Talk:Satanic ritual abuse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Satanic ritual abuse article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6


This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

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.
Archive
Archives
  1. 2004 - July 2007
  2. July 2007 - September 2007
  3. October 2007
  4. October-December 2007
  5. December, 2007-February, 2008
  6. 13 February, 2008 - 7 March 2008


Contents

[edit] Compromise sought on SRA cases section

My apologies in advance for the length of this post. I have made it as short as possible while attempting to cover all of the salient points. I will attempt to delineate both sides of the argument of the debate and then suggest a possible compromise based on the all of the positions.

The argument to entirely eliminate the section was based on the concept of undue weight. When the definition of SRA is seen as a global conspiracy theory, then the cases section was seen as synthesizing the definition of SRA as original research. Other problems with the cases section included the fact that not all of the cases had convictions and that some of the cases only mentioned SRA and did not try people for this. Keeping the section was seen as going against the concept of NPOV and promoting a fringe theory (the global conspiracy theory). Another reason to split off the section could be due to page length.

The argument to keep the section was based on the definition of SRA as individual cases of ritual abuse in Satanic settings. Another argument could be given that since there is no one definition of SRA in the literature all RS examples of SRA should be contained on the page, according to their weight. Splitting off the page would be seen as a POV fork. The objection to not including some of the cases due to a lack of a conviction or only a mention of SRA in the case could be seen as the editor using their own bias to decide what data to include and not to include on the page.

Several compromises had been suggested. One was to restore one or two paragraphs to the page. Another was to restore a summarized version of the page. The one currently on the page includes one line with an embedded link.

It appears that the fairest compromise to all of these would be one in the middle. This one would acknowledge all of the above policy points of the different sides of the debate.

As the page stood a day ago, the section was :

SRA in the courts

Satanic ritual abuse has featured with greater and lesser prominence in some allegations of child abuse. Some of the trials attracted significant media attention, and they were often characterised by acquittals, hung juries, and successful appeals.

My suggested edit would be :

Satanic ritual abuse has featured with greater and lesser prominence in some ritual abuse allegations of child abuse.

Adding: Certain countries have had isolated events in which abuse or murder took place with satanic ritual elements, including the United States. "First charged in devil worshiping rituals convicted", The Associated Press, 2007-12-4. Retrieved on 5 December 2007.  and Brazil. Todd Lewan, Satanic Cult Killings Spread Fear in Southern Brazil, The Associated Press, 26 October 1992 Gamini, Gabriella, "Seer for trial in voodoo murders", The Times, 9 September 2003 Other cases and allegations have been found in Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, South Africa and the United Kingdom. Some of the trials attracted significant media attention, and they were often characterised by acquittals, hung juries, and successful appeals.

This edit would clarify the embedded link more clearly. It would also acknowledge the existence of the page in only three sentences. The edit does include a couple of references for the reader to look at a couple of the cases and points the reader to further cases. I believe it puts appropriate weight on the cases pages from all of the above wikipolicy viewpoints.

(BTW, the newer edit of “Elements of Satanist ritual have featured in some allegations of child abuse” is interesting and may eliminate the problem of the different definitions of SRA.)

Suggestions are more than welcome. There are a variety of viewpoints on this issue, and I hope that by looking at all of them, consensus as to the best edit can be gained. abuse t (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Weren't you supposed to be on WP:RESTRICT regarding these articles? —Cesar Tort 18:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Not the talk pages, the decision was "For the first 2 weeks, you would be banned from editing any articles in this area of interest, but not banned from the talk pages of those articles." This was later changed to ten days. abuse t (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
ok, but I don't understand why we cannot see your name in the list of cases of restricted users in WP:RESTRICT. —Cesar Tort 19:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand this either. Since I agreed to having my "name and restrictions listed in a visible way." I will try to write the admin who mediated this restriction when he returns from vacation. abuse t (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You can ask it also to another admin. —Cesar Tort 20:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Cesar, it'll be fine, please reduce the heat. User Abuse t acknowledges the restrictions, and we all know about them. The public posting isn't a big deal, that's just for a situation where someone might need to refer to the deal in case of trouble. If that happens you can always point to the agreement on his/her talk page. S/he's not going to try and get away with something and get blocked again, so let's all relax about it and try to collaborate positively, OK? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] archiving?

The page is already 142 kilobytes long and I agree with User:WLU that we have been discussing in circles. If from now on editors (including me) refrain from posting long or irrelevant posts to the improvement of the page, wouldn't it be tempting to archive the whole thing? —Cesar Tort 23:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If other editors agree, this is fine with me also. I do request that the section above stay in the page for now. abuse t (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I did keep the above section as requested. From now on please try to write shorter posts like some posters in this talk page do. —Cesar Tort 01:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Cesar, thanks for keeping the section. I will try harder to do this. abuse t (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History

Made some small changes to the history section - basically shifting it around so that it reads more chronologically.

I've also reduced the number of references regarding Michelle Remembers. We don't really need five, and four of them were dubious e.g. a random website, an "Officer of Avalon", a "paranormal" magazine and Michael Aquino, who was formally titled under the Uniform Code of Military Justice in relation to case of ritual child sexual abuse at the Presidio day-care centre (see United States District Court For the Eastern District of Virginia - Alexandria division – Michael A. Aquino – plaintiff, civil action v. no 90-1547-a the honorable Michael P. W. Stone – Secretary of the Army, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C., defendant).

I don't think that the reference to Michelle Remembers adds anything to the article. I presume it is there to infer that every allegation of SRA that came after 1980 is directly attributable to a single book - the standard False Memory Syndrome position on ritual abuse. I've left it in because I can't be bothered dealing with the inevitable onslaught of accusations of NPOV that would come if I deleted it. If other editors could review the reference and consider whether it adds anything to the article, that would be great.

--Biaothanatoi (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Both David Frankfurter and Brant Wenegrat have discussed Michelle Remembers as a catalyst for SRA accusations. This was in peer-reviewed articles and books published by university presses. I've added one such reference to the article. *** Crotalus *** 05:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly, Aquino's argument that Michelle Remembers "caused" all allegations of SRA predates those of Frankfurter and Wenegrat.
I'm aware that a number of people since Aquino have argued that, because Michelle Remembers was published prior to the first criminal prosecutions involving ritual allegations, therefore Michelle Remembers is the cause of those criminal prosecutions. It's a logical fallacy called post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Obviously, it's an extraordinary claim - a single book "causes" children to disclose ritual abuse, adults to disclose ritual abuse, multiple criminal prosecutions in countries in which Michelle Remembers was not published - and it is a claim that is disputed by a number of sources.
But don't worry, Crot. I'm familiar with the old SRA pissing contest. I'll dig up some sources, so that you can invent reasons to contest them. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 07:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Your statements are irrelevant. It's not our job to accuse Frankfurter and Wenegrat of logical fallacies, or to speculate where they might have gotten their ideas from. That is a classic example of original research. It is not our job to sit as a "court of appeals," second-guessing academic peer-review boards based on our own subjective criteria. If you can provide evidence that Frankfurter and Wenegrat, or their writings referenced here, have specifically been discredited within the academic community, or if you can provide some reason to believe that the journal or publisher in question is not generally considered reliable, then the material can be removed. If another reliable source has specifically said that Michelle Remembers is not responsible for SRA accusations, then you can insert that citation as a counterpoint. But I'm not aware of any such sources that say this. *** Crotalus *** 19:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It would be "original research" if I made those statements in the article. As it stands, they were on the talk page. Chill out.
I've inserted a counter-point. I think the inclusion of Michelle Remembers here is not useful, since it's now reduced to the claim/counter-claim (soon to be followed, presumably, by a counter-counter-claim) structure that has paralysed this article in the past. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
IMO, it is good to see reliable sources added to the section. I question the accuracy of this article :
Denna Allen and Janet Midwinter. "Michelle Remembers: The Debunking of a Myth", The Mail on Sunday, September 30 1990.
http://www.xeper.org/pub/lib/xp_lib_wh_DebunkingOfAMyth.htm
© 2002 Temple of Set, Inc.
It is on a Temple of Set page. Is there any way the original article could be found? abuse t (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not required that articles be available online at all. Here, the actual source is The Mail on Sunday, and the link to the Temple of Set website is simply for convenience. Obviously, if there was an official website with archives, then it would be preferred to link to that instead, but this is better than nothing. But we aren't citing the Temple of Set as a source. There is no reason, as far as I know, to believe that the article was not published in the source attributed, or that the text linked does not accurately reflect the content. *** Crotalus *** 05:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Crotalus, you have consistently challenged the veracity of any source that is not published by the highest tier of the university presses. Now you feel that it is RS to link to the website of a cult established by a man who was processed out of the army after CID substantiated his involvement in sexual offences against children?
This is a clear double standard on your behalf. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
See below. The credibility of Michael Aquino and the Temple of Set is irrelevant, as we're not citing them. We are citing the Mail on Sunday. Please see the numerous Scientology pages for precedent; we routinely cite articles that were originally published in mainstream media, but are only available online on "cult-buster"-type websites. In these cases, the links are merely for convenience, and play no part in determining the reliability of the source. Only the original publisher matters for that. *** Crotalus *** 22:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
For David Frankfurter, the SRA panic repeated many of the ancient features of conspiracy theory panics.[16]

And now Cesar chimes in to include the counter-counter-claim that I predicted above, written in a typically POV way. Cesar, Frankfurter is already referenced twice in this article, including a lengthy quote (one of the only quotes in this article). Your change adds no new information to this article, and it is clearly POV in referring to an "SRA panic". I've undone it. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 04:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In terms of the copy of the Daily Mail article on the Temple of Set page, wp:rs states:
"When citing opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines, in-text attribution should be used if the material is contentious." and at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed....Reliable sources - Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations." The Temple of Set has not been shown to be a reliable source and since the material is obviously contentious, at least an inline citation should be used stating that it is from the Daily Mail on a Temple of Set page.
Let me repeat it in case you didn't hear me the first time: we are not citing the Temple of Set. We are citing the Mail on Sunday. If you want to remove the Temple of Set link entirely, go ahead. It's just for convenience. Do you have any reason — any at all — to believe that the material does not accurately reflect what the Mail on Sunday published? It should be easy to check if you have access to an article database.
If you want to remove all non-peer-reviewed sources, and thus remove the Mail on Sunday as well, that's fine too. All it means is that we'll have different sources saying the same thing that everyone knows is true (Michelle Remembers is discredited crap), but if it makes you feel better, fine. *** Crotalus *** 22:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The term "SRA panic" is obviously POV and contains bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Npov
"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources....One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed." The term "panic" IMO should be replaced by a more neutral term. abuse t (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "The term "SRA panic" is obviously POV and contains bias."
In fact, it's almost a quote. Rubin rightly restored it. Remember keeping short and tight posts. All of us have read those policies, AT :) —Cesar Tort 04:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The para in question refers specifically to Michelle Remembers. Your addition of a third reference to Frankfurter in the article does not relate to Michelle Remembers - it's an attempt to "trounce" the implications of the previous quote with your own POV, and it is phrased as such.
I'd really like to see the development of a more cooperative and AGF editing style here on this page. Change undone. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The preceding reference, Kent, doesn't refer to Michelle Remembers. Change restored. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It would be better if there was more cooperation and talk before edits and counter edits were made. I haven't seen any reliable sources show that MR is "discredited crap." I've only seen opinion pieces like the Mail and wiccan and satanist sources discuss it. If all agree, I will follow Crotalus' suggestion when I am able to and remove the convenience link to the Temple of Set url. I agree with AR on the edit history page. He states "Restored missing references from previous version. (I think they had been removed for being unreliable, though.)" In the section below he also discusses this. This is in reference to this quote "and its existence is challenged in some quarters." These two references are skepdic.com and Fortean Times. There have been serious criticisms of skepdic.com on wikipedia. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Skeptic.27s_dictionary
"It's a self-published website of one person's opinions, that he calls common sense in his "about" page." And Fortean Times is a magazine about paranormal phenomena in Britain. Neither are RS. abuse t (talk) 02:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed that Michelle Remembers has not been demonstrated to be "complete crap". It is in breach of Wiki guidelines on undue weight to characterise a single critique from a tabloid newspaper as a "general consensus", meanwhile, neither the Fortean Times nor the Skeptics Dictionary is RS.
My impression is that editors here are mixing up Smith and Pazder with Lauren Stratford.--Biaothanatoi (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
There really are no WP:RS that Michelle Remembers is not "complete crap". I suppose we really shouldn't say it's "complete crap", but we also shouldn't say there are any reports of accuracy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
ISTR we had a source saying it was best regarded as fiction? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The term Satanic Panic is obviously a specific point of view, although it is hardly an isolated one. I would refer people to a considerable number of back issues of Private Eye which have dealt with what the Eye refers to as the Satanic Panic. Of course any statement on this topic has to take a certain point of view, but the using the term SRA as a panic is not an isolated incident. --J.StuartClarke (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) The problems of the use of the word "panic" are numerous. "Panic is a sudden fear which dominates or replaces thinking and often affects groups of people or animals." (wikidef) I have not seen it proven that any of the proponents of the theory that SRA exists (including victims) have been directly shown to be panicking or influenced by any past events or allegations.

