Talk:Satanic ritual abuse/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 Section break 2 No primary sources that treat SRA as a global Satanic conspiracy? 3 Developing a concurrence of opinion as to where the page should go now 3.1 section break, arbitrary 4 The "debunking" sources for Michelle Remembers 5 Changes to page 6 Archived 7 Kitzinger 8 Utah report 9 Noblitt's book 10 Carl Sagan 11 Summing up SRA 12 Criminal Conviction

Section break

Yich this is getting long. I don't see Lacter's addition as helpful simply because it's a massive dump. There's no evaluation of sources and individual comments by Lacter, and editors may disagree with the conclusions reached and the reliability of sources. Lacking the ability to edit the page, there's no real way to integrate sources one-by-one. I can paste an equally long pronouncement and list of references, that doesn't make my position right. WLU (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree that the information provided by the editor wasn't helpful. The sources given are a starting point for researchers to evaluate their content and if appropriate, add these to the page. It would have been more helpful if urls to abstracts would have been given however. Abuse truth (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

bibliography
Lacter post
Lacter post A Recent Review of Findings on the Existence and Prevalence of Ritual Abuse by Ellen P. Lacter, Ph.D. The following is a recent review of findings on the existence and prevalence of ritual abuse, citing findings from four peer-reviewed journals and one chapter from a book by the American Psychiatric Press. This review is excerpted, with permission of the authors, from Becker, T., Karriker, W., Overkamp, B., & Rutz, C. (in pre-publication). An exploration of commonalities reported by adult survivors of ritual abuse, mind control and other types of extreme abuse: A preliminary empirical study. In Ritual Abuse in the Twenty-first Century: Psychological, Forensic, Social and Political Implications. Edited by Randy Noblitt, PhD and Pamela Perskin Noblitt. Bandon, OR: Robert D. Reed Publishers. Readers should be aware, of course, of WP:OR. WLU (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Two empirical studies in peer-reviewed journals (Bottoms, Shaver, & Goodman, 1996; Schmuttermaier & Veno, 1999) indicate that the majority of surveyed therapists who have treated at least one alleged survivor believe their clients’ claims of ritual abuse. From the final results of a stratified random sample survey of clinical members of the American Psychological Association, Bottoms et al. conclude that, “Overwhelmingly, our respondents believed their clients’ claims, even in the absence of corroborative evidence” (p. 25). Schmuttermaier and Veno report that none of the counselors in their Australian study believe that their clients intentionally fabricated claims of ritual abuse. Therapist belief is not proof, and that therapists believe their clients is already on the page. This does not prove the reality of SRA. Further, given the overarching debate over induced memories due to poor, if not unethical counseling techniques, it's only proof for the most credulous of readers. All I see this saying is that therapists can be gullible. No corroborating evidence = useless as proof of the existence of SRA. WLU (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Ritual abuse is an international phenomenon. Van der Hart, Boon, and Heijtmajer (1997) describe reports of ritual abuse in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, South Africa, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States; Kent (1997), in Canada; Schmuttermaier and Veno (1999), in Australia. An Australian organization, Advocates for Survivors of Child Abuse (2006), includes France, Finland, Russia, and New Zealand and points out that “Increased attention is now being paid to ritual abuse in Nigeria, India, Ghana, Zimbabwe, and Zambia and its role in the trafficking of women into Europe” (p. 16). Ritual abuse is treated as a contaigen by many sources, a fear-based mind virus that spread in absence of proof of a world-wide conspiracy. WLU (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Bottoms et al. (1996) constructed a prototype of 386 cases from the decade of the 1980’s based on the particular features of abuse that clinical psychologists had heard from their clients. They found the following: Were these cases corroborated with external evidence? The most common feature of ritual cases was “forced sex.” The next most common was “repeated practices.” . . . Also common, however, were abuse by a member of a cult-like group; abuse related to symbols associated with the devil; abuse involving sacrifice or torture of animals; abuse involving excrement or blood; and abuse involving knives, altars, and candles. . . . The least common features of ritualistic cases were abuse related to the breeding of infants for ritual sacrifice, abuse involving cannibalism, child pornography, and amnesic periods or preoccupation with dates. (p. 10) Your most common features are also features of ongoing child abuse by a relative or family friend. At what point does it cease being child abuse, and becomes satanic ritual abuse? And again, corroboration? WLU (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC) From most to least reported, presenting symptoms of clients were depression, suicidal ideation, excessive fears and phobias, somatic complaints, insomnia, sexual acting out, social withdrawal, inappropriate aggression, substance