Talk:Rind et al. (1998)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

I cannot see why this article is needed as it is. First of all, an encyclopedia cannot cover every controversial journal article. Second, since "Rind" most likely has written more than one article, the title of this article is inappropriate. Third, if any of this article is needed at all, it should be covered under "child sexual abuse" or so in a paragraph about controversies over the scientific research of harmfulness of abuse. Get-back-world-respect 01:58, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rind et al for discussion on whether the article shoiuld be deleted. Andrewa 20:31, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've created a redirect from A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples, which was suggested as a better name on VfD. I agree that some will search under this name, so this redir is appropriate at least.

But the suggestion was for the article to be moved there. This is still possible, we should discuss it here not on VfD and if the decision is that it should be moved there I'll help as I've now made it more difficult.

I'm also guessing of course that the article will be kept, if not then we'll have a redir to delete too. Andrewa 20:31, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Neutrality

To me the anecdote about the scientists talking about common sense and the comment on it are grossly inappropriate. No one would describe it as "common sense" that the world is flat. It is just what one would think without proper examination. "Common sense" as I would interprete what she reportedly said is just that she was not convinced by the study, which does not mean that she would have said the earth was flat had she seen a photo taken by a satelite. For this and other reasons I add a neutrality dispute note. Get-back-world-respect 01:21, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As the flat world "common sense" has gone I expand on why I still dispute the neutrality of the article. First, even without the "flat world" the judgment of a sentence quoted out of its content as misguided is still inappropriate, and the explanation that "common sense is rarely applicable to phenomena outside our everyday experiences" is ridiculous. I have never had an everyday experience with a kangorooh, I however can tell using common sense that probably while in their mother's pocket young kangoroohs cannot jump very high. One more seriously dubious sentence is the description of one "of the more controversial conclusions": "CSA does not cause intense harm on a pervasive basis regardless of gender." Does it cause intense harm but not in a statistically significant way? What exactly is meant with "not regardless of gender"? Does it mean the study found females suffering intensely and statistically significant enough? How did the American House of Representatives "condemn the study"? Did they name it and pass a law about its wrongfulness? The final sentence is tendentious: "No evidence has been provided thus far to disprove the study." Many studies have found serious harm caused by child abuse, no one would even think of starting an extra article about them, using the name of the first author + "et al." as title and ending it with a statement that it was not disproven. Get-back-world-respect 23:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I do not know what anecdote you are talking about, but common sense is generally regarded as an invalid way to come to conclusions in the study of psychology. So many common sense notions have already beed disproven in that field. The conclusion you quote is simply stating that the effects of child abuse found in the study were small, and were not statistically significant for males that were from samples that included both consensual and nonconsensual CSA. It was significant for males from samples that only included non-consensual encounters. Females in the same group showed significant differences in adjustment that were greater than the male's. So women and men reacted differently to CSA, which challenged the claim that CSA affected men and women equally. And the last sentence is refering to the fact that there were no challenges to the methodology of the study that were widely held in the scientific community or that weren't refuted by Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman. The name is probably like it is because that is how the study is refered to in scientific writing. That's because it is in Harvard referencing format. As such, I don't see that it is all that bad a title. It is at least neutral and recognizable. Crazywolf 07:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming this Article

In my opinion, "Rind, et al." is a very bad name for this article. Normally, the title of the paper in question would be the best title for the article. Considering the length of the official title of this study, however, I would suggest renaming this article "The Rind Report", which seems to be how it is often referred to in the media. --Zanthalon 04:39, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I object. As the article itself indicates, Rind has written many journal articles. This one was in co-operation with others. "Rind-report" ignores both and exaggerates the importance of this one article, which I insist should be covered under the appropriate topic rather than isolated. Get-back-world-respect 06:54, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I concur, this article is very poorly named and is against any common nomenclature used by Wikipedia. Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
We should move it to the title of the article. -- stillnotelf is invisible 01:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no objections to moving it, as long as there is a redirect from Rind et al. and Rind et al.(1998). That is how it is often refered to in textbooks and scientific literature.

