Talk:Satanic ritual abuse/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Additional Reference Submission

....not based on conspiratorial network of abuse, but on therapist's experience of those claiming ritual abuse - link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.23.214 (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be "therapist's experience of those whom the therapist claims claims ritual abuse." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Eclipsed by later sources that clearly discuss the idea as a moral panic. Noblitt had to get his latest works on the subject to market via vanity press, and it's not like that was a well-recieved book anyway. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
How your own comments are in accordance with the Wikipedian policy of NPOV I cannot guess, but doubtless you, like everyone whom has edited this...interesting article, cannot be at fault, and I am sure that you only have society and Wikipedia's best interests at heart. Best wishes, 63.117.244.182 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC).
Please read WP:UNDUE, a very important part of WP:NPOV - that is how my comments are in accordance with NPOV. Randy Noblitt is a lone voice barking at the world that has moved on, so why the fuck should we care what he has to say? The recent books, published by peer-reviewed and university press (i.e. reliable rather than vanity sources) clearly deal with the issue as a moral panic. I do have wikipedia's best interests at heart - if you're really interested in helping this article, become familiar with the sources first. For instance, read the reliable books published post-2000:
  • de Young, Mary (2004). The Day Care Ritual Abuse Moral Panic. Jefferson, North Carolina, United States: McFarland and Company. ISBN 0786418303.
  • Faller KC (2003). Understanding and assessing child sexual maltreatment. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. ISBN 0-7619-1996-1. * Frankfurter, D (2006). Evil Incarnate: Rumors of Demonic Conspiracy and Ritual Abuse in History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691113505.
  • Perrin RD; Miller-Perrin CL (2006). Child maltreatment: an introduction. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. ISBN 1412926688. * Jenkins P (2004). "Satanism and Ritual Abuse". in Lewis JR. The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements. Oxford University Press. pp. 221–242. ISBN 0195149866
  • Knight, Peter (2003). Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. pp. 487. ISBN 1-57607-812-4.
  • McHugh, PR (2008). Try to Remember: Psychiatry's Clash over Meaning, Memory and Mind. Dana Press. ISBN 978-1932594393.
Read investigations of actual allegations of SRA:
  • LaFontaine JS (1998). Speak of the Devil: allegations of satanic abuse in Britain. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521629349.
  • Lanning, K (1994). Bender D; Leone, B. ed. Satanic Ritual Abuse of Children Is Not Widespread. Opposing Viewpoints Series. Greenhaven Press, Inc.
  • Lanning, Kenneth V. (1992) (PDF). Investigator's Guide to Allegations of "Ritual" Childhood Abuse; Archive copy at the Internet Archive
  • Victor JS (1993). Satanic Panic: The Creation of a Contemporary Legend. Open Court Publishing Company. ISBN 081269192X.
If you're interested in a little critical thinking, you could wonder why incidents and accusations of SRA have decreased to almost nothing recently. Or why even "positive" reports of SRA such as the Utah task force found nothing to corroborate the claims made. Or how children questioned the way the McMartin children were questioned could be made to "remember" things that didn't happen.
So before you lecture us on a topic that has been extensively reviewed and read about, bone up on what the sources say and really try to understand the policy itself. The SRA moral panic was nonsense, and that's not going to change until the sources do. NPOV does not mean "equal weight to all sides", it means proportional representation to the belief within the relevant expert community. And the experts think it's bullshit, except for the occassional nutjob publishing in absurdly low-impact journals or via pay-to-print services. And frankly, their opinion doesn't count. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yet, the opinion of all the sources deleted from this page by those above does count.

Even neutral readers of the page agree it is heavily slanted to one point of view. The owners of the SRA page (like the above) have decided to exclude many of the sources that show that ritual abuse does exist. They have banned one user that disagreed with them, threatended to ban another user and have bullied several others into not adding sources or changing the language of the page to be more balanced or allow for balancing sources. Those that own this page use terms like "bullshit" and "nutjob" for anyone that disagrees with them.

They have gone so far as to ban three web pages to use as sources in wikipedia that present a different view of SRA as other than a moral panic. These pages are extreme-abuse-survey(dot)net , ritualabuse(dot)us and www.endritualabuse(dot)org These pages have journal articles and news accounts showing that ritual abuse exists. The owners of this page hide talk page discussions that do not benefit them (as above) and present a few sources that back their point of view SRA as a moral panic, while ignoring all others. If you don't believe me, read the history of this page the last two years and the talk page accounts. These owners even recently removed the abuse template from the SRA page stating it is not abuse.