abuse, obsessive compulsiveness and inappropriate toilet behavior. Forty-nine percent of clients reporting ritual abuse had been diagnosed MPD; 28%, PTSD. Symptoms do not prove abuse, all this proves is that individuals believed to be ritually abused exhibit symptoms. Even imaginary suffering can cause symptoms. WLU (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Young et al. (1991) describe 37 adult patients, all diagnosed with multiple personality disorder (MPD) or dissociative disorder not otherwise specified who reported similar abuses by satanic cults. Apparently, most of the data were collected while the patients were in treatment with the authors. The article lists ten types of ritual abuse and the percentage of subjects who reported each type: sexual abuse (100%), witnessing and receiving physical abuse/torture (100%), witnessing animal mutilation/killings (100%), death threats (100%), forced drug usage (97%), witnessing and forced participation in human adult and infant sacrifice (83%), forced cannibalism (81%), marriage to Satan (78%), buried alive in coffins or graves (72%), forced impregnation and sacrifice of own child (60%). They propose a clinical syndrome representing psychiatric sequelae common to their sample: severe posttraumatic stress disorder (100%), dissociative states with satanic overtones (100%), survivor guilt (97%), indoctrinated beliefs (94%), unusual fears (91%), sexualizations of sadistic impulses (86%), bizarre self-abuse (83%), and substance abuse (62%). MPD and DID are also symptoms of individuals who are very susceptible to false memories, aren't they? A high comorbidity of of SRA and DID seems more suggestive of memories induced through faulty therapeutic techniques by credulous therapists convinced of the reality of SRA. Funny, most of those things also happened in Michelle Remembers. And what is 'dissociative states with satanic overtones'? WLU (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Shaffer and Cozolino (1992) interviewed 19 women and one man who reported types and aftereffects of ritualistic abuse consistent with those reported by Young et al. All subjects reported witnessing the murder of animals, infants, children and/or adults. All reported suicidal ideation and half reported suicide attempts. The majority reported severe and sadistic forms of abuse by multiple perpetrators. Some reported continued recontact/revictimization into their adult years. Fifty-five percent reported repeated psychiatric hospitalizations during the initial and middle stages of psychotherapy. Several survivors experienced religious/spiritual conflicts stating that “the most destructive aspect of the ritualistic abuse had been the negative effects that it had on their spiritual selves” (p. 190). The majority said they believed in a higher power, but only half of that subgroup was involved in an organized religion. The majority considered participation in support groups as a necessary adjunct to psychotherapy. All considered the uncovering of memories as the primary focus in therapy and felt that “their therapists’ beliefs both in the reality of the abuse they reported and in their capacity to recover were necessary preconditions to their ability to deal with these very difficult therapeutic issues” (p. 189). What research protocol did they use? Did they base it on Young et al's work? If so, we could expect a similar type and aftereffects. Any corroboration? And the last sentence says to me 'the therapists believed as a preconception'. WLU (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Advocates for Survivors of Child Abuse. (2006). Ritual abuse & torture in Australia. Retrieved December 7, 2006, from: http://asca.org.au/pdf_public/brochure_ritualabuse_2006.pdf Bottoms, B. L., Shaver, P. R., & Goodman, G. S. (1996). An analysis of ritualistic and religion-related child abuse allegations. Law and Human Behavior, 20(1), 1-34. Kent, S. (1997). Assessment of the satanic abuse allegations in the (name deleted) case. Retrieved December 7, 2006, from http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/~skent/satanic.html Schmuttermaier, J., & Veno, A. (1999). Counselors’ beliefs about ritual abuse: An Australian study. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 8(3), 45-63. Abstract obtained from PsycINFO. No. 2000-13414-003. Shaffer, R. E., & Cozolino, L.J. (1992). Adults who report childhood ritualistic abuse. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 20(3), 188-193. van der Hart, O., Boon, S., & Heijtmajer J. O. (1997). Ritual abuse in European countries: A clinician’s perspective. In G. A. Fraser (Ed.), The dilemma of ritual abuse: Cautions and guides for therapists (pp. 137-163). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press. Young, W. C., Sachs, R. G., Braun, B. G., & Watkins, R. T. (1991). Patients reporting ritual abuse in childhood: a clinical syndrome. Report of 37 cases. Child Abuse and Neglect, 15(3), 181-189. Ellenlacter (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Advocacy sites are not reliable sources. The Journal of Psychology and Theology is a suspect one for most claims I would think. Is Kent published in a reliable source, or just a random website? I see a lot of second and third string jornals here, the newest reliable source being from 1999 and is about beliefs, not corroboration. WLU (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Kent is clearly RS. Kent, S. A. "Deviant Scripturalism and Ritual Satanic Abuse Part One: Possible Judeo-Christian Influences", Religion, 23, 1993, 229 - 241.