[edit] Child sexual abuse

Yesterday I went to Berlin's meeting of wikipedians and spoke with the head of the German wikipedia organization, Kurt Jansson. He said that the problems with the articles related to pedophilia and abuse were well known for quite some time and probably started with a posting in a forum for pedophiles about wikipedia as a great opportunity to spread the message that sex with adults is helpful for children. He already mentioned it in an interview with a newspaper in order to increase awareness of the problem. In the German pages the most notorious abuser is de:Benutzer:Mondlichtschatten, his english version - or at least one of them - is user:Moon_light_shadow. Here user:Zanthalon seems to play the main role. Checking their contribution lists tells easily which articles need a complete rewrite: List of self-identified pederasts and pedophiles, Childlove movement, pedophilia, Child sexuality, Child pornography, Child sexual abuse, Capturing the Friedmans, Rind et al.. I put the german articles on the list of articles that lack neutrality and need more care - the latter was immediately reverted by guess who. Please help taking care of the trouble. Get-back-world-respect 12:35, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Importing Criticisms"

Making an entirely knew section called "Rejection of Report Claims" is redundant. We already have a section call "Critics". If there is anything new to add in the way of speculation over the falsity of the report's claims, they should be inserted there.

Read articles before you just start appending stuff to the end of them please. Thanks. Corax 00:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A note on balance and NPOV

The current article is in a state of disorganization and imbalance. I have been working as time allows to present Rind's responses to the criticisms leveled in the "criticisms" subsection.

It is important for people making edits to understand that the article is NOT a debate page, nor is it a Wiki talk page. If you are going to add VALID and COMPREHENSIBLE criticisms, make it CONCISE and integrate it with existing text. do not simply nest it onto the response of the existing criticisms.

Secondly, terms such as "straw man" are highly POV, and they should not be included in any Wiki articles unless it is clearly represented as somebody's opinion.

The article will be overhauled soon so as to have better organization and more balance. That is, the article will explain what the article says and not just some confused critics' ideas of what the article says. It will explain the methodology, the conclusions, and the politiciziation of the conclusions. Additionally, it will discuss criticisms and Rind's responses to those criticisms -- with EQUAL time given to both. Corax 04:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

Why is there a link to pedophilia in ==See also==? 24ip | lolol 18:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Because it is a highly related topic. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Howso? 24ip | lolol 18:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Both concern sex with children. -Willmcw 19:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Pedophilia is just an attraction to children; it doesn't inherently mean you desire sex with children, and actually having sex with them is even less connected. Most of this is done by situational offenders rather than pedophiles. Also, if we're categorizing this article in Category:Pedophilia then we're saying it's about pedophilia, which it is not; it's about child sexual abuse. 24ip | lolol 20:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Aren't the perpetrators of child sexual abuse pedophiles? -Willmcw 20:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Some child sexual abusers are, of course, pedophiles, just as some are heterosexuals or homosexuals. Most, however, are situational offenders (see Sexual_abuse#Child_sex_offenders). 24ip | lolol 21:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Since some, perhaps most, child sexual abusers are at least situational pedophiles then the category makes sense. Inclusion in "See also" means that "pedophilia" is a related topic. -Willmcw 21:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
But they're not situational pedophiles, they're situational offenders. A pedophile is someone whose primary subjects of sexual attraction are pre-pubescent children, not a child molester. Some child sexual abuse is perpetrated by pedophiles, but in most cases, the offender is situational.
Again, I do not consider pedophilia to be related. Perhaps the childlove movement or the NAMBLA folks are related to this (since they advocate child sex), but pedophilia is just an attraction. 24ip | lolol 21:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, and those who act on their attraction are the perpetrators of the activity that is being examined in this study. -Willmcw 22:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Not all child sexual abuse is committed by pedophiles. Most isn't. 24ip | lolol 22:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
But much is. So it is related and should be included in the area for related topics. I would imagine that not all child sexual abuse is done out of "childlove," yet you were in favor of including that in the "see also." · Katefan0(scribble) 22:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Because members of the childlove movement advocate child sex, which is what this article is all about. Yes, some child sexual abuse is perpetrated by pedophiles. Some is done by heterosexuals, some by homosexuals, and some by bisexuals. Should we include all of these in the See also section? 24ip | lolol 22:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
If those articles concern sex with children, then we should include them. Last I checked they did not. -Willmcw 22:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Pedophilia does not inherently concern sex with children. Heterosexuality does not inherently concern sex with children. None should be included. 24ip | lolol 22:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Pedophilia inherently concerns desire for the sexual abuse of children, whether or not the desire is acted upon. This study concerns the effects of acting on that desire. Hence the direct linkage. -Willmcw 23:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Unless I'm misdefining "pedophile" and "sexual attraction," this is not true. You could call me a "pedophile," I guess, though not technically, according to the APA, since I'm under 15. I have no desire to have sex with children, and I'm sure not all pedophiles do (though I have nothing against them). It is not inherently related. 24ip | lolol 23:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
This isn't about you. If a pedophile does not desire to have sex with a child, in what way is he a pedophile? -Willmcw 23:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm aware it is not about me. They are a pedophile because they are primarily sexually attracted to children. 24ip | lolol 23:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
pedophilia doesn't necessitate sex with children, but to say it doesn't concern it - or that they're not related subjects - is ludicrous coddling to mainstream apprehension. some trees don't have leaves, but trees and leaves are related.