The "Private Eye" is not a RS. wikidef: Private Eye is a British satirical magazine-newspaper, edited by Ian Hislop and published every two weeks....though it also receives much criticism and ire, both for its style and for its willingness to print defamatory and controversial stories. This is reflected in its large volume of libel lawsuits, for which it has also become famous." It has been criticized on this topic for its factual errors by serious researchers like Valerie Sinason. The Private Eye even criticizes the theory of dissociation, which would make it a promoter of extreme minorities views. ResearchEditor (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Since this is a debate about SRA I'm not going to comment on dissociation, other than to say that most of Private Eye's comments on such issues are with regard to court cases, usually with regards to evidence, reliable or otherwise. Of course Private Eye is often satirical in tone. However, what is now the "In the Back" section can be best described as an investigative journalism. However, my main point was to show that refering to a "panic" is not an isolated reference. I wouldn't have thought that an "extreme minority" view would be a magazine with a circulation of 700,000 people every fortnight. --J.StuartClarke (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I would say that Private Eye is RS as it undergoes fact checking but may be biased and can therefore be used to illustrate one side in the dispute, so long as it is balanced. If there is doubt about this we could take it to the reliable sources noticeboard.Itsmejudith (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
At their site, I was unable to find any evidence of fact checking or comments on this issue being backed by court cases. I also find it problematic that it could be considered a RS, while a paper by Noblitt would not. IMO, it is not a high quality news source and its scholarship on this issue is in doubt. Also, the question of its "large volume of libel lawsuits" would make me question the veracity of some of its information. Maybe it would be best to take this to the reliable sources noticeboard to see what the wiki-community knows about this source, good and bad. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
That would probably be the best idea. One final suggestion before that though: Looking through previous disagreements regarding whether Private Eye is RS, most of the solutions have been not to use Private Eye as RS with regards to biographical articles, but to use it as RS for the less personal issues, particually with regards the investigative sections, such as In the Back. --J.StuartClarke (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting "split"

I'm taking the "split" tag off the front page. We discussed it at length. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Be careful with your edits, as AT pointed out in your talk page. I don't know how to fix these broken links in footnotes #21 and 22:
Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named skepdic
Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named FT
—Cesar Tort 00:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Found, although the links (and the statement they support) should probably be removed for being unreliable.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Three recent edits

I have made three edits discussed on this talk page. 1) Cases - this was a compromise as discussed above and basically closed. It was introduced 8 days ago. I added a new phrase to the beginning of the edit added by itsmejudith. 2) A deletion suggested by AR and agreed to by me to remove a short phrase and a non RS ref. 3) Deleting a courtesy link from the Daily Mail ref, suggested by Crot and agreed to by me. ResearchEditor (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC) (formerly AT)

[edit] duplicate sentence deleted and suggested word change

I have deleted a duplicate sentence in the article.

I propose a one word change in the page lead. It presently reads: "Satanic ritual abuse (SRA) refers to the purported sexual abuse or physical abuse of children or non-consenting adults in the context of alleged "Satanic rituals." Allegations of SRA remain controversial and have featured prominently in disputes over child abuse, memory and the law in the United States in recent decades."

I propose changing "purported" to "reported."

definitions from answers.com

purported - commonly put forth or accepted as true on inconclusive grounds

reported - Made known or told about

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves "We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately" In other words, "purported" suggests to the reader that all cases are "on inconclusive grounds." IMO, it is preferable to let the facts speak for themselves in the article and use the more neutral term "reported." ResearchEditor (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made the above change as per the discussion above. ResearchEditor (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural commentators on SRAM

Why has there been no acknowledgement of input from the UK's Subcultural Alternatives Freedom Foundation (SAFF), based in Leeds - in its critique of the phenomena of the Satanic Ritual Abuse Myth? Can someone correct this?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.7.213 (talk • contribs)

It's critique is no different to those presented here from other sources. Meanwhile, the general tone and format of the SAFF website is that of an attack site, and we are trying to keep sources here as credible as possible - to avoid the inevitable edit wars that result otherwise. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] moving hatnote, recent edit in first line

I have moved to see also hatnote on RCA to the see also section.

A recent edit has been made to the first line, removing the part in bold:

Satanic ritual abuse ('SRA) refers to the reported sexual abuse or physical abuse of children or non-consenting adults in the context of alleged "Satanic rituals." I disagree with this edit, because the phrase in bold clarifies the type of victim that has been abused.

"Sexual abuse (also referred to as molestation) is defined as the forcing of undesired sexual acts by one person to another." (wikidef) IMO, at least the phrase "of children" should be kept in the initial line. ResearchEditor (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have made the edit above and removed unnecessary quotes from the phrase. ResearchEditor (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible sources for Satanic ritual abuse#Support

Reference 25 in Satanic_ritual_abuse#Support is to a BBC survey. Surely there's actual sources somewhere, on the BBC perhaps. I'll start looking. [1] WLU (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Lovely, I just realized I've got Bibby, 1996 out from the library. Now I can start reviewing the claims attributed to it. Does anyone know of a counter-source, a critical book? WLU (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] restoring parts of article as of 24 hours ago, that were changed w/o discussion

I have restored large parts of the article to the way they were 24 hours ago, pending further discussion. I am asking that these changes not be reverted and that editors discuss these major changes first before we make any of them.

I will list the major changes below:

1) Changes to the header

2) Changes from "Some community groups, such as the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, lobbied the press and policy-makers to contest accounts of organised and ritualistic abuse,"

to "The press and policy-makers were lobbied to contest accounts of organised and ritualistic abuse, whilst clinicians, police and healthcare workers struggled to accommodate cases of satanic ritual abuse within their professional practice."

3) The elimination of much of the D.I.D. section and the change of name of the section.

4) The deletion of a large portion of the cases section. This section had been previously agreed to on this page as a compromise to the large deletion and split off into another page of the entire large section.

Since this is a controversial topic with many editors working on it, I believe that large changes like these should be discussed first and agreed upon. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

1) Do you mean the lead when you say header? Here we go, line by line:
Satanic ritual abuse (SRA) refers to the reported sexual abuse or physical abuse of children or non-consenting adults in the context of alleged Satanic rituals. to Satanic ritual abuse (abbreviated as SRA) refers to the alleged physical and/or sexual abuse of people in the context of Satanic rituals. - alleged rather than reported. Abuse is inherently non-consenting. Combined children or adults to people 'cause if it's not a child or an adult, it's not really a person. Reduced duplication of abuse. 'Satanism' is not a homogeneous thing, and the 'satanism' that's responsible for allegations of SRA has never been identified as far as I can see. 'Rituals' makes more sense to wikilink, since satanism implies a specific satanic group has been identified, when it never has.
Allegations of SRA remain controversial and have featured prominently in disputes over child abuse, memory and the law in the United States in recent decades. to Allegations of SRA received large amounts of attention in the 1980's and 90's primarily in North America and the United Kingdom. SRA allegations remain controversial with little agreement on definitions, proof and the reality of satanic abuse. Trials featuring ritual abuse were highly publicized and prompted significant changes in the court systems to accommodate the witnesses and allegations. SRA is far more than just the US, the UK features very prominently in the debate, and much of the research is from there as well. The lines about controversy and trials summarizes the body text, so I don't see how it is inappropriate. The lead does not reflect the body text right now, so adjusted it accordingly. What's wrong with the current version? How does it not summarize the lead? The only ommission is the mention of DID, feel free to add?
2) Either single out the FMSF specifically and solely, provide a list, or make it generic. Also, I have Bibby's book. FMSF is cited once, on page 28. The book states, and I quote, "Non-believers [in ritual abuse] have also organized themselves, developing the False Memory Syndrome Foundation in the United States, and the British False Memory Society". The single sentence mention is about organization, advocacy is not mentioned. Unless there's another mention that's not in the index, this is a blatant misrepresentation of a source. Is there another page I should look on?
3) The DID section is one of a series of WP:COATRACKs on DID that have 'somehow' ended up on a variety of articles. I'm thinking of iatrogenesis as another example. The section spends nearly half it's length discussing if DID is real or not, and the controversy. The section should only include a discussion of how SRA and DID overlap. There are no less than seven references which discuss how DID is controversial and have almost nothing to do with satanic ritual abuse. Piper and Mersky part II does not mention SRA at all. Part I gives it a single sentence. The first sentence and all references should be removed, P&M part I could be used to justify skepticism about the relationship between the two, but even then it is tenuous - the section talks about DID patients' memories, not DID itself. So leave the whole thing out. I would re-write the section with "Skeptics claim that the increase in DID diagnosis on the 1980s and 1990s and its association with memories of SRA is evidence of malpractice by treating professionals.(Pendergrast) The reliability of memories of SRA elucidated by clients in treatment for DID has been a major point of contention in the popular media and with clinicians, some of whom continue to express ambivalence over the reliability of narratives of SRA patients.(Perhaps P&M part I) Most acknowledge that such a narrative is indicative of serious victimisation and trauma.(S&V)" This has been tagged as a synthesis since December. I'd like a verification of this statement reflecting the contents of the article, since a) it's localized to Austalia, and b) the abstract states that the article talks about how one center's therapists is more likely to believe client allegations and identify ritual abuse cases than comparable therapists. But it's possible, so I'll assume good faith.
The section name was changed because of the guidance on section headings, which states we should "Avoid restating or directly referring to the topic or to wording on a higher level in the hierarchy (Early life, not His early life)."" Hence I removed the SRA from the title.
4) The section is about court cases, not allegations. The citations are to individual news stories, not broad overviews, and I know the 'list of allgations' page is also sourced to individual news stories. The FMSF statement is a blatant misrepresentation of a source. The section discusses single cases in newspapers, which is not generalizable to other cases. The entire section is riddled with flaws, vital sentences are unsourced, the sources used to justify the statements grossly overstretch what they are capable of justifying. There's still issues of a synthesis of disparate news reports of single incidents to turn this into a world-wide phenomenon, without separating cases in which satanic abuse were central to the charges from cases in which the satanic aspects were minor, trivial, or blatantly unrelated. Putting them all on an even footing again misrepresents the sources and should take place in the sub-page. This page should link to that page, but the second and third sentence should be removed as useless and unwarranted.
So to discuss my upcoming changes - I'm retitling the DID section. I'm removing unsource sentences per WP:PROVEIT. I'm removing the complete bullshit statement about the FMSF. I'm going to re-work the lead again. I'll do so in steps, so if you really, really think my work misrepresents the body text, you can undo, but I'd prefer you adjust. The whole page once again, needs work. WLU (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with what you say above about the Bibby source and the FMSF comment. Re: the lead, I have a couple of concerns with the present lead.
1) The word "reported" in the first line was changed to "allegations." I believe that the word "reported" is more neutral and therefore more appropriate for the lead.
2)"with no clear proof or disproof" is unsourced and not true - court cases and convictions show it exists. Those skeptical of its existence would also disagree with this statement.
3)"skeptical literature" should either be deleted or balanced with "confirming and" to show literature on both sides exists.
I don't believe that the cases section's second and third sentences make any claim of turning SRA into a world-wide phenomena. They simply state that the phenomena may exist as cases in certain countries in the world.
You make a good point about the DID section. It would be better if at least more of it discussed the connection between SRA and DID. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
1) Hm. SRA is far more than a simple criminal matter. Reports makes more sense, but even this misses some of the issues but I'll agree it is more than criminal allegations which is what I was focussing on when I re-wrote. Pending a better word (my thesaurus isn't greatly helpful) reported is a reasonable choice. I'll adjust.
2/3) I take your point, it's hard to summarize the current bickering from both sides that is represented in the article. Adjusted, please review.
SRA allegations have appeared throughout the world. The 'list of' page documents them all. Listing individual countries is unneeded - they are on all continents except Asia (and Antarctica), it's sufficient to state that it's worldwide, link to the list of page, and leave it at that. The old version was a mixture of generic statements, and single citations for isolated incidents with no aggregate analysis. Undue weight on news sources when it is not needed. It's currently portrayed as appearing throughout the world. That's adequate.
I'm removing the DID coatrack and leaving in only the mentions of SRA's relationship to DID. If there are more sources that are relevant, make sure they mention DID and SRA specifically. WLU (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Some of the adjusted edits look really good. Here's a few additional suggested edits.
"SRA has been linked to dissociative identity disorder, though the relationship is unclear."
change to : "Some researchers believe that SRA is linked to dissociative identity disorder." Not all would believe that DID is a byproduct of SRA. For those that do, the relationship is fairly clear, early repeated trauma causing identity splits.
This is unsourced and IMO should be deleted, unless a source can be found. "Public anxiety that an innocent adult could be subject to prosecution for sexual abuse based on false testimony was inflamed by the bizarre nature of children’s allegations in ritual abuse cases."
"Dissociative identity disorder is a controversial diagnosis that has been linked to SRA."
to "Dissociative identity disorder is a diagnosis in the DSM-IV that has been linked to SRA." I agree that we should leave the DID controversy out of this page.
"reliability of memories of SRA elucidated by clients in treatment for DID has been a major point of contention in the popular media and with clinicians, some of whom continue to express ambivalence over the reliability of narratives of SRA patients."
to: "reliability of memories of SRA elucidated by clients in treatment for DID has been a point of contention in the popular media and with clinicians, some of whom express ambivalence over the reliability of narratives of SRA patients." This softens the language some, making it more NPOV.
Let me know what you think about these ideas and we can go from there. ResearchEditor (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I have made the above edits. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Those changes look good to me - appropriate and carefully worded.. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow. This article actually reads sensibly and coherently, for the first time ever. Well done, everyone. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] old tags

I propose we remove the old tags on the top of the article. They have not been discussed in a long time. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that as well. A lot of changes have taken place since that tag went up. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 05:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I've made the change. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
An editor accidentally reverted about four prior edits to restore the tags at the top of the page. I have restored the edits and kept the addition of the tags on the top of the page. IMO, the deletion of the tags was not unilateral, as it was discussed on this page for over a week. ResearchEditor (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It was User:Dbachmann. Let's give him a week or so to raise any new concerns about the article. He hasn't commented here for a while, and full nine days went by between you suggesting the change, and me making it. Not sure what his grounds are for accusing me of acting "unilaterally". --Biaothanatoi (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

what "new concerns"? The concerns remain the old ones. I present you with this diff. I fail to see how any of the changes made reslove the issues raised. However, I think the article isn't terrible, and I would prefer settling for tagging issues with localized warnings rather than plastering it with a generic messagebox. dab (𒁳) 14:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article isn't terrible. It could use more reliable sources, especially peer reviewed journal articles. I also approve of the recent edits made by both AR and DB. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
We aren't mindreaders, Dab. You want to tag your concerns, go for it. Can't improve the article if you just repost a generic messagebox and talk about "old concerns". --Biaothanatoi (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] format tag on Lanning EL

