Talk:Day care sex abuse hysteria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents 1 Merge is wrong 2 POV TITLE 3 Sex abuse or Sexual abuse ? 4 Requested move 4.1 Survey 4.2 Discussion 5 Move back to original name 6 Tertiary sources quoting secondary sources 7 Off topic and moved here 8 POV title - 2 9 Title 10 Reference to 'false memories' in McMartin 11 Successful prosecutions called "hysteria" 12 False Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Childhood 13 Please source for the article 14 Causes section - NPOV tag 15 POV Title (again) 16 Section on Child Abuse 17 Google and title 18 Nine out of 11 jurors quote 19 Undue weight 20 Abuse truth says: 21 discussion of quotes from transcript 22 Day Care Hysteria 23 Wee Care 24 Reference added 25 Title of article redux 26 recent edit 27 Glendale ref edit 28 Cleveland case 29 Moved here

[edit] Merge is wrong

Although the two are related, I see no need to merge them. They are two distinct entities, but share some common criminal cases. The Satanistic accusations have a much longer history than the short duration of the "day care" cases in the 1980s. The cases in "day care" dont involve charges of satanism, but both have wild accusations and those that defend those charged may end up being accused themselves. Both may be a type of "witch hunt" where people are wrongfully accused, but the day care cases don't involve witches or satanism. Does anyone agree? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If nobody objects I will remove the merge statement in another week. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Still hasn't been removed from the other article, and much more than a week has passed since it was removed from here. So I'm being bold and going ahead and removing it myself. Mathmo 00:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, many of the DCA cases did include acusations of Satanic rituals. CBS even aired a 60 minute special documentary about the conection between the day sex abusers and Satanic cults. I watched it with my sister. On girl (age 4 or mayby 5) was interviewed. She described a Satanic rite that she claimed she was forced to participate in at a local church. She said a preganant woman gave birth on the altar; "the baby came out." She then claimed that a man took the baby by the ankles and smashed the head open on the altar. Everyone then, suposedly, drank the blood. As proof of what was said, CBS show some GRAPHIC and nightmarish pictures the girl had drawn of the suposed event. (a momentary clip of the special is seen in the move INDICTMENT: THE MCMARTIN TRIAL). --Jason Palpatine (talk) 06:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV TITLE

The term hysteria in the title, plus the entirely one-sided tone of the article would seem to suggest that it's hysteria to suggest that children are never exploited within day-care settings - possibly the single most obvious target for a pedophile.

It's my suspicion that this article is written with the intent to mislead. It's certainly not a balanced presentation of the issue.

I'm not experienced enough to edit the title and set up the proper redirects, so I'll leave that to others. Meanwhile, in my copious free time, I'll start looking for some foundation for a balance. --Firewheel 19:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. The article is about specific events from 1980-1990 where people were accused, during a period of hysteria, of abusing children. In each case there was no forensic evidence of abuse. The same can be said of other periods of "hysteria" or "mania" in US history. During an hysterical event, logic and rule-of-law are temporarily suspended to combat the perceived crisis. The Salem witch trials and the Red Scare both involved similar psychology. People were accussed of horrible crimes, are forced to implicate others, and those that support the accused are then implicated. Eventually the scare passes and the people accused and punished are found innocent. The article Witch trials does not deny that people worship Satan, not does the article Red Scare deny that there were people in the United States who were communists. Day care sex abuse hysteria does not deny that sex abuse occurs. That is covered by other authors under sex abuse. My interest in the topic is from a legal standpoint, I have a half dozen articles on local trials and other "true crime" in New Jersey.

Please write here what you think what balance is needed. Maybe you should write an article Day care sex abuse that would cover actual documented abuse so people can refer and contrast it.