I'm not sure that I follow your argument. In one post you say that "I have no desire to have sex with children, and I'm sure not all pedophiles do", while in the next post you say that a pedophile is someone who is primarily sexually attracted to children." Are you saying that someone whose sexual attraction to children is secondary is not a pedophile, That pedophile don't necessarily desire sex with children, that the majority of child sexual abusers are not primarily sexually attracted to children, and therefore a study on child sexual abuse has nothing to do with pedophiles? There seems like quite a stretch. -Willmcw 23:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm saying that pedophilia is not inherently related to child sexual abuse. And this article should not be categorized as being about pedophilia, certainly. 24ip | lolol 19:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
You are welcome to say that, but the inherent desire of a pedophile is to be sexual with underaged persons, whether or not they actually act on that desire. This article is not about pedophilia, it is about the after-effects of pedophilic activities. -Willmcw 18:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


Also, I see that this study is used as a reference for our article on pedophilia. Would that be an incorrect linkage too? -Willmcw 00:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

That is a reference. It is not claiming that pedophilia is related. 24ip | lolol 19:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
why would you reference something unrelated? --dan 20:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Then maybe it will be easiest for you to consider the links provided under "see also" as a reference as well. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

May I remove the category? 24ip | lolol 22:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

No, please don't. -Willmcw 23:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms section lacks objectivity

It's very important to cite the Leaderchip Council critique of Rind et al. (1998), but it is misleading to cite it without Rind et al's response.

The problem is that the critisims contained in the article "Science Or Propaganda" are entirely based on critiques Rind et al. had previously rebutted.

In fact, there is no need to read Rind et al.'s responses to realize Dallam et al. are dishonest.

- For example, about the selection bias: In their 1998 article, Rind et al have NEVER claimed their college samples were representative of the general populationnd they indeed claim that "Despite all the empirically based similarities between the college and national populations, it is tempting to speculate that certain differences exist. Persons with extremely harmful CSA episodes may be unable to attend college or remain there once they have begun. In this way, surveys of college students may miss extreme cases of CSA, limiting the generalizability of findings from the college population. Nevertheless, the results of the current review, while not demonstrating equivalence between the two populations, strongly suggest that the gulf between them is narrow, and much narrower than child abuse researchers have generally acknowledged." (Rind et al.(1998), p.42). Rind et al's critiques ignore results coming from Rind et al.(1997) based on national samples.

- The blame of "Statistical Errors and possible manufacture of results" can be directed to Dallam et al. instead of Rind et al. By reading the original article, it can be concluded that Dallam et al. wittingly distorted Rind et al.'s claims.

Dallam et al. claim that "It is important to note that .03 was the exact difference in magnitude that Rind et al. reported between male and female effect sizes (r = .07 and r = .10, respectively). Because lower effect sizes indicate better adjustment, Rind et al. reported that a major findings of their study was that "self-reported reactions to and effects from CSA indicated that . . . men reacted much less negatively than women" (p. 22). After correcting for attenuation due to base rate differences, Dallam et al. reported that effect sizes for males corresponded to r = .11, which is practically identical to the corrected effect size for females, r = .12."

But guess what Rind, Bauserman and Tromovitch claim in their meta-analysis ! "The contrast between the female (r u= .10) and male (r u= .07) unbiased effect size estimates, based on 14,578 participants, was nonsignificant ...."' [(Rind et al.(1998), p.33)]. Effect sizes r =.07 for males and r =.10 for females were based on all samples they had. Among these were samples resctricted to unwanted experiences and others contained people with wanted and unwanted experiences. They divided their samples into two categories, "unwanted only" and "all level of consent" and reanalyzed the contrast between males and females. They claim that "Finally, for all types of consent, the contrast between the female (r u= .11) and male (r u= .04) effect size estimates, based on 11,320 participants, was statistically significant ... "(Rind et al.(1998), p. 34) Thus THIS is the analysis from which Rind et al. conluded that "effects from CSA indicated that . . . men reacted much less negatively than women" (Rind et al.(1998), p. 22)

