Talk:False allegation of child sexual abuse

False allegations when interviewing children

This section should be relocated from Day care sex abuse hysteria to this article and a "see also" placed there, rather than the other way around as it is now. The section is more directly relevant to this article and has broader relevance than day care abuse hysteria. I have posted the same request in the Day care sex abuse hysteria discussion section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.127.252.195 (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Initial article

Created so I can link from Child Sexual Abuse. This needs more data, more citations, and a global outlook. Editing by law-enforcment experts, family-law experts, and experts outside the United States is especially welcome. Please link from other Wiki articles where appropriate. Dfpc 20:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Why have a separate article from [[[Child sexual abuse]]? This would make more sense as a section of that article. Especially since there are no sources. -Will Beback · † · 22:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems like a big enough topic for its own article. If it must be merged with something, it should probably be merged with a well-written general article on false police reports and false prosecutions. I don't know of any such article. Dfpc 23:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's such a big topic there should be plenty of sources available. Right now it's just an essay. -Will Beback · † · 23:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty of sources for he who knows how to find them (which I do). It goes against my policy to add useful information to wikipedia so I will try not to do so. But in the book Jeopardy in the Courtroom, by Stephen Ceci, there is lots of information on this subject, so if anyone bothers to read it, then the article has potential. Voice of Britain 09:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Voice of Britain's Fresh Start

Copied from User_talk:Voice of Britain: I just did a "fresh start" less than 2 weeks ago. I trust within a week or two you will fill in the article so it is at least as informative as the old one. BTW, before doing wholesale changes, it's a good idea to discuss it on the talk page first. It avoids reverts like the one Fuzzygenius made. Dfpc 18:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, even at this point it has more accurate information that the last version. If possible I hope it remains short and accurate rather than ending up as bloated, oversized, unsourced articles as seems common here. Voice of Britain 18:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is now sourced primarly from just one book. I've requested verbatim quotes of the material being cited since it appears to contradict what another source says. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 07:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, specific quotes with pages numbers are necessary here. A book, while certainly a verifiable source, may only represent opinions and not empirical facts or statements. DPeterson^talk 12:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

i don't believe a quote must be given. after all, you didn't even see fit to give me a single primary citation for the information on cortisol you added. (for the record, i don't have access to thr book voice of britain cited, but i believe it's accurate because i'm fairly sure i've encountered both the low and high given by it in other studies) ~[[kinda]] 23:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we are best off assuming nothing VoB said is reliable, SqueakBox 23:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

why?~[[kinda]] 23:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Quotes and page numbers are necessary, otherwise the lines may be considered OR (Wikipedia:OR) DPeterson^talk 23:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Since he was banned, that is reason enough. DPeterson^talk 23:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Further

Here is an offsite website which quotes the study for verification:

We recommend a recent research paper on the rate of false

accusations by Mikkelsen, Gutheil and Emons. [Footnote: Mikkelsen, M.D., Gutheil, M.D. & Emens, B.A, "False sexual-abuse allegations by children and adolescents: Contextual factors and clinical subtypes" American Journal of Psychotherapy, October, 1992.] That paper noted the following: "False allegations of sexual abuse by children and adolescents are statistically uncommon, occurring at the rate of 2 to 10 percent of all cases with rates up to 50% in special situations such as heated custody disputes. Nevertheless, when they do occur, they can be extremely detrimental to all involved including the accuser. Thus it is important to those who evaluate these allegations be open to the possibility of a false allegation and have a knowledge of the principal clinical subtypes of false allegation. Our research indicates that it is a narrow focus on the reporter and ignorance or dismissal of the broader contextual factors that often leads to the perpetuation of a false allegation. "The literature and our own clinical research has revealed four clinical subtypes of false allegations: (1) Allegations arising in the context of custody disputes: (2) Allegations stemming from psychological disturbances on the part of the accuser; (3) Allegations resulting from conscious manipulation by the child or adolescent; (4) Allegations based on iatrogenic elements. "This material is presented in the interests of heightening the awareness of this serious miscarriage of clinical and legal processes

and its severe and potentially irreversible social consequences."

the link you removed was indeed relevant, if you'd bother to look at it. ~[[kinda]] 00:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Effect of changes to legal tests (UK)

Added by me for the time being. I realize that what is really needed here is a broader section describing how changes to legal tests and police practices in different countries may have increased the likelihood of false CSA allegations occurring. Please bear with me. I hope to do some more work and improve/rewrite this accordingly. I believe some of the legal detail should go in similar fact evidence but at present that article is quite inadequate and mainly deals with Canada (any lawyers out there?). Furthermore there is a close relationship between CSA cases and changes in the law concerning similar fact evidence in the UK with associated media claims that unreliable allegations have lead to convictions.68.68.37.190 (talk) 10:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This article should be deleted

Why does this article exist? It is factually correct in asserting that false allegations of child sexual abuse are uncommon. It then includes under "specific cases" two instances of CSA in which there were confessions, prosecutions and children removed from their parents ... indicating that these are not cases of "false allegations" at all. It seems to me to be a clear case of overcategorisation. If deleted, the rest of the article could be easily accomodated under the general article of child sexual abuse. What do other editors think? --Biaothanatoi 03:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This article exists because this happens, and the effect on any family experiencing such accusations is as if the abuse actually had taken place. The article is as important as the one on incest. As mentioned, the family members often do not live together after such accusations, an indication of the importance of the article. It is important to keep this article and make it better. There are unreported numbers of such cases globally, possibly because of arguments like the above. 1 April 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.165.77 (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I am astonished anyone could suggest that false allegations of CSA is not a significant enough issue to warrant its own article.

