Talk:Satanic ritual abuse/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Contents

Category issue & archived

An editor has categorized the article as "Crimes involving the Satanism or the occult". I don't know what to say about it since those people accused of SRA in the 1980s, like those of the McMartin preschool trial, were innocent. —Cesar Tort 13:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This talk page was already more than 200 kilobytes long. I have archived it. —Cesar Tort 19:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Uh? You archived the whole thing? But there were active discussions on there. Maybe you should have archived only the old stuff...? This is only going to cause the SRA fruitcakes to claim they're being censored by a Wiki-conspiracy. Eleland 22:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I hope not. At any event there were some rather long posts by an user that were no longer needed. If any SRA advocate posts something here that has already been discussed, I will place the latter posts back :) —Cesar Tort 23:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
No longer needed? So the guy is banned, hopefully? So he doesn;t just come back and start it all up again? DreamGuy 21:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
At least User:Biaothanatoi was willing to discuss —unlike 128.187.0.164, as you can see below. —Cesar Tort 22:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag discussion revived

This article is still very POV. There are statements like this throughout the whole article:

Claims of SRA have included many different elements, but most often include shocking and disgusting behavior, inappropriate and violent sexuality, and the suggestion of imaginative cruelty:

I've added the tag. --Emery D. 18:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Erm... can you explain what's POV about this kind of statement? Eleland 18:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
This article doesn't need a NPOV tag just as the skeptical articles on UFOs or 9/11 conspiracy theories don't need a tag. —Cesar Tort 19:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
One of the problems I continually run into with Wikipedia is that when I am not very interested in a subject (like this one) I sometimes don't bother to argue for an edit that I made even if I believe reverting it hurt the article. Jason Scott described this to make his point that Wikipedia "hates experts" (not that I'm an expert on satanism). I don't agree with his conclusion (that Wikipedia is a failure), but I think this is a problem that doesn't really have a solid solution (yet?). People with personal interests in a topic tend to win by default or through sheer exhaustion of their opponents, and since the people with interest are more likely to have some kind of bias, article quality is lost to those editors. This is probably not one of those situations--I can't see too many wikipedians caring much about the public opinion of satanic rituals. The articles on global warming are a better example. So much POV, even use of the infamous hockey stick graph that was exposed as fraudulent long ago. Lots of people complain on the talk page but quickly give up because the POVers just exhaust them with circular arguments. Even the articles themselves are exhaustingly lengthy making you have to dig through a haystack of irrelevant truth to get to the bullshit needles.
Back on topic: "can you explain what's POV about this kind of statement": shocking, disgusting, and inappropriate are all very subjective words. If this sentence was meant to attribute those claims to some anonymous critic, then the critic should be identified and those words should appear in quotes to make it clear that they are the critic's opinion, and not Wikipedia's.
"This article doesn't need a NPOV tag just as the skeptical articles on UFOs or 9/11 conspiracy theories don't need a tag.": The similarity being that they are all almost certainly mythical? It would not be OK to say that "UFO sightings have included many different elements, but most often include wierd yet impressive air vehicles." You could say some people have described UFO's as "wierd" and "impressive", but not that the UFOs people described were wierd and impressive. The difference is in describing a held opinion or stating your personal opinion. Whether or not what you are describing is fictitious of not doesn't matter. Another example might be that you wouldn't put in the Spider-man article that "Spider man is cool", despite Spider-man being a fictitious comic book character who is often perceived as being "cool", because coolness is a matter of opinion. For the record, I think this article needs an entire rewrite.
--Emery D. 05:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
In this context, I understood shocking and disgusting to mean "which would be personally considered shocking / disgusting by virtually anyone". It's a very marginal problem. Just change the language, if you like. You really shouldn't insert NPOV tags for these kinds of minor problems. Eleland 12:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
As I pointed out in the archived discussions:

The fact that there are parapsychology journals (I used to publish in a scholarly parapsychology journal which was founded in 1882!) doesn’t mean that wikipedians have to trust them as reliable sources. They’re not. Thousands of journal articles don’t demonstrate the existence of extra-sensory perception or psychokinesis just as the SRA literature doesn’t prove that, and I quote now from the below book review, satanists were sexually abusing children "in day-care centers, impregnating girls for infant sacrifice, brainwashing adults, and even controlling the highest levels of government". —Cesar Tort 13:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe User:Eleland was right and I archived more discussions than what was needed. I put this thread back:

Prof. David Frankfurter's work

The brief mention of David Frankfurter's Evil Incarnate needs some explanation. His scholarly work gives the big picture about the SRA craze.

Book Description from Amazon Books: [1]

“ In the 1980s, America was gripped by widespread panics about Satanic cults. Conspiracy theories abounded about groups who were allegedly abusing children in day-care centers, impregnating girls for infant sacrifice, brainwashing adults, and even controlling the highest levels of government. As historian of religions David Frankfurter listened to these sinister theories, it occurred to him how strikingly similar they were to those that swept parts of the early Christian world, early modern Europe, and postcolonial Africa. He began to investigate the social and psychological patterns that give rise to these myths. Thus was born Evil Incarnate, a riveting analysis of the mythology of evil conspiracy. [...].Thus, he maintains, panics over modern-day infant sacrifice are really not so different from rumors about early Christians engaging in infant feasts during the second and third centuries in Rome. ”

—Cesar Tort 23:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I've read the book but couldn't find in Frankfurter's work all references for the citations needed in the tagged section. I hope other editors will fill the gaps. BTW, has anyone of you read Satan's Silence? I haven't but they say it's a good skeptical book :) —Cesar Tort 06:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

128.187.0.164's massive copyedits

On July 8 I reverted User:128.187.0.164's massive copyedits. Today, he did it again without any discussion in talk page.

I reverted them again.

128.187.0.164: please discuss your proposals here before changing the article radically.

Thank you.

—Cesar Tort 22:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Note on scope and definition

According to [2]:

It is important to realize that the above definition [of satanic ritual abuse] is relatively restrictive. It excludes a number of behaviors which are known to exist:

  • Abuse by non-Satanic, abusive pedophiles 3 who pretend to be Satanists in order to gain better control of their victims through fear.
  • Mass murderers by a person who claims to be a Satanist and who tries to use the "Devil made me do it" defense when arrested. They are generally found to have little or no knowledge of Satanism.
  • Abuse and murder by psychotic individuals and psychopaths who are primarily motivated by their mental illness, not by any religious belief system.
  • Abuse by non-Satanists who engage in behaviors like SRA but are motivated by Christian or other beliefs.

This kind of information could be useful, since many people seem to be confused by our conclusion that SRA is a myth, on the basis that this or that individual abused a child while mumbling about Satan. The point is that no organized conspiratorial network exists, not that nobody's ever been abused by someone claiming to be a Satanist.Eleland 22:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Great point, Eleland. Thanks. I hope the new editors will take notice. —Cesar Tort 23:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Deliberate Denial and Obscurantism

The page is heavily biased and pretends that claims of SRA are only the product of pathological minds or stereotyped "backwards Christians"; but psychological studies and historical reality say otherwise. The citation of Erich Neumann on the reality of ancient ritual murder and a recent empirically-established case of SRA in Italy have been dishonestly removed for no good reason. In whose interests is it to deny this category of crimes if and when they occur?? Is it because it makes modern rationalist-optimistic superficial people uneasy? Staying silent about the massacre of Jews in Nazi Europe was also the "easy path", but we must prize ethics and reality above all else.

