respected journal literature. Rind et al. were three of "a number of" or "several samples" of well respected University and clinical researchers, but I am not going to count them up for you. If you want to know the exact number of them, and you have the experience and context to balance the exact number information, you'll have to count the number of researchers yourself. I don't want to supply you with "unnecessary" information. :-)
- If I were an attorney who needed to maintain "a good relationship" with my state legislature, I would not do this in California. Resolution, SJR 17, condemning Rind et al. (1998) like both Houses of the United States Congress, the states of Alaska, Oklahoma, and maybe several other States (needs more research for reliable sources), passed the California Senate on September 3, 1999, by a vote of 40-0. Emphasizing the possible use of the Rind et al. study in the local courts, California's resolution includes a non-binding request that defense attorneys and courts disregard the controversial Rind report. (These ideas may have come from the advocacy group called The Leadership Council, [Stephanie Dallam, Dr. Fink, et al.] [which uses the RBT Files at the Ipce documentation service for full text articles about Rind et al,] which [with the Family Council, Narth, etc.?] may have been coaching the legislatures with their bias (scientific information?) all along the way. This last part needs more research to verify the later in the professional journals and other well-regarded source literature, to meet Wikipedia's high verification standards.) Herostratus's distrust of the scientists' bias is also warranted in this part of the story of the controversy. (He does well to trust his distrust.) Here's the relevant part of California's resolution condemning Rind et al.:
- ...WHEREAS, The American Psychological Association in July 1998, published a review of 59 studies of college aged students which may be construed to indicate that some sexual relationships between adults and children may be less harmful than believed, and that some of the college students viewed their experiences as positive at the time they occurred, or positive when reflecting back on them,
- Resolved, [among others] That the Legislature requests California defense attorneys and California courts to disregard the study when dealing with [criminal court] cases involving child abuse and child molestation... Reference: California State Senator Haynes (Introduced May 17, 1999; Amended July 6, August 24, August 31). "SJR 17". Resolution. California Senate. Retrieved January 3, 2012.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help)
- Resolved, [among others] That the Legislature requests California defense attorneys and California courts to disregard the study when dealing with [criminal court] cases involving child abuse and child molestation... Reference: California State Senator Haynes (Introduced May 17, 1999; Amended July 6, August 24, August 31). "SJR 17". Resolution. California Senate. Retrieved January 3, 2012.
- End of Radvo's insertion. Radvo (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
[Truthinwriting continues:] Additionally, I do not see a need for that particular sentence in the intro. Given that the intro reads fine without it, I suggest it be deleted since that will save a lot of work and contention for everyone. If something like the sentence should stay, perhaps a simple edit will make it less problematic. For example: "Numerous age of consent reform organizations have quoted the paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws, and attorneys have used the study in court."
Feedback on this is welcome and desired.
(6) The issue of moving a reference to the Ulrich replication study higher up into the page was also raised at one point. I don't know if that is critical or not, but I think it is a good idea and putting it at the end of the intro makes sense to me. I have not yet obtained a copy of the Ulrich paper hence I have only read the abstract, but even that seems clear enough to add a note about it at the end of the intro.
Considering (4), (5), and (6), a new final paragraph of the intro might read something like: "Rind et al. concluded with a statement that even though CSA may not result in harm, this does not mean it is not wrong or morally repugnant behavior and indicated that their findings did not imply current moral and legal prohibitions against CSA should be changed. [Delete: Numerous age of consent reform organizations have quoted the paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws, and attorneys have used the study in court.] Ulrich et al.[cite], seven years after the publication of the Rind et al. meta-analysis, published a replication of it in the Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice that confirmed Rind et al.'s main findings." Truthinwriting (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- 1-4 sound ok. 5 I will need to do some additional research about the legal case part of it. Off the top of my head, the cases where this study were invoked are all in defense; I have never heard of it being brought up by the prosecution or plaintiff. Furthermore, the parts I recall about a few cases were pretty shameless. In Arizona v. Steward, Steward was a teacher who'd molested multiple boys as young as 5 years old. He was a predator. Rind et al was quoted during the sentencing phase as an attempt to gain leniency by claiming the harm was minimal. In Watson v. Roman Catholic Church, the expert witness attempted to use Rind as a basis for his statement that there is no association between sexual abuse and maladjustment. Obviously a gross misstatement of Rind, but the defense team did it anyway. These two cases demonstrate minimization in one, and denial of harm in the other. There was at least one other case that used Rind as a defense tactic, but I don't recall and will have to look for it.
- I don't have much to say on (6) other than it seems unnecessary to work it into the lead. It is worth noting that the journal that published Ulrich's study (SRMHP) is not a well known one. Without saying too much about myself personally, I have access to arguably the largest scholarly library in the world, yet SRMHP is not carried in regular collections nor available online. I will have to special order it as a hardcopy in order to examine the details.Legitimus (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Radvo interjects:
- The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice is edited by Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D., of Emory University. Dr. Lilienfeld is the author of an important related article, cited three times in the Wikipedia's 'Rind et al. controversy' topic; it's footnote 24: "When Worlds Collide: Social Science, Politics, and the Rind et al. (1998) Child Abuse Meta-Analysis" American Psychologist, 2002, Vol. 57, No. 3, 176-188, 2002
- "The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice (SRMHP) is the only peer-reviewed journal devoted exclusively to distinguishing scientifically supported claims from scientifically unsupported claims in clinical psychology, psychiatry, social work, and allied disciplines. It applies the best tools of science and reason to objectively evaluate novel, controversial, and untested mental health claims." See SRMHP: Our Raison d’Être Radvo (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- [End of interjection by Radvo]
[Comment by Radvo:]
- The Rind article is mostly out of the radar for now. Regarding a direct connection between the Rind meta-analyses and advocacy for lowering or abolishing age of consent. I'd like to see a few specific quotes, or even one quote or one URL, verifying this direct connection to advocacy for abolishing or lowering age of consent. Can this claim of a direct connection be currently verified on line, or in the current literature? Has there been any published report of any of these groups anywhere adocating the lowering of the age in recent years? My impression is that the ages of consent have been rising in a few countries. This statement of linkage may have taken on the status of an urban myth; like propaganda, it is repeated so that everyone "knows" it is true, and there is no need for hard evidence. But where is the hard evidence on-line? in recent publications? If there is evidence, and someone has published that recently, the evidence should not be that hard to find. My impression from Wikipeida is that these activist groups are diminishing, and a few individuals maybe hang on to maintain a website for the group. Radvo (talk) 05:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, Legitimus, I am responding to this thread. Truthinwriting wrote: "(5) The last sentence of the intro...currently reads: "Numerous age of consent reform organizations have quoted the paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws, ...." Truthinwriting continued "This sentence strikes me as problematic.... I suggest it be deleted... If something like the sentence should stay, perhaps a simple edit.... For example: "Numerous age of consent reform organizations have quoted the paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws, and attorneys have used the study in court."
- I don't have more Sources for what was happening with those AOC organizations in 1998--2001, I have already challenged the NPOV and the veracity of the underlined text in the original sentence, and now in Truthinwriting's suggested edit. My impression is that it's just not true 13+ years later. And it is not fair (NPOV) to immediately associate the scholarly study in the Introduction with the political activism of tiny intensely despised fringe groups. Wikipedia would be perpetuating an Urban Legend, a guilt by association fallacy and a delusion that serves the purposes of those hostile to (and fearful of) this study, and its associated replication. For veracity, I'd like to see some updated argument from a hated advocacy organization today "quoting" the connection between the Rind study and legal reform. Does anyone have a current "quote"? We have no updated third party reference Source for such a direct connection to age of consent reform.
- I agree with Truthinwriting that we not include either the original or an edited sentence as part of the introduction.
- If something like this sentence should stay, this sentence is verifiable, a little bit more NPOV IMHO, and less likely be challenged for veracity "The International Pedophile and Child Emancipation documentation service enthusiastically documents the study, and attorneys have used the study in court. (cite)"
- The mission statement of the IPCE states the group is for scholarly documentation and discussion, and is NOT a [political] action organization. It does not advocate legal reform.
- Another matter: The first sentence is too long. To shorten it, I suggest deleting "that even though CSA may not result in harm, this does not mean it is not wrong or morally repugnant behavior." "Repugnant" injects editor bias and appears no where in the original Rind text; see original quote below. I substituted this text directly from the Rind original: "that lack of harmfulness does not imply lack of wrongfulness". For reference, here is a full quote that is found in 1998 Rind et al. on page 47:
- Quote from Rind et al: 1998, page 47
- Finally, it is important to consider implications of the current review for moral and legal positions on CSA. If it is true that wrongfulness in sexual matters does not imply harmfulness ( Money, 1979 ), then it is also true that lack of harmfulness does not imply lack of wrongfulness. Moral codes of a society with respect to sexual behavior need not be, and often have not been, based on considerations of psychological harmfulness or health (cf. Finkelhor, 1984 ). Similarly, legal codes may be, and have often been, unconnected to such considerations ( Kinsey et al., 1948 ). In this sense, the findings of the current review do not imply that moral or legal definitions of or views on behaviors currently classified as CSA should be abandoned or even altered. The current findings are relevant to moral and legal positions only to the extent that these positions are based on the presumption of psychological harm.
- End quote from Rind et al. 1998, page 47
- So, finally, here is another suggested version of the last paragraph of the introduction, for your consideration:
- "Rind et al. concluded with a statement "that lack of harmfulness does not imply lack of wrongfulness"(cite p.47). They wrote that their research results did not imply that current moral and legal prohibitions against CSA should be changed. [Delete: The International Pedophile and Child Emancipation documentation service enthusiastically documents the study, and attorneys have used the study in court. (cite) ] Ulrich et al.[cite], seven years after the publication of the Rind et al. meta-analysis, replicated the study in the Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice and confirmed its main findings."Radvo (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Addition: The three authors of Rind et al. are named at the beginning of the Introduction, but information was redacted for two authors when Herostratus removed the first version of the Findings in Brief. The degree status at the time of publication was: Philip Tromovitch (MA) and Robert Bauserman (PhD) Radvo (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned signature added by Radvo (talk • contribs) 23:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC) Radvo (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Truthinwriting asked, at the start of this TALK section, viz. in his/her # (5) above, about Josepf Spiegel's 2003 book. Truthinwriting wants to use this source to verify the misuse of the Rind study in court by defense attorneys, i.e., outside of scholarly discussions, (Both the source, and the placement of the fact into the introduction of the article, are being questioned and discussed here.) Much of Spiegel's 2003 book is available free on line, including pages 3 and 9, cited in footnote 4. (The clever former Wikipedia editor very kindly inserted, for everyone's convenience, full copies of the two cited pages right into the footnote. Thanks so much to that conscientious former editor for making clear in the footnote, the page numbers in the book found on line. The Internet and the fantastic Wikipedia software make it convenient, in this case, for the Wikipedia editor to instantly verify information at the on-line source.)
- Viewer discretion advised. See page 3, and page 9 which I copied here to the TALK page from the article's footnote # 4. Shocking information! Absolutely appalling! This long chronological list in Josef Spiegel's book is NOT for children's eyes! I am only copying the citation from the footnote and am not responsible for the lack of common sense and the failure of appropriate censorship in this footnote. [Okay... First I'm shocked and appalled. Now I'm joking. Take a look at the items listed in the earlier years on that list. I won't tell your mother that you found this list on Wikipedia. I'll get serious again.]
- But information about misuse in court of the Rind study was not on the two pages cited. The two cited pages say something other than what is contained in the sentence in the last paragraph of the article's introduction. Maybe someone here can verify that the cited page sources back up the sentence in the article. (I was so upset by pages 4 thru 7 that I could barely finish my research on these two cited pages in Spiegel. It must be "The Sam Hill" in me, that made me read Dr. Siegel's whole list. It's not funny! I'll stop this. Sorry. Back to business.)
- Questions: Do we need a corrected, and updated to 2011, NPOV source for the inappropriate use, in the US courts, of the Rind study by defense attorneys? Or does our attempt at verification, with this specific 2003 source, fail? Do we delete the sentence from the article's introduction if source verification fails with both cited sources (footnotes 4 [Spiegel] and 5 [Ondersma])? Might other editors help out? End
- (Aside: See the lower half of this Wikipedia page, about Citation Tags Just curious... Do editors ever use these citation tags in their work on this article? I was "messing around" to learn about these, inserting a few of these, and later my great fun did not end well. I agreed to not reassert those particular "citation tags" as part of the informal dispute resolution process. The Citation Tags made sense to me at the time, and actually still do. But consensus rules! )
- P.S. My apologies to Dr. Josef Siegel. Never mind, Dr. Siegel. You can always blame the editor. Editors are known to screw things up. I was poking at the old things on page 3 -7 in your book to lighten things up here. (Uh Oh! Oh boy!... What are the rules about poking fun at a reference source that fails to confirm their assigned sentence in the Wikipedia?) I'm giggling again thinking about all those shameful and shocking things on page 3 - 7 of Dr. Spiegel's chronological list. Editing the Wikipeida was not supposed to be like this! I'd better quit. That's all Folks. Radvo (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Another thought about the failed reference source, in the Introduction, for the clause: "Numerous age of consent reform organizations have quoted the paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws"... The earliest version of this idea seems to have been edited into the Introduction of this article on March 16th, 2006 as an unsourced opinion/observation, contributed by Will Beback. Later editors added to, revised, deleted, and rephrased Will Beback's clause, but none of these versions was correctly sourced or footnoted either. Since the clause is not properly sourced, and since I gave other reasons above to delete this clause, the clause should be removed. Radvo (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note on my talk page. I don't recall the circumstances of my edit five years ago. The edit summary makes it appear that I was restoring text rather than adding it freshly. However I don't have time to research it. Will Beback talk 19:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Another thought about the failed reference source, in the Introduction, for the clause: "Numerous age of consent reform organizations have quoted the paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws"... The earliest version of this idea seems to have been edited into the Introduction of this article on March 16th, 2006 as an unsourced opinion/observation, contributed by Will Beback. Later editors added to, revised, deleted, and rephrased Will Beback's clause, but none of these versions was correctly sourced or footnoted either. Since the clause is not properly sourced, and since I gave other reasons above to delete this clause, the clause should be removed. Radvo (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding this edit, just add the exact number or add "various." There is no need to put a "not in citation given" qualification when there is a source backing that there were more than a few college students.
- The line that says "Numerous age of consent reform organizations have quoted the paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws, and defense attorneys have used the study to argue for minimizing harm in child sexual abuse cases." should stay, or at least something like it. The first part presents a significant aspect of the topic and should be in the lead, per WP:LEAD, especially since it is covered lower in the article. The "defense attorneys" part of the line should probably stay as well, but I don't mind if that part is removed.
- Thirdly, child asexual abuse -- specifically adults engaging in sexual activity with prepubescents or early pubescents -- is considered to cause harm by most of the psychological/medical community (and I'm not talking about 18-year-olds with 13-year-olds), which is why the Rind study was and is still so controversial...not just because of moral beliefs. So hearing stuff like "...and defense attorneys have appropriately used the study to argue that harm did not occur in their client's case, due to the willingness of the minor's participation and the enjoyment the young person received as a result of their interactions." by Truthinwriting or any suggestion that child sexual abuse is not harmful is beyond ludicrous to me. Call it my bias if you will, but I would prefer that you two stop making suggestions like that. Yes, Rind says that child sexual abuse may not cause harm, but that is the point. This article is supposed to be about what the Rind study reports and the reactions to that report. It cannot be helped that most researchers and the general public have severely criticized the findings.
- Lastly: Radvo, yes, you need to stop giving such long replies, though it seems you have recently stopped yourself on that front. I still have yet to read all of what you stated at my talk page, though I may read it later today or the next. I can't promise that I'll respond there because the issues are being worked out here. As seen above, I just commented on what I think should be in the lead, I'll say that I agree with the IP (the 193.169. IPs are obviously the same person) about how you should not go about editing. Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Flyer22, I appreciate the pleasant tone, the friendly, "common sense" advice. Thank you very much. I would love to build a good working relationship with you, so the article becomes much better.
- I wrote you before to explain about "samples". What I wrote you was not that long. The source abstract says in the second sentence: "59 studies based on college samples". Editor WLU may have incorrectly abbreviated this in editing to "several samples" on 9/18/2009. Writing science articles and articles about controversy by volunteers and consensus has its limitations.
- You suggest that I just add the exact number of surveyed individuals (it's 35,703) or add the word "various." Thanks, but that does not help. Study this. Consider this a lesson in statistics.
- Maybe it's like this: you know little about aeronautical engineering, but you offer me friendly advise about how to fix my plane that you are quite confident will be helpful. And I fear that you will damage the plane with your ideas.
- I would make a fool of myself among statisticians and sexologists reading the Wikipedia if I just accepted your kind advise. I could not get away with the excuse that "Flyer22 suggested this in a kindly way, and I wanted to get along with her." It's got to be right! And "several samples" is just wrong. You don't know this. and I know that you don't know this. Are you receptive to learning meta-analysis? Have you read the Rind paper? That should be one of the rules. All editors should read the paper. Do you have a copy?
- It's like this: you are part of a group that is writing an article about the controversy over the Koran. But you have not read the Koran, and you can't read it in it's original language. And you don't want to learn the language. You want to control what the encyclopedia might say, but you don't have to be a Koran scholar to do that.
- It's also like this for me: If I were a surgeon, and I were operating on your mother to save her life, and you "helpfully" gave me some rusty, dirty knives from your garden to perform the surgery, I would refuse to do the operation with those tools. Your offer of your garden knives comes from the heart and is well meant, but your kind offer does not measure up to the surgery standards I have learned that might save your mother's life. I would not let you control what tools I may use to perform the operation. I might want to teach you something about introducing germs and disease during surgery, but you might not be receptive. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make her drink.
- In your paragraph two, I hope you "don't mind if"...WP:Lead specifies that the lead be written "according to reliable, published sources." Here's my bias: There are no good sources for that idea. I don't like the idea because I don't think it is true; it's kind of an urban legend or propaganda that gets repeated over and over, so everyone (including you) believes it. I think that clause contains a guilt by association fallacy for the 6 authors of the meta-analyses and its replication. And for the APA itself. I think the idea might be a delusion, spread, originally and in part, by some of the persons who hate and fear the results of the study.