I as well. Child Abuse is must about power and control as it is the act. This article will help anyone considering what they're up against if their abuser tries to push this button to avoid their own accountability. 76.102.172.229 (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Addressing tags in "False Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Childhood" section

I will address these in the order they are in the article

To address accuracy dispute issue : The source is fine. See : http://www.amazon.com/Treating-Survivors-Satanist-Valerie-Sinason/dp/0415105439/ref=sr_1_1/105-6619882-4310047?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194492452&sr=8-1 A citation is provided to the book in question. As far as the NPOV critique goes, the data stated in the article is factual. There is no opinion given of the data one way or the other. Suggestions on how to make the section more NPOV are welcome.

As far as the "Prevalence figures range between ten to sixty-two percent for females and sixteen percent for males." tag. The ten percent comes from Baker, A. and Duncan, S. (1985) 'Child Sexual Abuse: a study of prevalence in Great Britian', Italic text Child Abuse and NeglectItalic text 9, 457-67. The 62 percent figure comes from Finklehor D. (1983) "Epidemiological factors in the clinical identification of child sexual abuse', Italic text Child Abuse and Neglect Italic text 17, 67 - 70.

The URL for Amazon above should also answer the verification tag. I hope that all of the data in this article is given the same treatment. Abuse truth 03:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Since I haven't heard about any disagreement with the above clarification of tags added to the section, I will be deleting the tags in the section. Please feel free to add them if you disagree on the talk page. Abuse truth 17:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The primary question, even if you had paraphrased the information correctly, is relevance. The prevelance of child sexual abuse has only limited relelvance to false allegations, even if the child is abused, they can (and, according to all the literature I've seen, often do) accuse someone other than the acctual perpetrator. If you had paraphrased the information correctly, the book is incorrectly titled, which leans against your assertions. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The information was paraphrased correctly. The prevalence of child sexual abuse is crucial to this discussion. The book is correctly titled. And most of the data shows that children rarely accuse the wrong person. Abuse truth 20:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You'll need a cite for that last statement. I haven't seen one yet in all the articles you've presented. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's one, but there are more: “Studies on the truthfulness of sexual abuse reports among children and adolescents as judged by evaluators”show that out of 2169 children and adolescents evaluated 98% of generally younger children and 93% of usually older children’s reports were determined to be true. Whitfield M.D., Charles L., Memory and Abuse - Remembering and Healing the Effects of Trauma, Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications, Inc, ISBN 1-55874-320-0 Abuse truth 20:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have access to my reference material at the moment, but I do recall reading that children are generally unable to identify which person did something to them, even if it's not traumatic. They recall the event (possibly reliably), but not the person. I see no reason why a traumatic memory should be more accurate than a non-traumatic memory. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall any statement being made that says "a traumatic memory should be more accurate than a non-traumatic memory." I have not heard of any data that backs up the statement you make above. Please provide source. Abuse truth 20:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The "lost in the mall" study shows that false non-traumatic memories can be easily implanted. This clearly contradicts the assertions made in your references than false traumatic memories cannot be "easily" implanted, unless you wish to assert that statement. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The "lost in the mall" study does not address the question of traumatic memory. This study cannot be applied to traumatic memory.Abuse truth 03:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No study can ethically be directly applied to traumatic memory, so the question becomes: is there a testable theory which would suggest a difference between recall of traumatic and non-traumatic memories. If not, the study cannot fail to be applied to traumatic memories. (Actually, it's more than that. Although I haven't looked at the precise studies, it seems likely that traumatic memories are more likely to be continuously recalled or suppressed than non-traumatic memories, which can merely be forgotten. Whether a false memory is more likely to be implanted over a suppressed memory than over no memory is a difficult question, again not testable.)

In other words—if the "lost in the mall" study does not apply to traumatic memory, it logically follows that traumatic memories are more accurate than non-traumatic memories. The would be WP:OR, if one of the papers discussing the "lost in the mall" study didn't say it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that no study can be directly applied to traumatic memory. IMO, there can't be a testable theory, because the neurological mechanisms that are used for the two types of memory appear to be different. This article http://www.trauma-pages.com/a/vanderk4.php touches upon this some. Abuse truth 03:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Kern county section tag

This section has no sources at all. IMO, it either needs to be sourced or deleted. Abuse truth 21:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sexual abuse prevalence figures

I found a source which quotes prevalence figures of 0.21% in 1993, and 0.11% in 2004. You want that added to the (irrelevant) paragraph, or shall we just drop the whole thing as irrelevant to this article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be probably be good to add that to the section with the source. Adds NPOV. Abuse truth 03:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

