Talk:Child sexual abuse/Archive 7

POV interpretation of OR
All of this sourced material was removed by Petra with the unjustified charge of Original Research:

According to Coffey et al. (1996), this may be due in part to the stigma attached to child sexual abuse.

...

Some research papers may shed light on the controversial disparity between rates of positive and neutral reaction in different studies of the topic. In Journal of Sex Research, Kilpatrick (1987) argues that some papers, in using clinical samples, fail to produce results that can be generalised to society as a whole:


 * "Thirdly, studying only those who are receiving psychiatric care or those who have been identified by the criminal justice system biases the results of the study. When members of these groups are found to suffer from certain psychological problems, it cannot be determined whether these are due to the childhood sexual experience or to some other factor that caused them to be treated or incarcerated. It is not known whether people in the non-clinical population would react similarly. Thus, clinical and offender populations cannot be generalized to other groups of people".

(ends)

After ripping these passages, the user does not afford them the usual courtesy of needlessly reproducing them on talk.

I cannot speak in detail for the first passage which appears to be attributed and nothing of the sort, but my own passage below it would never be interpreted as such in a context where the article was not being revised for a unitary agenda. Claiming that a study (which points to the possibility of negative reactions in clinical samples being generalised) "may shed light" on the controversy of the disparity mentioned is self evident, as we have already established that the controversy stems from findings that contradict those of the victimological faithful. Simply saying that if correct, "this may be the cause of the established, contriversial disparity" is therefore not OR, but the basic art of article building, in an already source-saturated piece that is little better than a list of possible outcomes at the best of times. Lambton T/C 17:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As has been discussed previously, MHAMic is not a reliable source. The reference is not to the article itself, it is to an abstract and review of the study, self-published by the lay-person who runs the website.  It can't be used as a source.


 * The Coffey et al article links only to an abstract, that does not state "this may be due in part to the stigma attached to child sexual abuse." - the abstract states " Levels of psychological distress experienced by adult survivors of abuse were found to be mediated by feelings of stigma and self-blame." That does not have the same meaning. It the statement is to be used, it must be corrected.  However, also, the abstract does not explain the full process or meaning of the conclusion, so it's of marginal usefulness anyway unless the full text can be found. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The relevant policies allow for the use of these websites, as long as the articles were first published by a reliable source, i.e. a journal, university, academic, etc. In this sense, the online copy just acts as an access vesion of the document that has already been refrenced. Doing this "properly" does require a little fiddling with the reference tag, but it's no excuse to get heavy handed with a few RS references. In fact, I question the motives of anyone who does that because they have a problem with the site who reproduced the article with original source appended. It shows either a misunderstanding of policy, or playing out of an agenda. Lambton T/C 18:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The real problem is that the observation from the studies--that the social stigma of child sexual abuse can compound psychological harm--is not "controversial," and dosen't belong in this section. The previous statement, which implied that the social stigma all by itself could iatrogenically cause harm where otherwise there would be none, was a complete misreprentation of the studies to make a novel, OR-synthetic, controversial assertion that the sources don't support at all.-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Petra is correct on both counts. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Lambton 18:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC): Lambton wrote " the online copy just acts as an access vesion of the document that has already been refrenced " [sic]

- that is incorrect. The MHAMic link is not a copy of the article. It is, as I explained above in this same section, an abstract and review of the study, written and self-published by the lay-person who runs the website. It is that person's personal interpretation of the study. Since that person is not an expert, his self-published website with his self-published opinion is not a reliable source.

Lambton also wrote: "I question the motives ... playing out of an agenda" - as I have asked you previously, please stop commenting on editors and focus on content. Thank you. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am aware that MHAMic only writes a brief of each study, but this does not stop them quoting from the papers. It does not validate your removing of an RS which can be traced to a more reliable publisher, either.


 * And stop butchering my words to suit your own agenda. Lambton T/C 16:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Mhamic does not "quote" the papers, it offers its own brand of fringe analysis and is not RS, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly and at length. Also, I am growing tired of asking you to comment on content, not contributors.-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is the correct citation in plain text:
 * Kilpatrick, A., “Childhood Sexual Experiences: Problems and Issues in Studying Long-Range Effects,”

Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 23, No. 2, 1987, pp.173-196.
 * The "quoted" paragraph does not appear in the actual text of the study. Indeed it only appears on Mhamic, nowhere else.  I can only assume it was written by that website.Legitimus (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, it appears that I was mislead by the indent style of the article. Still doesn't defeat the point about these two editors removing unfavourable references when an RS and direct quote is available. Lambton T/C 19:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Petra, I am growing tired of your misrepresentations of my argument. And where exactly did you repeatedly warn me, if at all? The only user who has dragged this contrived point out of the abyss thusfar has been "jack". Lambton T/C 19:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, the personal-attack agenda pursued by yourself and Jack is self-fulfilling hypocrisy at its best. Lambton T/C 19:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not so fast. While the true reference does exist, it does not appear to support the statement on wikipedia, and the quote is not from the source, but from a lay-third party.  Because the quote is not from the source, it is not valid and should be removed.  I attempted to find a better public source of the abstract, but no luck so far (it's quite old).  Even so, I don't know it will be all that useful. Legitimus (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the quote should be removed. All I am against is the unjustified removal of these sources by editors who should be able to verify them if anything. Lambton T/C 20:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

MHAMic rewords, but it does not, as Petra claimed, "offer its own brand of fringe analysis" on the article summary pages, as far as I can see. The actual text of Kilpatrick (1987) says: "If a woman seeks help because she has problems in social functioning, and she is then selected for study because she has a history of certain childhood sexual experiences, it is impossible to determine whether the problems in social and personal functioning are due to the childhood sexual experiences or to all the other things that may lead to the problem being treated.  Another problem with this type of study is that it is not known how these cases differ from a nonclinical population. The same point could be made for using offender populations. Primarily, it may tend to create bias and limit the generalizability to other populations."

Petra commented that: "The previous statement, which implied that the social stigma all by itself could iatrogenically cause harm where otherwise there would be none, was a complete misreprentation of the studies to make a novel, OR-synthetic, controversial assertion that the sources don't support at all." This is false. The now-removed Coffey (1996) supports it:

I cannot access Besharov (1981) at the moment, but a reliable source cites it for their statement that: "Professionals responsible for responding to and treating sexually abused children must also recognize that not all abuse is traumatic or damaging. They must be careful not to promote psychological iatrogenesis through their presumption of trauma." --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The IPT is single-purpose institute singularly focused on "false allegations of child abuse and the social harm they cause." They spend a lot of time on their idea that unsubstantiated allegations of child abuse cause more harm to children than the damage caused by not prosecuting substantiated allegations (and that therefore the sea change in prosecutions was a bad idea and we should return to ignoring child sexual abuse, because that was less deleterious for children overall): "The severity of damage may be greater when a nonabused child is treated as if abused than when an abused child is not correctly identified."  Any restatement they make of a 1981 study is highly questionable. No current social work handbooks for training multidisciplinary interviewers at child advocacy centers states anything like "be careful not to promote psychological iatrogenesis by presuming trauma," what they teach is not to compound any damage or distress by communicating stigma or judgement, and that a great many clients who present after a negative event exhibit affectlessness and shock, with delayed reactions. Therapists and social workers do not exclaim "you were just sexually assaulted!  you must be so upset!" to three year olds who have just been raped, as that is a "presumption of trauma" that could compound damage. If the three year old is happily playing with blocks during the interview it is not surprising if he or she begins having nightmares, regressing, exhibiting fear of strangers three weeks later, and parents are warned of common delayed reactions. Not appearing "traumatized" does not mean there is no trauma or damage.  No dept. of social work or psychology that I know of uses IPT editorials to educate professionals, so the IPT's injunction "Professionals responsible must recognize that not all abuse is traumatic or damaging" is not a mainstream injunction to professionals.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I can corroborate PetraSchelm's latter statements. A good mental health worker does not force the idea of trauma on a victim.  This is why I consider the "universal, intrinsic harm is false" stance a "straw red herring." It's an assertion that is easy to dispute, but ultimately not very relevent.  A psychologist knows trauma is likely in their own mind, but they also do not discount the idea of personal resiliency, subtle therapeutic methods or a false allegation.  Besharov (1981) was not an accusation, but a warning.  And frankly it's not mental health workers who tend to screw this up, it's family and the court systems.Legitimus (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Controversial Research"
Not only am I against the polarising and inappropriate nature of the heading, but an opener that would have us believe that only two studies support the idea that not everyone suffers from CSA. This does not even take account of Rind (and the many studies analysed by it), Bender, etc. It even fails to mention who wrote one of the studies, or source it. Lambton T/C 20:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My idea would be to divide the outcomes sections into "clinical-legal" and "convenience-population" type samples. This is of course the line over which such a "controversial" difference in results emerges. Lambton T/C 20:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Any research that hints that CSA is not dangerous is going to ruffle A LOT of feathers, hence controversial. But, let's work this out.  How about "Conflicting Opinions and Research"?  I'll work on the lead a little too. Legitimus (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be fine. In the long run, some of these sources should be integrated into the main body, as to show the differences that revised sampling can bring about, but this can also be done with a section such as the one that you propose. If we are talking in relative terms, a lot of the conflicting research never was controversial, and has not been given the recent publicity to be so. Therefore, I feel that using the term for all conflicting evidence is misleading. Lambton T/C 00:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I also don't think that "Controversial research" is accurate, but I think that the change made should be to "Fringe theories" or something like that. These theories are not so much "controversial" as "unpopular", I think. It's not like there's a back-and-forth give-and-take controversy among normal people. After all, Rind was repudiated unanimously by the people of the United States; how much more unpopular can you get than that? "Controversial" is (in this case) a weasel word designed to avoid a simple truth. We don't, for instance, call flat-earth theory "controversial". It's a fringe theory. Herostratus (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Rind was condemned unanimously (with some abstentions) by Congress, not the US people. The condemnation did not address the clinical merit of the paper, but rather moral objections associated with its supposed implications. Members could not have been expected to vote any other way. As with the Harris Mirkin debacle, consensus in political houses does not equal consensus in scientific communities. If we are talking about studies of CSA's effects, I would say that at least 1/3 of the research available points in the Rind direction - i.e. harm is not inevitable or serious/long lasting in the majority of cases. If we can put aside the misinformed idea that these works present a fringe theory, then maybe we can get down to the serious work of clarifying how these differences arise, i.e. sampling differences and differing standards of how results can be generalised.


 * The flat earth comparison is either misinformed or dishonest to the extent of revisionism.  If you would like me to provide a list of authors in this area, and the positions that they have taken, I will be more than willing to do this, preferably with the help of other users such as AnotherSolipsist and Jack-A-Roe who appear to have read on this issue. Lambton T/C 18:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Such an idea could imaginably be developed at WP:PAW, and stand as an educational resource for editors. I think that it would help clear up a lot of the confusion around this subject. Lambton T/C 18:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If we are talking about studies of CSA's effects, I would say that at least 1/3 of the research available points in the Rind direction - i.e. harm is not inevitable or serious/long lasting in the majority of cases--there's a difference between saying "there is a good prognosis for recovery" and "harm is not long lasting" (therefore it should be legal to prey on whomever I want, after all, they will get over it eventually, so how bad could it really be?). The first is already reflected in the article, based on the most up to date research. The second is a fringe view.

Congress pointed out that Rind published his paper to advance a position, and denounced both the position and the misuse of science to advance it. Rind et al also published in Paidika. Three other meta-analyses came out around the same time, and not one matched Rind. (Jumper, S 1995 ‘A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship of CSA to Adult Psychological Adjustment’ Child Abuse & Neglect vol. 19, pp. 715-728. Neumann, D, Houskamp, B, Pollock, V & Briere, J 1996 ‘The Long-Term Sequelae of Childhood Sexual Abuse in Women: A Meta-Analytic Review’ Child Maltreatment vol. 1, pp. 6-16. Oddone, E & Genuis, M (1996) A meta-analysis of the published research on the effects of child sexual abuse National Foundation for Family Research and Education, Calgary, Canada.) Rind represents a fringe view, and is used by proponents of a fringe view. The big difference between Rind and everybody else is that Rind is the only one who says if it happens between teenaged boys and adult men, it should sometimes be called "adult-child sex," because the negative effects are not "pervasive or long lasting." Neither science nor society agreed, and the weight of scientifiic opinion has not shifted since Rind published his paper ten years ago. You can't reconfigure the WP:WEIGHT of scientific opinion on your own--using Rind or any other study--in Wikipedia.-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Minority views
"Minority views" would be a more accurate way to title the section in question; that was installed but has been reverted.

An editor above suggested "Fringe theories" - that would be even more accurate for something so unpopular and with so little support academically and socially. The title that was reverted to, "Controversial research", is inappropriate because there is no significant controversy. "Controversy" means active debate and disputes - but none of that is happening today. There was a bit of controversy when the Rind study first came out, but that's all settled down now and has been soundly rejected by the general public and the scientific community. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

typology - fixated/regressed
(See comments about this section following the text from the article):

moved from article for discussion
Typologies for child sex offenders have been used since the 1970s. Male offenders are typically classified by their motivation, which is usually assessed by reviewing their offense's characteristics. Phallometric tests may also be used to determine the abuser's level of pedophilic interest. Groth et al. proposed a simple, dichotomous system in 1982 which classed offenders as either "regressed" or "fixated."

Regressed offenders
Regressed offenders are primarily attracted to their own age group but are passively aroused by minors.


 * The sexual attraction in minors is not manifested until adulthood.
 * Their sexual conduct until adulthood is aligned with that of their own age group.
 * Their interest in minors is either not cognitively realized until well into adulthood or it was recognized early on and simply suppressed due to social taboo.

Other scenarios may include:


 * Age of consent laws were raised in their jurisdiction but mainstream views toward sex with that age group remained the same, were acted upon, then they were charged with a crime.
 * The person's passive interest in children is manifested temporarily upon the consumption of alcohol and acted upon while inhibitions were low.

Fixated offenders
Fixated offenders are most often adult pedophiles who are maladaptive to accepted social norms. The etiology of pedophilia is not well-understood. The sexual acts are typically preconceived and are not alcohol or drug related.

discussion of moved text
The above moved to talk page for discussion. Much of it is off-topic for this article, and even the parts that are not off-topic are not clearly attributed. The two included references include a lot of information that goes beyond the summary in the above text; to try and summarize that content would become complicated and further diverge from the topic, into the area of identifying and treating offenders. With some careful reading, it could be summarized into a couple of sentences that may be useful, but with the full detail, it's excessive for this article. Much of the information in those references is about pedophilia and might be useful in that article; or there could be a separate article to explore in detail child sexual abuse offenders.