- Your paragraph three: Who gets to edit this article? Who can join as an editor? Suppose researcher Heather Ulrich joins this editor's discussion, and just suppose she writes you quite emphatically: "Child sexual abuse does not necessarily lead to long-term harm! I am quite emphatic about that. I know this from a lot of research work I did. Get over it, Flyer22.' You feel passionately that "any suggestion that child sexual abuse is not harmful is beyond ludicrous," Is researcher Heather Ulrich beyond ludicrous and unfit to edit this article? Does she get banned as an editor from Wikipedia because she expressed her views? Her research supports Rind. Is that her privilege, or is that "beyond ludicrous"? Are you willing to work with editors whose views on the absence of harm, are "beyond ludicrous'? Or do you let them do a little work and then find some excuse to get rid of them?
- It's like this: suppose I am a passionate believer of a religion, and I announce that any suggestion that my religion is not the one true faith is "beyond ludicrous". Suppose I believe passionately that strong believers in all other religions are "beyond ludicrous" and are best banished from the working group. Am I "fit" to work on an encyclopedia article about religious controversies and wars? Probably not. I would more likely recreate the "religious war "in the working group.
- Truthinwriting's playful speculation about attorneys made me wince a bit. I want to learn the limits of humor here. Do you have any good jokes that push the limits a little less?
- I am still shocked that IP193.169 took the time to cherry pick all my edits out! I am hoping someone else will volunteer to do the restoration work. I don't have much interest in doing it. Trash all my work once, shame on you. Trash my work twice, shame on me. YOu must have had some interesting group history here... I am not interested in edit wars.
- Radvo, you did leave a long reply on my talk page. And, for the record, I am receptive to long replies. Long replies are something that a person should get used to if they are going to edit Wikipedia. It's just that yours, until you were asked to tone down your usual length, are very long. It is a pain to have to reply to such long replies. Just because I can be receptive to them doesn't mean that I always am or look forward to them.
- Yes, adding the exact number or "various" does help. It helps to remove your assertion that "several" is not in the citation given. We use "various" all the time on or off Wikipedia. Just like we use "several" to imply a number that is a little over a few. We don't list every person or example when there are well over just a few. We either state "several," "various" or give the exact number. It has nothing to do with a lesson in statistics. So if you are "[making a fool of yourself] among statisticians and sexologists reading the Wikipedia if [you] just accepted [my] kind advi[c]e," then so is most of Wikipedia and the writing world at large. And maybe WLU added "several" because, as the Meta-analysis article states, "In statistics, a meta-analysis combines the results of several studies that address a set of related research hypotheses." Seriously, what do you suggest we do if we are not to give the exact number or use "several" or "various"? Leave your "not in citation given" qualification in? That is not a solution, and certainly not better than my suggestions. No where did I state that "several samples" is right, but that you would take my objections to your edits to assert that "[I] don't know this" and "y[ou] know that [I] don't know this" and to go on about how unsuitable I am to edit this article because I don't understand this subject is beyond the pale. I'm not even going to answer your questions, since your mind is set on "Flyer22 does not understand this." I suppose my view that child sexual abuse is harmful is because I don't understand that topic either? Hmm. What I will say is this: Editors do not have to be "experts" on any given topic to edit those topics here at Wikipedia, but I understand child sexual abuse (as well as pedophilia) extremely well. You can (and will) believe what you want, however.
- About WP:LEAD, read it...the whole page if you need to. I'm the experienced Wikipedia editor here, unless you aren't as new as you claim to be, and I am letting you know that a piece of information you are trying to get removed from the lead belongs in the lead. WP:LEAD is clear about why. You say "There are no good sources for that idea. I don't like the idea because I don't think it is true." I say WP:Verifiability says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." This information is backed to reliable, published sources. And I don't know why you keep talking down to me, as though I am some under-educated idiot who just "goes with the flow." My belief that "[n]umerous age of consent reform organizations have quoted the paper in support of their efforts to lower or rescind age of consent laws" has nothing to do with believing "urban legend." It has to do with what I have witnessed on forums among pedophiles and those like them advocating for ages of consent to be lowered. I witnessed this with my own eyes. It was not by word of mouth. But of course we go by reliable, published sources here at Wikipedia, not by personal experience.
- Who gets to edit this article? Well, admitted pedophiles do not. So anyone who is a pedophile but does not admit to it or give implication that they are a pedophile while here at Wikipedia, is home free. If researcher Heather Ulrich joins this discussion and says what you suggested, I would emphatically disagree with her, just like the general consensus in the psychological/medical community disagrees, and point out that her personal opinion should have nothing to do with this article. That's the point you seem to be missing. Your personal views about child sexual abuse do not belong here, and neither do mine. If you do not feel that child sexual abuse causes harm, then keep it to yourself, and I will make sure to keep mine to myself as well. I can work with editors of differing opinions just fine, and do so all the time at this site, but I am not willing to work with admitted pedophiles or child sexual abusers...unless they consider child sexual abuse to be wrong. Not all pedophiles are happy to be pedophiles or support child sexual abuse, after all. As for editors who don't believe child sexual abuse causes harm... Well, as long as they are following the Wikipedia policies and guidelines and not injecting their POV, then I can work with them. Your analogy that I am unfit to edit this article because I believe that child sexual abuse causes harm is also beyond the pale. Most people who have edited this article believe that child sexual abuse causes harm, including the current ones...with maybe the exception of you and Truthinwriting. You call Truthinwriting's scenario playful; I call it something else. And I'm not convinced that it made you "wince a bit" when you read it.
- We will not be forming a good working relationship. And if you have to wonder why, all you need to do is look to your response to me above. I will, however, be asking Will Beback and WLU to weigh in here...since this discussion is partly about their edits. Flyer22 (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Flyer22, for your thoughtful response. You have strong opinions about many things, and I respect them. You give us much to think about. I will give more thought to all this.
- Let's deal first with the statistics. Truthinwriting suggested, at the start of this thread, in his (1) above, replacing the contested words "several samples" with this: "58 independent samples of college students containing data on over 15,000 individuals." Legitimus and I agree with Truthinwriting's improvement. I checked my copies of Rind et al., and Truthinwriting is correct. You suggested specific numbers; will those do? Truthinwriting will simply remove/erase the citation tag, as he is replacing the error. Once we agree that the replacement text is properly sourced, the "citation tag" will be removed by the editor, (i.e., Truthinwriting), while making the correction. Does this appropriately deal with concerns about "several samples" and that citation tag? Radvo (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Flyer22, You write: "We either state "several," "various" or give the exact number." Yes, Flyer22, Truthinwriting opted for your last choice; he gives some exact numbers. Fifty nine gives a better idea of the scale of the meta-analysis, and 59 is more than "several". Here is a more correct use of the phrase "several samples." "Several samples" of your responses suggest that you do not know that some editors understand meta-analysis, have read the entire Rind study, and understand its mathematical results. Meta-analysis is a challenging and sophisticated mathematical endeavor; it takes years of math education to work into it. You are surely quite expert in many areas, and your many years of editing here on the Wikipedia could be helpful in advising Truthinwriting whether his suggested edit might make things a little clearer for the average Wikipedia reader. You write very well.
- Here's the shocking part you bring home to me: Truth is not the issue; for Wikipedia, what is paramount are the reliable sources. That's a difficult point for me to accept and use, but I am willing to let you, Flyer22, teach me this about how a Wikipedia editor works. I looked further into this. Of course, Flyer22, you are right. I was arrogant and ignorant to think in my normal way here. I thought from my own observation that when something I personally observe is not true, what I think is false has to come out of the encyclopedia article. Thinking like an encyclopedia editor is different from how a scientist works; the scientist trusts her observations and measurements and goes where the observed data lead. My experience is not a "reliable source" for what gets taken out of a Wikipeida article. Flyer22, you are the long-time, experienced editor, and apparently you know what you are talking about, in Wikipedia matters where you have long experience. I will not progress if I am not more docile and receptive to quality instruction. I failed to see that when I wrote my post above. I apologize for the patronizing and arrogant tone. This 'editor-of-reliable-sources' mode is for me a foreign way of thinking, but I can learn this. Editors of an encyclopedia represent the views of reliable sources. It's not "To thine own self be true." It's be true to the most reliable and mainstream sources. Okay. I hope I learned this correctly from the source you provided. Thank you for raising my consciousness about this. Okay. I cannot immediately cite a reliable source that proves that what is in the Introduction is false. I'll be like a student now, testing out the teacher to see if what I am learning works when the tables are turned around.
- No reliable source is offered that backs up the contested clause in the Introduction! I trust my own experience there!
- The next two paragraphs are NOT about the harmfulness of CSA. That's a contentious, controversial issue, and this issue upsets you. Let's not go there. Repeat: harm to the child from CSA is NOT what the next two paragraphs are about. Please stay with me and narrowly focused.
- This paragraph is just about the claim of a direct connection between Dr. Rind's meta-analysis and age of consent reform advocacy. Flyer22, you wrote above: "This information [about the direct connection between the Rind paper and advocacy for legal reform] is backed to reliable, published sources." The contested clause offers no such reliable sources in the footnotes, (or the page numbers cited are wrong or missing). Most of the full text in the two reliable sources, listed in footnotes 4 and 5, is available on line. The sources are reliable sources in general, but they don't specifically back up what is said in the article's Introduction. There is a difference between being a reliable source in general, and a reliable source backing a specific claim. Please correct me if I missed it. What is the page number in these two reference sources that "backs" up "this information?" Neither of these two sources ever even mentioned the Ipce or MHAMic websites. I challenge the credibility of the editor(s) who provided those sources to support the claim in that clause. Do you know if editors who make claims that cannot be verified in the sources they provide, get banished by administrators for their unreliability or misinformation? We might get some work done here if we clean house of editors who do not back up their claims with reliable sources.
- Three organizations are identified in the article as advocacy organizations, but they are clearly fringe and NOT RELIABLE SOURCES! I looked at the MAHMic and Ipce sites. (Last I checked, this is still a free country, and the two groups are immoral by most peoples' standards, but not illegal organizations.) Well, SURPRISE! They are not age of consent advocacy organizations. Those fringe organizations are documentation services, they list, reference, and document publications and articles. I could not find any trace of evidence on these specific websites of advocacy for legal reform and associating legal change with the Rind study.
- The introduction, IMHO, includes a fallacy called 'guilt by association' for the 6 researchers who authored the 3 studies. The living authors are smeared with the accusation that they exonerate pedophiles. I gave a psychologist Carol Tarvis quote to support this claim of a peodphile advocacy smear, but the reliable source was removed with all my other edits. Where is the reliable source for that libel? Wikipedia itself? So, there is a BLP issue here, too.
- I challenge any claim that NAMBLA uses the Rind study to support its political advocacy (in the Wikipedia Introduction) because the claim is not supported by a reliable source, as Wikipedia defines one. Flyer22 (above) teaches us that truth is not as important as supplying a reliable source. She teaches a hard lesson to swallow, but it's the correct lesson. Maybe I willl file a complaint with administration that certain past editors are unreliable and incompetent; they make claims that are not supported with reliable sources. It's still wrong even if it is done by consensus in this article.
- How am I doing, Flyer22? Did I learn the specific lesson about truth vs. reliable sources well? I'm a grade grubber. Can I get an "A"? If I don't yet get an A, can I do some "makeup work" to improve my grade? For extra credit, how about if I get a former editor or two banned for making unverifiable claims? Can I get an A+ then? I have to do a few banishments before I can join the gang. What's my next lesson, teacher? I am receptive enough to learning from a long time expert? Any chance that I someday can earn some of the many stars you have on your user page? The many stars you have on your personal page make you look very good. Do you think I can eventually become an administrator, too, someday? Shoot for the stars.
- Aside # 1, in response to Flyer22: About kids and harm.... For the record: sexual abuse, physical abuse, verbal abuse, child abandonment, child neglect, rape are wrong and harmful. I saw on the TV that at least 30,000 little kids died untimely deaths while their families were escaping from starvation in Somalia, and fleeing to Kenya, this year. For those kids, their untimely death was harmful. None of those kids will get any holiday gifts this year! They are dead. Many kids were abandoned during flight to die alone. Billions of kids on earth, live on less than one dollar a day for everything! A billion is a thousand million. Such extreme poverty is harmful to billions of kids! Few are so mathematically challenged that they do not understand billions! Such untimely death and extreme poverty for "several samples" of children is wrong. And all those millions of abortions harmed the fetuses. The harm to the fetuses could clearly be measured! But no need for a study; the harm is "common sense." And divorce causes a lot of measurable harm for children, too. The harm can be documented in reliable published sources. All this harm is wrong, All this harm to children upsets me very much. I'll keep this conservative moral stance mostly to myself. I shared this in case Flyer22 was wondering...
- Aside # 2: Regarding something else Flyer22 wrote above, yes, I have heard that USA media personality, Dan Savage, has labeled pedophiles who never offend as "Gold Star Pedophiles." Does anyone use that, or a similar phrase, on Wikipedia for pedophiles who live within the law and accept society's moral norms in their private, sexual lives? The term, IMHO, is patronizing; it's like saying, "She's one of the few blacks who might be considered a credit to the Negroid race," but the concept of a "Gold Star pedophile" does introduce the public to a new concept, too. That's an idea for a new Wikipedia page. But I want to keep out of these fringe asides; I want to focus my energy, for now, on improving this Rind article.
- OK, there's a lot of material, but if I understand aright, one of the disputes is over the use of the word "several". Well "several" is a common enough English term with a fairly well understood meaning. I know what it means. You (Radvo) know what it means. If I'm getting this right, it also has a technical meaning in statistics, or else no meaning in statistics and is thus abjured by statisticians. Fine. But this is not a statistics journal. It's a general-purpose encyclopedia. Lots of common English terms also have technical scientific meanings. We can still use them in their plain meaning. We can write "The political situation in 1623 was in flux" and if someone objects "Flux has a precise meaning, and the statement means that the political situation in 1623 was undergoing a certain rate of transfer of energy through some surface, which makes no sense, and anyway is not useful if the exact transfer rate is not given", this is pedantry and not helpful.
- I don't have a strong opinion on replacing "several" with some precise number, but I don't see that as necessarily improving comprehension, and so I'm OK with keeping "several". If the objection is that the number of studies is too large to be reasonably described as "several" that's possibly reasonable I suppose. I haven't seen that as being the objection, though.
- But by no means should the statement be tagged with "not in citation" marker, for a couple of reasons. First of all, it's not true that it's not in the citation (after all, Rind did analyze several studies, and indicated this in the paper) and since it's not true we probably shouldn't say it. Second of all, what a reader would take away from this would likely be "Oh, not several, must have been just one, or perhaps one or two". So it's misleading and for this reason I've removed it. Herostratus (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the number of (other researchers') studies and the number of samples in Rind et al's controversial 1998 paper is too large to be reasonably described as "several." Flyer22 wrote that Wikipedia's generic article on Meta-analysis uses the word "several"; that use may have been the source of WLU's error; see quote below. The number 58. and a few other numbers Truthinwriting proposes, are genuinely helpful, and improve accuracy and comprehension for all. Fifty eight also gives the ordinary reader some idea of the scale of the (atypically) large 1998 meta-analysis. You express a bit of uncertainty in your second last sentence above. Please see Truthinwriting's # 1 and 2 above. Rind & Tromovitich did publish a related meta-analysis, in a different journal, the year before. That other meta-analysis was smaller, similar in results, was not the primary focus of the controversy, and the subjects in the ten samples/studies were not U.S. college students. So, it's true that Rind did publish two similar meta-analyses in different journals, one in '97 and one in '98. That is all quite clear in Truthinwriting's proposed revision above. The word "several" in the first paragraph of this Wikipedia article, however, does not refer to these two different Rind meta-analyses. "Several samples" imprecisely refers to 58 student samples (culled form 59 studies) used in Rind's 1998 meta-analysis. Flyer22 suggested above that the Wikipedia may have been the source of the mistaken use of "several" by editor WLU: Flyer22 wrote: "And maybe WLU added "several" because, as the Meta-analysis article states, "In statistics, a meta-analysis combines the results of several studies that address a set of related research hypotheses." Who knows how this mistake was introduced into this article, but "several samples" is definitely misleading and wrong! Wikipedia desearves much better. It would have been easier and less laborious to get these simple numbers right in the article the first time, than for me to explain to you concisely the complexities of the mistake and how the correction should be made. Truthinwriting understands all this, and has made an excellent proposal. Radvo (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Radvo (talk) 23:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oh OK, well it wasn't clear that this was the objection. Wiktionary, the free dictionary, gives one of the definitions of "several" as "Consisting of a number more than two or three but not very many". Whether 58 is "very many" or not depends on the context I guess, but it's a pretty big number I guess. This all kind of seems like semantic nitpicking to me, but if you feel it's important, OK. I changed "several" to "a number of", this is OK with me and hopefully everyone is happy now? Herostratus (talk) 04:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- Herostratus: The objection to "several samples" was discussed by Truthinwritng, Legitmus, Flyer22, and me for days in multiple locations, here on the TALK page, and we already have agreement on some replacement text. Your insertion was made without consulting with those 4 editors who are working on this. Nor did you check with me since I placed the Tag there and gave detailed reasons for the insertion in this TALK page above. See numbered items at the beginning of this thread. We are happy to include your best ideas into the group decision. But I feel you have ignored some of my concerns above. Here again are three of them:
- "A number" underestimates 59; the number of studies 59 and the number of samples (58) are too large to be reasonably described as "a number".
- "A number" misleads the esteemed reader of the Wikipedia about the extent of the coverage of the professional literature included in the 1998 meta-analysis, and,
- as the citation tag that you prematurely removed correctly noted, "several samples" and "a number of" do not accurately reflect both the full text and the abstract of the Source in footnote 1. The source says something other than what Herostratus inserted into the article. Herostratus removed that citation tag, removed the incorrect text and replaced it with text that did not respond to my detailed objections above. I feel ignored and disrespected by your removal of the tag without replacing the text properly. The Wikipedia is not well served by this.
- The Wiktionary, the semantic nitpicking, and 'what I feel is important' are all less relevant, as none of these are the source in the footnote 1. (Flyer22 has been most graciously been teaching me about Sourcing.) What does the source say? Legitimus, Truthinwriting, and I have already agreed that some of the text in the numbered items above reflects what should be placed into the article from the Source. Can you cite a page in the source that justifies your insertion of "a number" over the text we have already agreed on (except, we have no final response yet from Flyer22).