FAoCSA

I'm not sure why there's a paragraph that's title is the same as the articles, but anyway. The figures and claims should be backed by the most reliable sources available - if not a peer-reviewed journal, then a peer-reviewed book or book published by a university press or other publisher with oversight on the contents of books. Where did Whitfield & Charles get their figures from? Independent research? In which case, publication in a lay-book bypasses the peer review process, but publication in a valid publisher with oversight and review over the contents would be valid. If they're quoting a journal publication, that should be the source, not the book, and include the pubmed ID or other abstract-available weblink. WLU (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I am opened to a slightly different title. Charles Whitfield compiled the data on P. 302 Table A-1 from Everson MD, Boat BW: False Allegations of sexual abuse by children and adolescents. Journal of Anerican Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 28: 230 - 235, 1989

The first source is published by Routledge, IMO a well-known publisher of texts, see http://www.routledge.com/ .Abuse truth (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

False Allegations statistics section

New quote in article: "Some studies break down the level of false allegations by the age of the child. One study of CSA allegations in child protection offices in the USA as determined by social workers found that among pre-school children, the range of false allegations was between 1.7 to 2.7 percent. Among adolescents, the range was found to be between 8 to 12 percent. The average range was found to be 5 to 8 percent. Higher rates of false allegations are found in custody disputes."

Quote from book:

"False Allegations made by children Fifteen years ago, Goodwin (Goodwin et al., 1978) described false accusation prevalence by reviewing eighty-eight papers on incest published between 1972 and 1977. Only one paper documented the frequency of the allegations, and found that 6 per cent were concluded to be false "by emergency room staff" (emphasis added). This emphasis is important in the review of the literature....Goodwin concludes that false allegations are rare. Other workers such as Jones and McGraw (1987) studied incest allegations and found a false allegation prevalence of about 2 per cent. Everson and Boat (1989) studied CSA allegations in child protection offices in the USA and found that the level of false allegations (as determined by social workers) varied with the age of the child. Among pre-school children , the range was 1.7 - 2.7 percent, whereas for adolescents the range was 8 - 12 percent, with an overall average for all ages of 5 - 8 percent. Everson and Boat also noted that some case workers seemed to discover more false allegations than others, and conclude that bias is possible. Specifically, high rates of false allegations are said to be found in the context of custody disputes (Benedek and Schetky, 1985;Green, 1986, 1991)." P.62 Adshead, Gwen (1994), "Looking for clues - A review of the literature on false allegations of sexual abuse in childhood", pp. 57–65 {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) in Sinason, Valerie (1994). Treating Survivors of Satanist Abuse. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-10542-0. Abuse truth (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I find that last section to have very questionable methodology, as they noted they don't have any basis for their conclusions just before stating them. I suppose it might be listed, under some circumstances. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere where it is stated "they noted they don't have any basis for their conclusions just before stating them." Goodwin states that false allegations are rare. Everson and Boat state the actual percentages, mentioned in the article. Abuse truth (talk) 07:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

" Only one paper documented the frequency of the allegations...." Seems to say the meta-analysis was, in fact, only quoting one paper, so we need to cite that paper instead of citing Goodwin.

Furthermore, the proper quote for the 6% is "6% of allegations of sexual abuse were found to be false by emergency room personnel." (The actual percentage of false allegations is probably significantly higher, as ER personnel are supposed to be treating the patient, which includes considering the patient's allegations.) Both AT's version and mine completely misinterpret that statement.

As for WP:SYN, if source A says there's a rate of 5% for one thing, and source B says there's a rate of 1.7% for something different, we can't conflate the results to say they're about the same thing. That's what you've done. I found a source which states that the prevalence of sexual abuse is less than 0.1%. Combining that with the prevalence of reports of sexual abuse, you could derive a very high rate of false reports. That would be WP:SYN if we did it, but not if the source which reports 0.1% did it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I will remove the line about combining the rates. Hopefully this will work.Abuse truth (talk) 03:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

We still need someone impartial to evaluate the data and the section. I will look for someone and AR can too.Abuse truth (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Full protection

I've fully protected this article because of edit warring. Please work on a compromise here or take this to dispute resolution. thankyou--Hu12 (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Expand or rename

Is this article supposed to be centered on cases from the United States? Or should it be expanded to cover cases from around the world? If it's not supposed to be expanded then I think it should be renamed to False allegations of child sexual abuse in the United States. Ospinad (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The title should not be changed because it's not just a legal concept it's also a psychological one. You are welcome to seek out reports from other countries and add them. The article is not limited to events in the United States. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added a "worldwide view" tag. Biscuittin (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding "A review of the data of false allegations" section

I have added this section. All of this data came from one article Adshead, Gwen (1994), "Looking for clues - A review of the literature on false allegations of sexual abuse in childhood", pp. 57–65 {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) in Sinason, Valerie (1994). Treating Survivors of Satanist Abuse. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-10542-0..

This weekend, I hope to track down additional online sources to back up and verify this data. The article also cites sources to back up this data, which I hope to try to track down and add as references. Abuse truth (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Off-topic court cases moved to different article

This article has been improved and focused a lot, with plenty of solid references added. The court cases section though only had information about Satanic ritual abuse and did not fit with the topic of this article. Maybe there should be a separate article on "False accusations of satanic ritual abuse", or maybe those court cases can be merged into the article about Satanic ritual abuse.