Italy rocked by satanic-drug-induced sexual abuse in kindergarten —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.1 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but your extreme bias here is clear. Please see our WP:NPOV policy on why your personal opinions cannot be elevated to fact and presented in the article. DreamGuy 13:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"DreamGuy", you are guilty of lying through your teeth, dishonorably at that. I presented the facts about ancient pagan ritual murder and a present case of SRA in Italy (where is the personal opinion in this police-confirmed case??), and you can only use ad hominem and evasive tactics in response. There is absolutely no interest in objectivity in this matter, and the power-hungry editors are ideological partisans with pre-determined viewpoints not interested in empirical confirmation or disconfirmation. I should expect nothing less from Wikipedia and its crowd, which believes that pedophilia-activism is just an expression of "democratic pluralism". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.1 (talk • contribs)

The information on Italy is sourced and on the page. If it turns out to be bogus and cited by a reliable source, it will be noted as such. Wikipedia reports verifiable information, not truth. Please remember WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Better than rhetoric is finding sources that support either one of your points of view. WLU 23:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to ask an obscurantist, denialist question, but since pagans are by definition not believers in Christian theology, how can they be Satanists? Eleland 02:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, all we know about this Rome story is that some people were arrested (here's a better source which notes that "the Mayor of Rignano Flaminio, said that the town of 8,000 people was enveloped in “a poisonous climate of hatred and vendetta”, and Father Erri Rocchi, the parish priest, said he still believed the teachers were the victims of “malicious tongues” ... a former teacher at the school, also said she could swear on the innocence of the teachers and the caretaker. “I simply do not believe they could have done this,” she said." This page contains extensive examples of panics, arrests, and trials which turned out to be totally spurious. What makes us think this should be any different? Eleland 02:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
One of the issues rarely addressed by any party in the debate on 'Satanic Ritual Abuse' is that the ritualistic or cultic aspects of a sexual abuse case rarely result in additional charges against the accused, unless there is specific 'ritual abuse' legislation on the books (which is the case in seven states in America). It is not illegal to worship the devil, and the law usually does not impose harsher sanctions on a person or group of people who abuse a child in a ritual context. Evidence of ritual sexual activity is usually not adduced at trial because it is not relevant to a fact in issue (the charges). In addition, it may be barred because it constitutes character or tendency evidence (which courts usually do not allow), and it's probative value is deemed to be outweighed by it's prejudicial nature.
This usually results in a lot of speculation about the ritual aspects of the case (such as in the McMartin trial) without those aspects ever being tested at trial. It is likely that this will occur in the Italian case if it ever goes to trial, and we are certainly seeing the same tendency in the Hosanna Church case in the States at the moment.
What this means is that, in "Satanic Ritual Abuse" as in most things, the legal system is not a shortcut to the truth, and we have to consider the facts from many different perspectives. Biaothanatoi 07:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Allegations from Sweden in 1670

There are three fascinating articles about a witch hunt for satanic ritual abuse.

The Outbreak of Mass Allegations of Satanist Child Abuse in the Parish of Rättvik, Sweden, 1670–71: Two Texts by Gustav J. Elvius Rickard L. SjöBerg History of Psychiatry 2004; 15; 477 DOI: 10.1177/0957154X04048755

A Short and Simple Account of the Tribulations and Abductions of Children by the Evil Witches of Rättvik Gustav J. Elvius History of Psychiatry 2004; 15; 483 DOI: 10.1177/0957154X0401500409

Letter to the Bishop of the Diocese of Västerås 31 January 1671 Gustav J. Elvius History of Psychiatry 2004; 15; 486 DOI: 10.1177/0957154X0401500410

The final reference has this gem:

"Many children say that they had no idea that they had been abducted until other children testified against them and the threats, bribes and persistency of their parents eventually created a situation in which the children started to believe in the abductions and memories began to grow."

Remember it was written in 1670. Happy hunting! --CloudSurfer 01:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, the quote is from the first reference. --CloudSurfer 05:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

new urls for page

Would like to add these three urls to the page. They are well researched.

  1. Conviction List: Ritual Child Abuse
  2. Satanism and Ritual Abuse Archive The cases describe legal proceedings held in Juvenile, Family, Civil and Criminal Courts around the world where there have been allegations of Satanism or the use of Ritual to abuse others.
  3. Frequently Asked Questions about Ritual Abuse and Mind Control

Abuse truth 00:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

(numbered for easier reference)
The first link doesn't contain information beyond listing cases. I don't see it as particularly encyclopedic. It could be used as a source for adding information to the page, but I don't see it as an EL. It looks very POV-pushy; some of the references to 'satanic' abuse are extreme stretches in my mind, and since most of the sources are to news media, who are invested in sensationalistic stories but not following-up, I don't see the page as spectacularly useful.
The second link is apparently compiled by Diana Napolis, who is not a particularly reliable source in my mind, and makes the page too close to a blog as far as I'm concerned. Also, I've the same arguments as in point one - histrionic, shallow coverage, and a stretch to call some of them satanic ritual abuse in any serious manner.
3 is a mirror of the FAQ in 2, and cites no references. It's not particularly skeptical, reliable, and also a POV-push. I don't see it adding much to the page itself. Other's thoughts?
WLU 02:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the important thing about the links is that they provide balance to the article and do contain factual information. Abuse truth 13:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

WLU, you are posing a differentially high standard for evidence suggestive of organised and ritualistic abuse then is being applied to evidence which suggests otherwise.
For instance, the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance have never published a book or an article offline or been subject to peer-review, nor do they state their methodology or the manner by which they have come to their conclusions on ritual abuse, however they are quoted throughout the article to debunk claims of SRA. In contrast, Napolis (regardless of her reputation) has provided a list of convictions drawn from Lexis Nexis, which can be double-checked by any undergrad with library access.
It seems that there is little interest amongst editors on this page to consider the evidence for and against SRA on its own merits. Instead, a very particular agenda is being advanced here, in which any and all 'skeptical' commentary is accepted as objective (regardless of the source) whilst legal and research evidence suggestive of organised and ritualistic abuse is ridiculed and rejected.
Biaothanatoi 12:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added the first two urls above to the page under external links

These are well researched sources that will add balance to the page. Abuse truth 15:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The new reference to tunnels

I find it strange that this section has been added. I propose that it be deleted. Please consider the following information and let me know why you believe that this section should remain.

There are two ritual abuse cases in which evidence of tunnels were found in concordance with the children's disclosures. The first, and most famous, are the tunnels found under the McMartin preschool, as excavated by UCLA archeologist Gary Sickel (http://www.geocities.com/kidhistory/mcmartin.htm).