- BTW Footnote 1 offers the on-line abstracts from APA PsychNET & PubMed.gov. The suggestion proposed at the start of this thread is better supported by the 2nd sentence in both abstracts in the footnote: "59 studies based on college samples". Click on the numbers at the end of footnote 1. We are glad to read that you hope that everyone in this discussion will be happy with the final edit. More important, however, than everyone being happy is: are we agreed that the text of the article accurately reflects the source? The Wikipedia is well served with an accurate and well sourced exposition, and some awareness of, attentiveness to group consensus.
- Radvo (talk) 08:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- Herostratus: The objection to "several samples" was discussed by Truthinwritng, Legitmus, Flyer22, and me for days in multiple locations, here on the TALK page, and we already have agreement on some replacement text. Your insertion was made without consulting with those 4 editors who are working on this. Nor did you check with me since I placed the Tag there and gave detailed reasons for the insertion in this TALK page above. See numbered items at the beginning of this thread. We are happy to include your best ideas into the group decision. But I feel you have ignored some of my concerns above. Here again are three of them:
- Radvo, I don't see "a number of" as problematic, and, like Herostratus, your objections to "various" and "a number of" seem like semantic nitpicking to me as well. "Several," for example, doesn't have to be in a source for us to use it to describe seven or more researchers. But I agree that "several" is not a good use in this case, and I've already gone over the fact that "[w]e don't list every person or example when there are well over just a few. We either state 'several,' 'various' or give the exact number." So, yes, "58 independent samples of college students containing data on over 15,000 individuals" works for me too. As for what I stated about "several samples," again it has nothing to do with my not understanding meta-analysis. It is not a meta-analysis issue. I get that it is for you, but...
- Moving on: Truth is an issue for Wikipedia, which is why that part of the line of WP:Verifiability is currently contested (as seen with its "under discussion" tag). It's just that reliable sourcing and keeping people from objecting to things because they don't like it are more important.
- If we take away the "age of consent" part that is in the lead and lower part of the article, there is still the matter of the fact that pedo-advocacy websites have used the Rind study to argue that child sexual abuse does not cause harm. Some of those very people used to edit Wikipedia before they were blocked and/or banned. We would also get random pedo-pushing editors (IPs or registered) citing Rind as their proof that child sexual abuse does not cause harm. And this is also the reason that the Rind study is even at the MHAMIC website.
- I never said that I was a "long time expert." I said "experienced Wikipedia editor."
- No, editors who add material that does not support their text are not blocked/banned, unless they have a significant history of doing so. Sometimes, adding sources that don't support the text can be an "accident," after all. But after a certain number of these "accidents," the editor can be deemed harmful to the project and then blocked/banned.
- There's nothing wrong with "a number". Unlike "several" no effective upper limit is implied. "Most stars in the Milky Way are type M or K, but there are a number of type G stars as well" is a perfectly acceptable and normal sentence where "a number of" means "many millions". "A number of jellyfish have washed up on the California coast recently" or "Most species that have existed are now extinct, but a number are still extant"; here "a number" means many thousands. So hmmm, what do you want? Myriad? Plethora? Whatever it is, you can't always get exactly what you want, so why not accept the reasonable compromise of "a number of", OK? (If, on the other hand, it is actually true that we "already have agreement on some replacement text" then why are we talking about this? Simply use the text that everyone has agreed on!). Herostratus (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- Herostratus: Thanks for your reasonable and, in the end, conciliatory contribution to this discussion. You certainly do know your words. By your suggesting, "simply use the text that everyone has agreed on!" may we assume that, since a number of editors already agree, we have your agreement, too? The 'citation tag' from the first paragraph is gone. I don't want to annoy with such tags, but to invite discussion, as above. As you write, when we can't get exactly the words we want into an article, we negotiate a reasonable compromise. No problem. I hope to return your concession sometime. Thanks again.
- Flyer22: You're "experienced," not "expert." That's cute; charming humility. Page 3 from the Joesf Spiegel book (footnote 4) is, IMHO, an "accident"; it sources nothing.
- Science is argued in court and used by fringe groups. So how exactly does that fact belong in this article?
- Regarding the appeal to Common sense to support any claim. I don't think common sense is used much in court or by fringe groups. How does common sense belong in this article? The introduction to Wikipedia's article on common sense, curiously and shockingly, states: "Often ideas that may be considered to be true by common sense are in fact false." Courts and fringe groups need stronger arguments than an appeal to common sense, and so does this article.
- Truthinwriting: Herostratus suggests we proceed. Are you ready with the proposed adjustments to the Into.? Radvo (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Section break
I just made four edits as per my TALK posting a week ago.
(1) Re: "several". Although "a number of" or similar wording is an improvement over "several", it still carries an implication of "not that many, at least, relatively speaking". The example of G-type stars is a good example, because is shows that in comparison to type M & K stars, relatively speaking, there are few G-type stars. Rind et al. used nearly 100% of the extent college-sample studies, their search of the literature was nearly exhaustive (regrettably, I suspect my source for this was one of their talks, rather than the paper itself). Although discussions may still be ongoing, since it sounds like there is no serious objection to using the exact numbers from the article I have edited them in as I proposed a week ago.
(2) I didn't notice any objections to (2), though perhaps they were waiting for a decision on (1) to be made first. In any case, I did add the parallel information on the national meta-analysis, as proposed.
(3) I didn't notice any objections to (3). I adjusted the wording as proposed.
(4) I didn't notice any objections to (4). I adjusted the wording as proposed.
Those four items constitute the editing changes I made today.
Regarding (5: numerous age of consent reform organizations / attorney usage): I still think the current wording is problematic for reasons presented earlier. I am now wondering if a complete rewrite with that basic info included might be a better way to go vis-a-vis consensus among us? This is just off-the-top-of-my-head, but perhaps something like: "After publication of the Rind et al. findings, there has been concern that the paper would be used by organizations that wish to change the age of consent laws (e.g., to lower the legal age of consent or to eliminate an age of consent for willing sexual relationships). Additionally there has been concern that the article would be misused in court to argue that little or no harm occurred, when in fact harm likely did occur in a given case before the court." That wording probably needs work, but perhaps this way we can get away from some of the problems that have been being discussed.
Regarding (6: moving Ulrich replication higher into the Intro): I still think this is a good idea, but I am waiting for the dust to settle on (5) first. :-) Truthinwriting (talk) 07:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Truthinwriting: That was a fantastic contribution. I hope I am not opening up 'a can of worms' with this point for my own clarification. I have been confused by the words "samples" and "studies," and maybe others are, too. My apologies to everyone for my confusion. There were 59 usable college studies, and that was what I was writing about for the first sentence, but Truthinwriing correctly summarizes, in the very first sentence, that there were 58 independent samples used to calculate the effect sizes, one of the controversial results. I am correct is claiming there were 59 studies and thought the reader should be informed of that in the first sentence. And Truthinwiting's sample numbers for the calculation of the effect sizes are correct: 18 male samples and 40 female samples = 58 samples. There were 59 usable college student studies gathered from the scholarly literature vs, 58 independent samples used to produce the effect size result that was the focus of the controversy. Truthinwriting summarized that samples used for the effect size calculation in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article. Did I get this now right about the 58 samples and the 59 studies? Maybe this first sentence needs further revision to clarify 'study" and "sample" for the reader.
- Truthinwriting writes in (1) above: "Rind et al. used nearly 100% of the extent college-sample studies, their search of the literature was nearly exhaustive (regrettably, I suspect my source for this was one of their talks, rather than the paper itself)."
- Let's first clear up the confusion here about the words "samples" and "studies." "Samples" and "studies" are NOT the same thing! A rough calculation of the number of samples in the various calculations is actually over 250. See the bulleted list showing numbers of samples below; I just added up the number of samples in that list. Was that correct? The actual number of samples is not very useful information, except that is was more than "several" or "a number of" them. The extent of the search for other researchers' studies is more interesting for the reader and can be adequately sourced on page 27 of the 1998 Rind paper (footnote 1). This information is not yet included in the introduction, but it is a simple fact that readers understand. Maybe "59 studies" should be included in the early part of the introduction. It might also be pointed out that the 59 studies were not done by researchers who were advocates of age of consent reform, and the research was not done by self identified pedophiles. The 59 studies Rind collected reflected the biases of the CSA industry; he stripped away the rhetoric and looked at their numbers. I always thought that was kind of important information: what is the source, and what were the possible biases in the numbers in the 59 studies that Rind meta-analysed? You gotta believe that not a single one of the 59 studies in this meta-analysis were produced by any of the three named pedophile advocacy organizations! The whole CSA industry was humiliated when all of their research produced between 1966 and 1995 yielded the results Rind found. That's millions of dollars in grant sponsored research that was confronted by a single meta-analyses! The CSA industry was taken aback, and there was a lot of cognitive dissonance!
- Maybe, for additional accuracy and detail, Truthinwriting could somewhere insert the specific time window of the literature search; the 1998 Rind study included a search for other researchers' studies dated from 1966 or 1974 to 1995 that could be found with the named search engines. Since the Wikipedia article is being updated now in 2011, it is more precise to note that none of the (college student) studies published in 1996 or later were included in the 1998 meta-analysis. Rind et al. could not include research studies that were not yet published when they completed the research work published in 1998. I also don't know, off hand, if any (college student) studies were included in Rind 1998 that were dated before 1966. Minor point.
- Here is a direct quotation from page 27 of the 1998 Rind et al. Meta-analysis (footnote 1) that demonstrates the inclusiveness of the search to find the 59 studies: Other researchers' "Studies were obtained by conducting computerized database searches of PsycLIT from 1974 to 1995, Sociofile from 1974 to 1995, PsycInfo from 1967 to 1995, Dissertation Abstracts International up to 1995, and ERIC from 1966 to 1995. ... Reference lists of all obtained studies were read to locate additional studies." So, Truthinwriting's use of the word "nearly" is better understood here in the original source, and it refers to the number of other researchers' studies, not the 250+ samples used for the calculations. (BTW, The full text of the 1998 study is available at several different URL's on line.)
- By including 21 unpublished doctoral level graduate dissertations and 2 unpublished masters level theses in the 1998 Rind study, controversy was created. The critics seemed to say the authors of Rind 1998 included too many studies dated within the time window of 1966 to 1995. This controversy, over the inclusion of the 21 doctoral dissertations and 2 Master's level (and Rind's defense of their inclusion), should also be included later on in Wikipedia's description in the controversy section. Is there an editor lurking here who would volunteer to further research on-line this controversy about the inclusion of the doctoral and masters theses (i.e., stduies) and make a suggested addition of this aspect of the controversy for this article? For starters, I quote from page 27 the Rind 1998 paper: "Applying the above criteria produced 59 usable studies .., consisting of 36 published studies, 21 unpublished dissertations, and 2 unpublished master's theses."(36 + 21 + 2 = 59)
- Neither Truthinwriting's summary, nor the lengthy discussion here (e.g., the relative number of g type stars, of the phrases "several samples" and "a number of") adequately captures the extent of either the 59 studies or the 250 + samples, the complexity and the vast coverage of this research. That part of the TALK above was, so far, IMHO a tempest in a teapot; spending lots of time and energy on such TALK chases away as editors, scholars, sexologists, and statisticians who have read and understood this Rind 1998 report. Busy professionals don't want to discuss this with passionate editors who have not read and understood this report, who don't understand that the number of studies (59) is different from the number of samples used in the most controversial study (58) and the total number of samples (250+). Some editors are more interested in the power to redact contributions that do not fit their control of the agenda to make sure that everything here is politically correct. Scientists and statisticians cannot do the reading for those who refuse to read themselves, and confuse the number of samples with the number of studies. If Wikipedia is doing an article about the controversy around a politically incorrect study, then the reader deserves an accurate and NPOV exposition of its politically incorrect results. The source of the 59 studies might also be pointed out: what journals were producing these studies. None of these 59 studies were originally published in Paidika, the Journal of Pedophilia, so we know that pedophile bias was not included in these studies. The numbers reflect the biases of the mainstream publications, and they did not like the results when the politically correct rhetoric was stripped away from the numbers.
- I do see the possibility of including Herostratus's fantastic skill with words to capture some of this bias, complexity, and extent of the coverage in the 1998 study. If Herostratus were willing to contribute further to this paragraph, I would ask him to convey some of this complexity of the samples and extent of the coverage of the studies in a sentence or two.
- (BTW, and as noted above, I believe Truthinwriting presents in his sentence in the first paragrpha only one aspect of this complex study. For reference, I have underlined below that sentence Truthinwriting summarized in the very first paragraph. Did I understand what Truthinwriting was summarizing correctly?) I quote again from Rind 1998. I was focusing with my "citation tag" on conveying the idea that there were 59 usable studies found in the literature search; and all of these studies were from the mainstream journals in the CSA field. Truthinwriting is focused on something else: the result that I underlined in the bulleted list below. Quote from Rind 1998: "These (59) studies yielded
- 70 independent samples for estimating prevalence rates,
- 54 independent samples for computing 54 sample-level and 214 symptom-level effect sizes,
- 21 independent samples that provided retrospectively recalled reaction data,
- 10 independent samples that provided data on current reflections, and
- 11 independent samples that provided data on self-reported effects.
- Prevalence rates were based on 35,703 participants (13,704 men and 21,999 women).
- Effect size data for psychological correlates were based on 15,824 participants (3,254 men from 18 SAMPLES and 12,570 women from 40 Samples). (This calculation is summarized in the first paragraph, as the result of this calculation may have been the most controversial. Do I understand the inclusion of this "58" in the very first paragraph correctly?)
- Reaction and self-reported effects data were based on 3,136 participants (783 men from 13 samples and 2,353 women from 14 samples)."
- I want to again credit the experienced editor Flyer22 for helping me to learn this matter of verifiability, in the published source, by leading me to the correct source for information. I want to give credit where credit is due. Thanks Flyer22.
- Regarding (5) above. That suggested text is brilliant, and insightful! But I am going to call you on that for use here as it may be too original. You may be stating your very thoughtful clinical understanding of the underlying issues as facts that can be sourced in mainstream publications. This brilliant summary of the underlying issues should NOT be stated in Wikipedia's voice, Truthinwriting would do well as a brilliant psychotherapist to capture the underlying meanings, rather than teaching research methods. Rather, something like this should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where true and justified, described as widespread views. Please develop and publish such insightful arguments somewhere else; sorry but no original insights may be allowed here. This may not be the time and place for such thoughtful insights, I imagine your suggestion could be very therapeutic for some readers. There is so much less controversial and more basic work that can be done to genuinely improve this article in the near future. Here you can offer a more acceptable contribution if you can supply the arguments for your opponent.
- Something like this (that follows) might be more easily sourced. I hope I am not bending over backwards too far that I annoy you, too: "There has been widespread concern, on radio talk shows, in small ringht wing advocacy and professional organizations, in newspaper and magazine articles, and even into the U.S, Congress. Critics feared that the Rind et al publications could be used to advocate effectively for some change in the age of consent laws. Deep concern was expressed about the possible injustice for the victim of CSA, and that the controversial results of the Rind studies would be misused, without appropriate skepticism, in court and with juries, to further harm the victims of CSA." (cite many sources.) Someone please shorten that "off the cuff" remark for me, Radvo (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Truthinwriting: Please see Writing for your opponent That will keep you out of POV troubles. I revised some of my previous post above. 06:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Following are some quick thoughts/responses to the above.
Samples versus Studies: A researcher might collect multiple samples (e.g., male and female; college and community and prison) but publish the research as a single article. In this case there is one study, but more than one sample. A researcher might collect one sample, but publish multiple articles based on the data. In this case there is one sample, but more than one study. Generally, scientists want to know the number of independent samples, not the number of publications.
In casual writing, "studies" and "samples" are often used interchangeably, but perhaps we should be more specific.
A note on "independent" samples: If a researcher collects some data (1 sample) and publishes results, then collects more data in the same way and adds it to the prior data set (still 1 sample, but now it has a larger N), then the two samples (the earlier one and the larger later one) are not independent because there is overlap in their makeup. In general, non-independent samples are extremely problematic to deal with, since data that was in the earlier waves will be over represented if the non-independent samples are combined.
Additional note on the meaning of independent in Rind et al.: The above bulleted list looks correct (but I did not check it), but note that the independence is by bullet. A given sample may have been used in different analyses (e.g., compared with controls for the main meta-analysis, and used again for tabulating retrospectively recalled reaction data). Thus the 250+ number sounds too large and might be confusing. However, to capture the scope of the Rind et al. analyses, listing the totals separately, as in the above bulleted list, might be good.
College studies prior to 1966: I believe there was exactly one. Landis (1956). Rind et al. were criticized for including it. I believe more information on the Landis study and the controversy should be added to the page, but I have not started to work on that yet (but hope to within the foreseeable future).
Controversy over using so many studies and/or dissertations: I don't recall there being any controversy over this, or perhaps I just missed it. That they went to the trouble of collecting all the dissertations and theses and including them, and statistically comparing the results of the published versus unpublished research, is great. This information might be good to add somewhere, but I don't recall it being part of the controversy. Hence my quick thought is, do we want it in the Intro or Findings in Brief section? I always lean toward more information is better, hence I think adding it to the Intro is a good idea.
Re: comment on (5) above: As I wrote that quick possible replacement text, I realized I didn't have any sources for it. Perhaps that is a problem; if so, we are back to deletion as the way to go. Something like you wrote (Radvo?) above is fine too, with a little adjustment, but might be hard to source as well. Nevertheless, the controversy probably would not have occurred if people were not worried about some sort of changes occurring, hence there must be some sources somewhere. I'll keep my eyes open. Truthinwriting (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Truthinwriting, for the helpful response above. Truthinwriting's distinguishes between "independent sample," "sample," and "study.". Let's not use the words "study" and "sample" interchangeably. The distinction between "sample" and "independent sample" is important, too. I foolishly counted 250 samples, but I figure now, from what you wrote, that the samples are not independent of all the samples in the entire list, despite the fact that the word "independent" was right in front of the word "samples'. The number of "independent samples" in each bulleted line means independent of other samples within the same bulleted line. Truthinwriting's words clarify things for me a lot. Thanks again.
