Talk:Satanic panic

False memories

I think that the section "False memories" needs to be divided for clarity. Right now it is written as if "false memory" = "false memory syndrome" = "False Memory Syndrome Foundation", which is utterly incorrect. The existence of false memories is scientific fact, and the theory that so many of the supposed "memories" of Satanic ritual abuse were actually false memories -- including, obviously, the ones that could not be true! -- is hardly limited to members of the FMSF. The section should explain first the proven existence of false memories and the widespread theory that they are behind some if not all memories of supposed "Satanic ritual abuse", and then in a subsequent paragraph, explain the relevance of the "false memory syndrome" term and the position of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

By false memories do you mean confabulations? The section needs to be expanded, the FMSF page needs a clean up as well, but all need reliable sources to do so. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It'll be great if someone digs up reliable sources so the section can be expanded. What I'm talking about, however, is rearranging the material in the section to make it clearer that the existence of false memories/confabulations is not under dispute, though "false memory syndrome" might be. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Page move

Given the scholarly opinion, I'd really support a move of this page from satanic ritual abuse to satanic ritual abuse moral panic. Any thoughts? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I object. A significant body of literature has been published over the last two years that takes allegations of ritual abuse seriously. Two edited books, Ritual Abuse in the 21st Century and Forensic Aspects of Dissociative Identity Disorder, were published in 2008, containing numerous articles by clinicians and researchers on ritual abuse. A peer-reviewed journal articles by MacDonald and Sarson (2008) and a refereed conference paper by Salter (2008) also take allegations of ritual abuse seriously.

In addition, substantiated cases of ritual abuse have come to the fore, including two convictions in the Hosanna Church case. The most recent substantiation of ritual abuse came out today, involving a child removed by the state from her father's care after he murdered her infant sister.

This page should continue to reflect the diversity of academic opinion and forensic evdience on ritual abuse. Changing the name of the page to "moral panic" is inherently POV. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ritula abuse in the 21st century by Randy Noblitt? That's vanity press and useless for wikipedia. Forensic aspects of DID is arguably applicable, but it's tapping into the government conspiracy/MKULTRA tinfoil-hat wearing crowd through a self-selection approach to the survey that makes it essentially useless as a controlled study, as are the single examples of the CBS news studies and Hosanna Church. That's not satanic ritual abuse, that's two examples of fucked up people. It could be compared to finding one mother who cut of one of her kid's feet and writing a page on forced amputation as a serious social problem. Totally different from the moral panic that was SRA (and it was a moral panic - the definition of a moral panic is a reaction that is grossly in excess of the actual threat. Even the Hosanna Church case and Mia don't justify the resources put into just the McMartin trial alone, let alone the reaction across the world to allegations of SRA). What are the full citations for MacDonald and Sarson and Salter? Also, WP:UNDUE allows for a tiny minority to keep believing, which this is. I've a stack of eight books next to me that explicitly describe it as a moral panic. I'm thinking that moral panic isn't even far enough, the title satanic ritual abuse hoax or the imaginary satanic ritual abuse phenomenon are closer to reality in my opinion (fortunately backed by numerous reliable sources). Changing the page's name is actually keeping it realistically in line with the scholarly opinion, which is that it was a moral panic. A couple examples that are explicit include [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], and these are just the sources on google books that I don't need to make a case for because they are explicit. Against this, I see a shoddily-constructed survey, a self-published book, and two other references I don't know the purview of. Changing the name is not inherently POV, it's the most accurate reflection of the current state of affairs. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not debating that a lot of sources claim that SRA is a "moral panic". We both know that is true. But there are a number of credible sources that argue that SRA is not a moral panic. Many of these sources have been published over the last few years, which indicates that this debate is ongoing.

Over time, WLU, you've become a campaigner for TRUTH. You have a strong point of view on this topic, and you believe that it is the only sensible point of view on this topic. Therefore, any editor (and any source) that contradicts you is fair game for ad hominem attacks like those below ("conspiracy theorists" etc).

As evidence of the biased editing on this page - consider that sources like Clapton and Armstrong, who have explicitly stated that SRA is not a moral panic, are selectively quoted on this page to bolster your argument that SRA is a moral panic. For pete's sake, you'll find Clapton stating on the first two pages of his book that SRA claims have substance. And yet he's been (deliberately?) misquoted here, and repeatedly.

Meanwhile, one of your main sources, like Jeffrey Victor, was published 15 years ago by a non-academic publishing houses. Victor's "Satanic Panic" shares a publishing house with books on the philosophy of baseball, and yet you seem more then happy to source him numerous times throughout this article.

Seems that you have different standards for different sources depending on whether they suit your POV - or else you just twist them until they do.

RE: Forensic aspects of DID. You might not like the fact that academic publishing houses, and respected researchers and clinicians, are publishing works that contradict your POV. But you don't have the right to withhold that information from other readers. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I came here from the Fringe theories board. I don't think the page move is a good idea unless there are to be a two pages, one discussing the concept of SRA and one discussing the dynamics of the moral panic. Otherwise it's a polite way of saying Satanic abuse (looney nonsense). Paul B (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record I don't support a name change (per the examples given by Hans Adler below), but I object to the idea that calling loony nonsense what it is in the most tactful and neutral way possible is something to avoid. Being as accurate as possible while also being respectful of the fringe minority (persons) is clearly something we ought to be doing. The polite way to call loony nonsense what it is is the right way to do so as well.PelleSmith (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not something to avoid, but it is done in the article not in the title. Protocols of the Elders of Zion antisemitic hoax does not exist as a title, but the the Protocols of the Elders of Zion article clearly states that it is an antisemitic hoax throughout. Paul B (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The article should certainly reflect the moral panic, but I don't see any need for a name change. Artw (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Also coming from the fringe noticeboard. Yes, it seems to be established that it's almost exclusively a moral panic. No, we don't do titles like that. We dont have intelligent design creationist pseudoscience, Protocols of the Elders of Zion antisemitic hoax or George W. Bush war criminal, either. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Paul B's suggestion of two possible pages might be a good way of splitting a rather long page, but the point is taken. Technically, wouldn't that be George W. Bush (war criminal)?  :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above. No move is necessary. Although, seeing that the "Satanic" tends to be dropped now even by proponents, a move to plain ritual abuse may be arguable. --dab (𒁳) 10:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources again