I'm not sure the term 'hysteria' is appropriate since it isn't really a term used in any reputable science anymore. Maybe panic would be better since at least it doesn't sound scientific. Thomas.neumark 01:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Not every word used in an encyclopedia is used in a scientific sense... and, indeed, if hysteria isn;t used in a scientific sense anymore, this obvious is using the more common usage. It's entirely accurate for what's being described and, more importantly per Wikipedia naming conventions, is by far the most common term for the cases. This it not only should stay but pretty much has to. DreamGuy 20:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I take your point. However, the naming convention states that we should "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." And of course that must be right. I'm just not 100% sure what hysteria is the name for. What do people think it means? Thomas.neumark 21:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hysteria in common usage means excessive emotion or irrationality, so this title is POV in that it characterizes the widespread concern over day care child abuse in the 1980s as irrational and unfounded. I will try to soften the POV of the content, but it may well be the case that this topic is intrinsically biased and fails WP:NOR, since you are choosing which cases belong under this category of "hysteria", effectively declaring them to be without merit. Djcastel 19:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with the above poster. This article profers no evidence that concern over sexual abuse in daycare centres in the 1980s was either unwarranted or disproprotionate to the issue itself. As such, the designation of this concern as 'hysteria' is entirely POV, in that it attempts to characterise people who evinced this concern in a specifically derogatory way.

There were a number of large quantitative studies of substantiated cases of sexual abuse in daycare centres in the 1980s, including "Nursery Crimes" (Finkelhor and William), "Beyond the Playground Walls" (Waterman et al.) and "The Spectrum of Abuse in Daycare" (Faller). These studies all highlighted the serious harms committed against children by sexually abusive daycare attendants, including instances of organised abuse, child pornography and child prostitution.

Whilst failing to report on, or even acknowledge, successful cases of daycare abuse, the article selectively (and, at times, deceptively) reports on contested cases of abuse, specifically refering to these cases as 'scandals' and 'panics'. In both its content and its form, this article seems to me to have been written specifically to misinform readers, camouflage the seriously harms caused to some children in daycare environments, and advance a POV that has no basis in fact - that sexual abuse in daycare centres in the 1980s is not an issue deserving of concern and attention.

It is my opinion that this entire article should be deleted. The phrase 'sexual abuse hysteria' is a rhetorical device employed primarily by the False Memory Syndrome Foundation and advocates sympathic to their cause. It is not used in serious academic or clinical literature. If the editors here would like to see an article which informs readers about the controversies over sexual abuse in daycare centres, this is a particularly poor way to go about it. Biaothanatoi 05:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, a much more accurate and unbiased term to use for a title would be "Day Care Sex Abuse Allegations." If the article cannot be written in a more balanced manner, then I also agree it should be deleted. Abuse truth 00:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be a note/disclaimer in this wiki article mentioning that the purpose of the wiki article is not to argue that no day care worker has ever abused a child. A google search on "day care" and murder quickly finds some cases where day care providers have killed children. That being the case, it doesn't seem inconceivable that actual sexual abuse in day care has occured on some instance. --User:Unregistered

huh? your 'disclaimer' is right there, in the title: "hysteria". This is the article on the hysteria/craze connected with imagined child-abuse. It is not an article about actual cases of child sexual abuse (for which see child sexual abuse). dab (ᛏ) 20:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sex abuse or Sexual abuse ?

I will move the article to Day care sexual abuse hysteria if noone objects. --Eliyak T·C 14:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move back to original name

The name may be grammatically correct, but is not the term used. A search of Google News archive for "Day care sexual abuse hysteria" provides no hits but finds the correct term "Day care sex abuse hysteria". We shouldn't change grammar from what the press uses its deceptive. We should be using the "term of art" used in the media, not changing it into a new term that is grammatically correct. Google web search can't be used, its been contaminated by this article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

concurr with this for the reasons stated. DGG (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with the redirect between the grammatically correct and incorrect titles? Doesn't this solve the problem? Fremte 22:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have closed the move a year ago, but my instinct now would be to go with WP:COMMONNAME. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Neil ム 08:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tertiary sources quoting secondary sources

"Behind the Playground Walls - Sexual Abuse in Preschools by Jill Waterman, Robert J. Kelly, Mary Kay Oliveri and Jane McCord - The Guilford Press - New York, London 1993 (Source: Los Angeles Times, January 19, 1990, pp. A1 and A22)" I would rather see the LA Times article than a reference to a book quoting a newsarticle. Why not just find the news article? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Am presently looking for the original article. Noticed you deleted this from the article: "The ordeal adversely influenced the lives of hundreds of children, who are now young adults. Many people still maintain that the children were subjected to maltreatment at McMartin." Is there a reason for the deletion?Abuse truth 01:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Off topic and moved here