Kent, S. A. "Deviant Scripturalism and Ritual Satanic Abuse Part Two: Possible Masonic, Mormon, Magick and Pagan Influences", Religion, 23, 1993, 355 - 367.

Kent, S. (October 1994). "Diabolic Debates: A Reply to David Frankfurter and J. S. La Fontaine". Religion 24 (4): 361-378. 

In regard to WLU's comment about DID (MPD), the DSM says that people with Dissociative Identity Disorder often report that they have experienced severe physical and sexual abuse, especially during their childhood. Reports by people with Dissociative Identity Disorder of their past physical and sexual abuse are often confirmed by objective evidence. People responsible for the acts of sexual and physical abuse might be prone to distort or deny their behavior.

WLU also states "Ritual abuse is treated as a contagen by many sources, a fear-based mind virus that spread in absence of proof of a world-wide conspiracy." This is at best conjecture. There is no evidence or proof that this occurs. And most of

Ellenlacter's sources are from peer reviewed journals. Compare these sources to the ones being discussed at the bottom of this talk page used by skeptics, like skepdic.com and Aquino's Phoenix Publishing.

It appears that once again those skeptical about the existence of SRA are using two different measuring sticks to measure the data on the SRA page. For those that back their own beliefs, it appears that almost any source is good enough. For those that disagree with the skeptics, even peer reviewed journals are sometimes not good enough. Abuse truth (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No primary sources that treat SRA as a global Satanic conspiracy?

Editors here have been unable to provide any primary documents from the 80s or early 90s that treat SRA as a "global Satanic conspiracy".

Eleland is now advocating for an article about "Satanic ritual abuse panic" based on "television reports, sermons, pamphlets, and the lecture circuit", however, he has yet to provide any references to these sources, or explain why this approach would not constitute undue weight or original reseach by synthesis.

Meanwhile, I've provided numerous academic sources from the 80s and early 90s that use the term SRA in a balanced and considered fashion.

Crotalus and Eleland's failure to substantiate their argument for a "split" calls into question the reasonableness of their position, particularly in light of how strongly they hold to it. Why do they believe what they do, given that they have no evidence for their beliefs? And why are they pushing their POV onto this page, if they can't substantiate it? --Biaothanatoi (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's old discussion, but I think the global conspiracy should be mentioned, but within the context that it is one version, one public perception and portrayal, of the SRA phenomenon/panic, and in the greater context the only demonstrated proof of SRA is the existence of isolated incidents. SRA does occur (in that children are abused while robes are worn, pentagrams drawn and satan mentioned), but there's no link between them beyond cultural memory. There is a spectrum of SRA beliefs, from completely non-existent on one end, to a global, media/government/judicial/police controlling conspiracy on the other. It would be nice if this could be described (with sources natch). WLU (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It would not only be nice but necessary since mass conspiracy beliefs was a mark of SRA (unlike ritualized child abuse where the conspiracy claims are missing, let alone a worldwide conspiracy). —Cesar Tort 18:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. You need a source that demonstrates that most people who use the term SRA believe in a "mass conspiracy". At the moment, you have zip.

I support WLU's argument that this page should support a range of definitions. It seems to me that the few people that believe in a "mass Satanic conspiracy" called SRA are an extremist fringe (evidenced by some writing on the net) rather then representative of most people who use the term. Certainly I've provided numerous academic references that use the term SRA without meaning a "global Satanic conspiracy", and these sources are, by Wikipedia standards, more notable then the fringe extremists. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Believe in mass conspiracy has been so widespread among SRA buffs that you yourself wrote about:

“

an organised paedophile ring in Melbourne [which] must include cops, corporate & govt types... is acting internationally... and has particular reach within the intelligence sector.

”

as has been pointed out to you elsewhere in WP.

—Cesar Tort 18:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Developing a concurrence of opinion as to where the page should go now

I am introducing this new thread in the hope that editors will be able to come to some sort of compromise solution on the more recent changes made to the page. IMO, an important part in this process would be the curtailing of the name calling and ad hominem attacks that have gone on in the past. A mutual respect would need to be developed between all sides of the debate for this to work. There are several recent changes that have been to the page without consensus. Hopefully compromise solutions can be worked out over time on all of these. Abuse truth (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly, strongly, strongly recommend that this article be renamed Satanic ritual abuse hysteria. Satanic ritual abuse panic is not preferable. I note that an article named Ritualized abuse of children already exists, and therefore creating another article titled Ritualistic abuse of children is unnecessary.

