Talk:Satanic ritual abuse/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Speaking of...

Check out this lovely page, now a redirect. WLU (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The sources are all talking about satanic ritual abuse, all the new sources are either personal web pages or the Noblitt ones that have been discarded. WLU (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I've redirected again - the latest version removed much of the 'scholarly' sources conflating it with SRA, but replaced it with low-value websites and a single article from one book. I redirected again, but a discussion should take place on whether it should get its own page. A brief google scholar search turned up nothing spectacular, I'm still of the belief that it's a modern incarnation of SRA, or perhaps a version of religious abuse (the latter based on a very cursory review of a chapter in Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence). WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 20:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Redirect seems fine. Things are much clearer now that there's no noise in these articles. When religious abuse is expanded and sourced, and its tags removed, it will be a perfect repository for non SRAbuse info. Nice new signature. —Cesar Tort 20:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it worth dropping a line to User:Attafire's talk page and suggesting they put RAT as a sub-section of that page? I won't have time to review in the next couple days. The EoDV is the only source that could justifiably be used, and there's WP:WEIGHT concerns since it's just one publication. Took me a ridiculous amount of time to fix the sig. Not sure if it's worth it, I find it kinda gaudy. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 22:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Nathan & Snedeker


Anyone watching the page can see that I'm dumping a lot of info from N&S on this and the SRA page today - the book needs to go back to the library soon and I'm finally making the time to add the info I've earmarked to the page. I don't mind it being removed, ideally I'd like it moved to the most appropriate spot/page. For the most part I'm pretty sure that it's a valid addition, but for some it's borderline CFORKing. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 20:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

POV and expert tags added

Added tags to the article. This article is an unbalanced presentation of the information. It appears to ignore many reliable sources. I am requesting an expert with a more balanced opinion look at the article. Extrabreeze (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Why not provide the reliable sources that you think "balance" the information? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Please tell us exactly what sources are missing. If you look through the talk page history you will see that this has been discussed at length. There is consensus that the scholarly mainline view is well represented. Please refrain from tagging the page until you've at least discussed your complaint here in detail.PelleSmith (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeap! Intensive discussions since 2007 made me buy the thickest ring binder in the market in order to print & study hundreds of discussion pages (now archived) on the controversy. —Cesar Tort 04:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I’ve looked through the talk page history and it appears there was a lot of disagreement about what should be represented on the page. I would like to add reliable sources to the page, but fear I would be treated the way others have been treated that have tried to balance the page before.
One major problem with the page is that it relies on only a couple of authors for most of its references and these authors have strong beliefs against the existence of SRA. I will list several pages I have found in a recent web search whose sources could be used to help balance the page.
Some of these pages may not in themselves be reliable sources (but they could be see alsos) and several point to reliable sources in the field to balance the page.

This is an excellent encyclopedic article on the topic of SRA that deals with the subject matter at hand in a much more even handed manner than the present wikipedia page does.
Craighead, W. E.; Corsini, R.J.; Nemeroff, C. B. (2002) The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology and Behavioral Science Published by John Wiley and Sons ISBN 0471270830 p.1435 - 1438

2008 Publications on Ritual Abuse and Mind Control
Ritual Abuse Bibliography
Brief Synopsis of the Literature on the Existence of Ritualistic Abuse
Conviction List: Ritual Child Abuse
Satanism and Ritual Abuse Archive
An Empirical Look at the Ritual Abuse Controversy

Since I have discussed my complaint in detail here, I will be re-adding the tags. Extrabreeze (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Discussion is a two way street. Making statements and then reverting is not "discussion". The links provided are not reliable sources and the various sources listed on them have to be treated individually. You've mentioned one actual source above. The way to edit is to try to add sources where you think they are needed and not to predict that reliable sources will be rejected. If anyone takes issue with your actual sources they will discuss it with you here. Please refrain from tagging the page. Listing a bunch of pro-SRA bibliographies is not an argument justifying your tag.PelleSmith (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I left a note at User talk:Extrabreeze suspecting sockpuppetry. "I’ve looked through the talk page history and..." Impossible. I spent more than a week reading through the printed, archived talk pages. It's an enormous task. Extrabreeze's arguments above; the slopping way to dump references (un-compacted URLs for instance); the insistence on "a couple of authors"; the ugly spaces between paragraphs in a post, etc., strongly reminds me you-know-who's writing style. In this behavior continues, IP check might be in order. —Cesar Tort 16:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I redacted my comments suspecting sockpuppetry in another post, but that's probably close enough for a checkuser. The "sources" seem to be in a different, though. Perhaps he's changed web hosts? If he's changed ISPs, a checkuser would fail.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
S.M.A.R.T. news seems to be a "new" unreliable source, unless they've changed name, as well as webhost. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I am confused by the statements above. I don't think it's that hard to read through a couple of recent pages, like I did. All I did was add a couple of references to be looked at to try and balance the page. I will add a see also encyclopedic version above to the page as suggested by an editor above. Extrabreeze (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You apparently didn't read through the talk page archive and discover that most of your sources have already been considered and not considered reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe he has read it, but under another User name. —Cesar Tort 00:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys, if you think User:Extrabreeze is a sock of RE, why not ask an admin for an IP check? Then you can get an IP ban, and it'll be the end of your problems. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 12:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Can a common admin do that? I thought that only the IP check admins could do it. If an admin with that power is watching this thread it would be nice if s/he checked it. At any event, Extrabreeze (fresh breeze on stilted articles I guess :) is no longer posting in WP. —Cesar Tort 17:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Blood libel

With regard to this paragraph, I wonder if it might be better entitled "moral panic" and then blood libel be included and described as one of the forms of moral panic. At least I think the paragraph ought to explain briefly what blood libel is, as if a reader doesn't know, there's no mention of it in the section. Fainites barley 14:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a blood libel article, so to avoid redundancy, a wikilink to that article would be better. --neon white talk 18:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
A link would be good. My quibble was that the section covers various forms of moral panic/conspiracy theories including blood libel type accusations - although blood libel is not specifically mentioned in the section. Blood libel needs to be specifically included in the section if a source can be found and perhaps the section renamed.Fainites barley 21:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
FWIW I think there's merit to these suggestions - blood libel should be linked if it's a section title! I've adjusted the section title (which is now clunky and long) and adjusted the wording to include a wikilinked blood libel. Thanks for the suggestions. I'd like to keep blood libel as at least part of the section title since it is the similarity of the accusations that links so strongly to past moral panics. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 15:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Much better. There are indeed some remarkable similarities to blood libel. Fainites barley 23:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Probably because it's the same phenomenon extending across different times : ) WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 23:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps one day there'll be enough knowledge to be able to write another article on precisely why the human brain functions in this particular way. Fainites barley 06:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

section break (arbitrary)