A section on child abuse offenders is certainly useful in this article, and with more research we can find a lot of on-topic information about who it is that perpetrates the abuse; but those two references are limited in what they can provide in that regard. One of them is a survey of other literature with short summaries, so it can be a good lead-off point for finding more info, but the other one even states in its intro that it was written in 1985 and that much progresss has been made since then so the info is presented by them mainly for historical context.

I'm not saying it's crucial to leave this stuff out, but if it's used,  it needs to be edited to clearly summarize the sources and avoid partial lists of points pulled out of longer lists within the sources. Better yet, it would be used as a starting point and more current research would be located and summarized to report on characteristics of offenders - who are they? what is their relationship to the abused children? how do they gain access? etc.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that this stuff is outdated, poorly attributed, and basically looks like a cut and paste from a textbook circa 1985.-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If this information is indeed no longer verifiable and now outdated, then its removal from the article is a good idea. ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I remember this now. This "taxonomy" I believe originated from Groth and Birnbaum (1978).  It was created through interviews with only male offenders who were in prison.  It was an early work looking into the type of person who committed these crimes, for instance the seemingly stable married heterosexual man with pedophilic impulses.  But it was kind of simplistic and had a small sample.  So you're right about it being outdated, and this classification system doesn't appear all that useful to the article.Legitimus (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe there should be an article about sex offenders, subcategory child victims, that addresses fixated/regressed offenders, the history of this conceptual division, how it has changed, etc. It intersects with the history of law, and the social changes which brought about women's rights (and hence more protection for children). For example, differences in how the law (and mental health professionals) treated "incestuous offenders" have changed a great deal, and some only recently. If the offender was paying the mortgage, which was generally the case until the gains made by the women's movement, he was put on probation, sent to family counseling, and if anyone was removed from the house it was the child, who was sent to foster care. Now that the nonoffending parent can pay the mortgage by herself, the offender is removed, barred from contact with the victim who is no longer farmed out to some horrible foster care situation, and criminally prosecuted. In New York, the difference in how the law treated "incestuous offenders" wasn't changed until 2007: -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent POV pushing

 * "Some analyses suggest that some adults reporting experiences of childhood or adolescent sexual contact with adults had maintained some at least partially positive feelings about those experiences."

The above is an accurate description of the cited material. It has since morphed into something that is definitely not:
 * "A few researchers have presented a small number of studies, involving less than 100 people total, claim that not everyone thinks negatively of their abuse experiences."

First, the newer version would require a meta-analysis as a source, since it makes a claim regarding the content of CSA literature as a whole (i.e., that only a few researchers using samples totalling less than 100 have disputed unanimous negativity). Since that claim is false, I'm pretty sure such a meta-analysis will not be found. A very large number of studies show that less-than-everyone looks upon their abuse negatively (10 are reviewed in the "Current Reflections" section of Bruce Rind's most slandered study).

Further, these studies concern specifically positive reactions, not just reactions that lack negativity. Reverted.

The next problem is an addition. While I do not object to the inclusion of Mrazek's criticism, the sentence preceding it violates WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK ("experts in the field of child sexual abuse"). Specific names (Mrazek, Finkelhor, William Masters), accompanied by their qualifications, must be used, and their "criticisms" should be accurately represented. Finkelhor, for instance, hardly deserves mention, since he's commenting on policy implications, not the methodology of Sandfort (which he says is "probably valid"). We don't mention any implications, so what is he supposed to be responding to?

Finally, an original red herring seems to be made against Okami. WP:V. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jovin, not all the studies cited in the second paragraph use clinical samples. A few are fairly high quality. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We need a way of clarifying that many of the harsher theories span from clinical samples, and that some samples produce none of the listed common symptoms in a statistically significant degree that lacks confounding factors. In much the same way as criticism to the minority POV is provided at the other end of the article, we have to find some way of including this significant dissenting opinion further up. Lambton T/C 21:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the other side should be presented. The source for "depression" (Roosa et al., 1999) in that sentence may work; It opens with an unbiased description of the "growing controversy over whether child (under age 18) sexual abuse (CSA) is related to adult adjustment," and mentions the opinion that effect sizes may have "been exaggerated by studies of clinical samples." --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There? --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jack deleted a sentence because "one paper does not establish controversy." The paper in question, which actually affirms the harm of CSA, reviews multiple studies to establish that there is a controversy. If necessary, I can add more sources, but I don't see how Roosa alone fails to establish the existence of controversy. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Because there is no "controversy." Cite a source from a pov with substantial adherents (i.e., not a PPA) which states there is a "controversy."-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is indeed a controversy over such an extreme interpretation of CSA. Quite a lot assume the properties and quite a few have made counterclaims. It would only be NPOV to mention the controversy, and not talk of common symptoms of CSA as if they were physical laws. Lambton T/C 21:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Petra, could you please stop seeking refuge in calling anything that disagrees with you or the majority viewpoint "pro pedophile". This has been a repeated tactic of yours, and may contribute to a growing list of complaints. Lambton T/C 21:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Petra, the authors of the study (Mark Roosa, Cindy Reinholtz, and Patti Jo Angelini) are not pro-paedophile activists, and their findings were contrary to the opinions of (many) PPAs. Your accusation is baseless. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ? You seem to have completely misunderstood what I said--"cite a source that says there is a controversy." And the source should be from a pov with substantial adherents (not a PPA website). I didn't say Roosa et al were PPAs. If you find that Roosa et al state something contrary, that doesn't mean there is a "controversy." We need a source that says it means there is a "controversy."-PetraSchelm (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Roosa et al. say that there is a "growing controversy over whether child (under age 18) sexual abuse (CSA) is related to adult adjustment." Read it. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I restored the sentence with two other mainstream sources. The first, Kendler, reviews noncausal explanations for the association, while favouring a causal explanation, and the second, by John Briere and Diana Elliott, says: "The most critical issue is well known to behavioral scientists: Does the statistical relationship between abuse and later distress reflect a causal phenomenon (i.e., does childhood sexual abuse have negative psychological impact), or is the relationship caused by other variables such as concomitant family dysfunction or the impact of other events during or after the abuse?" Given that they argue it's the former, and their history of research demonstrating the deleterious associations of CSA, they are not "PPAs." --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"controversy"
First of all, anything you and AS agree on without input from anybody else is not "consensus." Sescondly, you have added "controversial" to this statement:

"Child sexual abuse has been associated with depression,[3] post-traumatic stress disorder,[4] anxiety,[5] propensity to re-victimization in adulthood,[6] and physical injury to the child, among other things"

Nothing, for example, in Atoosa et al, which found depression corresponded to severity of abuse (and unwanted sex for teens,) not children) but was primarily a study of CSA across ethnic groups, changes a general statement about child sexual abuse in general in the lead into a "controversy."-PetraSchelm (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * More straw. AS added to the article without removing any of the important CSA implications. You removed the sourced material without consensus. Just discuss it first, and wait for enough people to agree with you. It's that simple. Lambton T/C 22:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing? Roosa et al.: "There is a growing controversy over whether child (under age 18) sexual abuse (CSA) is related to adult adjustment." It doesn't get any more unequivocal than that. File an RfC if you feel others will disagree. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is, for example, nothing in Atoosa et all that changes whether or not children who are physically injured in a sexual assault are injured--you have put "controversial" after a general statement that includes "depression,[3] post-traumatic stress disorder,[4] anxiety,[5] propensity to re-victimization in adulthood,[6] and physical injury to the child, among other things" In addition, Atoosa says only there is "growing controversy over whether CSA is related to adult adjustment"--you have taken this out of context of Atoosa's article to refer to all effects of all CSA. Atoosa immediately goes on to clarify that she is responding to Rind, and teen sex. (And the paper is dated 1999--just after Rind. If the controversy is "growing," where is the follow-up in the last decade.)-PetraSchelm (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, Petra - all of those responses are at least problematised by the selection of refs. We have to make sure a neutral point of view is presented, however non-absolute the result may be.


 * And nowhere was AS using sources to deny these effects in all CSA. This is another misrep. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Lambton T/C 23:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Briere, J., & Elliott, D.M.
This reference moved from the article for discussion:


 * Briere, J., & Elliott, D.M. (1993). "Sexual abuse, family environment, and psychological symptoms: On the validity of statistical control," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 284-288.

The above reference does not support the sentence it footnotes: " The nature of this association is controversial."

The paper does not question association of symptoms with CSA, that is not its focus. It examines possible confounding variables in studying those effects, and concludes as follows:


 * "Ultimately, as our approach to the complex antecedent and effects of sexual abuse becomes more sophisticated, we may discover that this variable [family dysfunction] is but one of many pathogenic events present in the early lives of many symptomatic adults, as opposed to an explanatory (or distracting) entity that should be partialed out before the impacts of child abuse are examined."

Basically, the study says that families for which sexual abuse is reported are often seriously messed up anyway (not surprising), so better methods of research are needed to figure out which of the messes caused which of the problems. There is no repudiation that the CSA is associated with those effects. That's not a controversy, it's just a call for additional research. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Kenneth S. Kendler, MD; et al
This reference is used in several places in the article:


 * Kenneth S. Kendler, MD; Cynthia M. Bulik, PhD; Judy Silberg, PhD; John M. Hettema, PhD, MD; John Myers, MS; Carol A. Prescott, PhD Childhood Sexual Abuse and Adult Psychiatric and Substance Use Disorders in Women Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2000;57:953-959

The above reference does not support this text it footnotes: " The nature of this association is controversial."

The paper concludes as follows:


 * " Women with CSA have a substantially increased risk for developing a wide range of psychopathology. Most of this association is due to more severe forms of CSA and cannot be explained by background  familial factors. Although other biases cannot be ruled  out, these results are consistent with the hypothesis that  CSA is causally related to an increased risk for psychiatric and substance abuse disorders."

Since it does not support the text, the footnote has been removed. The other uses of the reference in the article have not been changed. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The idea was to cite references that support a causal relationship between CSA and adult psychological adjustment, yet document the existence of controversy over that. Kendler cites numerous sources that dispute the assumption that current evidence establishes a causal relationship. "Although women who report a history of childhood sexual abuse (CSA) are clearly at increased risk for psychiatric disorders in adulthood, 4 critical issues about this association remain unclear. [...] Second, CSA often occurs along with multiple other risk factors that reflect disturbed family and parent-child relationships. Is the CSA-psychopathology association causal or is it due to these confounded risk factors? Third, CSA is a sensitive subject. Could the CSA-psychopathology association arise through reporting bias wherein persons with psychiatric illness are more likely to recall and report abuse experiences?" The Briere and Elliot paper is similar; It says that a critical issue "well known to behavioral scientists" is the question of whether the CSA-psychopathology association is causal, and cites conflicting findings. IMO, both support the sentence. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You changed the prior sentence earlier, to remove the causal link and re-state it as "Child sexual abuse has been associated with...".  That edit has not yet been vetted, it's still under consideration, but leaving that aside for the moment:  There's no controversy at all about CSA being associated with those symptoms, and no controversy is indicated in the text you quoted. There are questions about how much of the effects may actually be  caused by the abuse, and what effects may result from confounding factors such as generalized family dysfunction (that also may include sexual abuse in the history of the parents).  While those confounding factors might bear on causality, even that is not a "controversy", it's just a question relevant to the research.  And the confounding factors do not create any question of the association of the symptoms with a history of CSA - that's even stated in the  words you quoted right here in this discussion.  So, no, that source does not support the claim of controversy.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It says that there's controversy over the nature of the association, not whether the association exists at all. Would you prefer if it was stated more explicitly? "The causality of this association is controversial" -- or, "the causality of this association is unclear." --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a controversy, it's a research methods question. Mentioning it at all in the intro is undue weight and off-topic.  With careful restatement of the text to match the source, and sensitive consideration to NPOV and due weight, there might be an appropriate place to mention deeper into the article that there are some questions about the ways in which the research shows the association and what methods might be considered to control for that.  The vast majority of research shows otherwise though, that the association is clear.  Fringe theories, if they are mentioned at all, don't belong in the intro, they can be mentioned in proportion to their weight in the overall range of sources, but should not distract the topic away from due weight based on the vast majority of sources. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to back up the idea that the problematised causality of trauma-reactions in CSA is a fringe theory. Indeed, it is a key point and requires stressing right at the start, to avoid the misconception that trauma-reactions are always direct and inevitable results of CSA. What we could do to integrate this NPOV point is to describe the causal chain as challengeable or problematic. I think that would better reflect the literature. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Lambton T/C 02:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The idea was to cite references that support a causal relationship between CSA and adult psychological adjustment, yet document the existence of controversy over that.--Exactly. And that's setting up a straw man that doesn't exist. Refinements in the research that can better assist practititoners and clients are being conducted to help clients, not to "question assumptions of harm," and trying to twist them to suit that purpose is pov pushing (of a fringe view) and cherrypicking random studies to make a syn argument.-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, it comes down to a soft-subjective argument and nothing from a rational perspective. All you are offering is one form of professional discourse. Sure, you can probably go through a whole career in pschiatry (and unfortunately the social sciences) without hearing a dissenting viewpoint on CSA, but there exists a life's reading of literature from clinical studies and the humanities that goes dead against the (former) assumptions of the opening paragraph, in addition to that which brings it into question. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Lambton T/C 13:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The "dissenting viewpoint" you are talking about regarding "question assumption of harm" it is an extreme minority/fringe viewpoint that involves inflating Rind and Sandfort to a level of signifigance they do not have, and making syn arguments by cherrypicking other random studies a la Mhamic. This is where the WP:WEIGHT of opinion matters, and you cannot reconfigure the weight of expert opinion in a new way/for the first time here. That is not particular to this subject, it applies to all subjects in Wikipedia.-PetraSchelm (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There are additional points that make questioning the assumption of harm a tad off topic to the article: This article is about ABUSE.  Abuse takes many forms, and exists on a large spectrum, which can include kidnapping a random child and holding them in a bunker for weeks while repeatedly, violently assaulting them.  Would anyone question if this was harmful, indeed anything short of catastrophic?  No researcher dares to make such a claim.  At the other end of the spectrum are adults who solicit a child to engage in a sexual act with them, and the child, for outward appearances, complies.  The harm is less than the aforementioned scernario.  But it is still there, and even if it is not 100% likely to occur, it still is harmful too often to ever make it "safe."  It seems inappropriate to give research regarding only this end of the spectrum so much weight, when it is only applicable to this end.  Ultimately, we must ask the questions:  What was the purpose of these studies?  Not what they imply, but why were they conducted? Legitimus (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But child sexual abuse is not often seperated into 'ends.' The research in question -- on causality -- studies everything from torture to sexual requests. Even if there was seperation, activities that are not obviously traumatic make up a large portion of CSA, so the weight wouldn't be undue. Some criticism of the indiscriminate definition of CSA may be helpful. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"A spectrum of responses are possible based on the circumstances of the abuse." This revision retains none of the original's meaning. It's a seperate sentence which should be debated on its own merits. However, I would agree to using less inflammatory wording, if that's possible. How's this: "There are several hypotheses on the causality of this association." --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds better.Legitimus (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK
"An article might have a disproportionately large "criticism" section, giving the impression that the nominal subject is hotly contested by many people, when in fact the criticism is merely selected opinions and the section creates an artificial controversy. This, too, gives the reader a false impression about reality even though the details may be true."-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, please discuss this before doing that again. You could end up on one of the administrator's boards. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Lambton T/C 21:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This kind of "well intentioned" behaviour - removal of sourced material - whole sections without proper discussion or consensus is no more functionally proper than outright vandalism. It is also likely to lead to accusations of POV warfare and other editors opposing your edits for no other reason but their lack of popular support. You might even end up with a much expanded article that covers the topics raised in the removed section.