(It is worth noting that the McMartin case did not 'collapse', but rather, resulted in two hung juries, and that a third trial did not take plce since parents felt it would be too harmful to the complainant children.)

Previously, editors of this page have claimed that Sickel's excavation was 'debunked' by pointing to articles 'published' by the 'Institute of Psychological Therapy' (IPT). These editors failed to note:

(a) that the IPT was founded by Dr Ralph Underwager, who stepped down from the board of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation after advocating for the decriminalisation of paedophilia in 1993,

(b) that the IPT 'journal' is not peer-reviewed nor published offline, making it simply an extension of the IPT website,

(c) the question as to whether a psychologist possesses the expertise to 'debunk' the work of an archeologist.

In 1990, Beatrix Campbell took documentary makers to the tunnel in Nottingham where children in the case stated they had been ritually abused. In the tunnel, there was satanic graffiti and candles set into the walls. Nottingham is built on sandstone and there are many large caves in the area.

Whether you take the information above as corroboration of the children's accounts or not should be, for the purposes of this article, irrelevant. The article is factually incorrect in stating that there is no other explanation for the children's accounts of tunnels other then a 'psychological' one. This is a clearly biased and POV statement intended to direct the reader to dismiss accounts of ritual abuse on the basis that there are elements contained within (such as tunnels) that cannot be physically corroborated. In fact, such corroboration did occur in at these two high-profile cases.

If no strong argument for this new section is forthcoming, then I propose it be deleted on the basis that it has no basis in fact and is POV.

Biaothanatoi 12:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of any arguments otherwise, I have deleted this section on the basis that it is factually incorrect. Let me know if you think it should be restored and why. Biaothanatoi 11:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

hello, its me. actually I am pro-tunnel. I wrote that with a "disparaging" eye originally. Thinking it was BS that there are only "psychological" explanations for the tunnels, but thats the best modern pyschology can do, right? lol. Like I think that it is very "fishy" that tunnels keep turning up in kids accounts, but i figured if I said that it would get deleted. So I wrote something just to get the issue out there. anyways I know its pov, etc, but I would love some sort of reference to the tunnel aspect of SRA in of itself. I have various reasons for finding these stories plausible and while I agree we need to be neutral, I also think it definitely is important that tunnels show up in abuse accounts and doctors say "its just kids making stuff up" over and over, but there is no further investigation. maybe there is some good explanation for it, i don't know. I am glad you are working so hard on the page, because people need to understand what is going on. Basically I mean that the cops and pyschologists have only theories to explain all the tunnel talk, they can't point to a well-know reason why kids are obsessed with tunnels normally, or something else that would make more sense. All we have are repeated examples of a supposedly random phenomenon. so again I'm not claiming to know the truth but I will add something back in.66.220.110.83 06:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The Minnesota ritual abuse case

The previous section on the Minnesota case was removed by editors, although their reasoning was not discussed here. I believe that removal was justified on the basis that the information contained in that section was false and misleading, claiming as it did that all people involved in the case had been 'exonerated', when, in fact, one of the accused had been convicted, a number of parents confessed to sexually abusing their children and underwent treatment, and parental rights for six other children were terminated.

I am about to include a new section on the Minnesota ritual abuse case, including extensive footnotes. If you disagree with any information contained in this section, please discuss your concerns here. Biaothanatoi 11:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The reference to Diana Napolis

I propose to delete the reference to Diana Napolis' psychological problems for the following reasons:

(a) Napolis has never written a book, journal article, newspaper article or conference paper about ritual abuse, and she is not a significant figure in ritual abuse literature or research. The details of her life history contained here do not contribute to the article, and appear instead scurrilous and libelous.

(b) There are published authors referred to in this article who have a checkered history, however, that history is not mentioned, although it does call into question their objectivity and the value of their work. For instance, Paul and Shirley Eberle are referenced in the McMartin section, although they are professional pornography manufacturers and distributers who came to the attention of the LAPD vice squad in the 1970s after distributing paedophilic material. Why is their work relied upon and their history ignored, whilst Napolis is singled out, although she has not contributed to the public debate on ritual abuse?

In light of the above, it is reasonable to conclude that Napolis' problems have been given special attention in an attempt to construe all people who argue that ritual abuse occurs as psychologically ill. This is a prejudicial piece of information which attempts to misinform the reader. Large-scale studies have been undertaken in America, Australia and Britain which have found that between a quarter and a third of health professionals will encounter a client with a history of ritual abuse in their career, and the majority of these professionals believe that this history is indicative of genuine trauma.

If a strong argument for keeping Napolis' history in the article is not forthcoming, I will delete it on the basis that it is irrelevant and prejudicial to the reader. Biaothanatoi 11:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the reference to Diana Napolis. If an editor feels that it adds important informatin to the article, please discuss it here. Biaothanatoi 00:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverses to McMartin

I think we should stick to the canonical chronology used in the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times and not use an unorthodox chronology from a seminar in Australia. Reliable sources trump blogs, seminars, and things written on the back of cocktail napkins after a few drinks. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The "unorthodox chronology" was provided by Professor Roland Summit, who is a world-renowned expert on child abuse and a consultant psychologist to the psychological clinic that assessed the McMartin children. In contrast, there is nothing "canonical" about a timeline written by a random journalist or friendly obituarist. The seminar provided by Summitt was paid for by the New South Wales Government and resulted in a published report from which this information is drawn.
Given that there is an entire section on "Parallels to Alien Abductions" in the current article drawn from a conference presentation by an unknown psychologist who never published her 'findings' in a peer-reviewed journal article, it is inconsistent of you to object to the inclusion of Summitt's information - particularly given his academic credentials, his reputation, and his direct involvement in the case.
You have yet to establish that the information provided by Summitt is either false or misleading. I am reverting your changes. Biaothanatoi 00:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Talbot quote