Hi, My name is Diana Napolis. I have read the talk discussions about the satanic ritual abuse article for about 1 year now. In spite of corrections made, the editors have continued to post an article heavily slanted against the reality of SRA. Why is that? Because I used to be a Child abuse investigator, and ultimately created an archive of SRA court case convictions, including from appellate court sources, I do know that SRA exists. I have also followed the politics surrounding this issue for 20 years and most of the sources which have been cited in this article are heavily slanted and are from pro False Memory Syndrome Defense sources. This type of article as written makes wikipedia look very bad. Any comments? 23:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Diana Napolis —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Had you read the whole archived talk pages you'd know by now the response to your question. I'll leave to other editors iterate what can be read in the archives. Suffice it to say that I for one have read zero literature from the FMSF. Instead, I found David Frankfurter's 2006 book on this subject informative. —Cesar Tort 23:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have read most of the responses, including the earlier responses from 2007 in which all of these points were raised but not adequately addressed. Let me give my overview of this wikiepedia article. 1) You claim that you read zero literature from the FMSF. Yet 5 of the FMSF's Advisory Board members are referenced. They are: Jeffrey Victor, Elizabeth Loftus, Ralph Underwager, and Piper and Merskey. Ralph Underwager was completely discredited after writing in PAIDIKA - journal for pedophiles - that pedophilia was a normal and reasonable choice. .. and he resigned from the FMSF afterwards, and yet you have referenced him. 2) You have referenced Shirely and Paul Eberele who published child pornography years ago in your critique about the McMartin case. 3)You have referenced Dr. Gail Goodman's research study "Characteristics and Sources of Allegations of Ritualistic Abuse" but I believe that this research study was fraudulent after thoroughly reviewing it. Dr. Gail Goodman did not provide an accurate representation of what this study revealed in the NY Times article you quote by Daniel Goleman. The return rate she received from her postcard surveys was less than 2000 but she told the newspaper that this study had not found evidence in 12,,000 cases, and that was a flagrant and intentional misrepresentation about what her study actually revealed ... and on and on it goes. I wrote a 53 page critque of this study and I hope to write a more formal review. 4) Furthermore there is a link above citing my archive of Satanic Ritual Abuse court cases yet the author of this SRA wikipedia article minimizes the reality of court convictions involving SRA themes. If you do not believe that these cases have any merit, or you question the legitimacy of the authorship, then I recommend that you go to your nearest university and access the legal database Lexis/Nexis and verify that these SRA cases exist. If you verified that these cases existed you would not minimize the reality of court case convictions in general. You, or the author of this SRA article, have continued to claim that SRA is a "moral panic" etc... but nobody who has looked into these issues seriously makes those types of statements. 5) You, or the author of this article, then quoted Debbie Nathan and Martin Snedecker. Debbie Nathan does not write accurately about SRA cases, and Martin Snedecker is a defense attorney she has worked with who is intent on overturning SRA case convictions. Ross Cheit, professor from Brown University just wrote an article published in the Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 8/16/2008 titled "Myths about he Country Walk Case." That is the case of Frank Fuster that Debbie Nathan attempts to debunk in the work you referenced by her. His abstract reads:

So most of the invdiduals that have been quoted in this present SRA article have a conflict of interest. Given all of this information, there is no excuse for this type of article as written.

Diana Napolis —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's all note Diana Napolis, who I am assuming is the same person. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 00:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Blanked page

An SPA, anonymous editor User: (IP apparently in Brodheadsville), has blanked the page stating:

  • "Please remove this article. It is clearly biased. Both sides of the debate should be presented, not just the 'panic' side. There are many professionals and lay people who indeed believe this exists, and many survivors have proof..."

Before s/he also blanked the page with:

  • "Article Is Biased; Only One Side Of The Story".

Again, the most recent edit summary (Please ... not just the "panic" side) reminds me You Know Who's prose. —Cesar Tort 06:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Biased Article

This article is clearly biased. It only presents one view. There is another side to the story, and it should be presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Then you could edit it to present the other side rather than blanking the page. Winchelsea (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

About blanking page

Didn't know how to truly contact Wikipedia to express discontent regarding bias.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I doubt that is a genuine newbie. S/he might just be pretending. Reason: s/he has created two new sections in the way experienced wikipedians do: by clicking on "New section" (in my first days in WP's talk pages I for one added the headings manually). —Cesar Tort 18:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Y'know, I just hate this assumption that new users have to be idiots. Look up on the top of the page; there's a tab saying something like "add new section" (which a lot of us change to a + sign). It doesn't take a heck of a lot of experience to notice the "add new section" next to the "edit this page" tab. Assume good faith, even about editors who are annoying you. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
OK: I'll asume good faith from an editor who just blanked this page twice :) Cesar Tort 00:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
AGF is always a good thing. On the other hand I doubt its a coincidence that a certain editor was topic banned for some months and we have slowly been seeing a bunch of "newbies" objecting to the entry as biased. No such newbies were around when said editor was still engaging in editing here ... PelleSmith (talk) 03:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
And now we have two more "newbies" who have started their wikicareer in this article. This one for example correctly uses edit summaries and even clicks on "minor edit". See also my latest post here. —Cesar Tort 16:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not that I assume bad faith. But under the edit summary titled "added data", the new user, Albigolow (talk · contribs), added a rather complicated endnote for a newbie which reminds me very strongly the archived discussion between ResearchEditor and WLU. Is it time to IP check, along with Extrabreeze (talk · contribs) and maybe others? —Cesar Tort 06:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Concur. Albigolow's latest edit looks familiar. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I've just reverted his most recent revert. He has been warned by an admin in his talk page. I really hope we will be complaining in the IP check board soon. —Cesar Tort 21:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
That particular edit was undue weight on social workers, whose standard of proof is at the level of testimony, not investigation. The revert was a good 'un in my mind. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 23:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Requesting Information about Good Faith or Dishonest Intentions of Wikipedia editors:

Please end discussion

As I previously stated, I noticed that this SRA web page was re-edited to reflect a more balanced overview of the facts several months ago but then it was re-edited by someone who appears to have an agenda. What is the point of having these discussions if the editors are not proceeding in good faith? What is the point of trying to make changes if the old pro-ritual abuse denying web page is put right back up? If that is the case, then why don't you delete the SRA web page altogether? That would be much more honest than what is occuring now. This "Cesar" person appears to be too biased to write about the subject. What can be done?