I also strongly suggest that this article, renamed Satanic ritual abuse hysteria, link to Little Rascals Day Care Center. Michael H 34 (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

I strongly oppose these suggestions. While there might have been a media hysteria about this topic, renaming the article in the way suggested is pushing the POV that this is hysteria and nothing but hysteria - a POV I do not share, as there are cases like this, though as far as can be reasonably seen not as part of a dark worldwide conspiracy, it still can take conspirative and obscure forms for obvious legal reasons. While the hysteria is well documented (and pushed) in WP, it seems that the wider field of reality rarely if ever is mentioned anywhere because some try to routinely purge any reference which does not fit their POV. All tales of such happenings need to be taken 'cum grano salis', but be represented without bias in the title. --Gwyndon (talk) 04:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also strongly oppose any naming of this article to anything other than Satanic Ritual Abuse. However, I would like the page to very clearly state that we can find no serious peer-reviewed sources that support its existance. Despite this I would agree that changing the title name to something including the words panic or hysteria are certainly taking things rather far down a very specific POV. We must be open minded, but also mindful of the lack of scientific evidence for SRA. --J.StuartClarke (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, we have "serious peer-reviewed sources" that treat the ritualistic abuse of children in satanic contexts seriously. Such sources have been published in every journal relating to child sexual abuse and child protection, and I've posted them here numerous times. For example, the prestigious publication "Journal of Child Sexual Abuse" has the following articles on ritualistic, satanic abuse:

- Counselors' beliefs about ritual abuse: An Australian study

John Schmuttermaier, Arthur Veno. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse. Binghamton: 1999. Vol. 8, Iss. 3; p. 45

This article found that approx 30% of sexual assault counsellors in Melbourne, Australia, had encountered a client with a history of ritual abuse, and that the vast majority of counsellors believed such a history to be indicative of serious victimisation.

- The end of the sidewalk: Where do I go from here?

Barstow, Donald G. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse. Binghamton: 1996. Vol. 5, Iss. 4; p. 125 (6 pages)

This article provides an account of a clinician's difficulties in his work with ritually abused clients.

- A clinical sample of women who have sexually abused children

- Faller, Kathleen Coulborn. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse. Binghamton: 1995. Vol. 4, Iss. 3; p. 13 (18 pages)

This article provides an overview of clinical work with sexually abusive women, a significant proportion of whom were found to be sexually abusing children within the context of ritually abusive perpetrator groups, and whom had histories of ritual abuse themselves.

This is a small sample of the peer-reviewed material that treats "satanic ritual abuse" seriously. And as for "scientific" evidence, there is the forensic evidence from dozens of convictions and numerous child protection interventions around the world. I've posted those court cases here on this page. You'll find that the authors who adopt an extremist "sceptical" POV, far from being the "majority" view as claimed by some editors here, are very few, they are rarely in clinical practice, and they are usually connected to activist groups such as the False Memory Syndrome Foundation. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the editors above that believe that the article title should not be changed. "Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality.” I also agree with Biaothanatoi above. Several editors working on this page adopt an extremist position that SRA does not exist, define SRA in a way to eliminate many sources that would verify its existence and only present sources to back their own POV. While this may be somewhat acceptible in a debate, it is definitely not acceptible on a wikipedia page. Wikipedia pages must be NPOV.