I don't know much about that topic, so instead of making that decision myself, I moved the text of the court cases section in full, to Talk:Satanic ritual abuse -- at this link. That way, editors who are familiar with that topic can decide if they want to merge it into that article or make a separate article. For this page though, the court cases were a total non-sequitur to the text of the article which is why they were moved. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Prevalence

I removed the following sentence from that (new) section as being SYN. As I noted in a comment, I have a source which estimates true prevalence at less than .01%. That is still too common, but the sources are carefully selected. (I think Child Abuse and Neglect might be considered to have an interest in creating reports (I mean, creating interest in reports) of child abuse.)

Prevalence figures range between 10% in the UK or up to 62% for females and 16% for males in the United States.

I have added the section back with the other sections that have new references. Please feel free to add data with reliable sources to back your claims, but please do not delete well sourced data from the article.Abuse truth (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Relevance tag in "prevalence" section

Arthur Rubin, would you please elaborate on this edit?

• 20:30, 2 January 2008 Arthur Rubin (→Prevalence - Adding appropriate tags.)

You added a tag that states:

• This section contains information of unclear or questionable importance or relevance to the article's subject matter. Please help improve this article by clarifying or removing superfluous information.

What part of that section do you feel is in need of that tag? I've reviewed the section and don't see the problem. But if something is off-topic or not stated clearly, we should fix it, so please point out the part you find of concern. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

My thinking was that the prevalence of child sexual abuse is not entirely related to the prevalence here, and each paragraph (and sometimes each sentence or phrase) has a different definition of "false allegation", making comparisons WP:SYN. However, I think replacing the first paragraph of the section with a corrected analysis taken from child sexual abuse#Epidemiology should handle the issue. I'll take care of it, but I expect AT to revert. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

At first reading, your changes seem appropriate. A few references were removed though. It looks like they might not be needed, but just in case we want them later, I'll post that paragraph here for reference. I'm not saying we do need to include this, I just don't want to lose track of it in the page history. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

removed paragraph with footnotes (Duncan 1985, & 2 USA Dept H&H) for future reference if needed

Child sexual abuse occurs frequently in Western society. Prevalence figures range between 10% in the UK or up to 62% for females and 16% for males in the United States. According to data from the Administration on Children and Families, of the US Department of Health and Human Services, in 2005 there were an estimated 3.6 million investigations by Child Protective Services in the USA; and of those, 899,000 were substantiated. Of the substantiated abuse reports, 9.3% of the cases showed 83,600 children were determined to have been sexually abused.

OK, for now. Some of the other references contribute more to incidence than to prevalence, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

As per my most recent edit, I have restored the section above. If the other paragraph is already in the Child Sexual Abuse article, why should it replace data here. I have no problem with it being here, as long as the other data is included.Abuse truth (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If accurately sourced, it should be in the child sexual abuse article, as it's most relevant there. In any case, the section should only be summarized in one paragrpah here. All the other paragraphs relate to prevalence (or incidence) of claims of child sexual abuse, and are most relevant here. You might consider rewriting the summary, noting it shouldn't get much longer. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It makes no sense to bring in data from the child sexual abuse article and replace the data in this article. And there is no guideline stating that there can't be two paragraphs of data on this topic.Abuse truth (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I boldly removed two paras which were not relevant to the topic in hand. I believe that anyone coming to the article fresh would have seen that they did not fit. The article reads quite well now, without any sense that any POV is being pushed. I'm not sure about the quality of all the sources and may examine them all in detail when I have a chance. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is some relevance, much as it reads better without the paragraphs. The number of allegations of child sexual abuse can be estimated (depending on the degree of allegation or of sexual abuse required for inclusion, whether allegations within therepy are counted if not reported to another person, etc.), but the number of false allegations is related to the number of true occurences. The {{seealso}} may be adequate to indicate that, perhaps a modified {{for}} should be used. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

References

Categories added

I have added four categories to the article that fit the topic. ResearchEditor (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC) (formerly AT)

Deleted section, made see also

I have deleted a section that has its own page and made it a see also. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

