Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rind et al.

Article listed on WP:VFD Jul 8 to Jul 15 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

About a journal article about child abuse. Wikipedia cannot cover every article its editors are interested in. The title is inappropriate. Other articles could cover what may be regarded interesting in this one. Get-back-world-respect 02:05, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't see anything really deletable about this article. blankfaze | •• | •• 03:20, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable controversy. Needs NPOV-ification. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:11, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. This title may seem a little odd, but it's what the work is normally called so even if there's a better one we'd want a redir from here. Much quoted and misquoted work worthy of an article. Andrewa 04:26, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I think journal articles should go under the article title, e.g. A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples, like a book would be. Dunc_Harris|☺ 13:35, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: That's not a VfD matter. Anyone can do this move. I'd have no great objection to it, although personally I'd leave it where it is and have the redirect the other way. Andrewa 11:54, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Comment: And on reflection, I've created the redir without waiting for this vote to conclude. Suggest discuss it on the talk page if you like. Andrewa 20:22, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a cogent discussion about a recent study that covers a subject that most people find difficult to face. I do have some misgivings, since pedophiles have taken to quoting this study for their own purposes, but the study does exist, and this article provides good coverage of the issues. At the very least, the material here should be subsumed into the general discussion about child sexual abuse. Stormwriter 13:48, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Keep (as you may have guessed). I really don't see any reason to delete this. It is a very interesting case. And it is important in itself, so it should not be integrated with Child sexual abuse. Rind et al. is not just about child abuse, but also about independence of science, the difference between science and morality etc. Wildt 20:40, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It is already an encyclopedic article and quite useful at that. As a side note, User:Get-back-world-respect is personally very much opposed to pedophilia as he has recently tried to spam all related articles with external links (quite benign links, though) on stopping child abuse. That explains his attempt to remove the article about Rind's study and is very obviously POV. Paranoid 21:48, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wiki policy is No personal attacks. I indeed find that the articles related to child abuse seem to be most frequented by some that are most interested in child abuse, those who try to defend "consensual" "non-violent" sex of children with adults as harmless. At a discussion site I was even told that "studies that find child abuse to be harmful are just biased". While tendentious statements can be dealt with, and maybe also the overload of links to pedophiles' sites, this entry is special in its inappropriate title and singling out a work that could be integrated in an article like child sexual abuse, where many other studies are ignored, and for obvious reasons. Get-back-world-respect 01:02, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

the articles related to child abuse seem to be most frequented by some that are most interested in child abuse, those who try to defend "consensual" "non-violent" sex of children with adults as harmless.

Maybe it's the other way around: Those who learns something about a phenomenon cannot continue to hold the common prejudices about it?

I am well aware that a lot of people may have a confirmation bias when it comes to CSA. But what about you writing a summary of recent studies in Child sexual abuse, so we can have both sides of the story?

You say Rind et al. should not have it's own article, because there are lot of other scientific articles that doesn't. But those articles have not been denounced by the senate and been as debated in the public as Rind et al. The Bell Curve also have it's own article, while lots of "boring" scientific books about intelligence doesn't. Wildt 16:29, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Clear keep. As Andrewa and others have noted, it's not clear what the title of the article should be. I believe I see some POV issues, such as the concluding sentence "Despite political pressure, no evidence has been provide thus far to disprove the study." If I knew more about the topic and looked into it more closely, I might find more POV issues. But it is well-written and provides good citations for everything stated. I'm assuming the article is accurate (i.e. Rind & al's paper says what the article says it says, and the various citations say what the article says they say). On a topic this explosive it might be helpful if someone did some fact-checking. I believe the topic is important. Accurate articles on important topics should be kept. Dpbsmith 22:03, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Keep, but rename. Rind, et al. is a very bad name for this article. Considering the length of the official title of the study, I would suggest renaming this article "The Rind Report", which seems to be how it is often referred to in the media. --Zanthalon 03:38, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)