This comment will probably be deleted quickly by these same owners. The SRA page in this state discredits wikipedia and causes many to look for other sources on this and related topics. Legitimate sources that could be used to balance the page are below. It is unlikely they will be used, as those that own the page will do anything to discredit them, while not applying the same standards to their own sources. These owners will state that many of these sources are from the 1990's and not usable, yet the sources that state SRA was a moral panic are also from the 1990's or draw their information from sources from the 1990's.

Searches can be done on any of these articles or books.

Teniwiker37 (talk) 06:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This looks familiar. In any case, the references are now discredited. Perhaps additional comments in the history section that (some) peer-reviewed journal articles did support the assertions at the time, but are now discredited. The "references" (at least the last time they were added) were not reliable (or even credible) sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
The "references" clearly fail WP:EL, not to mention the stronger restrictions in WP:RS. Could you possibly explain how those web sites have editorial review by experts? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Interesting how this works. One editor hides the sources. Then another states they are discredited, without any evidence at all. No theory can discredit all of this research. Of course the sources above are reliable. Most of them are from peer reviewed journals, not websites. They are as reliable if not more reliable than the books listed above them that claim there was a panic. A legitimate article would include them and their point of view in its own section. Teniwiker37 (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Those web sites have no reputation for accuracy, do have a reputation for bias, and were (for the most part) originally added by an editor who also didn't have a reputation for accuracy and did have a reputation for bias. The underlying papers might possibly be allowed as references if published in a peer-reviewed journals, and because of the unusual editing history, were confirmed as being in those journals. It would still be subject to WP:FRINGE, so would only have minimal WP:WEIGHT in the article, none being in the lead.
The research is generally considered to be discredited now, but real, peer-reviewed, articles, could be used to support the historical theory that there was real SRA. (I think that book was self-published, but books.google.ie seems not to be accessible from the US.) A number of those journals were not credible or reliable, and the are all so 20th century. Modern journals and (non-self-published) books support the conclusion that there was never SRA. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, two of the sources are in this century. Sorry that I said all above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Ten sources are from this century. You provide no evidence for the statements that the "web sites have no reputation for accuracy" that give evidence for SRA's existence, you provide no evidence that any of the sources have "a reputation for bias," the majority of the articles are from peer reviewed journals. Some of the articles from the 1990's document SRA events. Many of the sources above stating that SRA was a panic do have a reputation for bias. The shear number of peer reviewed sources stating that SRA exists would provide them a much larger voice in a legitimate article and a fair mention in the lede, if editors really looked at all of the sources. Teniwiker37 (talk) 05:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
You might be best served with the Reliable sources noticeboard, to get an outside opinion. Frankly, we've been over most of these sources several times (see the archives), and consensus has been against inclusion. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I put the sources behind an archive tag, which has a convenient "Show" button right there for everyone to see them. Please WP:AGF here. The sources took up several screens worth of space, I just collapsed them to make it more convenient. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I've had a parse of the sources - very interesting, I drew a line at 2000 to show which ones are post-millenial. There are ten listed, of which 3-4 can be discounted. There are also no critical sources, and some downright misrepresentations of the sources as well. Kail's book for instance, has virtually nothing to do with the topic at hand that I can see. And we're back where we were before this post arrived - SRA is a historical moral panic with some lingering interest in the fringe crowd. It's very interesting to see the peak in 1991, and the drop-off after the fact though. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
A comment on websites by the way, I only really saw one, the "believe the children" list. DeYoung addresses this lins - note 7. "Egregiously out of date" is the term she uses. Ironically enough, this is actually discussed on the page already - Satanic ritual abuse#Evidence. Teniwiker, in addition to reviewing the skeptical sources as well as the guidelines on reliable sources, fringe theories and weight given to scholarly opinion, you should consider reading the page itself. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
A very impressive list, Teniwiker37; I wish I'd seen it a year ago when I was looking for references for an essay on the topic. Out of curiosity, have you read all those articles? Cos I've read a few of them, and those few didn't assert that SRA is real. But one other point, this in your favour: Child Abuse and Neglect was indeed a peer-reviewed journal, and did honestly believe in SRA at the time it was putting out all those late-80s/early-90s articles. I personally believe that's proof that it (and all the other child neglect journals) isn't a reliable scholarly source at all, but you have good reason to argue the other way. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The drop off of SRA articles after the mid 1990's happened on both sides of the debate, those that did and didn't believe it happened. I have listed my disagreement with your analysis of the sources below your comments. The Believe the Children list contains convictions that have been upheld until this day and deYoung's comment is just one person's opinion. The SRA page itself does not contain any of the above sources and should. One can state that they believe that peer reviewed journals aren't reliable, but this is just an opinion. Peer reviewed sources are strong ones. Many of the sources do assert SRA happened and should be mentioned on the page and in the lede. The page represents the editor's opinions on this page and not the actual articles written about the topic. Editors here heavily analyze and negate those articles that would back the existence of SRA and blindly accept those that back the theory of panic without critique. Even my edits to eliminate punctuation errors were reverted twice. Editors using the terms of "bullshit" and "nutjob" make me think that perhaps new editors should come and edit