By the way, concerning the correction of effect-sizes due to low base rates Dallam et al. talk about, Rind et al. demonstrate in their response (see infra) hat this is innapropriate. Anyway Rind et al. redo their analyse with corrected effect-sizes and demonstrate the constrast between "unwanted" and "all level of consent" in male samples is significant. (see reference infra)


- Before the Leadeship Council published their article in the Pscyhological Bulletin (Dallam et al.(2001), they took an active part in the condemnation of Rind et al.(1998) by Congress. In 2000, Rind et al. demonstrated that The Leadership Council deceived the Congress members with worthless and UNPUBLISHED critisism (read Rind et al. 2000)

Dallam et al.(2001) looked more serious but was as much flawed. Why was it published in the Pychological Bulletin then ? Only to enable Rind and his colleagues to rebut it. This what they do in Rind et al.(2001)

Thus the article "Science or propaganda" which is based on "Dallam et al.(2001)", is not rebuttal of the controversial report.


References to add:


Rind, B., Tromovitch, Ph. & Bauserman, R. (2000) Condemnation of a scientific article: A chronology and refutation of the attacks and a discussion of threats to the integrety of science, Sexuality & Culture, 4-2, Spring 2000

Dallam, S.J., Gleaves, D.H., Cepeda-Benito, A., Silberg, J.L., Kraemer, H.C. & Spiegel, D.(2001) The Effects of Child Sexual Abuse: Comment on Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998); Psychological Bulletin, 127, 6, 715-733, 2001

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

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jean 939 (talk • contribs).


You are, of course, absolutely right. I myself have been meaning to issue significant revisions to the page, but have been too busy to do so.
It is important for you to understand that there are many people on Wikipedia who, quite frankly, have an agenda. They will revert any and all changes that do not support their vision of an article, no matter how distorted or biased it is. In addition to outright censorship, some of their other preferred tactics include the misleading juxtaposition, disproportionate focus on people's opinions that align with their own, repetition of weasal-worded opinions ("some people say...," "critics argue..."), etc. And all of these tactics are evident in this article.
To combat these antics is trying to one's patience, but nonetheless important if wiki readers are to have access to neutral and factually correct articles. I applaud your efforts with this article and encourage you to implement your changes. Corax


Allright. I'll modify this article with a more comprehensive summary of the report and its related controversy when I have more time. Jean 939 23 November 2005, 19:41(UK time)

[edit] Criticisms section updated

I have updated the criticisms portion of the article not only by reformating it, but also by including Rind's rebuttals to criticisms leveled by Dallam et al. Before this revision, the "criticisms" section was little more than a copy-paste job of an article published by the "Leadership Council." That oversight has now been remedied. Corax 00:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the 1998 versus 1997 distinction

A separate study that Rind was also on, dated 1997, is mentioned in the introduction to this article. Now I read the article child sexual abuse, and when it mentions Rind et al., it says "1998", and I wondered if it was confused with 1997, since when I tried comparing the two, I found it harder to tell them apart. I don't really understand the distinction between the two, because their descriptions seem fairly overlapping; "A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse (CSA) using college samples" (1998) seems almost indistinguishable in its goal from "A meta-analytic review of findings from national samples on psychological correlates of child sexual abuse" (1997). The only noticeable difference seems to be where the data is originally from (college samples vs. national samples). Can someone explain the distinction better? Phoenix-forgotten 11:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pedophilia/Ephebophilia links in See also

Why are there links to pedophilia and ephebophilia in the ==See also= section? Where does Rind et al. mention pedophilia? What further relevant information on the harm of child sexual abuse do the pedophilia and ephebophilia articles have to offer? TrueMirror 23:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (24.224.etc)