Diana Napolis —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Balanced? Is there any reputable psychologist or sociologist who believes that actual ritual abuse ever was prevalent? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Balanced? "Reputable?" I was a Court Investigative Child abuse investigator and I have an M.A. in psychology! This is an archive of court cases involving SRA: I would like you to read the evidence in this archive listed above, which include documented confessions, appellate acknowledgement of the abuse, and external corroboration for some of the activities. Appellate documentation is the most persuasive evidence available because appellate courts are the courts that uphold or reverse lower court decisions. Appellate courts make the law in the United States and in all of these cases which cite these SRA decisions, the cases were upheld. There are a few rare instances in which one perpetrator's case was dismissed. But this is the most credible information available at this time.

In 2001 I was targeted by nonlethals, which includes microwave harassment, after which I found myself in trouble with the law which is how it was planned to try to discredit my work. Microwave auditory phenomena is listed in Wikipedia. I would like to also note, that during my particular court proceedings I had influential academic-types writing letters to the judge attesting to the value of my work, and my credibility, and they still do today which is why Dr. Ellen Lacter has posted my archive on her web site. I don't care if you use this information, I just want you to read it.

My web page describes my lawsuit against satanist Michael Aquino which describes these allegations at: On that web page you will find a CID transcript of a ritual abuse interview involving Mr. Aquino and other documentation.

My name was mentioned in a wikipedia SRA article for several years until colleagues of mine corrected that information in 2007. That article perpetuated the myth that Michael Aquino was trying to spin for the public. Therefore, nobody needs to tell me what bias' are in these articles because I have personally experienced grief because of it. On one of these early talk pages MIchael Aquino came here and misrepresented the facts and subjected me to further defamation. I responded, but my comments were later deleted. I used that particular talk page in my lawsuit against him.

Yes, many "reputable" people have investigated satanic ritual abuse: Dr. Gail Goodman in her 1994 research study documented pervasive evidence of satanic ritual abuse, she just attempted to downplay that evidence in her closing arguments and to the media. I requested that UC Davis investigate this study and this is what happened as a result: Anyone who reads all of this information and then states that SRA does not exist is either retarded or has an agenda. ::::Diana Napolis, M.A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Diana, Wikipedia is not a soapbox; you may not make it a platform for promoting your own point of view. Fellow editors, I suggest you look up Diana Napolis on your favorite search engine; it will save considerable energy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest looking at all sources. Aren't you the editor who deleted Michael and Lilith Aquino's web page? You wrote something about deleting these pages might be in wikipedia's best interest? Why did you write that? You stated that wikipedia wasn't a platform for promoting my own point of view. I wasn't promoting my own point of view only; I pointed out at least 50 appellate court's various points of view which upheld SRA, and tried to place this information within a context. I'm sorry if I went into too much detail that, at worst, could only educate you. But I do remind you, I read what Michael Aquino wrote about me on this SRA talk page, as well as as his long diatribe promoting his "own point of view" in 2007. Did you tell him what you have just told me, or are you having a problem with me just because I am a woman? I have read several discussions here about my work, and the efforts made to discredit my research involving SRA as it regards this very web page. Therefore I do think I have a right to respond. ::::Diana Napolis

Besides Jpgordon's advice I'd add this archived thread on Diana.

Diana: I think you have a wrong idea on Wikipedia. Here we go on reliable sources. Personal experiences and confessions of personal court cases border on soapboxing. (And please indent your paragraphs uniformly and sign your posts by typing: ~~~~. The software will convert it automatically into a signature.) —Cesar Tort 05:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"Cesar": Let's drop the games. This article about SRA is unbalanced and biased because you are the person who is soapboxing and it is you who is not quoting reliable sources. Nobody has "peer reviewed" the Eberles. They don't cite verifiable court cases; I do. What you don't realize is that I will be archiving you too and this discussion and placing it on my web site, and I hope others do as well. That's the reason for the discussion; I want everyone to see it. I don't have "personal court cases," they have been objectively verified. I"m curious, what's the personal background of the editors involved? (talk) 09:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Diana Napolis

The page is the product of a long, acrimonious and reference-based discussion with input from many editors as well as outside noticeboards. Based on the sources we have, this version is the best we can manage to date. CT is defending the consensus version, though (AGF nudge) is perhaps slightly-too-zealous in his defence. Asking for the personal background of editors is rude and irrelevant. By the way, to be more direct Diane Napolis is not helped by using that name, but irrespective it is the argument and sources that are important (mostly the latter), not the person. I'm of the opinion that there is no reason to change the page. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 11:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Asking for the personal background of editors might be irrelevant, but I've already explained it after ResearchEditor directly asked (which tells me, again, that you Diana have not read the entire archive's talk pages). Nontheless I'll repeat it again. My background is CSICOP. Also, you can see that, unlike most wikipedians, I present all of my worldview in my user page. Just click on my signature. As to SRA itself, I read Frankfurter's book, which, I must iterate, is an independent scholar (not a member of FMSF as far as I know). Yes: link this debate in your web page, Diana. But rememeber that civility is important in Wikipedia. —Cesar Tort 16:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Cesar, I read your user page. I note that a board member of CSICOP is FMSF's Elizabeth Loftus, and FMSF's James Randi has been affiliated with this organization for years as well. This organization is known to be heavily biased against the reality of SRA and seeks to undermine these cases; therefore, I believe it is very clear that you have an agenda. Further, if I have interpreted this correctly, according to your user page, you pointed to a science fiction novel that summed up what you felt about humanity: "Karellen: is a character in Arthur C. Clarke's novel Childhood's End, a member of the alien race known as the Overlords who come to Earth and take control of humanity." If you don't care about humanity in general then why would you care about the rights of children? It is obvious that you do not care otherwise this presently biased article would not be passed off as neutral and objective. Let's solve the problem and try to bring balance to this issue. (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Diana Napolis

It's the first time I've been accused of having an "agenda" in WP. My only "agenda" is the sources. I'd recommend you carefully read that article (instead, talking about Clarke's novels, etc., is soapboxing and is not allowed in these talk pages). —Cesar Tort 18:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have hidden the discussion - it is irrelevant to the page and becoming personal. Reliable sources are required to change the page, no new sources provided, so we're done. Reliability is determined by publisher and oversight, not by who said what. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 21:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Just curious: what do you mean by "oversight" in this context (the dictionary doesn't help me here). —Cesar Tort 21:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Basically, someone checking the content to make sure that it's not bullshit. WP:RS should have more details, but essentially peer review is oversight, a committee of recognized scholars is oversight, a good editor is oversight (though in the latter case, the reputation is what we rely on rather than our own opinion). "As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 00:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I wonder why would't even the unabridged Webster includes a definition beyond "watchful care" and the like. —Cesar Tort 17:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
My Canadian Oxford has 3) supervision, and that's basically the intent but in a scholarly discussion there's some extra nuances. The important aspects are a) a process for verifying credibility of information (such as a peer review process) and b) a reputation for doing it well (harder to grasp but the reason why the New England Journal of Medicine trumps the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine). WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 19:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Extreme Abuse Survey