 * "Coatrack" does not oppose the existence of crit sections. It opposes oversized and misrepresentative sections. The body of CSA research that you would call "controversial" is actually quite large, and spans far beyond medicine.


 * The same goes for Jack. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Lambton T/C 21:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a coatrack. Let's post at the fringe theories talkpage, and perhaps at the medicine wikiproject for more outside views.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do. And link me when you have posted your complaints. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Lambton T/C 21:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, I reverted to the previously accepted (original) version, as is proper when sourced material is to be assessed. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Lambton T/C 21:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "previously accepted (original) version" -- that version was never "accepted", it was always a coatrack in need of attention.  Those fringe theories have been a problem in this article for a long time.  A footnote with a study does not make a fringe theory mainstream. That section was causing major undue weight  in the article.   --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I posted on Fringe Theories myself. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Lambton T/C 21:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And here's the link (affirming coatracking, and "very fringy"): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Child_Sexual_Abuse-PetraSchelm (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was unfamiliar with the coatrack policy until now. My impression is that the controversial subject matter, at the very least, occupies far too much space.  It needs to be condensed.  I will try a variation, retaining the sources.Legitimus (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It might be appropriate to devote about four sentences to Rind--two of them rebuttal--on the basis that there are sources demonstrating a public controversy ten years ago. I'm not even sure I fully support that. Definitely nothing else merits mention at all. There are no sources claiming "controversy" for any other research except pro-pedophile websites.-PetraSchelm (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reconsidered a bit. As you know, my impression of the material in question has been that it not particularly relevant to the subject at hand.  And as I have reintegrated many times, the research does not prove what PPA seem to think it does.  Really, so-bloody-what if some subjects regard what happened as "positive?"  That have absolutely nothing to do with a) the actual act that occurred and b)that subject's pathology and/or interpersonal problems.  And a lack of measurable pathology on a self-reported survey given to adults, while statistically sound, is not so generalizable.  While perhaps the material could have a place in the PPA article, just because that article is so extremely disputed is no excuse to make "squatters" here.Legitimus (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I agree that the controversy section is being given far too much weight in the article. The controversy itself is a tiny minority view. Perhaps Rind should be given a sentence or two, but more condemning of Rind, since more papers and the media both roundly condemned the study. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that since Rind has its own article, and is decribed in detail in the pro-pedophile activism article, that it is ok to skip it here. According to the fringe policy, "Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them." Rind has more than enough coverage elsewhere already.-PetraSchelm (talk) 04:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am in agreement that there should be no section on "controversy" (barring maybe passing mentions for people like Bruce Rind and Ralph Underwager). But anyone who knows nothing and says nothing of the tens or even hundreds of articles that seriously challenge the commonly held assumptions of what is admittedly a majority of Abuse theorists, needs to take a course in child sexuality. As would be the case with any article, these opinions (as long as they mention C S A or challenge the related beliefs) should be mentioned throughout. Louisa Petit-Ladoumegue (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

excess distraction in the lead
The following sentence can find a place in the section on psychological effects, but it does not belong in the intro:

"There are several hypotheses on the causality of this association. A spectrum of responses are possible, based on the circumstances of the abuse."

In the intro, it's a distraction that goes off into subtle details and obscures the main topic. The intro is to provide an overview and context for the rest of the article. There is no controversy that children are harmed by sexual abuse; the intro doesn't need to say there is a "spectrum of responses"; it already lists many examples. There is room elsewhere in the article for exploring details of how science is tracking the sequelae and how research is working to discover the way the effects are caused and how to improve treatments. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No. There is disagreement over causality and most certainly over the frequency, type and degree of harm in CSA. It looks nice, simple and attractive, but it's a whitewash. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Lambton T/C 23:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Causality" is from the same straw man family as "universalism." Psychology is a soft science that deals more in associatons.  There will never be research that shows that any adverse event is causally responsible for ensuing psychological distress. And there is no disagreement over causality and most certainly over the frequency, type and degree of harm in CSA.  The range of effects observed is a range of effects, not "disagreement."  The only sources who interpret it as "controversy" or "disagreement" are the pro-pedophile advocates like NAMBLA's David Miller, and Arne Frederiksen, whom we have been discussing as sources on the pro pedophile activism talkpage.-PetraSchelm (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Causality is impossible to prove, period, but even in psychology there's a point which must be reached before it can be assumed. The 9 widely used criteria proposed by Austin Hill in The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation are as applicable to this as medicine, and they're yet to be completely met.
 * Pro-paedophile activism is irrelevant. The sources cited in the sentence Jack removed are not paedophiles. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The only sources who make the arguments you're making are, as I noted, pro-pedophile cranks like Arne Frederiksen--it would have to be attributed to them, which makes it clear why it's not appropriate or relevant here. The study of the relationship between sexual abuse and psychological distress is conducted to better help people who have been sexually abused, not to "debunk" it on "causality" grounds. Twisting the research to make crank OR arguments is exactly that; in addition to OR we also call it "source-mining." (Meanwhile, wasn't 'causality" User: Voice of Britain's big bugaboo?  Interesting that you share the preoccupation...)-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a very general statement, fitting of the lead. To exclude it would mislead the reader into believing that the nature of these associations has been ascertained definitely. It would be like noting in the Marijuana article that "smoking has been associated with schizophrenia" without adding a caveat to that for another 15kb of text. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Patently absurd, as your example demonstrates: marijuana has been associated with schizophrenia is an exceptional claim, which triggers WP:REDFLAG. Child sexual abuse is associated with negative psychological sequelae is not an exceptional claim, the opposite is the case.-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Pet: You state that Causality is a SM argument, and can never be proven (a position that until recently was opposed throughout the article). Then you state "disagreement over causality and most certainly over the frequency, type and degree of harm in CSA". Is "harm IN CSA" not your own assumption of causality? <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Lambton T/C 16:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We're here to report the WEIGHT of opinion, not to humor your OR fringe ideas about "causality," reprised from Arne Frederiksen.-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, Pet. Whay are you bullying other users off this page and recalling complex and well-read reasons for blocks that appear to have been handed out months before you even appeared, with your multiple references to obscure policies? <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Lambton T/C 16:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The comment by Luisa is now visible. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Lambton T/C 16:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read through the entire talk archives and revision history of this article in the last week, so now I am well aware of the history of pov pushing here by an extreme fringe to include the same bs, using the same words and the same tired arguments, for years. -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If true, that is a valid explanation, although I disagree strongly with both your application of the article's history to present editors, and the way that you have applied it. I feel that it stifles constructive debate about progressing the article, and leads to the devaluation of other's opinions on arbitrary grounds. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Lambton T/C 16:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Arne Frederiksen and other pro-paed whacks are not relevant, Petra, and you're obsessive mentioning of them qualifies as a red herring. The sources cited are reliable and highly notable (one quarter of CSA victims deserve at least a few sentences devoted to their outcomes). --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The arguments you're trying to make are OR source-mining; in order to attribute them to a source we would need a source--the only sources I have ever seen are layperson PPAs like Arne Frederksen, Mhamic, etc.-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The information I want in the article is sourced. WP:OR does not apply to discussion pages, and I'm not advocating the inclusion of my arguments here in the article. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Whilst Rind is not the definitive analysis, I feel that since the definition of CSA is so broad, we are going to have to take into account more representative analyses of CSA victims, as opposed to self-fulfilling clinical population whitewashes that equate to similar studies on onanism and erase hope for victims of abuse (or according to some, "ideas"). <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Lambton T/C 17:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're implying that the medical community purports that damage resulting from abuse is untreatable. Do you have any sources to corroborate this? And what in heck do you mean by "onanism"? You know what that means, right? Legitimus (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I am not. I am suggesting that a certain kind of article is being given prominence, i.e. articles that thoroughly dismiss nearly all CSA as devastating. As I was not referring to recovery, maybe I should have used a less PC term than victim (involved, etc). I did, however note that some see themselves as the victims of "ideas". Some academics (E.g. Money, Malon) have compared the sample bias in CSA studies to that of Onanism. This rather neat parallel can be seen in the mental-health samples used to find excessive masturbators, and then conclude that masturbation was harmful. The same goes for the "discovery" of CSA, i.e. it was found to be most common in those who already had mental health problems, or were in some way institutionalised. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Lambton T/C 18:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But you have not provided a scholarly source the espouses the idea that it is devastating (or other over-the-top descriptions). Now, I understand what you mean by the sample bias, but it becomes moot in the practice of medicine.  You don't treat someone who does not present symptoms (why would they come in the office in the first place?), and a history of sexual abuse in a patient is just part of their history.  You don't treat the abuse (what would I do, erase their memory?), you treat the person.Legitimus (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "In most settings, children who have been sexually abused are routinely offered treatment even if asymptomatic (Beutler, Williams, and Zetzer, 1994; Finkelhor and Berliner, 1995)." (from Child Sexual Abuse: Is the Routine Provision of Psychotherapy Warranted?) --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and people who are exposed to rusty nails are routinely offfered tetanus shots.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The definition of CSA goes beyond reported abuse, in both legal and medical spheres. If CSA is being presented as any sex between an adult and a minor (as it is in the law), this article should address research into any sex between an adult and a minor, including that which is unreported. If not, we should strive to define CSA as abuse that leads to convictions or institutionalisation/MH care of some sort. In this case, we should also start an article for the phenomenon of sex between adults and minors - an article that does not view only a select population through one theoretical framework. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Lambton T/C 14:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't even make sense: ''the definition of child sexual abuse goes beyond reported abuse"--the definition of child sexual abuse is child sexual abuse, period.-PetraSchelm (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It makes perfect sense:
 * "Child sexual abuse refers to sexual abuse of a child by an adult or some other person significantly older or in a position of power or control over the child, where the child is used for sexual stimulation of another person.[1] In addition to overt sexual interactions, child sexual abuse also includes invitations or requests by an adult regarding sexual forms of kissing, hugging and any other sexual activities."
 * Illegality? Clinical referral? No.
 * What do the vast majority of studies used in this article use as samples? Illegality and clinical referrals. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Lambton T/C 14:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But the material has nothing important to offer to the subject matter. Harm is present in the majority even with unreported samples.  Shooting at people doesn't always cause injury or death (one can miss).  While the numbers exist, we don't have studies under Spree killer that indicate that X% of people involved don't die or suffer any physical injuries.  It would be irrelevant and would detract from the matter that a person is acting on another without consent and with great risk of harm.Legitimus (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Correct representations do not detract from anything. You do appear to be making a moral argument here.


 * Spree killer concerns the act of killing, which always causes death. CSA abuses all involved, but the consequences are not all the same - as with killing. To focus on a clinical sample as representative of the whole population would be to make the same mistake as with onanism.


 * There are also popular surveys of older boys involved with men which return overwhelmingly positive responses. To discount all of this would be to discount the diversity observed within the paradigm, and to neglect the sociological aspect of what is a medical-dominated subject (in this article at least). <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Lambton T/C 15:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we're limited to reliable sources which reflect the WP:WEIGHT of opinion here. We haven't even included studies which aren't replicated extensively elsewhere yet, like the Harvard/Maclean studies showing permanent brain damage/changes in the nervous system following sexual abuse.-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That study Jovin mentioned, is that Sandfort(1987)?  It has not been reproducible, nor did it have a good sample size (only 25 subjects who may have been cherry-picked), and there was some manipulation involved to get the "positive" responses.  Further, many symptoms are not evident or measurable until later.  Of course I'm merely reinterating what Finkelhor and Mrazek said (I think this debate already happened?).  Sandfort is the only study I know of that showed a majority "positive" recollection, and contained no information on negative psychological effects, either within or outside the subject's awareness.
 * Also, when I used spree killing as an analogy, I was referring to the individual persons involved, not the entire event. Perhaps drive-by shooting would have been better.  They miss all the time, but it doesn't make it ok.Legitimus (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Blast from the past
There is a long, circular history of repeating the same tired OR fringe arguments at this article:-PetraSchelm (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_sexual_abuse&diff=prev&oldid=128426968

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_sexual_abuse&diff=prev&oldid=128416675

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_sexual_abuse&diff=prev&oldid=132121661

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Child_sexual_abuse/Archive_4&diff=prev&oldid=132123769

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_sexual_abuse&diff=prev&oldid=132131399

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_sexual_abuse&diff=prev&oldid=130160888

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedophilia&diff=prev&oldid=128001231

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_sexual_abuse&diff=prev&oldid=127936763