McMartin see also

As per edit summary, I am moving this see also to talk : McMartin preschool trial. This see also is unnecessary, since it is already included in the Day Care Sex Abuse see also. To link individual cases in the see also section only adds bloat to the article. Also, many would disagree that the accusations were false and there is no conclusive evidence of this.ResearchEditor (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no debate that some of the accusations are false, and little that most of the detailed accusations are false (in the sense of being untrue, not in the sense of being lies). I still believe consensus is that almost all the accusations in McMartin were lies, but that isn't necessary to support McMartin being more connected to this article than merely through Day Care Sex Abuse Hysteria. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the see also was moved back to the article so quickly without the approval of both editors involved, after it was moved to talk for discussion. I can only recall of one published retraction out of the hundreds of allegations made. It appears that little of the above paragraph is backed by any empirical evidence. As it appears that there is little chance of coming to a compromise here, I will be moving this for a third opinion. ResearchEditor (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Go to 3rd opinion if you like. But the McMartin "conspiracy theory" case is the most debunked of all cases of SRA, so much so that even extreme leftist Oliver Stone, who believes in other conspiracy theories, debunked it in a HBO movie. Please read John Earl's The Dark Truth About the "Dark Tunnels of McMartin". —Cesar Tort 17:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd accept WP:3O, if the other editors on both sides would agree to keep out. But I think there are too many (Cesar, WLU on "my" side, and Bio on the side of darkness SRA "true believers"). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've never requested a 3O, AR, so I don't know the proper etiquette. But you are a knowledgeable admin. So please tell me: if you want me to stay out of this discussion, this will be my last post in this thread. —Cesar Tort 17:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I already went to 30 before CT came in. The movie has been cited as biased by several sources. Even Mann agrees it is biased. The trial lasted over five years. There must have been a lot of people that believed it was true and many still do. (Seth Mydans of the New York Times wrote: "The film makes no pretense at objectivity: There are good guys in the McMartin saga, and there are very, very bad guys...") ResearchEditor (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm off to take a cat to the vet shortly, so I won't be back for a few hours, and calling me a knowledgeable admin may be an overstatement, but my understanding of WP:3O is that it only applies if there are only two editors in the dispute. If there are more editors actively involved in the dispute, then other WP:CONSENSUS-determining mechanisms are more appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hope you cat is well... Anyway, RE, have you at least watched the film or read Earl's article? You seem to be quite a scholar on SRA sources. Surely a bit of reading or film-watching on the other side wouldn't do any harm. —Cesar Tort 18:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've not ventured an opinion on this issue and don't really have one since I've not read up on McMartin that much (though I'm surely on the skeptical side of SRA). My opinion would be if it is clear and uncontroversial that all or a large portion of the McMartin allegations were false, it's legit to put in the see also. If McMartin was instrumental in starting or revolutionizing the debate on flase allegations, and this is mentioned in the article, it's legit. If some people think it was false but there's lots of disagreement, or it's just one of MANY false allegations or trials with lots of debate, singling it out is not necessary. Is there a 'list of' page? If so, all should be on that page and there should be a single link to it.

Wiki-specific comment - AR is correct that a WP:3O is used when there's only 2 editors. The appropriate venue would be a WP:RFC given there's four.

Also, the SRA issue is quite minor in the article - this may be a failing or a fair representation of reliable sources' opinion on the relationship. Food for thought and more appropriate to discuss on that page. WLU (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• "If McMartin was instrumental in starting or revolutionizing the debate on false allegations..."

It certainly was. McMartin is the SRA case par excellence. Prometheus Books has published some books on SRA in general and it chose the McMartin case for a single book on a particular case (in which BTW John Earl is quoted at lenght). I always recommend Earl's online article on McMartin as a starting point to understand SRA or the proverbial case of False allegation of child sexual abuse. —Cesar Tort 20:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

McMartin was one of several cases in the 80's involved in this debate. The best NPOV book on McMartin is Hechler, D. (1988). The Battle and the Backlash: The Child Sexual Abuse War. Lexington,Massachusetts: Lexington Books. This book covers both sides of the issue extremely well with interviews from the actual participants. Hechler's work has appeared in the NY Times, the Village Voice and the New York Daily News. Earl is biased and so is Underwager's IPT.

In regard to Prometheus Books, it has been stated on another wiki talk page:

"Prometheus books is not a credible source on child sexual abuse. Their "Human Sexuality" section throughout the 80s and 90s was edited by Vern Bullough, who is also a board member of Paidika, the Dutch pro-paedophile magazine. Under Bullough's editorship, Prometheus published a range of pro-paedopihlia titles, including the Eberles, as well as the book "Children's sexual encounters with adults" in which a number of contributors espoused pro-paedophile views. I am astonished at the inconsistency with which certain Wikipeida editors attribute credibility to different sources on child sexual abuse. The Eberles' history with child pornography is in the public domain and it has been for almost twenty years. Now we find editors claiming that the Eberles (and John Earle, a contributor their book) are considered credible sources, whilst all sources (including major newspapers, magazines and a trial judge) indicating that they are child pornographers are not credible sources."

Another really good book on the Day Care Cases is Waterman, Jill (1993). Behind the Playground Walls - Sexual Abuse in Preschools. New York, London: The Guilford Press. ISBN 0-89862-523-8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Though this book is out of print, it should be available on Amazon.com. ResearchEditor (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The claim that Prometheus Books is unreliable is not sourced, and is due either to you or to an editor who accuses everyone who disagrees with him of being a paedophile or supporting paedophilia. Not a credible source. The other books you mention may be reasonable, but I can't say I read them, and I 'can say that anyone who was there and did not come to the conclusion that the prosecution didn't submit any credible evidence of abuse in court was crazy unreliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No one has made such a claim as you state above. Though our personal opinions are OR, there are many opinions about the case up to this very day, including those from people that were there. There is no need to use the word "crazy" in this discussion. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid "crazy" is necessary, in the quasi-clinical sense of having beliefs with no relationship to reality. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Research Editor: The claim that Promtheus Books/CSICOP (both founded by Paul Kurtz) is pro-pedophile is preposterous and even libelous. In 1994 I listened to Carl Sagan in the CSICOP conference using the word "betrayal" against incestous parents. This was no less that the keynote address in the CSICOP conference in Seattle. Before you cut and paste more of Biao's libelious sentences here, please take a good look at this. —Cesar Tort 15:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