Hidden repeat of past discussion

I have been reading this discussion and wonder who are the editors making sure that no sources supporting satanic ritual abuse are allowed in this article? I am an experienced psychologist; not an expert in SRA, not a survivor, not a specialist in this area; and yet even I have come into contact with several survivors of SRA in my practice. You say there is an archive that has put this issue of your bias and the validity of your sources to rest, but that is not possible, because if it had been, this article would have been taken down from Wikipedia. You slam all references and sources that others such as Diana Napolis offer, but fail to substantiate why yours are any more credible. This is in spite of the fact that your whole argument has been proven to be pseudoscience over and over again. (see Diana Napoli's references above, also and for more examples) I admit that it's easy to find well-publicized articles purporting to establish that SRA does not exist and that some claim or another has proven to be false. But the refutations of those articles are rarely so widely publicized so the impression remains that these claims are never founded. An example I'm personally familiar with is the case of "Baby X" in Rupert, Idaho. When the accidental discovery of the charred, carefully dismembered remains of an unregistered human newborn were reported, every person who heard about it obviously assumed it was related to Satanic ritual activity. Eventually, however, several newspaper stories were able to explain that there was no evidence linking it to either a Satanic cult or even to murder Yet I personally met with the original coroner who first examined Baby X's remains and he explained that a second coroner's report was ordered a year later after his had been stolen from his file cabinet (a fact not mentioned in a single news account.) The new report somehow was able to determine that the burned infant had died of pneumonia! The original coroner and his wife had also been threatened by prominent members of the Satanic cult in question, prompting him to retire from his job a couple of years early. This is the kind of scenario that allows this activity to remain unsubstantiated and dismissed in the public press, so that those who can prove that it happens appear to be "loony." You may have a whole pile of book references that you found on Google that dispute ritual abuse, but so what? There are, as Diana Napolis has already noted, many, many archives of court cases and investigations involving ritual abuse in which evidence that was sufficiently strong to be admissible in court, or otherwise solidly corroborated by medical evidence or confessions, has been documented. We are not talking about just one or two crazy people here and there. These reports have been substantiated all over the United States and Europe, as well as other parts of the world. When I was in the U.K. recently, I read an article stating that the Vatican has a special Satanic consultation team to work with Italian law enforcement because of the dramatic increase in ritual abuse in Italy lately. At the same time, even with so much propaganda promoting the anti-ritual abuse cause, even the JET (Joint Enquiry Team) Report from the U.K. [30], the official report of the National Social Services Department in response to the infamous SRA cases that prompted the LaFontaine Report (a summary of it was available here: [31]), acknowledges that the staff of the Nottinghamshire Social Services Department were sufficiently convinced of the reality of ritual abuse that they founded RAINS (Ritual Abuse Information Network and Support), which still has a healthy membership in the U.K., and that the British Psychological Society surveyed its members and discovered that 97% of the accredited psychologists in Britain who responded believe their clients' reports of SRA are accurate. Thus, these are most definitely not the views of a small, loony minority. In fact, it is clearly the anti-ritual abuse movement itself that is the moral panic (see DeRivera 1997 above). So I'm still left with the question as to who is the group behind this Wikipedia page and what is motivating them to keep this issue alive? What is their political or personal agenda? Because there certainly is no scientific or valid informational agenda that could be driving those who insist on forcing this anti-ritual abuse pseudo-science on the public.--Oaknolly (talk) 11:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS. SRA is defined by a moral panic by the majority of the recent and reliable sources. LaFontaine's report stated that there was no actual satanic ritual abuse, only pseudosatanism in which the perpetrators invented rituals to excuse and justify the abuse. You may also want to review the 35 google books sources that are explicit about it being a moral panic. SRA having any credibility is the belief of a small, loony minority and there is no reason to change the page. A large number of testimonies isn't the same as actual investigations, and actual investigations turned up bupkus. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

We've been through an exhaustive review of academic literature on the topic (archived somewhere on these talk pages) and the above claims by Oaknolly (most likely not a new editor on these pages) are quite simply not a reflection of reality. For a good neutral example consider that in the current academic literature on "moral panic" SRA is counted as the most poignant contemporary manifestation. Consider also that, as exemplified by Oaknolly, the lack of material evidence is always explained away by SRA advocates through conspiracy theory.

• "The original coroner and his wife had also been threatened by prominent members of the Satanic cult in question, prompting him to retire from his job a couple of years early. This is the kind of scenario that allows this activity to remain unsubstantiated and dismissed in the public press, so that those who can prove that it happens appear to be 'loony.'"

I bet the conspiracy goes all the way up through the various branches of government, perhaps even the Pope is involved. In fact his anti-Satanic task force is probably part of the cover up. Also consider the fact that we are asked to take Diana Napolis as a credible source of information on SRA. I think that last part just about says it all. I hope no one believes the unreferenced claim that 97% of accredited psychologists in Great Britain believe that SRA claims are an accurate reflection of real satanic abuse, because it simply aint so. I suggest certain SRA advocates stop returning to this page under pseudonyms to beat this dead horse. RegardsPelleSmith (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't listen to PelleSmith, who in the ranks of the conspiracy is better known as Worshipful Master Sellempith, Dark Sentinel of the Crypt of Count Halphas. Now it is one thing for the Vatican to be involved in this, but it is truly shocking to find that the ranks of Wikipedia administrators have also been infiltrated. These are dark times indeed. --dab (𒁳) 10:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:OUTING I demand oversight!PelleSmith (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm in the thrall of Our Glorious Dark Overlord Satan too, why don't I get an outing? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating my point precisely. Those in this discussion who are intent on discrediting ritual abuse have no serious professional or intellectual purpose. They reduce their arguments to name-calling, bullying, and ridiculing evidence or references from others instead of answering the critiques of their own or seriously defending how their sources qualify as having true scientific merit. Also, the paranoia that leads to the certainty that I am somehow pretending to be someone else (I have no idea who I'm supposed to be and I've never posted on this discussion or anywhere related to this page before) lends further support to my belief that the entire basis of the anti-ritual abuse movement is defensive in nature. That is also indicated by the fact that those responding to my post missed the point of what I wrote completely and actually projected their own paranoia on to me. I did not suggest that there was a lack of evidence in the Baby X case which should be ascribed to a conspiracy. My point was that there was a great deal of evidence in the Baby X case and that it was completely ignored. (The fact that the coroner and his wife were threatened by members of the cult was simply a typical way in which people are "encouraged" to "forget" about the evidence. That wasn't any worldwide conspiracy. Since the cult had committed a crime, the cult wanted the evidence suppressed, but it wasn't too hard to find anyway. A burned, surgically dismembered, unregistered newborn's remains were found in the woods near Rupert, Idaho. A group of people were known to belong to a Satanic cult in the area but they denied ever killing babies, saying they only killed animals. A 9-year old boy in California independently and spontaneously started drawing pictures of rituals of babies being dismembered and burned and the social workers who had just removed him from his parents' care found out he had just come from Rupert. I could go on-- there was an abundance of evidence.) The people responding to my post are doing the same revisionism as all of the False Memory types seem to enjoy doing: reframing arguments into terms in which they were never stated to begin with and then hysterically beating to a pulp the straw men they created. Also, I did offer references, but, since I noted that I am not an expert in this subject, I am not inclined to satisfy the demand for more by a)simply Googling "ritual abuse" and copying every reference I find on the subject without knowing exactly what the value of every source actually is, or b)spending several days sorting through the literature finding the best books and articles beyond what have already been offered (by me and, I'm sure, many others, by the comments I've read). The reason I don't want to do that is because I know it won't do any good. They will be dismissed for irrelevant reasons just like all the other comments have been, by posters, excuse me, editors, who are clearly not professionals and who do not have any first-hand knowledge of this subject. Having a philosophical interest in the definition of a "moral panic" is an entirely different discussion than whether or not intense suffering is caused by people pretending to have been traumatized or by real abuse. I am a practicing psychologist, as I said before. I regularly attend conferences and workshops attended by hundreds of other practicing professionals treating people who have been severely traumatized by all kinds of severe and chronic abuse, including ritual abuse. We don't waste time questioning whether or not ritual abuse is real. We are expert at working with our clients' traumatic memories (brought in by them, never elicited, by the way) without needing to assume they are either true or false. At the same time, we don't doubt that such horrific abuse as is reported by survivors of ritual abuse occurs. I don't know who the people are who are continuing this campaign to discredit these vulnerable survivors, but neither do I, nor any professionals I know, sit around worrying about a conspiracy covering up the evidence. Yet that seems to be exactly what the anti-ritual abuse community has persisted in doing for decades. So, no matter how much evidence or how many documented examples of ritual abuse I were to post on this page, those references, I'm sure, would be ridiculed and I would be bullied just like I was in my first post and like I will be after this one. This page is not a meaningful intellectual effort. The page itself is an indication of a moral panic about the fear of Satanic and other kinds of cult and ritual abuse.