An alternate form of the day-care scares is a terror of formerly-acceptable images of nude children, including family snaps and art images, many of which have been prosecuted as child pornography.^[1]

[edit] POV title - 2

The title is obviously POV. A more appropriate title for a encyclopedia would be "Day Care Sex Abuse Allegations" with both sides equally represented on the page. The "Causes" section is POV also. Abuse truth 03:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I would support your new title. The current one is profoundly inappropriate and POV. --Biaothanatoi 04:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the title approiately describes the events of the time period invovled. I am surprised that Abuse truth would have any problem with this type of title given his interest in sensational language. It almost makes me wonder if sensational language is only acceptable when accusing groups of sexual abuse rather than the number of times sexual abuse is raised and no evidence is found. This is a puzzling contradiction; regardless the title is accurate for the content of the article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in sensational language. Only accurate NPOV descriptions.Abuse truth 02:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Then why are you using "Stop Mind Control and Abuse" as your main source of information? I am just using Google News. Which site sounds more POV? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title

• "Day care sex abuse hysteria" 691 GHits with 6 in News Archive and 2 in books. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• "Day Care Sex Abuse Allegations" 5 Ghits. We shouldn't invent titles, we should use the term of art in the media.

The title should be in line with wikipedia policy. "Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia (as explained at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction>), and so anyone may edit

its articles. Its policy, nonetheless, is that articles must be written from a Neutral Point of View, representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias, as is discussed extensively at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV>.

The title exhibits tremendous bias and should be changed to "Day Care Sex Abuse Allegations."Abuse truth 03:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't call the My Lai Massacre, the "My Lai Unpleasantness" or "My Lai Allegations" just to be politically correct, we use the term of art used by the media. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that there were trials with convictions in the example above. None of the cases mentioned in the article were tried in court to be "hysterical." As an encyclopedic source, wikipedia needs to let the reader decide. This is the reason for NPOV. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV

• "Massacre" was not conferred by a military court, it was the media term long before the military tribunal, and court marshal. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." Abuse truth 02:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That has to do with content, not titles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Norton is correct; your comments have nothing to do with the title, the topic of this section. Furthermore, google hits seem to demonstrate that the title is what the press and media has named this phenomena and is therefore accurate. As far as the content goes, you may be going too far. We give the most prevalent and most accepted theories the focus and fringe concepts should be mentioned, but should not be emphasized. To focus on them is to unbalance the article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The title is part of the content, the most noticed part of the content. As NPOV states above "Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." The title, which is part of the content, should allow them to do so and not make a decision for them. Abuse truth 20:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to 'false memories' in McMartin

This article is, in it's entirety, a profoundly biased POV peice which deploys every rhetorical strategy in the False Memory Syndrome Foundation arsenal. Articles like this bring the entire Wiki approach into disrepute.

I've deleted the unsourced claim in the McMartin section that the allegations there created new "false memories" elsewhere around the world. The authors should be ashamed. --Biaothanatoi 04:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the sentence, but with a {{cn}} tag. I remember that happening. As you seem not to believe that false memories exist, that should be adequate until citations can be provided. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

By the nature of this statement, it cannot be proven. It is the personal supposition of the author and it has no place on Wikipedia. --Biaothanatoi 02:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Successful prosecutions called "hysteria"

Why are there successful prosecutions for organised child sexual abuse - like the Christchurch case - being listed here as "hysteria"?

WP:NPA and WP:BLP violation redacted --Biaothanatoi 04:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Redacted — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What does "redacted" mean in this context? --Biaothanatoi 02:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed your comments which clearly violate WP:NPA and WP:BLP. If they were allowed to remain, you would likely be banned from Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] False Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Childhood

This section may contain information of unclear or questionable importance or relevance to the article's subject matter. Please help improve this article by clarifying or removing superfluous information. (talk)

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.(December 2007) Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