Biaothanatoi's list of sources
Biaothanatoi's list of sources
Biaothanatoi's list of sources Here is more data on SRA: I talked to one of the leaders in the Los Angeles County Task Force on Ritual Abuse, who estimate that there have been more than a hundred California preschools implicated in ritual abuse. [James Friesen, Uncovering the Mystery of MPD, 1991] Among 2,709 members of the American Psychological Association who responded to a poll, 2,292 cases of ritual abuse were reported. [Bottoms, Shaver, & Goodman, 1993] At a 1991 Utah workshop, thirty-two mental health therapists reported treating 360 separate survivors of ritual abuse. By early 1992 the following statement had been signed by sixty-six Utah therapists: "We, the undersigned mental health professional, have each heard memories of ritual abuse recounted by some patients, as have therapists across the nation. We believe these patients’ allegations to have basis in fact. We are dismayed by accusations that therapists brainwash their patients or collude to create a mental health problem where none existed. We urge our public officials to take appropriate actions to counter ritual crimes." The names on the signed petition, affirming the above statement, are given in the 1992 report of the Utah Governor’s Task Force on Ritual Abuse. [A. Horton, B. Harrison & B. Johnson, editors, Confronting Abuse, 1993] In 1992 alone, Childhelp USA logged 1,741 calls pertaining to ritual abuse, Monarch Resources of Los Angeles logged approximately 5,000, Real Active Survivors tallied nearly 3,600, Justus Unlimited of Colorado received almost 7,000, and Looking Up of Maine handled around 6,000. Even allowing for some of these calls to have been made by people who assist survivors but are not themselves survivors, and for some survivors to have called more than one helpline or made multiple calls to the same helpline, these numbers suggest that at a minimum there must be tens of thousands of survivors of ritual abuse in the United States. (Catherine Gould, Cultural and Economic Barriers to Protecting Children from Ritual Abuse and Mind Control, 1995) Published results of a nationwide study of substantiated reports of sexual abuse in day care involving 1,639 young child victims. Thirteen percent of these cases were found to involve ritual abuse. [Finkelhor, William and Burns, 1988] An ‘ad hoc’ study on Ritual Abuse in Germany done by Ulla Fröhling, journalist and author of "Vater unser in der Hoelle" - "Our father which art in hell" - called the "first in-depth German study of a DID-patient with a background of severe home abuse, child prostitution, and sadistic ritual abuse;" and Michaela Huber in 1997. They sent 355 questionnaires throughout Germany , 126 returned and 113 have been evaluated. Every 'maybe' or 'perhaps' was excluded, which led to a total of 354 cases in treatment -- 299 in current treatment – of Ritual Abuse in Germany. These patients or clients were treated at 61 locations in Germany . (Thorsten Becker, "Ritual Abuse: A German Cult-Counsellors Perspective," Presentation at the Symposium on Psychic Trauma and Dissociation, Utrecht - Netherlands, October 28. 1999) In 1993, Boon and Draijer described the clinical phenomena of 71 Dutch DID patients. Follow up data on this cohort of patients indicate that 38.8% of the patients (N = < 27) had mentioned some form of SRA in the course of treatment (Boon & Draijer, 1993b). These patients lived in different regions in the Netherlands and they were treated by 19 different clinicians (Boon and Draijer 1993b). In this study, spontaneously given accounts of SRA and drawings on the subject showed a striking resemblance to those of North American patients (cf Young et al. 1991). [Onno van der Hart, "Reports on Ritual Abuse in European Countries: A Clinician’s Perspective," 1998] A survey done in June 2000, at the National Victim Assistance Academy in Fresno , CA , 82 questionnaires given out, 44 criminal justice professionals responded to the questions, "Have you or a co-worker ever worked with a client/victim that claimed to be a victim of satanic ritual abuse?" Seventeen, 38% of respondents, had worked with clients who claimed to be victims of satanic ritual abuse or had co-workers who had worked with these clients. (Dawn Mattox, Butte County , CA , District Attorney’s Office, 2000) Satanic Ritual Abuse: The Evidence Surfaces By Daniel Ryder, CCDC, LSW An Empirical Look at the Ritual Abuse Controversy - Randy Noblitt, PhD Adapted in 2007 from a paper presented at the 40th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis, Fort Worth, Texas, March 18, 1998. “Some authors argue that there is no substantial legal evidence that the ritual abuse of children actually occurs, and that most cases of ritual abuse convictions are reversed on appeal. Michael Newton (cited in Noblitt, 1998a) accumulated data on criminal convictions in the U.S. where allegations of ritual abuse of children were made. He found cases of 145 defendants who were sentenced. Seventeen (11.7%) were reversed on appeal. Newton argues that these reversals do not necessarily indicate that the defendants were innocent of the