the page to ensure the page does actually represents the literature and not the opinions of a few editing it. Teniwiker37 (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Undent - that dropoff indicates interest in SRA dropped off also - because it was considered disproven and a moral panic; subsequent book-length volumes published by reliable publishers have corroborated this; while DeYoung can get hers published by McFarlane, Noblitt has to go to pay-to-publishers. DeYoung's opinion is one representative, comprehensive opinion, also recent, respectable, and since the moral panic is now historical (i.e. over) having current sources is inappropriate. Instead, sources should analyze what happened, why it happened, how it happened, and why it faded away (i.e. they stopped hypnotizing adults and interrogating children until they confirmed what the interviewers wanted). These aren't "just opinions" - the now-blocked sockmaster User:ResearchEditor forced us to bludgeon this nonsense again and again, until he was first banned, and later permanently blocked for POV-pushing and axe-grinding. Overall, consensus is against you. You don't appear to understand the criticisms made by other editors, or adjusting your editing to reflect this, and the result is your edits are not going to stand. Read the archives if you really want to see the whole process. We're done. It was a moral panic, it never happened, the only abuses were in methodology. The believe the children list should not be sourced to ra-info.com since it's such a blatantly partisan source - it assumes the reality of SRA and accordingly the relgioustolerance site is a better choice. Overall - you should read the critical articles and books. I've read both, and the scholarly opinion is that ritual abuse is a dead topic. No-one else agrees with you. Let it go, stop adding the {{abuse}} template and edit elsewhere. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You should read the actual comments by other editors, as well as the critical sources. Treating Abuse Today was dealt with already - here. Even if peer reviewed, it's still such an absurdly low impact publication, it's not worth citing (particularly since it is so old). The Journal of Psychohistory was not peer reveiwed when those articles were written, Lloyd deMause maintained it as a vanity journal with no peer review, choosing articles he liked. The sources promoting the "panic theory" were peer reviewed if they were journal articles; if they are books, they must come from a reliable publishing house, and still we must pay attention to weight. The Utah pamphlet still claims testimonial evidence as paramount, and ignores the myriad sources of the stories told by "victims" - the same therapists with different clients, and the many evangelical promoters giving presentations throughout the world. Plus, it's from 1992 and ignores the actual, credible investigations into the reality of claims by Lanning, LaFontaine and others that found no evidence for satanic ritual abuse. Mary de Young is not just "one source", she's a professor of sociology who has extensive experience and publications in the field - that is, relevant expertise - whose opinion should be respected far more than a random website cribbing its notes from Believe the Children. The information is out of date, misleading, and shouldn't be linked to such a partisan site when religioustolerance, a site much more in line with the scholarly majority, can be used. Corsini is now 8 years old, a tertiary source and therefore rather unsuitable, fails to cite much of the skeptical literature, uses very old sources, and very obviously is promoting the reality in contravention of most of the other sources. Your comments still indicate a failure to read the critical sources, and the very, very strong scholarly conclusion that SRA was a moral panic. Observe thus: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]/[13], page 19, [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], and so forth.
Are we done here? Yes, we're done. There is no consensus to support your list, or the changes it might imply. We are not bound to uncritically regurgitate any and all sources ever produced on a topic. We give appropriate weight to the appropriate scholars, and suspect the extraordinary claims. So we're done here. New sources trump old, and your old sources weren't very good to begin with. Continuing to discuss this is POV-pushing and unwelcome. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Principles at work here:
  1. New sources can supplant, replace, or render moot older sources
  2. Wikipedia should represent the current scholarly consensus using reliable sources in a neutral fashion
  3. Appropriate weight is given by reviewing the most recent, most reliable, most relevant scholarly sources
  4. Though older sources can be used to a) justify contemporary attitudes and b) illustrate historical beliefs, those historical beliefs can not be used to substantiate contemporary issues
In other words - pretty much all the old sources can be discounted without bothering to even look at them. Contemporary sources should be parsed on the basis of their reliability and prominence. The best contemporary sources indicate that SRA is now considered a moral panic. Since the main page illustrates this point clearly, there is no need to further adjust the page, particularly not based on the list of sources presented. And now a straw poll. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
To state that older sources can just be discounted without even looking at them misrepresents the "principles at work." There are new sources that state there was no panic and these should be included in the article. The older sources should be represented fairly in the article with their opinions and they are not. The article is slanted toward the views of a few editors on this page and it ignores many sources from the 1990's and this decade. Teniwiker37 (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I read the discussion on Treating Abuse Today. There was disagreeement. One editor wrote "Treating Abuse Today" should not be tossed out just because it's no longer published. It has been cited a lot, including in peer-reviewed journals and books published by respected publishers. It printed articles by respected experts." The Utah Task Force discusses the successful prosecution of child abuse cases with ritual abuse elements. Lanning's opinion was his own and it was stated he never met with a ritual abuse victim. The Corsini article is a good example of a balanced article covering all perspectives of SRA, much better than religious tolerance which should be deleted from the article. RT is independently published with large ads.
Of your links 8 - 25, several are questionable or simply repeat other sources previously mentioned.
  1. 8 - discusses one case in Italy
  2. 15 - called "Harry Potter and international relations"
  3. 16 - does not discuss ritual abuse
  4. 19 - the skeptic's dictionary
  5. 20 - Carroll's skeptic's dictionary again
  6. page 19 looks like an unpublished research study pdf
  7. 22 cites the author that wrote 21 in one brief line
  8. 23 does not mention ritual abuse in the abstract
  9. 24 cites Nathan and Victor already mentioned