Sorry I originally forgot to sign the above post.--Oaknolly (talk) 10:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This is pure trolling. You claim the entry lacks seriousness and professionalism, but the fact is that a thorough literature review was done here. Outside the years encompassed by the moral panic the "belief" in the reality of SRA is undeniably a fringe belief (and within these year even the locus of belief amongst "professionals" is centered on a subset of the psychotherapeutic/social work community). Please have the "professional" courtesy to at least do some homework. Also, "moral panic" falls within the field of sociology. It is an explanatory model based upon data collected by social scientists. Therapists, I'm sorry to say, are for the most part not really social scientists by practice--even if some are by training. The choice, as a therapist, to believe a patient has nothing to do with the actual veracity of the patients claims nor, as you suggest yourself, is it aimed to. Conflating "psychology" as a research discipline with "psychotherapy" is an egregious error. The latter is not concerned with producing anything resembling science (be it psychological, sociological, forensic, historical, etc.) but instead with producing conditions that promote the psychological well being of human patients. Despite all of this, belief in the veracity of SRA is still a minority position even within the contemporary pscyhotherapuetic community. Within social science or the academy in general it is completely fringe. If you don't want people to chalk up your comments to conspiracy theory then don't present a conspiracy theory ... which you clearly did. You would also add to your credibility if you provided reliable sources to back your various claims about the relative value the belief in the veracity of SRA withing your claimed professional community, which until then remain entirely spurious. On the other hand, as mentioned we have been through this before, and I remain convinced that you know this. No one here is going to support rehashing the same nonsense simply because you claim to be someone new to the page. Disengaging myself.PelleSmith (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sick of sockpuppets and conspiracy mongerers expecting the page to change purely based on assertion. SRA is clearly regarded as a moral panic, clearly regarded as an iconic moral panic, and discussion without new sources is clearly a waste of time. I'm not even inviting a revision based on new sources, because there won't be. The world has moved on, let it go. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Given that dozens of sources have been published over the last few years on the subject of SRA (both pro- and anti-) it seems that this debate is very much alive. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the debate is dead. The real sources, the reliable scholarly books, are all critical. The occasional, low-notability, fringe sources are tangential. Biaothanatoi, you are not going to be convinced, and you have yet to provide any reasonable source that could support your position. Consider yourself shunned. I'm reading what you write, and if I ever find anything worth replying to, I'll let you know. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

fork off "Satanic Panic"?

OK, for what hasn't been the first time, I've followed a wikilink for Satanic panic and ended up back at this page, and I don't think it should happen.

To me, the term "Satanic panic" refers to the more general Satanism "subversion myth" or "countersubversion ideology" (one is Bromley's words, the other is JS Victor's, I think) that developed in the US over the 20th century, the general idea of which is either that there's a vast Satanic conspiracy, or that secular society is leading children to Satan. The SRA panic was just an offshoot that ripped off Satanic panic discourse. "Satanic panic" includes the anti-heavy metal crusade, the Ray Kroc Satanism rumour, the Proctor & Gamble Satanism rumour, the anti-D&D hysteria, and various other conspiracy theories and hysteria-mongering by the usual suspects within Christian fundamentalism.

Maybe nobody here wants to start such an article here right now, but I'd like to see if people here will support the idea of Wikipedia having a separate article on the "Satanic panic".

There are scholarly sources available by the ton, probably no synthesis or OR is required.

So, agree or disagree? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Agree.PelleSmith (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• Have to see the page and sources - I've done a bit of reading in this area, and Victor is the only source I recall dealing with those sorts of things. Of course, most of my reading was SRA-specific. I'd say draft on a sub-page and see what you've got. Incidentally, if you do have to do a synthesis or OR, the page probably shouldn't exist . And for all who are interested, ResearchEditor is alive, well and sockpuppeting - Abuse surveys. S/he keeps trying to cram the extreme abuse surveys onto wikipedia in some form or another, though the increasingly surreal spellings used to avoid the search engine catching it makes the page less and less likely to be found. Very amusing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Leaning towards disagree at th is time. The term "Satanic panic" is used overwhelmingly to point out that claims of Satanic influence/conspiracy are a form of mass hysteria, and almost primarily for the most extreme of those, the supposed ritual abuse and cover up. Question though: do we have a general article anywhere on these wild claims of Satanic-inspiration in music, logos, etc.? Not sure the Satanic panic name is right for it, but if there isn't anything on it here there should be. DreamGuy (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If I might suggest to AGTTHt, try writing a sub-page and assembling the sources there, then seeing what the best title might be. This would probably be a handy resource for you. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

WLU: Victor talks about it maybe (his book's stolen from my Uni library, so I've only seen his articles); Nathan & Snedeker go into detail about it in setting up their account of the SRA panic; there are articles in Richardson BEst & Bromley that address it; I'd think even Arthur Lyons talks about it a bit; but there are other people who write about the Satanism subversion myth/countersubversion ideology who weren't involved in SRA scholarship, who simply approach it from an analysis of fundamentalist Christianity. It's definitely a separate subject from the SRA panic: or, rather, it's a larger subject of which SRA is one small sub-topic. And I feel there are enough Wikipedia articles with "allegations of being part of a Satanic conspiracy/leading children to Satan" sections in them that this should all be lumped together as the recognized social phenomenon that it really is. There are decent scholarly sources, I just dunno if I have the time or drive to write this up right now. I might just generate a supportable stub, if I remember to, then come back to it later when I'm bored. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

SRA is indeed related to a wider phenomena and there is enough literature to write an entry I believe. However "Satanic panic" is just one term ... why not "the Satanism Scare" for instance? SRA is also the most poignant aspect of this larger phenomena and it garnered more media attention when it flared up and certainly more scholarly attention during and after the fact. I think you will want to look to the folklorists primary for the wider entry. Bill Ellis, for instance, has a great article about a satanic rumor panic in a small Pennsylvania town titled "The Devil-Worshipers at the Prom".PelleSmith (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If you do want to look into Victor, google books has a searchable on-line version [32]. Richardson Bromley & Best I haven't read yet, but interlibrary loan might let me. PS' ideas seem to have merit. I'm still at a loss of what to call it, everyone in the biz seems to use a different name. Satanism in popular culture? Satanism hysteria? SRA is the only topic which I think has a central, organizing thesis and name, but Thomas Aquino's pages might have some info or starting points as well. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Resources for RMT