- My quick impression about Landis, J. (1956). Experiences of 500 children with adult sexual deviation. Psychiatric Quarterly Supplement, 30, 9
- Yes, Truthinwriting, I do remember now your edit about the Landis (1956) study; Landis (1956) is relevant to the controversy. Your edit was improperly removed from the article for flimsy. unrelated reasons (like you were just a new editor, and your Wikipedia name had "Truth" in it! Give me a break!). You added this, IMHO, excellent and verifiable edit to the article on November 30th:
- "The researchers [Rind et al 1998] were later criticized (see below) for including an old study by Landis (1956). If that study is removed, the percentage of males who report that their CSA experience was positive exceeds 50% with over 75% reporting positive or neutral reactions to the sexual experience."
- Your edit is NPOV, verifiable and IS part of the controversy. Maybe there are people who lurk here who feel such a statement is deeply troubling for them, and it should be censored, and that you are an unfit editor for reporting the result of that calculation. This is the game of "Who gets to control the words and the discourse around here?" Such an offended editor may call in Herostratus to do the dirty work of removing your edit and making up some irrelevant reason for the removal that you quietly accept. They will not be supported by administration in their efforts at censorship, so they make up other silly reasons. Maybe you could write your edit in a way that is less offensive to sensitive ears: that the Rind critic(s) who objected to the inclusion of Landis (1956) did not get the change in the results that they were expecting. The critic(s) may have been more interested in getting the results they wanted. and when that didn't happen, they wanted to forget about Landis (1956). Maybe they want you to forget about Landis too, and not bring it up in the article again. But this article is about the history of the controversy, and the objection to Landis is part of the history and should somehow be included. That the results didn't turn out the way the critic wanted should be included, too. This is an encyclopedia, not the extension of some advocacy group! The fact is that this controversy makes the researchers associated with it look bad. There are long sections in the current article that make Rind et al. look stupid for all their alleged statistical and methodological mistakes; never mind that they effectively answered all the criticisms in 2001. They don't control the discourse here; they control the discourse in the scholarly journals. Maybe some philosophy of Habermas is relevant here. Are there any editors lurking here who see how Habermas is relevant? All of this is part of the controversy and should be presented in NPOV. Landis (1956) was part of the controversy, and your excellent edit should be returned to the article, in some non-offensive way, as soon as it can be sourced with page number. The history here shows disruptive redacting in this article that needs to be brought under control with appropriate application of rules and policies, probably with administrative help.
- This all makes me feel like the kids today who are bullied in school, and there is little the bullied kids can do alone to stop the bullies.
- My memory is that Rind et al. themselves did that particular re-calculation, i.e., without the Landis data, and published the results of the recalculation in a peer review journal in one of the brilliant, well-argued responses. I don't have time to look for the source and page number just now. Truthinwriting's edit about Landis (1956) was improperly removed from the article without giving the editor a reasonable time to find the source and page number for it. This was unfair, but we need to better understand what is possible here. That edit should be promptly returned in some inoffensive way to the article with the source and page number in an appropriate place. Maybe I might put the two sentences about the Landis study together for better coherence and more effective impact. Below, in the Wikipedia article, we already find this sentence:
- "In regard to the Landis study, Rind et al.[1998] note that it has been used by many other sex researchers (e.g., Finkelhor, Fishman, Fromuth & Burkhart, Sarbo, and others) as an example of an early study about child sexual abuse."
- There may be real problem going on here about what an editor may write. Maybe, because some things are just too upsetting for some readers, an editor can't write in an article: "The calculation of the data without the Landis data showed that the percentage of boys, who report that their sexual experience with the older male was positive, exceeds 50%." Maybe reporting something like that is something like those who are unable to listen to any kind of racism or holocaust denial. An editor may not say something, even if the calculations says it is true, that lurkers here feel is so terrible that an editor may not say it. I am guessing that maybe an editor may not report a scientific finding that half the boys in the meta-analysis (without the Landis study included in the data) report that their sexual experience with an adult was positive. So, if this speculation is correct, just don't say that for now. Dumb in down somehow, so some people are not offended. The protracted argument about "several samples" and "a number of" is instructive and may be a metaphore for this larger issue of what words an editor might use to describe her reality and the facts. I think I am getting the message. Herostratus, and the people who support his dirty work, want control over how clearly you can report on the Rind controversy here. The dictate the words you may use, and you submit. Maybe we can push the limits, and still make the article better. And they will tolerate our work, esp. if we attract other editors who, at least, have read and understand the Rind paper and are familiar with the controversy. It won't be easy to hold onto our own words and our own experience of reality, but we may be able to find some way work with Herostratus, and to avoid offending the persons who are sensitive. Meanwhile, let's do what we can, with what we have, to genuinely improve this article, and carefully follow the rules. I accept, support, and want to work within the child protection policy here at Wikipedia. I do not want to make trouble for anyone. I am not here to hurt or offend anyone. I hope we can negotiate some middle ground to make this article intelligent, inoffensive and interesting.
- The source and page number is not given by the editor who contributed that earlier Landis edit. My impression is that that edit could also easily be sourced, and with page number. But that is probably not necessary if it is not challenged. So the inclusion of the old Landis study is already recognized in the Wikipedia article as part of the controversy. Herostratus, and another editor here, simply wanted you to cite the page numbers in your "Findings in Brief" section. Once you did that, for the "Findings in Brief" edit, your great new section was not removed from the article. That is, IMHO, a fair request, and sets a high standard of verification for this article about a controversy, a high standard that has been missing. Maybe we have some rules here that all might follow equally. Rule: Do not write facts or use words that genuinely upset people. Cite page number(s) in your source or have your edit challenged as unverified or unverifiable (with a citation tag), and possibly have your edit removed (not immediately) after a specified period of time (two months?) after being challenged. This article about the controversy will improve if every challenged or controversial statement is properly sourced with page number(s). There is some existing material in this article that could be challenged and removed if the editor who contributed the material is unable or unwilling to provide the page number in the reliable source, after a reasonable period of time (two months?). This article will benefit from such an aggressive approach to sourcing, if it is applied evenhandedly. I wonder if that is possible. What do the other editors think of this suggestion for a rule here?
- About the inclusion of doctoral desertations and theses in Rind (1998): off the top of my head. Ray Fowler, then president of the APA, said the Rind 1998 study had passed peer review and was published in the Psych. Bulletin. That standard was enough, and his Gold Standard. So the critics responded that, in effect, if being peer reviewed and published in a prestigious journal are the Gold standard, then the dissertations and theses were not up to the Fowler standard because these were reviewed by the respective psychology departments at the various universities, and that is not peer review! So the critic(s) were applying the Fowler standard to the dissertations and claimed that Rind et al. (1998) should not have included the unpublished dissertations at all because they were not up to that peer review standard. This critique of including the dissertations, as part of the Rind controversy, can be verified and sourced for the Wikipedia article, with page number.
- This next is off the top of my head, too. We can play the game of "That is too offensive for me to read in this article", too. I may test a bit to see if that is the game that is being played here. I don't have the time to source this now, and will retract this if I am proven to be wrong with url's, sources and page numbers. So, also in response to Ray Fowler's gold standard for an acceptable article, a false rumor was spread right here on Wikipedia, in this very article, that the Rind et al. 1998 article was first refused for publication by the Psych Bulletin and Rind et al. were refused the right to resubmit after revision. So in effect, the rumor was saying that the Rind article did not measure up to Fowler's standard; the first set of Psych Bulletin reviewers. according to this false rumor, may have indeed thought of it as unworthy of publication. So, the false rumor has it that, the paper was rejected for publication, and only by trickery did it get published. I found that slander and its publication here on Wikipedia, in violation of BLP policy, offensive. Where's the moral panic button? Beep Beep The false rumor here had it that the article was resubmitted and accepted at the Psych Bulletin, but only after new editors took over at the Psych Bulletin, and then the article was accepted after a second peer review. I checked with Dr. Rind himself about this false rumor in this Wikipedia article some time ago, and he denied it. He said he submitted the 1998 article, and it was accepted in the normal way (with revisions, as the peer reviewers requested. It was the questioning from the peer reviewers that led Rind et al. to suggest that he recommend that the construct of CSA be tightened up to improve its "validity"). (BTW, Dr. Rind also told me he did not attend the December 1999 Rotterdam pedophile conference as falsely mentioned in this article; that false rumor spread here to discredit his scientific neutrality is sourced by an otherwise unreliable e-mail newsletter by a tiny, intensely-hated-here, fringe group in Holland. If it is not true and if it is not properly sourced, then the libel, if offensive, should be taken out.) And the Dr. Laura libel is repeated in this article without giving her exact radio quote. The libel should be in Dr. Laura's exact words, not some Wikipedia editor's reformulation of the libel. I find all of that in this article offensive. The standard around here may be: what is offensive to some editor should be taken out. The Wikipedia editor(s) responsible for adding false rumors and libel to this Wikipedia article can easily be investigated and identified. Flyer22 advises us above that sourcing "accidents" like this happen, but they become a problem when "accidents" like this are repeated as a pattern."I am offended by what you write", so you who offend me are unfit to edit and have to go. The end result might be that we all have the power to get things removed from the article because we are offended. Is that the result we want? Hmmmm I'd rather that we come to a mutual understanding here that the creation of "moral panic" is immoral.
- This alleged effort by editors of this aricle to discredit Rind et al. with false rumor and libel, in violation of the BLP policies,should be reported in this article. These libels here on Wikipedia are part of the controversy. If a NPOV account of this controversy are redacted, I would like to see the reason that justifies the redaction.
- None of these efforts to discredit Rind can contradict the simple fact Heather Ulrich et al. replicated the study in 2005, and came up with the identical results. I am delighted to read that you see the importance of including the Ulrich replication in the Introduction. This controversy may be put into perspective with transparancy, decency, and the scientific method, not with censorship, libel and false rumor. The question of timing may be crucial. I could use ideas and some help. Are there lurkers here who have something constructive to contribute? Radvo (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Radvo, I don't know what you mean about the common sense part of your statement. I was responding to what you said about sexual abuse, physical abuse, verbal abuse, child abandonment, child neglect, and rape all being harmful. It's common sense that all these things are harmful. And, yes, common sense is often used in courtrooms...such as with jurors piecing together a circumstantial evidence case. And I've already explained to you why pedophiles supporting the Rind study belongs in the lead and in the lower part of the article. It is a significant aspect of this controversy...that some pedophile groups saw it as validation that their actions were not harming children. That is not original research, but fact. Fix the wording and/or take care of the sources, if problematic, and leave it in the article. If by "CSA industry," you mean all the researchers against child sexual abuse, I don't see how they were "humiliated when all of their research produced between 1966 and 1995 yielded the results Rind found." No, the were offended by Rind. Not embarrassed because Rind proved them wrong.
- Truthinwriting, "a number of" does not carry the implication of "not that many," as explained by Herostratus. But that's fixed now, so...
- To you both, I am out of this discussion. Refer to Herostratus or Legitimus for changes you think are likely to be contested. Flyer22 (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Right, "a number" is OK. It's already a compromise from "several" which IMO was already OK, but whatever. "A number" just means "some number" and there's not implication of quantity; if you don't like the stars then consider the jellyfish, and anyway please don't claim consensus when there isn't. Let's leave it at that, OK? The effect of the edit there and the "designed to be nationally representative" bit (also redacted) have the effect of valorizing Rind et al and that's not where we want to be going here. The other edits are OK I guess. Herostratus (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- If we wanted to denigrate, defame, attack the reputation of, deny the importance, or diss the validity of this study and its authors, "A number is ok" There is no consensus about trashing this article as a team. You work have been working alone on your own agenda... "a number" would be fine, "several samples" would be better if we want to show our contempt for these brilliant mathematical studies. But trashing this study in the introduction is not where the consensus of the editors is going with this article. And we want to work for consensus. Granted: "A number" is indeed a bit better than "several samples", for all the reasons you have given. But that is irrelevant. I know that you know that. But you are wasting your time and ours with your irrelevant speculation about jellyfish and stars. Though that is a bit amusing how talented you are with words and ideas. I know that you know better than this, and in time we will get anonyed enough to take action against you with the adminstration. It's all documented here,and I have the time and patience to build a detailed case if necessary. Deprecating and denigration this study by inserting words like "a number" is not presenting the study in a NPOV, in violation of Wikipedia guidance. "A number" is just another way to show contempt for the study and its authors, and that is not what we, as a consensus, are about here.
- I'm thinking that we should add that there were 36 published studies, 21 unpublished doctoral dissertations, and 2 unpublished master's theses in the 1998 study. What do you think? :::Truthinwriting has summarized information in the most controversial effect size calculation. I have underlined that information below. We think we need to put more information about samples into this introduction to give the reader a better idea of what this study is about. We are discussing how much of this we could summarize for the reader, and still make it accessible. If you want to compromise, we would like to start with this information here, and move towards the middle. For the (59) studies of the 1998 study yielded
- 70 independent samples for estimating prevalence rates,
- 54 independent samples for computing 54 sample-level and 214 symptom-level effect sizes,
- 21 independent samples that provided retrospectively recalled reaction data,
- 10 independent samples that provided data on current reflections, and
- 11 independent samples that provided data on self-reported effects.
- Prevalence rates were based on 35,703 participants (13,704 men and 21,999 women).
- Effect size data for psychological correlates were based on 15,824 participants (3,254 men from 18 SAMPLES and 12,570 women from 40 Samples). (This calculation is summarized in the first paragraph, as the result of this calculation may have been the most controversial.)
- Reaction and self-reported effects data were based on 3,136 participants (783 men from 13 samples and 2,353 women from 14 samples)." Let's work together towards the middle.
- When Rind and Tromovitch 1997 worked with 10 nationally representative samples, that means that the population of interest is the entire population of the country in question and that the "several samples" reflect this in their structure. The related 1997 meta-analysis] by Rind and Tromovitch in the Journal of Sex Research examined 10 independent samples designed to be nationally representative, based on data from more than 8,500 participants. Four of the seven included studies came from the United States, and one each came from Great Britain, Canada, and Spain. At its best then the nationally representative sample will “look like” the population of those countries, irrespective of how it is viewed by the statistician. The numbers of men vs. women will match the national proportions, the percentage in each age group or each region will exactly match the population etc. On non-demographic measures of the sample should match the population. To achieve this, textbook theory requires a large random sample and a high response rate to minimize systematic error and reduce the risk of unsystematic error resulting from bias. Would you please use your skill with words and come up with a mutually agreeable summary of this paragraph?
- Herostratus: If you want to compromise, let's negotiate. This above is the starting position. Let's now move towards the middle and compromise on what the text in the article might be.
- Working with nationally representative samples has nothing to do with valorizing Rind and Tromovitch's 1997 study. If you had inquired about nationally representative samples, I would have explained it here to you, as I have above. Please ask before you redact our work. We appreciate your working together with us as a team, but I expect you to add energy and contributions. Your cooperation and your good will are valued here. Radvo (talk) 09:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Discussion of sources
I have finished my trim, it took considerable time to remove the links to sites advocating child rape, repeated sources and unreliable sources. Please take more care when suggesting or linking sources - at minimum they should be reliable (which means no blogs and given the amount of scholarly coverage, newspapers should be used judiciously) and absolutely no links to pro-child rape websites either as primary sources or as convenience links to sources. I also removed the chunk of text pasted at the bottom, arguably a copyright violation and possibly irrelevant as it didn't seem to mention Rind et al. If a source is immediately useful, it would be much better to simply edit the main page to include it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- When I had to leave my work here on the TALK page unexpectedly yesterday, I saved my work, and mentioned that "I will tweak this page and check the links another time." That sentence would make it clear that my list was a work in progress.WP:GOODFAITH There were at least 85 links I had collected and placed in the new Sources Section. I thought I was contributing in good faith to the project, and was not being provocative. I genuinely believe that, at the outset, more information is better. And good people make their own sorts best themselves. I hadn't even looked at many of those links! I had spent the time to collect them. Now there are 25! WLU took ownership of my list and deleted about 60 links! WP:NICE Maybe he felt it was not necessary for me to see them. There were surely some duplicate sites and a few have already been used in the article, and thank you WLU for cleaning them out. I would have agreed to your doing this, but would have preferred that you ask me first. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. I would have liked to see what you considered unreliable sources, so I could learn what sources were unreliable, and what was posted on them. I ask that no one here remove 70 percent of a list I am working on without discussing that with me first. If I don't respond in two days, then go ahead and do what you must.
- There were no sites advocating child rape. I took offense at the large type and the repeated mention of child rape. What WLU removed were about a dozen links to relevant articles in the scholarly journals directly related to the controversy. Do you have all of the journal listings on the list as abstracts? Is that what took so long? And the total list is only 25? Is this another case where you seem to be saying that it is "far far better" to avoid giving the devil any unnecessary information from the web. The less Satan knows about the contents of the 60 removed websties, the easier it will be to keep the devil in check. The editors lack the background and context to know if the information in the deleted websites "are good or bad?" If this is where you are coming from, I find this infuriating!
- What about linking from this TALK page to The [Leadership Council on Sexual Abuse and Interpersonal Violence]? The Leadership Council is a nonprofit independent scientific organization composed of respected scientists, clinicians, educators, legal scholars, journalists, and public policy analysts. The Council is strongly opposed to child rape and abuse. On this page http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/rind/bak.html the site links to the full text of several samples of (but not that many) of Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman's Writings. The Council repeatedly links to full text articles in The RBT Files at the Ipce documentation site. The Wikipedia is not legally responsible for what the Leadership Council links to, so I assume there is no problem legally to link to this Leadership Council page, so readers may read the full text of the articles for themselves at this anti-rape site. Comment? Relevant policy? I'd like to get an authoritative opinion on this matter, as I don't trust WLU after seeing his deletion work here earlier. I smell censorship a second time.
- I was not "Dumping a massive, overwhelming and unwieldy list of sources" on anyone, and actually I would have preferred that everyone left my list alone while I was still working on it. What was the hurry? In the future, please first make some suggestions about how you wanted to improve it. WP:DONTBITE
- I found the repeated mention of child rape jarring, offensive, inappropriate, and unhelpful. WP:NICE The text above associates the banned articles with views about child rape that they do not hold. Associating those dozen or so researchers, who published originally in the scholarly journals (which are now deleted from the list), is to malign them and me.WP:CIVIL [Keep a Civil Cyber-tongue: Rude and abusive online behavior should not be met with silence]
- Rape by men has been documented as a weapon of terror in warfare Storr, Will (17 July 2011). "The rape of men". The Observer. Guardian.co.uk. Retrieved 17 July 2011.
Sexual violence is one of the most horrific weapons of war, an instrument of terror used against women. Yet huge numbers of men are also victims.