  10. 25 deYoung again
To do the article and topic justice, we aren't done. The article does not give fair weight or even mention many peer reviewed sources, while linking to religious tolerance, private web page with large ads. Discussing and improving an article should always be welcome and encouraged. Teniwiker37 (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Interest on both sides of the debate dropped off after the mid 90's. This could have been due to the media blitz against child rape victims or perhaps the media just moved on like it often does. There is no evidence why Noblitt went to a pay-to-publisher. He has published in journals and major publishing houses. He could have wanted more control. Some sources claim it was not a panic and their opinions should be included in the article. The ra-info websites has sources from both opinion and actually has the BTC list. The religious tolerance websites has large ads, is self published and does not have the actual BTC list on it mentioned in the article. The ra-info website should be the link. From the old talk pages, I read that this topic was heavily debated, with those on the side that no panic occurred being threatened with banning or being banned or being ignored. Teniwiker37 (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Reworked per WP:TALK. The purpose of the list is to demonstrate that recent sources dismiss SRA as a moral panic, casually and without qualification. You'll find that Goode and Ben-Yehuda does mention satanic ritual abuse quite frequently - 38 times in fact. Lanning is probably the premiere document that started the decline of the SRA moral panic, and is cited by nearly everyone - either positively if you are a skeptic, or negatively and to be discredited if you are a believer. Given his position and prominence as an investigator and contributor to the debate, he's probably one of the most important sources in the 1990s on the topic. "Never having met a victim" is an utter red herring - the whole point of his investigations were to find proof, while "victims" never had any beyond the testimonials created in therapy sessions. In fact, most of these are red herrings, and you still have no consensus for your edits - neither in support from other editors, nor in policy. Stop making them, and stop removing highly reliable, prominent sources out of dislike for them.
You should also note the lack of use of TAT on any page on wikipedia, including this one. You may want to also consider this and this. It's not a reliable source (and I just noticed that it's edited by True Believer Randy Noblitt. Fantastic). There's no evidence it was a reliable source, and simply having a minority opinion doesn't mean it gets to be used. We shouldn't be linking to the actual Believe the Children list if we can avoid it by the way - since it's inaccurate and misrepresents both the individuals and their legal status in a blatantly partisan matter. The drop-off didn't happen because of "media blitz" - it happened because skepticism became the norm, and people stopped using the suggestive, leading techniques that led to the accusations in the first place. And finally, the reason the old talk pages resulted in blocks and bans is because the single purpose accounts kept pushing the editors past the tolerance of the community; there was consensus that they were wrong, and consensus that they should stop pushing. Of course, then ResearchEditor started sockpuppeting and got his idiot self banned because he was apparently too stupid and too crazy to realize just how much of his life he was wasting on a mirage. Learn from him - until you can convince others that your opinion has merit per scholarly sources, you should not be changing the main page. Until you understand and can justify your edits per WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE, you should not be changing te main page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Lanning's lack of meeting with any victims is not just a "red herring." How could he find any proof if he didn't talk to anyone victimized in the actual crimes? This shows that the research was weak. Many victims did not have "therapy sessions" and physical evidence was available for many of the crimes. Most victims of abuse do not recall their memories in therapy. (Iatrogenic memory change. Examining the empirical evidence. Leavitt F American Journal of Forensic Psychology (19)2: 21-32, 2001 [19]) The reason I removed the McNally information was written in the edit summary. It was because the focus of the article was being discussed on this page and had not been decided on, it was not due to "dislike." The page should link to the actual Believe the Children document as a historical reference for readers to see. Then it can be responded to as it already is in the SRA article by deYoung. Not linking to the actual list is like not linking to an original verdict of a trial that was later overturned. The original link is needed as a reference to see the different opinions, an earlier one and a later one. It is pointless to link to a web page like Religious Tolerance that does not have the list, that is filled with ads and that is self published. You told me to read wp:rs and I did. Religious tolerance is a questionable website that has no editorial oversight and is self published and is unacceptable. It is filled with advertisements about Avatar and diets. If wikipedia can have this as a reference, then it could have almost anything. Treating Abuse Today is a much better resource than this. The drop off in believing survivors of child abuse was due to a massive change in media coverage caused by PR type organizations. (Columbia Journalism Review July/August 1997 U-Turn on Memory Lane by Mike Stanton [20]) Looking at the old talk pages, the blocks and bans appeared to occur to threaten those with any opinion other than the idea that SRA was a panic. It scared off anyone that disagreed with the idea of panic. The name calling and ad hominem attacks by the editor above, like "idiot," "stupid," "crazy," "true believer," "nut job," and "bullshit," are uncivil, inexcusable for any reason and must be against some rule here at Wikipedia. Teniwiker37 (talk) 06:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
How could he find proof? Police reports, forensic evidence, document review. Lanning's work is among the most cited in the literature. It's a reliable source for the page, irrespective of your opinion it's "weak". I deal with RT below.
You know why blocks and bans seemed to occur? Because they were single purpose accounts pushing undue weight when the consensus clearly against them. Oh, and most of them turned out to be sockpuppets.
Consensus is against you, stop removing reliable sources and editing to promote the idea that SRA is not a moral panic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Lanning did not properly investigate the cases if he did not go to the victims involved in these cases. If he only went to second hand accounts, then he did not properly research the cases. His opinion was not substantiated in his articles. Looking through old talk pages, I only saw one sock puppet, the rest were threatened or harassed. Teniwiker37 (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll

If you believe the current satanic ritual abuse page shouldn't be substantively changed from it's focus on the issue being a moral panic, sign here.
  1. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  2. DougHill (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  3. Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  4. *** Crotalus *** 22:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  5. Obviously WP:FRINGE opinions should not be treated as serious topics on par with consensus. The article as it stands well expresses the clear consensus (and the fact) that SRA was a moral panic. LotLE×talk 22:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  6. The balance is correct here. --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  7. Does not look like much needs to be changed.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
If you believe the current satanic ritual abuse page should be substantively altered away from it's focus on being a moral panic, sign here.
  1. As per reasons and sources mentioned above. The page should cover the peer reviewed opinions of those that believe there was a panic and those that don't. This poll may not be accurate, as many editors that don't fully subscribe to the theory of panic have been scared away from editing the page. Teniwiker37 (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
    Except the article already does that. For a good example of how this is handled, see World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
    The article does not do this. It briefly mentions the stance that some believed SRA existed leaving out almost all of the peer reviewed information that backed this stance up. Teniwiker37 (talk) 06:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
    Also note that articles like continental drift don't contain substantial discussions of the Expanding Earth theory, and explicitly notes it was wrong. Ditto for Centrifugal force and thermal expansion theories. Germ theory of disease briefly mentions old ideas. Evolution gives creationism incredibly little room, and in a tangential section. When discussing quantum mechanics, Newton isn't mentioned. Contemporary reliable sources consider it a moral panic, and the most reliable sources are most explicit on this. And no matter what, WP:UNDUE and WP:VALID mean that we shouldn't be giving the historical sources, where much of the credible (or credulous) examples of believers can be found, space, text or prominence. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
    This is not a science or physics article. There are a variety of sources as shown above that believe in the existence of SRA and these deserve fair mention. Teniwiker37 (talk) 06:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
    The fact it's not a science article is irrelevant. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  2. - It would be nice to have more on the individual cases and the allegations made - at least through heavier linking to individual case articles. Frankly, the actual allegations illustrate how stupid and made-up the whole movement was. There's also the idea of charting SRA's spread throughout the world, as an export by American evangelicals: I think DeYoung goes into detail on that. Anyway, still a good article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  3. The literature on ritual abuse includes academics who believe it is only a moral panic, academics who believe it is a form of sexual abuse, and academics who believe it is both. This article should reflect the state of the literature without taking sides. At the moment, it fails to do that. The proposition that belief in "satanic ritual abuse" invariably involves accepting the existence of worldwide satanic conspiracy is a highl partisan claim advanced by "false memory" theorists throughout the 1990s. Unfortunately, this article accepts this claim as fact and fails to inform the reader of the full breadth of the literature on this issue. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Biaothanatoi (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  1. I like the way that Biaothanatoi worded this. The spectrum of articles on Wikipedia related to SRA (including dissociative disorders, etc.) have been polluted with this "it's a big scam" mentality for years now. The fact is that many use the subject & stories of SRA to frighten people and mobilize them in the particular directions that they want, for their own reason (thus, the "moral panic" phenomena). It is my opinion that this phenomena is an insignificant social impact compared to the impact of actual SRA occurrences. An objective analysis and weight of the peer-reviewed academic and clinical data available, despite the mass of misinformation at the hands of the False Syndrome Foundation (as I prefer to call them), should clearly demonstrate this. The fact that satanic ritual abuse exists is indisputable and anybody who would dispute it would clearly be a fool. The intelligent argument should be "How much does it really occur?", I think that is what is truly at dispute here (at least, I sure hope so!). Let's strip opinion out as much as possible and stick to the dry clear facts. When there is substantial disputing evidence, you present both sides without bias. If you want to publish your opinions on the subject, go start a blog. If the article ever becomes well written, a person with a strong opinion either way can read it without getting worked up. Will it? Daniel Santos (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Dry clear facts like the fact that the only "proof" of satanic ritual abuse was the testimonials, and actual investigations turned up nothing but those same patients moving the goalposts? And how do these concerns relate to the age of the credulous citations, and that the most recent sources are on the order of 90% skeptical? Note the split in the straw poll as well, with the sole individuals supporting the "it was real" argument being primarily single purpose accounts (AGHT being the exception, and his/her support is hardly for the moral panic argument being discarded). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