accusations. In some instances the decisions were reversed based on legal technicalities rather than factual matters as to whether the abuse occurred or not.” Profile of Ritualistic and Religion-Related Abuse Allegations Reported to Clinical Psychologists in the United States - Bette L. Bottoms, Phillip R. Shaver, and Gail S. Goodman - State University of New York at Buffalo - Presented at the Ninety-Ninth annual convention of the American Psychiatric Association, San Francisco, CA August 19, 1991 Bottoms, Shaver and Goodman in their 1993 study to evaluate ritual abuse claims found that in 2,292 alleged ritual abuse cases, 15% of the perpetrators in adult cases and 30% of the perpetrators in child cases confessed to the abuse. Data from Brown, Scheflin and Hammond (1998). Memory, Trauma Treatment, And the Law (W. W. Norton) ISBN 0-393-70254-5 (p.62) Bottoms, B. Shaver, P. & Goodman, G. (1993) Profile of ritual abuse and religion related abuse allegations in the United States. Updated findings provided via personal communication from B. Bottoms. Cited in K.C. Faller (1994), Ritual Abuse; A Review of the research. The American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children Advisor , 7, 1, 19-27 Cult and Ritual Abuse - Noblitt and Perskin(Praeger, 1995) Perry also conducted a national survey of therapists who work with clients with dissociative disorders and she found that 88 percent of the 1,185 respondents indicated "belief in ritual abuse, involving mind control and programming" (p. 3)." Report of Utah State Task Force on Ritual Abuse May 1992 poll indicates that as of 1992, 90% of the Utah citizenry do believe that "ritualistic child sexual abuse is occurring"...(Poll conducted by Dan Jones & Associates, reported in Deseret News, January 1, 1992, pp. A1 - A2.) Empirical Look at the Ritual Abuse Controversy - James Randall Noblitt, Ph.D. “Michael Newton (cited in Noblitt, 1998a) accumulated data on criminal convictions in the U.S. where allegations of ritual abuse of children were made. He found cases of 145 defendants who were sentenced.” “ Pamela Hudson (1991) assessed 24 children in a case of alleged ritual abuse at Fort Bragg day care center in California. Hudson found five symptoms to be present among many of the children.” “Susan Kelley (1993) compared three groups of children in day care: 35 allegedly ritualistically abused children, 32 children reportedly sexually, not ritualistically abuse, and 67 children without any claims of sexual abuse. She collected data from the abused children’s parents and compared the results of the children with non-ritualistic sexual abuse with ritualistic sexual abuse. She found that ritualistically abused children were more likely to report more incidents, types and severity of abuse relative to the non-ritual sexual abuse victims. She also found that ritualistic abuse was more often associated with multiple victim, multiple perpetrator situations.” “"Jill Waterman, Robert Kelley, Mary Kay Olivieri, and Jane McCord (1993) did a six year longitudinal study of 82 children who had made allegations of ritualistic sexual abuse (RSA) in the Manhattan Beach, California area in comparison with 37 non-abused (NA) children and 15 non-ritualistically sexually abused (SA) children. A variety of standardized and non-standardized questionnaires and interview instruments were employed. They found that both the RSA and SA group reported intrusive and highly intrusive sexual abuse. Additionally the RSA group but not the SA group reported “terrorizing acts..." Multiple Personality Disorder and Satanic Ritual Abuse: the Issue Of Credibility Susan C. Van Benschoten, R.N., M.Ed., M.A. Dissociation, Vol. III, No. 1 “Day care ritual abuse accounts usually implicate multiple non-familial perpetrators and multiple victims. Female perpetrators are nearly always reported. Characteristically, very young children and children of both sexes are said to be involved. Extreme forms of coercion and intimidation are typically reported, including threats of death and demonstrations that perpetrators possess magical powers. Extended, severe, and bizarre types of sexual abuse are frequently described, including penetration with objects, and forced sex between children and between children and adults. Physical and emotional abuse are reported as well, for example threats with weapons and the use of various forms of bondage. Children's disclosures often cite pornography and drug use as components of the abuse. Many reports allege cruelly to animals, or the mutilation and sacrifice of animals or human beings. Practices linked to satanism are often reported. Children frequently describe chanting or singing, the presence of symbols, costumes, masks, candles, and the ceremonial use of blood, urine, and feces. Finkelhor- et al. (1988) found the ritualistic cases in their national study of substantiated day care sexual abuse to be the ones "whose allegations seemed to most strain public and professional credulity. . (and) in which the children appeared to have suffered the most serious and lasting kind of damage " (p. 32). This impression is supported by the work of Kelley (in press).”