Child sexual abuse occurs frequently in Western society. Prevalence figures range between ten to sixty-two percent for females and sixteen percent for males. Denial by others of child sexual abuse is common and its reality is not easily accepted. Questioning the validity of allegations made by children is the most common form of denial. Child sexual abuse has a difficult burden of proof in criminal courts. It is possible that false allegations may be over-represented, because many true victims of child sexual abuse never tell anyone at all about what happened. The frequency of false allegations was found to be six percent by emergency room staff. False retractions are also common. Other studies have shown false allegation rates to be as low as two percent. Some studies break down the level of false allegations by the age of the child. Among pre-school children, the rate was found to be between 1.7 to 2.7 percent. Among adolescents, the rate was found to be between 8 to 12 percent. The average rate was found to be 5 to 8 percent. Higher rates of false allegations are found in custody disputes. Children appear to rarely make up false allegations of their own accord. The denial of offenses is strong among men that commit sexual offenses. Many continue to deny their offenses even after conviction. It is suggested that parents have consistently underestimated the seriousness of their child’s distress when compared to accounts of their own children. Adults that were abused as children may be reluctant to disclose their abuse if they are attached to their offender. ^{[2] [verification needed]}

I have put the section back into the article with the tags pending discussion of the issues. A discussion of the issues around false allegations and child sexual abuse is critical when discussing day care allegations. This should address the relevance issues. The source is fine. See : http://www.amazon.com/Treating-Survivors-Satanist-Valerie-Sinason/dp/0415105439/ref=sr_1_1/105-6619882-4310047?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194492452&sr=8-1

This should address the verification issue. I believe that the section is NPOV, especially when compared to other sections in the article. Suggestions on how to make it more NPOV are welcome.Abuse truth 03:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• There is already a "see also" to Child abuse. This is a coatrack issue. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The issue of false allegations is very relevant to the day care cases. Abuse truth 01:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please source for the article

"Children do not necessarily make good witnesses, as they are often very suggestible and open to fantasy and vulnerable to false memories that might be implanted by repeating information in a forceful or even threatening manner." ^{[citation needed]}

"Some stories from the case have spread around the world and been incorporated into similar instances involving false memories".^{[citation needed]}

The first statement is demonstratably false and POV. There is a wealth of data on the testimony of children, and research finds that, whilst children's testimony can be constrained by developmental factors, they are not more suggestible then adults, and they are far more likely to make a false negative report (claim that abuse did not happen when it did) then to make a false positive report (claim that abuse happened when it did not).

The second statement is purely the supposition of the author, who clearly holds extremely biased views on this topic.

The entire article should either be renamed and rewritten, or deleted. --Biaothanatoi 02:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Causes section - NPOV tag

This section is biased and details only one side of the issue. It needs to be balanced with data from the other side. Abuse truth 03:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, what sides are you talking about. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The section in question only addresses the side of false allegations.Abuse truth —Preceding comment was added at 03:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe this section is extremely misleading, perhaps dangerously so. This is because it ascribes one and only one cause to the "hysteria” and at best the cause given is marginal at best. Additionally, the understanding of the writer of the social and psychological origins of hysteria as expressed in this section is extremely limited and simply wrong.

It is an extremely ambitious to detail the causes of any social phenomena and it is impossible to prove. It is also in my opinion as one trained in psychology, I have a masters degree, and having been licensed as an expert in Adult Psychiatry by the American Nurses Association, that the origins of any hysteria and especially sexual hysteria have multiple causes. I agree in principle that one might be guilt of mothers and fathers at having placed their children in day care centers. However, I would suggest that there are more powerful conscious and unconscious forces at work in the dynamics of this hysteria. In particular the taboo around sex and sexual behavior particular to the American society, a society which places great value on the ability of its members to control events, a taboo surrounding admitting sexual urges in the American society. Note that sexual urges does not equal sexual activities. Even if one is sexually excited by photographs of children, resisting these sexual feeling ie NOT acting on them is admirable. Another aspect of causality could simply be fear. A high enough fear level may cause one to strike out blindly. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list. Lastly, as illustrated in the Wenatchee, WA scandal, the blind ambition of one detective to be The One to break the ring of sexual abuse led him to use extremely threatening methods to get children to change their story such as taking his hand gun out and placing it on the table in an interview room. Additionally, politics can be a force in hysteria. In the case of Wenatchee, WA the Washington State Department of Health and Social Services was not independent of the Wenatchee police department, but they both depended on each other. In this case they both suppressed evidence when it became obvious that they had made mistakes. People were fired for stating the truth. They wanted to avoid looking bad. So people went to jail. Finally, the shear incompetence of those who interviewed the children, they used incorrect techniques in questioning the children in Wenatchee, WA, led to incorrect evidence.