Editors here may be interested in this recently created entry -- Extreme Abuse Survey. This recent survey is the source of one of the currently disputed edits in the entry.PelleSmith (talk) 13:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to re-attract attention to the Ritual Abuse-Torture page which I think is pretty redundant to this one and an WP:UNDUE issue. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 15:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, based on the assumption that SRA is mostly rejected, the mention of the EAS has been reduced to a simple "interest is ongoing for a minority of scholars." It's definitely less prominent than it was during its heyday, and Karnac books, the EAS publisher (and not a journal) has a fringe-focus. Placing excessive emphasis on the topic and in particular discussing specifics of the results is undue weight on the source. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 16:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Nottingham case

To the editors who keep adding the statement that family members "confirmed" the children's stories, the Joint Enquiry Report said in relation to extended family members All of these adults will tell you anything, have suggested the impossible and have been found to be lying in every respect that could actually be checked. They are highly suggestible and will related anything that comes into their heads.Fainites barley 19:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


This regards Extrabreeze's recent addition. I mistakenly conflated the Corsini encyclopedia with another and therefore have reverted my deletion of this reference and wont delete it again. Not because I think it belongs but because I don't want it to seem that I'm just finding reasons to delete it. The Corsini reference is one of the handful that a certain pair of editors came up with in the past as examples of post-2000 sources that are on the advocacy side. While it describes the "controversy" (rather poorly) it also adopts whole hog the 1991 "LA County Commission for Women Ritual Abuse Task Force" definition of SRA. I don't see how that makes it an accurate reference for a statement that points out a range of definitions, and a range of supposed behaviors that are encompassed by them. This is a very specific definition representing one "extreme". To me this seems simply like an attempt to add a pro-SRA source to the entry whether it fits or not. Like I said, however, I will not delete it myself.PelleSmith (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Corsini uses poor sources (LA commission, Warnke which discusses satanic rituals but not satanic ritual abuse, not to mention seriously discussing Mike Warnke well after his story was debunked in 1991), discusses skepticism but skirts over the implications it has for treatment (i.e. there is no treatment, just stop implanting memories), discusses how to improve disclosure by children (which is really a series of post-hoc rationalizations for why the abuse wasn't admitted before/ways to create false memories and disclosure), Gould's embarassingly bad checklist, the 'nutter mind control' perspective and for some reason detours by Simandl's teenage ritual checklist and the completely separate issue of adolescent interest in the occult. Overall it seems to be quite credulous (in particular, the skepticism is very minimal and essentially 90% of the article is based on the idea that SRA is a real problem, presenting undue weight issues), and I'd remind others that we are urged to use tertiary sources with caution. I also suspect the shoehorning PS mentions. So, I think I'll remove it. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 13:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I would disagree with this view of Corsini. It appears to have a long reference list and discusses all of the major theories equally and fairly. It may not suit certain opinions on the topic, but does provide people a variety of views on the topic, many of which are well known and popular, like some of the ones mentioned above. In my short time editing here, I have noticed that there always seems to be a reason to delete any reference neutral to the topic of SRA, but yet other negative references are allowed to stay. Extrabreeze (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
We are required to report on topics to the extent and with a tone equivalent to the mainstream view of the topic discussed. Any emphasis on the credibility or reality of SRA is out of keeping with the majority belief that SRA is a discredited, if not embarassing part of the 80-90s. This has been discussed to death in the archives. If you do not agree with our policy on a neutral point of view you are welcome to contribute to another on-line venue elsewhere. You may be well served by reviewing this administrator's noticeboard - SRA is not a topic of mainstream interest and the page should not place any emphasis on source and text that gives the impression that SRA is perceived as anything except a moral panic. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 23:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately since the merge below, the first ref in the article is now Sarson. Fainites barley 18:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
But there are many sources that show that SRA is real. And why are you telling me I can’t edit this page. The neutral point of view link you put above states that each view should be presented fairly. That doesn’t seem to be happening here. It sounds like you are threatening me with the other link above. I joined wikipedia thinking that everyone can edit it. I wish you would stop harassing me and let me help edit the page. Extrabreeze (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Please see WP:FRINGE. There is no evidence that SRA "is real". We've been over this add nauseam. There is some "belief" that it is real, but those sources represent a fringe position. None of this means that there isn't/wasn't real abuse but that it was satanic ritual abuse has never been shown.PelleSmith (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
How can this be fringe, if so many sources states it is real? There are even court cases in that site with convictions. court cases and more court cases. Extrabreeze (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Neither of those advocacy sites are reliable sources for accurately describing those court cases. Also, the position was not "fringe" in mass culture during the moral panic (else there would never have been a panic). That should be obvious. The point is that it is now a fringe position. This has been discussed already to death. Regarding your edit please refrain from adding those references to the lead. The minority position is accurately described at the end of the lead, and is fleshed out in the entry itself. You don't see a dump of references supporting the mainstream view in the lead do you?PelleSmith (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Undent. Those are both websites posted by Diana Napolis, who is, bluntly, crazy (seriously, I have a source to support it, de Young 2004 explicitly supports this point). And also not reliable sources. And it's a flawed list in the first place, and de Young has actually reviewed the list and stated they are out of date if not deliberately deceptive. They prove nothing. Which reliable sources state that SRA is real, that were not published at the height of the panic? We've reviewed a lot - the recent ones that state it is a real thing have been panned as unreliable, self-published and generally inappropriate. The dump of sources in the lead is not helpful (and inappropriate particularly given the lead should summarize the points of the article, not make them, see WP:LEAD) and those sources are already summarized in the body text itself. Everyone can edit wikipedia, but they must do so within WP:CONSENSUS. Just because everybody can edit wikipedia doesn't mean every single position is treated sympathetically. SRA is not, because it's considered a bullshit moral panic. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 16:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Napolis is suing, amongst others, Elizabeth Loftus, a California Newspaper and San Diego State University because of their conspiracy to silence her findings of SRA. If anyone ever had a COI on this page it is Napolis. See [1].PelleSmith (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Given Napolis is suing (among others) Michael Aquino for (among other things) "psychological and physical torture and terrorization by the usage of nonlethal technology, such as 'Voice to Skull Devices', 'Voice Synthesis Devices', 'Computer Brain Interface' (Remote Neural Monitoring), psychotronics" et al., I think we can forever write her off as being a credible source for anything. (Though if Aquino actually has his hands on real mind control devices, sign me up! AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