I have added a format tag to the EL, until we can verify that the reference is in reality a "FBI 1992 STUDY OF CHILDHOOD RITUAL ABUSE." This is in part due to the questionability of the page publisher and prior discussions on this talk page. ResearchEditor (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Lanning's report for the FBI looks good to me, and a sensible approach to the topic. Peterlewis (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
This has been discussed on this talk page, pro and con. However, the format tag addresses a different issue. ResearchEditor (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The 'unverified' tag you placed on it gives the impression that the religious tolerance version of the page is in some way edited. I think that's ridiculous and it should be removed. Lanning has obvious expertise and I see no reason to believe that religioustolerance.org has in any way edited the report - it matches very closely what I've read of Lanning's beliefs regarding SRA and there's no reason to believe that RT would edit it. If there is any reason to believe the report is not factual or verified, present it. Otherwise, the tag should be removed. WLU (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The 'unverified' tag placed on the EL means that the existence of the article and its content is presently unverified. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." This means the burden is on the editor who put the EL on the page. RT has been challenged many times on this page and others as to whether it is a reliable source. In addition, RT has been found to A) WP:ELNO use both factually inaccurate as well as unverifiable research and B) be a site with an objectionable amount of advertising.
IMO, a good compromise would be to eliminate the RT courtesy tag and user this courtesy tag: Lanning, K.V. (1992). "Investigator's guide to allegations of "ritual" child abuse" (archived reprint). National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime Federal Bureau of Investigation. FBI Academy. Quantico. Virginia (22 35) URL: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/index.htm. “I believe that there is a middle ground - a continuum of possible activity. Some of what the victims allege may be true and accurate, some may be misperceived or distorted, some may be screened or symbolic, and some may be "contaminated" or false. The problem and challenge, especially for law enforcement, is to determine which is which. This can only be done through active investigation. I believe that the majority of victims alleging "ritual" abuse are in fact victims of some form of abuse or trauma.” ResearchEditor (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Lanning should be included, it has always been an ideal candidate per Wikipedia:External_links#Links_to_be_considered #4. RT was used because it is a convenience link and for the longest time RT was the only source available. I don't care where it comes from, an internet archive copy is fine with me so I've updated the page (though the only real advantage is that Lanning's report stands without surrounding clutter - though this means the loss of RT.org's own material on SRA, which is a pity as I think they do a good job of discussing it reasonably). Cite journal should not be used, it's not a citation. A simple weblink is adequate. There's no reason to include a quote in an external link, particularly a quote that bizarrely and needlessly shoves irrelevant TRUTH onto the page. Yes abuse exists, but this page is about SRA, not how horrible and omnipresent abuse is in general. Your above choice is quote mining, as would be "We need to be concerned about the distribution and publication of unsubstantiated allegations of bizarre sexual abuse." or "child prostitutes are not "real" child victims". No quote should be included because no matter what the choice it will not represent this extremely lengthy and nuanced source adequately. Since this is an EL, not a source, we are not trying to prove a point so there's no reason to single out a specific statement. It stands on its own, no quote is needed or appropriate. WLU (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, I am not sure that Lanning should be included. Much of what he states in his work is his opinion only. I would disagree that RT discusses SRA reasonably. I believe that they are a biased source, often picking and choosing data that fits their own arguments and sometimes not supporting the statements they make. The quote I used comes from Lanning's own conclusion on the topic and states his own beliefs on SRA. IMO, it is a balanced quote, that shows his moderate view on the topic. To state it that "bizarrely and needlessly shoves irrelevant TRUTH onto the page" is not true. Since this is Lanning's conclusion on the topic, to state that this is quote mining is also not true. I believe that your comment on the talk page edit "(format tag on Lanning EL: no f___ing quotes)" was unnecessary. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Many editors have thought lanning should be included and it fits perfectly with links to be considered #4. I have never seen an external link with a quote appended and see absolutely no reason to include a quote here - there is no reason to pick out a quote that we think best represents an EL when the purpose of an EL is to provide extensive discussion that the article can't contain. No quote. WLU (talk) 14:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undue weight and de Young

I'm concerned about the statement "Some of this research has, in turn, been criticized for an overly liberal definition of what constitutes a "substantiated" case of ritual abuse", sourced to de Young's book, is an example of undue weight.

There are half-a-dozen research projects looking at daycentre sexual abuse, including two govt-funded quant studies with very large samples undertaken by respected researchers in the field. These research projects all found that ritualistic forms of sexual abuse were evident in a minority of daycare cases, however, they were associated with the worst forms of child maltreatment, and the poorest health outcomes for abused children.

de Young criticises these researchers, primarily Finkelhor, for not applying a criminal burden of proof, which is beyond a reasonable doubt. It is very rare for empirical research to employ a criminal standard of evidence. de Young is, in effect, criticising Finkelhor for standard research practice, and suggesting that he should have used a burden a proof so high that virtually no incidence of child abuse or violence would ever meet it, ritual or not.

The generic reference to "criticism" here represents the view of a single author who presented no empirical data in support of her argument, and there is no evidence that her criticism represents a mainstream view in the field of sociology. And yet it is being used to call into question the basis of six different empirical studies.

I would argue that this is an example of undue weight, and that the reference to criticism should be removed or altered to indicate that it solely represents the view of a single author.

--Biaothanatoi (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree that it should at least be altered to indicate it is her view. Also, perhaps the second half of the sentence should be more clearly defined. ResearchEditor (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Six studies, huh? You've cited two studies, one of which you've cited once directly and twice second-hand.
"Studies have shown a connection between dissociative identity disorder and SRA, and some psychologists describe ritualistic abuse in substantiated cases of day care sexual abuse.[29][1][30][31]"
Source 29 isn't a study, it's a journal article. It does cite "Finkelhor- et al. (1988) [...] study of substantiated day care sexual abuse." That is the only part of the text which can possibly be taken to support the language you've used in this Wikipedia article. (It also notes that "MPD patient's reports of satanic ritual abuse have vet to be substantiated, and the lack of corroborating evidence compounds the disbelief.")
Source 1 is Noblitt and Perskin's book, again, not a study. They do cite... yes, Finkelhor et al., for "ritualistic abuse in substantiated cases of day care sexual abuse." That's the only place where I can find text that supports the language you've used here.
Source 30 is a study, I'm not sure how much it supports the "substantiated" part, but I don't have the full text. Given your past... creative interpretation of sources on this page, I'd like to have a substantial quote from it, at least.
31 is Finkelhor and Williams. And the fact, which de Young points out, is that Finkelhor defined "substantiated" cases as those in which any investigating agency believed that abuse had occurred. This is a strange definition of "substantiated." Your rambling about how de Young wants to limit "substantiated" to mean "led to criminal convictions" is simply false. Your assertion that "anybody believes it = substantiated" is "standard research practice" is bizarrely false.
Basically, your attempt to paint de Young as some kind of outlandish dissident is simple POV-pushing nonsense. You've already fucked up this article to the point of completely eliminating the phrase "false memory," which is a keystone of the mainstream explanation of SRA, now you're going after even modest, diffident critical language of your pet theory. Your campaign is doing immense damage to WP's coverage of SRA, and you need to be stopped. <eleland/talkedits> 21:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Eleland, please focus on the content of the article and not editors. A more collaborative approach will bring better results. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Lets not allow the directness of this critique take away from the truth contained therein. This article is intended to cover what is an extreme-fringe topic - largely discredited. We need to look for more neutral disclosure in all senses, and certainly - significant coverage of false memory. forestPIG 04:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I would respectfully disagree with the analysis that SRA is a fringe topic. This has been disproven by the number of peer reviewed sources discussing evidence of SRA as well as the number of mainstream news articles documenting legal cases of SRA, some of which have had convictions, Hammond, LA being the most recent one.
In regard to the discussion about deYoung's book as a reference, I believe that she is probably RS, since she has published peer reviewed articles. But Biaothanatoi's concern is valid. It is only one person's statement, compared to several studies on daycares and SRA. Perhaps, as a compromise the sentence can be restructured some to more accurately mention the source and its content.
Stating that another serious editor, one that has brought a variety of references to the article has "fucked up this article" and that they "need to be stopped" is nonproductive and in a way may be detrimental to developing consensus and maintaining civility in wikipedia proper. However, eleland also makes several good points in his critique above which need to be considered in the structuring of any possible changes made to the phrase being discussed.
Another point is that some of the skeptical editors working on this article have removed content from the article, like false memory, that could be construed as skeptical about SRA, because it was not directly tied to SRA and/or did not discuss SRA specifically. So much of the responsibility for the removal of much of the content does not lie with Biaothanatoi, but with many other editors as well.
Editors with different perspectives are more than welcome to add reliable sources to the article, IMO, preferably peer reviewed sources or those from the mainstream media that take a serious well sourced unbiased look at the topic. As wikipedians, we should work together cooperatively to make the article the best it can be. ResearchEditor (talk) 07:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - I do not believe that SRA is a fringe topic. However, the overwhelming consensus in society and science would appear to suggest that any belief that Devil Worship and Satanic Rites are a significant factor in Child Sexual Abuse as a whole is definitely a fringe opinion. Please correct me, if you feel that this is a misrepresentation. forestPIG 12:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It would depend on what is meant by "a significant factor in Child Sexual Abuse as a whole." There are documented instances of SRA as well as legal convictions. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] orphan reference

The following book was inside a footnote following a different book:

Hudson, P. "Ritual Abuse: Discovery, Diagnosis and Treatment", Saratoga, CA, R&E Publishers, 1991

Since there are no page numbers in the footnote and applies to several sentences, it's unclear what the above source was intended to support, or if the combination of two books in one footnote was unintentional. So I'm moving the source here in case someone knows what it was intended to be used for. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emma Eckstein

The information on Emma Eckstein and Freud--and its placement in the "history" section--is very misleading and needs to be changed. First of all, here is the quote from Freud's letter to Fleiss:

"I am beginning to grasp an idea; it is as though in the perversions, of which hysteria is the negative, we have before us a remnant of a primeval sexual cult...I dream therefore of a primeval devil religion with rites that are carried on secretly, and understand the harsh therapy of the witches judges."

Note "it is as though" and "I dream"--Freud is speaking metaphorically, not literally. I find it very strange to see this used in SRA, because I have only previously encountered it in criticism of Freud (feminist, literary, postructuralist): Freud is making a fleeting, highly metaphorical, analogical statement about himself and his methods, and his attitude toward Emma Eckstein, not about Emma Eckstein or her disclosures in psychoanalysis. (Remember also that this is the patient whom Freud diagnosed as suffering from excessive masturbation which could be treated by nasal surgery, whose ill effects he attributed to hsyteria: "In a letter to Jung, Freud spoke of his "serene confidence" in his methods; few critics can share it. One has only to remember the case of Emma Eckstein. Freud claimed to have discovered a "nasal reflex neurosis" and linked it to excessive masturbation, and diagnosed Emma as suffering from it. He got his colleague Wilhelm Fliess to remove the turbinate bone from her nose. After her nose had bled and suppurated for many days, another surgeon found a mass of surgical gauze left in the wound. Its removal caused a near-fatal haemorrhage. The bleeding continued intermittently for months. Freud meditated on the problem, and concluded that Emma's bleeding was hysterical in nature, caused by her wish to bring him to her bedside."

I see in the Noblitt reference that Noblitt draws an analogy between one of Emma Eckstein's nightmares and "SRA," (and quotes Masson on "screen memories." I think it is fine to address this in the article, but it is tangential in the extreme and should not preface the history section; where it implies that the history of "SRA" extends back to Freud and Emma Eckstein, as that is a great misrepresentation. -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Further, I question the reliability of Noblitt as a source, as, on p 124 of Cult and Ritual Abuse Noblitt claims that Freud abandoned the seduction theory on grounds which he most certainly did not, and refers to Jeffrey Masson as his source! For anyone who has read this book or is familiar with this controversy (when and why Freud abandoned the seduction theory, according to Masson, who was director of the Freud archives and edited the definitive collection of Freud's letters to Fliess, Harvard U. Press,) this is patently false. Noblitt's argument seems to be "Freud did this after he wrote such and such letter, therefore there's a causal relationship"--that is not what Masson says at all, and it's great a distortion to imply that Masson said or implied this himself. -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have moved this section to talk for reworking/discussion:

A number of psychologists have noted the similarities between modern accounts of SRA, and the disclosures of Emma Eckstein to Sigmund Freud whilst undergoing psychoanalytic treatment.[1] Eckstein described to Freud experiences similar to the ritual abuse survivors of the 1970s, 80s and 90s, which included sexual abuse and ritual bloodletting. Freud was so disturbed by these disclosures that he stated "we may have before us a residue of a primaeval sexual cult".[2][3]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by PetraSchelm (talk • contribs)

[edit] possible multiple account use

In the page history today there are edits by the following two user ids that appear to be the same person:

as supported by the co-ordinated editing, contribs, and this diff.

I request that User:ScienceApologist tell us whether the above is correct or not, and if it is, thereby claim the IP edits made today.

If it's not correct, then an explanation of the noted diff and matching edits would be helpful so we can understand how that happened.

This is not a complaint about the user; I am assuming it was unintentional, simply editing while logged out. With that understood, unless the user declares the two accounts are separate, for purposes of editing and discussing on this page, I suggest that they be considered identical. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The above is not relevant to article editing. Whether I forget to log in or not is irrelevant. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Barring a pressing reason (i.e. the same anon starts !voting for contested changes), I don't see this ending fruitfully. How 'bout we let it die. People do make mistakes and unless there's a pressing need, pushing for resolution will end in unnecessary acrimony. Edits stand on their own or do not. WLU (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me - there's no need to continue discussing it.

I did not intend this as a complaint, as I noted.