I'm not sure how that Talbot quote fits in. It doesn't mention the McMartin case at all, so there's no reason for it to be in that section at all. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Its from Peggy McMartin's obituary published in the NYT, its a reference I found that talks about the satanic aspects of the case, as opposed to just the abuse. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the (relatively) extensive placement of quotations in the references at all - is there a reason this page has three, when most have none? The sections they are attached to are not particularly controversial, so there does not seem to be a need for a piece of verbatim from the respective articles. WLU 20:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The quote field is in all inline citations. Its there so people can check the context of the information provided. As you know most links to articles online don't last very long. In each case its the lede paragraph, or the material that provided the actual quote, or both. The actual text, as opposed to what written in the article also allows you do a search in Google to find the article, if the link no longer works. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If that's the sole reason, given this information, how would you feel about removing them? I know the templates all have quote fields (which I've never understood), but it's such a jarring contrast with other articles and they just don't seem to fit. The quote doesn't seem to add to the context or information, it just adds an enormous block of text in the footnotes section. WLU 20:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
An obituary of one of the accused is not an objective source of information on the McMartin case by an standard. Obituaries are usually written by someone known to, or at least well disposed towards, the deceased. In contrast, I've provided extensive references to journalists and psychologists who were present in court at the time and followed the trial in it's entirety, and these changes accurately document the complexities and ambiguities of the case.
  • Yes you are giving WP:Undue weight to the prosecution's discredited case by only showing the prosecution's witnesses. The same could be done for any court case to show a distorted and non-neutral point of view. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Most of the information that I provided was not adduced at trial, and Summit was not a witness for the prosecution. If anything, I presented the defence's argument - that the children's allegations were too bizarre to be true, and that the interveiwing techniques were unreliable. If you would like to dispute the changes to the article, please show me which information is inaccurate and/or why it should be withheld from the reader. Biaothanatoi 07:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
If Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) would like to add further verifiable information about the case, then he is free to do so, but he is currently advocating that such information be subsumed to biased commentary from a friend of one of the defendants. I don't beleive that this is in the best interests of either the article or the readers. Biaothanatoi 00:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
As I said earlier, obituaries are often written by someone friendly with the deceased, or someone well disposed to the deceased. Biaothanatoi 07:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The fact that an obituary was published in the NYT does not mean that the information within it is accurate. Neither the writer of the obituary, nor the writer of the newspaper article you quoted, has the expertise to retroactively diagnose someone they haven't met with schizophrenia. Johnson was never diagnosed with schizophrenia before, during or after the trial, and she had no history of mental illness prior to the trial. Suggesting otherwise is biased and POV unless you have an informed and reliable source to the contrary that could contradict the information provided by a psychologist who assessed Johnson prior to trial.

Once again, you are incorrect, she was diagnosed with "paranoid schizophrenia" in 1985 and she died of "alcoholism" in 1986. The trial ran from 1987 to 1990. She died before there was a trial. Both "paranoid schizophrenia" and "alcoholism" are long term, chronic problems. Both would impair judgment before a formal diagnoses is made. Her odd behavior in 1983 is recorded in her police interview notes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

  • CHILD-ABUSE CASE ENDS IN 2 ACQUITTALS PRESCHOOL TRIAL LASTED 32...

$2.95 - Miami Herald - NewsBank - Jan 19, 1990 The story began IN summer 1983 when a Southern California woman, Judy Johnson, ... Johnson, who was later diagnosed with acute paranoid schizophrenia, ... All 98 related - Related web pages

  • A SEARCH FOR VICTIMS QUEST SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH IN CALIFORNIA CHILD...

$2.95 - Miami Herald - NewsBank - Nov 13, 1989 Judy Johnson, who started THE whole thing, never testified against Buckey. IN 1985, she was diagnosed as suffering acute paranoid schizophrenia. ...

A grand jury was convened in 1984 - it was much more then just a 'pretrial investigation'. And, by your own admission, her psychotic break occured in 1985 and therefore it is purely speculative that any pre-existing mental illness contributed to her son's disclosures two years earlier. Such speculation is directly contradicted by her psychologist at the time.
As information that you have removed from the article suggested, several children from McMartin were in counselling for suspected sexual abuse prior to the trial, including Johnson's child. It is therefore a reasonable hypothesis that Johnson's complaint to the police was motivated by concern for her son, and other children at the preschool, rather then by paranoid schizophrenia - as you would clearly like to infer.
I would like to believe that you are engaging in this discussion in good faith, but you seem intent on withholding verifiable information from the reader, and repeating unfounded speculation, in order to prejudice the article against the probity of the trial. --Biaothanatoi 05:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This was a very complex and ambiguous case, and the reader deserves accurate information in order to make up their own minds. Deleting expert opinion that you don't like, and replacing it with journalistic speculation that you do, does not add to the value of this article in any way. Biaothanatoi 07:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why a compromise can't be reached on this point of whether or not to include the Talbot article quote. I can see why the quote could be relevant and included, but at the same time perhaps it's too lengthy and rambling for it to be included in its current form. Perhaps the entire quote could be included as a footnote, or the contents of the quote could be summarized and paraphrased briefly as the views of a "commentator" on the trial. In any case, I see it as a valuable addition because it does directly address the "satanic" aspect of the accusations, which the rest of the section avoids completely. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 06:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The quote has been shifted somewhere else in the article now, where it is simply irrelevant and rambling.
It is a curious strategy to claim that, since the children's disclosures in the McMartin case included sadistic and ritualistic activity, therefore the children's disclosures were fabricated. Their accounts of ritual activity are identical to allegations made in other cases where such ritual activity was substantiated and convictions attained - as other cases in this article make clear.
It was the argument of the defense in the McMartin trial that the children's disclosures were fabricated because they recounted ritual abuse and such abuse is improbable. Some editors here are attempting to present the argument of the defense as fact. In an overview of a legal trial, could anything be more POV then to implicitly support the argument of one side and ignore the argument of the other? --Biaothanatoi 09:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that was the intent nor the effect of including the quote. I prefer to assume good faith that the editors are trying to maintain NPOV. Whether the defence strategy is "curious" or not is POV, and I would prefer to leave the commentary to the commentators. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 09:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The prevalence section

I am making significant additions to the prevalence section, which currently focuses on satanic murder rather then satanic ritual abuse. Whilst murder is a common feature of many allegations of ritual abuse, it is not a defining characteristic of those allegations, and many allegations of ritual abuse do not involve murder.

The discussion on murder is not only irrelevant to a 'prevalence' section, but it seems designed to construe all allegations of ritual abuse as improbable. The statement that "those who believe that there is organized Satanic ritual abuse going on in the United States claim that large numbers of people are ritually murdered annually" is pejorative in that it attributes an extreme belief to all people who believe in SRA, without providing a verifiable source for such an assertion. As such, it is biased and POV. There are dozens of published accounts of clinical encounters with children and adults disclosing ritual abuse, and these accounts demonstrate that, whilst many clinicians believe that their clients have been sadistically abused, they often doubt the veracity of their more extreme disclosures.

I am providing extensive references to peer-reviewed and large-scale prevalence studies on abuse and ritual abuse. If you object to the relevance or accuracy of these studies, please discuss your concerns here. Biaothanatoi 01:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC

McMartin section is becoming a POV fork from the McMartin article, and is using an alternate timeline and alternate conclusion based on a seminar given in Australia that contradicts the timeline and conclusions of the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times.