There was evidence and many criminal convictions of ritual abuse have been upheld with some still in jail. But, none of these cases or evidence are allowed on the SRA page.Teniwiker37 (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
[citation needed]The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Single purpose account!? Ehem, please re-review my contributions: ABI, Anus (yea, really!), Fistula in ano, and not to mention that I started the article on Wolfowitz_Doctrine, although someone else is responsible for the nice article it is now. Oh yea, I wrote most of Wikipedia:Requests_for_medication as well (humor break), not to mention having participated in a lot of discussion on various talk pages. Do you ever use Tomcat or web sites that use (Apache) Tomcat? Chances are, the server is executing some code I've written, modified or contributed to in some way. I may not devote as much time to Wikipedia articles as you, but I challenge you to say I don't contribute to the open source/open content community. In fact, I would challenge you to pick any 50 open source projects at random and not hit one I've either contributed code or bug fixes to. I've even found errors and submitted corrections to one version of the POSIX Single Unix specification! So I take this "single purpose account" accusation as a personal attack. I use my name openly on all of the work I do, daniel.santos@pobox.com. Google me.
Now, back to your other misinformation. You state that 'the only "proof" of satanic ritual abuse was the testimonials'. I seem to recall that one of those testimonials was of a perpetrator. Either way, your statement is quite bold and I believe quite incorrect. But then again, if you want to play the words, anybody's statement of what they observed can be considered a "testimonial", even that of a prosecutor who is stating what evidence they've uncovered. I don't think you've understood what I wrote last time either. The reason I said that you would have to be a fool to say that it doesn't happen is simple -- we have over 5 billion people in this world with lots of mental illnesses. The varieties and purposes in which we kill and abuse each other is vast beyond fathoming. You only have to do some math to determine that it's not far fetched to say that some people abuse their children, on a ritual bases, for religious beliefs related to satanic worship. It's not a far stretch! They do it for every other religion, why should Satanism be any different!? Think man! Clear cut, you have to be a fool to attempt to deny it happens. Stick to the intellectual arguments and debate the frequency in which it happens. Otherwise, your just talking crazy. Daniel Santos (talk) 10:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Oops, I guess I should have read wikichecker's account of your 360 edits a little more closely. Code does not necessarily translate to content and policy understanding though, and it's still relevant here. Despite Teniwiker37's handwaving of obsolete sources, the real issue here is undue weight. The only way the page will change away from the moral panic focus is if it can be demonstrated that the best and newest sources clearly substantiate the idea that most relevant scholars do not think SRA was a moral panic. And they don't, so POV-pushing editors have to resort to poor-quality articles published 20 years ago. That is the relevant issue here. You say "one of those testimonials was of a perpetrator", was that perhaps Paul Ingram? Hardly convincing. The other issue is that there is a difference between satanic ritual abuse (the focus of this page) and pseudosatanism in which a couple lone nutjobs or pedophiles molest their children while chanting. Much evidence has been found which substantiates the latter, while none has ever been found for the former. Read Jean LaFontaine's book, read Kenneth Lanning's report, and if you really want to debate numbers, we can talk about the 12,000 cases investigated in the United States in which there were no substantiated cases of SRA and only a small number of pseudosatanists. So if you want to think clearly, you might think about why no-one in the multigenerational cult killing thousands of babies every year has ever left the cult, left any evidence, or ever left any corroboration besides memories which it has been shown experimentally can be induced using a variety of methods. Or why allegations dropped like a stone after the mid-90s, when therapists using hypnosis started getting sued. All of this has been a huge waste of time, and the only difference it made was I finally got around to adding some more sources which again clearly demonstrate that the satanic panic is over and there was nothing there in the first place. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser request