Since no-one has put up an opinion on the talk page (HINT! HINT!!), I've posted on FTN regards the ritual abuse-torture page. I'm guessing there's some opinions and expertise here on the subject, so here's yet another effort to get some outside input! I'm now on the fence on the subject, and would appreciate outside readers as much to keep the page as to redirect it. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 00:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've redirected the stub here, merging its sources. dab (𒁳) 06:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I've left a comment on the talk page referring the editor in question (User:Attafire) to you. I think redirection is an appropriate decision, so it's up to Attafire to convince at least two other editors that there's merit to a separate page. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 01:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

CU results

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ResearchEditor. Make of this what you will. Are there any other possible puppetmasters I should tell the CUs to look at? Moreschi (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Attafire, but I doubt it. If you're checking the maybes and longshots, you might as well be comprehensive. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 16:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
User: might be likely. Why not just check Attafire as well. I'm not entirely convinced that one or two old regulars who went by other names shouldn't be checked but I don't want to suggest fishing.PelleSmith (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
In fact since discovering that the person identifying with that IP has a very blatant COI in regards to this entry (see just above) I very strongly suggest checking that IP against RE and others in the check user.PelleSmith (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, after reading this, now I'm much more convinced that EB and RE are the same person. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 19:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The IP is unrelated, but Attafire is confirmed. This is topic-ban evasion, so I've blocked RE for a year. Moreschi (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
If anyone is still following, RE has been blocked for a year for sockpuppeting, and appealed to arbitration. Three of the five arbitors needed to reject or accept the request have rejected it and endorsed both the block and that RE was abusing multiple accounts to evade the ban. Naturally, this has had no effect on RE's beliefs that there is a huge conspiracy against the truth of satanic ritual abuse, cackle cackle, but that won't matter 'cause the block/ban will be upheld. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 10:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. Its striking that not once on his talk page does he actually deny sock puppetry. Anyway where do we go from here? What can be done to improve the entry?PelleSmith (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
That's a new section methinks, I've started it below. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 13:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


Anyone know anything about MKULTRA, the CIA zombie creation/mind control program that has inherited the torch from satanic ritual abuse for conspiracy nutter stuff? The page seems a bit of a mess but I'm amused to see the overlaps - Extreme abuse survey, Cathy O'Brien, the use of torture to establish alters, etc. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 23:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It's all in a couple of books by Colin A. Ross, and the SRA/CIA conspiracy (two distinct though interconected conspiracies!) in Alex Constantine's. Remember user:Immortale? He dumped long quotations of this guy in this talk, and he also started Constantine's page. Nutty stuff... Cesar Tort 01:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd understood that it was a key note of MKULTRA that nothing ever worked reliably if at all. I like the idea that satanist families on the council estates of England and middle aged Daycare workers in the USA have succeeded where the CIA failed.Fainites barley 12:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Where do we go from here?

(from above) Anyway where do we go from here? What can be done to improve the entry?PelleSmith (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that the appropriate weight has been given to the skeptical side, it should mostly be a matter of expanding the analysis of the moral panic as a historical phenomenon. I've finished reading de Young's Day care ritual abuse moral panic, and when I've the time and inclination will expand based on that, but I'm kinda at a loss at what else needs to be put in - it's all details, not substance and it's possible we should be trimming, not expanding. The possible explanations and in particular false memories should be expanded, if we can get a discussion for "continued interest" that'd be nice, but the idea of SRA and its proponents have been so marginalized there's really no mainstream attention left. One suggestion would be a peer-review of the page, but I suspect it'll be mostly formatting. I doubt that beyond those already contributing to the page, there's not many wikipedians who have actually read the scholarly sources. The wiki-based subject matter experts are already here, and I for one am kinda burnt out. The only things I would suggest would be peer review, then perhaps see what the featured article criteria is. It would also be nice to review and take out some of the older sources both pro and anti; since it's a historical moral panic we should be dealing primarily with recent sources that treat it as such. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 13:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
For anyone monitoring the page, I'm obviously going through and switching to the Harvard referencing system with accompanying changes to the many, many citations. One disadvantage is now EVERY reference to a book will have to have a page number, but the advantage is an ease in formatting those page numbers and linking to a source. It'll take a while and that damned orphan citation bot will probably crop up a lot, kiss my ass, but if it's all the same to everyone else, I do enjoy the menial work and it'll up my edit count substantially :) Unless anyone has an objection I'd rather take responsibility for the whole task. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 21:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Good job. Meanwhile I may ask more peer-reviwers to review the article here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Satanic ritual abuse/archive1. —Cesar Tort 22:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I've re-written the lead and added several pictures. The cover shot of Michelle Remembers is a bit of a hail Mary, based very loosely on my understanding of the fair use guidelines it might be applicable because we discuss the book a fair bit. It's either that or Virginia McMartin which is even less self-explanatory. Unless we photoshopped a pentagram on her face. Any suggestions? I'm placing significantly more emphasis on the moral panic explanation, and basically discounting that there is any truth to the allegations. Once I have the time, I'll do some more content adjustment to remove the older and more credulous sources. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 19:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
With those images it's looking great. But there's an error that has to be fixed: Cite error: Invalid < ref > tag; no text was provided for refs named Edge362Cesar Tort 22:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Got it, thanks for pointing it out. I'll continue to adjust the references, feel free to keep pointing out errors 'cause I tend t omiss them. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 01:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


Here's fun, search for Curio or Diana Napolis in this book. She probably merits her own wikipedia page. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 16:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed that Face-smile.svg Could you, using your admin powers, see if the deleted Michael Aquino page would be worth resurrecting? DeYoung's book has several pages of discussion focussing on him, as well as some from from the Sauer 2000 article. He seems like he'd be notable for certain. Also, a review of the Napolis page would be good. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 18:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, apparently there were BLP issues with the Aquino article, as well as OTRS requests from the subject. I was a bit surprised to see it deleted -- he seems notable to me, certainly. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...were I to re-create the page, was there any content or sources (!!!) worth knowing about? Could you e-mail me the sources, web and paper? Since there's BLP stuff, content should probably stay deleted for now, I'd probably bring it up at deletion review and use e-mail instead of a sub-page. Might even send Aquino an e-mail... WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 00:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Note that the article is protected against re-creation. You really want to jump into that can of worms? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps one day if I'm bored. Since I'm not an admin I can't actually see into the can to see how many and how vicious the worms are, but I believe Aquino to be notable and at least the Mary de Young book (Day Care Ritual Abuse Moral Panic) is probably sufficiently reliable a source to stave off BLP concerns. If it's been salted, I'd have to go to deletion review before trying to recreate it anyway. But if it's that bad, I don't know if I'd want to. Thanks for the info, I'll keep it into the back of my mind if I do elect to draft a new version. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 12:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd personally think Aquino meets notability - deYoung isn't the only source that goes into the Presidio case. Then again, it's entirely possible that everything you'd want to say about him can be summed up in a Presidio Case article and a section under Temple of Set. So, maybe it's better to not give him his own separate article, if that's what he wants. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