Pedophilia is closely associated with child sexual abuse, the topic of the paper that this article concerns. -Will Beback 23:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Rind et al. is specifically about the impact of child sexual abuse on children, not child sexual abuse in general. Our article on pedophilia does not provide any further information on the degree of harm done to children by child sexual abuse and its inclusion in See also is therefore unreasonable. Indeed, Rind et al. does not discuss the sexual fixation on children at all.
Besides, pedophilia is only vaguely releted to child sexual abuse. TrueMirror 00:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Besides, pedophilia is only vaguely releted to child sexual abuse. That is absurd. It is like saying that thirst is only vaguely related to drinking. -Will Beback 01:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Many people who abuse children aren't pedophiles, and many if not most pedophiles don't abuse children.--Prosfilaes 01:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and many people who are thirsty don't drink, while many who are not thirsty do drink. -User:Will Beback 01:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
So maybe our article on thirst should have a See also link to drunk driving? Or, better yet, our desciption of a study on the whether or not it hurts to get hit by a drunk driver should have a See also link to thirst, right? TrueMirror 02:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The more apt comparison there is "alcoholism" from "drunk driving". No, not all alcoholics drive drunk, and not all drunk drivers are alcoholics. It is especially od that we have a link to Pedophilia activism but not to pedophilia. That's like having a link to the hospitality lobbying group from an article about drunk driving. -Will Beback 00:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Since Rind et al. is a key study -- perhaps the key study -- of adult-child sex activism, and since Rind et al. is frequently accused of being abuser "propaganda" for such activism, the two subjects are linked and obviously relevant. The adult/child sex sect of the childlove movement centres completely around the dispute of whether or not having sex with children harms them -- the topic of this study. On the other hand, Rind et al. hardly mentions pedophilia or adults who are sexually attracted to children, and certainly doesn't focus on pedophiles. The topic of pedophilia is not relevant because this study has nothing to do with it; the topic of adult-child sex activism, termed at Wikipedia as "pedophile activism," is clearly suitable. Can you explain how our topic on pedophilia can even fathomably provide any further enlightenment on whether child sexual abuse hurts? TrueMirror 01:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
That's correct, "Rind" focuses entirely on the victims, not on the perpetrators. But to suggest that the perpetrators have nothing to do with the crime is absurd. -Will Beback 04:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
As you admitted above, the perpetrators of the crimes aren't necessarily pedophiles. So that's a completely absurd argument. And why shouldn't we link to male, since a much higher percentage of child sex abusers are male than pedophiles?--Prosfilaes 05:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
That's fine with me, though I expect that we can work all of these terms into the text. -Will Beback 05:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If I'm reading this right:

Proponents of changing or eliminating age-of-consent laws, such as pedophiles

you are now trying to define pedophiles as proponents of changing or eliminating age-of-consent laws. Very no. TrueMirror 22:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute over intro

User:Will Beback has correctly noted that Rind et al has been used by people who advocate revising age-of-consent laws. He believes that this fact is noteworthy enough to receive mention in the introduction. For lack of a better place in the article, I have no problem with this. However he has twice phrased the introductory passage in a way that is unsatisfactory. The version I rendered reads: Proponents of changing or eliminating age-of-consent laws often make use of reports such as Rind et al. in contending that adult-minor sexual relationships do not always cause psychological harm for the minor. This statement is entirely factual and points out one of the main factors contributing to the article's controversy in the general public.

Will Beback insists on an alternate version which reads as follows: Proponents of changing or eliminating age-of-consent laws, such as pedophiles, often make use of reports such as Rind et al. as part of pedophile activism, in contending that adult-minor sexual relationships do not always cause psychological harm for the minor. This rendering has two problems. First, it has a factual problem. It implies that all pedophiles advocate for changing or eliminating age-of-consent laws. Unless Will has proof for this implication, he needs to qualify the word "pedophiles" by preceding it with the word "some." Even then, his rendering faces a second problem, one of containing a blatant POV. Besides some pedophiles, many other people advocate eliminating age-of-consent laws. The youth rights group ASFAR, some ephebophiles, and -- yes -- some heterosexual adults also advocate retooling age-of-consent laws, citing Rind's studies to bolster their varied positions. Consequently, mentioning only that pedophiles reference the study in support of revising age-of-consent laws, while failing to mention specifically other groups or people who also do so, has the imbedded POV that pedophiles' use of the study is noteworthy but not ephebophiles' use of the study. It therefore legitimizes the POV perception that Rind's study is an "emancipation proclamation" for pedophiles, rather than an empirical study that has informed the political positions of some pedophiles and some members of other demographic groups. Such text is in violation of Wikipedia policy and, consequently, merits immediate removal. Corax 01:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy section

Needs to read less like a timeline. --DanielCD 19:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch. The article is assoiated with both child sexual abuse and pedophilia. WP:PAW works on articles related to both topics. IMO, if you stop 100 people on the street and ask them if pedophilia and sexual abuse are related the overwhelming majority will say yes. The argument that they are not related is hypertechnical and not helpful for reaching consensus.