For the recovered memory therapy section - Lost Daughters, [33], [34], [35], [36]. This one is for nutterism and links to the contemporary CIA bullshit - [37] WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

WLU, your use of these phrases suggests an incredibly biased opinion of the veracity of claims relating to CIA involvement in Mind Control research. I trust you are aware that the CIA's interest in creating structured multiple personalities in children through drug use, hypnosis and neurolinguistic programming is clearly stated in their own documentation of the MK Ultra program. While some authors and editors may have used this information to theorize conspiracies that are largely speculative, I want to make clear that it is a historic fact that the CIA (as well as foreign intelligence agencies) have been instrumental players in the phenomena of Mind Control. I trust that any broad-stroked reference to "nutterism" and "contemporary CIA bullshit" is not meant to include the programs of which I speak. Thank you for reading and I apologize if this note is redundant and/or that you are already aware of what I have written. If you are not, I would be happy to suggest some reference material. Best, LL LeftLegged (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of a vast forest of rumours and also the complete lack of any proof. I'm also aware of the large number of people who are using the destroyed files of MK-ULTRA as a means of speculating wildly about items with no basis in science (like mind control - it doesn't work despite millions plugged into the program). Citing NLP, which doesn't even work as a therapeutic modality, is something new though. Even on the sight of it, why would you choose children as assassins? They're stupid, impetuous, physically weak, have minimal understanding of complex ideological issues, have a surfiet of imagination with minimal understanding of real world physics and adult motivations, would probably not have the ability to improvise and have a limited learning time in which to pick up techniques.

So yeah, I'm aware of some of the issues, but don't see much point to giving the tinfoil-hat wearing, crayon-weilding crowd a lot of credibility on wikipedia. If you have reliable sources (in this page, that would be academic press) present them for review. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Everything you've said here is conjecture (much of which I agree with) that goes far, far beyond what I stated. I am interested only in facts and I referenced only one of them - that there are multiple lines in MK Ultra docs obtained by Colin Ross through the FOIA act which directly state (and can be so quoted) the intent to create multiple personalities in children. I have seen reproductions of those actual documents online. From what I understand, there is an appropriate way to reference such a document without having to do so through an academic text referring to them. I am not interested in doing that myself, rather to make sure you acknowledge that despite all the CT that has been speculated about MK Ultra, there are some facts that should be acknowledged.LeftLegged (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"I am not interested in doing that myself" OK then, neither am I so we are done talking. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Graffiti

The Main Article referred to Believers in SRA finding Graffiti as 'Proof' of secret Satanic Conspiracies. There is a long history of people reading 'evidence of conspiracy' into Graffiti. In Post War London some Police Officers were convinced that Graffiti on walls were used as 'Markers' by criminals to indicate activities carried on in building with such Graffiti on (selling stolen property, drugs, prostitution etc). During the Cold War both sides suspected each other of being the creators of most public Graffiti.Johnwrd (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

John one example Of graffiti being use as evidence for SRA in the USA is a recent theory put forward by two retired police detectives called the "Smiley Face Killer"(or Murders/Gang/Theory) that a number of young adults killed while away at university under strange circumstances most "dumped" in rivers and then where they were put in was a spray paint smiley face. The big question is was the face or the point where the boys put in the bodies of water found first.It started out with quite a bit of excitement but when evidence failed to materialize it sputtered out. Oh yeah their have been a ton of serial killings in the US so don't confuse this with the "Happy Face Killer".-- Nate Riley 16:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Major problems

I've been watching this page for several years and have only seen it grow more opinionated and increasingly intellectually dishonest. In the professiona therapeutic community, "Satanic Ritual Abuse" is, in no way, equivalent to "Ritual Abuse." That conflation is, to quote a favorite phrase of the propagandist monikered "Dreamguy" - "wildy POV-pushing" and a serious breach of WP's NPOV clause.

This page almost entirely contradicts current academic and professional consensus about the phenomena of RA. Instead, it presents a reactionary construct that exists largely in the minds of self proclaimed "skeptics," most of whom appear to be affiliated with one of several such organizations. As such it is, again, in breach of NPOV - presenting a fringe minority position as official.

I have contacted one of WP's founders about this problem. Furthermore, it should be noted here that many professional organizations in the field of child abuse prevention have already or are currently preparing a rebuttal to this page. That should *not* be necessary if WP is worth the pixels it is presented on.

Furthermore, this page as well as False Memory, and Recovered Memory Therapy have evidenced a gang of 'gatekeepers' over the past 2-3 years who strongly push aforementioned minority viewpoint, many conducting themselves with an air of highly egregious disrespect for the steady stream of new WP users who have tried to improve the quality of these articles. Numerous times (countless really) I have watched such changes implemented then rolled back and tagged with explanations by the aforementioned gang that are essentially nonsensical, making charges of bias and NPOV violation that are, quite simply backwards.

Last, the rejection of two sources, both by the authors Randy Noblitt and Pamela Perskin Noblitt with accusations of, again, minority bias and being published by a vanity press are beyond the pale. The Noblitts are the closest thing to legitimate experts on Ritual Abuse, with over 3 decades of experience.

I intend to contribute to this page over the next few months and will not be bullied in the fashion described. I intend to play fair, honorably and respectfully. Nice to meet you. LeftLegged (talk) 09:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

And I hope the "founder" you contacted refered you to WP:Pillars for more information. sherpajohn

Actually the founder respected my concern, acknowledged that WP is still in its infancy and that such concerns are valid. Very much unlike the editors on these pages that impressed me so negatively, his response was thoughtful, non-dogmatic and sensible. LeftLegged (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC) (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, straight out of the gates with the first edit to Wikipedia ever being personal attacks and other extremely problematic stances... that's not a good sign. If the Noblitts were, in fact, "the closest thing to legitimate experts on Ritual Abuse" they'd be published by someone other than a vanity press publisher. And I'd also note the last editor who talked like you do got permanently banned for POV pushing and disruption. DreamGuy (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Dreamguy. First off, I am not straight out of the gate. I previously posted under a different name. I have forgotten the password and no longer have the email account with which I registered. I have observed you very carefully over the years and, as you are aware, you have a history that includes multiple disputes and discipline by WP. As I recall, you also got into some trouble for using sockpuppets. If you are unable to civilly and clearly explain what stances of mine you consider to be "problematic," your claim holds no water. That you choose to be so general makes me suspect that you are functioning as a gatekeeper, as I described above. My reference to you as a "propagandist" may be controversial but it is not a personal attack - it is my legitimate impression of how you have conducted yourself on these pages. I am referring specifically to the fact that many times I have observed that you make strongly worded charges against editors presenting information you reject, usualyl without engaging in respectful dialogue. Furthermore, myself and others have observed that the charges you make (ie accusing me of making personal attacks, violating NPOV, etc) against other editors are very aggressive, that you do not engage in meaningful dialogue and that these charges actually seem to describe your own behavior. Given how reactive you are and how incendiary your reactions are to situations that do not appear to warrant that response, I am of the opinion that your behavior here disqualifies you from being a valid editor. The Noblitts' first book was published by the Greenwood Publishing Group which has not been charged with being a "vanity press." Furthermore, your charge against their current press is validated by a two person conversation on a bulletin board. I do not consider that to be a legitimate source. I have done nothing and will do nothing to foment "disruption" here. I introduced myself on the talk page and stated my purpose without making any changes. This has to be taken as a sign of courtesy and respect for collaboration and dialogue. Finally I have seen numerous instances in which you use the phrase "POV pushing." I am of the opinion that you abuse the NPOV pillar, hiding behind it, in order to silence other editors. To make clear again - it is not a POV that ritual abuse exists any more than that RA was an episode of fundamentalist Christian hysteria in the 1980s. Cheers.LeftLegged (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it is quite clear that you were on Wikipedia here before under a different account... and from your actions I suspect that you are that banned user back yet again. But don't worry, that's not an idle accusation, we'll look into it officially and make sure the appropriate action is taken. I've already contacted the editor who was keeping track of all that editor's sockpuppet accounts and getting them all blocked one by one. Also, if you think I used sockpuppets you do not recall correctly. Some people falsely accused me of doing so, just as other problem editors have made other false allegations to try to intimidate me.