Believe it or not, publications outside America are sometimes accurate. In this case, I referred to a report drawn from a seminar given by Prof. Roland Summit, a consultant psych on the McMartin trial and a world renowned expert on child abuse.
It's illogical to dismiss the information provided by Summitt because he did so (gasp!) outside America and (gasp!) in a seminar. He was involved in the case, and he's got the expertise to make an assessment of the parents and children involved in the case. In contrast, your "canonical" timeline was written by a random journalist and a friend of one of the defendants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biaothanatoi (talk • contribs) 07:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The seminar is Australia is not peer reviewed, and the author is not well known, and doesn't have an article here in Wikipedia to judge their value. The timeline I used came from the New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and Crime Library. All are peer reviewed, and available on the Internet to challenge. Your using Eberle as a straw man. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Peer review is a process by which academic peers review the research and analysis of other academics. Newspapers and websites like the Crime Library are not peer reviewed, and nor should they be. They are not academic publications.
  •  : The New York Times has editorial control and is reviewed by the readers and retractions and corrections are printed. That cant be said for a seminar in Australia, especially when it is making extraordinary claims that go against consensus and established timelines used by the New York Times and the LA Times.
Whilst the report that I quoted was not peer-reviewed, the information that I was quoting was not the findings of research, but rather the direct experience of the author in question - Prof. Roland Summit, who personally counselled Judy Johnson and her child prior to trial, whilst acting as a consultant psych for the counselling centre in question. It is perfectly adequate for us to take Summit's word that he did provide this service, unless you are proposing that he is lying to us, and you have proof.
I'm a little startled at the idea that an academic is not "well known" unless he has an article on Wikipedia. Perhaps you should run Summit's name through scholar.google.com and see how many references you come up with. His contribution to child abuse research was recently celebrated in an edited book by Jon Conte, "Critical Issues in Child Sexual Abuse", which reflects on Summit's 25-year history in the field. --Biaothanatoi 14:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
If you want to claim that Judy Johnson had a mental illness prior to the McMartin trial, then please provide your source for her diagnosis. My understanding of the case is that Johnson had no such diagnosis prior to trial, and her consultant psychologist found no evidence of mental instability prior to trial. I've provided a peer-reviewed source in which he attributed her psychotic break and alcohol dependancy to the stress of the case, which is certainly a reasonable hypothesis given that another witness committed suicide rather then testify.
  • You are confusing "truth" with "verifiability". I don't have to prove she really was ill. I just have to find a vetted, mainstream, reliable source that calls her ill. The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, says she was diagnosed with schizophrenia, and the references are used in the article. If stress makes people schizophrenic in a cause and effect relationship, then wouldn't all of the parents then become schizophrenic? Who committed suicide? please use names and provide references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Again your using the straw man attack. Attacking the person who wrote the obituary rather than arguing the facts contained within them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
You are attempting to claim that your obituarist has more knowledge about Johnson's mental health then her psychologist. That stretches credibility to the point where I'm unsure that you are engaging in this discussion in good faith. --Biaothanatoi 14:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
You have also sought to withhold from the reader the fact that several McMartin children were in treatment for sexual abuse prior to Johnson's complaint. On the basis of this fact, and in the absence of a pre-existing diagnosis, it is reasonable to assume that Johnson's decision to go to the police was motivated by concern for her son, and for other children at the preschool, rather then by a mental illness for which you have yet to present any evidence for.
I did provide the source - you deleted the information and the reference. It came from the report by Summit, who provided the service himself. And your request for the names of the children is very strange. Such information would, of course, be confidential, and it would not be available outside the centre that provided the service. --Biaothanatoi 14:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
My additions have been garnered from several sources, including the consultant psych and a number of court reporters. Your desire to delete this accurate and verifiable information with block quotations from an obituary suggests a profound bias of your own. Biaothanatoi 06:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, a bias toward accuracy. My quote talked about the Satanic aspects of the case. Your info is a POV fork from the main article to try and show that abuse did take place, and doesn't discuss Satan, or Satanic aspects at all. All my links can be checked for accuracy, and aren't just obscure journal references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The children's disclosures regarding Satanism did not form the basis of any of the charges made against the defendants at trial, and so positioning those disclosures as central to the McMartin case is misleading. None of the information that I provided points to the defendants guilt, only to the ambiguity of the case itself.
All of my links can be verified for accuracy - but you'd need to use your library card instead of Google. --Biaothanatoi 14:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

STD's

I have heard many times that some of the McMartin kids got STDs before puberty. Does anyone know anything more about this? Or are there other cases from other parts of the world? 66.220.110.83 06:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It was well acknowledged by the defence at the time that over a 1000 former students approached the prosecution to state that they had been sexually abused at McMartin. Of these, 41 children were selected by the defence, and physicians at trial testified that the majority of them showed physical evidence of sexual abuse. This may have involved STD's, however, I haven't read any sources which specified what kind of physical harm the children had sustained. Biaothanatoi 07:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Differential burdens of proof

I would like to remake the point that the previous section on McMartin was sourced in it's entirety from a book written by Paul and Shirly Eberle, whose published work advocates for 'benign paedophilia' and who published and distributed the kiddie porn magazine 'Finger' throughout the 1970s.

  • UNTRUE, it was sourced from the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times. and Crime Library. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
None of those sources were referenced in the previous section to which I am referring. --Biaothanatoi 14:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I find it disturbing that the veracity and relevance of information from a report by Prof. Roland Summit is challenged as "POV" whilst the the Eberle's work was quoted here for some years without the objection of Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) or any other editor.

  • Your source is a seminar in Australia, that was not under editorial scrutiny, and cant be examined by Wikipedia readers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the third time that you have made an issue of the geographical location of the seminar. Do you believe that information published in Australia is somehow less trustworthy then it would be if it was published in North America?
Your criticisms are facetious. The report was the fourth report in a child protection series published by the NSW Government, and it certainly had an editor.
It could be examined by Wikipedia readers if they had a library card and went to the library. --Biaothanatoi 14:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