{{cite news}}
: Text "Society" ignored (help); Text "The Observer" ignored (help) Today, associating a research study with rape and child rape in polite society is a new weapon of psychological warefare, domination, degradation and humiliation. Some of this degradation of the Rind research has already been documented in my wall of words. Publicly associating those innocent scholars with child rape, and whose scholarly work was deleted from my list, may be a form of "degradation ceremony." Source: Garfinkel J. (1956) ("Conditions of successful degradation ceremonies" American Journal of Sociology Volume 61, pp. 420-424) A degradation ceremony is assigning stigma to these journal authors for supporting the research of Rind et al.(1998), so no Wikipedia editor will want to see what these authors' wrote. A scientist or researcher who is publicly associated with child rape (as done above), is stigmatized, and by definition, a researcher or writer with a stigma is not quite human. They have been de-graded, and they are fundamentally flawed as human beings. They now have "a spoiled identity." This is all relevant to the experience of the Rind controversy.
- Rape by men has been documented as a weapon of terror in warfare Storr, Will (17 July 2011). "The rape of men". The Observer. Guardian.co.uk. Retrieved 17 July 2011.
- I haven't figured out how to put Sounds of Music into my edits.
- Imagine, as today's encore, this is Koko in Gilbert and Sullivan's Mikado:
- These scientists and writers all deleted from the list,
- I've got a little list,-- they never will be missed.
- As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
- I’ve got a little list--I’ve got a little list
- Of Victorian offenders who might well be underground,
- And who never would be missed--who never would be missed!
- I read the words: "Do not replace them." We'll do better than that. If the removed links are relevant, we'll WP:BEBOLD and find a way to integrate the trashed scholarly journal resources into the article. But only after reaching consensus on the TALK PAGE: consensus that the journal articles are, indeed, quality resources. Radvo (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Mostly WP:TLDR.
- Leadership council is not itself a WP:RS; at best it could be mined for sources that are reliable. Since there was a large amount of scholarly attention on the Rind et al. controversy, newspaper articles are generally not going to be appropriate; the only exception would be to note specific facts that are not noted in a scholarly journal. Personal and organizational websites would also not generally be considered reliable here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- I read the words: "Do not replace them." We'll do better than that. If the removed links are relevant, we'll WP:BEBOLD and find a way to integrate the trashed scholarly journal resources into the article. But only after reaching consensus on the TALK PAGE: consensus that the journal articles are, indeed, quality resources. Radvo (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- I like WLU's idea of privately mining for reliable scholarly journal sources at websites that would not be considered reliable for citing in articles by Wikipedia's high standard. I would suggest to editors here these four web sources as such mines. I suspect that a diligent scholar might be able to double the list of 25 reliable (academic journal) sources that WLU has collected above by careful "mining" at these four sites. Are there lurkers here who might volunteer to do the mining? Are there four lurkers here who would take one of the four to mine? Are there lurkers here who have scholarly journal access to the full text of these journal articles thru their university or other job related on-line libraries?
- http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/rind/bak.html Radvo (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Stop posting links to website that advocate for legalization of child rape. If you do so one more time, I will start a discussion at the administrators noticeboard which could result in your account being blocked. If you are willing to troll through child rape advocacy sites and pick out the sources they cite in their advocacy for being able to legally rape children, post those sources directly. The pro child rape sites themselves are not reliable, unnecessary, useless and is discourteous since it may end up with another editor having to explain to their family, friends or employer why they were visiting a site that advocates child rape. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/rind/bak.html Radvo (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- I like WLU's idea of privately mining for reliable scholarly journal sources at websites that would not be considered reliable for citing in articles by Wikipedia's high standard. I would suggest to editors here these four web sources as such mines. I suspect that a diligent scholar might be able to double the list of 25 reliable (academic journal) sources that WLU has collected above by careful "mining" at these four sites. Are there lurkers here who might volunteer to do the mining? Are there four lurkers here who would take one of the four to mine? Are there lurkers here who have scholarly journal access to the full text of these journal articles thru their university or other job related on-line libraries?
- We seek a Wikipedia:Third opinion (see also Wikipedia:Third opinion/User FAQ) about a dispute at Talk:Rind_et_al._controversy
- This Wikipedia article is about the publication of, and the controversy surrounding, a 1998 statistical analysis that challenges the majority view, and suggests a controversial, and sometimes highly emotional, minority view. The problem may involve policies related to Wikipedia:Fringe theories, though the Rind article was peered reviewed and published in a major journal. The controversy is reflected in difficult editor interactions. Maybe the reviewer will identify other problems or see the problem differently.
- Statement of problem 1 for the neutral Wikipedia:Third opinion: Is it permissible to link, from this TALK page, to 3 external websites that deal, in a detailed and scholarly way, with this same Rind et al. topic?
- Four (or more?) websites contain links to dozens of related articles from the scholarly journals; these articles are of considerable interest to editors and readers who find the Rind report and the related controversy interesting.
- Statement of problem 2 for the neutral Wikipedia:Third opinion: Is it permissible to link, for the editors' convenience on the TALK page, to the url's of scholarly articles, whose url's and text are found within the 4 external websites? The purpose of links on the TALK page is to further discussion and consensus building among a larger number of editors who may not have access to the journals WP:CONS? Another purpose of this is to reduce hostile and chaotic redactions and deletions. see WP:DELETE Three websites take a neutral to supportive view, and one website is strongly hostile to the minority view and a major contributor to the public controversy (1999 -- 2002).
- This is the information removed from the TALK page by WLU
- [Removed websites] One is highlighted; two are on the bottom left.
- [About 60 removed files.] All the deleted files are listed on the left side.
- WLU threatens the contributing editor with banishment if the removed material is returned to the Wikipedia TALK page for discussion and consensus building WP:CONS. The final Wikipedia article will not well reflect the minority viewpoint, and the ensuing controversy, if WLU's refusal, to allow the return of some of the deleted material, is allowed to stand.
- To Editor WLU: I seek your cooperation to resolve the dispute between us with a Wikipedia:Third opinion. Please edit the above statement of the problem, so that it fairly represents the problem for both sides. If you make major changes, please submit your version here before submitting to the reviewer. Herostratus and Truthinwriting are also invited to particupate in this statement and the process of seeking a third opinion. The problem statement may also be abbreviated to make it more concise. I will then submit it, unless you or Herostratus wishes to submit another version of this for a Wikipedia:Third opinion. If I don't receive a response to this request in three days, I will assume WLU is unwilling to use Wikipedia:Third opinion. I will then turn to another level of dispute resolution. Let's agree that either or both parties may go to a higher level of dispute resolution if he is unsatisfied with the Wikipedia:Third opinion about returning these deletions to the TALK page. Radvo (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Radvo, the short answer is NO, you cannot link to sites like IPCE, MHAMIC and others WLU removed. Yes they are convenient but no matter how you want to spin it, they are known pro-child molester websites. This creates a problem in that many readers and contributors to wikipedia read and edit from their work and university computers, where their internet usage is monitored and sites like this are flagged. By placing any link, even on Talk Pages, you create a risk that a person attempting to read and/or contribute might click on them either accidentally or out of ignorance of what they are, and thus expose themselves to inquiries within their company on why they are looking at pedophile sites. Furthermore, driving any net traffic originated from Wikipedia should be kept to a bare minimum, as that too is traceable. It doesn't matter if links to these sites are found elsewhere on Wikipedia; the should be removed unless the sole purpose of the link is to the organization itself, not scholarly papers they illegally post (in violation of copyright) and may or may not have altered from their original published content. Some of these site do remove sentences or even who paragraphs from these papers to serve their own agenda.Legitimus (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- To Editor WLU: I seek your cooperation to resolve the dispute between us with a Wikipedia:Third opinion. Please edit the above statement of the problem, so that it fairly represents the problem for both sides. If you make major changes, please submit your version here before submitting to the reviewer. Herostratus and Truthinwriting are also invited to particupate in this statement and the process of seeking a third opinion. The problem statement may also be abbreviated to make it more concise. I will then submit it, unless you or Herostratus wishes to submit another version of this for a Wikipedia:Third opinion. If I don't receive a response to this request in three days, I will assume WLU is unwilling to use Wikipedia:Third opinion. I will then turn to another level of dispute resolution. Let's agree that either or both parties may go to a higher level of dispute resolution if he is unsatisfied with the Wikipedia:Third opinion about returning these deletions to the TALK page. Radvo (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I've been relatively polite up until now. That ceases with the ANI posting. There is no fucking way that it will ever, ever be appropriate to link to sites advocating for child rape. For you to suggest, and keep linking to, and keep arguing for the inclusion of these sites is unacceptable. It doesn't matter how many people you want to step in - it's child rape, and if you don't see the problem with linking to those sites, you need to get off of this one. You're fucking right I'm not willing to wait for a third opinion, any sort of advocacy for child rape is wrong, and wikipedia is sullied by association if any of those child rape advocacy sites are ever included on our pages - including talk pages. If you want to link your IP address to sites advocating child rape and do the work of mining them for sources that could be included on the page, fine - post those sources. But there is ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING REASON for the actual sites to be linked. They will never be reliable, they are not a fringe theory that deserves minority coverage, they are advocating for something illegal, immoral and unethical that the wikipedia community has consistently said is unacceptable. They are not even convenient links as there is no guarantee the content has not been edited to present a bias.
I shouldn't have to make points based on policies and guidelines - wikipedia is a mainstream site and pedophilia is just about the most heinous crime found within the Western world. It is beyond common sense that continuing to link to these sites is worse than inappropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks WLU for taking nonsense like this on. For the record, of course you are correct. I don't want to randomly click links or I would clean them myself, but if you know of any inappropriate links posted here, please just remove them. Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Arbcom
- Note that this has been reported to arbcom per WP:CHILDPROTECT. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex
- Legitumus: I would like a semi-formal, neutral, third-party opinion, from a skilled Wikipedian, outside of this group of editors. Of course, I am eager to follow the rules, and accept the limitations on posting such links, as WLU has imposed. He is very experienced, and I respect that. But I don't trust him around censorship issues, and seek another opinion. I have searched the archives and could find a ruling on this matter. I'd like to know if there is such a ruling that limits access to other sites dealing with the Rind controversy. I am simply asking for a third party opinion about linking on the TALK page to webpages about the Rind et al. controversy, which is the topic here. That is not asking for too much.
- Legitimus makes a number of excellent points above, and the Wikipedia:Third opinion should read Legitimus' edit as part of the process. I acknowledge Legitimus's responsible feeling of protectiveness for readers of this TALK page who might expose themselves to embarrassing inquiries about why they were clicking on sites with many scholarly journal articles related to the Rind controversy. Legitmus acknowledges the link to a controversial membership organization may be justified, but only if the sole purpose of the link is to the organization itself. MHAMic is not an organization, and the link simply goes to a page entitled: "Everything you wanted to know about the Rind controversy." The NHAMic website takes a very different approach to the Rind controversy than the one here at Wikipeida, and some of the links have rotted, but Dr. Krammer makes some interesting points and provides many citations we don't use here. Legitimus also has valid objections on the copyright issue, and the possibility that the excellent, original scholarly documents at these external sites were tampered with, possibly to serve some unkonwn agenda. (If anyone notices some specific tampering like this at any of these Rind controversy sites, would they please post that information here?)
- http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/rind/bak.html (Stephanie Dallam's highly regarded advocacy group) links to about 15 scholarly articles at the IPCE site on that one page alone. I assume the Leadership Council programmer does this because The RBT [Rind, Bauserman, Tromovitch] Files at the Ipce documentation site are relevant to the Rind controversy, links very reliable, very functional, and very convenient. It would seem that if The Leadership Council, which was very involved in creating the Rind controvesry takes liberty to do this, we might be able to do this from here, if that does not violate Wikipedia policy. These websites are for the curious, the casual reader, not the serious researcher who needs original documents. Everything quoted from these articles and posted to Wikipeida should be checked carefully with the original document. Perhaps, it would be prudent to put a clear warning before that Leadership Council link, above, warning the causal reader that the 15 Ipce documentation links within that page, if clicked on, may be flagged by some monitoring system. Readers should not click on those Ipce links, if there is any question about the appropriateness of their curiosity or research at school or work. Would some reader please use experience to warn readers about this potential embarrassment? How would one succinctly word such a warning above? Radvo (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
What was this and this then? You have three experienced editors saying you should stop linking to these sites. Leadership council is still on this page, but is also not a reliable source. Drop it. How many times do I have to say it, links to sites that advocate child rape are unacceptable, will never be acceptable, and are never going to be valid convenience links. Ever. Sources do not need to be convenient, they must merely exist and be reliable. If readers have to visit a library instead of a webpage advocating for the rape of children, all except the child rapists will thank us. Fucking drop it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
This exceeds TLDR and is not compatible with WP:TPG. See my comment below. Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Radvo: If you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement. This applies to talk and article pages. See Wikipedia:Copyright#Linking_to_copyrighted_works.
Wikipedia's approach to health-related topics is very conservative. The kinds of sources required to support health-related claims in this article include only, to all intents and purposes, scholarly reviews published in respected peer-reviewed journals. See WP:MEDRS.
Editing Wikipedia articles requires politeness, assumption of good faith on behalf of other editors, and a firm grasp of our editing policies (you must understand the policies you've been pointed to on this talk page, and quite a few others that will be pointed out to you as you transgress them). Particularly on controversial articles like this, the only practical way for a new editor to make significant change is to put the exact words of a proposed edit, alongside any existing text it may be replacing, and citing the WP:MEDRS-compliant source that says precisely what your edit says, but in different words and structure, on this talk page for others to consider. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Updated 04:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Assertions of bias
"Stephanie Dallam and Anne Salter have pointed out that Rind and Bauserman have had associations with age of consent reform organizations." Isn't this an invalid guilt-by-association argument? I can't remeber, but i think Rind responded to this in some way. 85.183.82.188 (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is an ad hominem attack, but the best thing would be to include Rind et al's reply to it. Wikipedia isn't about saying which argument is right and which is wrong, it's about documenting the discussion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I know. Hence i was asking if somebody remembers Rinds reply to it, because i think he did. 85.183.82.188 (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm looking through Rind's rebuttal papers, and while they have counter-arguments to most matters, they do not appear to address that issue. I'll have to look into this further.Legitimus (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm working on this now and am also having problems locating a response. This was apparently made in at least two publications by Salter, once in her 2003 book and another time in her article and later book chapter "Science or Propaganda?" (p. 109). Given the timing of the controversy, the first source came out after much of the flurry had died down. Tracking things by the "Cited by..." links in google scholar doesn't help, but Rind does have a book chapter which discusses this and does not seem to be cited on the page. Perhaps it addresses this, I'll give it a read when I have the time. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:ANI posting
Note. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Actionable suggestion
Johnuniq wrote to Radov: "If there is ... an actionable suggestion for an improvement to this article, please post it in a new section." He then closed my edit and closed his comment from view. This message appears if you open my edit with the button on the right side:
"The following discussion has been closed."
Correction: It was hardly open for anyone to see! I want my post opened up for discussion here. If frank discussion is refused here, alternatively, everything (the harassment, the libel,the vulgarity, and repeated insult, the tampering with my posted photo of McMartin, the archiving of my 10 day old edit to Archive2, the redacting of all my edits, etc.) will pulled together and presented at WP:WQA. It will take a couple of days to pull the detail of my mistreatment together, but this may be my best option to establish a better working climate here with all editors for the longer run. I will learn something for myself, too.
Anthonyhcole suggested an alternative way to go forward. Anthonyhcole wrote:
- "The kinds of sources required to support ... claims in this article include only scholarly reviews published in respected peer-reviewed journals. See WP:MEDRS. Particularly on controversial articles like this, the only practical way to make significant change is to put the exact words of a proposed edit, alongside any existing text it may be replacing, and citing the WP:MEDRS-compliant source that says precisely what your edit says, but in different words and structure, on this talk page for others to consider."
- Radow adds to this: This includes redactions and major deletions. Every major move, and certainly every redaction of old material, is made with reasonable discussion and consensus.
- "The kinds of sources required to support ... claims in this article include only scholarly reviews published in respected peer-reviewed journals. See WP:MEDRS. Particularly on controversial articles like this, the only practical way to make significant change is to put the exact words of a proposed edit, alongside any existing text it may be replacing, and citing the WP:MEDRS-compliant source that says precisely what your edit says, but in different words and structure, on this talk page for others to consider."
This suggests how we might work together on this article in the future. See the full text of Anthonyhcole's edit above. I support this. What do other active editors here think about this recommendation? Do Herostratus, Truthinwriting, Legitimus, Johnuniq and other currently active editors, agree to this "Cole recommendation"? Or does anyone have any modification to the Cole recommendation to suggest? Correct me if I'm wrong, I am under the impression that we already discussed, and tentatively agreed, in the past month, that there are different parts of this Rind et al. article. One part summarizes the Rind study, so the reader receives a good summary of what the study reported. The other part of our article relates, in a NPOV, the controversy. Especially for the part of the article that reports the summary of the Rind meta-analysis, and the WP:Lead, do we agree to give up using WP:BEBOLD and work as Anthonyhcole suggests? IMHO, WP:BEBOLD is not appropriate for such a sensitive, controversial, and difficult-to-grasp mathematical study. See also WP:TECHNICAL and fringe results; outside the mainstream of common sense, as, IMHO, the ideas in these articles may also help editors.
Those who have read and understand meta-analysis (see WP:TECHNICAL), are in a position to write good numbers to summarize it for the Wikipedia reader. Encyclopedia articles should not "tell lies to children" in the sense of giving editors an easy path to the feeling that they understand something, at the price that what they then understand is wrong." IMHO, some of what editors believe is true about the Rind study is false. One has to read the study, and even then, without the background in meta-analysis and research methods, it is hard to understand.
Anthonyhcole suggests, "you must understand the policies you've been pointed to on this talk page..." That does not only apply to me. Editors don't have to agree about a topic to collaborate on a great article. It takes mutual respect and a willingness to abide by referenced sources and site policy. No editor, no matter how experienced, or how much he feels he owns this topic, sets policy without consensus or reference to written Wikipedia references. Sustained discussion shows that I am trying to identify the problems, clarify my thoughts and situation here, and find solutions. For a much longer version of this edit, see the version that Johnuniq hid from view without my permission or consent WP:TALK, And Johnuniq closed the discussion of my longer post without adequate justification. I protest the lack of consensus, but am willing to move on, if we now get back to editing work.