I posted under the username Westworld very briefly in the fall of 2006. I will add a reference to this on my page. I have never used a sockpuppet, nor was I banned. It would seem that you have erroneously concluded that I am Research Editor. LeftLegged (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

But, at any rate, unless you follow policies here you won't get anywhere. From your comments it doesn't look like you intend to. DreamGuy (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Dreamguy, what you have written here is an example of exactly the kind of unwarranted antagonism I have perceived in your actions before. There is no excuse for insinuating that I am unlikely to follow policies here. Please re-read my introduction, specifically where I state "I have done nothing and will do nothing to foment "disruption" here. I introduced myself on the talk page and stated my purpose without making any changes. This has to be taken as a sign of courtesy and respect for collaboration and dialogue." Your insinuation that I do not intend to follow policies is completely egregious and I would like an apology in order to demonstrate good faith.

Any new user who uses threats, misinformation and rules-lawyering to shoehorn themselves into a discussion can't be trusted. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly agree with what you have said. If you are suggesting that I have, in any way, 1) threatened, 2) attempted to spread "misinformation" or 3) "rules-lawyered", please let me know *exactly* what you are responding too. The only thing I have stated that could even roughly be construed as a threat is my statement that I will not be bullied. And guess what? That is not a threat. LeftLegged (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In your past experience LL, did you come up against WP:TLDR, WP:NPA, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and WP:SPS? All apply here and on the main page. Keep your posts short, don't blame other editors, find reliable sources to support your points, make sure the minority opinion doesn't overwhelm the page, and don't use self-published sources. Lengthy debate, available in the archives, have indicated that the "skeptical" position on satanic ritual abuse is the scholarly norm, and the position we should adopt. What was the name of your previous account by the way? May I suggest adding {{User Alternate Acct Name}} to your current user page and placing a redirect on your previous page, so you can transparently indicate a previous editing history? Since no new sources have been provided or suggested, I do not see a reason to adjust the main page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to hide my previous username. In fact I would prefer to use it for continuity. However, as I said, I have no way to retrieve the password. Because that account is frozen in time nearly three years ago, it would seem misleading to present it as an "alternate" name. As to your claim that you see no reason to edit the page, as no new sources have been provided - it does not make sense. As I stated, the change I am suggesting is opinion-neutral and not about the content of the page but the logical consistency of the statement. I am in complete agreement that the skeptic's position on SRA is the dominant position. LeftLegged (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Undent. If you spoke to the fine people at WP:CHU, I'm sure you could get your password reset, and no matter what you should flag your old account. You don't need to be an account to edit the user page, and if you are indeed the same person, then obviously the other account won't object. It's not misleading, it's transparent. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't sweat it, LL. If you take a different view of SRA then the one mandated by editors of this page, then you will invariably be accused of being a sockpuppet of some kind - just as all credible sources that dispute the sceptical account of SRA are libelled. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You can't libel a document, and we certainly don't libel the authors or Wikipedia editors. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Biaothanatoi, your comment completely ignores the dozens of sockpuppets that ResearchEditor created because he was unable to substantiate his edits with any contemporary, reliable sources. Rather than decrying the lack of fairness on the faith of other editors, may I suggest putting more effort into finding reliable sources that substantiate what you believe to be true? If we are wrong because of the massive number of sources out there that simply aren't used yet, please cram them down our throats. In the mean time, consider an accusation of sockpuppetry a combination of "trial by fire" and a sensible precaution against someone known and proven to have deliberately compromised the integrity of the project in pursuit of the truth. Anyone who is not a sockpuppet of ResearchEditor has nothing to worry about. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources supporting existence of SRA

Forgive me I need to freshen up on posting format. Consider this a placeholder. The author of this book experienced recovered memories of familial satanic ritual abuse that have been independently verified by law enforcement. Her parents, who tortured and abused her provided verbal and written confessions both to her and to Utah law enforcement members. It is worth noting that her story is very similar to others reported by self-proclaimed survivors that who have been unable to obtain corroborating evidence. http://www.amazon.com/Hell-Minus-Anne-Johnson-Davis/dp/0978834801/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238601614&sr=8-2

First Sentence

"Satanic ritual abuse (SRA, sometimes known as ritual abuse, ritualistic abuse, organised abuse, sadistic abuse and other variants) refers to a moral panic that originated in the United States in the 1980s, spreading throughout the country and eventually to many parts of the world, before subsiding in the late 1990s." I am concerned that this introductory sentence is not conceptually accurate and probably not structurally sound. Independent of any opinion on the reality and veracity of the phenomena of "satanic ritual abuse," SRA is a theoretical event or practice that is considered by many to be the *result* of a moral panic. When one thinks of the person or group who is panicking - they are *referring* to SRA. Their panic is not equivalent to the theoretical event or practice. I am not, in any way, trying to introduce any given opinion for or against SRA, but I would like to find a way to make the sentence more logically coherent. For example - "Satanic ritual abuse is a social phenomena that was reported to have been experienced by numerous individuals, mostly during the 1980s in the United States, although such reports subsequently spread to many parts of the world. Today it is generally considered to be an urban myth that came into common parlance and public consciousness as the result of a moral panic that occurred due to a variety of complex factors including the resurgence of fundamentalist interpretations of Christianity, supernatural themes in popular film and literature, and the historical explosion of women entering the workforce and the historical trend toward allowing non-family members to serve as childcare providers that resulted." I am not suggesting this exact paragraph, only something similar that is clearer in terms of distinguishing the *subject* of the article from the reasons given to *explain* it. I am very curious how other editors respond to this suggestion. In order to accurately reflect common semantics used in academic professional settings, I feel strongly that the synonyms in parentheses need to be carefully reconsidered, but I assume that will require a much more detailed conversation and careful research into those uses in order to neutrally mediate disagreements and stay true to NPOV.Thanks for reading. LeftLegged (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, the book you recommend using as a source above does not meet our standards for WP:RS.