I would not object to a section of “Causes “if that section explained that any “cause” was necessarily speculative and impossible to prove. But rather several complicated causes could be speculated as having an influence. Any other assertion contrary is simply not supported by any thing I have ever read or any thing I have ever heard from a reliable source. I support a major revision of this section “Causes” or else its complete omission.

FYI - I have a MA in psychology, a degree in nursing, and have been certified as an expert in adult mental health by the American Nurses Association, and have worked 15 years in a mental health facility at Washington State University Medical Center, and in private practice for 7 years. I would be happy to discuss this issue further with any one who would like to give an accurate account of hysteria, its origins, its dynamics, and especially related to "Day care sex abuse hysteria" which I do believe did occur in the basic form outlined in this article. --TDurden1937 20:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)TDurden1937

[edit] POV Title (again)

The word "hysteria" is inherently calling something crazy and unreasonable. This is POV. McCarthyism and the First Red Scare are not called the "Communism Scare" or something like that.--A 03:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• No, its the term of art in the media, as per the Google searches discussed above. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section on Child Abuse

The section is removed because it is on Child Abuse and we already link to that article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Google and title

I am repeating this section, since the argument is coming up again. "Day care sex abuse hysteria" is the term used by the media. We don't call the My Lai Massacre, the "My Lai unpleasantness" or "My Lai allegations" or "My Lai naughtiness" just to be politically correct, we use the term of art used by the media.

• "Day care sex abuse moral panic" no Ghits
• "Day care sex abuse naughtiness" no Ghits
• "Day care sex abuse that may or may not have happened" no Ghits
• "Day care sex abuse hysteria" 691 GHits with 6 in News Archive and 2 in books.
• "Day Care Sex Abuse allegations" 5 GHits.

Do some Googling and see what other names come up in the press version of the story.

• "Day care sex abuse hysteria"
  • ... prosecution of child sex abuse cases, the Amiraults insisted they were victims of the day care sex abuse hysteria that swept the country in the 1980s. ...
  • Conducted and promoted coercive interviews that traumatized hundreds of children and promoted the nationwide day care sex abuse hysteria. ...
  • For the record, I am not in the "believe the children" camp that grew up around the day-care sex-abuse hysteria of the 1980s, and that holds the words of ...
  • You'd think after a decade and a half of satanic panics, day care sex abuse hysteria, and fraudulent psychiatric diagnoses like multiple personality ...
  • ... This reminds me of the eighties with the day care sex abuse hysteria which also ruined some innocent lives,some very young children and some falsely accused. ...
  • ... Day care sex abuse hysteria has been stunningly brought to life by producer Ofra Bikel who has followed this case for over five years. ...
  • ... disputed child-molestation cases, and the defendants insisted they were victims of day care sex abuse hysteria that swept the country in the 1980s. ...
  • Zealand's example of the day care Sex Abuse hysteria that swept through the English speaking world in the 80s and 90s.
  • The McMartin preschool case was an example of day care sex abuse hysteria. Members of the McMartin family, who operated a preschool in California, ...
• --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I will repeat my reasons for objecting to the title :

"None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." IMO, the title violates wikipedia NPOV policy. And yes, since the title is part of the article, it is part of the content. Abuse truth 22:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how policy directs us to act given your above suggestion. Fringe views may be mentioned with reputable sources, but they cannot be given the same weight as the mainstream. Thoughts? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The title totally excludes all views other than the one of hysteria. Just like the fact that the article needs to be more balanced to include "minority views" if they are minority views, the title needs to do the same.Abuse truth 18:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That is because it was descibing a period of time when there was a hysteria about sex abuse in child care centers. The topic is about this unique phenomena. I think you feel that the title somehow also reflects that sexual abuse of children does not exist, or that all incidents of sexual abuse is false. We have several articles on Wikipedia that demonstrate this is false. What we know is that there were incidents of hysteria when false allegations were created and innocent people were punished for crimes they did not committ. This does not mean that there are not other people guilty of these horrid crimes, but that is a totally different article. You are obviously very sensitive to this issue; by admitting and talking about this type of hysteria does not invalidate your cause. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that "a period of time when there was a hysteria about sex abuse in child care centers" is an unproven assumption. Theories about contagion have never been proven. In the cases mentioned in the article, victim suggestibility has not been shown. Talking about hysteria does not invalidate my cause, but it does make it easier for abusers to commit these crimes and use the theory of hysteria as a defense. Abuse truth 16:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• We didn't change Red scare to "Reds may or may not have been poised to influence America by employing Hollywood screenwriters". It is still named what it was called in the 1950s and 1960s. We are not censored, and Wikipedia does not bow down to political correctness. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