It's just better to have it out in the open, so when two different user-id's revert the same content, all editors of the page understand that it's not two separate people agreeing. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Victor

I've finished Satanic Panic by Victor, (1993) and am planning on integrating it throughout the text. It's published by Open Court and written by a sociologist, so it's very high on the reliability scale. I've also got Evil Incarnate, and once I've been through it I will expand based on that as well. If anyone wants quotes or clarifications from either book feel free to request. My talk page might get my attention quicker, I don't know how much time I'll have for the expansions and I expect them to take several weeks. WLU (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed an excellent book. It is already used to source one sentence in the lead. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] misquoting of Noblitt

After reviewing the Noblitt book, I removed it from this sentence, because it does not support what the text stated:

Most contemporary secular academics dismiss the body of accusations as religious-inspired paranoia.

User:ScienceApologist reverted that change with this edit summary:

The word "paranoia" is mentioned in the book four times, none of which support that text:

"Leavitt (1994) found that with the exception of the Paranoia scale there were no significant differences between MMPI scores for a group of adults claiming to be ritual abuse survivors and a group of adults reporting childhood sexual but not ritual abuse. However, Leavitt noted that adults claiming to be ritual abuse survivors scored significantly higher on the Dissociative Experiences Scale in comparison with the reportedly sexually, but not ritually, abused control group."

The above does not refer to religious paranoia or commentary about SRA, it describes symtpoms. It appears to support the opposite of the claimed text, that specific symptoms may be associated with SRA.

"The ordinary concerns of the mental health professionals are compounded by those treating the effects of cult and ritual abuse. A sense of paranoia has sometimes been directed toward those providing treatment services to these survivors."

"It is the mission of the ICCRT [International Council of Cultism and Ritual Trauma] to study the issue of ritual abuse from a scientific perspective in order to reduce the hysteria, paranoia, and sensationalism frequently associated with this subject."

The above two uses of the word "paranoia" also describe religious paranoia as a cause or description of SRA, they use the term to describe resulting feelings that have been publicly associated with reports of SRA, a very different statement.

"Destructive apocalyptic cults promote fear and paranoia along with unfounded predictions that the world is about to end."

The above use of the word "paranoia" is part of an analysis of "destructive cults" that does not refer directly to anything related to the "body of accusations" about SRA.

Unless someone can find quotes from the source that I missed showing support for the wikitext, the source cannot be used for that sentence. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The books' main conclusion is in line with the sentence. What's more, you are engaging in divide-and-conquer parsing of meaning in an attempt to jockey for a different interpretation. Any reader of the book can see that the main point the authors are making is that SRA is a social phenomenon akin to the religious fervor whipped up in witchcraft trials, McCarthyism, inquisitions, etc. Trying to do a search for a particular word is ludicrous and is not how good research is done. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • As a side point which I believe is related, what the Jenkins abstract does say is: "The current concern over the occult has all the signs of a classic moral panic, where a peripheral issue suddenly assumes the proportions of a major social menace. In this case, the panic reflects the moral and political agenda of extremists representing the fundamentalist religious right, who are calling for the formation of "ritual crime task forces" comprised of local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies as well as extensive training for police officers."--this should be addressed in the article, I think. Nowhere is it mentioned clarified that in the early 90s, SRA was an issue du jour, which it is not now. We should describe this accurately, without conflating the previous popularity of/public focus on SRA with the topic itslef; they are different. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
That SRA is a topic is because of the fact that in the 90s it was an issue du jour. We cannot separate the paranoia and the moral panic from SRA because there is absolutely no academic evidence that this phenomenon exists independent of moral panic. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Er, some indication that this was an issue du jour and no longer is should be in the article. I do not see it on tv, read about it in newspapers; no one currently calling for "crime task forces" etc. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • While it is true that it is no longer in the public imagination and the media doesn't take the reports seriously as they once did, there are still those (especially in religious groups) who believe that SRA is a threat. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Are there sources for that? (I am new to this topic and wasn't even aware it was considered a "religious" issue). What is a) obvious b) sourced is that whatever was a big deal about this/what Jenkins refers to as "peripheral issue...assumes the proportions of a major social menace" is over. That statement is circa 1992. In 2008, it seems to have retreated to being a "peripheral issue" once again. (Can we date the decline of the "major social menace" period from any sources? I remember hearing about this in junior high, and not again until I began editing Wikipedia. Let's not be in a time warp). -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Yeah, there are sources for that. In fact, there is an entire church devoted to the issue: [2]. YMMV as to whether you consider these groups to be "peripheral" or not. No doubt that the paranoia has gone through a decline. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
          • I don't see anything on that site that provides references/a time frame for the decline of SRA as a popular topic. (I don't see anything about SRA at all. Also, what is YMMV?) -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
            • They don't believe that SRA has been on the "decline". They don't use the term "SRA" because they incorporate a whole lot of other ritual abuse claims as well, but essentially that's what they are railing against. They believe it is very much still a problem. YMMV=Your mileage may vary: or "You might have a different opinion, that's not out of the ordinary for this situation."—Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs)
              • Ok, but whether they believe it is on the decline or not has nothing to do with the fact that it has declined from public view/popular attention. Do we have sources for approximate dates that? There must be some, as it is the case. It's not 1992 anymore. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
@ SA/JAR - On a contested page like this, a page number is always better (and a book or chapter intro should work for this). I've access to the book (eventually), so if anyone wants me to independently corroborate what JAR has to say, I'm quite willing (though it will probably take a week or two and I've never seen a need to doubt JAR's word). Personally, Noblitt seems so unapologetically pro-"SRA exists" that I've trouble seeing this as his sole statement on the matter; I would expect him to follow it up with a "...but they're all wrong because of X." WLU (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
@PS - Victor also seems to back up the statement, though my gut says I'd be verging on OR to just say so and I'd much rather have page numbers as a touchstone.
@SA - the statement "Any reader of the book can see that the main point the authors are making is that SRA is a social phenomenon akin to the religious fervor whipped up in witchcraft trials, McCarthyism, inquisitions, etc" is backed up by Victor methinks, no need to use Noblitt if it's tenuous when Victor is explicit. WLU (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Fine with me, I guess. We have plenty of other citations for that sentence anyway. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] edits for undue weight and article style

I have restored this line "Others have noted historical accounts similar to SRA in the early-to-mid 20th century and dating back to medieval and ancient times" deleting the three word phrase "and religious historians" in the previous sentence. Kent deserves this much space if Victor can be cited nine times on the SRA page.

Since Victor was cited in one way or another nine times in the article, I deleted these two phrases bringing it down to seven times. "Therapists cite the pain expressed and the internal consistency of their patients' stories, as well as the similarity of allegations by different patients in geographically separate areas as evidence for the reality of the stories; despite this, the disclosures of patients have never resulted in the discovery of body parts or missing persons that would corroborate the allegations." and "One survey in the United States found that of 2709 practicing clinical psychologists, 1908 had no patients reporting SRA, 785 found one to two cases, and sixteen had treated more than one hundred patients reporting SRA, suggesting that a minority of therapists may be "highly predisposed" to see a disturbed clients as suffering from SRA." IMO, seven times is far too much weight for one author on the SRA page.

I added this to the supporters' section from the Utah task force article. "The Utah task force found evidence to support victims' allegations from local and national sources, including the successful prosecution of child abuse which had indisputable elements of ritual abuse and the documentation of mental health professionals."

I deleted this unrelated category. Category:Paranoia

I moved two statements from the header into their appropriate sections. It is undue weight to pick and choose arguments for the header. moved to critics' section : "Most academic treatments of the subject describe reports of SRA as a manifestation of a religiously-inspired moral panic." I also changed this to "some," since "most" is OR, unless a source cites this. moved to supporters' section : "Some researchers believe that SRA is linked to dissociative identity disorder." ResearchEditor (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

All of the above makes sense to me, good work. In particular, I agree that the word "most" in this sentence is original research: "Most academic treatments of the subject describe reports of SRA as a manifestation of a religiously-inspired moral panic." It's original research because although there are several sources that mention moral panic, the sources do not state that "Most academic treatments" describe it in that way. Without that in a source, it's a synthesis to generalize from several references to "most". There are other problems with that sentence also, for example, not all of the cited sources use the term "moral panic" and the ones that do do not uniformly describe it as religious in nature. The sources will need to be verified and the attributed statement improved further. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Kent is a journal article. Victor is a book. Kent is 12 pages. Victor is more than 400. I assumed Kent was a religious historian based on the journal but I'm wrong, they're both sociologists [3].
Victor's statement about therapists and their patients is important because it discusses the evidence for SRA, and therapists, who are one of the main groups who kept and keep SRA alive as a phenomenon, are explicitly singled out to discuss why they give credibility to SRA accounts. They're one of the few non-religious groups that Victor discusses as keeping SRA going and he singles out the interaction between religious and secular groups as one of the unique phenomenon of SRA. Ergo, also important. The same goes for the second mention removed - it speaks to evidence and what Victor, an informed commentator publishing in an academic source after extensive investigation into the social and evidentiary basis for SRA, thinks is important in the involvement and interaction between SRA and therapists. There's more coming, Victor is quite critical of the subject and again it is an excellent source. Authoritative sources can, and should be quoted extensively; see Rosalind_Franklin#Footnotes for another article that places huge emphasis on a limited number of authoritative sources. Victor is an entire book dedicated towards the discussion and analysis of SRA, with 36 pages of references. It's an excellent source to base the page on.
The lead was problematic, 'some' and 'all' are both weaselly; I've edited, but I'm not saying it's perfect.
The idea of Category:Paranoia is weird to me, I'd have to figure out what the criteria is before endorsing it's presence on the page.
The Utah report, which I re-skimmed yesterday, does not discuss evidence that I can see. It does say, on page 6, "The nature of ritual abuse, and the secret groups involved, must be considered in any discussion about evidence...Survivors report that such groups are extremely careful and highly skilled in destroying evidence of their crimes...What we do have as evidence are the accounts of victims. However, some victism can access only fragmentary memories of events that occurred year ago...The task force submits the following points of evidence from local and national sources: independent verification by victims unknown to each other of the same perpetrators, [recent abuse similar to abuse remembered from decades before], [independent reports in different states and foreign countries of identical ritual abuse], successful prosecution of case of child abuse which contain indisputible elements of ritual abuse and perhaps most persuasive of all, [patients getting better when memories are dealt with].
No hard evidence, and Victor deals with this - US social workers went throughout the US and the UK to give seminars on ritual abuse, distributing the same propaganda, the same Geraldo episode and the same discussion from 'experts'. There's no discussion of which cases were prosecuted, and Victor points to 36 cases that went forward but were not prosecuted for SRA (see Charlier, cited in Victor). Patients getting better is not evidence for SRA and the whole point of SRA is that memories recovered in therapy are not reliable, not supported and not evidence.
The Utah report is frankly bullshit. It's an apology for not finding evidence, and it does not provide hard evidence or further sources that could be mined for such. Further, I don't believe a state report is cited in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship or WP:SOURCE is singled out as trumping a scholarly book written by a university professor published by a scholarly press; in fact, WP:SOURCE singles out books published by respected publishing houses as one of the "most reliable sources". This is DUE weight, not undue weight; further, Victor is not a voice in the dark or a minority position. Other scholarly sources are also critical, including Frankfurter, Bibby, Spanos. The verifiable discussion of SRA that I've seen explored in scholarly sources is generally quite critical of the idea of SRA; I have not seen many researchers publishing serious discussions of the reality of SRA (therapists being a notable exception, though I wonder what would happen if you looked for post-2000 citations...) Reliable sources can not be discounted because they only endorse a single side of the issue, given the sources I'm turning up skepticism seems to be the majority position and per WP:UNDUE, should be give the appropriate weight. Reliable sources that verifiably discuss the reality of SRA should be sourced if they exist, and the more reliable the source, the more discussion it should get. WLU (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, Victor's book is far more reliable than Kent's article since it is more thorough. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exaggeration and this article

I see a problem with the recent addition to the text of comparisons to McCarthyism and medieval witch persecution. First of all, the witch persecutions went on for centuries, and killed tens of thousands of women. No one, to my knowledge, was burned at the stake as a result of being accused of SRA, let alone 200,000 + people. Nor did it last a decade, let alone for centuries. Second, McCarthyism was political, and the McCarthy blacklists extended their reach for decades and had a chilling effect on the general public. To compare these things to SRA is not only erroneous and exaggerated, it minimizes and disrespects the ills of the witch persecutions and McCarthyism. Surely SRA can be easily criticized without resorting to cherrypicked absurd hyperbole (and if not, enough information to adequately contextualize the things to which SRA is compared should be included). -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion in Victor and Frankfurter (I believe) is verifiable, and made by the authors. For us to say they're the same thing would be WP:OR. For them to say so is citeable and sourceable. It doesn't matter if it's true, it matters that it is verifiable. There's 14 pages citing the Red Scare in Victor, I can dig out specifics and quotes if you'd like. We may be sourcing it, but it is the authors that are saying it, which makes it legit. WLU (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
There's also editorial discretion--that's why we don't indiscriminately include everything that has ever been written about a topic/quote Victor and Frankfurter's entire book (esp. in the lead). What's also verifiable, per a quick google search, is that a great deal of random bloggers have made these comparisons, so that should be included in the lead as well (i.e., it's a mischaracterization to say that this is an "academic" assessment; that there's anything academic about it. ) -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
That may be an accurate observation or not, but that is the kind of judgement that is generally left to secondary sources. John Nevard (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
"McCarthyism" and "witch hunt" are words thrown around so much in general that they have become practically meaningless hyperbole. I think they cheapen the article and don't offer any actual criticism of SRA. -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, Debbie Nathan is used as an "academic" ref for this, and she is a journalist, not an academic. I just finished reading her SRA article in the VV--she makes some very good points, but she's also way off on some things. Not surprisingly for a journalist, the things she is way off about are academic (Freud, history of psychoanalysis, etc). -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "To compare these things to SRA is not only erroneous and exaggerated, it minimizes and disrespects..." (way above).