Child sexual abuse accomodation syndrome references:

WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 13:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Michelle Remembers.jpg

The image File:Michelle Remembers.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Conflation of terms with SRA

What is the source which justifies the conflation of SRA with "ritual abuse, cult related abuse, ritualized abuse, sadistic ritual abuse, ritual abuse-torture"?

I don't see how this conflation is justified, particular since much of the literature on "ritual abuse" abjures the term SRA. Researchers such as Scott (2001) and McLeod and Goddard (2005) have also pointed out that the term "satanic ritual abuse" is used predominantly by sceptics to describe cases of ritual abuse, whilst those researchers who take such allegations seriously use other terms such as "ritual abuse" or "sadistic abuse".

I think the conflation should be removed. It should also be pointed out that I've been repeatedly blocked on this page from referencing sources on "ritual abuse", with editors arguing that it is a distinct topic from SRA. You appear to have changed your minds, although not to the benefit of the page. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering it's impossible to do research on the phenomenon because it never existed, I'm not overly worried. The section Satanic_ritual_abuse#Definitions also deals with this to a certain extent and contains the sources (and we are not obliged to place all the citations in the lead, I feel along with others in the community that it uglifies it to an unnecessary degree when the lead section is meant to be a simple summary). Lots o' names for a variety of reasons but ultimately the were an attempt to impose a definition to provide some sort of credibility which was lacking because the thing they were investigating was not real. Ultimately the scholarly majority states that this is a moral panic, that's what we go with. Skepticism is the norm. Who are Scott and McLeod and Goddard? What is the definitions they use of "ritual abuse"? Do they involve multigenerational satanists? Because the page is about a moral panic, by definition any investigations that turn up actual abuse isn't satanic ritual abuse. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I reread the archives a bit. Scott and McLeod/Goddard were discussed. Scott I was unimpressed with as she is yet more "my clients say it's true". McLeod and Goddard I was never provided a link to or copy of I believe. In any case, these sources were presented before. My reply from before can be found here. There's sources saying the definitions were fuzzy, there's sources saying there was no truth to the claims so how could you define them, there's sources saying no-one could agree on the definitions and since the entire field never ended up agreeing on a permanent definition, one small set of scholars claiming one set of definitions that is pretty much ignored by the rest of the field because the moral panic has subsided seems like WP:UNDUE to me. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I have added McLeod & Goddard as a reference to the "small number who still believe" in the skepticism and rejection section - seven pages in a publication by a non-profit organization, focussing mainly on Australia, doesn't make for a good source to add much to the text. I've also adjusted the lead to contain only names which have a reference. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Chris Goddard, the co-author of this article, is the head of Child Abuse Research Australia and one of the pre-eminent spokespeople on child protection in Australia. He's not a "small minority" - he's high profile and well respected. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ritual Abuse Tortures

I'd like to draw attention to the article Ritual abuse tortures created on November 1 2008. Wondering if it is a candidate for merging with or redirection to Satanic ritual abuse like the earlier article on Ritual Abuse-Torture? If not, would it make sense to merge previous non-Satanic material from the earlier Ritual Abuse-Torture article (including criticism which the new article lacks) to that one? --Tomhuxley (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That was set up in all probability by a sockpuppet of the now-banned User:ResearchEditor (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ResearchEditor) and PelleSmith has redirected. Also note that in all probability, another sock of RE (Special:Contributions/Ddgol5) has made a point to remove discussion of that page from this one. I've reported, and I'm hoping a hard block is coming down the line. Any other editors who notice a similar pattern, please let me know or start a new section in the sock report. Also note that RE's socks have other interests - Special:Contributions/Cdan18. I've been doing regular searches on the sources used as well as terms, but there is a fondness for mis-spellings and spelling variations to avoid exact duplications of content. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

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. -- (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. -- (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 [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], 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 [1] and [2] 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 [3] 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. [37], 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: [38]), 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 Face-smile.svg. 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 [39]. 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, [40], [41], [42], [43]. This one is for nutterism and links to the contemporary CIA bullshit - [44] 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)


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)

The theory is considered to be bizarre and ridiculous by the experts, and the people who proposed the theory have not solidly linked it with any SRA allegations as far as I have seen. DreamGuy (talk) 16:43, 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.

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.[45] 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)


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? [46] 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)


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)

What about?

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:

Another option is "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)


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, 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. [47] [48] 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)
Just to clarify, is this Salter asserting a pedophile ring conspiracy? His thesis statement says "by organised networks or groups", so that seems to suggest something more than research into familial incest or abuse by Catholic priests. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverse Ritual Abuse

Can we add a section about forced exorcisms as an unfortunate side-effect of the satanic panic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 23:37, December 7, 2009

Sounds relevant, but we'd need sources that directly tie the two together. (i.e. an example of someone going through a forced "exorcism" because of the panic). — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

satanic panic - the movie?

Just found out there's a movie on the intarwebz called "Satanic Panic". Perhaps it's not notable - seems like a Blair Witch style homemade film, almost, though it's possibly amazingly funny - but on the off chance it becomes a cult classic, should we have a disambig for it? Because right now, Satanic Panic redirects to this article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd hold off until there's evidence that a people are searching for the term in relation to the movie (aka it starts to get notable). — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah... I just saw the movie and it really was a homemade film. Can't see it becoming a cult hit - then again, there's Army of Darkness.... AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Another neutrality dispute

the satanic ritual abuse page has opinions that are not of the general public view. The nuetrality of the page is under serious suspicion Reptileblood (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)reptileblood

You're going to have to be more specific in your complaint. And we're not here to show "the general public view," but those reported in reliable sources. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Presenting as fact the opinion that ritual abuse doesn't exist is definitely a neutrality issue. Dismissing the accounts of abused children and adults as "non reliable" sources is a dangerous and misleading action to undertake. Reptileblood (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)reptileblood