And your rewording suggestion above seems to want to try to solve a non-existent problem by making a needlessly complicated sentence full of WP:WEASEL words. The subject of the article is the panic, so that's what the lead says. DreamGuy (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

First, as I said before, when you are not specific in your criticism it is almost impossible to respond - please specify the instances you see as weasel words. Second, I am acting in good faith to solve what I perceive as a real problem. If the topic is solely about the moral panic, then from a logical standpoint there needs to be another page that is about the act or event of SRA, such as was purportedly experienced by Anne Johnson David. LeftLegged (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Anne Johnson Davis already has a page. The book is an autobiography published by Tooele Transcript-Bulletin, a Utah-based newspaper publishing company that apparently also has a book publishing arm. It's not scholarly press, and even if it where, a single anecdote, even if substantiated, still does not change the opinion that SRA was a moral panic. See the definition of a moral panic - a disproportionate reaction to a real or imagined group that threatens a given social order and values. The truth of Davis' claims is irrelevant to the page, and publications on or about the topic are press-release ones. Your original research commentary isn't of much use in a page heavily laden with sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Had I edited the topic page to include any reference to her book, it would be appropriate to charge me with making a original research commentary. But I posted it, recall, as a placemarker. Davis' story is unusual precisely because she obtained written confessions. She has made those written confessions public. I noticed on her page, WLU, that you commented: I'd be very curious what is in them. There is video online of a 1995 television news story in which the charges are read out-loud and they describe acts similar to the ones on this page about which it is erronesously stated that no evidence has ever been found. These confessions are evidence. I have no intention of quoting her biography as a reference source. However statements of fact about the book may be made - ie "David published these confessions in an autobiography." LeftLegged (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the editors who seem to be editing the article, contrary to verified facts, but in keeping with LeftLegged's opinions, are a different editor and an IP who have never edited here before. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not follow though I don't think you are suggesting I am that editor or am guilty of sockpuppetry or anything of the like. However, I want to make very clear, again, since you have made reference to my "opinions," my opinions are no more valid to my editing than yours are. I have no intention of making any edit that is not properly referenced. And I am not here to advocate for any particular opinion. LeftLegged (talk) 08:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Why are we talking then? If no-one is suggesting changes to the page, then wikipedia is not a forum and we should not clutter the talk page. So I guess we're done. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

more socks

I would like to draw your attention to Cimeth (talk · contribs), the first ever and so far only edit of this account's being this. --dab (𒁳) 10:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

And one-edit new account User:Unipfer repeated the same thing. DreamGuy (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

And this edit is the same kind of thing by User:Calimatt. Don't be fooled by deceptive edit comments. DreamGuy (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

And one-edit new account User:Crifty did the exact same thing. Quite a farm of socks this guy has going. Probably more we're missing, so stay alert.DreamGuy (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Acredf, WP:Boimaa and others editing this article are clearly the same individual at work, assuming they haven't already been mentioned earlier. DreamGuy (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked a whole bunch of throwaway accounts.[38] Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you turned up a ton of them. Thanks! DreamGuy (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Picture

So I'm the only one who thinks the Charcot pic was suitable, wah! It's still a very, very long page, and very text heavy. I've tried to turn up other pictures that could be used in the page and this was the best I could come up with. Any other ideas? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Masonic ritual abuse

I remember reading a fairly old book from the 1800s which claimed of ritual abuse of underaged girls during Masonic ritual ceremonies. There were even American Presidents that had allegedly been invited to these occult ceremonies at the lodges of the Grand Orient of France in Paris. Part of this claim obviously implies the widespread conspiratorial belief that Masons are crypto-Satanists. In any case, it would be interesting if the article were able to find links between conspiracy theories about secret societies such as the Freemasons and modern allegations of Satanic ritual abuse. ADM (talk) 05:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it sould be possible for you to provide the name and author of this book? __meco (talk) 09:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect it to illustrate so much a 19th-c. belief that Masons are crypto-Satanists; more likely, it illustrates that ritual abuse has been alleged in the past against all sorts of "the usual suspects". Jews, for example, were also accused of stealing babies to drink their blood in their ceremonies... or something. Witches too. There may be some tiny mention of this in... let's see, Nathan & Snedeker, Frankfurter, or maybe even JS Victor? If not, that original source of yours might be worth something to a researcher. Though for this article, maybe it's too peripheral? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI, ADM may sincerely believe in what they write but this is the umpteenth pointy, vague, slurrish-against-Jews-and-or-Gays (and Michael Jackson) talkpage post I've seen. Unless they produce a reliable source it may just be drama-stirring. Sorry, but that's my take. -- Banjeboi 12:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There used to be a televangelist on Sundays late night that would expose all other religions as cryptosatanists, including Roman Catholics. He would show all their secret rituals including Masons and Mormons and show how they were secretly worshiping Satan. Maybe the topic is best saved for an article on whoever that evangelist was. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Not 'a'. It's standard fare in televangelism to assert a connection between the Vast Satanic Conspiracy and whatever religion you don't like. As an example, Bill Schnoebelen (I think they deleted his article, too bad) used to assert he joined the Vast Satanic Conspiracy when he went to Catholic seminary, whereupon they told him to join the Masons to learn the Satanic rituals. Even the Shriners were Satanists according to his story. We could have an article on "allegations of Satanism", but it would grow like an ovarian tumour. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty standard blood libel stuff that's been circulated about any societal whipping boy that's kicking off a moral panic from the get-go of civilization. Could be the Taxil hoax if we're looking into specifics. Not really worth talking about unless real sources come up, but I do recall in my trolling on google books a couple sources that linked SRA to blood libel and modern conspiracy theory. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Off-site canvassing

Check it out, including urging for meatpuppets to send letters to the wikimedia foundation. Lovely. Hell, when you don't have any sources supporting your pathetic insanity, try brute force and appeals. I'd love to see some of the letters, I wonder if they include tinfoil hats for staff at the wikimedia foundation to protect against our nonlethal mind control? [39] WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No, but we've written a boilerplate response. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Template

I'm thinking of creating a template for the SRA set of articles. The problem would be the overlap with the day care sex abuse hysteria article and category. Are there any day care sex hysteria cases that weren't related to satanic ritual abuse? Could/should certain authors be included (Finkelhor, DeYoung, perhaps Frederick Crews)? What about pages related false memory, The Courage to Heal, Hell Minus One, etc.? Any thoughts? I've not built many templates - I know how to construct them technically, but the rules around their use I'm fuzzier on.

Also, should there be a category:Satanic ritual abuse? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

An interesting idea. The Courage to Heal is false memory only, so far as I know, but Hell Minus One is SRA. I think a Category would be more useful at this time than a template, although a template might help with a core group of articles. I do not think the Hell Minus One type articles would usefully be included in such a template. I suggest you start with the Cat, and add all SRA articles (including HMO etc) to the cat, then we'll see what we have and work from there. Sound reasonable? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The Courage to Heal has an explicitly satanic ritual abuse section, called such in the first edition I believe, called "ritual abuse" or "sadistic abuse" in subsequent - I've read about it before, could dig up sources again. I'm surprised that there's not already a SRA category. Articles I think could be added. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added more. Also added a section for ones I'm less sure about.PelleSmith (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• this one
• list of sra allegations
• Anne Johnson Davis (author of Hell Minus One, the HMO page is actually a redirect to her)
• Michelle Remembers
• Mary de Young
• Diana Napolis
• Conspiracy theory
• Moral panic
• day care sex abuse hysteria
• Paul Ingram
• Fells Acres Day Care Center preschool trial (page moved today by the way)
• McMartin preschool trial
• Blood libel
• Cult and Ritual Abuse
• Treating Survivors of Satanist Abuse
• Dissociative identity disorder (maybe - this page needs more info related to the DID/false memory/sra connections)
• Lawrence Pazder
• Kern County child abuse cases
• Mike Warnke
• Stephen A. Kent
• Ralph Underwager
• Pace memorandum
• Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis
• Indictment: The McMartin Trial
• Gerald Amirault
• Cathy O'Brien
• Dale Akiki
• Children's Institute International
• Witch Hunt (film) -- still a stub
• Martensville satanic sex scandal

What about?