Though it may be impossible to develop a full concurrence of opinion on this subject, I would hope that a mutual respect can be developed for differing points of view and that this mutual respect can be translated into the editing process of this page. Abuse truth (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

AT, you've got to stop pasting vast tracts of info on this page. References here need to be short and concise, or else the flow of dialogue is derailed. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about this. I agree. Abuse truth (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not denying that ritualised child abuse occours. However, none of the sources that you have come up with can identify a specific Satanic context. Obviously ritualised child abuse occours, which is why, I assume, C.Tort set up that page. However, none of the scientific articles state that there is Satanic Ritual Abuse, as oppose to Ritual Abuse. Your source "From the Inside out" states on its website that:

We accept as fact the existence of ritual abuse and mind control.

We accept as fact that it is possible to get free.

We accept as fact that DID/MPD is not equal to nor caused by demonic possession.

We accept as fact that nature of ritual abuse and mind control is such that survivors may encounter the demonic in their healing process and therefore need to be equipped for spiritual warfare.

We accept by faith that there is one true God who created all things and who reveals himself to us in Holy Scripture in the form of many personalities and in the person of his son Jesus Christ and who now indwells us and manifests himself to us in the person of the Holy Spirit.

We believe that true inner healing is accomplished only by Jesus Christ and that freedom is achieved through truth.

It is not a scientific source. As for the only other source that mentions Satan, the article by Van Benschoten, this actually states that "professional literature on the topic of satanic ritual abuse is nearly non-existant."

We need completely flawless sources for the existance of Satanic Ritual Abuse to be proven, rather than the already proven Ritual Abuse. --J.StuartClarke (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You'll note that the article by Van Benschoten is over 15 years old, and was originally posted by me as an example of early professional literature on SRA. Her statement that there is no "professional literature" on SRA was true at the time, but is not true now.

In a previous post, I noted that your parallel between quantum physics and SRA had serious limitations e.g. Unlike a quantum particle, you cannot demonstrate the existence of form of child sexual abuse in a laboratory. I also emphasised that child sexual abuse is a practice or behaviour that is undertaken in a range of contexts, and this behaviour is subject to a range of interpretations and understandings according to social, psychological and criminological theory.

There are court cases in which children have been subject to sexual abuse by multiple perpetrators in a ritualistic, "satanic" contexts. This form of abuse has sometimes been called "Satanic Ritual Abuse". I've suggested elsewhere that this page do two things:

(a) take a social constructionst approach to the use of this term, which includes a range of definitions by a range of different people for different reasons over time,

(b) provide some overview of the occurence of "satanic ritual abuse" e.g. "ritualistic abuse and satanic rituals have been found to be a feature of some cases of sexual abuse".

Philosopher [Ian Hacking] would call "satanic ritual abuse" a "human kind", which means that it is a term that refers to a dynamic concept that changes over time. Human kinds" are distinguished from "natural kinds" e.g. "granite" is a "natural kind" because the rock is not effected by the name that we call it, or how we use the term "granite". It's just granite. In constrast, when the term SRA was coined to describe a type of sexual abuse, the term then influenced different peoples behaviour, which influenced the way we understood the term term - something that Hacking calls the "looping effect".

So whilst I agree that this article should rely on solid, peer-reviewed sources, claiming that the "existence" of SRA has not been "proven" by a "scientific source" seems to conflate "human kinds" with "natural kinds". The "existence" of satanic/ritual sexually abusive behaviour has been attested to in a court of law, and surveys suggest that this behaviour is infrequently, but consistently, encountered by clinical, forensic and child protection workers.