PetraSchelm: I've read Frankfurter's book. It was published by Princeton Univ. Press so it's a RS. I think it would be fair to say that for this professor of religious studies, Frankfurter, modern SRA (i.e., 1980s and 90s craze; it's basically dead now) was a witch-hunt similar to the medieval ones not in the sense of witch-burning, but of ruining the lives of many 20th century people. Quoting or rephrasing Frankfurter solves the problem. —Cesar Tort 17:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

@ PS: Mcarthyism and witchunt may get tossed around casually, but that's the explicit comparisons made on the sources. It's original research for us to compare it to witchhunts and the red scare, but it's not to cite a source that does and it is to try and come up with a new comparison that we feel is appropriate.
To discuss the bloggers, we would need a reliable source to cite; otherwise it's a synthesis to read them ourselves and produce a conclusion. The blood libel, witch hunt and red scare discussions are extensive in Victor at least, in Frankfurter as well from what I've read so far. I don't know about the other sources. The refs in the lead are a poor choice anyway since they're not extensively discussed in the body. WLU (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's a direct quote from Victor. It's not a convincing academic comparison--he makes zero attempt to analytically compare McCarthyism to satansim, he just casually uses the term. (He also pretty loosely and cavalierly throws around the word "hippie.") What seems clear also is that he is referring in general to the late 80s/early 90s "satanism" trend --all those parking lot stoners with Judas Priest tee shirts who were supposedly devil worshippers, etc:

Similarly, the terms "Satanism" and "satanic cult" are socially constructed labels, based upon preconceptions, rather than any direct, empirical study of what the labels presume to identify. In actual social usage, the label "Satanism" has vague and elastic meanings. In my collection of hundreds of small town newspaper articles, I've read the label "satanist" applied loosely to an assortment of teenage vandals and animal mutilators, teenage gang murderers and psychopathic murderers, child molesters and vicious rapists. The label "satanic cult" is used to refer to groups such as juvenile delinquent gangs, unconventional religious groups, or an imagined Mafia-style criminal syndicate; all of which are supposedly motivated by worship of the Devil. As far as I can determine, the attributions of "Satanism," "satanist," and "satanic cult" empirically refer only to a body of preconceptions, based only upon a culturally inherited legend, ideological propaganda, distorted perceptions of real incidents, false testimonies, and misinformation. A note of caution is necessary, however. This does not exclude the possibility that some people might apply the label of "satanist" to themselves, as do some teenage juvenile delinquents, and even some psychopathic murderers. In the same way, some people in the 1960s labeled themselves "hippies" or "radicals." The social process of self-fulfilling prophesy is also part of the social construction of a new form of deviance. The satanic cult scare is in many ways similar to the "Red Scare" of the 1950s, in the sense that it is a witch hunt for moral "subversives" and supposed criminals engaged in a highly secretive conspiratorial network. It is a collective overreaction to claims about crimes, which are supposedly committed by well-organized groups following a religious ideology involving worship of the Devil. Stories, rumors, and allegations about Satanism and satanic cults arise from people's preconceptions to find Satanism in unrelated incidents and activities.

-PetraSchelm (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but the point is that he made it, and then published it at Open Court. It doesn't have to be convincing or true, it just has to be verifiable. And it is - first sentence of the last paragraph is an explicit comparison between the Red Scare and SRA. WLU (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
He says a lot of other things that are "verifiable" also, but they aren't in the lead. Should we add that in the same breath he compared satanists to hippies? (I could almost see "witch hunt" because there's some religious-themed continuity, but "McCarthyism" is too far-fetched and needs an actual analytic justification. It's senseless hyperbole that 1) cheapens the article 2) offers no actual criticism 3) is really disrespectful to victims of McCarthyism...-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Senseless hyperbole or not it's sourced. To understand Victor et al without taking the trouble of reading heavy stuff like Frankfurter's, I'd recommend watching Indictment: The McMartin Trial, produced by Oliver Stone, who also opposes McCarthyism. —Cesar Tort 18:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
"Opposes McCarthyism" doesn't make grammatical sense, but I'll assume you meant that Oliver Stone draws a parallel between McMartin and McCarthyism--Oliver Stone, who is a pop culture film director, made Natural Born Killers and JFK. Oliver Stone who is not a credible academic authority, and has been notoriously criticized in film reviews for his "heavy handed style." -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(bing)Ah, that's the glory and wonder of verifiability, not truth. Were we searching for truth, we could erase this whole page because it beggars the imagination that intergenerational satanic cults could kill millions of people each year and not be detected until after Michelle Smith started screaming in therapy one day. But as long as a reliable source says 'millions were killed', it's totally legit for the page. If another source says 'but that's complete bullshit because there's no body', that's legit too. And glory to wikipedia. For us to judge a source and say "Victor's opinion can be discounted because he compares satanists to hippies and radicals" (the subtext of the lead) is original research, and ignores the four other references present as well as the other parts of the book where he discusses the similarities between SRA/communism/witches. The point is that he (along with several others - Snedeker & Nathan, Jenkins, Jenkins & Maier-Katkin, probably Frankfurter) said it, not if we (and by proxy, wikipedia's readers) believe him or not. WLU (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

On what page numbers does any other reference say this? Also, adding more from Jeffery is not OR, it's WP:V. What you haven't made is an argument for how this is useful criticism of SRA/how it enhances the article and is so significant that it should be in the lead. I could go around Wikipedia adding "witch hunt" and "McCarthyism" to the lead of several hundered articles on the basis of your argument, which is "someone said it." Very little that is controversial isn't either a witch hunt or McCarthyism according to at least one source. (And now that I've read some of Victor, I have to say that the article should clearly differentiate "satanism" in general from SRA/who is saying what about what.--is there an article addressing the "satanism" trend of late 80s/early 90s? I haven't looked.) -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

PetraSchelm: I don't like at all Stone's films JFK and Natural Born Killers. I was only making the point that watching this Indictment HBO movie gives the picture why some writers use terms such as witch-hunt or McCarthyism hysteria. —Cesar Tort 19:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If "witch hunt" and "McCarthyism' are used in the lead, then a subtantive paragraph should be in the body of the article explaining what is meant. Since the criticisms of SRA don't boil down to "witch hunt" and "McCarthysim," that paragraph won't be possible. So the use of the words in the lead is just cheap and meaningless. (Frankly, when anyone says "witch hunt" or "McCarthyism" I immediately tune them out as a crank). -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hard numbers

According to Debbie Nathan," From 1984 to 1989, some 100 people nationwide were charged with ritual sex abuse; of those, 50 or so were tried and about half convicted." That sounds about right, but are there more/better sources which can give hard numbers of the number of people involved? Two things which I would say are missing from this article, and should be in the lead or very high up, are a clear time frame and hard numbers--when did this happen? How many people? It looks approximately like 1984-1994/200 or so. Without this basic when/who information, the article isn't very informative for readers who come to it knowing nothing/very little. -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence section

The "evidence" section was written in a way to make it seem like the evidence for ritual abuse is credible. Most academics researching the subject do not see it this way. Thus this section is extremely biased and not NPOV. I tagged the section appropriately. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well done! WP:undue applies here. —Cesar Tort 16:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
My does this page go in waves. Since acquiring new sources, I'm seeing the page in a new light and firmly believe it needs a thorough re-working. There's lots of reliable sources, which makes our job easier. Less reliable sources should be gradually filtered out and replaced with reliable ones. This goes for both skeptical and non-skeptical. There's lots of literature in Dissociation and other therapy journals that should be tapped. I'm posting an appeal on User talk:Jack-A-Roe 'cause I've always found him helpful before regards turning up highly reliable sources and integrating them gracefully.
The key issues and focus for ALL editors should be a) finding reliable sources and b) summarizing them accurately. There seems to be a wealth of them, far more than the page gives reason to expect. They should be integrated irrespective of position. WLU (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I happen to agree with your evaluation of JAR. On the other hand, if you need sourcing from Frankfurter's book, I can help. It was an awful read: the professor has a nasty habit of writing opaque prose like Michel Foucault's study of psychiatry. But it's a RS and could be useful. —Cesar Tort 17:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It's very skimmable, right now I'm glossing over 17th century witchcraft and demonology; in 17 pages I hit the discussion of SRA, yay! WLU (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other quotes from Victor, circa 1991

"By the end of the 1980s, the label "ritual abuse" had become accepted as a distinct pattern of behavior by many police, journalists, therapists, and social workers. The prefix "satanic cult" was quickly dropped from the term "ritual abuse" in order to make the concept more acceptable to secular audiences, such as trial juries and newspaper readers, who might reject satanic cult conspiracy theories as being too bizarre to be credible." --this would make it appear that "secular audiences" were never very credulous/susceptible to a "moral panic" in the first place.

"In other cases of actual sexual abuse, for example, child molesters may deliberately use threats of magic spells, witches, and demons in order to intimidate the children, but not as part of any commitment to a satanic ideology."--isn't this similar to something Lanning says, as well--that there are disturbed "faux satanists" who have found this a convenient tactic? -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a bucket of discussion on 'types' that's never really been tapped - see this document for instance. Victor goes into this, and the types of offenders, Lanning does so I believe, and I think I've seen it elsewhere also - Bibby, citing Finkelhor. Scott, 2001 (The Politics and Experience of Ritual Abuse: Beyond Disbelief) also discusses varying definitions, and compares SRA to witch hunting. No communism showed up in the index unfortunately :(
It would be a credit to the article if the different definitions were sourced and integrated into the article, particularly because it could get at the range of beliefs that exist - millions of multigenerational victimisers acting at the highest levels of power in society (never been substantiated) all the way down to Joe Random Killer who beat his victim to death with the satanic bible. Depending on your definition of SRA, it may exist. The latter is verified, while the former is not, but the former forms much of the focus on SRA in the 80s and 90s. Victor talks mostly about the multigenerational conspiracy in Satanic Panic, but others offer a more fine-grained analysis and proof that turns up examples of the 'satanism to scare victims' or 'random crazy abuser' versions which are the only verified (and I'm guessing prosecuted) cases in courts. WLU (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, that sounds good. Are there sources you can point me to for further reading? (I don't really know very much about this). Also, I just did a wiki search for other satansim articles, and I didn't see a general one such as "satanism in the 80s/90s." My dim memory of this time is that there seemed to be a bunch of cases of teenaged misfits wrongfully branded as "satanic killers, " such as Damien Echols (per the excellent documentaries by Joe Berlinger. The whole evangelical fundamentalist "there are a bazillion satanic murders" could be treated in more depth in an article like that, too. I think there's overlap between the idea of SRA and satanism trend of late 8os/early-to-mid 90s, but they are also distinct enough for separate articles. (Forgive me if there is one and I just missed it somehow in cursory search). -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This short article gives the picture. —Cesar Tort 19:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
That article is crap; I meant the relevant academic sources. (I've already heard the "did satan f*ck you in a** before or after naptime?" popular press sort of thing. Not that I discount it, it's just not academic and I'm a snob! :-). -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
You might want to skim the archives for a history of the discussion here (you might not, there's 6 of them and they're not short). As for web sources, try a google scholar search of "satanic ritual abuse". There's also some sources here, but they're mostly paper. There's also the list of satanic ritual abuse allegations. Not a ton of good stuff on the web unfortunately, I'd suggest skimming the sources on the page and reviewing [www.religioustolerance.org religious tolerance] if you're looking for a basic overview rather than more stuff to integrate - it's not a viable source, but it's a decent overview and it matches what I've read in Victor reasonably (rough memory though, I've not read it in a while). The Skepdic entry has been rejected as a reliable source, a pity as it's also a reasonable starting point and overview (though incestuous with RT.org). Lanning's also a very reasonable starting point, and should be reviewed in order to expand its use as a source as well. As far as on-line pubmed and other peer-reviewed journals, there's not that much. One of the issues here is a lack of recent interest in the online, searchable, full-text source world, which is why books are playing a pretty big role. Personally I think there's an overemphasis on the 'credulous' sources on the page right now - the books I've been skimming do not cite them and there's a huge disparity between what I've been reading and what is extant. As satanism says, it's a variety and much of the popular focus is on LaVey (LeVay?) satanism. I don't see an actual overlap (I believe LaVey/LeVay is a secular phenomenon with no real supernatural connections, it's more about absolute self-interest, SRA is usually unapologetically about the supernatural). WLU (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pubmed

This comes up in a search for "satanic abuse"/I don't see it in refs in the article or have access to the full text right now. -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

1: J Clin Forensic Med. 1997 Dec;4(4):188-91. Links Satanic abuse, with focus on the situation in Finland.

Segerberg M. Department of Anatomy, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. This paper outlines Satanism and devil worship as practised in the Western countries and reviews the occurrence of Satanism in Finland. Two principal groups can be distinguished: the Satanists, mainly adults embracing the philosophical aspects of Satanism with no interest in hurting others, and the devil worshippers of Satanic cults, who accept teenagers into their group and whose activity may take violent forms. The main Satanic cult activity is vandalism, but other activities are now becoming more aggressive: causing bodily and mental harm to members and victims and luring young people into criminal activity. The views of the police and the medical community are discussed in this paper and current intervention is examined.

teen "satanists"

This cite demonstrates satanism-as-antisocial-acting-out, not "supernatural": -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

1: Adolescence. 1992 Winter;27(108):855-72.Links Satanism as a response to abuse: the dynamics and treatment of satanic involvement in male youths.

Belitz J, Schacht A. Program for Children and Adolescents, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque 87131. Male youths from abusive family environments may be particularly vulnerable to recruitment into satanic cults. Families that are abusive, devalue or invalidate the abused child's feelings, blame the child for the family's problems, and view the world in rigidly moralistic terms create environments in which the youths are likely to identify with the aggressor and label themselves as evil. These youths, who may have poor social skills and feelings of anger, low self-esteem, self-blame, depression, powerlessness, and isolation as a result of the abuse, may use satanic involvement as a means of legitimizing their experience and differentiating from a negatively enmeshed and/or abusive family system. In this paper, the etiological factors and treatment approaches of ten hospitalized boys who had voluntarily involved themselves in repeated group satanic activities during their adolescence are described, and two case illustrations are given. Recommendations for understanding and treating such cases are provided. PMID: 1471565

Primary care physician article

I don't see this used a ref either--once again the "teenage dabbler" distinction. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

1: Prim Care. 1993 Jun;20(2):447-58 Sadistic ritual abuse. An overview in detection and management.