• Kee MacFarlane

I dug up the links via the what links here for SRA, oddly Kee MacFarlane doesn't. Stubs are OK in my mind, but the Martensville page, wow, that's a terrible name! The day care/SRA cases should really have standardized names - X Y Z satanic ritual abuse allegations or something similar. A lot of them point to non-notable schools instead of notable moral panics/legal cases. I think creating the template would be a great way of getting these pages together and helping them cohere. I'm still concerned about the day care sex abuse page(s), is there one name that can link the whole set of phenomenon together, or should several pages have two templates? I'm going to start drafting something at User:WLU/Template testing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Your point about naming conventions is well taken; I suggest after making the category and cat'ing the articles, you start Move discussions on all non-standard named articles; give it at least a couple of weeks, and if no one objects then move away. OTOH, if you get no responses and aren't sure about the move, then try asking on WP:3O or another appropriate noticeboard to get some input. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Rename discussion

Should all satanic ritual abuse cases be given a standardized rename of [location] ritual abuse trial? Examples:

• McMartin preschool ritual abuse trial
• Kern county ritual abuse trial
• Faith Chapel Church ritual abuse trial

Another option is "case"

• McMartin preschool ritual abuse case
• Kern county ritual abuse case
• Faith Chapel Church ritual abuse case

I'll be posting on talk pages pointing to this discussion. Points to consider - will the notability of the case overshadow that of the person? How to manage searches for more common terms? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Since this page is pretty central for those interested in the phenomenon, it makes sense to centralize discussion here. I may start a new section here to discuss a uniform naming rubric. Or, if anyone else wants to do so, feel free. If I start the discussion, I'll put pointers on the other pages. Might make sense to do the same thing with the people pages - rather than having a Paul Ingram or Dale Akiki page, have a Thurston county ritual abuse case and Faith Chapel Church ritual abuse case respectively. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree - the person on trial isn't notable, the case is notable. Unless, of course, the person goes on to do something else notable that has nothing to do with SRA allegations (good luck). Should keep a redirect on the accused's name, though - people will search for them. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Moved. I have done a little initial editing to correct the first sentence and remove the person infobox, but would appreciate help with a more thorough copyediting. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

So, how do people feel about standardizing all ritual abuse cases to [Location] ritual abuse case? Would this include McMartin? Obviously, one criteria is the existence of SRA allegations as identified in reliable sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it could cause some problematic reification. For example: to what extent does the "ritual abuse" tag feature in the case? The Lewis case from a couple years ago did, for example, include SRA allegations against around a dozen people, but they seemed to only have been believed by one or two social workers - and are suspected of having been fabricated by the mother. The Hamilton Ontario SRA case, with allegations against only 2 real people (plus one make-believe person and CHCH Channel 11 in Hamilton) wasn't a criminal case, but a parental custody intervention hearing thingie (forget what it's called). In both these cases, actual sexual abuse apparently occurred. Meanwhile you also have stereotypical cases involving daycares, with dozens of accused and no real abuse ever occurring - to the extent that, following DeYoung, you could really name them all according to the formula "(Blank) Daycare Ritual Abuse Case". Putting all these cases in the same category, SRA, is great, certainly; but the naming convention might be stretching it.

I don't know what the naming convention is at Wikipedia for court cases, but I suspect we must have one. Maybe we have to go by what the local paper of record usually called it in their news stories? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If we could track down all those local papers... I know the great pants lawsuit became Pearson v. Chung, there's also Pearson v. Callahan. The litigants might work, but it would be harder to find I think, few have that name. It's actually kinda difficult to track down the names - one reason I didn't connect some of the stories I read about was a lack of a consistent name. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Then the problem with naming by litigants is, for example, how much of an article like "McMartin Ritual Abuse Case" should revolve around the actual court proceedings, as opposed to the portrayal in the media, the mass hysteria, the interviewing techniques, the public (and private) appearances by people involved in spreading the hysteria, and so on? Naming by litigants seems to limit the article too much to what goes on in court - when in reality, 90% of the silliness goes on outside the courtroom. I dunno, this is a hard nut to crack, ain't it? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What about something more along the lines of Thurston county ritual abuse ''allegations''? I know that word doesn't quite catch it, maybe we'd want something more synonymous with "scandal" or "hysteria", but more NPOV. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it'll be easy, and it's not like there's an easy WP:UCS suggestion. It might be worth taking this to a policy page or something. I'm still attached to [location] ritual abuse allegations/case/trial - multiple accused you don't have to worry about all of them being in the trial, the location is pretty easy to figure out, and it allows for the media circus that surrounds the case (though I'd argue much of the circus is also found inside the courtroom too). I don't see much difference between "allegations" and "case", since I can't think of any examples that didn't go to court off the top of my head. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Example that didn't go to court: what about Michael Aquino? That was certainly an allegation, and it is addressed in a few of your scholarly sources, but it didn't get to court as such, did it? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In any case though, I'd say "X case" is better than "X trial", as "case" doesn't necessarily refer to a court case - it can also mean more of a general occurrence. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Aquino was part of a larger set of allegations however, analagous to Virginia McMartin, Peggy Ann Buckey, Mary Ann Jackson, Bette Raidor and Babette Spitler during the McMartin freakshow. I would probably call that the "Presidio ritual abuse case" or something similar. I guess I just made your point for you though, though charges were filed (twice) they were all dropped with no trial. Perhaps "case" or "allegations" for Presidio-style, and "trial" for actual courtroom stuff. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's better to just use "case", as you use it above, and then for actual trials have a separate article, or at least a section, in the "litigant v litigant" format. Then the "litigant v litigant" stuff can be kept separate from the media circus and the pseudo-psychological nonsense. I guess this is just my own perspective on the matter showing through - to me the whole "Satanic ritual abuse" narrative back in those days (in the US anyway) wasn't the court cases: it was actually a group of discourses operating in different epistemes (child welfare, media hype, social movement activity and religious mythologizing). The court cases were just what happened when this discourse tried to gain a foothold in the modern court system as a way to legitimize itself. I'd really want to press for "litigant v litigant" as separate articles, but I bet others would demand they be merged as they have little separate notability. Meh... so basically, "case" is probably the best. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Image