Aside 1:I will not to knowingly post any URL's or scholarly articles that violate copyright laws, even in a secondary way. Avoiding copyright violation is Wikipedia policy, and the right thing to do! This has nothing to do with false accusations of advocacy of child rape, The Leadership Council is apparently guilty of the same copyright violations as Everything you wanted to know about The Rind Controversy, (that is, the Rind part of mhamic.org,) so it cannot be linked for journal article listings from the Leadership Council either.
Aside2: Johnuniq suggests that "reports about editor behavior are started at WP:WQA" As started above, I am the victim of impolite, uncivil and other difficult communications and I seek redress. We can settle this here, or we can settle this at [WP:WQA]. I resent some of the language and insult that has been directed towards me. I feel bullied out of posting real work on the main page here. Herostratus, WLU, and one IP address will be named in my complaint. I will take my time to throughly document my case from various locations on Wikipedia. I will post it at WP:WQA.
This may be a lengthly process because I am collecting so much detail. I may postpone or change my mind, if things shape up here, preferring instead to edit, with dignity and respect, the main article than go through a lengthly process. Let's see how things go here in the next few days.... Radvo (talk)
- Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion
Hello, Rind et al. controversy. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
- Yeah, I'm still not reading it. If you are ever going to gain consensus for your contributions on talk pages, they need to be shorter. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Dallam et al
I'm looking over Rind's rebuttal to Dallam et al. The response is so eviscerating that it's almost illegitimate to include Dallam's original criticisms at all. I'm almost inclined to simply state that Dallam et al. published a critique which turned out to be almost completely unfounded. Including all the details when they're so wrong seems like undue weight. Any thoughts? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I trust your judgment. Be bold. If there's blowback, I'll read the rebuttal. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Tremendous improvements to the Rind et al. Controvesy article! What has been done with the article in two days is truely amazing! A whole new tone! Much more NPOV. Great perspective and information.
- I saw the changes to my Bold edits in the first two sections of the main article. No problem. Is it that WLU is unaware of the State condemnations of Rind's study, or you do not want to include information about the state level condemnations in the Lead becasue State condemnations are not mentioned and sourced in the body of the article?
- WLU: The NARTH, the Family Research Council, the Learership Council (Dr. Fink, Stephanie Dallam et al.) were quietly, behind the scenes, lobbying and feeding their research to popular radio show host Dr. Laura (March 1999), the media, the State Legislatures, the U.S. House of Representatives (spring and summer 1999) before that research was published in a professional journal. The U.S. Congress did not have the demanding verification standards of Wikipedia, and has no problem with 'guilt by association' if it brings in the votes. So Congress and the State legislatures (Alaska, Oklahoma, Califonia, et al. I posted the condemnations from state websites above) took what was fed to them privately by lobbists, and may have thought to themselves: "This Rind study must be stamped on hard." "We'll get publicity showing Congress is taking the high moral road, and that brings in the votes." Some of that can be sourced. It was only after the Leadership Council got Stephanie Dallam to put her name on that research and publish it in a scholarly journal, that Rind et al. (and others) responded. For years, Wikipedia had undue weight
- If you want to cover the controversy, however, you should include the Dallam arguments and critique in historic context and NPOV. The unanswered Dallam critique was what created the moral panic before the arguments were published and rebutted. If Congress had the current version of the Wikipedia article on Rind on line, there would never been the Congressional condemnation. (No Source; drop that!) Congress lacked the balance that comes with the patience and time of the scientific process. The scientific process should be pointed out. The Galileo history is also slightly relevant. Science is methodical, patient, non-hysterical.
- BTW Rind et al. used the Library of Congress to track down some of the harder to find studies, but that was all the funding they received from any source for their meta-analyses. Self funding should be squeezed in the article, too. I'll try to locate my source for that.
- It is important to cover the detail of the controvesy, even though we may see Dallam's critique differently now that we have read Rind's response, then the participants saw it then It occurred historically and we understand it now differently from reliable sources. The ideas in the Dallam critique and all that misinformed stuff that Dr. Laura said were all part of the creation of moral panic by the advocacy organizations. The public is well served if all of that critique is summarized and well sourced and published in the encyclopedia. The more NPOV these ideas are sourced and understood, the better the public is prepared to deal with the next advocacy group who figures it is in their interest to create and fan moral panic. Penn State's Philip Jenkin's books tie this tendency in American culture well together and Jenkins should be cited, so the public is much better informed about moral panic. More when I find the time.
- I may have additional and a different point of view tomorrow.
- Suggestion: Develop the new Spiegel arguments carefully, precisely, and source that Spiegel well with some juicy quotes. If Spiegel is about the Landis study, Truthinwriting will give you the Rind rebuttal to that. It's a wonderful story, when you get both sides and both sides should be told. The whole historic controversy will not make Spiegel look good unless you handle this as NPOV as you can. When the Galileo story is told, the Catholic Church is not insulted today. Radvo (talk) 11:32 pm, Today (UTC−5) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radvo (talk • contribs) 05:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'd really like some feedback from more people before doing anything bold, this is more than a bit of a loaded question. There's a pretty readable overview from Rind's perspective here which spares reading the full 30-odd pages. There just doesn't seem to be much point to include such a voluminous discussion of erroneous criticisms, but it's both a large volume of text and a significant part of the controversy. Whether it's best dealt with via mere mention or deeper summary is an open question, I'll flag this discussion for other editors' comment.
- I can't recall a mention of individual states condemning the study, please provide or point to sources that verify this. Also, while Rind et al. did suggest not all abuse is harmful, it is still not consensual by definition and is still illegal - care must be taken not to word the article in such a way that the abuse as portrayed as innocuous or harmless.
- I see no reason to include information on self-funding at this point. Depending on what the source discussing this actually says, it might be worth including. The mere fact of financial source doesn't strike me as noteworthy. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Incidentally, I'm genuinely looking for lengthy-ish comments on this section as well as suggestions - I haven't made an actual decision yet and as much as I enjoy Anthony's blanket-style endorsement, I do feed off of detailed input. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is really quite fascinating. I just read that book chapter WLU pointed to, and will do more reading over the next few days. It's important we get this right. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ok re-read the Criticism and Response section to get a fresh idea and am approaching this as though I am a new reader. I noticed some parts are unattributed and in a few, there is no counter argument by Rind. Sample bias accusation seems a fair "give and take" because it offers both Dallam's side and Rind's in a way where the reader can decide which argument they buy. Dallam's assertions are also bolstered by Spiegel, so its clearly not some mad fringe view. Non-standardization of variables might be problematic. Rind's counterarguments are not attributed. In addition, does Rind have a counter/explanation for the last two studies, which include respondents over the age of 17? Statistical Errors is outside my expertise; people who get that sort of thing can edit that how they want, but one caution I have is that if I have trouble following it, a lay reader is going to skip it completely. The last mention of Dallam is under "Assertions of bias" though her remarks are unattributed to a source. However, she is not the sole source of those accusations. Anna Salter's book goes into even greater detail and provides sourcing for them.
- So to sum up, Dallam doesn't appear to be wrong on all counts, but the paper perhaps doesn't have to be incorporated so prominently as the primary source of criticism. Regarding the stat issue, if Rind's counter sounds rock solid to you, perhaps we don't even need that sub-section.Legitimus (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is really quite fascinating. I just read that book chapter WLU pointed to, and will do more reading over the next few days. It's important we get this right. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Incidentally, I'm genuinely looking for lengthy-ish comments on this section as well as suggestions - I haven't made an actual decision yet and as much as I enjoy Anthony's blanket-style endorsement, I do feed off of detailed input. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- The Dallam and Ondersma critiques imply that if Rind et al. (1998) had conducted the research without all those statistical and methodological flaws, the Rind results would have come out differently.That turned out to be a hoax. Rind responded convincingly (to those who understand statistics), and in great detail, that none of the criticisms were credible or valid. Rind is a mathematical genius. Most people have no clue about these things, and learn little from these sections. These sections are layed out too expansively, revealing your bias in favor of the discredited Dallam. Heather Ulrich (2005) accepted the criticisms and replicated the Rind study as best she could; she confirmed Rind's findings. People understand that better. Rind and Ulrich both say CSA does not necessarily cause long term problems. Dallam's and Ondersma's criticisms are discredited. Ask Anthoneyhcole if he knows statistics, and whether he would comment in greater detail.Radvo (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Nope. I'm at the mercy of experts there. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have to say, I've read Rind's rebuttal in the book and he pretty much demolishes Dallam's criticisms. Ondersma's criticisms I haven't read through, or any rebuttal by Rind. It's a considerable amount of highly technical reading to read Dallam's original critique along with Rind's reply, but I'll try to get through it. The "sample bias" section is I believe the only one I've read through and reworked, which might be why it reads a bit more smoothly. I'll have to do more reading and try to rework the rest. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Nope. I'm at the mercy of experts there. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- The Dallam and Ondersma critiques imply that if Rind et al. (1998) had conducted the research without all those statistical and methodological flaws, the Rind results would have come out differently.That turned out to be a hoax. Rind responded convincingly (to those who understand statistics), and in great detail, that none of the criticisms were credible or valid. Rind is a mathematical genius. Most people have no clue about these things, and learn little from these sections. These sections are layed out too expansively, revealing your bias in favor of the discredited Dallam. Heather Ulrich (2005) accepted the criticisms and replicated the Rind study as best she could; she confirmed Rind's findings. People understand that better. Rind and Ulrich both say CSA does not necessarily cause long term problems. Dallam's and Ondersma's criticisms are discredited. Ask Anthoneyhcole if he knows statistics, and whether he would comment in greater detail.Radvo (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Consensual, willing, harmless. Reporting this accurately and NPOV
WLU: We are reporting the Rind results. You removed from the article something about willing and consensual. There are two separate phenomena: (1) harm and (2) willingness. Rind found them to be statistically correlated. Maybe you would use words like: they are "inherently related" to each other. Rind is impossible to understand if you insist that CSA (as variably defined) is not consensual by definition. Some things you already are convinced of causes a lot of cognitive dissonance for you. The problem may be, in part, with the definition of willing, consensual, CSA, but let's just accept the Rind results as they are. The critique comes later. A made-up example: a 21 year old has a sexual relationship with a 15 year old. The 15 year old experiences the sex as consensual, willing, harmless. There are no measures showing the 15 year old is harmed, traumatized. When the 15 year old gets to college, the individual completes a questionnaire and reports things as experienced. The experience was, in some places, not "consensual" by law; it was immoral by many accepted and respected standards. But it may very well have been willing if the person reports it that way on a questionnaire. The researcher, nevertheless, says, because of the ages involved, this is CSA. The researcher and Rind think of a case like this as consensual CSA. You resist that idea very stongly, but if you want to understand Rind, you cannot reject what he reports because of some definition you have. Rind gets the data of that experience with the study from the professional literature, and puts that study in his "mixed" category; these studies have samples that included both consenting and non-consenting subjects. You are fighting the source if you don't accept these mixed samples (of consensual and non-consensual CSA). Accept the Source, as is. Critique later. You wrote above:
"while Rind et al. did suggest not all abuse is harmful, it is still not consensual by definition ... - care must be taken not to word the article in such a way that the abuse as portrayed as innocuous or harmless".
That's non-sense! You don't know or understand the study. I don't know how to tell you this without your getting upset: In Rind's study, some CSA, as it is sometimes and variably defined by the authors of the 59 studies, is harmless, not harmful. In the example I gave above, you can imagine that some college student, included in some CSA study, was at one time the 15 year old, (These were self reports by college students.) Your prior definitions are irrelevant to reporting what the Source (and the authors of the 59 studies) report. The definition of CSA is not up to you. The variable definition of CSA was up to the researchers who completed the 59 studies. (This poor construct of CSA gets discussed as a problem later.) This goes farther: Rind suggested that one reason CSA is not harmful has to do with "willingness". If you refuse to permit that a relationship between a 21 year old and a 15 year old might be perceived by both participants as willing and harmless, you cannot understand and accept what Rind reports. If simply accepting and understanding what Rind wrote is a problem for you, maybe you should be editing another topic. Rind has to go with the data from the 15,000 subjects. You resist and interfere with what the source reports. It would also be easier if you stopped trying to critique the results and the CSA construct. Save that for later after you understand what Rind did. Can you understand and accept this? Rind wrote:
"These finding indicated that inclusion of willingness eliminated the relationship [between CSA and malajustment] in the mixed category (that is, studies by other researchers that included consenting and non-consenting subjects), implying that willingness itself was not [statistically] associated with psychological maladjustment in the case of males." Source: http://books.google.ca/books?lr=&id=NqT0GCxUDJsC&q=willingness#v=snippet&q=willingness&f=false Advances in social & organizational psychology: a tribute to Ralph Rosnow By Donald A. Hantula January 4, 2006 Routledge Taylor and Francis Group ISBN 10 0805855904 page 172. Radvo (talk) 9:22 pm, Today (UTC−5) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radvo (talk • contribs) 02:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Radvo (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Fine, but WLU is an experienced editor who knows that personal opinions are not adequate for writing an article at Wikipedia (and there is no need to worry about causing upset—that only occurs when somone repeatedly posts long passages that are not focused on what can be done to improve the article). What text in the article has a problem? What source provides what information that shows there is a problem? Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Force and coercion, the words I chose, remove the word consent - children by definition can not consent to sex with adults. Force and coercion contain the idea that the child is unwilling without giving any impression that they are making informed choices. We are not bound to stick exactly to the wording of the source text, and I think this wording includes the appropriate nuances while avoiding the politically and popularly loaded idea of a child being able to give consent to sex with an adult. I'm sticking by it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Condemnation of Rind et al. (1998) by State Legislatures & by the U.S. Congress.
Click here to see the names of a number of State legislatures that condemned, or considered condemning, the Rind et al. (1998) study in the Spring of 1999.. This matter has not been well researched here, and needs a volunteer to email the advocates for this effort and find the exact texts of those State resolutions on line. The sample of additional states includes possibly Delaware, Illinois, New Jersey, Oregon, and Pennsylvania.
The media debate climaxed in the unprecedented condemnation of a research paper by government legislatures in the Spring and Summer of 1999. There was much overlap in the texts of the condemnations of the various legislatures, as if they all came from the same source. The State of Alaska was first on May 11, 1999 with (CSHJR 36).[1] Alaska Bill No 36 state of Alaska
- "the Alaska State Legislature condemns and denounces all suggestions in the recently published study by the American Psychological Association that indicates sexual relationships between adults and willing children are less harmful than believed and might even be positive for "willing" children,
A similar resolution passed the Oklahoma state senate on the 27th day of May, 1999[2]
Oklahoma expressed concern that
- "information endangering to children is being made public and, in some instances, may be given unwarranted or unintended credibility through release under professional titles or through professional organizations."
The Rind et al. (1998) paper was condemned by the federal government, starting with the United States House of Representatives (HCR 107) on July 12, 1999, The vote in favor of the resolution in the House was 355-0, with 13 Members voting "present".[3] does not verify text - WLU The vote in the U.S. House of Representatives was followed two weeks later by a voice voice in the United States Senate. Bill 106 Bill 106[4] It passed the Senate concurrently on July 30th, 1999 U.S. House of Representatives & Senate concurrent resolution. The Federal government condemnation included this language about harm, and using the Rind report in the criminal law:
- Whereas all credible studies in this area, including those published by the American Psychological Association, condemn child sexual abuse as criminal and harmful to children;
- Whereas the American Psychological Association should be congratulated for publicly clarifying its opposition to any adult- child sexual relations, which will help to deny pedophiles from citing ‘‘A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples’’ in a legal defense
- "Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress
- (1) condemns and denounces all suggestions in the article ‘‘A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples’’ that indicate that sexual relationships between adults and ‘‘willing’’ children are less harmful than believed and might be positive for ‘‘willing’’ children (Psychological Bulletin, vol. 124, No. 1, July 1998);
- (2) vigorously opposes any public policy or legislative attempts to normalize adult-child sex or to lower the age of consent."
California. Resolution, SJR 17, condemning Rind et al. (1998) passed the California Senate on September 3, 1999, by a vote of 40-0. Emphasizing the possible use of the Rind et al. study in the local courts, California's resolution includes a non-binding request that defense attorneys and courts disregard the controversial Rind report. (These ideas may have come from the attorney hired by the advocacy group called The Leadership Council, [Stephanie Dallam, Dr. Fink, et al.] which [with the Family Council?], may have been coaching the legislatures. Details of this coaching of legislatures appears in one of the books in the Sources list.
- WHEREAS, The American Psychological Association in July 1998, published a review of 59 studies of college aged students which may be construed to indicate that some sexual relationships between adults and children may be less harmful than believed, and that some of the college students viewed their experiences as positive at the time they occurred, or positive when reflecting back on them,
- Resolved, [among others] That the Legislature requests California defense attorneys and California courts to disregard the study when dealing with [criminal court] cases involving child abuse and child molestation... Reference: California State Senator Haynes (Introduced May 17, 1999; Amended July 6, August 24, August 31). "SJR 17". Resolution. California Senate. Retrieved January 3, 2012.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help)
- Resolved, [among others] That the Legislature requests California defense attorneys and California courts to disregard the study when dealing with [criminal court] cases involving child abuse and child molestation... Reference: California State Senator Haynes (Introduced May 17, 1999; Amended July 6, August 24, August 31). "SJR 17". Resolution. California Senate. Retrieved January 3, 2012.
Radvo (talk) 05:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Why has all the above been posted here? Material in an article should be based on secondary sources. If there is a suggestion that the article contain extracts from legislation, the situation is no way—articles do not contain items cherry picked by editors to show some point of view. Please do not use reference notation on talk pages: just show a link or a title if required. Johnuniq (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- We can use primary sources judiciously, and I think saying "X, Y and Z states also condemned the study" is permissible. All that is really necessary are source documents for each state that condemned the study, though a single source that gives all would obviously be helpful. The above text is pretty hard to read, I can't really tell what is opinion and what is quoted from a source, I'll try to sort through it later. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Neutrality disputed
The third paragraph of the Controversy Section begins with this sentence:
- "On July 12, 1999, the United States House of Representatives passed HRC resolution 107 by a vote of 355 - 0, (with 13 Members voting "Present", the latter all members of the Democratic Party[1]) declaring sexual relations between children and adults are abusive and harmful, and condemned the study on the basis that it was being used by pro-pedophilia activists and organizations to promote and justify child sexual abuse."[2]
The casual reader may get the false impression that this was the most important, or the only reason. The last reason on the list in the Congressional original reads:
- "Whereas pedophiles and organizations, such as the North American Man-Boy Love Association, that advocate laws to permit sex between adults and children are exploiting the study to promote and justify child sexual abuse...."