For years, the "Satanic Ritual Abuse" article has been based on quotes from anonymous "Wiccan investigators" and "Ontario Consultants" who disparage SRA and survivors. Editors here are clearly not holding such dubious sources to the same standard that they have set for researchers and academics whose research findings and clinical experience suggest that allegations of SRA are more then simply fantasy or fabrication. It seems that evidence for SRA is assessed according to a 'floating standard' which is raised whenever it is met. I suggest that editors here assess their own bias and consider the manner in which they are prejudging claims of SRA and those who make them. Biaothanatoi 08:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of sources, a quick Google search finds that our citation #5, "Nursery Crimes: Sexual Abuse in Day Care" was torn to pieces[3] by one Lee Coleman, M.D., who concluded that "...this irresponsible book will be used in this way. It will become a mainstay in what is clearly unfolding as a long term, desperate effort to deny the reality of our nation's wave of false sexual abuse allegations." That was in 1989. Smart guy. < eleland // talkedits > 21:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The quote you have provided was published by the "Institute of Psychological Therapies", an organisation founded and run by pro-paedophile advocate Dr Ralph Underwager. Underwager founded IPT in the late 1980s, and the False Memory Syndrome Foundation in 1992, only to step down a year later after giving an interview in which he characterised sex with young boys as intimate and loving, and claimed that paedophilia was a lifestyle choice "blessed by God".
  • Huh? Again your using slander and libel, without citing sources. You used the same strategy to slander and libel the Eberles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The Eberles are quite open about their pro-incest stance, if you actually read their books. The LAPD provided the information on their kiddie porn track record to Ms Magazine in the late 1980s, and I've already quoted that article here. You can verify Underwager's history with a simple google search - the interview in which he advocates for the decriminalisation of paedophilia is available online, through the Journal of Paedophilia (Paidika) where the interview was published. --Biaothanatoi 14:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The primary author of Nursery Crimes is David Finkelhor, who is one of the most well-known and respected quantitative researchers in child abuse of the last thirty years. The book contains a full chapter on the methodology of the study and the manner in which he conducted his analysis. If you beleive that this methodology is flawed, or his findings inaccurate, please tell us why.
As it stands, your "smart guy" is a random medico aligned with a pro-paedophile organisation. --Biaothanatoi 22:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
That's a fine job of well-poisoning, although I myself prefer the version which links FMSF to CIA mind control and MKULTRA. The substantive objection made by that piece is that the authors 'simply telephoned some of those involved in each case studied, and asked what happened. But not just anyone involved; they called only those who insisted that abuse had taken place, ignoring those who disagreed...Even if the case fell apart, was rejected by the police or prosecutors, or failed to bring a single conviction, the case was nonetheless a "substantiated" case as long as anyone still believed. 'If at least one of the local investigating agencies had decided that abuse had occurred ... then we considered the case substantiated. '" Not having access to the book in question, not even to the "full chapter on the methodology", I have no way to check this. So tell me: what were the authors' criteria for substantiated "ritualistic elements"? And what on earth does it have to do with claims of a widespread, organized network of Satanic child abusers?
If you are concerned about the accuracy of Finkelhor's research, then you should read it. As it stands, you are trying to dismiss a book you've never read on the basis of a quote from a doctor you've never heard of before who provided a quote for an article published by a pro-paedophile organisation. --Biaothanatoi 14:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we all know that awful, sadistic child abuse does occur far too frequently, But this article isn't about child abuse. It isn't even about child abuse with ritualistic overtones. Hell, it isn't even about that one-in-a-million case of bona fide child sex abuse by Satanists. It's about an alleged massive organized conspiracy of Satanic paedophiles which doesn't exist. The fact is that a bizzare moral panic occured during the late 1980s which suggested that a virtual army of Satanists was busily slaughtering hundreds of babies a week. I think you should take a lot of your edits over to a new Sadistic ritual abuse article which can deal factually with the sober academic sources. This article is about the crap "exposés" on Geraldo and the reason I used to hush my voice when talking about Dungeons & Dragons in public. While I appreciate your advocacy on behalf of victims of child abuse, it is kind of missing the point. < eleland // talkedits > 02:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Your definition of SRA as a "massive organized conspiracy of Satanic paedophiles" is one amongst many. Many people have used the phrase SRA to mean something quite different - specifically, organised and ritualistic abuse. This article should reflect the diversity of opinions and respones to SRA. Anything less is POV.
It is not sufficient to point to the social context around a phenomenon and ignore the phenomenon itself, or pretend that the context is the phenomenon - which the 'moral panic' position tries to do by suggesting that there is nothing else to SRA except moral panic. We've had "moral panics" around AIDS, but that doesn't mean there is no virus. A moral panic around SRA does not mean that SRA is not based on actual events. --Biaothanatoi 14:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Differential burdens of proof II

I would like to repeat my concern regarding the differential burden of proof imposed on sources which support allegations of SRA as opposed to those that attempt to discredit them.

The work of both Prof. Roland Summit and Prof. David Finkelhor, two of the best-known names in child abuse research of the last thirty years, has been called into question by two editors here on the most speculative grounds - for example, that information sourced to Summit is unverifiable because it was published in Australia.

Both of these editors have defended the work and reputation of Dr Ralph Underwager and Paul and Shirley Eberle. These three people are notorious pro-incest advocates whose written work has been discredited for over fifteen years.

It seems to me that to apply such facetious tests to the work of respected experts like Summit and Finkelhor, whilst accepting carte blanche the words of child pornographers and paedophile activists, is suggestive of profound bias.

What are the opinions of other Wikipedia editors? How can we resolve a conflict like this?

--Biaothanatoi 03:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

New headings for SRA cases

I suggest that the heading 'modern reports' be altered to something like 'contested cases', since all the information contained in this section relates to cases of SRA that have generated significant public concern over possible miscarriages of justice, unfair prosecution, improper investigation, etc.

We can then add an additional section called 'uncontested cases' or 'unambiguous cases' (anyone have any ideas?) which details cases of SRA in which perpetrators plead guilty and there was unambiguous evidence for their guilt. I'm thinking of cases like that in Perth, Australia, in 1991, where a young man plead guilty to the sexual abuse of several young children. During the trial, he claimed to have been a member of a satanic cult since his early teens that engaged in ritualistic sexual practices with young children. The state alleged that the young children had been sexually abused in satanic rituals, and that this included the use of hypnosis, trance, blood letting and blood drinking, animal sacrifice and other ritual practices. Contracts with 'satan' signed in the children's blood were adduced at trial.

There are other cases around the world in which evidence for satanic ritual abuse was adduced at trial, resulting in a guilty verdict, and there are cases in which perpetrators confessed and pled guilty. These cases did not generate significant media attention, because they were unambiguous, complex, and often very disturbing. I think it would add significant value to this article if there was a section here to document such cases, as the current focus on contested cases is prudicial in that it directs the reader to presume that the only SRA cases are contested or ambiguous cases.

Anyone have any thoughts/comments/objections?

--Biaothanatoi 22:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at the introduction to this section - let me know what you think and whether you object to the changes. I had a number of concerns about this section that are worth flagging here:
* The text was factually incorrect in stating that reports of SRA occured in the 1960s - the phrase was unknown at the time.
* The article asserts a number of POV positions as fact, including that allegations of SRA were constructed from material in popular culture.
* The text is contradictory (and the author somewhat hypocritical) in condemning "morbid curiousity" after providing unsourced allegations of babies in microwaves and people drinking urine.
* The text provides unsourced claims from "Wiccan investigators" which characterises people who assert that SRA as mentally ill, whilst referring to "others" (???) which characterises people who watch programs on SRA as voyeuristic.
I've tried to summarise the diversity of skeptical positions on SRA, and the many factors which impacted on early investigations. Since there are more then a few skeptics on this page, let me know what you think. --Biaothanatoi 01:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I've added a few new SRA cases in North America, and extended the section on the West Memphis 3. Information on some cases are only available via Lexus Nexus, since they didn't get any press at the time, however they are pertinent to the question of whether allegations of "satanic ritual abuse" are fabrications (which many authors on this page have previously suggested) or whether they could be based on factual events.
If anyone has more information on the West Memphis 3 that they'd like to add, I would encourage you to do so. The court documents that I've read are not flattering to the accused and I'm unsure why they are garnering such public support, so perhaps there are facts about this case that I'm unaware of. It would be interesting to see them posted here. --Biaothanatoi 03:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Moral panic theory - Mary De Young

The quotation from Mary de Young on "moral panics" in the first paragraph is biased in that it's primary position in the article clearly infers that "moral panic" theory is the likely explanation for SRA. This is not the consensus position amongst those who are skeptical of SRA, and it ignores the significant body of empirical research which suggests that allegations of SRA are based on factual experiences of organised and ritualistic abuse.