 * You are referring to one editor. I do not disagree with all of the edits. Look at the rest of the article copies to see why. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Lambton T/C 17:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But, funnily enough, the "one person" was also the sockpuppet disrupting here yesterday.-PetraSchelm (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked with no evidence put forward, yes. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Lambton T/C 14:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Rind et al. (1998)
I'm reposting my comment from Fringe theories/Noticeboard here, for posterity. It's in response to Petra's claim that Rind has faded into total obscurity on all but pro-paedophile websites.
 * Parts of Rind et al. (1998) are fairly unique, actually, and it continues to be cited in the literature. Google Scholar turns up 364 papers citing it. That's almost half the number of hits that the most notable study on CSA (Kendall-Tackett et al.) has, despite the 5-year advantage of Kendall-Tackett. Some citations of Rind in peer-reviewed journals (and one Ph.D dissertation) from 2008:
 * A Ph.D dissertation: "A 1998 meta-analytic study examined the relationship between CSA and ED and found a statistically significant, but small, relationship (r = .06) among the sample of college students without a clinical diagnosis of eating disorders (Rind, Tromovitch, & Bauserman, 1998)."
 * The British Journal of Psychiatry: "In addition, meta-analytic data indicate that the association between childhood sexual abuse and psychopathological symptoms tends to be larger for more severe forms of abuse."
 * Psychiatry Research: "For example, 17% of college students report childhood sexual abuse in the form of sexual intercourse (Rind et al., 1998)."
 * Sexual and Relationship Therapy: "They found, in a meta-analysis of 59 studies of over 15,000 college students, that the relation between self-reported CSA and psychopathology was weak and even weaker when CSA was considered to be consensual, particularly for males. They also reported that 11% of women and 37% of men indicated that their short-term reaction to the CSA was positive. Rind and Tromovitch (1997) similarly reported that only a small proportion of individuals with CSA experiences are permanently harmed in their meta-analytic review of seven national samples of psychological correlates of CSA. They concluded that while psychological adjustment measures suggest that CSA is related to poorer adjustment in the general population, confounding variables prevent attributing causal effects of CSA. [goes on]"
 * American Journal of Public Health: "Very little is actually known about the long-term risks and benefits of abstinence intentions, virginity pledges, or early or late initiation in the context of consensual sexual experiences; however, numerous studies have documented long-term adverse outcomes of sexual abuse, including sexual risk behaviors. [Rind cited among others]"
 * Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy: "Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998) found in a meta analysis of 59 studies comprising 15,000 college students that relations between a self-reported history of CSA and psychopathology was low, and it was lower in magnitude when the respondent deemed CSA to be consensual, but only in men. Some 11% of female and 37% of male respondents reported their short-term reaction to the abuse as being positive."
 * Psychological Medicine: "[Cites Rind several times, then...] Rind et al. (1998) examined the relationship between CSA and psychological adjustment outcomes (e.g. alcohol problems, interpersonal sensitivity) in samples recruited from college and university student populations. Effect sizes were computed for the association between CSA and psychological outcomes, and for the magnitude of the relationship between several moderating variables (e.g. gender, level of contact) and psychological outcomes. Significant interactions were found between gender and two moderating aspects of the CSA experience, namely level of contact (i.e. psychological outcomes were significantly stronger for males than females when CSA was unwanted) and timing of reaction (i.e. negative reactions to CSA were significantly greater for females than males across each category of reaction timing that was measured: immediate, current, and lasting)."
 * So there. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Search engines disagree with much of what Petra has to say. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Lambton T/C 18:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

misleading information removed from the Mayo Clinic statement
The following sentence from the article includes misleading information:

"The Mayo Clinic also reported in their peer-reviewed journal that 95% of child sexual abuse incidents are committed by the 88% of child molestation offenders who meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia, citing data from a 2001 book published by Xlibris, a self-publishing company."

The misleading information is this part:

"citing data from a 2001 book published by Xlibris, a self-publishing company."

It's misleading for several reasons:


 * The Mayo Clinic cited two sources for the statistics, not one. The other cited source is the American Psychiatric Association.
 * The Mayo Clinic reported the information in a peer-reviewed journal. It's original research to second-guess the peer-review process of a reliable source.  To question the information they reported, we would need to report a second reliable source that is questioning it.
 * The author of 2001 book and the study it reports, Gene G. Abel, M.D., is a noted expert on the topic:
 * full professor of Psychiatry, taught at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, currently affiliated with Emory University School of Medicine and Morehouse School of Medicine,  President of the National Society for Behavioral Medicine, a Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, a diplomat of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, former research psychiatrist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute...
 * Six NIMH research grants: NIMH Grant MH20258, "Modification of Deviant Behavior," September, 1973 - August, 1974. Co-Principal Investigator with Judith V. Becker, Ph.D. / NIMH Grant MH32982, "Sexual Dysfunction in Rape Victims," September 25, 1979 - August 31, 1982 (extended to January 31, 1983). Co-Principal Investigator with Judith V. Becker, Ph.D. / NIMH Renewal Grant, "Modification of Deviant Behavior," September, 1974 - June, 1976. / NIMH Center for the Prevention and Control of Rape, Grant R01 MH 3805-01, "The Evaluation and Treatment of Sexual Aggressives," February 1, 1976 - January 31, 1979 (extended to August 30, 1979). Principal Investigator. / NIMH Grant MH33678-01, "The Evaluation of Child Molesters," May 1, 1980 - April 30, 1983 (extended to July 31, 1985). Principal Investigator. / NIMH Grant MH36347, "The Treatment of Child Molesters," August 1, 1981 - July 31, 1984 (extended to July 31, 1985). Principal Investigator.
 * Awards: MASTERS & JOHNSON AWARD presented by the Society for Sex Therapy and Research, March 17, 1991 in Baltimore, Maryland for recognition of sex research. / SIGNIFICANT ACHIEVEMENT AWARD, given by the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, November 7, 1991, in recognition of dedication and leadership in the field of sex offender research, evaluation and treatment. / NATIONAL AWARD, given by the International Conference on the Treatment of Sex Offenders, May 1989, for perseverance in a new field of study and willingness to share new knowledge. / DISTINGUISHED LIFE FELLOW of the APA (American Psychiatric Association) January 1, 2004
 * Former editor of these journals: Behavior Therapy, Criminal Justice and Behavior, Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, and Journal of Interpersonal Violence
 * Published over 100 papers in scientific journals

The misleading and off-topic distraction about Xlibris does not belong in the sentence reporting the statement of the peer-reviewed Mayo Clinic Proceedings journal and has been removed. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

regarding copyedit of pedophilia section
The text in the section on pedophilia was clumsy - it included repeated content and excess attributions that did not add anything to the understanding of the topic (for example, mentioning the APA and WHO in the topic sentence of the first paragraph was not useful to the reader).

I've done a copyedit of the section.

I'm mentioning it here to note of my intention for that edit. My purpose was to improve the readability, reduce confusion, and leave out unimportant details that did improve the communication of information. I think the meaning is intact and it reads much better now.

Also added a couple dictionary references and fixed the formatting of some references that were messed up and duplicated.

As far as I can tell, all the references are still in place (other than the three identical references to the DSM that I combined into one);  if any got dropped it was not intentional. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

regarding copyedit of sentence in the intro
I've edited this sentence in the intro to add a general overview of the statistics from the Mayo Clinic, without including the details.

That was a follow-up to a prior version I had added earlier, where another editor moved the information out of the intro, with an edit summary indicating that the editor wanted more of a summary approach in the lead.

So, I'm OK with omitting that set of statistics from the lead - but the general content based on that reliable source is important for context in the lead. So rather than re-insert the details, I summarized it, included the footnote, and copyedited the full sentence to improve readability. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Most CSAbusers are not pedophiles, and there is some debate as to who committs the majority of offences (since adolescent activity is more common - someone with that preference would be ephebophilic). Your one source is countered by various others that I will find later. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Lambton T/C 13:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The professional opinion of Lautmann in "Attraction to Children" - he suggests that 5% of "pedosexually active men" are "true pedophiles".
 * In "Personality Correlates of Pedophilia: Are They Reliable Indicators?", Okami says: "most data suggest that only a relatively small portion of the population of incarcerated sexual offenders against minors consists of persons for whom minors (particularly children) represent the exclusive or even primary object of sexual interest or source of arousal".
 * Groth and Birnbaum (1978) states that 40% of abusers in their sample were "fixated", i.e. preferential pedophiles. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Lambton T/C 13:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Groth and Birnbaum is a bit dated though. There work was valuable, but it only dealt with a small sample of male, incarcerated offenders.  And it was little too simplistic.  It's more complicated that just fixed vs. regressed.  Also, the lead sentence does not need to be overly qualified with overt statements of the sources that are already refed.  It reads awkwardly and comes across as intentionally subversive to the content.Legitimus (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering that we are dealing with modern societies, I do not feel that date matters all that much (indeed, methodological differences may help provide different perspectives). What of these sources do you think that we could integrate? In my opinion, the current state of affairs is slighly misleading. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Lambton T/C 15:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me put it this way: It's difficult to ascertain a given sex offender's true state of mind and motivation, and there are many variations.  All we know is, they did it.
 * If these sources are added together, and controlled for differences in definition, are we left with an applicable range of estimates? Example (making numbers up): it is estimated that between 18% and 80% of child sexual abuse is perpetrated etc.
 * I realize that pedophilia definition is a debated issue on wikipedia. I'd rather avoid that.Legitimus (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The range would be between 1% and 95% (though if we looked long enough, I'm sure we could find a source for 100%). That doesn't seem particularly helpful. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Jovin Lambton's edit was appropriate. "Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text." (WP:V)

The data cited in the Mayo Report was not peer-reviewed. The authors could not possibly have possibly have performed an equivelent review, because the self-published book that reports it is lacking in detail in methodology. Meanwhile, a vast quantity of peer-reviewed research published in reputable journals, some of which is cited by Okami and Howells in our article, contradicts the claim. These studies are not outdated. "Child Pornography Offenses Are a Valid Diagnostic Indicator of Pedophilia" (2006), in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, found that child molestation, unlike child pornography, was not a valid diagnostic indicator of paedophilia. Only a minority of the abusers studied showed preferential attraction to children.

The weight of evidence should be represented. Dozens and dozens of peer-reviewed studies would seem to outweigh one self-published, nonscientific book (or even a citation to that book!) --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You haven't addressed the original talkpage discussion on this, above. It's the number of crimes, not the number of offenders. (Misleading to say "most child abusers are not pedophiles"--there may be fewer of them, but they have many more victims. And Okami's research is oudated--Finkelhor says volume offenders are more likely to be incarcerated.-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've addressed it like ten times, actually. Paedophilic child molesters typically have more victims than nonpaedophilic child molesters, though I'm not aware of a source besides the Xlibris book that claims they victimize more children as a group. Finkelhor's paper doesn't say that; "volume offenders are more likely to be incarcerated" can't become "paedophiles molest more children" without violating WP:OR (and the laws of logic). Okami's research doesn't contradict Finkelhor's actual statement. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Finkelhor makes a direct distinction between incestuous offenders and high volume offenders. If you want the article to say "high volume offenders are more likely to be incarcerated than incestuous offenders," I don't see a problem with that. There is a problem with how outdated Okami's research is in comparison to Finkelhor's, and the article should also state that the incarceration rate of child sex offenders has tripled since Okami's research (how reliable is that research if the population has changed dramatically?)-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. I don't think that belongs in the Paedophilia section, though.
 * As I've already pointed out, the research cited by Okami is in line with modern peer-reviewed studies, like Seto. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's outdated--and there's a contradiction by someone who did research with more statistical power (and on the current population); as well as the Mayo contradiction (which is expert synthesis). The conclusions you're drawing from "Child Pornography offenses..." are OR. "Child molestation is not a valid diagnostic indicator of pedophilia" does not contradict that 10x more sex offenses are committed by pedophiles.-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No one is saying that. It adds to the viewer-abuser discussion. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Lambton T/C 20:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The current revision sounds ok, I think.: "When an adult seeks or engages in sexual activity with a child, public sentiment usually considers these actions as a manifestation of pedophilia;[19] however, some child sexual abuse is perpetrated by individuals who do not meet the criteria for the formal definition of that term.[20]" Truth be told, if I were to take the role of the naive reader, it doesn't seem particularly important whether an offender is a diagnostically recognized pedophile.  Or what proportion of them are.Legitimus (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hang on a minute, can you please given the definitions of pedophile used for these studies? I'm noting some inconsistencies.  Also, if an offender is not a pedophile, what are they? Legitimus (talk) 10:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Errors & biases in existing research
When reviewing research studies on pedophilia, it must be remembered that there is a strong potential for sampling biases. Many studies obtained their pedophilic or sexual offender populations from prisons or legally mandated sexual treatment groups. This sampling raises questions about the subjects’ willingness to be honest and/or to incriminate themselves on self-report surveys.

If "many studies" only considered populations that had already had some form of law enforcement contact over their adult-child activities, then it's not reasonable to derive the percentage of pedophiles who are child molesters from these figures, though it should be possible to derive the percentage of child molesters who are pedophiles. --SSBohio 15:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The prison populations also exclude pedophiles who have not been caught, those whose level of offense was not severe enough to result in jail time, those who could control their impulses, and those who were more financially successful and better able to prevail in their legal troubles through the retention of private attorneys.

Again, a selection bias is inadvertently created that skews the sample toward molesters of lower intellectual and socioeconomic status, as well as underrepresenting pedophiles who "resist temptation" and don't offend. --SSBohio 15:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

An estimated 1 in 20 cases of child sexual abuse is reported or identified.

Similarly, since 5% of cases are reported or identified, then the data on the other 95% is absent. Are these cases ones where smart pedophiles use their skills to molest children with impunity or are these pedophiles who have the impulse to sexually abuse children but resist acting on it? The research doesn't (& can't) tell us.

My overall feeling is that these three quotes qualify the information this source provides. Because of that, use of facts & figures from this source should probably be qualified by the limitations it acknowledges. --SSBohio 15:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

How pedophiles come to the attention of professionals
Pedophiles are either severely distressed by these sexual urges, experience interpersonal difficulties because of them, or act on them. Pedophiles usually come to medical or legal attention by committing an act against a child because most do not find their sexual fantasies distressing or ego-dystonic enough to voluntarily seek treatment.

I see two useful points to take away from this passage:
 * The usual way a pedophile becomes known (and studied) by professionals only when he offends against a child; That impacts the applicability of statistics on the prevalence of molestation (behavior) among pedophiles.
 * There's no disagreement or problem with noting where the samples come from; the problem is in the opinions/conclusions drawn regarding the implications. (For instance, I have seen the ppa websites make hay of this that doesn't make sense.) It should also be noted that only a minority of sex offenders are prosecuted because only a minority of victims report abuse--that's the other variable in whether or not they get caught.-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes; According to this article, it's 1 in 20 that report the abuse. The PPA websites (based on your description) make the "mistake" (in quotes because the error is self-serving) of equating a lack of complaint with a positive outcome. The 99% (my unscientific estimate) of child molesters who are never arrested/convicted/studied simply cannot be used as evidence of anything; They are a statistical cipher. --SSBohio 20:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, but there are studies on the victims who didn't report, and why they didn't report which gives us the picture we have of unreported crimes, who doesn't report, what they don't report and which offenders are not reported, that's why there's any speculation about how many are unreported; as well there are as studies on offenders who provided self-report data on offenses for which they were not caught. I don't think it's actually that important for this article, but perhaps for the pedophilia article.-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Most pedophiles do not find their fantasies of sex with children to be severely distressing, which makes it unlikely for them to do anything about their problem until it not only manifests in the form of child sexual abuse, but until they get caught. --SSBohio 19:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's talk of changing the DSM to remove that criteria. It's called "ego-syntonic" v. "ego-dystonic," and there is belief that the ego-syntonic ones are the real sociopaths, because at least the ego-dystonic ones have intact reality-testing and remorse.-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good point about the ego-syntonic subjects. I never cared for criterion B, as I felt it let specific persons slip through.  The concept that the proclivity must cause distress or an action seems at odds with common practice.  For instance, suicidal or homicidal ideation.  Such persons may have no detectable distress, yet these circumstances are considered serious enough even to breach patient confidentiality.  I'm a bit confused as to the proposal on the table though.  What do we want to say? Legitimus (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fundamentally, when it comes to paraphilias, the DSM standard is not to treat a person's paraphilia as a mental disorder unless it is a problem for them. A pedophile who acts on his desire may be internally accepting of what he does, similarly to an angel of death who doesn't imagine himself to be a murderer. The non-offending (or not-yet-offending) pedophile is a different matter.
 * I have to imagine that many pedophiles are inhibited by their ego-dystonia over whom they desire, and others who have offended may be genuinely remorseful and ashamed. The pedophiles that worry me are the ones who are not merely at peace with their desires, but actually proud to be pedophiles, not because people shouldn't believe as they choose, but because it removes a safeguard, a social control on antisocial behavior.
 * Can we report anything (remotely) like that in this article? Not unless there's a source that has satisfactorily demonstrated it to be true. Until then, it's just my opinion, and this isn't OpinionPedia. --SSBohio 20:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Prevalence of pedophiles in molestation cases
An estimated 88% of child molesters and 95% of molestations (one person, multiple acts) are committed by individuals who now or in the future will also meet criteria for pedophilia.