I removed this image from the introduction, because I don't think it illustrates the subject at hand particularly well. It does not depict Satanic ritual abuse as such, it is just a fanciful early-20th-century image of a "black mass", the like of which there much be scores in the public domain. It could be argued that the image might have a place elsewhere in the article, as the Satanic ritual abuse stories were obviously related to previous notions of Satanic cults, but the caption is going to have to be altered to explain why the image is relevant. Personally I don't see that this image is any better than any other image of "Satanic" activity.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts on the matter were that since there was no images which can depict actual satanic ritual abuse (since it never occurred), this was as decent choice as any for an image. It is mentioned in Frankfurter's book as an illustration of one of the past moral panics which fed into the 20th century version directly (as "evidence" of historical satanic practices) and indirectly (as an indication of the human trait to create evils through othering via an inversion of contemporary morals and mores). The black mass was the historical precursor to SRA as well as the 19th century version of it with a focus on religious rites rather than children. The image currently in historical roots depicts the blood libel and works well there, though this image would be a natural choice to put there. Few images work in the page and none that are currently present don't work outside of their current sections. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That image is not appropriate - it's original research to connect it with this topic because the connection is not sourced to the modern story of SRA. It's not clear what the Frankfurter book means by atrocity in regards to this picture, because it's from a book presenting the history of witchcraft in a positive light, as a religion (maybe he sees anything "Satanic" as an atrocity, but that's not how people in that religion see it, it's just a religion to them; the SRA story is not about that kind of Satanism). The woman on the alter is participating by her free will; it's not a depiction of coercion or abuse at all. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see both sides of this argument. Yes, it's not directly related to SRA. However, the image depicted is a contrived, sensationalist image of what the artist concieved a witchcraft ceremony would look like... a ceremony deemed Satanic by the church at the time. The line between a witch hunt and the Satanic Panic is pretty blurry. I'm not committed to keeping the image, but I don't see any harm in keeping it either. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The harm is that using the image implies it is a depiction of SRA. It's already been copied onto answers.com, where the image shows up in a Google image-search for "Satanic Ritual Abuse". That is just plain wrong. This picture is by an artist known for erotic drawings, and it shows a consensual, erotic, religious ceremony (that just happens to include people with pointy ears and horns coming out of the top of their heads). It's not an illustration of abuse, and it's not even an illustration of blood libel. A picture should not be used just to make an article look nice if there is not a clear and reliable-source connection showing that it illustrates the topic directly. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a better pic would be one of the victims of the SRA panic, like the McMartins & Buckeys; or one of the authors of important books on the topic, like Mary DeYoung. Even in those cases, I think you'd really have to dig to find a pic at all, much less a public-domain pic. But they'd at least be relevant to the topic, without being interpretive or WP:OR. Is there perhaps a public-domain pic of McMartin Preschool maybe? Or the front cover of Michelle Remembers? Or could we get a scan of an SRA-scare pamphlet from Charles Ennis' website? Hard to say. But I'd have to agree with Jack-a-roe that the image under contention isn't particularly relevant to the topic. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Jack-A-Roe writes that it is not an illustration of "abuse" or "blood libel". Well as we know this is not Blood libel (WLU's point is that another art work depicting blood libel directly is in a small section of the entry that addresses the topic). This is not actually an entry about abuse either, but about a moral panic involving alleged abuse. An illustration of actual abuse would possibly be more misleading than anything else. A picture of fantastical satanic practices works rather well with content of the entry on the other hand. I'm not convinced that a good rationale for removing it has been put forth. I'm a bit indifferent in general to the inclusion of the picture on the other hand. Maybe the Michelle Remembers book cover should make its way up there instead.PelleSmith (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Undent. I wouldn't use the Michelle Remembers image because it relates only to one part of the moral panic, and a quite limited one as well (and might violate fair use for the image too). I had a hard time digging up anything that could be considered fair use and relevant, but I am open to alternatives. It may also be worth reviewing the Frankfurter pages I linked to above (the blank image in the book is this very one we are discussing). I could be wrong in my analysis of it, and I appreciate JAR's check (I confess to skim-reading Frankfurter's). I will also note regards this image that isn't a depiction of a woman participating of her free will in a ceremony, it's an imaginary picture of something never happened. It's also a depiction of a Witches' Sabbath and explicitly linked by Frankfurter to SRA. The only image related the McMartin trial is one shot of Peggy McMartin, it's tiny and only has fair use (don't think it could be used here). Using a pic of a researcher would be dubious and limited in my mind. This one at least illustrates a similar panic with a similar scope. If the image is removed from the lead, I would suggest replacing the generic blood libel image with this more specific one. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, every individual cultural artifact of SRA is limited on its own, but Michelle Remembers is pivotal in a way that very few others are. Of course I'm not unhappy with the current photo. As I said, indifferent. If a change has to be made I vote for Michelle, but I don't think there is any good reason to remove the current photo.PelleSmith (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I support the use of the current image at the top of the article until such time as a better one that we can use legally can be found. Then I think the current image could be moved elsewhere within the article. The scene depicted, other than the year in which it was set, illustrates the claims of SRA believers pretty well. DreamGuy (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree that Michelle Remembers is a limited part of the moral panic - the text of the panic was ripped right out of that book, as well as later crap like Satan's Underground - and, I think, maybe a couple earlier books, like perhaps one by LaHaye or some such type? (I seem to remember there having been other such Satanic Panic books in the 1970s before Michelle.) What about the idea of using a collage of such books to symbolize the SRA panic? Other than that, the only other thing I could think of would be something like a photo of a newspaper headline from that period... though I guess you can't really get that even from Lexis-Nexis, can you? But there's got to be something better than a stylized representation of a 19th-century black mass. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right about books before MR but I don't recall any titles. I don't think we can modify images that are fair use, which would preclude a collage. If anyone manages to find an alternative image, I'd say just put it up right away and swap the current image for the blood libel one in the first section. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the slightest thing about images on Wikipedia, but here's another suggestion: how about a screencap from the Geraldo 1988 NBC special? That would quite definitely capture the "moral panic" aspect of this. They've got some excerpts on YouTube, and there's a copy at Pirate Bay (no longer seeded unfortunately, but still with 40 leeches). I would hope the rules at Wikipedia would allow for fair use in this sort of instance. What do you think of that? And is it allowed? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If someone lives in a city with a decent library, they could find the books in question, lay them out on a table and snap a picture for here, free and clear of copyright issues. Alas, I live in a rather tiny town, so I doubt they've even got any of the books in question. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe both of those suggestions would violate fair use - even images of books are subject to the same restrictions as the pics gotten from amazon. The screen capture as well - unless used to illustrate a page on the topic in question, I don't believe it's fair use. But I could be wrong. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

... I'm not an expert on the image rules, but I'm pretty sure a picture of the books would not be a problem. Especially if the don't have any dust-jacket art or anything. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I found and added a different engraving of a Black Mass that shows abuse in a ritual context, done by humans, rather than fantasy beings in consensual interaction. A photo of the books would be better though, since they are more directly related to the topic. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Michael Salter

Michael Salter is one of the few people publishing anything about SRA or it's more updated version these days. He's a PhD student at the University of New South Wales. [40] [41] His conference presentation pimped by Biao is just that, a conference presentation, with no journal article published that I've found. I can't find any peer-reviewed presentations by him anywhere. I don't think anything about his work needs to be taken seriously utnil it's really published in an actually useable source. Conference presentations generally aren't reliable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree that conference presentations aren't reliable, but I've been told that conference proceedings are in some subjects (computer science), even though they aren't reliable in mathematics or physics. I'm not sure what Salter's status is at this point. This is just a general comment without looking specifically at Salter, although a proposed Master's thesis is clearly not reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)