  Abuse, I still think because of your emotional commitment to this topic you are bending over backwards on any subject that has any degree of potential to lessen the atrocity of the crime of childhood sexual abuse. Though your commitment is admirable, I begin to think it affects the logic of your argument. You continue to evade the facts that there are innocent individuals that have been punished for crimes they did not committ in the name of protecting children from sexual abuse. Sending innocent people to prison and accusing innocent people of sexual abuse is not acceptable under any circumstances. More importantly, it does not aid in preventing the crime. When thoughtful and appropriate actions are set aside in the hysterical pursuit to find a potential abuser we have failed our children and harmed every member of society. To deny the facts of history is a sure invitation to repeat it and to still be part of the problem. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

  This isn't a matter of "political correctness." It is a matter of accurately reflecting the scholarly works and the media. I am interested in an NPOV presentation of the facts. If only side of the data is presented, the hysteria theory looks accurate. When one looks at both sides of the data, one realizes there are two sides to the debate. The page and title as written does not accurately reflect this. Abuse truth 19:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

  The article title is clearly correct. On the other hand, if sources can be provided that the general hysteria reflected an accurate assessment that child abuse frequently occured (note, not sources only that it frequently occured, but sources that the accusations were rationally connected to the specific defendants), information to that effect would be helpful. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

  I have not seen any scientific data showing "hysteria" in the terms described by the backlash. If there are journal articles written on this topic, please cite them.Abuse truth 20:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  I support Abuse Truth, I believe that the title of this article is POV, and the content of the article is unbalanced. Numerous academics have undertaken research on child abuse in daycare centres, and yet none of that material is listed here, whilst the cases that are listed are presented in a profoundly unbalanced and biased manner which fails to recognise their ambiguity and complexity.

  Storm Rider, your argument re Abuse Truth is ad hominem. S/he is simply calling for balance, and so am I - but how can we achieve that with the title the way it is? It should be renamed entirely. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 03:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Consider the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition of 'hysteria': 1  : a psychoneurosis marked by emotional excitability and disturbances of the psychic, sensory, vasomotor, and visceral functions 2  : behavior exhibiting overwhelming or unmanageable fear or emotional excess

Moreover, consider the Wikipedia page on 'Hysteria': Hysteria, or somatization disorder, is a diagnostic label applied to a state of mind, one of unmanageable fear or emotional excesses. The fear is often centered on a body part, most often on an imagined problem with that body part (disease is a common complaint). People who are "hysterical" often lose self-control due to the overwhelming fear.

Clearly, the title should not be 'Day Care Abuse Psychoneurosis' or 'Day Care Abuse Somatization Disorder' (unless, of course, there's sufficient, unbiased evidence).

Day care sexual abuse 'hysteria' would imply that a statistically significant number/percentage of day care patrons exhibited 'hysterical' behavior. Citations are not provided showing that even one percent of parents (whether or not alleging their children were victims) exhibited fears, emotions and/or behavior that were unmanageable or overwhelming.

Neither does 'mass hysteria' apply. Orson Wells' "War of the Worlds" broadcast is an example of mass hysteria (per Wikipedia) effecting a significant percentage of the population. The 10 cases described occurred over more than a decade in at least 3 different countries. Misleading to describe this as hysteria.

Certainly, the media coverage elevated many parents' concerns, but hysterical behavior of even a small percentage of parents has not been proven. If some alleged child victims' parents exhibited some hysterical behavior, citations are needed of somatization disorders, or similar.