What is SRA? I see no reference to this abbreviation in the article itself. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

SRA = Satanic ritual abuse. —Cesar Tort 19:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, a WP:3O was requested on this. I have removed the entry from the list, and will share my opinion. I believe that the McMartin preschool trial link is appropriate. It's clearly a case drowned with sides believing the accusations are true, while others present arguments why they are false. It also gives many details on how such cases are handled, and what their flaws may be. Even after the legal system decided the allegations were false, by dropping all charges, and not convicting anyone, the debate didn't stop. =Species8473= ^(talk) 18:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Staying focused

This article is not about SRA, it's about false allegations in general. The sources show that the majority of sexual abuse allegations by children are not false, and of those that are false, most of those result from adult coaching in custody disputes. In general, children do not make up stories of abuse unless they are given a reason. There are exceptions of course, but very few. Of the small fraction of allegations that are false, and then out of those, the small fraction that are not a result of custody disputes, there is a tiny fraction that may involve stories of SRA. It's so small that other than literature specifically about SRA, literature on false allegations does not even mention it as a factor (at least, so far as I have been able to find; if someone has that kind of reference it would be of interest).

Considering the smallness of the SRA factor in this topic, it seems to me the McMartin link is not appropriate. This article should not be used as support for either side in the ongoing controversy about the SRA article and other pages related to ritual abuse.

If SRA is mentioned in this article, it would need to be shown with due weight, indicating its tiny prevalence within the overall topic of false allegations by children of abuse.

I'm not making any statement here at all about the validity of SRA claims. Yes, the McMartin story refers to false allegations, but it is very far from a representative case, compared to the very prevalent problem of divorce proceedings that bring pressure on children to lie about being abused by one of their parents. For this article, we need to stay on the important points and not get diverted into the SRA controversy that other than a miniscule overlap does not apply to this topic. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• "There are exceptions of course, but very few...there is a tiny fraction that may involve stories of SRA. It's so small that...Considering the smallness of the SRA factor in this topic..."

I'm fascinated by these phrases because a casual perusal of the skeptical literature on SRA leads the reader to feel aggravated for the many instances of adult lives ruined by false accusations of child sexual abuse. Also, McMartin was the longest and most expensive criminal trial of its time and this sole fact makes appropiate its inclusion in the See also section. —Cesar Tort 02:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any strong feelings about the McMartin see also link. It's just a link, it doesn't change the article. Keep or dump it, either way is fine. But the focus of the article as I noted, should not be about SRA. That's what the SRA article is for.

Regarding the smallness of the proportion of SRA-type allegations: the reason it's small in proportion is not that SRA was not prominent to a degree, rather, it's because the overall prevalence of child sexual abuse is so huge that even the small percentage that turns out to be false allegations is statistically much larger than any specialized allegations.

Regarding those " many instances of adult lives ruined by false accusations of child sexual abuse" that are mentioned so often in what you described as the skeptical literature - that stems not from society-at-large or researchers-at-large, that stems from the fact that those people who have been hurt in that way have done a lot to publicize it; the FMSF would be one example of that process. As a percentage of the prevalence of child sexual abuse (which as you know is unfortunately not at all uncommon), the instances of lives ruined by false accusations is small. It's a rare occurrence. It's so rare that when it happens there is probably a newspaper story about it. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as this article is about false allegations of child abuse, it doesn't seem inappropriate to point out that false accusations have destroyed the lives of many adults.99.234.101.193 (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Please excuse the apparently cynical tone of what I am about to write, but I can find no reference to this in the article, and I find that to be amazing>

As a phenomenon, the increase of false accusations of sex abuse, especially against children is a quite recent even from the past thirty years.

at about that time, there were a lot of Americans who were feeling depressed etc, who started visiting "ANALYSTS". There then followed a pattern were these patients were subjected to regressive hypnosis, where they discovered that they had repressed memories of being sexually abused by one or both parents. They were urged as part of their therapy to confront their abusers, and having done so, began to feel better.

Not unnaturally, the accused parents felt terrible, and were frequently the subject of criminal investigation and trials.

Eventually, the patients met friends who were also suffering depression, and they told them how good their "ANALYSTS" were. They too were subjected to regressive hypnosis, and they too discovered that they had repressed memories of being sexually abused. As the "ANALYSTS" dug deeper, they were able to show that the patients parents were part of a Satanic Abuse Ring and all the patients had been abused by each others parents etc.

Things came to a head when one of the linked cases involved two families, that were living several thousand miles apart at the time of the abuse, and it was proved that they could not have known each other at that time, and one at a time, evidence was produced to discredit the "ANALYSTS".

The Backlash came when the falsely accused parents started to sue the "ANALYSTS", and pretty soon they stopped discovering that their patients had repressed memories of being abused by their parents.

Of course being America, people still felt depressed, and still visited "ANALYSTS", and still underwent regressive hypnosis, whereupon it was discovered that they had repressed memories of being kidnapped and sexually abused by aliens.