The reason the Rind et al. (1998) Report was condemned by Congress was cherry picked from the 17 reasons given by Congress. Cherry picking here violates giving due weight.
(This is the text of the entire Congressional condemnation, with all 17 reasons: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_bills&docid=f:hc107enr.txt.pdf)
The primary Congressional source is cited for this text, as above.WP:VERIFY An exact quote from some part of the government source might have been a better choice WP:FULLCITE, as this puts the onus for the attack on the scholarly paper squarely on Congress, where it belongs, not on the Wikipedia volunteer editor. No secondary or tertiary source is offered to justify the selection of this one particular reason given for the condemnation. This edit reinforces the 'Guilt by Association' fallacy, initiated by the U.S. Congress, in violation of the Wikipedia policy for NPOV. The Congress is publicly linking the Rind et al.(1998) paper with NAMbLA et al. Dr. Rind, Dr. Bauserman, and Dr. Tromovitch are responsible for their scholarship, mathematics and their integrity. They are not responsible for the short reviews that were posted on line and in the NAMbLa Bulletin 14 years ago. They are not responsible if the Ipce documentation service provides the full text of their study to many, so it is linked from the Ipce by The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence and the Prevent abuse now child advocacy site. Rearders have full access to the study at those websites. Is that something to shame the study's author's for? The authors are not responsible or to be blamed if individuals read and understand their report. The Report readers might do something most U.S. Congressmen and radio talk show hosts refused to do before condemning it.
I hope a revision will be discussed among the active editors. --Radvo (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please pretend you are addressing intelligent adults, nearly all of whom are very experienced Wikipedia editors. There is no need for irrelevant images, and there is no need for pointless links. There is no need to say "Neutrality disputed" without first having a discussion about whatever point you are trying to make. After other editors disagree with something, then there may be a neutrality dispute. I think you are suggesting that some wording in the article should be changed. Please start again. Johnuniq (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- That was a calm reaction. Thank you. Now we are getting somewhere, you actually asked me a question. In a few words I will give you my current but incomplete answer. It is much easier to work with people who are receptive.
- I want to work with consensus and need to work my ideas out with other editors here on the TALK page, too. I would change the text to include something internal to the Report itself. We should look at all 17 Congressional objections and pick something(s) Rind et al. are directly responsible for reporting. They are not responsible for what NAMbLA and the Ipce do with the results of their study. This is just a brainstormed idea I had since writing all that above, and the idea also comes from our <Bold redact discuss> experience earlier this week. (The BRD exchange was very productive.) We could say that Congress condemned Rind et al. for reporting that willing boys were not harmed, or something else very controversial within the report. Rind did report that, and Congress did condemn them for something like that. I will have to study this more carefully and make some proposals. So the idea of "willing" gets introduced into the article, which you refused to allow before, and it is something that gets people genuinely upset. They think Rind deserved to be condemned for reporting that. From my perspective, this is like condemning the messenger for reporting what the math showed. So we don't shoot the messenger any more; big improvement. We just condemn them. I need to do my homework and look at the Condemnation to see if there are other juicy, but internal items, but will not do any more work on this today. I have to go out now. Let's let others contribute to this. I'll develop some various proposals and want feedback from others here. This, IMHO, is too controversial for BRD.
- Note that when you respond to me reasonably, and ask for my opinion or suggestion, I need no wall of words to respond. I am very pleased with how this TALK is now going.Radvo (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have highlighted text in the above which experienced editors would not use because it raises unnecessary issues and is not relevant to improving the article. I am happy for my edit to be undone (including removing this comment), but it may be useful to at least briefly see my suggestion. Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, we shouldn't pick something Rind et al. are directly responsible for reporting. The article is titled "Controversy" and it's about the controversy. We're really not in a position to say "Well, there was a notable controversy over XYZ, but it was over something the person didn't really do, so we're not going to report on it."
- I have highlighted text in the above which experienced editors would not use because it raises unnecessary issues and is not relevant to improving the article. I am happy for my edit to be undone (including removing this comment), but it may be useful to at least briefly see my suggestion. Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- That "[Rind et al] are not responsible for what NAMbLA and the Ipce do with the results of their study" is arguably not true. Everyone is potentially responsible for results following from their actions, depending on the action. If I leave a paper bag on my front porch and somebody takes it and suffocates a person with it, I'm not responsible because a reasonable person wouldn't foresee that. If I leave a loaded gun on my front porch and somebody takes it and shoots a person with it, I am responsible because a reasonable person would foresee that. If Rind et al were completely blindsided by NAMBLA etc. picking up on their work, this would show a remarkable lack of foresight and intelligence. This is not usually considered a mitigating circumstance. "Yes I left a loaded gun on my front porch, but I'm just stupid and careless by nature, so this should be forgiven" would probably not be a successful defense.
- As far as the Congressional document, the material cited in the article is the 17th of the 17 points, and the previous points are partly in the nature of leading up to it, and it's a reasonable description of their primary objection, if you don't want to quote the entire document which we don't. "Whereas the spiritual, mental, and physical well-being of children are parents' sacred duty" and so forth are points that Congress wanted to make, but aren't the main point of this document. Politically speaking, that NAMBLA etc. was, or was believe to be, using the document was certainly a prime motivation for the resolution. If it was just gathering dust on a shelf unread and unremarked on, the resolution would not have been proposed. Herostratus (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I don't really want to read a bunch of unnecessary text so perhaps this doesn't reflect the full discussion but...I think it's fair to note congress' condemnation, as well as any reply from the author or other involved party that rebuts it (briefly, i.e. "Rind replied that their position was misrepresented). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- As far as the Congressional document, the material cited in the article is the 17th of the 17 points, and the previous points are partly in the nature of leading up to it, and it's a reasonable description of their primary objection, if you don't want to quote the entire document which we don't. "Whereas the spiritual, mental, and physical well-being of children are parents' sacred duty" and so forth are points that Congress wanted to make, but aren't the main point of this document. Politically speaking, that NAMBLA etc. was, or was believe to be, using the document was certainly a prime motivation for the resolution. If it was just gathering dust on a shelf unread and unremarked on, the resolution would not have been proposed. Herostratus (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- WLU wrote: "it's fair to note Congress' condemnation"... I'm puzzled by the word "fair". Please elaborate. I was not suggesting that all mention of the Congressional condemnation be removed just because Rind et al. have not had their response to Congress acknowledged in the article. The Congressional condemnation was very much part of the controversy, and it would be "unfair" to the reader NOT to mention it.
- WLU: Are you suggesting that the main article not cite ANY of the 17 reason's" (Whereas's) for the Congressional condemnation? Does your response imply a possible solution: the removal of the words:
- "and condemned the study on the basis that it was being used by pro-pedophilia activists and organizations to promote and justify child sexual abuse."?
- If that is what WLU is proposing, I would go along with WLU's suggestion (at least for now). If that is what WLU is suggesting, that suggestion is an improvement because it removes the 'Guilt by Association' fallacy from Wikipedia's article. See Herostratus argumentation about liability of Rind above. He seems to be suggesting that it is Rind's fault that the advocates for pedophiles have used the Rind report. Maybe it would be very interesting to know what Rind would say in his defense. I guess he would say that more high-quality research is needed, but there is no funding for more research.
- IF what WLU is proposing is indeed that we remove the text I object to, do other editors agree to WLU's suggestion that no specific reasons (Whereas's) from the condemnation be quoted or reworded in the main article? Let's reach a WK:consensus on this matter here on the TALK page, before WLU removes those words, and before the “ Dubious Tag” is removed from the main article. I'd like to hear the opinion of others.
- I do not recall reading any public or private response from Rind et al. to Congress itself. (Aside: That would be disrespectful and fool-hardy for the researchers . The Congress had already abused its position of power, it would do it again, esp. if provoked by a researcher who "spoke back" to them.) Do any editors here know of a response from any of the three researcher to Congress? If not, WLU's suggestion that we offer the researchers' response to Congress is not going to work--because there was none. Researchers who talk back to Congress get no free lunch! The 1998 paper was not government funded; it was self-funded.
- Dr. Rind et al. did respond in detail to their professional peers, Dr. Dallam and Dr. Ondersma.
- "Congressional members are well aware of the control they can exert over research, since much of the funding comes from governmental grants. Scientists are at the mercy of those in power and, at least for now, those in power are often at the mercy of the [moral panic reflected in the] public press."
- Source of this quote: "Congressional censure of a research paper: Return of the inquisition?" Kenneth K Berry; Jason Berry Skeptical Inquirer November December, 1999 (Citation not certain; needs further research)
- Here is the citation for one article which those interested here should read to understand this controversy from Rind et al.'s side:
- Rind, Bruce, Tromovitch, Philip, & Bauserman, Robert, The Validity and Appropriateness of Methods, Analyses, and Conclusions in Rind et al. (1998): A Rebuttal of Victimological Critique From Ondersma et al. (2001) and Dallam et al. (2001); Psychological Bulletin, volume 127, number 6, pages 734-758, 2001.
- The full text of this article in available on the web, but I an unable by law to provide readers a link to it. I do not know if the article has been posted to the web in violation of U.S. copyright law. Linking in the United States, to a page that may be illegally distributing the full text of a journal article sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. (Aside) The relevant WP:policy is in the second paragraph here: [Linking to copyrighted works]
- Start quote from the WP:policy:
- "If you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work....Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States."
- Start quote from the WP:policy:
- However, foreign translators, whose countries have different copyright laws regarding “contributary infringement,” should check with the laws of their countries before linking to the full text of this scholarly article on line. (I have been informed, by some gossip, that these pages are being translated into foreign languages, one language does not use our alphabet. The Internet gives people in foreign countries more power to get access to information and entertainment via the web.
- Regarding the removal of the Template:Dubious tag. That Tag alert editors that the phrase has been verified with a primary source (the Congressional Record) but a secondary source needs to be found, to ascertain which of the 17 whereas's is more authoritative and serious. This is not for the editor to cherrypick. The previous editor chose Whereas # 17, and I labeled this a Wikipedia:Disputed statement. The neutrality of choosing that phrase over the 16 others is also in question, please look at Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. I feel my work has again been disrespected by the removal of that TAG without first resolving the matter here on the TALK by consensus. The matter is not resolved to my satisfaction. Also, if the consensus here is that there is no problem, then the message can be removed. Does anyone object to my placing the DUBIOUS TAG back up? Radvo (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Why post here? Did you see the comments at the bottom?
- Please stop quoting policies to experienced editors—we know what they say! For a link problem, just say something like "there is a site with X, but I can't link to a copyvio" (much shorter and more understandable).
- Do not place tags and stuff until a reasonable amount of discussion has occurred. How would it look if editors A and B spent several days editing an article, and A tagged B's edits, and B tagged A's edits? It's absurd. There is an active discussion here, so proceed with the discussion and stop worrying about tags. If there is some text to be disputed, note it here. Thinks about tags if the discussion stops for a few days without a clear consensus.
- Perhaps you are not reading the comments on this page? For example, there is an unanswered question dated "06:59, 15 January 2012", and I have previously mentioned some of the points I have just had to repeat. Johnuniq (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding the removal of the Template:Dubious tag. That Tag alert editors that the phrase has been verified with a primary source (the Congressional Record) but a secondary source needs to be found, to ascertain which of the 17 whereas's is more authoritative and serious. This is not for the editor to cherrypick. The previous editor chose Whereas # 17, and I labeled this a Wikipedia:Disputed statement. The neutrality of choosing that phrase over the 16 others is also in question, please look at Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. I feel my work has again been disrespected by the removal of that TAG without first resolving the matter here on the TALK by consensus. The matter is not resolved to my satisfaction. Also, if the consensus here is that there is no problem, then the message can be removed. Does anyone object to my placing the DUBIOUS TAG back up? Radvo (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Brevity, please, brevity. In my quick skim I thought Herostratus and Johnuniq were advocating the removal of the condemnation. Looks like I was wrong. Rind and Bauserman's association with Paidika should remain, I'd like to expand it to include any comment by Rind or others on his side of things. We can use primary sources to essentially verify what the person or entity (in this case, Congress) actually said. I have a copy of Rind et al's response. Congress's 17 points lead up to the conclusion, and I think a fair summary of that conclusion is that Congress condemned it for, among other things, being used to promote Nambla's hideous agenda. There's other stuff in the resolution, but I think those are the important points. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 03:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- WLU: Thanks for sharing your view. What secondary source can you cite to confirm your view, and Herostratus' view, that "Congress's 17 points lead up to the conclusion." As an experienced editor you know: It does not matter what your view is, It doesn't matter that I think: No way do the 16 earlier points lead up to #17. It doesn't matter if it's true. What matters is whether you have a secondary source that claims that Congress's 16 points all lead up to the conclusion in #17! If you don't have a secondary source, if you only have a primary source, you may not WP:cherrypick one.
- Here's another argument for this discussion: You feel strongly that "Wikipedia is sullied by association if any of those child rape advocacy sites are ever included on our pages - including talk pages." In harmony with that view, you removed these words from the main article on January 15: "such as the International Pedophile and Child Emancipation documentation service (Ipce), the Male Homosexual Attraction to Minors information center (MHAMic), the Danish Pedophile Association (D.P.A. Gruppe 04), and the North American Man/Boy Love Association."
- Your edit comment, to justify the removal of those words, was "I don't think we need to list them" Again you imply that what you think comes out of the article is the criteria here. This is what has been happening here since early December. Who owns this board, anyway? I happened to strongly agree with your deletion, so I didn't mention that until now. I ask you to go still further. To be consistent, you should remove these words, too: "and condemned the study on the basis that it was being used by pro-pedophilia activists and organizations." Just because Congress "sullied" itself in associating that esteemed institution by naming that organization in its #17, this article does not have "sully itself" even a little to call attention to those group's existence. This Rind article is about a jargon-ladened meta-analysis that few have read and even fewer understand.
- But my main point is: You have no secondary source to justify your WP:cherrypicking # 17.Radvo (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
re NAMBLA
Radvo, what's your reason for changing "NAMBLA" to "NAMbLA" in the article? Herostratus (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Making a section heading like that must be deeply offensive to WLU. A message on my talk page would have been more respectful of WLU's sensitivities. "Wikipedia is sullied by association if any of those child rape advocacy sites are ever included on our pages - including talk pages."
- Even after WLU deleted the word with that formatting on January 15, Herostratus and Johnuniq want me to explain some formating on text that was already removed. Give me a break! I guess you weren't paying attention to WLU's deleting.
- We've been playing BRDDDDDDDDD for a month now! I'm clearly enjoying the game, but WLU wants to stop all this dddddddddd and get some editing done here, and I am eager to engage him and learn from him. He had done a fantastic job last week. He did a great job on the Carol Tavris edit before he messed it up. I should have left it the way it was. BTW, I know you are very experienced editors, but a little reminder now and then never hurt anyone. Because tensions are high and this is a controversial topic, please discuss your ideas on how to improve the article here on this TALK page -- before you post them and before you redact anything. I highly recommend Anthonyhcole's method described above. Take a look at it and tell me what you think.
- Okay. I'm a nice guy. I assume you are intelligent if I give you a good hint: I observed recently that MHAMIC is correctly formated MHAMic. IPCE is correctly formated Ipce. When I was a boy, we called them "Negros", and that word was not a pejorative word then. Now we call them "Black"s because that's what they prefer. People prefer to name themselves. We don't call them "gypsies" any more either. My mother taught me that people have a right to name themselves. I respected her, and let her teach me this. I guess I extend her teaching a bit: organizations use whatever letter formatting they choose. Since this is the authoritative Wikipedia, I thought we'd better get the letter formatting (upper case; lower case) right for the esteemed readers of this fantastic encyclopedia.
- I trust the hint will help a lot. Good luck in figuring out the reason! I not only assume good faith, I assume high intelligence. Here's hoping you won't disappoint.
- Johnuniq: You wrote above: "I have previously mentioned some of the points I have just had to repeat." Darn. I've forgotten. Remind me: I don't recall asking you to repeat anything for me. What about my writing gives you the impression that repetition makes me more receptive to you the second time around? I don't feel respected by you, so I don't attend closely to what you write. I learned this from WLU: if you don't like someone, you don't read carefully what she writes. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." Good teachers know that a receptive student is a lot easier to teach. What can you do to make me want to rise to your high standards? What can I do to make you more receptive to what I write? I am feeling like I am being stalked by you, and would rather you just leave me alone and focus on the editing. You and I are co-editors. Let's see what you can do for Wikipedia. After I see some of your work for Wikipedia here, I'll have a better picture. Radvo (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- We don't follow the logo typography of organizations. Our article on Macy's for instance is not titled Macy*s notwithstanding that that's how they style it. Acronyms are given in full upper case. As it says at top of the NAMBLA article "The capital M and lowercase b symbolize a man and a boy", which you likely know. That you'd override the typography rules used by Wikipedia (or most any other publication) to render the name of the organization in this way is idiosyncratic... and instructive. Herostratus (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- The title of this section is wrong and misleading. This discussion is mostly about typography.
- The argument would not need much discussion if you had researched a WP:Soucre. This is BRDDDDDDiscuss ad nauseum, too. Evern after the word has been deleted from the text.
- The Ohio State University capitalizes the first letter in "The", even though this capitalization of "The" is not standard. See university usage here in [in second paragraph]. The linguistics department decides this.
- [CLAiT] is what the group calls itself, with a lower case "i" among the capital letters. Something distinctive.
- The Macy's example is not an example of mixed upper and lower case letters. Macy*s is a substitution of an * for an '. If "we" were were to respect Macy*s wishes about how it wants to name itself, "we" would use Macy*s. No big deal for me, but apparently a big deal for Macy*s. I lean towards allowing groups to name themselves, but this is not that important to dicsuss this longer. Why these groups do this (and why you named yourself Herostratus) is irrelevant to getting the typography and the name right on Wikipedia.
- About the title of this section.