Furthermore, to justify the term 'hysteria', a numerical comparison is needed with the number of allegations that did not result in any somatization disorders. If the vast majority of parents managed their concerns and were not overwhelmed, then hysteria would be an exaggeration.

A Google search for terms 'day' 'care' 'sexual' 'abuse' 'hysteria' produced about 370,000 hits. Substituting 'controversy' for 'hysteria' yields about 1,190,000 hits -- over 3 times more prevalent. The title should have the same substitution to become: "Day Care Sexual Abuse Allegation Controversies".

This title is more in line with Wikipedia's "False allegation of child sexual abuse" topic that references this topic. That topic is also disputed. Because the term 'false' can only be balanced by the term 'true', the title should probably be something like "False and true allegations of child sexual abuse".Erolin 02:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Erolin, thanks for bringing a much-needed fresh voice to this debate.

Arguments about "moral panic" and "hysteria" have featured prominently in the courtroom (and media) strategies of people accused of sexual abuse in daycare centres, and this article uncritically reproduces these defence tactics as fact. The entire article should be renamed or, if the content is too biased to be salvaged, deleted and replaced with an evidenced-based discussion on sexual abuse in daycare centres. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The arguments have made the mainstream news media, not only the press releases of the accused. Some work needs to be done to separate out press releases (accused, accusers, attorneys, and prosecutors) from actual news reporting, but the hysteria and the word "hysteria" do appear in some of the latter. (The Google searches which Erolin is using seem to be unquoted, so it's measuring, at best, whether "controversy/sie" is more common than "hysteria", which it obviously is.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Arthur, sorry it's taken so long to respond. The Google search results dilute the main point.

Wikipedia NPOV policies require neutrality. Furthermore, editors are directed to "Let the facts speak for themselves". A general encyclopedia's article about hysteria must provide facts proving hysteria. In this article on hysteria, not one, single, solitary case of psychoneurosis or somatization disorder is provided.

Because of bias, the media (mainstream, fringe, or otherwise) should not be used as the primary source for determining a general encyclopedia's titles. Consider Wikipedia's "media bias" article. That some unspecified and unquantified set of arguments have made the mainstream news media does not redefine the term "hysteria".

Again to the main point: please provide facts that speak for themselves to prove psychoneurosis and/or somatization disorders resulted. Unless and until such facts are provided, please remove the term "hysteria" from the title.Erolin —Preceding comment was added at 10:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, it seems to be the term used. Perhaps a caveat could be added that "hysteria" is not intended in the clinical meaning, if that could be sourced. However, just as in conspiracy theory, we should use the term that people generally use. The relevant policy seems to be Wikipedia:NPOV#Article naming, which only suggests we should change the title if there is some other appropriate title. "Controversy", clearly less common, is also less descriptive, as the term "hysteria" is used to imply some lack of contact with reality. (Whether or not the accusations reflect a lack of contact with reality, that really is the intent.) If you can think of a slightly-less-pejorative term than "hysteria" that people generally use, I'd probably agree to the move, even though it would be a pain to resolve redirects. But "controversy" is not the correct term. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nine out of 11 jurors quote

actual quote from news article : Nine of the 11 jurors who agreed to be interviewed said they believed that some children were abused, but that the prosecution, for the most part, had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Buckeys were responsible. "Tapes of Children Decided the Case for Most Jurors", Los Angeles Times, Friday, January 19, 1990, pp. A1 and A2. (English) Abuse truth (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, another article now quoted in the McMartin article, seemed to indicate that some jurors considered the children's evidence tainted by the interview techniques, so that they (the jurors) could not determine the truth of the accusations. That seems more relevant as to the jurors' opinions than the article above. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undue weight

Adding this to the end of the article is deceptive. It gives the appearance that this is the summary or conclusion of the case, but its is just testimony from a prosecution witness during the trial. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Deborah Harper testified in the trial "One girl showed definite medical signs of sexual abuse and it could not be ruled out for two others." ^[3]

Agreed. Moved quote to middle of article. Abuse truth (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse truth says:

“	large deletions of data should be discussed on the talk page, not simply deleted due to their POV	”
—User:Abuse truth

Perhaps he should follow his own advice. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between deleting one quote to make a section NPOV, like I did, versus deleting a large portion of an article, which you did.Abuse truth (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] discussion of quotes from transcript

”All nine children testified in a broadly consistent way...The children testified to numerous instances of sexual abuse...The children testified that the defendant threatened them and told them that their families would be harmed if they told anyone about the abuse” COMMONWEALTH vs. GERALD AMIRAULT. Middlesex. October 9, 1996. - March 24, 1997.