I'm sorry, but the evidence is that ritual abuse does not exist. It's not a neutrality issue, it's an issue of facts. The accounts have been seriously researched and dismissed. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 02:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Presenting as fact the opinion that alien abduction doesn't exist is definitely a neutrality issue. Dismissing the accounts of abductees as "non reliable" sources is a dangerous and misleading action to undertake. Zazaban (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, referring to the originators of the accounts as 'abused' is a presupposition that it is true. Zazaban (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
You're conflating different issues here. We're not saying their accounts are "non reliable," but all they can do is relate their account. It does not constitute evidence. And there is a huge lack of evidence for SRA and for UFO abductions (though what the latter has to do with this article eludes me). As to the term "abuse," well that's what the original claims were: ritual abuse. I really don't understand what your argument is. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm agreeing with you, actually. I'm calling the accounts non-reliable. I'm saying that they're about as credible as people who say they've been abducted by aliens. Zazaban (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I'd suggest we are saying (I hope) that their accounts are "non reliable". See the sections on "Patient allegations" and "Children's allegations". In the 1980's, children's allegations were patently ludicrous, the result of leading interviews, and not typically subject to cross in court. More recent adult allegations have been manufactured through such techniques as hypnosis. In all cases, corroboration was nonexistent, and often the allegations themselves were physically impossible. Both sections in this article probably could do with incorporating more content from the Recovered memory therapy, Elizabeth Loftus, and False Memory Syndrome Foundation articles, seeing as how these three topics basically found their genesis in the SRA hype. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I really do not wish to take a side in such controversial matters, but I personally find that the article's overall tone does sound somewhat biased and slanted. While I personally do not favour the existence of such an article itself, I realize that Wikipedia does encourage the wide distribution of all kinds of information. However, I believe that there seem to be unusually high number of people whom seem to believe that all these cases are completely false, and desperate to provide 'evidence' . Also, 'they're about as credible as people who say they've been abducted by aliens', Zazaban, appears to suggest your own POV, and of an irrelevant topic to this one. However, I can tell you that studies have indeed shown that many of those cases have indeed been proven to be genuine, some have been determined to be inexplicable, and even governments research these extra-terrestial encounters. they're about as credible as people who say they've been abducted by aliens. Unless your point is that these accounts are indeed very reliable...? Please, I do not wish to argue over such petty issues, but I merely wish to add that one should try to maintain a neutral tone in all article subjects, regardless of how interesting this topic may be to some. Thank you, and best wishes, Aidoflight (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not getting the impression that there is a legitimate POV dispute here. I have no strong opinion on whether SRA exists or not, but the intellectual quality of the arguments in this thread is so low that the POV tag is not currently justified. I suggest removing it in a few days in case there is no further, more helpful input. Hans Adler 08:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I thought it was part of Wikipedia policy to maintain civility, Mr. Adler, which your statement of 'the intellectual quality of the arguments in this thread is so low' appears to imply a lack of, in my own humble opinion. If that, too, is deemed far too invalid of an argument for your sake, then I simply have nothing more to say, except that I, for one, do not wish to devote such great deals of my own time arguing over topics as strange as Satanic ritual abuse. I genuinely believe it to be somewhat biased in its overall tone and certain points the article makes. Truly you all have no objection to the entire article? Well, again, I am but one user, and I am sure that you all mean the best for our society, and for Wikipedia. Cheers, Aidoflight (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The WP:CONSENSUS from previous discussions seems to be that no reputable researcher now believes that SRA actually ever existed, although this may not have been correct in the dark ages of psychiatry (e.g. the last century). (OK, that last phrase was a dig at a certain recurrent vandal, who kept inserting his so-called sources for information which may have been credible when written, but is no longer considered credible.) Unless you can provide evidence that the statement is untrue on this page, and convince some editors that there is a viable dispute, the tag should remain off. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The preponderance of evidence and more importantly the most recent reliable sources indicate that this panic has passed and is now a shameful chapter in the history of psychology and psychiatry. Much like we mostly focus on Hitler's atrocities rather than his painting or revamping of the German economy post-WWI, we focus on the historical nature of this as a past moral panic. We don't need to give credit to "survivor's" accounts when the evidence is that the survivor's accounts aren't considered reliable or worth discussing. The article appropriately discusses the SRA phenomenon as a past event and that shouldn't change barring new evidence arising. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, okay, do what you want. All these cases are false. We should all pity the poor, falsely accused Satanists. Hope you're happy now, guys. But let me just say this: If you really, seriously think somehow that Satanism is doing more good than harm, you're seriously mistaken, and I, for one, would know. Does doing this really give you pleasure, contributing articles like these every day, every week, for the rest of your lives? Because that, forgive me, is, personally, to me, truly worthy of pity. Curse at me and mock me as you please for what I have tried to do, but I, at least, will waste no more time arguing people. Thank you. Good day. Best wishes, Aidoflight (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