Might as well get it out of the way, and so we don't duplicate effort - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ResearchEditor WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Came up ambiguous. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not Diana, she's more concerned now with Second Life becoming a virtual concentration camp of mind-uploaded victims. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

McNally

There's absolutely no reason to remove McNally. It's a recent, reliable source, written by a noted scholar, in line with the mainstream opinion, that deals specifically with satanic ritual abuse. The reason old sources can't be added is due to their age and obsolescence; neither of these apply to McNally. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The "old" SRA sources are only ten to fifteen years old. Some are recent ones. To overuse McNally and ignore most of the SRA peer reviewed sources that describe SRA crimes leans the page inaccurately to skepticism ignoring other strong sources. Teniwiker37 (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Overuse? It's used three times. McNally is a recognized scholar publishing in his expertise area, and the book is published by Belknap Press, an imprint of Harvard University Press - a very reliable publisher. Not to mention being cited 307 times.
Given the phase shift in the belief about SRA in the 1990s, how it was substantially rejected as "real" by most scholars after a series of investigations and debunkings, it's very natural to discard those sources and build the page on more current ones that appropriately contextualize SRA as a moral panic. The peptic ulcer page doesn't spend large amounts of time discussing research and sources before 1982, because they became obsolete after the revolution caused by the work of Warren and Marshall. Similar for SRA, with the work of Victor, Nathan & Snedeker, LaFontaine, Lanning, etc. Those sources aren't "strong", they're obsolete.
Oh, and skepticism is the norm. SRA is considered a moral panic by most scholars, with only a tiny fringe still believing and publishing in horrible, low-notability sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The list I originally put above showed that many disagree there was a panic. And many of your sources above backing the theory of panic I showed to be duplicates or simply briefly citing one you mentioned before. Any decent SRA article would incorporate all new sources fairly. All new sources that disagree there was a panic are not on the SRA page. Lanning, Victor and Nathan are old sources. Older than many of the journal article accounts of SRA crimes. Your opinion that a peer reviewed journal is "horrible" is irrelevant and should not stop a source from being on the page. Teniwiker37 (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance

The OCRT webpage is appropriate for what it is asserting for a variety of reasons - it contains the list of "convictions" and it contains follow-up on the cases showing their true status. The presence of ads is irrelevant (that's a criteria for external links, not sources). The page is used or referenced by a variety of other sources,[21][22][23][24][25][26][Cults in America: a reference handbook - Google Books][27][28] [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41] and so on. Again, there is no consensus to remove this, and it looks like it is being removed out of taste, or the idea that it's critical of the reality of SRA as well as one of the ploys used by True Believers to convince the credulous that there is merit to the SRA moral panic. OCRT certainly looks like a sufficiently reliable source for this conviction list, and is certainly better than the ra-info page because it contextualizes the convictions in terms of what actually happened and where the cases are now. It also includes a lot of actual cases and contexts not listed in the BTC site. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it was removed because it clearly is not a reliable source. The ra-info cite [42] [43] reproduces the list with its large list of mainstream media sources at the end without comment, providing readers an accurate view of the original source. The self published with lack of oversight Religious Tolerance website (that does not even have the Believe the Children conviction list) should not be used as a source on any wikipedia page. Your statements that Noblitt and Treating Abuse Today are not reliable sources, yet the Religious Tolerance source is show an inappropriate bias toward sources that back the theory of panic. According the reliable sources guidelines, if outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies. This is not the case here. Outside citation is the only policy based reason you give to keep the Religious Tolerance article on the page. Anything (like a cartoon) can be mentioned in the back of a book. The fact it is self published, is dated, is inaccurate (the last Believe the Children conference was in 1997), has broken links, and only uses its own pages as references in the article, should be more than enough to keep Religious Tolerance from being used at wikipedia. Teniwiker37 (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Straw Poll - Should the Religious Tolerance website [44] be used in the SRA article?