See also is a navigational tool to help users find information. See also like categories is not information of fact about the article. (See arbcom ruling on this. Ruling) See also points a user toward information that might be of interest related to the original article topic. It isn't a stretch to think that people reading this article may have an interest in the subject of adults desiring to have sex with children. Would someone please add the Pedophilia back to See also. FloNight talk 01:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think people are playing games. I read this article today and I've read the study and some other articles on this over the past few days, and I think this article is overly-apologetic toward the people who initially brought the "criticisms", if you can even call them that, against the study. I'm not going to make any major changes, but from what I've read, this whole thing is a case study in how people can tell outright lies and be lauded for it by a population existing at a near-ape level of intelligence. It's astonishing. --DanielCD 02:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
So now arguments you don't like aren't helpful for reaching consensus? If they help consensus be reached, then they are useful. The addition of a group of people who the referenced subject is not about (from Child sexual abuse, "Most offenders are situational offenders ... rather than pedophiles or ephebophiles.") isn't useful. See also should be focused, not catch alls for everything that someone could possibly want to look up.
I think the fact that Will Beback said that "But to suggest that the perpetrators have nothing to do with the crime is absurd." is precisely why we shouldn't add, because that is the false reason behind the addition.--Prosfilaes 03:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

--Prosfilaes 03:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Prosfilaes, Hypertechnical arguments aren't helpful. We both know that pedophilia has several definitions. This isn't a medical textbook, it is a general encyclopedia. As the pedophilia article says, the general public equates pediphilla with child sexual abuse. Removing the pedophilia article from See also isn't going to change the public opinion, it will just deny users easy access to an article of interest. I have an 1RR, so I won't put it back in the article. Edit wars aren't the answer. I'm confident that the WP comunity will agree that pedophilia is associated with this article and will be added back to See also. regards FloNight talk 03:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it's very unfortunate that the general public is made up of a bunch of fucking idiots. On Wikipedia we use the word "pedophile" in the "I'm-not-a-fucking-idiot" sense, and that's what the article discusses. Those who want to look up child sexual abuse can look up child sexual abuse. As it stands, our article on pedophilia barely touches the topic of child sexual abuse, except in its relation to pedophilia, which Rind et al. doesn't say anything about. 24.224.153.40 17:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Because it's so, so hard to type pedophilia into the search box? The See Also links aren't there to provide easy access to any article that might come into the reader's mind; the links are there as suggestions on things a reader should look at. As an encyclopedia, we should use the precise clear technical definition instead of a more vague generalized definition, out of a need for clarity.--Prosfilaes 04:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
This is a spurious argument. Obviously there's a point of diminishing relevance, but nobody's adding Disneyland. Pedophilia is hardly something that might just randomly and appropos of nothing "come into the reader's mind." It's imminently related. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 04:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
People have molested children at Disney World before. Pedophiles have molested children before. Heterosexuals have molested children before. Homosexuals have molested children before. Black people and white people have molested children before. Canadians and Americans and Mexicans and Iraqis and Africans and Egyptians have molested children before. People with the last name "Green" have molested children before. Men and women have molested children before. Indeed, more heterosexuals and homosexuals and whites and men in general have fucked children than pedophiles. Pedophilia is related to child sexual abuse. Pedophilia is not related to Rind et al. 24.224.153.40 17:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
People who have sex with children are pedophiles, regardless of whether they're gay, straight, black, white or anything else. All these groups are segments of pedophiles. Obviously, then, the most correct reference point is to pedophilia. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 19:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
That's not what the article pedophila is about. If you want to argue what pedophilia means, go elsewhere; the question is, should we link to an article that defines pedophilia as a medical condition.--Prosfilaes 04:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Prosfilaes, WP shouldn't be deciding on correct definitions or narrowing definitions. We need to include all relavent information. --'FloNight talk 04:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course WP should be deciding on correct definitions. For one thing, if you don't have any agreement on what a word means, how can you decide whether something is appropriate to add to an article or not? How can you communicate, without agreeing on what a word means? And it's not about the definition of the word, it's whether the article on the other end is useful?--Prosfilaes 04:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
So now arguments you don't like aren't helpful for reaching consensus?

Where is this coming from?

My comments above were more in general, not so specific to my edits. Perhaps they were misplaced. I have a bad habit os thinking (messaging) aloud. As far as my edits, I will respond to that after I get some sleep. I'm not dead set on anything here, and will negotiate. Consider my other comment a rant not quite relevant to the edits I made. Prosfilaes, I am not your enemy, please be patient with me. If I'm wrong, I will admit it. --DanielCD 04:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Also: near-ape level of intelligence., this is not directed at anyone here at Wikipedia, so please no one misinterpret it. --DanielCD 04:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


DanielCD, I think he/she was responding to my edit not yours. --FloNight talk 04:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't mind reinserting it. See also sections are for related topics and this is an obvious one. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 04:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