Whilst moral panic is one explanation of Satanic Ritual Abuse, but it's not the only one - even amongst the skeptics. Elaine Showalter claimed that is was evidence of "pre-millenial anxiety", Linley Hood claimed it was evidence of homophobic attacks on gay childcare workers, Debbie Nathan claimed it was evidence of a backlash against working mothers placing their children in daycare, Ralph Underwager claimed it was a conspiracy created be lesbians and feminist seeking to undermine the nuclear family, John Pooley claimed it was evidence of temporary frontal lobe epilepsy, David Frankfurter claims it's an expression of a universal human need to beleive in ultimate evil, Jeffrey Victor claimed it was an invention of fundamentalist Christians, Richard Ofshe claimed that it was the result of hypnotic police interviewing techniques, Pamela Freyd claimed it was the result of psychotherapeutic malpractice. And so on.

I'm deleting de Young's quote on the basis of it's POV and biased positioning. de Young's contributions to the debate on "moral panic" are important but the centrality given to her opinion is clearly designed to influence the reader to the "moral panic" position. It fails to acknowledge the diversity of the skeptical positions on SRA, let alone on the debate as a whole. Perhaps someone wants to start up a passage on the 'moral panic' position on SRA? Or even a summary of alternative explanations, like the many that I've listed above?

--Biaothanatoi 00:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see how these explanations are contradictory, especially since de Young specifically mentions "the patriarchy thesis" and "feminist arguments", "religious fundamentalist notions of premillennarian evil", "a hierarchy of abuse with the 'ultimate evil' of satanic ritual abuse at its peak", etc etc. In any case, the use of the quotation was not to privilege a "moral panic explanation" over other skeptical explanations, but to summarize the skeptical view on the subject. And the skeptical view is, in fact, also the mainstream view. I'm aware of the burgeoning network of websites, message boards, and activist groups insisting that academia and the media got it all wrong, that SRA is really a widespread, highly organized network spanning the globe, etc. But this is a fringe theory which needs to be treated as such. I'm afraid that your recent edits to the article have involved extensive synthesis of apparently reliable sources to advance an argument that, taken individually, they do not make. The mainstream view of McMartin, for example, is that "That case, in which hundreds of children made increasingly bizarre claims of abuse against the family owners and employers of a preschool in Manhattan Beach (Los Angeles County), eventually fell apart in acquittals, hung juries and questions about prosecutorial excess." [4]. The supposed archaeological evidence of backfilled tunnels has been received with wide skepticism, despite your incredibly prejudicial conclusion that they "have yet to be refuted by an archaeologist". Since there is a clear mainstream view of SRA, this article should be written to it. It can certainly accommodate the claims of the SRA movement but should not be beholden to them. < eleland // talkedits > 15:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The many skeptical opinions on SRA are worth noting, but I see no reason why "moral panic" theory be privileged over any other. I also see no disjunction between your quote on McMartin and the information I provided. In fact, I detailed the defence's argument in greater detail then any preceeding author. --Biaothanatoi 14:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed as unsourced

  • As of July, 2007, press and media figures and much of the public treats claims of Satanic ritual abuse with great skepticism.

Move some case studies

What do you think of moving the non-satanic cases to False allegation of child sexual abuse? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC) I am against the move because these cases may have occurred. Abuse truth 22:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

removal of Repeated descriptions of secret rooms section

I am removing the section below because it is unsourced. It is also ambiguous.

Repeated descriptions of secret rooms

While most SRA accounts are regarded by modern eyes as absurd and impossible, the abuse setting of a secret room, tunnel, or other "special" location is a theme which not only is noticeable in (now disproven) victim recollections, but has also been verified by several official investigations. Abuse truth 23:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ralph Underwager and the Institute of Psychologal Therapies

An editor here has accused me of slandering Dr Ralph Underwager, the founder of the Institute of Psychological Therapies and the False Memory Syndrome Foundation.

For his interest, I have provided exerpts of an article published in The Sunday Times, called "Child abuse expert says paedophilia part of 'god's will' - Dr Ralph Underwager" by Liz Lightfoot, 19 December 1993.

AN AMERICAN psychologist whose evidence has been widely used to discredit child witnesses in sexual abuse cases has claimed that men who have sex with children could defend their behaviour as part of God's will ...
Last night Underwager admitted that his credibility had been damaged by the interview, in which he urged paedophiles to defend themselves publicly. He denied that he approved of the behaviour, but added that "scientific evidence" showed 60% of women sexually abused as children reported that the experience had been good for them. He contended the same could be true for boys.
He confirmed that he had approved the article in the journal Paidika, subtitled the Journal of Paedophilia, before publication. In it he stated: "Paedophiles need to become more positive and make the claim that paedophilia is an acceptable expression of God's will for love and unity among human beings.
"The solution that I'm suggesting is that paedophiles become much more positive. They should directly attack the concept, the image, the picture of the paedophile as an evil, wicked and reprehensible exploiter of children." ...
He has been forced to resign from his high-profile position as a founding member of the False Memory Society (FMS) following the article. The FMS, which has branches in America and Britain, was set up to examine the phenomenon of adults in therapy who falsely recall being abused as children. It told Underwager he could remain a member only if he was prepared to state that any sexual contact between a child and an adult was always destructive.
"I am a scientist and I could not agree to that because it is not a statement based on scientific research," he said this weekend ...
Underwager said he believed feminists were jealous of men's ability to love other men or children and had stirred up hysteria over paedophilia. "The point where men may say that maleness can include the intimacy and closeness of sex may make women jealous," he said in the interview. "This would hold true for male bonding, and paedophile sex too."

--Biaothanatoi 01:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Paul and Shirley Eberle, and child pornography

An editor has accused me of 'poisoning the well' when I stated that information taken from Paul and Shirley Eberle's book "Abuse of Innocence: The McMartin Preschool Trial" was untrustworthy because the Eberles have published and distributed child pornography.

The Eberle's history first came to light with the publication of the article "Paul and Shirley Eberle: A Strange Pair of Experts" in a 1988 addition of Ms Magazine. An excerpt is provided below:

What is startling about the Eberles' reputation as ground-breaking experts in the field is that their dubious credentials have not been widely challenged. Paul and Shirley Eberle edit a soft-core magazine in California called the L.A. Star that contains a mixture of nude photos, celebrity gossip, telephone sex ads, and promos for The Politics of Child Abuse.
In the 1970's, however, the Eberles were also publishing hard-core pornography. Their publication, Finger, depicted scenes of bondage, S & M, and sexual activities involving urination and defecation. A young girl portrayed with a wide smile on her face sits on top of a man whose penis is inside of her; a woman has oral sex with a young boy in a drawing entitled "Memories of My Boyhood."
The Eberles were featured nude on one cover holding two life-size blow up dolls names "Love Girl" and "Play Guy." No dates appear on the issues and the Eberles rarely attach their names, referring to themselves as "The L.A. Star Family."
The Eberles were the distributors of Finger and several other underground magazines, says Donald Smith, a sergeant with the obscenity section of the Los Angeles Police Department's vice division who followed the couple for years. LAPD was never able to prosecute for child pornography: "There were a lot of photos of people who looked like they were under age but we could never prove it." The pictures of young children in Finger are illustrations, and child pornography laws were less rigid a decade ago than they are today.
"Sexpot at Five," "My First Rape, She Was Only Thirteen," and "What Happens When Niggers Adopt White Children" are some of the articles that appeared in Finger. One letter states: "I think it's really great that your mags have the courage to print articles & pixs [sic] on child sex...Too bad I didn't hear from more women who are into child sex...Since I'm single I'm not getting it on with my children, but I know of a few families that are. If I were married & my wife & kids approved--I'd be having sex with my daughters."
Another entry reads: "I'm a pedophile & I think its [sic] great a man is having sex with his daughter!...Since I didn't get Finger #3, I didn't get to see the stories & pics of family sex. Would like to see pics of nude girls making it with their daddy, but realize its too risky to print."