Young WC. National Center for the Treatment of Dissociative Disorders, Denver, Colorado. Sadistic ritual abuse, including satanic cult abuse, is emerging as a syndrome among people with severe dissociative disorders, including multiple personality disorder. This article discusses the essential features that compose the clinical picture of sadistic ritual abuse in adults, adolescents, and children. Particular attention is paid to the differences between adolescents who may have been victimized by adults in sadistic and ritualized ways and disenfranchised "teenage dabblers" who may temporarily adopt a ritualized lifestyle as a way of expressing or acting out. The article also covers guidelines for appropriate medical, pharmacologic, and referral interventions. The controversy surrounding sadistic ritual abuse is discussed thoroughly, and primary care physicians are advised of the current status of understanding and validation in this area. PMID: 8356163

Witch comparison

Here's a credible academic comparison of SRA to witch trials: -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

1: Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1997 Dec;6(4):219-26.Links False allegations of satanic abuse: case studies from the witch panic in Rättvik 1670-71.

Sjöberg RL. The creation of false memories, psychiatric symptoms and false allegations of satanic child abuse during an outbreak of witch hysteria in Sweden in the seventeenth century are described and related to contemporary issues in child testimonies. Case studies of 28 children and 14 adults are presented. The mechanisms underlying the spread of these allegations, as well as the reactions and influence of the adult world on the children's testimonies, are discussed. PMID: 9443001

Another source

I don't see this in the refs in the article, either. Would like to see the full text of Questions relating to issues of reliability, credibility and verifiability are addressed in depth, and the findings and implications are discussed. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

1: Child Abuse Negl. 1991;15(3):181-9.Links Comment in: Child Abuse Negl. 1991;15(3):163-70. Child Abuse Negl. 1991;15(3):171-3. Child Abuse Negl. 1991;15(3):175-9. Child Abuse Negl. 1991;15(4):609-13. Patients reporting ritual abuse in childhood: a clinical syndrome. Report of 37 cases.

Young WC, Sachs RG, Braun BG, Watkins RT. National Center for the Treatment of Dissociative Disorders, Denver, CO 80220. Thirty-seven adult dissociative disorder patients who reported ritual abuse in childhood by satanic cults are described. Patients came from a variety of separate clinical settings and geographical locations and reported a number of similar abuses. The most frequently reported types of ritual abuse are outlined, and a clinical syndrome is presented which includes dissociative states with satanic overtones, severe post-traumatic stress disorder, survivor guilt, bizarre self abuse, unusual fears, sexualization of sadistic impulses, indoctrinated beliefs, and substance abuse. Questions relating to issues of reliability, credibility and verifiability are addressed in depth, and the findings and implications are discussed. PMID: 2043970

Teenagers and satanic cults...

Here's another source for that. (Again, this seems like an early 90s fad to me, and that there should be a separate article about it). -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

1: Tex Med. 1991 Oct;87(10):74-6.Links High-risk adolescents and satanic cults.

Ahmed MB. Rosedale Psychiatric and Counseling Center, Fort Worth, TX 76104. During the last decade the number of teenagers involved in violent behavior and drug abuse increased significantly. Some of these adolescents were involved in Satanic cult activities. Although sensationalism is created by isolated incidents like the Matamoros murders and Geraldo's media coverage of satanism, our observation, in a private psychiatric hospital, reveals that in fact adolescents involved in satanic cults do not differ from other adolescents admitted with a variety of other problems. Psychodynamic factors, family dynamics, and treatment strategies for management of adolescents who are involved in satanic cult activities are discussed. PMID: 1962303

Changed section headings to bold titles, corrected pubmed number and integrated. WLU (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Don't do it again, please

PetraSchelm:

You just removed my last post:

Please add your signature at the bottom of your post to avoid confusion. Thank you. —Cesar Tort 23:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't do it again. And it is advisable, according to WP guidelines, to place the signature in the proper place. You also have removed my {unsigned} tamplates. The bot will add the template anyway.

—Cesar Tort 00:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I left you a message on your talkpage, are you ignoring it/shall I recopy it here? -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "unsigned
  • When I make a comment and then quote something long, I sign after my comment, not after the quote, so that it's clear where my comment ends. It's intentional. Stop putting *"unsigned" after the quotes. Thanks, -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)" And no, the bot doesn't add the template, because I sign--where I think it is appropriate. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It is against the WP rules to remove the post of another editor. Thanks for not removing it again. —Cesar Tort 00:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep removing it whenever I see it even now that I understand it's not a mistake but intentional harassment. (I'd just stop doing it if I were you). Cheers, -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
As I said, WP doesn't allow the removal of polite posts such as the one you removed ("Please add your signature at the bottom of your post to avoid confusion. Thank you. —Cesar Tort 23:53, 5 June 2008"). —Cesar Tort 00:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
WP doesn't allow harassment either, so now that you understand that I sign after my comments and not after something I didn't write, drop it. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not harassing anyone. Just pointing out talk page policies. —Cesar Tort 00:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I think posting it here instead of responding on your talkpage was harassment. But, WP:TP is a guideline, not a policy, which specifies sign, not sign where Cesar would prefer. So now that that's settled, drop it. Cheers,-PetraSchelm (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I was not talking about signatures, but about deleting another editor's posts. —Cesar Tort 00:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't a "post" it was a one-line note to me next to "unsigned" that you should have put on my talkpage, and to which I replied on your talkpage; i.e., a misuse of this talkpage, as is this conversation, which you insisted on having here...so, for the last time, I will sign where I decide is best, and you should drop the petty harassment as I'm sure it's quite boring for everyone else. -PetraSchelm (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "for the last time, I will sign where I decide is best".
Again, this was not the issue. And yes: it's getting boring. Good bye. —Cesar Tort 02:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Bye! -PetraSchelm (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It's generally rude to edit another's comments beyond formatting long hyperlinks and similar minor changes. Deleting text isn't usually a good idea, if nothing else than because you'll have to work together later and acrimony doesn't help that. The important thing is that the editor's comment is separate from any quotation attributed to someone else. You could use [example.com hyperlinks],
“ cquotes ”

or

Blockquotes

so long as it is clear. WLU (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] recent biased and POV edits

It is interesting that Stephen Kent, a noted sociologist with several peer-review articles on SRA is given a few words on the page, while Victor is given nine references which is definitely undue weight for any author, never mind Victor. This is obviously due to the POV of their stances, not a balanced approach.

The statement: "Some researchers believe that SRA is linked to dissociative identity disorder." becomes "Allegations of and treatment for SRA has been linked to dissociative identity disorder" which changes the meaning and accuracy of the statement. Yet the article itself shows that some researchers do believe this.

"==Evidence==" becomes "==Claims of evidence==" and "Nonetheless, there are some research findings that shed some light on the prevalence of SRA." gets deleted and the entire section is labeled as: NPOV-section

religious tolerance and skepdic, self published and incredibly biased one-sided pages, some with unverifiable research and lots of advertisements are now seen as reliable sources, while reliable sources from scholars in the field showing the existence of SRA are deleted from the page.

Statements are made on this talk page, like "SRA is usually unapologetically about the supernatural" are made, when there are a great deal of journal evidence and media reports that do not even mention this.

In essence, the page is being changed to reflect the POV of a couple of editors, instead of being an accurate view of the peer-reviewed literature and the salient major media outlets.ResearchEditor (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added a tag: NPOV-section to the skepticism section. I dispute the neutrality of this section. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Did you read the part where Kent is an article and Victor is a friggin' book? It's not undue weight, it's due to the length of the sources.
I don't believe rt.org and skepdic are used on the page, so there's no real need to discuss them. I was pointing them out to PS as an overview of the subject, they will not be re-added to the page as there's plenty of reliable sources available. My comments in that section were to provide an overview of the field, I will, as always, edit per what can be verified in reliable sources and will hold other edits to the same standard.
The page is being edited to reflect what can be verified in relialbe sources. If you do not like the direction of the page, find equally reliable sources that present what you believe is relevant. The page is not POV because you do not like the contents. The page is POV if the sources are cherry-picked to provide only one side, if they are mis-represented, or if reliable sources are deleted. This has not happened, the unreliable sources are being gradually removed and replaced with reliable ones. It's a state of fact that wikipedia prefers academic sources over non-academic ones (and random web pages) and much of the academic discussion is critical. I agree that the sections are not neutral, I think they unfairly give credence to the limited 'evidence' that exists (mostly testimonies from psych patients who have had dubious treatments). My sources are critical of the reality of SRA, I will be editing accordingly. I can provide quotes if you'd like, you can verify by reading the books yourself, but complaining because you don't like the source or what it makes is not a legitemate way of editing the page. This is about verifiability, not truth. WLU (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, you must state why you dispute the neutrality of the section. Are references missing? Then add them. Are references mis-represented? Discuss a better portrayal of them. That'll help us negotiate a better page. To reply directly, the page is being changed to reflect what can be found in reliable sources. That's a good thing. I'm perfectly willing to edit for the other side if you can provide the sources. WLU (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Rationale for my recent edits: I have added the tags of NPOV (ex: the intro) and UNDUE (ex:Victor) on the top of the page. I have explained this in part previously on this page, but I will reiterate these arguments here. Reliable sources are not being "deleted" but those that support the existence of SRA are being shrunken and those skeptical of the existence of SRA from the same sources are being expanded. Victor is an excellent example of this. Yes, he did write a book. But nine references is definitely undue weight for him, as well as the number of words attributed to his ideas. This issue has not been addressed but needs to be. I attempted to delete a few of them, but was reverted. No other book in the article even comes close to nine refs. At this point, sources are being "cherry picked" to support the skeptical side of the argument. Even section titles are being changed, like "allegations of evidence." And statements are being changed to weaken the side that believes in the existence of SRA. The prior shunting of the criminal cases to another page even further weakens the case of the existence of SRA. Surely the more verifiable cases with SRA convictions, like Hammond, LA should be on this page. My recent edits today have been an attempt to bring reliable sources in to help balance the page. Let's see if these edits are worked with and allowed to stay, or if the continued "shrinking" of certain sources due to their POV continues. ResearchEditor (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Why do you believe undue weight is placed on Victor? Your addition of sources should stay (though I'd be really curious to see what the guts of the French article is) because they're reliable sources. Victor is a book, one that comprehensively addresses the SRA phenomenon, and is from an academic press. Why do you believe it is undue weight, particularly when multiple other scholarly books agree with its contents? WLU (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Now Victor is up to 17 citations. This is well beyond undue weight now. There are only 78 references in the entire article. You might believe Victor "comprehensively addresses the SRA phenomenon" and I might believe that Noblitt's book does, yet that does not give either of us the editorial leeway to give one person 20 to 25% of the citations in the article. I do appreciate your not editing out my reliable sources though. I disagree with the removal of both Benschoten and Paley's lines. They are both RS and should be restored. ResearchEditor (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(bing)I've a couple responses to this:

  1. I don't believe there is a policy in that limits the number of uses to which a source can be put. It would be silly, if not downright stupid, to only be allowed to use each source once and we'd have to pick which use it was. Fortunately we don't have to do so.
  2. See here, where a journal article is used 38 times. Highly reliable sources that comprehensively address a topic should be used extensively.
  3. See creationism - pages of topics that are fringe, and SRA is such a thing in its 'strong' version, don't give much credit to the highly unreliable sources of the 'pro' side.
  4. Read WP:UNDUE carefully. Undue weight is when a minority viewpoint is given excessive prominence in an article. Skepticism is not a minority position on the subject of SRA within most scholarly circles. Ergo, skepticism gets much of the sourcing. Noblitt is published by Greenwood Publishing Group (via Praeger); it's a reliable source by a reliable publisher. It can not be discounted and will doubtless be a good book to use on the page - there is certainly no reason not to and I would never countenance discarding a source because I don't agree with it. I've a copy at my library, so I'll take it out on the next trip, read it and source with it. I was prepared to give SRA its share of credibility until I started reading up on it and finding out that the scholarly opinion is mostly negative. The majority position is that SRA was a panic that had no real factual basis, and interest has died off. A sizeable minority still give it credit, and Noblitt is one of them. Ergo, it gets screen time if the sources are reliable. It would be undue weight to portray the 'believer' minority as the majority. I'm helping ensure this is not occurring.
  5. Notice that in many of the cases where Victor is used, there is a compounding reference that also justifies the statement. This is because Victor is the majority position, not the minority. WLU (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I would disagree that the theory of "satanic panic" is a majority opinion in the literature or the media. This point has not been proven. Even if it had, this would not allow for 17 uses of the same author's opinion. If this is truly a majority opinion, then there would be no need to cite the same author 17 times. If one looks at the www, there are numerous websites, etc. about SRA stories. Van Benschoten and Paley both are RS and cite more than Finklehor, hence they should be restored to the article. And when Victor discusses another article, his opinion is included in this article, so they should also. Panic theories in general are unsupported and unproven. When a concept reaches the public eye, its increased recognition may simply be due to its being more noticed. This is what happened to CSA and rape. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Re 'proven', the large number of scholarly books that converge on skepticism seems to verify that credibility is the norm and the media is mostly irrelevant in scholarly matters. Re: 17 refs, unless there's a policy or guideline that limits the number of times a specific reference can be used then there's no real reason to reduce it since each citation is to support a different statement/idea. WWW sites are not reliable sources, so it's not valid to compare them and their opinions to a book published by a scholarly press (particularly stories - last time I checked case studies and testimonials weren't considered great means of describing medical or scholarly matters). Van B and Paley can be used, just not for their previous purposes. If you can figure another way to include them, feel free - they're in the 'holding section' for a reason. You can't seriously compare SRA with CSA and rape. WLU (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
As I previously stated, the problem with the 17 citations is WP:UNDUE. One author is being given 17 citations. "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." I strongly doubt that Victor and his viewpoints are more prominent than anyone else writing about the field to the extent he deserves 17 citations, while all other refs get one or two. This would mean he is 8.5 to 17 times more prominent than each of the other references.
There are also many reliable sources written about SRA that verify its existence. But they are missing from the article. I disagree with the recent edit made to the Hammond info on SRA. This edit is POV and weakens the content of a very reliable source. ResearchEditor (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] From a review of Victor's book in the Sociology of Religion

I found this very interesting, because it seems to address one of the conflicts regarding this article: The tension between "it's all and only a moral panic" and "there have been cases of satanic abuse" as an either/or proposition. The review speaks of this directly; an "it's all a moral panic" view is ostensibly "invalidated" if there is even one substantiated case. The truth could be more like, there could have been a handful of cases and a moral panic about them; it's not an either/or proposition. -PetraSchelm (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Satanic Panic: The Creation of a Contemporary Legend. - book reviews Sociology of Religion, Fall, 1994 by Thomas Robbins [4]

“ "A 'scare' or 'panic' exists when the magnitude of the concern and agitation is disproportionate relative to the magnitude of the actual threat. Debunking constructionists need to be more explicit on this score, else rare verified instances of "Satanic crimes" may appear to invalidate their analysis. Satanic "atrocities" probably exist from time to time. If they do not exist before they are "exposed" on Geraldo or Oprah, they are likely to exist afterwards; indeed, Victor seems to ignore the probable self-fulfilling quality of a media-fueled panic.