Yes, it is a reliable source. (list Wikipedia policy based reasons after your response)

  1. It's appropriate as a courtesy copy of the dead Believe the Children web site; although biased, there's no indication that they actually lied misquoted any sources, even those they didn't agree with. ra-info and healingroads have been shown to misquote other sources, so they are not really reliable for the contents of the list, although I'd accept them as reliable for the existence of the list. (Why isn't this at WP:RSN, where it might get more response from uninvolved editors.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I went to both websites, ra-info and healingroads, and did not find any misquotes. The ra-info list [45] appears to be an accurate copy of the Believe the Children list. Teniwiker37 (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. Adequate convenience link, better than the biased sources that misrepresent the actual status of the cases. Also, straw polls are to demonstrate to YOU, Teniwiker, that consensus is against you since nothing else seems convincing. Months of being present without objection is adequate to demonstrate to most that the link is appropriate. Continuous straw polling on the other hand, is inappropriate particularly since you are unable to justify your opinion by neither source nor policy. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The Believe the Children list is now outdated, but it was not biased. It did mention reversals and had a long list of mainstream media sources at the end of the list. None of the upheld convictions are mentioned on the SRA page. Just because the link was there for a while, does not mean it is appropriate. It means that no one saw it was a self published website. This straw poll is appropriate. It measures opinions at the page. What is missing from here is negotiation. You are not negotiating, but forcing your opinion on others. It is unlikely that the page will ever represent the SRA issue fairly with present group of editors here. Four editors have voted for a variety of reasons to change the focus of the page. But three of them have been ignored. Sources have been presented to fix the page and make it better, but they have been ignored and the page has gotten worse since the discussion started. Teniwiker37 (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
De Young calls it "factually inaccurate and horribly out of date", and her statement trumps your assertion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  1. Based on my own personal investigation of the Isle of Lewis SRA panic (by reading all available Scottish news coverage as well as the victims' website), the OCRT website's article on the topic was thorough, journalistically sound and as truthful as could be. If all the rest of the site is as good as this one example, it's definitely a valuable source. Of course, Everything you find on OCRT you can find in news articles... so if you want to jettison OCRT, be prepared to go digging through the news archives, because all it says is true. Then again, I'm a past donor to OCRT, so I may just be in league with Satan. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 04:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not a reliable source. (list Wikipedia policy based reasons after your response)

  1. It is self published, has no editorial oversight, it relies heavily on personal opinions, the page is 9 years old with broken links, it has large ads, it does not have the actual conviction list, it only links to its own pages as references on the cases, it has no external references on the page on the cases, outside citation is the only policy based reason given for its use, showing that particular care has not been taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies for its inclusion in the article, it's use violates several of the other more important guidelines for reliable sources, as it is self published and a questionable source. Either of these sources [46] [47] would be better ones, as they reproduce the actual list without comment. Then deYoung's comment can be kept as a critique of the source's age. Teniwiker37 (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  2. Not reliable. religioustolerance.org is a self-published website that presents personal opinions and ideas of its owner. It's not fact-checked, it's not peer-reviewed, it's not written by a noted expert, it meets none of the requiresments for reliable sourcing. It should not be used as a reference for any article other than as a primary source in the article about that website itself. I have no opinion on the current status of this particular article, I haven't even read it lately. But it's important not to compromise the reliable source guidelines and policies just for convenience. If there is valid, verifiable information on that website, then the links can be followed to the actual reliable sources. The opinions of the owner of that website have no weight or validity for the encyclopedia. It's also a slippery slope, because there are many other websites that aggregate information based on an owner's self-publised ideas. If this one is used, why not the others that may have opposing viewpoints? No, it is not reliable by Wikipedia standards and should not be used. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
After checking the text where that source was used, I removed the footnote. The de Young book that supports the same sentence is reliable and sufficent. I also checked the religioustolerance.org article and found that it lists the website owner as its author, confirming that it is self-published. There's no need to add a self-published source when there is already an independent source for the same sentence. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources

[48], [49] WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)