During cross examination of an expert witness in the trial of Margaret Kelly Michaels, the prosecution referred to the Eberles as "child pornographers", and the judge dismissed the defence's application for a mistrial on the basis that such a label was based on fact. (Judge denies mistrial in sex-abuse case, The Associated Press, 22 January 1988). An exerpt is below:

A state judge yesterday refused to declare a mistrial in a 7-month-old child sex-abuse case over the remarks of a prosecutor, who had called the authors of a book recommended by a defense witness "child pornographers." ...
Superior Court Judge William F. Harth denied the motion yesterday, saying use of the word "pornographer" was not improper.
"We established that some of the literature he relied on {as an expert} was written by child pornographers," [prosecutor] Goldberg said outside the courtroom yesterday.
On Wednesday, Goldberg, in front of the jury, called the authors "child pornographers" because of other publications linked to the Eberles: the newspaper L.A. Star, which Goldberg said advertised sex services and contained the Eberles' writings, and the sexually explicit magazine Finger.
Goldberg, outside the courtroom yesterday, displayed a copy of Finger, which he said the Eberles published. On the cover were pictures of a naked couple posing with life-size inflatable dolls. Inside, the couple was identified as Paul and Shirley Eberle, and the dolls as Love Girl and Play Guy.
The copy also showed pictures of naked children.

If it has been deemed appropriate to refer to the Eberles child pornographers in court, then surely it is inappropriate for Wikipedia to rely on their published writings.

I hope that this information assists editors and contributers here in understanding the complexity of the SRA debate, and how this debate has been shaped by pro-incest advocates like Ralph Underwager and child pornographers like Paul and Shirley Eberle.

--Biaothanatoi 01:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

  • The Duke Lacrosse players were called rapists in legal proceedings. Legal proceedings are adversarial, in which both sides make conflicting statements. Even being found guilty or innocent does not make legal statements true. The Salem witches were found guilty, and O.J. was found innocent. Wikipedia isn't about "truth". Its about verifiability, and historical consensus, and not giving undue weight to fringe opinions. Anyway, your using a straw man attack. The Eberles are not used as a source in this article. Posing naked does not make you "pornographers". John Lennon and Yoko Ono posed naked for their album cover, and every medical textbook I have has genitals in it, and Wikipedia has nudity in it, so maybe by your definition, your contributing to pornography too. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The LAPD believes that the Eberles were active in the child pornography trade, and so too did a judge. You can make up your own mind, but it's hard to understand your defense of the Eberles given that their publication "Finger" contained images of children having sex with adults, stories of children being raped, and rapturous fan mail from self-identified paedophiles.
You apply a "floating standard" to material in this article that changes when it suits you. Your previous position was that, as long as information is printed and published somewhere (on a website, in a newspaper, in a book), it is 'verifiable' and can therefore be included here. Your position seems to apply a fairly low standard in terms of credibility or relevance - for instance, you've claimed that the word of an obituarist on a dead woman's mental health is of equal (if not superior) value to the professional opinion of the dead woman's psychologist, simply because the obituary was published in NYT.
Now we find you contesting the relevance of edited reports because they were published outside North America and contesting the findings of a judge and the relevance of newspaper court reporters because the legal process is not perfect. By your previous standard, this information is verifiable and therefore an acceptable source for a Wikipedia. It seems that you are applying a new standard - or rather, a set of spurious tests designed to block information from this article that doesn't suit your POV.
I included this information on the Eberles here after you accused me of slander and libel. Clearly, you were incorrect in that accusation, since the involvement of the Eberles in the child sex trade has been public knowledge for almost twenty years. --Biaothanatoi 02:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The "questioning children" section

I've substantially rewritten the section on "questioning children", which made a number of unsourced and factually incorrect assertions regarding the reliability of children's testimony.

There is a considerable body of research into children's testimony and the accuracy of their memory - research sparked in no small way by the controversies over ritual abuse. This research does not suggest that children are highly suggestible or easily led by adults. What it demonstrates is that, whlist leading interview techniques impact on both adults and children, they rarely lead to false reports.

Play therapy with very young children has also been successfully tendered as evidence of sexual abuse in court for years now, and whilst it may be a controversial technique amongst those influenced by the False Memory Syndrome movement, it does not attract the same skepticism in legal or academic circles.

I've also included information in this section on children's difficulties in sexual assault trials, which is well documented by researchers in America, Australia and Britain. It is pertinent to the issue of questioning children. I can provide further sources and information on this matter if other editors think it would add to the article.

--Biaothanatoi 04:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The "hypnosis and false memories" section

This is a strange section for a number of reasons, and I suggest that it be substantively rewritten.

For instance, not a single source is provided for any assertion in the entire section, and a number of statements are made at such a level of generality that they can be easily disproven. The most concerning aspect of this article is that it uses the phrase "recovered memory therapy" to refer to a "technique" through which memories of child abuse are recovered.

There is no psychotherapeutic technique called "recovered memory therapy". The phrase was invented by Richard Ofshe and Ethan Waters in their book "Making Monsters" to auspice both evidence-based treatment for PTSD as well as fringe practices such as 'rebirthing', 'past-life regression', etc. This was a rhetorical strategy designed to undermine the credibility of all treatment for traumatic amnesia.

As you can read in this article, Richard Ofshe's theories on SRA were thrown out of court in Paul Ingram case, where the judge called his logic "odd" and his conclusions unfounded, and called into question his professional capacity and expertise. The fact that Ofshe later promulgated those same conclusions through his advocacy work with the False Memory Syndrome Foundation does not mean that we should reproduce them here as fact, particularly since they have been found to be lacking in court, and robustly contested by his academic peers.

--Biaothanatoi 06:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Rewritten - see what you think. --Biaothanatoi 01:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Interested editors?

For anyone who is interested in edits relating to this topic, I'm having some difficulty at Satanic ritual abuse and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with editors who are incredulous that the term "Satanic ritual abuse" is even appropriate for what is discussed there. Would love to see input/assistance from editors here who are familiar with the topic. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Broad summary of contested issues at WP:FTN

Over at the fringe theories noticeboard I have posted a broad review of certain recent edits to this page; in summary, I believe that reliable published sources have been selectively misquoted and misinterpreted to push a fringe POV. Please try and keep the resulting discussion in one place. <eleland/talkedits> 15:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)