Satanic or otherwise supernaturalist motivated child abuse is not a negligible problem. Increasing religious pluralism has its dark side, e.g., the spread of Afro-Cuban spirit religion will increase the likelihood that eccentric offshoots of such religions will go beyond the mere sacrifice of chickens and goats as practiced in Santeria. But claims made by many moral entrepreneurs are amazing (e.g., this reviewer heard someone on a Christian television station claim that over half of the nation's missing children are victims of satanic cults!)"

 ”
I actually dislike including this in the page - I don't like 'this person said X and this other person said Y' bits in general. I'd use this to expand some text, not to qualify Victor (though if it's explicit enough, I might add a "...though this has been disputed (because)"). I'll have to review the entire review to comment further, but I liked the NYT addition, good stuff. WLU (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
"I dislike it" isn't sufficient reason--the point to answer is whether the criticism from this Sociology of Religion book review frames a central conflict, to wit: excluding the possibility that there have been isolated cases in a "moral panic" totality model sets up a totality model which is then "invalidated" by the confirmation of isolated cases. (From my brief perusal of sources and this page, it appears to be a central conflict here, as well. There's not a clear separation between what is meant by "there is no evidence/it was all a moral panic"--there is no evidence to support an organized, large scale cult conspiracy involving a large number of victims, and there was a moral panic about that in the late 80s/early 90s. But there is evidence of isolated cases). What still seems to be the case is erroneous "moral panic totality model" vs. stringing together isolated cases to make them appear to be evidence for something they are not/evidence for organized cults instead of isolated cases...-PetraSchelm (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
If I'd thought "I dislike it" were sufficient, I'd have removed it :) I think it can be better used though; once we have a 'definitions' section set up, I think it will slot nicely in there as a qualification that it's not black (intergenerational, international conspiracy) or white (moral panic). It's definitely a good source to have, well found. WLU (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, good enough. Incidentally, I read the sample chapter of Frankfurter online, and noted that it is a strictly religious analysis--he says outright that he is not addressing the subject sociologically/completely discounts cultural/historical analysis. This is in stark contrast to Nathan, whose analysis includes the sociological observation/theory that anxiety about women's changing role in the workplace/leaving kids in daycare sparked panic about that which gave way to irrational fears. I think there should be more clarity about the different critical angles. Also clarity about religious/secular. It does appear that there were two groups involved, fundamentalist Christians and therapists, who endorsed SRA differently and for different reasons. Also we have Victor noting as early as 1991 that "satanic" was dropped by the secular crowd in favor of "ritual." This is all kind of jumbled together in the article right now--I'd like to see some refs on the fundamentalists and what exactly they said--Sociology of Religion mentions a fundy radio program declaring that "half of all missing children were abducted by satanic cults." There are two groups, secular (therapists) and religious (fundamentalist christians), and more than one strain of criticism, including secular (Nathan) and religious (Frankfurter). None of this is really clear in the article text--it's hard for readers to parse out who said/asserted what and who criticized it and why. -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Victor talks about the role of anxiety in the satanic panic, for him it's more about job loss and economic stuff. He also discusses how the 'grass roots' of the panic are blue collar, rural, conservative religious groups/people. And backs up the two groups of people who started/keep it going. It's a piecemeal article and has for a very long time placed emphasis (too much) on popular sources and individual incidents (why the list was farmed out) at the expense of scholarly stuff. Frankfurter from what I've read is not strictly strictly religious, he covers a lot of ground. I agree with what I'm seeing and I'm guessing most of the scholarly stuff coverges on an interpretation of 'panic, over-reaction and some tenuously related actual incidents'. I should stop spamming talk pages and start inserting! WLU (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This is from chapter 1 of Frankfurter:

"So rather than attributing every incident to its particular social, political, and intellectual context, this study suggests that there are meaningful patterns across them: "something" about abducted and abused or sacrificed children, "something" about a secret counter-religion bent on corruption and atrocity, "something" about people whose inclinations and habits show them to be not quite people, and "something" about the authoritative way these stories are presented. There exists, in some sense, a myth of evil conspiracy--using "myth" in the sense of master narrative rather than false belief."

So, that's his clear, stated thesis--he is not analyzing anything in its particular sociopolitical context; he's arguing a "master narrative" theory. -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The quote Petra takes from a rather extensive review is a bit cherry-picked. The overall tenor of the review is positive and, in fact, this criticism is rather minor. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "positive"--there's nothing "positive" or "negative" about noting the observation. As far as the article goes, that observation was lacking, and provides clarity. -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm content to ask that people start working with the article to expand, source, re-word, reorganize and eliminate - methinks the back and forth on the talk page is going to end up in quibbling when I think we'd mostly agree with specific edits. Or, I could be wrong. If I've a bit of time, I will try to plug in more from Victor and draft a 'definitions' section. WLU (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements

This doesn't contain any mention of "blood libel" or "McCarthyism," but it does contain "witch hunt," so I'm going to move the ref to "witch hunt." It also contains interesting speculation on when precisely the "moral panic" ended, and suggests that it was 1995. Goes on to note that we can be safely assured it was well over by 1999, because the mass media did not claim Columbine was satanic. A direct quote is "In mainstream discourse, the ritual abuse idea is extinct." (This is all p239-249, which can be viewed on Google books under the search within- the- book fucntion using "witch hunt"). -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DID section replaced

I'm not sure why dissociative identity disorder was stuck in another section but I've moved it back out. I've seen the DID/SRA connection discussed by multiple sources and plan on expanding. WLU (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kent - request quote

ResearchEditor - in this edit you added Kent, 1993, which states "It is entirely possible that intergenerational satanists do exist, and that many of them sanctify their actions partly by claiming they perform them in order to placate what they believe to be the god of this world." I have emphasized the possible. Could you provide a quotation of the sentences before and after that statement please? I wonder if Kent goes on to further qualify the possibility. A claim that something is possible is not exactly a ringing endorsement. It's possible that I'm a brain in a jar, but I doubt it. If you can't provide the quote then my library does have copies and I can verify myself. WLU (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO, this phrase sums up Kent's beliefs fairly well. Kent basically states that he takes the allegations of SRA survivors very seriously, yet cannot verify their accounts 100%. If you still need the exact lines before and after, let me know. ResearchEditor (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Nope, I'll see about picking it up on my next trip to the library. Thanks, though. WLU (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Holding spot

I'd like to re-integrate this one but right now I'm pressed for time. I removed it from its former location as it was used to justify 'there's corroborated allegations, but I think it's corroboration was Finkelhorn, which is already cited - this is not multiple corroborations, this is multiple citations of the same study. Proper would be/have been Finkelhorn, cited in van Benschoten, but since we have the primary source we don't need this one. Ditto for Paley, and the description of the typology is fourfold, not just one, and look to be idiosyncratic to Paley. WLU (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, re-reading van Benschoten, she states on page 1 that "While professional literature on the topic of satanic ritual abuse is nearly non-existent..." This may have been true in 1990 (or 1989 when the article would have been been submitted for publication) but now there is a much greater wealth of extremely reliable sources, rendering this article's opinions on the extant support of SRA moot (and explaining citations of popular books and cassettes). Making me more reluctant to use it in the page. WLU (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hammond et al.

Anyone have Hammond et al. 1998 who's willing to look through it for a critical view of SRA? It gets very good reviews and got an award, unfortunately my libraries don't have it. WLU (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] more biased and POV edits and misrepresentation of sources

In general, some of the recent edits once again have soften or eliminated the evidence of the existence of SRA, changing sources' statements, while strengthen the views of skeptical sources. This intentionally or unintentionally misrepresents the work in the field.

Examples :

1) This quote being deleted from the Memory, Trauma and Treatment article reference : "some advocates of false memory categorize SRA very narrowly, as if ritual abuse practices are only part of a worldwide conspiracy." This statement from this reliable source should be included to show the extreme false memory views misrepresentation of the data, that some of those skeptical of SRA set up a "straw man" to debate the existence of SRA.

2) This change in quote in the Van Benschoten source: previously: "trying to treat survivors and to those trying to correctly describe and identify ritual abuse cases." to: "attempting to deal with the subject." This eliminates the fact that the source states there are survivors and cases of this abuse and the courtesy link to the actual article at [5] was also deleted

3)The change in the Memory, Trauma Hammond et al. source from: "it probably isn't found in large, organized groups." to: "it is not believed to occur in large, organized groups." changes the emphasis of what the source states from "probably" to "is not believed" strengthening the skeptical side of the statement.

4)The deletion of the Lanning quote from his conclusion: "I believe that there is a middle ground - a continuum of possible activity. Some of what the victims allege may be true and accurate, some may be misperceived or distorted, some may be screened or symbolic, and some may be "contaminated" or false. The problem and challenge, especially for law enforcement, is to determine which is which. This can only be done through active investigation. I believe that the majority of victims alleging "ritual" abuse are in fact victims of some form of abuse or trauma." alleging this quote is cherry picked. If an editor believes that the following line in his paper ""That abuse or trauma may or may not be criminal in nature" adds balance to this quote, then they can add it. But to delete a more moderate statement from Lanning and to only include those ideas more skeptical from him misrepresents him as a source and presents him as more skeptical than he is.

5)The change in this Lanning quote:

from : "has stated that child molesters may "use the trappings of Satanism to frighten young victims", but the actual claims for satanic conspiracies and human sacrifices are unrealistic and the allegations themselves were unsubstantiated, difficult to prove or disprove, and call the credibility of the child victims into question. Lanning described what he termed "four dynamics" in common among reported cases of Satanic ritual abuse of children: "multiple young victims, multiple offenders, fear as the controlling tactic, and bizarre or ritualistic activity" and stated that he considers some of what the victims alleged to be either untrue or physically impossible. Lanning suggested possible reasons for reports by adults of events that he considered did not appear to be true include "pathological distortion, traumatic memory, normal childhood fears and fantasies, misperception, and confusion."

to: has stated that pseudo-satanism may exist but there is no proof for vast conspiracies and human sacrifices. Reported cases of SRA involve bizarre activities, some of which are impossible, that makes the credibility of victims of child sexual abuse questionable. In cases where SRA is alleged to occur, Lanning describes common dynamics of the use of fear to control multiple young victims, the presence of multiple perpetrators and strange or ritualized behaviors, though allegations of crimes such as human sacrifice and cannibalism do not seem to be true. Lanning also suggests several reasons why adult victims may make allegations of SRA, including "pathological distortion, traumatic memory, normal childhood fears and fantasies, misperception, and confusion"

The abstract itself states : "Possible answers to why adult victims allege things" and "Some of what victims allege in these cases." These editorial changes again soften the side of Lanning that show he may give some credence to the cases of SRA and strengthen the skeptical side of Lanning and misrepresent him as a source. The abstract also states "difficult to prove or disprove." The deletion of this in the new statement also makes the interpretation more POV and more skeptical than it is.

These edits, intentionally or unintentionally, are POV and misrepresent the sources’ statements, strengthen the skeptical side of the debate on the page while weakening the side that believes SRA might exist. These and other edits also make it appear that the literature on SRA in the field is much more skeptical than it really is. Adding this to the undue weight given to Victor as a source on the page creates an incredibly biased page, that misrepresents the data in the field and does a disservice to wikipedia and its readers. ResearchEditor (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  1. Does Hammond state that there is a vast conspiracy of child-abusing satanists? Or does Hammond allege that SRA does occur in the form of isolated individuals and small groups? Based on the text that you added, my placement in the definitions section and phrasing as limited, non-intergenerational cults, seems quite fair. The whole point of the definitions section is to demonstrate that there is a range of definitions. However, much of the scholarly literature focuses not on the isolated incidents in which abuse is associated with rituals and satan, but on the panic within professionals and public regarding an intergenerational, international cult of satanism. Finally, the page is not about false memory, and we’ve yet to really dig into the false memory debate, which is itself unresolved though experiencing a sustained sceptical push on Wikipedia.
  2. Link replaced, will read VB today and see if it is fairly represented.
  3. "Probably" is a terrible choice of wording - "probably" implies that they're not really certain; if they're not really certain and say it probably does not occur, then they believe the abuse is limited. Probably is also POV because it gives the impression that wikipedia has an opinion. We don't. But the source we summarize does, meaning they do not believe in the existence of intergenerational cults. Further, this give credence to what Hammond believes does exist - isolated crazy people, fucked up families and crazy cults, some of which are satanic. Also see question 1.
  4. Lanning's guide is a very long document. Rather than picking a quote that you think best represents it, leave the quote out. Further, within the quote Lanning is saying that he believes the victims have been abused, not that he believes they have been ritually abused and this page is about satanic ritual abuse, making his quoted statement irrelevant to the page. Lanning's whole point in the document is that SRA should not be investigated as a separate crime, it should be investigated as a crime that can be categorized and charged under existing laws, that making SRA a separate, more serious crime than the simple abusive acts is unnecessary and questionable. Lanning is not skeptical of pseudo-satanists, but from what I can tell that's the only kind of SRA he believes in, certainly not the baby-eating sincere worshippers.
  5. Have you read the full abstract to Lanning, 1994? I shall quote it in full, with my own emphasis:
Annotation

According to the author, the number of well-organized Satanic cults that practice ritual child sexual abuse is exaggerated and false accusations of Satanism impede law enforcement efforts to investigate and prevent child abuse.