Pedophilic child molesters on average commit 10 times more sexual acts against children than nonpedophilic child molesters.

Relation of child pronography to child molestation
Studies and case reports indicate that 30% to 80% of individuals who viewed child pornography and 76% of individuals who were arrested for Internet child pornography had molested a child.

Presented to inform the discussion. --SSBohio 21:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Full text available online
Thanks for providing some of the interesting material from the source. If anyone is interested in more, the full text is available on line at the following link:


 * A Profile of Pedophilia: Definition, Characteristics of Offenders, Recidivism,  Treatment Outcomes, and Forensic Issues.

--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Parity across sex abuse articles on Wikipedia?
Perhaps there are good/experienced editors who look at this page, who might be interested in taking a look at two (very) different articles: Roman Catholic sex abuse cases and Scouting sex abuse cases. Some fresh contributions might be useful. Testbed (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Controversial opinions" as a seperate section
"Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between 'proponents' and 'opponents'. It also creates a hierarchy of fact—the main passage is 'true' and 'undisputed', whereas the rest are 'controversial' and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate." ~ Words_to_avoid --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The real issue is that you have disrespected the outside input on this and the resulting compromise, and inserted your preferred version without discussion instead. (Since the compromise was a few sentences on Rind--which I don't even agree belongs here--there's no "tortured" section of back and forth; it should be about four sentences, two of them rebuttal.) I am speaking with the topic mentors about this, and it should go to DR, either on or off wiki depending on what they advise (since this has been a longstanding problem at this article).-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As I recall, the resulting compromise of a "few sentences" was supported by two outside editors on the Fringe board (User:Moreschi and User:Dbachmann), and opposed by User:Eleland. That doesn't even resemble consensus. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The consensus was that it was a coatrack (eleland's objections weren't even in the scope of the problem being discussed). What was helpful was the outside input from the regular editors at the fringe board. You have completely disrespected consensus, and reinserted your preferred version without any discussion whatsoever--I'd say that's pretty much bad faith. As I said, this should go to DR, and I have requested advice from topic mentors about whether it should be on-wiki or emailed to Arbcom.-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Protected
I've protected the page for a week because of edit warring. The history was a mess, and is exactly how not to do things here. We discuss, not edit war. Anyway, let's try and get this sorted out. I'm aware of a discussion on the fringe theories noticeboard about this - could someone link it to me? I'd also like to here some suggested text for the introduction pasage so hopefully we can get a compromise.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  18:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's the link: WP:FTN.


 * This is the diff of the fringe theory coatrack section being discussed. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggested passage by AnotherSolipsist
Introduction...? I don't know about that, but here's my suggestion for what we were warring over:


 * Some controversial [added controversial, with cites from below] studies suggest that some people reporting experiences of childhood or adolescent sexual contact with adults had maintained [removed some] at least partially positive feelings about those experiences.  [Removed detailed discussion of Okami; cites moved to "controversial"] [Removed discussion of "adult-child sex"; removed congressional condemnation] In 1998, Bruce Rind and two colleagues published a meta-analysis of 15 studies on child sexual abuse in Psychological Bulletin. [added preceding] He found that sexually abused boys reacted positively to their experience in 37% of the cases, while girls reacted positively in 11% of the cases. [Wording changes] The study received both criticism and praise; see Rind et al. controversy.[Summarized Rind controversy]


 * [Deleted women-boy sentence, moved citation up] There is [removed contrasting] evidence that some children who initially report positive feelings will sometimes go on to reassess their abuse in a negative light. 38% of the 53 men studied by Urquiza (1987) said that they viewed their experience as positive at the time, but only 15% retained this attitude. [removed another discussion of Okami] Russell (1986) speculated that the perception of a sexually abusive event as 'positive' could stem from a mechanism for coping with traumatic experiences.

--AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Falsely implies that there is a big controversy (which is what coatracks do); fails to point out that Rind only reported self-reported short term effects of adoloescents; fails to mention that Rind's study was a cultural controversy, not a scientific controversy, and fails to mention that it's totally stale as a cultural controversy. (which is why it shouldn't be here at all, as there is an entire article on Rind). Also excludes criticism of Rind--i.e., Dallam's quote that the study was an attempt to misuse science to promote an agenda.-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you've misinterpreted Dallam's misinterpretations of Rind. o_O Consider reading the study itself. If you did, you'd know that the focus of Rind et al. (1998) was on the long-term effects of CSA; that was, in fact, one point of criticism for Ondersma. As for the reactions we describe, both immediant and current reactions to the abuse were analyzed, and the portion that were positive was not significantly different between them.
 * You'd also know that Rind et al. studied child sexual abuse victims of all ages, not just adolescents -- though including adolescents, as is standard for these kind of studies. Shall we point out that pubescents were included in most of the studies we cite, for consistency?
 * I agree that most of the controversy over Rind wasn't scientific, including the quote from Dallam excluded from my preferred version. Cultural controversy isn't relevant to the scientific study of the effects of child sexual abuse. I also agree that the controversy is stale; Rind et al. is accepted by mainstream science, and now almost always cited without caveat (see . --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your'e confusing the two aspects of the Rind study--one was scientific (and wasnot controversial--Rind confirms there is harm in child sexual abuse) and the second was cultural: he thinks a small percentage of adolescent male/adult male sexual experiences should be called "adult child sex," because the harm is not "pervasive or long lasting"--some adolescents, according to Rind, who presented at a pro-pedophile conference, self-report no negative effects in the short term. That's an opinion, not a scientific observation, and it was a cultural controversy that is now stale.
 * Also, Urquiza is an unpublished doctoral dissertation from 1987. (In addition to coatracking, there is serious scrounging up of sources and source-mining to get the coatrack in the first place...)-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)^ Urquiza, A.J. (1987). The effects of childhood sexual abuse in an adult male population. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.
 * Doctoral dissertations are as reliable as peer-reviewed studies, and I've seen Urquiza's cited several times in the literature. One of those citation's was in Finkelhor's commentary on Sandfort, which is, I suspect, the actual source here. It looks like Urquiza is there to balance the misguided assumption that since some positive reactions exist, CSA might be okay (which isn't actually stated in our article). I'm not sure why you would have a problem with that.
 * As to Rind, I'm not confusing the descriptive aspects and prescriptive aspects of his study, I'm ignoring the latter. That's because my revised version doesn't mention his recommendation of the "adult-child sex" terminology. It's a red herring. We're citing Rind for his meta-analysis of emotional responses to CSA, which is a descriptive ("scientific") aspect.
 * I've revised my suggestion slightly, by the by. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 00:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

again, this is not about "coatrack" (an article going completely off topic), but about WP:DUE: the presentation of fringe views as having more credibility or support than they do in fact have. I agree with PetraSchelm that we mappear to be looking at (on or off wiki) pro-pedophile activism, and I do suggest that the material should be moved to that article, with a brief summary here. This is also about the age of consent. Let's say that in "civilized" countries, this varies between 14 and 18 years. It is a huge difference if the victim is aged 2, 10, 14 or 17. The article seems to ignore this almost completely. What is "child abuse" in California may be perfectly legal consensual sex in Spain (if the 'victim' is aged 14 to 16). dab (𒁳) 20:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But it isn't a fringe view among social scientists that children sometimes react, and later reflect upon their abusive experience positively. That's been the result of virtually every study on the matter. Rind's meta-analysis, too, is not fringe. Most of its critics are ultraconservative reactionaries with no experience in science, and the few critics who are scientists tend to come from the cult of "repressed memory." An entire issue of American Psychologist was dedicated to defending Rind's scientific validity and condemning the hysteria that spurred the congressional resolution. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's kind of a subcategory listed under WP:COATRACK, that addresses WP:UNDUE regarding criticism sections in articles, not whole coatrack articles themselves: "An article might have a disproportionately large "criticism" section, giving the impression that the nominal subject is hotly contested by many people, when in fact the criticism is merely selected opinions and the section creates an artificial controversy. This, too, gives the reader a false impression about reality even though the details may be true."-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * dab, I concur with your comments and that the fringe views must not have undue weight in this article and and should be moved to the pro-pedophile activism article, with a short summary here. To address your concerns about age of consent, I agree with you it needs to be clarified. There's a separate article for the legal issues at Laws regarding child sexual abuse.  This article is about abuse of children, not teenagers - in other words, children as defined medically, not minors, defined legally.  That needs to be made more clear.  Aside from that concern though, the excessive pro-pedophile controversy info should certainly be moved elsewhere with only a short summary here. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Can this information reside on pro-pedophile activism? Flaws aside, I don't see why we need it in both places, especially so much of it. Note this precedent: Murder is a crime, but killing someone may not always be murder, such as self-defense.  Note that self-defense receives a mere 3 sentences, but has an in-text link to the much broader concept for the reader should they take interest. Legitimus (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No. The fact that some children react to CSA positively doesn't say anything good about paedophiles, and it's directly pertinent to CSA: Positively experienced child sexual abuse is still child sexual abuse (unlike how self-defense isn't murder). --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with much of this talk, especially the idea that this article covers prepubescent children only (the focus of sources is contrary), and the idea that any expansion of unsupportive points of view would be unbalancing at this stage (unsupported by consensus in all applicable fields. This is just a signpost, and I shall expand later. 82.25.179.169 (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That didn't really address the subject about weight, with particular attention to readership the impression of a naive reader. But go ahead and explain when you can. But let the record show, I am already suspicious.Legitimus (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't let it troll you--it's an IP with 5 edits. One to the article about the Dutch pedophile party that only has three members, one to harass me, two to the child porn article that were reverted, and this one.-PetraSchelm (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggested passage by PetraSchelm
n 1998, Bruce Rind, PhD argued in his study known as Rind et al. that a minority of cases between adolescent males and adults should be called "adult child sex." This study was condemned by the United States Congress, an event which marked the first time in U.S. history that Congress officially condemned a study published in a major scientific journal. Rind's study was a meta-analysis of 15 studies using college students that found that boys reacted positively in 37% of the cases, while girls reacted positively in 11% of the cases, only in the short term. The methodology and conclusions drawn by this study has been criticized by many researchers, including Dallam et al., who stated "After a careful examination of the evidence, it is concluded that Rind et al. can best be described as an advocacy article that inappropriately uses science in an attempt to legitimize its findings." (2002). The study has also received some support for its scientific validity, though not necessarily its conclusions.
 * I do not approve. For one, several parts are inaccurate. Rind et al. (1998) argued that any "willing encounter with positive reactions" should be termed adult-child sex, not just those that occur between adolescent boys and adults. And as I have already said, the positive feelings were not just short-term, as claimed in your passage. 42% of males and 16% of females reported overall positive feelings for their abuse, even as adults. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That said, Rind et al. (2001) performed a meta-analysis on the 11 contact-only studies in Rind et al. (1998). The effect size (r=.10) was not statistically different from Rind et al. (1998)'s overall effect size for contact and non-contact together (r=.09).
 * Er, the way you're interpreting that is pretty weird--Rind et al found less severe harm when force wasn;t used--that doesn't make it a "willing encounter" if consent wasn't possible. Further, less severe abuse=less severe harm was already established. Also, the way Rind et al defined sexual abuse was pretty bogus: "Ondersma et al. also note that many of the studies reviewed by Rind et al. include in the definition of CSA both contact and non-contact sex. In one of the studies fully 83% of males' "CSA" experiences involved being propositioned by an adult, without any actual contact! Is it any wonder that Rind et al. found a smaller degree of profound and persistent long-term harm among the victims of CSA (so broadly defined) than what would have been predicted by other researchers?" Then there's the problem with "self-reporting" no harm/self reporting no harm short term/till young adulthood: "Ondersma et al. begin by objecting to limiting the definition of harm to the existence of negative effects lasting to young adulthood. According to that criterion, other clearly negative childhood experiences - for example, being beaten by an adult or having leukemia -- might not qualify as harmful either. Moreover, harm does not require that the victim perceive that experience negatively... the possibility that a child might learn from an abuser that such experiences are normal and positive is one of the most concerning possible outcomes of CSA." Last but not least, let's not forget that Rind et al completely excluded drug abuse (self-medication, a primary CSA symptom) from their study as negative sequelae.  Like Legitimus, I don't think this belongs here at all--there's already an article on Rind, and it's described in the pro-pedophile activism article. There are thousands of studies we are not including here, and this one just doesn't merit any special attention, per undue weight. I think it's just pov-pushing to keep insisting on it, when it has so much coverage elsewhere, and when it did absolutely nothing to reconfigure the weight of scientific opinion--it was only notable as a cultural controversy, which is now quite stale.-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Some people use quotation marks to indicate the beginning and end of a quote. I'm one of those people. "Willing encounter" is Rind's term, not mine.
 * "Less severe abuse=less severe harm," in general, was not a finding of Rind et al. (1998). Rind et al. (1998) found that "level of consent" (note quotation marks) was related to adjustment, but "level of contact" was not. This indicates that the harm of noncontact abuse is equivalent to that of contact abuse, which partially answers your next criticism...
 * Rind et al. (1998) didn't define "child sexual abuse," but it respected the definitions of the studies it was analyzing . Some (73%) included non-contact abuse in their definition. Regardless of whether that's "bogus," it's very common: Even our article notes that child sexual abuse "includes invitations or requests," even those other three meta-analyses you've been trumpeting include abused children who never experienced actual contact. Why aren't you directing this criticism at any of the other references we cite?
 * I'm glad you've reversed your temporality criticism, but it's still misguided. Ondersma's notion is unfalsiable, and as such has no place in a scientific study like Rind et al. (1998). Ondersma is suffering from confirmation bias: any possible outcome of CSA is assumed to be harmful.
 * Rind et al. (1998) isn't just another study. It's a unique and valuable meta-analysis, vastly more notable than most others. You've mentioned three other meta-analyses that were released around the same time as Rind et al. (1998). None are even half as oft-cited as Rind: Paolucci, Neumann, and Jumper. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support this as being better than the version proposed by AS. perhaps we could also merge the rind article here and in conjunction with Petra's version. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The temporality criticism went both ways--college is still short term in lifespan for people with adolescent instances/college is a long time from childhood. The three other meta-analyses did not come to the same conclusions as Rind, nor has any meta-analysis in the ten years since since. That triggers WP:REDFLAG. There are thousands of studies we are not including here. Endlessly discussing Rind may be fascinating to you, but it bores me. It was junk agenda science that in no way merits this much conflict or discussion. Also, the RFC should happen, instead of these endless circular debates.-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, what if we alter the order of the sentences if this proposal, to present things more gradually, and fuse in some points raised:
 * In 1998, Bruce Rind, PhD argued in his study known as Rind et al. that a minority of cases between adolescent males and adults in which which there was no perceived force should be called "adult child sex." Rind's study was a meta-analysis of 15 studies using college students that found that boys reacted positively in 37% of the cases, while girls reacted positively in 11% of the cases, measured in the short term. The methodology and conclusions drawn by this study has been criticized by many researchers, including Dallam et al., who stated "After a careful examination of the evidence, it is concluded that Rind et al. can best be described as an advocacy article that inappropriately uses science in an attempt to legitimize its findings." (2002). This study was condemned by the United States Congress, an event which marked the first time in U.S. history that Congress officially condemned a study published in a major scientific journal. The study has also received some support for its scientific validity, though not necessarily its conclusions.