To date, no alien has sued any "ANALYSYTS".

To be more serious though, the epidemic of child sex abuse claims such as the Mc<Martin case, coincided with these events. Though there is a WIKI article on False Memory Syndrome, I am amazed that these two items are not more closely linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.255.237 (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of section on false allegations and denial

I removed this section because the focus of this article is false allegation of abuse, not denial of genuine abuse. 99.234.101.193 (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Definition

A false allegation of child sexual abuse is one conveyed by the child himself/herself to a parent, other relative or mandated reporter. It is an allegation that is made in bad faith with malice aforethought such as occurs when a child is coached or programmed to falsely accuse another parent in the midst of a contentious divorce or custody battle. <ref> See www.abuse-excuse.com and TONG'S TAKE ON COACHING page at same web site.

False Child Sexual Abuse Allegation Statistics

Such false child sexual abuse allegations occur at the rate of only 2% - 5% <ref> (Thoennes). Yet, another 2/3 or 67% are unfounded <ref> (Besharov). Unfounded, by definition, means without foundation, but it doesn't mean it didn't happen. It means it couldn't be proven by a preponderance of the evidence or by 51%.

—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeanTong (talk • contribs) 01:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The definition states that ”A false allegation of child sexual abuse is an accusation by a child (including young adolescents) that a person committed one or more acts of child sexual abuse when in reality there was no perpetration of abuse by the accused person as alleged.” I find it strange that this article excludes allegations made by persons close to the child.

The first sentence in the article should therefore be:”A false allegation of child sexual abuse is an accusation made by a child (including young adolescents) or a person close to the child that a person committed one or more acts of child sexual abuse when in reality there was no perpetration of abuse by the accused person as alleged.”

Or: “False allegations of child sexual abuse is an allegation of a person committing one or more acts of child sexual abuse when in reality there was no perpetration of abuse by the accused person as alleged.” Godtadet (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A fair point. I think opening with the most broad definition is probably best. There are actually several angles to this:

1. Child accuses perp
2. Adult accuses perp on behalf of child
3. Child grows up (so now an adult), then accuses perp

I'll take a crack an updating this in a bit.Legitimus (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Or

1. Child accuses perp
2. Adult accuses perp on behalf of child and the child agreeing to the accusation
3. Adult accuses perp on behalf of child and the child disagreeing to the accusation
4. Child grows up (so now an adult), then accuses perpGodtadet (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Effects on child and the person alleged

A new section on the effect of false allegation of child sexual abuse has been added. It needs some work. But since this is seldom discussed, it is important to at least have some focus on this.Godtadet (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten for readability and content. The listening of "symptoms" seemed out of place, and I tried to explain the ideas behind such effects off the top of my head.Legitimus (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Good, English is not my mother tongue. I added the listening of "symptoms" because this is done in the child sexual abuse article, and figured if it was relevant in that article it would be in this. Maybe a mentioning of miscarriage of justice would be appropriate here.Godtadet (talk) 08:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. It is mine, yet I still make mistakes (I meant "listing" not "listening"). Anyway, listing these symptoms reads a little oddly in the context of this article in that it sounds like some kind of bacterial disease. A person wishing to learn the detailed effects of real abuse can use the wikilink to child sexual abuse. I also did want to note that the effect on the child, while traumatic, is not directly equivalent to real abuse, though in some aspects it can come close. Also, the term "miscarriage of justice" is a highly emotional term, a perhaps is not appropriate in tone for a sober, deliberate encyclopedia.Legitimus (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on miscarriage of justice explains how a false allegation can lead to a wrongful conviction of the accused, a common experience in these cases. In the article the term is not described like a highly emotional term but in a rather sober way. Is there a better word for this in English? In my language the term is literally translated "justice murder". Godtadet (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, I didn't know there was an article by that title here. But to address your question, a miscarriage of justice is a description of a legal case after the fact, and the term can be relative (for example, the convicted person's mother may call the conviction a "miscarriage of justice" because in her own mind she feels he was innocent, yet there was loads of forensic evidence in court that he was guilty). It's not really an "official" term either, but rather just a descriptor used in things such as press headlines and in political speeches.

As indicated in the lead of the article, a false allegation is not necessarily going to involve the criminal justice system at all. For example the child victim makes this claim when they grow up, long after the statute of limitations has run out. The accuser may go to the press to slander the target for example. Also in some cases there is inadequate evidence for police to even make an arrest in the first place, yet the people in the area still erroneously think that person is guilty and do things like picket their house or throw eggs at their car.Legitimus (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well a mentioning of this would anyway be appropriate. In Norway 2007 the now retired lawyer and judge Trygve Lange-Nielsen, received the Price for Legal Justice for his work to reveal legal injustice and equal rights in false incest cases. The price was given by the official organisation for lawyers. His work has resulted with the creation of “justismordkommisjonen”, a “commission for miscarriage of justice”.