This was on the web at http://www.socialaw.com/sjcslip/7077.html but has now been deleted or moved. I am presently working on tracking down the new page. I would hope that the quote could be returned to the page pending finding the new url.Abuse truth 23:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, I might consider it acceptable if it were in an apprpriate {{cite}} tag with format=disputed reprint. Others might consider it being "disputed" as a WP:BLP violation if the defendant in question is living, or might consider it inappropriate unless quoted in a reliable secondary source, as (if it's from the actual transcript), it may be a primary source. You need, at least, to put the construct a full citation of the court case in the cite template as the title.

Furthermore, it needs to be in the main article before it could be quoted here. The discussion about adding information without a currently identifiable source should be there before it's discussed here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussed at main article as requested.

"Commonweath v. Amirault, Middlesex" (scanned reprint), 424 Mass. 618. Retrieved on 2007-12-09. Abuse truth (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Day Care Hysteria

^{[4] [5]}

• You'd think after a decade and a half of satanic panics, day care sex abuse hysteria, and fraudulent psychiatric diagnoses like multiple personality ...
• ... This reminds me of the eighties with the day care sex abuse hysteria which also ruined some innocent lives,some very young children and some falsely accused. ...
• ... Day care sex abuse hysteria has been stunningly brought to life by producer Ofra Bikel who has followed this case for over five years. ...
• ... disputed child-molestation cases, and the defendants insisted they were victims of day care sex abuse hysteria that swept the country in the 1980s. ...
• Zealand's example of the day care Sex Abuse hysteria that swept through the English speaking world in the 80s and 90s.
• The McMartin preschool case was an example of day care sex abuse hysteria. Members of the McMartin family, who operated a preschool in California, ...

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

[edit] Wee Care

wee care's section here is already 99% of the separate article. Why not merge it in? Is there a good reason? Travellingcari (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer that the pages stay separate. This case was a fairly large and important one.Abuse truth (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep separate as a very major case, ith many specific references. DGG (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference added

I have added a reference to the Glendale Montessori section. I question whether the EL on this case - "HELP FREE JAMES TOWARD!" - www.freetoward.org should be an EL, since it appears to be an advocacy cite. ResearchEditor (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC) (formerly AT)

I have deleted the above EL, since it appears to be an SPS and an advocacy cite. I fixed the title of one NYT article ref. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Title of article redux

• "day care sex abuse hysteria" hits in Google news = 4
• "day care sexual abuse hysteria" hits in Google news = 0
• "day care sex abuse hysteria" hits in Google books = 2
• "day care sexual abuse hysteria" hits in Google books = 1

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

[edit] recent edit

I have fixed the spelling of an author's name and deleted a few unnecessary quotation marks. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glendale ref edit

I have deleted a dead courtesy url and fixed the date. The article is available in their pay archives. ResearchEditor (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleveland case

The Cleveland case did not involve a daycare centre.

Let me repeat, because I keep deleting it from this page, and it keeps being reposted.

The Cleveland case did not involve a daycare centre.

So it is being deleted from this page, because it is completely irrelevant to this page. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 04:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moved here

This was under anxiety, but has nothing to do with anxiety. It belongs elsewhere, perhaps in the next section.

There was also the problems of using leading questions, that can create false memories in young children.

John Myers, a Professor of Law at McGeorge Law School states:

"At the time McMartin and Michaels began, there was very little awareness of the special issues that arise in questioning children about abuse....When it comes to credibility, children are no different than adults. There are credible children and credible adults. By the same token, there are incredible adults and incredible children. It is clear from the literature on child development that by the time most children are four years old, they possess the moral, cognitive, and linguistic capacity to be credible witnesses in court."^[6]

Agreed. I have moved it to the next section. IMO, these sections need more balance, but more RS's need to be found. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)