 * How this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legitimus (talk • contribs)
 * Still not great. In order of importance, my complaints are: the "adolescent males" inaccuracy remains; "adult-child sex" should not be mentioned, as it's a minority view that wasn't the focus of Rind's paper and isn't explained properly in one sentence; "measured in the short-term" is misleading, as (virtually) the same results were obtained in the long-term; "many researchers" is a weasel term that overrepresents the minority who are critical of Rind; an introduction on 'positive' findings in other studies is missing; and the congressional resolution is a tangential detail that belongs at Rind et al. controversy -- it doesn't inform the reader about the subject of this article, child sexual abuse. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't actually support the inclusion of anything about Rind, because it was junk agenda science, it had zero effect on the weight of scientific opinion, and the only thing notable about it was the cultural controversy, which is stale. Studies that are not replicated by anyone else trigger WP:REDFLAG. Rind is already over-covered in Wikipedia--it has a whole article, and is addressed in the pro-pedophile activism article, which is where it is relevant. That's what I'll argue at the RFC. If the RFC results in a compromise to include a few sentences about Rind, I will vet them for accuracy and pov.-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Petra has hit on something I think is rather important: Rind has it's own bloody article.  Do we have to have such a long mention here?  Legitimus (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, because it is a very important and much referred to article in this area. Its use should help diversify the sources in the psychological consequences section in particular. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J*Lambton T/C 21:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And this draft is still a poor misrepresentation of the actual research. The best suggestion so far is that of AnotherSolipsist. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J*Lambton T/C 22:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's doesn't quite follow the discussion. Regardless, let me give it another try:
 * "In 1998, researchers Rind, Bauserman, and Tromovitch published a controversial meta-analytical study regarding adulthood recollections and the long-term effects of child sexual abuse on college students (see Rind et al. (1998))"
 * Legitimus (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Original
In 1998, Bruce Rind, PhD argued in his study known as Rind et al. that not all cases of "adult-child sex" should be termed child sexual abuse. This study was condemned by the United States Congress, an event which marked the first time in U.S. history that Congress officially condemned a study published in a major scientific journal. Rind's study was a meta-analysis of 15 studies using college students that found that boys reacted positively in 37% of the cases, while girls reacted positively in 11% of the cases. The methodology and conclusions drawn by this study has been criticized by many researchers, including Dallam et al., who stated "After a careful examination of the evidence, it is concluded that Rind et al. can best be described as an advocacy article that inappropriately uses science in an attempt to legitimize its findings." (2002). The study has also received some support for its scientific validity, though not necessarily its conclusions.

One study found that most men formerly involved in woman-boy sexual relations evaluate their experience as positive upon reflection. There is contrasting evidence that some children who initially report positive feelings will sometimes go on to reassess their abuse in a negative light. 38% of the 53 men studied by Urquiza (1987) said that they viewed their experience as positive at the time, but only 15% retained this attitude. One exploratory questionnaire-based study of 63 men and women who self-identified as maintaining at least a partial positive feeling about sexual abuse during their childhood or adolescence suggested a wide range of possible effects in adult life. Of the 63 subjects, 41% recalled feelings of guilt, 35% said they were frightened at the time, and 29% reported feelings of shame. Russell (1986) speculated that the perception of a sexually abusive event as 'positive' could stem from a mechanism for coping with traumatic experiences.

Edited
In 1998, Rind et al, a peer-reviewed literature review written by three researchers, appeared in the Psychological Bulletin. This meta-analysis reviewed 15 studies based on college students' experiences of "precocious sexual contacts" and, among others, drew the conclusion that "for boys in nonclinical populations, willing relations are generally experienced positively or neutrally and are not associated with maladjustment." The United States House of Representatives criticized the study's methods and conclusions in a 1998 Non-binding resolution. Scientific critics have disputed the study's definitions of willing relations and sexual abuse. In one example, Rind's determination that boys reacted positively in 37% of the cases studied, while girls reacted positively in 11% was challenged because it didn't correct for the higher base rate of abuse in male children, engendering a "misleading" finding. Another criticism is that Rind's perceived advocacy of value-neutral terminology (for example referring to child sexual abuse as adult-child sex) is being used to bolster the pro-pedophile activist position taken by organizations like NAMBLA. That said, the publication of Rind et al has been tacitly or implicitly defended by well-regarded organizations, other scientists and Congressman Brian N. Baird.

suggested procedure
After I entered my comments below, further editing was done to the edited version above. The changes were minor so did not create confusion, but let's consider a method for updating the text as we proceed with the discussion.

I suggest that if substantive edits are made after anyone comments on a particular version - instead of editing the existing text, a new version be added. If the edited version above is changed after people comment on it, their comment might not apply to the re-edited version.

An alternate method could be to use strike-through's or square brackets to show the changes; that would take less space but could get confusing. Either way though, let's consider the effect on editor's comments when changing the version they commented on. Thanks.... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * While I agree with you that substantial changes should be done by adding a new revision with its own section for discussion, I'm not sure I understand the purpose of your criticism, which seems based on the assumption that I don't consider the effect on editor's comments when changing the version they commented on. I read and considered the comments made before doing any editing;  I simply wouldn't have edited the original text had the edits been to change the meaning of what I wrote.  I don't think I've given you reason to doubt my intentions or my judgment, so I'd appreciate an assumption of good faith in the future.  --SSBohio 05:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * SSB, my comment was not intended as a criticism of you or your work, it was just about the procedure. I believe that your edits were and are made in good faith, and I believe this even regarding those edits on which you and I do not agree about the content. I just wanted to avoid confusion that could come from the edited version being changed after others entered comments, because then the comments might not apply to the re-edited version.  When I wrote " let's consider the effect on editor's comments when changing the version they commented on" - that was not directed towards you, it was simply a suggestion for all of us (myself included).    I apologize for my unclear comment that gave an unintended impression.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I now better understand your position. Thanks for your kind words.  --SSBohio 16:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

comments
Here's my contribution. I tried to give an idea of the (deep) flaws in the Rind study while not getting too bogged down in who said what. I left that (more or less) to the references. I drew inspiration from both of the editors' efforts above mine. Please let me know what you think. --SSBohio 19:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's great, and appreciate your efforts. (The one criticism I would make is that maybe it's a little too long--it's longer even than the summary presented in the PPA article...). But good job, and thank you for putting so much time and energy into coming up with such a good effort. -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * High praise indeed, considering that we haven't always seen eye-to-eye on this article. Thank you.  I'm not averse to rewording or trimming it.  I tried to move as much of the trivia into the references as I thought I could while still providing a context.  The Rind study seems to be often-referenced in other works and understanding the points made both by its defenders and detractors  is (to my mind) crucial to understanding how it should be taken.  Additionally, I think that the sources identified can be useful elsewhere in the article.  Perhaps we could do a drive where the existing sources are plumbed to find references for other unreferenced asserttions in the article, for example. --SSBohio 20:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, one thing you will have to do is document the thorough response of Rind to the criticisms - which I believe eclipsed the size of his original paper. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J*Lambton T/C 10:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While I see the value of giving further detail on Rind's response, to me it has to be balanced by the need to keep this section from becoming excessively large and dominant. That level of detail would likely be better in the Rind et al article, rather than here.  --SSBohio 06:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm back, and the article seems to be shaping up nicely. So, are we going to incorporate this new draft?  That would cover Lambton's point as well I think, since it provides a slightly more prominent link to the Rind article, and does document the responses rather explicitly (see last few sentences of draft above, not what's in the article at this moment).Legitimus (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think the draft I wrote does a good job of explicitly stating the concrete criticisms of Rind's methods & conclusions without losing the reliability inherent in its being a peer-reviewed paper published in a major publication, a publication that has attracted a number of detractors and supporters. --SSBohio 06:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

←I appreciate this careful effort, but unfortunately, I can't concur with the use of the edited version as presented above. Here are some problems I've noticed so far (may not be a complete list): For those reasons, I cannot support the use of the edited version above unless these issues are addressed with a new version. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The edited version doubles the space given to the Rind study by leaving out the other studies noted in the prior version.
 * The first sentence of the new draft gives undue weight to the journal in which the study was published "In 1998, the American Psychological Association published a peer-reviewed paper (Rind et al) written by researchers Rind, Tromovich and Bauserman in its flagship publication, the Psychological Bulletin." Many studies are mentioned in this article, published in respected peer-reviewed journals, but none have such a lofty presentation or even mention that they are peer-reviewed.  That sentence reads as if it were a momentous event, and the study endorsed by the APA. Other than the controversy that followed, it was just a study published in a journal like any other.
 * The interpretation that the study "drew the conclusion that "for boys in nonclinical populations, willing relations are generally experienced positively or neutrally and are not associated with maladjustment." is an inaccurate and incomplete summary.
 * It is an inaccurate summary that "The United States Congress criticized the study's methods and conclusions in a 1998 House resolution." - The words used in the Congressional Resolution were : "condemns and denounces."
 * The description of the criticism by scientists plays down the depth and intensity of that criticism and omits the pivotal quote from Dallam: "After a careful examination of the evidence, it is concluded that Rind et al. can best be described as an advocacy article that inappropriately uses science in an attempt to legitimize its findings."
 * The text concludes with undue weight for a statement about who supported the study, leaving an inaccurate impression of overall positive acceptance.  The APA and its president did not "defend" the study, as the edited text states; what the quote from the APA shows is they were defending was their own process of peer-review.  Even that is an out-of-context piece of a complex sequence of events. The APA stated regarding the controversy that "publication of the findings of a research project within an APA journal is in no way an endorsement of a finding by the Association."  and that "No responsible mental health organization, including the American Psychological Association, endorses pedophilia or denies its negative effects on children. Any statement that suggests otherwise is a serious distortion of the truth." Detailed discussion of the controversy and the APA's role in it is beyond the scope of this article.  The APA's name can't be used to imply they support the study's methods or results.


 * Thanks for your criticisms, Jack. You raised several issues, so I'll take them individually:
 * The edited version doubles the space given to the Rind study by leaving out the other studies noted in the prior version. — I only rewrote the paragraph dealing with Rind. I didn't touch the second paragraph at all.  Only having finite time to spend, I concentrated on the part of the issue I felt I could work on thoroughly.
 * The first sentence of the new draft gives undue weight to the journal in which the study was published — Because the lay reader can't be assumed to have knowledge of the scientific publishing process, I felt that adding four words to describe the editorial process (peer review) and the status (flagship) of the journal would make both the paper and the controversy more comprehensible, as well as differentiating it from a more common form, such as a magazine article.
 * The interpretation that the study "drew the conclusion that "for boys in nonclinical populations, willing relations are generally experienced positively or neutrally and are not associated with maladjustment." is an inaccurate and incomplete summary. — It is to perpetrate a falsehood to assert that this is an interpretation;  Rind makes this point several times, and this language is used verbatim in the Journal of the American Medical Association.  Nonetheless, perhaps it would be more productive to not only criticize what exists but suggest acceptable replacement language.
 * It is an inaccurate summary that "The United States Congress criticized the study's methods and conclusions in a 1998 House resolution." — The words used in the Congressional Resolution were : "condemns and denounces." — When Congress condemns and denounces a study, I think it's safe to say that they intend to criticize it. Such histrionic language is, as I see it, inappropriate in tone to an encyclopedia, but I would waive my objection to including the phrase as a cited quote if it would make this paragraph more palatable to you.  I am concerned that if we give more coverage to the Congressional resolution, then we'd need to cover the opposition to that resolution in the scientific community.  In the end, I don't see the nonbinding Congressional resolution as more than a notable point, since Congress issues hundreds of nonbinding resolutions on a variety of topics;  They simply aren't that special.
 * The description of the criticism by scientists plays down the depth and intensity of that criticism — That wasn't my intention. Moreso, I intended to place the criticism in the context both of how the article was selected for publication, the nature of the publication in which it appeared, and the individuals and organizations which defended its publication.  As for the Dallam quote, I deliberately tried to minimize the use of quotes both critical and supportive, moving them to the reference citations in favor of shorter pieces of explanatory prose.  The previous version felt waterlogged with quotes.
 * The text concludes with undue weight for a statement about who supported the study, leaving an inaccurate impression of overall positive acceptance. — I simply believe this to be untrue.  I wrote the paragraph chronologically:  The study was published, then its publication was criticized, and then its publication was defended.  I don't think that the reader can take away from that paragraph that the Rind study enjoyed overall positive acceptance.  Can you explain this assertion in more detail?
 * The APA and its president did not "defend" the study, as the edited text states — Here, Jack misstates what I wrote, that publication of Rind et al has been tacitly or implicitly defended by well-regarded organizations such as the American Psychological Association, its president, Raymond Fowler, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, other scientists, and Congressman Brian N. Baird.  It was explicitly the publication of the paper that was defended, not the conclusions drawn.
 * The APA stated regarding the controversy that "publication of the findings of a research project within an APA journal is in no way an endorsement of a finding by the Association." — This is what's known as a straw man argument; It sets up a position not taken by the text, then knocks it down like the proverbial straw man.  The text makes no assertion that publishing the findings constituted an endorsement of them, only of the study's meeting the standard for publication.
 * "No responsible mental health organization, including the American Psychological Association, endorses pedophilia or denies its negative effects on children. Any statement that suggests otherwise is a serious distortion of the truth." — Another straw man; The paragraph makes no assertion that the APA (or Rind) endorses pedophilia or denies its negative effects on children.
 * Detailed discussion of the controversy and the APA's role in it is beyond the scope of this article. The APA's name can't be used to imply they support the study's methods or results. — If Rind is to be mentioned at all (and, owing to its role in the scholarly dialogue on the topic of child sexual abuse, it must be), then the controversy over its publication and findings must also be mentioned.  To do otherwise is to present the study in a false light, as either an uncontroversial piece of research or as a universally condemned piece of pro-pedophile advocacy.
 * I believe I've addressed each of your concerns, Jack, and I'm eager to hear your perspective as to how the paragraph can be edited into better shape. Please feel free to suggest specific rewrites to overcome your objections to the paragraph as it stands.  --SSBohio 18:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)  Clarification : I added this response after Legitimus wrote their response below.  To avoid confusion, I state that Legitimus is not agreeing with me. --SSBohio