The list of cases of miscarriage of justice in the MoJ article is full of false allegation of child sexual abuse cases. So a sentence stating something like: ” False allegation of child sexual abuse can lead to miscarriage of justice” would be appropriate. If the term miscarriage of justice is not appropriate, this term can be changed.Godtadet (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

After reading that article, I agree it can be added as you suggest, in light of the varying justice systems around the world (not just the English speaking nations).Legitimus (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see something here on the effect of false accusation on the child, even in a preliminary form. I agree with the above comment that this effect must be sometimes severe, but I don't have an appropriate source text at hand. Since there are sometimes hysteria and witch hunts, as well as legitimate mistaken accusations, this is an important point. David R. Ingham (talk) 06:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. I will try to look into the matter to find sourcing. If you are also searching, I should warn some filtering is necessary when seeking sources, because many hits with these search terms are about controversial "recovered memories," and we technically are excluding perpetrator substitution because in that case the child really was abused. There are several types of false accusation too. Talking off the top of my head, you have 1) good-faith erroneous accusations (due to misinterpretation of medical findings or statements made by the child, or improper interviewing) 2) deliberate lying by the child 3) deliberate lying by a third party, which may or may not involve coaching the child to lie as well.Legitimus (talk) 12:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

False allegation as psychological abuse

Is it appropriate to bring in to the article that a totally false allegation is/could be a form of psychological abuse of the child and/or the accused? Godtadet (talk) 09:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that? Legitimus (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I know i have read it, i will look it up. Godtadet (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandal alarms on the word pedo_phile

Just fixing the header so it stops setting off vandal alarms on IRC, don't mind me... Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Source

[1] WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

A Brazen Lie: "the overall rate of false accusation is under 10%"

"Studies of child abuse allegations suggest that the overall rate of false accusation is under 10%, as approximated based on multiple studies."

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable

I think the claim that the overall rate of false accusations is under 10% is a mere brazen lie. Where are the so called "multiple studies"?

I'm quite sure that in cases where evidence is based on nothing but hearsay witnesses - this is the overwhelming majority of cases where the truth of such accusations is discussed at all - significantly more than 50% of the accusations are false and based on targeted disinformation, in other words, on brazen lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.192.107.140 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 26 July 2013

That sentence in question has 4 footnotes after it citing the books and studies the statement is sourced to. The full bibliographic sources are located under "References" at the bottom.Legitimus (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the percentage is unfalsifiable and unverifiable, but it is supported by those references. However, the dependent clause is not supported, as that would require a conclusion about those sources. Note the word "suggest". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I just reverted an IP on this matter, and left a note in the edit history. It is indeed very rare for a child to lie about being sexually abused. And when a lie is involved, it's usually because a parent or other caregiver was involved with the lie (the lead makes this clear as well).

Also, I just added ": the overall rate of false accusation is under 10%" to the title of this section so that it's clearer what the section is about. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on False allegation of child sexual abuse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.jaacap.com/pt/re/jaacap/abstract.00004484-198607000-00001.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110905013149/http://www.innocent.org.uk/misc/carers.html to http://www.innocent.org.uk/misc/carers.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110819212046/http://lawiki.org/index.php?title=Evidence_of_disposition to http://lawiki.org/index.php?title=Evidence_of_disposition

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Effect on the accusee

Can someone please expand this section a bit? The psychological effect on the accusee can be overwhelmingly traumatic, and I think this is under-appreciated. Fmc47 (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I tried this on a related page but it was deleted as I was editing. They didn't even allow as much as there is on this page. I assumed suppression. You could try a precis of the Oxford University Criminology review on this topic - https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-and-subject-groups/impact-being-wrongly-accused-abuse-occupations-trust-victims-voice.

I also added links to current support groups but they were also removed. Maybe Winston Smith is editing here.... 'Ignorance is strength'187.149.25.30 (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Why is this getting removed? It's a necessary part of any discussion on this subject, and there is ample documentation from WP-appropriate sources. From what I've witnessed, false accusations can literally drive a person insane. There needs to be more coverage of situations where the accuser is the molester, and the innocent accused person is actually the victim, sometimes when the victim speaks up or attempts to. --Bluejay Young (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I am just coming to this talk section now and have looked into it. It would appear from the edit history the anonymous IP address user attempted to add a link to a Facebook group as well as an incorrectly formatted link to an external group. This is not allowed nor is it a good source, so it looks like an automated bot reverted it. This shows that said IP was being a little disingenuous when they made the post above regarding what they were trying to do.

Now that said, let's fix this and see what we can add to that section. That Oxford University link looks good to me (I haven't read it yet but will). Do you have other links to reliable sources? Sources on research are preferred over sites for advocacy, for neutrality reasons.Legitimus (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on False allegation of child sexual abuse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928044230/http://www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm55/5563/5563.pdf to http://www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm55/5563/5563.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110603012044/http://www.false-allegations.org.uk/links.html to http://www.false-allegations.org.uk/links.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Carl Beech UK 2019

Let us add another big lie: Operation Midland#Carl Beech ("Nick") Zezen (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Eh? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The link should presumably be to Operation Midland#Carl Beech ("Nick"). But, it's unclear what changes Zezen wants to have made. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

1. Thanks for fixing the ref. 2. I posit that we mention this case as a good example of a false allegation and the presumed motives, pacem the reporters. Zezen (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I've no objection to you doing that, if properly sourced. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)