How is it obvious? Should we add Catholic priests to the see also too, as another group of sterotypical (and frequent real-life) child sex abusers?--Prosfilaes 04:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The answer to how it's obvious is rather, well, obvious, to anybody without an axe to grind. The rest is a strawman; don't bother. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 04:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
You mean an axe like not furthering the stereotype of a group of people with a mental disorder? I fail to see why arguing that we should add one group of people notorious for sexual abuse of children is a strawman and the other is obvious.--Prosfilaes 04:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Answering my arguments with questions intended to obfuscate the debate isn't really helping your cause. The only question to be answered is: is pedophilia related enough to the Rind etc. study to be included as a "for more information see..." type link? The obvious answer is yes. The rest of this hand-waving is just theatrics. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 13:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Your argument consists of "why? lol, it's obvious." Indeed, I don't know why Prosfilaes even bothered answering it. 24.224.153.40 17:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
To the extent that priest molest children they do it because they are pedophiles. Pedophiles don't molest because they are Catholic priests. -Will Beback 05:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Priests do molest because they are priests; it offers them easy access to and power over young boys and denies them alternate forms of relief of their sexual drive. Furthermore, most priests who molested kids molested adolescents, which means they aren't pedophiles. And of couse, as the article on child sexual abuse says, most abusers even of prepubescent children aren't pedophiles.--Prosfilaes 04:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Say what?? That one went right over my head. --DanielCD 13:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
How do you know they were pedophiles? 24.224.153.40 17:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
People who have sex with children are pedophiles. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 19:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Not all of them. That's hardly a definition. Some people who molest are pedophiles. Not all pedophiles are molesters. --DanielCD 22:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Adults who have sex with children are molesting them. All this definitional parsing is farcical. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 23:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Ergo they're child molesters, not pedophiles. Correctional Services Canada (incest only)[1], the Australian National Crime Authority[2], the FBI[3], and anyone else who has even a vague understanding of child sexual abuse agrees that a large majority of child molesters are not pedophiles. (i.e. one with a sexual preference for children.) "... The 10 percent of child molesters who make up the second category [of child sex criminals] are the bona fide "pedophiles," those who genuinely favor sex with children." Rind et al. does not talk about pedophiles. It does not say anything about adults who are sexually interested in children. How is this relevant? 24.224.153.40 00:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

24.224.153.40 you are refusing to accept that there are multiple meaning of the word pedophilia. WP:NPOV says that it is important for WP to present all of the definitions of the word. Not just the one a particular editor prefers. Pedophilia means a sexual attraction to children or having sexual relations with children. FloNight talk 01:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

ok FloNight -- we're giving a See also link to pedophilia -- our article on pedophilia discusses people who are sexually attracted to children -- it is not about the sexual abuse of children -- the article child sexual abuse is about the sexual abuse of children -- so we link to the child sexual abuse article, and not to the one that discusses those sexually oriented towards children, because Rind doesn't study these people. our article on pedophilia focuses on the reasonable definition, not society's muddled attempt at redefining English. 24.224.153.40 01:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
by the way, if you want to know why Wikipedia should use the sensible definition, read my last comment here. 24.224.153.40 01:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

From WP pedophilia article: Outside the medical community, the term pedophile is frequently used to denote not only people meeting the medical definition but, also, people who are sexually attracted to adolescents and not prepubescents, as well as people who have engaged in sexual activity with a child. Some scholars refer to a sexual interest in adolescents as ephebophilia.[1] Clealy the definition is broader than you say. --FloNight talk 01:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Any word can be used in an idiotic fashion. Wikipedia needs to be clear and consistent.
If "pedophile" also describes people interested in adolescents, for example, most everyone on the planet is a pedophile. 24.224.153.40 02:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
WP:NPOV may mean that we should give all definitions of the word, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't use the word in a clear, reasonably technical manner. To use various definitions indescimenately would produce confusion. Moreover, we aren't defining the word pedophile here; we're linking to a page that is about a subject; any argument that is about whether the word is appropriate and not about whether the article is appropriate doesn't help consensus.