... what? You really need to assume good faith here. Whatever your issue with satanism, it's irrelevant to making a neutral article on Wikipedia; just like you don't need to be a Nazi sympathizer to support a neutral article on Nazism. We're here to make an encyclopedia, not push anyone's religious or social viewpoint. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Satanic ritual abuse has about as much to do with Satanism as it does with doughnuts. Satanic ritual abuse was a moral panic, Satanism is a made-up religion (like Scientology) that basically exists to piss off right-wing Christians. By claiming the two are connected, you are indicating a lack of familiarity with the sources and therefore indicating we can ignore your input. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, sign your posts with your user name if possible next time, and, please, embarass us both not further by claiming that Satanism is a "made-up" religion. Tell that to the Church of Satan, an officially legalized and recognized institution for decades in America now, or the guy who's been pissing me off and saying he's going to sacrifice the baby of a fellow cult member to Satan. You're saying ALL those cases are false? At its root, one could argue that Satanism is the very core "perversion of religion" itself, as a writer wrote for the TEEN magazine in 1993. Also, as ritual abuse survivor and freelance writer Gordon A. Magill said, "The thought of Satan worshippers abusing and murdering children is hard to believe, because it is outside the range of "normal" human experience. The Holocaust was hard to believe." Magill also notes that like the pedophile who asserts he did not abuse or harm a child, because he redefines sexual contact as love, the Satanist redfines ritual child abuse and murder as simply mass hysteria. But, of course, these writers must also have been "programmed" with false memories, and, as such, their comments are completely unreliable, perhaps even amusing, for you people. I mean, seriously, it's not that hard to just cremate a body after you're done raping and mutilating it, thus preventing police from finding hard-core evidence. What about the articles in the news about depressed teens joining cults, cutting each other, and then stabbing and eating half the group when they get bored? But, I suppose that, and the hundreds of other allegations, too, have been fabricated by Christians for the press, of course...though the cooked body parts and hundreds of stab marks do present an intriguing case...This article in the real life could seriously be helping real, psychologically ill Satanists, however few their numbers you claim they are, to hide their own illicit activities with greater ease. I mean, it's just a myth, lol, right? Heh. Please, I truly do not wish to waste any more time here, and I humbly ask you to not do so either. Even on Wikipedia, surely, there are areas in more need of your considerable talents rather than providing pages of "evidence" that the Satanic abuse allegations were false...I will debate this pitiful issue no longer. Goodbye. Aidoflight (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You may want to actually read up on Satanism, specifically Anton LeVay. Yes, Satanism is a "made up" religion, in that LeVay made it up one day in the 1960s and organized it from there. If you know someone who is saying they're going to kill an infant, don't just take it out on Wikipedia, report it to the police. Most likely, he's either psychotic or just saying it to intentionally rile you up. Finally, do you also believe in reports of alien abductions? Because there's just as much evidence for SRA as there are for aliens: many, many allegations and zero actual evidence. Combined with the fact that the biggest proponents of the SRA claims have been thoroughly proven false, it makes it hard to believe that such a massive conspiracy exists. The difference between SRA and the Holocaust is that there was lots of evidence for the Holocaust. Equating the two is just mind-boggling. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Teen Magazine from 1993 is not a convincing source in 1993 let alone 2010. Did you read the lead of the Church of Satan article? It was made up in 1968. And unlike satanic ritual abuse, there is evidence to support the existence of the Holocaust. Naturally all religions are made up, I should have been more clear - Satanism was made up within a historically recent and documented period. It doesn't have the advantage of having it's ostensibly supernatural origins lost to the historical record (and for that matter, is atheistic and does not assume the supernatural).
Do you know how hot a furnace has to be to get rid of bone and teeth, and how hard it is to get rid of a body in general?
But anyway, this is all worthless nonsense - as you say, this conversation is over and I'm glad to not waste my time. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The page is not an essay

The page is heavily cited, the citations explicitly support the points. The overall thrust of the scholarly community towards the SRA moral panic is that it was a moral panic. The page supports this strongly, explicitly and appropriately. It is not an essay. If anyone disputes these points, I suggest they actually review the sources and start from there. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Dunno how related to your point this is, but an anon. IP recently removed the word "bizarre" from the essay, noting "it's not up to us to decide whether the allegations were bizarre". Basically, the anon. IP was deleting what was (on first glance) rightly thought to be violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. However, the allegations actually were bizarre, and sources like Nathan & Snedeker actually did call the allegations "bizarre", if I remember correctly. (Some examples of bizarre allegations included "being raped by a lobster" and "flying in a hot-air balloon", if I remember correctly.) So, yes, the sources need to be reviewed before working on this article... but, then again, WLU, maybe the article needs to be scanned for "seeming violations" of WP:NPOV and WP:OR, and many new footnotes should be added? Cos obviously some people feel they need to see those additional footnotes. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Aidoflight removed the word here as well, I reviewed the source and it doesn't actually use the word "bizarre" in relation to the McMartin trial but it does discuss the dropping of the wide-scale conspiracy-mongering. I've adjusted. In future cases, I would suggest using specific examples based on the sources rather than describing them - being raped by a lobster is in my mind bizarre, but rather than labelling it as such, just give the original examples and let them speak for themselves (i.e. WP:NPOV). Having been through the page and sources many, many times I am quite confident everything has a citation somewhere, but the wording can always be adjusted to better reflect the source. I don't mind calling them bizarre if the source does, but the specific source I looked at didn't use that word in the context of that case. As for adding additional footnotes - sure! But when for the parts that I wrote, I stuck pretty close to the sources and I don't think there's many unsourced sentences. If anyone wants to point them out, I'll be happy to track down references and if none can be found, then they should be removed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

abuse template

Removing it creates an inconsistency. This article is called "Satanic Ritual ABUSE" - so if you are now identifying SRA as "moral panic" not "abuse" then why not rename the article as "Satanic ritual moral panic" ? It is either one or the other. I suppose "Satanic ritual abuse moral panic" might be Ok tho and i see already exists as a redirect.--Penbat (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The move to SRA moral panic should be discussed before it is moved. Though accurate, it screws up a LOT of redirects and I'm guessing it would be strongly objected to. We should reach consensus of this before keeping it. I suggested such a move previously but it was rejected by the community. I don't think a lot is gained by the move since miost people refer to it as "satanic ritual abuse" rather than "SRA moral panic".
Regarding {{abuse}}, SRA clearly does not fall within that category as there were no proven cases of actual abuse (bar, arguably that of social workers and investigators but that's speculation that's out of the scope of the page). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Any redirect issues can be sorted easily. I think it is self evident that the "moral panic" bit is essential as many people will continue to think this was a real abuse (as the original title suggested) unless they bother to read the article carefully. --Penbat (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You're darn right its strongly objected to. This is the "commonly known name" ergo per WP naming conventions it belongs at Satanic Ritual Abuse, not SRAMP. Please note In other languages, also do the idiot google test. No support for high-handed peremptory move by Penbat against established consensus. Giving you a chance to reverse yourself. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There was a long discussion recently related to similar naming issues on WP:NPOV recently, and the policy language was modified to try to address this sort of concern. What it reads now is:

Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used as (or in) an article title. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources; proper names for people or events which incorporate non-neutral terms - e.g. Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper - are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources.

Even though putting "moral panic" is unquestionably more accurate as a description, the SRA name is pretty widely used in sources (including in those sources explicitly refuting the SRA claims), and therefore seems like the more appropriate "pseudo-proper name" for the events. LotLE×talk 18:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

Yes but SRA would have redirected to SRAMP anyway. To be honest i never realised until about an hour ago that it was just a MP as it had "abuse" in the title but not MP. --Penbat (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that's much of a concern - moral panic appears and is linked in the first sentence. It' be within the first 10 words were it not for the lengthy AKA list. The pages that link to SRA that I've read up on are also clear on this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    • ^ DeRivera, Joseph The Construction of False Memory Syndrome: The Experience of Retractors. Psychological Inquiry. 1997. 8:271-292
    • ^ Leavitt, Frank, Labott, S.M. Revision of the Word Association Test for Assessing Associations of Patients Reporting Satanic Ritual Abuse in Childhood. J Clin Psychol 1998, 54(7)
    • ^ Stark, Beth. 'No Evidence' links Baby X with Satanic involvement or murder. The News Journal. 1992. 5(6) 1