 * Agreed. To strike a balance, let us be brief, plain and to the purpose (especially considering the study has it's own article).  In favor of weight, I will try to word in such a way that the reader is encouraged to look into it for themselves:
 * In 1998, the American Psychological Association published a paper (Rind et al) written by researchers Rind, Tromovich and Bauserman in the Psychological Bulletin. This meta-analysis reviewed 15 studies of college students and their early sexual experiences.  The study drew several controversial conclusions regarding the adult recollections of sexual experiences and the measurable harm attributable to them.
 * Legitimus (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Legitimus (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal: History of child sexual abuse>>into>>Child sexual abuse
The article at History of child sexual abuse is almost 100% unsourced original research, reads like an essay. The actual solid historical information could easily fit into a two paragraph section of this article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I propose that you go ahead with the merge, if there is no significant objection. Aditya (talk • contribs) 14:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Certainly some content can be used in this article once it is sourced.Legitimus (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure I cleaned that article up a lot after Jack tagged it, and added 2 quotes. I think it still needs a lot of work, and I'm not sure if it should be merged into this article, or summarized here with a link to the main article there. What's still missing from that article is the story of Freud, and how he discovered the link between sexual abuse and negative psychological sequelae, but upon receiving a very hostile reception to his findings, recanted them, and substituted the new theory that women who were sexually abused had unresolved Oedipus/Electra complex and fantasized it instead. Freud's influence extended long into the 20th century--textbooks as late as the 60s reported that incest was extremely rare, only happened 1% of the time, and women usually just fantasized it/were deluded if they said it happened to them. Then, in the 1970s, during the second wave of feminism, violence against women, sexual abuse of women and children couldn't be denied anymore/Freud was finally debunked. (Although it wasn't until Jeff Mason's book that he was utterly exposed as Fraud. :-)  The other things that are missing are 1) info about rise of consciousness re extrafamilial abuse/I only added info re incest 2) rise of consciousness about sexual abuse of boys, which came later than awareness re girls 3) changes in awareness/laws about sexual abuse testimony--like the rape shield laws, and the child advocacy centers where children only have to be interviewed once, and a whole interdisciplnary team is present, instead of the previous average of 20x in multiple places--those were significant developments in the histoy of how child sexual abuse is looked at, because they represented a shift away from victim-blaming towards empathy for victims and holding perpetrators responsible instead, and that shift reflected the shift in cultural attitudes towards people who are sexually assaulted. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good work on starting the improvements to the other article. Based on those and the additional improvements planned, it seems the merge may not be the best choice.  There appears to be plenty of info for a separate page.  We could add a summary paragraph in this article with a main article link to an expanded and referenced history article.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Petra, I think you've defined the issue very well. There was a time when we didn't have a concept of child abuse, much less child sexual abuse.  Going through the historical metamorphosis from blaming the victim to treating the offender's disease represents a vast sweeping transforation, one likely too large to be handled in this article.  --SSBohio 23:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Might as well. I don't see any merit in a separate article. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#8EEBEC;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J-Lambton T/C 02:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for a certain user to WP:SHUN this opinion :p <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#8EEBEC;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">J-Lambton T/C 02:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep separate article and improve it, linked from a summary here for a couple of reasons. First, I believe that the article has already undergone significant improvement and that it could undergo even more, enough so that it would make sense to keep it separate.  Second, with the deletion of the adult-child sex article a few months ago, there would seem to be no other place to define or describe what we have (relatively recently) come to consider child sexual abuse, but that wasn't always considered such throughout history.  While not strictly topical to the History of article, such information can find no better home within the current limitations of the project.  --SSBohio 23:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you would still find yourself bumping up against terminology there. Not taking sexual abuse seriously until the 1970s doesn't make everything previous to that "adult-child sex," just as rape previous to shape shield laws wasn't "unilateral consenting adult- adult sex," and slavery prior to abolition wasn't "free labor by persons of different social status." -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The terminology issues come from a narrowness of perspective. We cannot write an encyclopedia about all peoples and times while mired in our emic perspective;  Rather, we need to adopt a dispassionate etic perspective.  If we can only apply the values and concepts of here and now to other cultures, other times, and other places, then we can never actually explain them.  It's as if we decided we could only talk about incest according to the incest taboo present in our time and place.  In fact, like the taboo against pedophilia, the incest taboo exists in practically all cultures, but the definition of what constitutes incest varies considerably.  It's why we write about the cultural practices of polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, and plural marriage, rather than referring to them as adultery and fornication according to our own cultural precepts.
 * Adult-child sex has the unfortunate handicap of having been co-opted by pro-pedophile activists in order to serve their own ends; Use of that term must not be allowed to become an apologia for child molestation.  Even so, by its intrinsic meaning, it is still the most neutral descriptor of the concept that I've heard.  As long as the definitions of child, sex, and abuse are not universal, some way of talking about the concept/activity without applying our emic values will be needed.  I'm open to any approach that accomplishes that. --SSBohio 15:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That article was deleted by consensus, and an end-run around consensus certainly isn't going to survive in another article. (I noted Herostratus' response to you on your talkpage about terminology--"We understand that you don't agree, but if you still don't ''understand"...[etc.}") -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus isn't nearly as clear-cut as you would have us believe. Have you read all of the AfDs & DRVs?  Incorporating the content from that article into other articles was explicitly stated as an option.  Describing me as making an end-run around consensus is not only factually incorrect, but an offensive interpretation of my work as an editor.  As for Herostratus' remarks on my talk page, I refuted them there, and no reply was forthcoming.  As Herostratus said, "Adult-child sex is a euphemism (for child sexual abuse), and any article titled Adult-child sex is prima facie assumed to be apologistic for child sexual abuse."  An encyclopedia should aspire to better than to pander to base assumptions.  I understand that we don't, and respect the consensus not to have an article by that title, but none of that refutes my point in the least.  The article was deleted because its title was perceived as POV;  to assert that we should ignore the rest of its content is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  --SSBohio 18:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have never seen the article, so I can't speak to its content. All I know is that it was deleted by consensus after a protracted and ugly battle that no one seems to recall fondly or is anxious to resurrect. The thing for you to do, I suppose, is propose on the talkpage of the History of child sexual abuse article, which is the relevant article, what content it is that you think should be included, and why, and see if consensus develops. (My memory of the merged content from the ACS article is that it was just a summary of the pro-pedophile activism article, which was then deleted from this article. I fail to see how a summary of the pro-pedophile activism article would be relevant to the history of child sexual abuse article, either...) -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That protracted battle was a lot like World War I; Even the prospect of victory wouldn't tempt me to refight it.  It brought me the closest I've yet come to leaving the Project.  As far as the content goes, none of the content I added to the article came from the pro-pedophile activism article or made pro-pedophilia arguments.  I was trying to approach the subject from the etic perspective and provide a view that was not to be found in any other single article, covering historical and non-Western instances of what we would view as child sexual abuse.  My biggest mistake was in not working hard enough to keep pro-pedophile content out (it worms its way into every article related to pedophilia), which in turn enabled the pro-deletion camp to succeed on their third or fourth try.  But, I did what I could, and I have to be satisfied with that. --SSBohio 23:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There was nothing of value in the deleted article that was not already merged prior to the deletion when the redirect was done. The article was not deleted only because of the title, that's an oversimplification of a complex debate. The consensus for deletion was clear - the same page was deleted multiple times with multiple debates including the various user-space re-creations, and each time there was community consensus to delete. There is no value in rehashing those same arguments again.
 * If there is enough information with references for History of child sexual abuse to remain a separate article, then, OK, no merge. But if there is not and it stays just a few paragraphs after the original research is removed, then it should be merged here.  I don't care which it is, as long as the information is accurate, verifiable, and not based on fringe theories. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The deletion & redirection efforts kept coming back no consensus. It was only the third or fourth time that a weak consensus to delete emerged.  I recognize one sentence I wrote that made it into the child sexual abuse article;  I'd like to believe I've written more than one sentence of value in the deleted article.  And I'd really like to have a copy of its text, to see for myself.  --SSBohio 23:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not aware you wrote any of that content. None of this is personal so please don't take it that way. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Jack (I've always wanted to say that at the airport) -- No, I didn't take it personally. I legitimately felt I did some good work on that article.  I regret that I let some of the POV-pushers insert their content into the article.  My personal favorite POV push was the guy who asserted (with a straight face) that the presence of adult-child sex in animals somehow demonstrated that it was acceptable because it was natural.  I felt like telling him that arsenic and uranium are natural too, but they're not good for kids.  But, I was already severely stressed by the other side of the dispute,  and I didn't feel like adding another fight to my card.  --SSBohio 02:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, Ssb, I should probably post this on your talkpage since we're going further and further off-topic, but have you had a look at the pederasty article and all its many subarticles? Because there's an awful lot of historical and non-Western info there. You do a good job of research, especially summarizing it succintly, so you could really help out there. (And I say this knowing you are highly unlikely to agree with me about everything on that article/its subarticles). There's a lot of reading to be done that none of us except Haiduc has done. He's very intelligent and knowledgeable, but it's always a good idea to have more than one editor who has read up on a subject contributing to articles about it. -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd love to help out, but I already feel like I'm sliding downhill faster than I can climb when it comes to this article. In my heart of hearts, I'd like to see at least one article in this topic area make it to GA or even FA status.  I feel like I can't find consensus here, even for comparatively minor changes.  It's disheartening.  But, feel free to come to my talk page or use the email & IM links on my userpage to contact me any time.  I reallt think we could do some good together. --SSBohio 02:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

←Merge completed based on above consensus. For completeness, I checked the incoming links to History of child sexual abuse and found it to be an orphan page, ie, no links from mainspace pages. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There have to be pretty strong reasons for me to not agree to such moves on principal (ie genuine space issues) and I do not see that here. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Rind et al
One thing I'm concerned about is that one day after Ssb proposed his version here, Jovin Lambton deleted Rind et al from the pro-pedophile activism article:. I have just restored it. While I still think Ssb's version is very good, I'm concerned that having Rind et al summarized in the CSA article is seen as an either/or proposition, either in CSA or PPA (not by SSb, but by Jovin), and that having a summary paragraph in CSA is not an encyclopedic goal, but an activist goal. Let's take a closer look at the summarized version that is currently in PPA article. Also, think about how to incorporate SSb version into the summary currently used in PPA article, and perhaps discuss which article is most appropriate encyclopedic location for summary. -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My strong presumption is that a short (~1 paragraph) summary of Rind as it relates to each article is needed within both articles. Here, we need to focus on how the Rind study fits into our understanding of what constitutes child sexual abuse and the scientific views of the subject, particularly the Rind-catalyzed controversy over how science and morality interrelate.  In the pro-pedophile activism article, the summary should focus on how Rind has been used by various factions, particularly by pro-pedophile groups.  Other articles, like pedophilia, pederasty, etc. should have varying degrees of mention of the Rind study, as well.  --SSBohio 23:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the question, though--do we have sources which make the claim that the Rind study is that significant? It's easy within the fishbowl of Wikipedia, epsecially if a strident minority of editors (not you) argue endlessly for something, to come to think that something matters more than it actually does, or that one has to comrpomise with them simply because they are so pushy.  Let's do a throrugh search of tertiary sources (textbooks, etc) to gauge the actual RL significance of Rind. As Jack pointed out, many of the papers summarized here in a sentence or less were peer-reviewed/published by the APA. Why is Rind special? If it's just the controversy, and that controversy is cultural/pertains to Rind's advocacy, and its ten years old and nobody talks about it anymore, it's probably only relevant to the PPA article. -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Rind receives as a small mention in mainstream textbooks such as "Abnormal Psychology," by Oltmanns and Emery (2001). The section on sexual abuse mentions the controversial study by Rind, Tromovitch, Bauserman (specifically uses the word "controversial"). However, this is little more than a precursor to indicating it (as well as similar study's) shortfalls:
 * "Failure to detect significant differences between victims of abuse and other people may indicate that investigators have not examined appropriate measures. Harmful consequences of sexual abuse may take many forms."
 * My general feeling is that a short mention of relevant parts is worthy (as stated by Ssbohio). However, the current revision seems to fall short on the counter-claim, particularly the confound stated above.  Other concerns with the current revision are the over-qualifying of some parts.  I don't think we need so much emphasis that it was a "peer-reviewed paper" and that that is was published in the "flagship publication."  It sounds like it's trying too hard.Legitimus (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your point about the way the paragraph starts out. I felt it was an intriguing introduction to the publication of the article so that the reader would have the same frame of reference as a reader of the original article.  However, I can see where it's open to compromise.  I'd like to see reference to peer-review retained, but definitely wouldn't object to losing the "flagship" stuff.  Here are some ideas for rewritingthe opening sentence:

In 1998, the American Psychological Association published a peer-reviewed paper (Rind et al) written by researchers Rind, Tromovich and Bauserman. Rind et al, a 1998 peer-reviewed study written by three researchers appeared in the Psychological Bulletin. In 1998, the American Psychological Association published a literature review written by three researchers (collectively, Rind et al) in the peer-reviewed Psychological Bulletin.
 * I feel that the Rind et al controversy is more notable because of the controversy over its methodology and publications, itself a microcosm of the tensions in the scientific community over how to study and write about child sexual abuse. As research goes, it's not special.  After all, it's a literature review not an actual research study.  I don't think that a paragraph that explains the study, the criticisms raised, and the defense of its publication gives undue weight to any viewpoint on the subject, but rather illuminates how the scholarship on this topic isn't completely cut & dried.  --SSBohio 00:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But that's another subject entirely--how research studies are done, what's the difference between longitudinal and self-report, what's a double-blind placebo controlled study, what a representative sample is--we could use any study to discuss samples, research methodology, etc. I think it's better to cite sources about the signficance of this study; trying to configure the significance on our own or use our own opinions is OR. Legitimus has found a textbook, I bet there are more. Wiki should reflect the significance Rind currently has according to sources. Does the study stand out, according to sources, and if so, why? -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How research studies are done is, indeed, another subject entirely. My point was that (as stated) the Rind et al controversy is more notable because of the controversy over its methodology and publications, itself a microcosm of the tensions in the scientific community over how to study and write about child sexual abuse.  You state that Wiki should reflect the significance Rind currently has according to sources.  This directly opposes the guidance that notability is not temporary.  For example, Pope Clement I gets very little attention this century, but he is still notable.  While we should certainly make clear if Rind's influence or relevance has waned, the fact of its waning doesn't reduce its notability.  So far, I've found and cited a number of sources, some in well-regarded journals, attesting to the notable difference of opinion over this study.  What further documentation do you see as necessary to include this content?  --SSBohio 20:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is always relative, though, it doesn't stand by itself--the notability of Rind should be expressed in proportion to the notable elements of rest of this article--it can stand alone in its own article, which it has. Rind is currently vastly overemphasized in this article, per comparisons provided below. There is no paragraph on Judith Herman, no paragraph on Finkelhor. The closest example, Maryanski, gets two sentences. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say that the argument you make just as easily makes the case that we need more coverage of research conducted in this field, not less. Since notability guidelines do not directly limit article content the degree to which Rind is notable becomes a less central question, and, as notability is an intrinsic quality, it carries little weight to say how relatively notable one fact is over another.  Every fact that meets our content standards and is relevant to this topic area should be appropriately included in the article.  We are not, after all, running out of electrons any time soon, so we can afford to explain things and provide context for the reader. --SSBohio 00:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Degree of coverage to give to Rind

 * Concur that Rind is overemphasized in this article with undue weight. The article is about child sexual abuse, not the history of child sexual abuse researchers.  Rind et al controversy is covered in a separate article.  It doesn't need anything here besides a sentence or two and a wikilink. Rind's conclusions were a fringe theory that did not gain traction.  The notability came from the controversy and from the fact that other studies mentioned it for completeness and as part of debunking it. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Proportion does not, by any means, require that we reduce our coverage, only that it be balanced.  If seven sentences are sufficient to cover Rind, then so be it.  We are not writing on spec to fill column-inches, after all.  I can't see where seven sentences represents undue weight in an article of sizable length.
 * According to WP:FRINGE, for a theory to be "fringe," it must depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Rind's literature review reviewed other studies published in reliable peer-reviewed journals.  With the exception of a relatively small portion of Rind, its findings were consistent with the findings of other researchers, particularly those upon whose work Rind drew his source material.
 * WP:FRINGE goes on to say that one important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject.
 * The literature review conducted by Rind et al was published in a peer-reviewed journal; WP:RS says that peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science.  Rind didn't say that child molestation was OK or harmless; the pro-pedophile lobby has used it to prop up such claims, but that's not what Rind found, and what Rind found appeared in the most reliable source, a source which establishes the notability and level of acceptance of the findings that actually were made.  It's by no means a slam dunk to assert that Rind was so far out of the mainstream as to constitute a dismissable fringe theory.  --SSBohio 00:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, perhaps we're isolating it too much from the whole article. If it were smaller and got to point more concisely, maybe a brief mention in the main text is more appropriate.  I don't remember where, but I've heard it worded in a text kind of like this:  "One study (Rind et al 1998) found that a percentage of victims perceive their experiences a neutral or positive emotionally on reflection.  This indicates the potential for a victim to rationalize the abuse in spite of their symptoms.  Others cope by isolating their affect and symptoms from the actual event."  This was part of a large paragraph, and granted I could be off by a bit.  Just something to consider.Legitimus (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I like your first sentence. However, the second sentence appears to me to synthesize Rind's findings with a generalized interpretation of similar findings;  There's no sign that Rind or another researcher established that those findings were due to rationalization.  We should avoid the perception that we are spinning Rind's findings one way or the other, however inadvertently it comes about. --SSBohio 00:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that was pushing it a bit. How about just that first sentence, with the parentheical wikilinked?  Gets to the point without passing judgment, and when the reader goes "They found WHAT? No way." they just click.Legitimus (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My concern really isn't addressed by the "one-sentence solution," unfortunately. Only including the first sentence uncritically advances Rind's finding;  Even if it's debunked (admittedly not the best word) in the main article, we also have to avoid giving an inaccurate impression from the reference in this article.  I really don't think that a seven-sentence paragraph is blatantly excessive, but I could see trimming it back somewhat, just not down to a single sentence without losing too much context.  --SSBohio 21:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all for their work on this, however the section on Rind still has undue weight by taking up too much space in the article for just one study, by having a separate section, for describing how it's "peer-reviewed" and published in the APA's journal. All the studies in the article were peer-reviewed and published in respected journals, that is totally unnecessary information for Rind.  Other studies were not condemned by Congress or widely criticized by scientists though, so that's appropriate to mention, in passing but not in detail.   The Rind section should be pared down to a couple simple sentences, integrated into the effects section, with passing mention of the condemnation and a wikilink to its main article.  One meta-analysis with seriously flawed methodology cannot be used to introduce fringe theories into the article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(reracking indent) Jack, I've addressed each of these concerns in detail above. I was wondering if you could look them over and give me your thoughts? If not, I can re-form responses down here, as well. I worry that this talk page has too much repetition for me to add more. Suffice it to say, I've responded to concerns about undue weight and about fringe theories, among others. --SSBohio 21:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the undue weight issue has been addressed. There's still too much proportional emphasis on Rind. As Jack pointed out, this isn't an article on researchers in child sex abuse, hence we don't go into detail about Finkelhor, Herman--anyone. We don't discuss any of the studies in great detail. I can see that the problem with summarizing Rind in two sentences is that it seems to inadequately explain--that's why there's a whole article about it, where the complexities can be done justice. I think we still need to summariz further for due weight. (A whole paragraph could easily be written about most of these studies, and yet we manage to summarize them. In all the cases, if people want more information, they have to read the study. With Rind, we have a whole article to refer them to.) The question is the relevance of Rind to this article, and in what proportion, not what can we say about Rind, what would be left out of a brief summary, etc.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we're at the point where positive examples of how to proceed would be useful; I don't care if we have to work out consensus on a word-by-word basis, as long as we come up with an accurate portrayal that neither vilifies nor sanctifies the study, but makes clear why its findings were & are controversial.  In my view, the things we need to say about Rind in order to allow the information to be evaluated on its merits are that despite its being published under peer review, it was still criticized by reputable people for its methods and its usefulness to pro-pedophile activists, but its publication was also defended by reputable people.  What of that is unimportant to evaluating any data gleaned from the study?  What can we leave out?  If nothing, then how can it be said in two sentences, when it took me a week of refining to get it down to seven?  If it can be done, I'm all for it.  The reader has to come away from this article with an accurate perception;  we can't rely on the content of another article to carry the water for us here.  --SSBohio 04:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * While I don't have a perfect solution yet, I just have something I need to clarify for everybody: You said reputable people defended it's publication, but they didn't seem to defend it's methods or conclusions.  This is understandable because, as I've said, the data and numerical results were solid, but the "discussion" (the researchers opinions and impressions) were way out there.  It's not that strange, if you think about it, for such a study to get published by peer-review.  I recently read a peer-reviewed study that had fantastic data and very useful results, but the author's discussions were bordering on bigoted in their conclusions.
 * As for Rind, I'm conflicted. It does stick out quite a bit and seems to give too much to it, but at the same time it's flaws are made relatively clear.Legitimus (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Legitimus is correct - a defense of the study's publication is not the same as support for its method. The study was badly flawed; aside from the controversy, it was criticized for for misinterpreting the data, for its non-representative sample, for its statistical errors, for the personal bias of the researchers that some called advocacy, and for its vague use of terminology that further confounded the results.  If not for the controversy and its repeated quoting by pedophile activists, it would not have have been a notable study, it would have just been a flawed and disputed meta-analysis, one study among thousands.  Because this article is about child sexual abuse, and not about the history of child sexual abuse research, it should be handled like every other study in this article with a passing mention; plus, since there was controversy about it, a short nod for that:
 * "A 1998 meta-analysis by Rind et al generated controversy by suggesting that child sexual abuse does not in general cause harm; that some college students reported such encounters as positive experiences; and that the extent of psychological damage depends on whether or not the child described the encounter as consensual. The study was criticized in published reviews by scientists for flawed methodology and conclusions; following extensive publicity, the US Congress condemned the study for its conclusions and for providing material used by pedophile organizations to justify their activities."
 * That's plenty. In the landscape of research on this topic, that study is so far to the fringe that it would be best and most accurate to leave it out completely. The only reason to include it is that this is Wikipedia and if we don't, someone will complain or add it in again.  No other published overview of the topic of child sexual abuse includes that study because its methods were flawed and its findings were never accepted by mainstream researchers.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. I agree with the summary you have proposed, and that that's still probably too much. (But I do think Ssb did good work, and that it should be incorporated elsewhere in one of the places Rind is discussed.) -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Petra. Unfortunately, we seem to have the same problem as ever.  We want to mention criticism of Rind but not defenses of it or refutations of that criticism.  The net effect of that approach is to make it look as if the study was published without peer review, then met with universal condemnation.  This is not an accurate impression.
 * I agree with Legitimus's point that it's important to make the distinction between defense of the article's publication and agreement with Rind's findings; I even made the point myself previously.  To me, a defense of its publication by those who don't support its findings is a stronger defense.  Peer review is a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field.  That scrutiny happens before the article was published; Therefore, to defend its peer-reviewed publication is to defend its scientific validity (though it can be valid without being right).  That is a stronger, more objective claim about the nature of the article, whereas agreeing with Rind's conclusions is less so on both accounts.  The purpose of peer review is to prevent the dissemination of unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views.  The APA & the AAAS were both satisfied that the peer review process did not break down.  The article's critics were equally adamant in their views, which focused more on the wrongness of Rind's conclusions than on a failure of peer review.  I would think that a good compromise would be a more modest shortening of Rind and a lengthening of coverage given to other studies.  Perhaps there could be a section on notable research into child sexual abuse with a precís of each, a bulleted list, or a table
 * As to Jack' suggested text, I see several problems: It gives a false impression of Rind by saying that it suggested "that child sexual abuse does not in general cause harm."  In one place, Rind identified a particular circumstance where it argued that harm was not ensured;  it also covered a number of other areas of inquiry aside from that.  It only speaks of the criticism the study received, without indicating that its publication was also defended by reputable people and organizations.  It gives a good deal of weight to the Congressional condemnation, but not to the scientific community's objection to that condemnation.  I've given detailed answers above that addressed some of these same issues.  They have so far gone unanswered.  --SSBohio 07:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Rind et al Google results
This is some quick research I did over breakfast. I looked at Google, crafting a search term ("Rind et al" -climate -"global warming" 1998) to exclude similarly named climate research, and found the following: A caveat: This demonstrates that the study is written about in scholarly & nonscholarly works, but notability isn't a numeric test; it's a judgment call. --SSBohio 11:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Google: 3310 hits
 * Google scholar: 346 hits
 * Google books: 109 hits
 * Oh, it's notable, though perhaps not for the same reason other research would be. It was greatly connected with culture and morality of time, and this made it widely known to both news and other researchers (who in turn cite it for a variety of reasons).  I wasn't necessarily saying it wasn't wiki notable, just that scientifically it was not quite as revolutionary as it is made out to be.Legitimus (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and we've been through the "it's cited by other researchers" before. What the google hits don't tell us is: what are they saying about Rind/what is the significance now, and why does anyone think or did anyone think it is significant? And what we need are sources that say it's significant enough to merit a paragraph, when every other study barely merits a sentence or is buried as a footnote. If the press on the significance of this is ten years old and pertains to the cultural controversy, it is undue weight to put a paragraph here. Judith Herman's book on father-daughter incest is a good comparison. That completely transformed the study of child sexual abuse. And yet we don't even mention it. Why would something far less significant take up a whole paragraph???-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Judith Herman + incest Google results

 * Google =111,000
 * Google scholar=36,900/4,160 -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

David Finkelhor and Google results

 * Google=34,500
 * Google scholar=4,090

(Slightly less google scholar hits than Herman. And we don't have a paragraph on the publication of A Sourcebook on Childhood Sexual Abuse, which was very notable and influential in 1986.) -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Turner and Maryanski Google results

 * We give this controversial 2005 book two sentences.
 * Google scholar=728
 * Google=5,610 -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The above information makes an excellent argument to expand our coverage of Herman, Finkelhor, Turner, and others. There has been so much scholarship on this topic, and the amount presented in this article (in any depth) could be improved. --SSBohio 20:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Overemphasizing some sources and underemphasizing others

 * Much of the content on Wikipedia exists solely because some people have the abundant spare time and energy to vigorously argue their questionable edits. If you read the CSA article, the pedophilia article, one would think there is a great debate amongst professionals on what exactly is pedophilia and child sexual abuse, when the consensus is firm, and has been for decades.  Questioning of the consensus, which every endeavour should do, is very different than actually changing it.  For instance, in the cancer article, which is an EXCELLENT article, why isn't there one paragraph on all the myriad "scientific" investigations of homeopathic remedies?  To put it bluntly, some articles on Wikipedia are great, and some really really suck. Bad. Cancer's not really a very emotional or politicized topic, so it represents the consensus of the medical community.  Other articles though are taken over by a very noisy, very motivated, very free time possessing, 0.05% of the people interested in any one topic, and their views get far more Wikipedia space than they merit.  It's unfortuntate that something which is such a great concept, is pulled down by the "weakest link" principle of life.  Consequently more and more people will reach the same conclusion as the great journalist Tom Wolfe - "only a primitive would believe a word on Wikipedia." Googie man (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good points. Here's two essays about that:
 * User:Filll/CIVIL_POV_Pushing_Strategies
 * User:Raul654/Civil_POV_pushing -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In my experience, as long as the civil POV pushers continue to be pushed back by (for lack of a better term) the NPOV pushers, they usually don't stay civil. I have seen a few examples of that on my talk page.  I think that (generally) our existing policies and common sense are sufficient in this regard, though  I do worry that recent innovations (like WP:BLP) put too much power in the hands of one or a few.  --SSBohio 20:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)