Abstract

While some child molesters may use the trappings of Satanism to frighten young victims, large-scale conspiracies and multiple human sacrifices are just as unlikely as tales of victims cut apart and put back together. Reported cases of Satanic devil worshipers continue to involve unsubstantiated allegations of bizarre activities that are difficult to prove or disprove. Many of these allegations do not seem to have occurred or to even be possible and call into question the credibility of child sexual abuse victims. Cases reportedly involving Satanic ritual abuse of children appear to have four dynamics in common: multiple young victims, multiple offenders, fear as the controlling tactic, and bizarre or ritualistic activity. Some of what victims allege in these cases is physically impossible. Further, the most significant crimes being alleged in certain cases, particularly those involving human sacrifice and cannabalism, do not seem to be true. Possible answers to why adult victims allege things that do not appear to be true focus on pathological distortion, traumatic memory, normal childhood fears and fantasies, misperception, and confusion.

We, or at least I, summarize the original source, and only work with the text already on the page if it is not a controversial page or I do not have access to the original.
Regards overall comments on the page, there is very limited information to support anything but the pseudosatanist and isolated crazy/crazies interpretation. So far there is not a lot that supports the unequivocal existence of SRA in anything but the narrower interpretations. Hammond certainly doesn’t, they put their support behind limited and pseudo-satanism. Articles from Dissociation might, but it’s a third-string journal of dubious merit. Paley is a single case study involving dreamwork for God’s sake. Van Benschoten cites cassettes from the conferences and publications that Victor discounts. And Kults that Kill, published by Time/Warner, a host of unreliable, non-peer reviewed sources for her statements in the introduction that SRA exists. Plus, the guts of Van Bens is about SRA and MPD, not SRA in general. It should be used to expand that section, I’d hesitate to use it for other parts of the page. And until I see a policy or guideline based reason to limit citation of Victor, I see no reason not to use it to keep expanding the page. I see Victor as the mainstream scholarly (hence reliable) opinion, not the fringe, hence it is receiving due weight, not undue weight. WLU (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The edits are not POV. In most cases they simply explain skeptical opinions or obvious conclusions of studies/general consensus in this field.
So how are these edits POV? forestPIG 17:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
My belief would be that because they place more emphasis on the skeptical side, rather than a 'balanced' (ie both skeptical and non-skeptical getting equal play) depiction, ResearchEditor believes this is POV. If this is the case, this is a misunderstanding of POV.
We are not required to give all 'sides' equal space. We give the most reliable side, the mainstream interpretation, the most space. Sides that are less reliable are given less space and criticisms are allowed to be of equal reliability. Further, the less reliable sides are treated as cultural phenomenon, and are qualified more. With a clear example - the earth is round, per all of our most reliable sources; flat earthers appear on wikipedia, but are treated as a fringe topic. Creationism is the same - it gets no play in the evolution article except as a sidebar, and even in the creationism article scholarly sources are given their due. Wikipedia is not a place to soapbox for discredited ideas. We aren't obligated to be credulous with satanic ritual abuse and insist that it be portrayed as a reality if some sources say it is, so long as more reliable (and more recent) sources say it is not. WLU (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
1) The part where Hammond refers to the false memory advocates was originally an edit as a reply in the skepticism section. This is why this phrase was placed it and since the source is a RS, it belongs there.
2) The deletion of the Van Benschoten quote entirely : "her citations for the definitions are unreliable - popular press and tape recordings" is partially inaccurate.
One source is : Kelley. 8.1 (1988). Ritualistic abuse of children: Dynamics and impact. Cultic Studies Journal, 5 (2), 228-236.
Another is : Finkelhor, D., Williams, L. M., Burns, N., & Kalinowski, M. (1988). Sexual abuse in date care: .A national stud). Durham: University of New Hampshire, Family Research Laboratory.
The cassette tape was made by a "San Francisco police investigator." Van Benschoten's paper is in a journal and is a reliable source, so her opinion should have merit.
3)One may believe that "probably" is a terrible choice of wording, however this best summarizes what the source states and should not be changed to "is not believed."
4) Lanning has a complex opinion of the topic, to only include the one that backs the extreme skeptical side is misrepresenting his opinion.
5) I have read the abstract in full. The quote was changed and now it misrepresents the abstract.
One's personal interpretation of the field is not citable and should not be used to make judgments about what is and what is not included on the page. The changing of the interpretation of several sources to a more skeptical point of view misrepresents these sources. Victor has already been used too many times on the page. He definitely should not be used to expand it further. My question above about "and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each" has not been answered. Victor and his viewpoints are not 8.5 to 17 more prominent than all of the other opinions on the page. This is totally undue weight.
My objections to the edits are (as shown above) that they :
1) Misrepresent the sources' statements and opinions
2) Clearly are modified to reinforce a skeptical view of SRA and
3) Some, like Victor, are given far too much undue weight
It has not been shown that any one view is a mainstream interpretation or a minority view. Many of the more recent edits in general have deleted much of the evidence showing the existence of SRA, while bolstering the side of skepticism. The page in essence, has become a soapbox for the skeptical view, where the views of those that believe in the existence of SRA are either minimized, diluted or deleted and the views of those skeptical of SRA are cited as many times as necessary, regardless of undue weight, to promote a skeptical view. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, ResearchEditor, it is clear to me that you do not really understand what the mainstream understanding about this topic is (that it is generally an invented hysteria). Sure there are those who dispute this, but they are not the mainstream: they are the fringe. As such, their views are properly handled by WP:FRINGE. Reliabe sources like Victor who probably wrote one of the best books on the subject should be heavily used. Unreliable sources should be removed or contextualized. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. Hammond goes where it makes sense, we aren't forced to keep it in a single section for arbitrary reasons. Definitions makes sense; Hammond talks about two of the extant definitions - cult based (nutter conspiracy) and criminal/delusional. He says that cult based does not exist, and criminal/delusional does but in a very limited and unrelated fashion. Where else should it go? He's agreeing with the one type of abuse that has actually turned up proof.
  2. Van B was last used in definitions. She cited Finkelhor. I cited Finkelhor. Van B is currently redundant. If you want to cite Kelley, track down Kelley. Van B is publishing in a journal of dubious reliability and impact. Victor has discounted her sources, singling out taped presentations as part of the panic, and Frankfurter corroborates Gallant as part of the satanic panic instigators over in the UK. Plus, Gallant can't be cited since it's a tape and Gallant is mimicking the categories we've already got. I see no reason to include Gallant and so far I've little inclination to include Van B but I do not disagree with her being used at all. Just the previous uses were crap. Unreliable sources I delete, reliable but unused I keep, as in the above section.
  3. I don't see much difference between probably and 'is not believed' except the former is NPOV, presenting the impression that somehow wikipedia has an opinion.
  4. Lanning states that trappings exist (pseudosatanists}. Do you have a quote that supports his belief in anything but pseudosatanism? Did you see the annotation of this article? If you've another use of Lanning, feel free to edit; ideally provide a page number in your edit summary so I don't have to read all 54 pages again.
  5. I don't think I'm stupid but I don't see how I've misrepresented Lanning, 1994 by saying that allegations of cannibalism and human sacrifice do not seem to be true, particularly given the statement "Further, the most significant crimes being alleged in certain cases, particularly those involving human sacrifice and cannabalism, do not seem to be true".

You still don't seem to get undue weight. If you can provide more reliable sources indicating that SRA does exist beyond the crazy/crime and pseudosatanist versions, then add them and cite them. Victor is book published by a scholarly press (unlike, say, Kults who Kill), by a researcher publishing in his own area (unlike the 'scientists' in A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism), and stuffed with references (unlike, Michelle Remembers), on the exact topic of the page (unlike Kitzinger which was shoehorned into the page). It pretty much can't be undue weight. Even if it were the only book on the critical side, who pubished it means that it would be the minority opinion. Since it's firmly in the majority, it's not undue weight.

  1. It's reliable
  2. It's prominent
  3. It's not the minority
  4. It's not a tiny minority
  5. It deals with all aspects of the subject
  6. It's not a page discussing the minority view

So how does it violate WP:UNDUE, specifically? WLU (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It is stated above that Victor wrote one of the best books on this subject. What evidence is there to prove this? Is it thought so because his book backs certain opinions ? The heavy use of the book goes against WP:UNDUE. No one has yet answered this question, so I will repeat it a third time : My question above about "and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each" has not been answered. Victor and his viewpoints are not 8.5 to 17 more prominent than all of the other opinions on the page. It is stated that his book is "firmly in the majority." I have seen no evidence to show this. If it was firmly in the majority of reliable sources, then it would be easy to find plenty of reliable sources to back Victor's views and replace his references. This has not happened.
I have shown how Lanning was misrepresented. See "5)The change in this Lanning quote:" above for the review of this. Hammond's opinion on "some advocates of false memory categorize SRA very narrowly, as if ritual abuse practices are only part of a worldwide conspiracy" belongs back on the page as a reply in the skepticism section. It is a reliable source. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Do a search on Google Scholar, for example, and see how many of the references to SRA are referencing mass hysteria. It's in excess of the ratios you quote. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Our opinion on the matter doesn't matter, the books publisher does. The book's publisher is scholarly. There's no reason not to cite Victor, and continue citing him. You haven't shown how Lanning or Hammond have been mis-used in a convincing or coherent fashion since no-one seems to be agreeing with you. WLU (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
In regard to the Google Scholar comment above, the statement appears to be false. There are 6110 articles on Satanic Ritual Abuse. Not having the time to check all 6110, I looked at the first 20. Nine were skeptical articles. Eight were believer articles. And three I would consider either didn't take a stance or the stance could be considered neutral. In terms of proportionality WP:UNDUE and this quick random look, the page should be 2/5 believer, 9/20 skeptical and 3/20 neutral. If the SRA page becomes predominately skeptical with the overuse of one skeptical source, which violates WP:UNDUE, as per "and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each," then it also becomes a misrepresentation of the literature in the field. In essence it becomes a skeptical soapbox on SRA.
In regard to "You haven't shown how Lanning or Hammond have been mis-used in a convincing or coherent fashion since no-one seems to be agreeing with you" this argument is not logical.
1) If I am in a forest alone and a tree falls, it still falls. Just because someone isn't there to state it did, doesn't mean it didn't. Also, wikipedia is not a democracy. The correctness of an idea is not shown by agreement by others, but by logic. ("Polling discourages consensus" and "Dialectics is one of the most important things that make Wiki special" from polls are evil.) Citing Victor more violates WP:UNDUE even more. He probably shouldn't be cited more than two or three times maximum in the entire SRA article, if that. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Use of Google scholar to determine the weight of research is foolish, as there are a lot of fools in the google database.
You haven't shown that Lanning or Hammond has been mis-used. That no-one seems to be agreeing with you is not conclusive that you're wrong, but it does show WP:CONSENSUS that you're wrong.
And, although you still deny it, you've mis-used sources before, and were blocked for said mis-use. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin, I don't see any misuse of sources by ResearchEditor in this discussion, and ResearchEditor was not blocked for misuse of sources in the past. You are most certainly welcome to your views on the topic, and to vigorously debate the issues. But there's no reason to dredge up a block from the past for something that's not happening here - that kind of comment is unfair, unnecessary, and shows a lack of good faith. ResearchEditor has been exceedingly civil and careful with edits and discussion and is worthy of praise in that regard, even in this difficult situation. Please do the right thing and focus your comments on the content of the article and the points of the debate, and leave out your feelings about the editors. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
He has been civil and not misused references as far as I can tell, although I took a break from his favorite articles for a few weeks. However, under another name, he had misquoted references, and he was blocked for repeatedly doing so to the extent of 3RR. Although reformed, I really don't think we can take his claims of references being misquoted or misused at face value without checking closely.
And, to return to the WP:WEIGHT issue, User:WLU's arguments seem to have more weight than User:ResearchEditor's. I actually lean toward supporting ResearchEditor because of ScienceApologist's near-incivility, but I'm afraid SA may be correct. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this subject be under ritual abuse? Whether it involves satanism or not is really besides the point. It could be done in the name of Jesus and it would still be abuse. From what I can gather, the term SRA is hardly used anymore. So I would recommend creating a new page for ritual abuse and directing this page to it. Forest Path (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


(undent) In regard to the statements made above, the only reason I cited data from google scholar was because another editor before me cited this. The data I produced contradicts the other editor's statement. I am uncertain of the veracity or lack of veracity of the data used by google scholar. But I have seen it being given weight in the past in wikipedia.

I have clearly shown how Lanning and Hammond were misused above in this section. Changing "probably" to "is not believed," deleting a more moderate Lanning quote from the conclusion of his paper and changing "possible reasons" to "several reasons" are a few of the POV changes recently made to sections in the SRA article.

No editors have been able to produce any data in reply to my argument of undue weight. "My question about "and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each" has not been answered. Victor and his viewpoints are not 8.5 to 17 more prominent than all of the other opinions on the page. This is totally undue weight."

In reply to the accusations above, I was never blocked for the "misuse" of sources. Nor have I ever done so. Nor was I ever blocked for violations of 3RR, and to the best of my knowledge, I have never violated 3RR. User Jack-A-Roe is correct. We need to focus on the edits at hand and not the editors themselves.

At this point, it appears the only solution to deal with

1) The specific misrepresentation of sources I have presented above and

2) The issue of WP:UNDUE, in terms of the use of Victor as a source,

may be either the bringing in of an entirely impartial party, well versed in wikipedia, to sort out the issues I have cited at the beginning of this section or mediation. If any other editors have any specific ideas to resolve the specific issues mentioned at the beginning of this section, please comment. ResearchEditor (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)