The only reason anyone knows this study exists is because people hyped it being about pedophiles. The hype is most of the story here, and the hype has to do with the public definition of "pedophilia". I'm not sure that means it merits a link to a medical condition though. Just wanted to mention that with stuff like this, what seems to be the subject is not necessarily the whole case. In a large sense, this article is about the hype, not the actual study. --DanielCD 02:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

In a similar sense, you could make the argument that this article is actually more about Dallam et al. (2001) than Rind et al. (1988). The entire POV of the article comes from Dallum et al.'s criticisms - the setup is "Dallum et al. say this / Rind et al. counter with this". I find it quite interesting that so many people support the idea that "any one who was sexually abused as a child is scarred for life and has no hope of being a normal functioning person". How different is that than saying "any one who was spanked as a child is scarred for life and has no hope of being a normal functioning person"? Or "any one who was called a name on the playground is scarred for life and has no hope of being a normal functioning person"?. The same people who will denounce the universally damaging impact of spanking and name-calling as people making excuses for their behavior will gladly endorse the universally damaging impact of child sexual abuse. I think people are bit more resilient than others give them credit for. Solitary refinement 00:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The connection to pedophilia is indirect, through pedophilia's connection to CSA. So why not let the readers be directed to pedophilia after going through the see also link to Childhood Sexual Abuse? Crazywolf 20:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming the article

I think this article should be renamed to reflect the public contraversy. I think this is the better option since it is the reason that the article is well known. This particular study on its own merits is not otherwise remarkable. Another opition is naming it to the correct title. FloNight talk 15:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

As I've said in the other discussion above, I think we should rename it to the title of the article - a "Controversy etc." title and the current title can be redirects. -- stillnotelf is invisible 17:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think "A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse (CSA) using college samples" is a great name for an article. Nor do I think that some made-up name is particularly useful. We have links to this article already; we may as well leave it as is.--Prosfilaes 17:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lillienfeld-APA controversy

I don't know if this article is the appropriate place, but one thing worth expanding on is the controversy concerning the publication of Lilienfeld's 2002 American Psychologist article on the APA response to Rind et al. (1998). It may be worth an entirely new article, as it is more concerning publication, peer review, and APA adding insult (further [deserved] scorn from the scientific community) to injury (its own spineless capituation to outside influence) concerning the Rind et al. issue. I could work on it but, as you may tell, I might have POV problems... Solitary refinement 19:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Couple of issues with one para in "Controversy" section

I have a couple of issues with this passage in the "Controversy" section:

December 1998 - the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) criticized the study for its methodology and conclusions. It was then attacked by The Wanderer, a Catholic religious newspaper, the talk show host Dom Giordano, Dr. Laura Schlessinger (known on her popular radio talk show as "Dr. Laura") and numerous Republican politicians.

The questions I have have here are:

  • NARTH and Schlessinger are pretty much extremist, marginal figures. Giordano I don't know, but it says he's a talk show host, which is often not a signifier of an erudite and subtle mind, and he's redlinked, so he's probably not a towering figure. The Wanderer I don't know, but I'm pretty sure it's not one the nation's top papers. Was the study not mentioned by the NY Times, LA Times, the Washington Post, or other major media outlets, whether to attack or defend it. That would be surprising to me since it was the subject of a Congressional resolution. The passage as it stands kind of leaves the impression that the article was noticed (and criticized) by only a few marginal figures. I'll look into this but it might not be easy to dig up this info.
  • "...numerous Republican politicians." Since the House and Senate passed a resolution basically triggered by the article, and the Senate unanamously at that, is it really so that only Republican politicians criticized the study. The passage implies that by mentioning one party specifically. Did the Democrats ignore it, or did they defend it, or what? (The latter would seem unlikely since the resolution passed, plus it would have been political suicide). I think the party mention can just be removed, n'est-ce pas? Herostratus 02:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no reason to remove the Republican qualifier unless you can find examples of Democratic politicians who criticised it from verifiable sources. Otherwise the article will give impressions that aren't supported by the facts. Crazywolf 07:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I would be inclined to say that, as it stands, there's a pretty strong implication that Democratic politicans ignored or supported the article. Since a resolution against the article was passed unanamously by the US Senate (I don't know the House vote), I think the burder of proof lies with editors who want to keep the "(just) Republican" wording. Herostratus 16:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
How exactly do you propose that those against the change provide sources that a group of people did not say a particular thing. That is not a reasonable thing to prove, as it is quite likely that, even if it was true, there would be no mention of it. The task of showing that democratic candidates did criticize the article, on the other hand, is a completely reasonable one. Also, it doesn't seem all that strange that democrats would avoid committing political suicide by voting against the bill, but would have values that stopped them from criticizing an article with sound methodology based on it's conclusions. But if you tell me what would represent a citation for this, and that would certainly exist if there were no or very few democrats that criticized the bill, I will go look for it. --Crazywolf--72.177.139.207 05:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/i/n/Talk%7ERind_et_al._%281998%29_d2d4.html"