- Associating this mathematically brilliant research study with despised advocacy groups is a weapon of psychological warfare, domination, degradation and humiliation. This is not NPOV. WLU has gotten some of the message and has now removed the organization names from the article. That is a big step in the neutral direction. Publicly associating the Rind et al. study with advocacy organizations is a form of "degradation ceremony." (Scholarly Source: Garfinkel J. (1956) "Conditions of successful degradation ceremonies" American Journal of Sociology Volume 61, pp. 420-424) A degradation ceremony is assigning stigma to this research study because of the organizations that support the controversial research (the weak, tiny advocacy groups) and those institutions that despise it (the powerful U.S. Congress), A scientist or researcher who is publicly associated, by Wikipedia, with despised advocacy organizations and Congressional condemnation is stigmatized, and by definition, researchers with a stigma are not quite human, and need not be respected as such. So the Dr. Laura libel can be rephrased in the editor's words in violation of BLP. Everything else about the stigmatized researcher is viewed thru that dark lens. It's something like urinating on the dead body of the enemy soldier you just killed. Dehumanizing the enemy is how the military conditions soldiers in basic training to kill the enemy and destroy property. It is also a way to survive in battle. The opposition must be de-graded, and they are fundamentally flawed as human beings. They now have "a spoiled identity." This is all relevant IMHO to the experience of the Rind controversy. Editors here might to take great care to report the controversy NPOV and not be part of the "degradation ceremony" of psychological warfare against the study. Radvo (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
First Paragraph of the Controversies Section
I integrated the content of two sections that were sourced by Carol Tavris's article in Society. I made a complex edit, and put that edit into the first paragraph of the Controversies section.
WLU reverted it because of too much analysis and too much verbiage.
I moved a photo, and was beginning to edit to make things more concise as requested. Before I could even begin to post by work to reduce the verbiage, I was reverted a second time. Dontbite I will file a complaint if this continues.
Johnuniq objected to wording in the second sentence. I immediately removed the entire sentence. I was following BRD.
I then made a number of edits to remove analysis and verbage to meet WLU's objection.
I would like to discuss the paragraph, as it now exits after my series of edits to make this more concise. How can we work to improve this paragraph?
Please discuss the issues you have with the edit here on this talk page and work things out. Please be specific. I will consider and negotiate future changes. Please do not revert this again until you discuss. I prefer to make the discussed changes myself. If you don't like what I have done the next time, we can continue the discussion here.
I am using WLU's preferred mode of working. He refuses Anthonhcole's suggestion that we discuss things first, as I would prefer. I believe we should all follow the same rules. See my previous attempts to get some discussion going about how editors work on this topic.
I am using what I understand to be BRD..
Radvo (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Could we agree here that before an editor reverts another editor's work, the editor who plans to revert should open a new section and explain the revert in detail BEFORE the revert is made. Then if an editor gets reverted, he/she can go immediately to the talk page and find out the problem. After I was twice reverted today, I looked on the TALK page,and saw no detail for the reason for the reverts, so I assumed I was being reverted for the reasons in the edit summaries, and that was all the feedback I was going to get. So, I used the information in the edit summary to make the requested changes. And I was reverted a second time as I was making the changes. I had get back to my work to make the changes requested. That is why I twice reverted to get back to my work to make it more concise, and to removed the sentence that was objected to. What do editors here think of this proposal? Radvo (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you have a proposal to change the way that Wikipedia works, please present it at WP:VPR. Until such a proposal is accepted, the correct procedure is that an editor who makes a change that is contested (such as being reverted with any kind of reason) needs to justify their change on the article talk page. Other editors may choose to join that discussion. There is nothing in the above two posts that actually belongs on this talk page: just explain why a change is required and respond to any comments. Johnuniq (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- I reverted again because there is a lot wrong with the changes to the controversy section. BRD stands for Bold, Revert, Discuss. After two reverts by two separate people, it's time to discuss - not force in more changes. Keep in mind Radvo, that you are not the only editor on the page, you do not own it and there are other editors with much, much more experience than you. We don't revert idly, and if two are reverting you, that's an indication your edits aren't appropriate. However, I at least bear some culpability for the problems as I did make the first revert. I think an experienced editor would have immediately seen the changes as problematic and why the edit summary was sufficient explanation and my apologies for not giving a more detailed rationale for the revert. It's a shit response to give "I'm an experienced editor" as a reason for a revert, but there's not a lot of specific policies on exact page contents; hopefully this explanation will be sufficiently convincing, or other editors will agree with me. Here are my objections to the changes, in no particular order:
- Carol Tavris is completely tangential to the controversy section. Her paper was already used to verify that NARTH objected to the study. Her opinion should not be included in the controversy section as she was not a significant player as it unfolded. Her attributed opinion is appropriate somewhere else in the page, but I admit the "usage outside" section is not ideal. Her picture shouldn't appear anywhere on the page.
- The words "The provocative information in the jargon-laden meta-analysis did not languish for long unnoticed in the professional journal (circulation 6,000)" are far to editorial to be appropriate, in addition to being extraordinarily purple.
- Calling NARTH's response an "attack" is also inappropriately editorial and not neutral; while 'criticize' is inherently nonpejorative, 'attack' is. The inclusion of their opinion on what causes homosexuality (seduction by a man) is also wrong for this section - controversy should be a more-or-less chronological discussion of Rind et al's publication and the public reaction.
- The inclusion of the repressed memory reaction in the controversy section looks inappropriate, I have yet to see a source that includes them as part of the original controversy; Tavris does not. Remember, we are bound by what we can verify, not what is true. The repressed memory groups may have reacted strongly and immediately, but until we can attribute this to a source, it should not be included in the controversy section.
- Attributions of why people reacted to the controversy, specifically the fear of malpractice lawsuits, is also too much detial for what is essentially a minor, and from what I can tell, late-coming group in the debate.
- Overall, way, way, way too much analysis of one social psychologist, much I as liked Mistakes were Made. This diff shows a comparison of the before-and-after text made on one of my subpages. The changes are essentially what I summarized above, a bunch of out-of-order opinion from Tavris with way too much emphasis on the recovered-memory crowd. This is particularly a bad choice since I haven't seen any other sources that associate the recovered memory/DID movement so strongly with the initial or even subsequent reaction. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- I reverted again because there is a lot wrong with the changes to the controversy section. BRD stands for Bold, Revert, Discuss. After two reverts by two separate people, it's time to discuss - not force in more changes. Keep in mind Radvo, that you are not the only editor on the page, you do not own it and there are other editors with much, much more experience than you. We don't revert idly, and if two are reverting you, that's an indication your edits aren't appropriate. However, I at least bear some culpability for the problems as I did make the first revert. I think an experienced editor would have immediately seen the changes as problematic and why the edit summary was sufficient explanation and my apologies for not giving a more detailed rationale for the revert. It's a shit response to give "I'm an experienced editor" as a reason for a revert, but there's not a lot of specific policies on exact page contents; hopefully this explanation will be sufficiently convincing, or other editors will agree with me. Here are my objections to the changes, in no particular order:
- You have some of this wrong. [Spokesperson Stephanie Dallam = Leadership Council] = Repressed Memory Crowd = Fear of malpractice suits. They are all tied together behind spokesperson Stephanie Dallam who then took the arguments that were not shot down and wrote her propaganda paper in 2002, (which you like so well here). Everyone of her co-authors was from the repressed memory crowd at the advocacy group, Or is my memory failing me here? The Leadership Council. They all failed to disclose their ties and connection to this advocacy group in their "research paper". If a half dozen Nxxxxa members published a paper in a scholarly journal, it would be important for readers to know that all the co-authors were members of that advocacy group, so readers might be alert for biases. I suspect from what you wrote above that you did not know much of this before I told you. Somewhere in the Wikipedia article that references the Dallam article, Wikipedia should disclose that all of Dallam's co-authors were members of the repressed memory crowd (The Leadership Council). These were the advocate "consultants" to Dr. Laura in the Spring 1999 and lobbyists thru the summer 1999 with the State legislatures and U.S. Congress. They were hiding their biases behind their degrees, and IMHO neurotically projecting this out to Rind et al. No Source. No original research. Drop that. These groups and their allies orchestrated the moral panic with their non-peer-reviewed garbage. Caraol Tavris was in Los Angeles and didn't have names of people and organizations out there when she first published the earlier version of her article in the Los Angeles Times. I'll respond more with good Sources if I can easily find them. Do you want to do this in chronological order? Can you make a flow chart in another section from December 1998 thru September 1999? We can put the events of the chronology on the flow chart in the correct order.
- I agree on the chronology mix up in the article here. Otherwise, however, I have a response for all your other points. It will be long. Will you read it?
- Wikipedia is sullied, by association, if moral panic advocacy sites are linked from our pages - including talk pages. Moral panic is immoral.
- pas de touché Radvo (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Dallam isn't specifically mentioned by Tavris, making your observation a synthesis.
- Where the hell do you get the idea that I "like" Dallam's paper? Did you not post a comment in the section I started above that discussed removing Dallam outright? I think it's a biased piece of shit that's thoroughly rebutted by Rind.
- And I still don't think it's worth including Tavris' specific commentary in the controversy section. Leadership council isn't the kind of major player that the religious fundamentalists or Congress are. Not worth a mention and no specific attributions can be made to any actions they took. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sloppy wording about "you". I think I was referring to the collective "you" of editors who put all that Dallam material into the article in the more distant past. I am very pleased that you write this way about Dallam. If we can get this cleaned up I can die and go to heaven. The question now is how to get the Dallam stuff cleaned up without all hell breaking loose. The point you make about synthesis is one to ponder more. Radvo (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Explain the study. Or break this topic up into 2 separate topics?
The second post to this TALK page, more that 3 years ago, asked for an explanation of the study. Too much controversy and negativity was a problem here from the very start. This negativity chases new editors away. Bite
That old post reads:
- Could somebody who has really read this article elaborate on what it says and what are it's bases, how the study was done and what are Rind's conclusions, because right now there is almost nothing but criticism of the study. That, if anything, is not very scientific and least of all encyclopedic. 84.253.253.245 ([index.php?title=User_talk:84.253.253.245&action=edit&redlink=1 talk]) 12:00 pm, 29 August 2008, Friday (3 years, 4 months, 20 days ago) (UTC−4)
Lots of progress has been made in three years, but I am not satisfied with the removal of most of Truthinwriting's 'Findings in brief' section by an editor who probably has not read the study, refuses to read it, and is not qualified to write a short summary of the findings or results. He doesn't know that he doesn't know the material and he doesn't know that I know he doesn't know the material. Telling how many participants were included in the study and how many studies were meta-analyzed is good, but we had to discuss that at great length to even get that in the article. What about the Rind results? There is little about the results in the current page.
Truthinwriting has read the study, and even understands it. I alerted Dr. Rind to this "Findings in Brief' summary, he read it, and said it was a good summary of the results of the 32 page jargon laden study. What is the problem with including it here? The 'Finding in brief' section was removed without Truthinwriting's consent or mine. We are lectured about consensus, and then Herostratus and WLU work without consensus, or even asking for consensus.
How about an appendix summarizing the entire study, not just the study itself.
Or start an entirely new topic starting with the Findings in brief section and a very professional tone. And then dealing only with the methodological and statistical problems on that page. Why should editors who have read and understood the study have to educate editors about the very basics of the study because the inexperienced editors refusal to do their homework? We can't do their homework for others. If the Pedophile Article Watch sends someone over to oversee things, we editors of the new page will demand from the appropriate Adminstration authority that the PAW representative must have read and understood the 1997 and 1998 papers. Otherwise that PAW representative is unwelcome to edit content of the paper and certainly not redact what editors who read the study may write. The new page would avoid discussing the controversy outside the scholarly circles. (The current article could deal more thoroughly with The Family Research Council, The Leadership Council, Radio Talk show hosts Dr. Laura and Dom Giordano, the state and Congressional condemnation, the lobbying, the fear of malpractice suites, etc.
Should we split this article in two and start a new page with just the Rindings in Brief section, and only editors who have read and understood the study may participate and edit. Others will be redacted unless they make unusually talented posts based on good secondary sources. Maybe in a year or two, the two articles might be merged together again.
The "controversy part" can stay here, and editors here need to read only the dozens of secondary sources, not the original Rind material? They can continue with The Leadership Council's fetish of linking the Rind article with advocacy organizations,, etc. as they have for years. The professionals I am looking to work with may not want to sully their professional experience and credentials with this biased crap, and the BRDDDDD.. I would rather work with peers and professionals above my pay grade, psychologists, sexologists, and statisticians who can handle the complexity and the significance of this powerful material.
BRD is not appropriate for people who have not read the study. There is just too much to explain. The Anthonyhcole method is superior, but we have no consensun on using it.
I would especially like to read Truthinwriting's response to this, if he is still watching these ideas. Radvo (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I need to ask something important at this juncture. Do you have any personal association with Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch, or Robert Bauserman? Are you one of those three, or were you ever a colleague of any of them? Did you have anything to do with the work of these three related to this paper? The reason I ask is not a condemnation, but rather a matter of policy on conflicts of interest. You would not be blocked or punished in any way if you are, nor barred from editing this article, but rather it simply creates the necessity for proper disclosure and consideration for due weight. I highly recommend you read this specific section of the COI policy as it reads almost exactly like our interactions with you thus far on this article. And for pete's sake, try to keep your reply under 1000 characters.Legitimus (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I tried to post this before, and it seems not to have saved. So I am posting this a second time. If this is a duplicate, this was not intentional.
- Legitimus: I read conflicts of interest and liked: [Everyone] acts with love and neutrality to write a good article which is acceptable to both reasonable critics and reasonable supporters ... [where] reliance on solid sources, neutral language, etc., carries the day." You're right, my situation is a little like that. And I consider myself a reasonable Rind supporter outraged at the hatchet job that has been done on Rind et al.
- To answer: I am not Rind, Bauserman, or Tromovitch. I am not now and never was a colleague of any of them. I have already disclosed in my posts to this TALK page several times, that I have contacted Bruce Rind about this article in the past month. I asked Dr. Rind if he would read the "Findings in Brief" section that was written by Truthinwriting.
- I told Dr. Rind that the Wikipedia article about his paper was a hatchet job, and I was interested in making it more NPOV. I do not represent the views of Robert Bauserman or Philip Tromovitch, and have never discussed Wikipedia with either of them. Dr. Tromovitch has emigrated permanently to Japan, and I have heard rumors that he claimed to have been troubled by the mistreatment around the controversy. Rumor has it that Dr. Fowler, president of the APA at that time, also had a reaction after the controversy. Dr. Rind wasn't well aware of the Wikipedia article, and I had to coax him to read it. He felt the WP:article had so many serious errors that he wasn't interested in working on it. But I am! He says his responses are available in published sources for good faith editors. I asked him for some sources for the issue of "consent" and "willingness", and he e-mailed some scholarly articles. Particularly relevant discussion, he said, was found in: Rind, B., Tromovitch, Ph., & Bauserman, R., The Validity and Appropriateness of Methods, Analyses, and Conclusions in Rind et al. (1998): A Rebuttal of Victimological Critique From Ondersma et al. (2001) and Dallam et al. (2001); Psychological Bulletin, 127, 6, 734-758, 2001
- I do not have a conflict of interest, but I do have access to Dr. Rind by telephone and e-mail. I want to use this access to ask him, from time to time, if he could refer me to reliable secondary sources (he has a great memory). He tolerates my work on Wikipedia as long as I don't drain him about the Wikipedia article with lots of requests and time. It is good that editors know of my contact with Dr. Rind, as we will both go to BLP with complaints about this article if this doesn't get cleaned up eventually in harmony with Wikipedia BLP policies.
- As far as specific edits go, Dr. Rind focused on the December 1998 meeting at the Pauluskirk (St. Paul's Church) in Rotterdam. All the rest of this edit is from talking with him, and you can monitor me via the TALK page on these matters. We think Salter/Dallam based their claim that Dr. Rind attended that meeting on an unreliable e-mail newsletter that was dated before the conference date. That email newsletter (I think it is still on line) was inviting people to the conference, & the conference planners were expecting Dr. Rind to come, since the major focus of the conference was his 1998 paper that was condemned by Congress. This seems to be of considerable interest in Northern Europe. (Der Spiegel, the German equivalent of Time magazine, ran a large article on the Congressional condemnation at the time.) Dr. Rind himself, in fact, did not attend the Rotterdam conference, and Wikipedia has been wrong on this fact for years. The conference was just another one of those things that this unusual pastor did, based on his understanding of his religion. The December 1998 Rotterdam conference was open to the public but attended mostly by clinicians and academics who wanted hear a talk about that jargon laden 1998 paper. Native English speakers can't understand it, and these were native Dutch speakers, some of whom learned enough English in school to understand the spoken English word. People who were not well educated in English or statistics would not be attracted to attend, and would not understand much if they did. The pastor (Name like Visser if I remember correctly) of that church reached out to outcasts: pedophiles, AIDs patients, drug addicts, illegal aliens, the homeless particularly those who were not being well cared for by the Dutch safety net. I believe this conference and the speakers are documented in Dutch newspaper articles published after the conference, I do not imagine that they would have said after the conference that Dr. Rind attended, when in fact he was not physically there. I believe both Dallam and Salter quoted the Dutch papers, but did not correct their error. The conference was about the Rind paper, not about Pedophilia, and was not for a pedophile audience. The citation for the paper presented at the conference is listed on this TALK page, and I believe it has all three authors' names on it. The citation was in WLU's chart, and may be in the archives2 as of today. If you read the paper, you may find that the word pedophilia does not appear once. You can assume you have the consent of the authors regarding to access that paper, if you want it and need formal permission, Dr. Rind may arrange this for you. It is available on line. The authors will give Wikipedia full access to it, if desired. I have not been too interested in working on this Rotterdam conference error, but may get around researching it if I get access to the sources. Dutch newspapers are not easily accessible here, and I don't read Dutch.
- Dr. Rind acknowledges that Dr. Laura libeled her on her radio show, but he would prefer that Wikipedia quoted her libel directly rather have some editor summarize the libel Dr. Laura spoke. Does someone still have the libel that Dr. Laura offered on her radio show? Dr. Rind feels that if you don't have the direct quote from Dr. Laura, you should drop it. I will work on this some other time, too. When we get to that part. I feel Dr. Rind should work to clean the BLP stuff up, but he is busy.
- Full disclosure: I do NOT know personally know who Truthinwriting is, and Dr. Rind does not know him either. I had been lurking, off and on, at the Rind et al. stie, and when I saw Truthinwriting's post at the beginning of December/end of November, I decided to join him and clean this article up. Radvo (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Baird
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ United States Congress (1999). "Whereas no segment of our society is more critical to the future of human survival than our children" (PDF). 106th Congress, Resolution 107.