As I said above, the question as to whether this behaviour can usefully be destribed as "satanic ritual abuse" might be a useful one - contesting that this behaviour ever occurs is less useful and, I think, such a claim is directly contested by the verifiable facts outlined on this page. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 03:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In reply to user J.StuartClarke I did cite two sources on SRA. I will repost them here. "In 1993, Boon and Draijer described the clinical phenomena of 71 Dutch DID patients. Follow up data on this cohort of patients indicate that 38.8% of the patients (N = < 27) had mentioned some form of SRA in the course of treatment (Boon & Draijer, 1993b). These patients lived in different regions in the Netherlands and they were treated by 19 different clinicians (Boon and Draijer 1993b). In this study, spontaneously given accounts of SRA and drawings on the subject showed a striking resemblance to those of North American patients (cf Young et al. 1991). [Onno van der Hart, "Reports on Ritual Abuse in European Countries: A Clinician’s Perspective," 1998]" Abuse truth (talk) 05:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I hate to be annoying, but I should point out that books are not peer-reviewed. As for Biaothanatoi above, I do understand that these are not experiments that could be reproduced in a lab. However, just because this is not a naturally occouring issue does not mean that we should lower the bar for proof. No serious peer-reviewed journal has been brought forward. I do accept that the books and non-peer-reviewed sources above are useful, however, they cannot be said to constitute absolute proof. An article in a journal with similar standing to the Lancet, Science or Nature would be an unquestionable source. The publishing of a book does not guarentee that the contents are true. (Also I do realise that my quantum physics example wasn't perfect, but it was the one that wikipedia used...) I do not find the sources unquestionable that point to satanic abuse occouring. --J.StuartClarke (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to take issue with JStuartClarke about impeachability of scientific peer reviewed journals such as Nature. Publication in Nature, for example is neither necessary nor sufficient to do anything other than claim the legitmacy offered by the white coat of science. The examples are many. N-rays (found not to exist after all), Herbert Dingle ( a spurious aattack on relativity published in Nature) the Miller experiements (experimental evidence found to be falls refuting relativity) are all episodes of publication in leading journals where the results were false. So publication in Nature for example is not sufficient to guarantee truth. But in the case of Satanic ritual abuse which would seem to be a legal matter it would aalso hardly seem necessary either. The porblem is of course that it is difficult to believe that human beings can organse themselves to enage in activity of this general nature. Is it possible can we believe that people might actually found a school for Downs children with the express purpose of using them as sexual objects the idea being that with disability the children can't be understood and complain? In addition it is all too frequent that the charge of unscientific is brought in when claims feel threatening either emotionally or politically. Occupational health and safety activists have for years argues that safety depends on the balance of probabilities not on so-called scientific proof. I personally believe that the vidence is overwhelming that people are capable of and do organise themselve to terrorise children sexually and physically using so-called Satanic rituals. But then as Max Planck once wrote (1949, Scientific Autobiography, p.33) "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, anda new generation grows up that is used to it". Joseph Schwartz 86.136.8.125 (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There are several problems with the above statement. One, while I myself do not rule out the possibility of such events taking place, there is a question whether, bluntly, any pervo yahoo on the street who likes kids can call his actions "Satanic rituals" and have us describe them as such. There are also several cases of such abuse which have been found to very likely fail credibility on the basis of showing all the signs of being, more accurately, false memory syndrome. And wikipedia's guidelines and policies to indicate that peer-reviewed sources are those which are preferred as per WP:RS. Also, it would hardly be the first time if modern individuals who committed "atrocities" blamed their behavior on "Satanism". As per the Hellfire Club page, while there were allegations of the group being "pagan", I don't see yet any explicit evidence there that they saw themselves as Satanists. So, in effect, part of the problem here is whether we take the word of at least potentially biased outsiders that a group is "Satanic". If we were to do so, we would clearly be violating wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV. Also, such statements as the above, "is it possible to believe people might do...", are really irrelevant to the subject. What we require is reliable sources that it has in fact been done, and for the reasons given. Unfortunately, in many of these cases, the only evidence available is from parties who are not necessarily reliable as per our policies. And, if there isn't clear evidence that the allegations are accurate, then we have the potential difficulty of violating wikipedia policy of WP:Undue weight. And, regarding the allegations regarding probability vis a vis proof, that's fine for them. We have different policies and guidelines. Making statements on the basis of perceived "probabilities", particularly when there isn't reliable evidence saying such things are "probabilities", are not necessarily relevant, and could, conceivably, even be in violation of official policy of WP:OR. John Carter (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I should also like to point out that I'm well aware of the problems that have occoured with papers being published in peer-reviewed sources. However, these are few and far between given the number of articles published. Submission and acceptance by a peer-reviewed journal remains a standard test of a theory's worth and veritability. The Lancet, Nature and Science are among the most respected journals in the world, and until something that has passed their peer-review can be disproved it is generally accepted as verifiable, although, of course, science is a system of continous review. --J.StuartClarke (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. Accuracy and an NPOV is a very difficult problem for SRA in Wikipedia. But an appeal to the so-called scientific literaure hardly seems relevant in essentially a criminal matter. After all we don't appeal to the scientific literature for an NPOV in a biography of Jerry Fodor (say). Rather an appeal to the scientific litertaure represents a shifting of the responsibility for truth elsewhere. This is not a solution. And an inistence on scientific journals and peer review to me represents a disgusied form of denial, as I say time honoured, as in the case of occupational health and safety. Is asbestos safe to install or not? How to decide? Does SRA occur or not? How to decide? Joseph Schwartz 86.136.8.125 (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel that this is a scientific issue, as well as a legal one. It is an issue that encompasses a great many scientific disciplines, the most obvious being psychiatry. It is a scientific matter in that people must ask, in a disciplined manner, if it occurs in satanic contexts, why it would occur and why it most often only appears after lengthy periods of time, among other questions. These are all scientific questions. Whilst I do accept that the court cases are important, they cannot be used as evidence to back up a scientific theory. We need psychiatric, medical and other such evidence that can be confirmed. I understand that SRA is often considered to be a non-scientific issue, since it does appear, to a certain extent, to be more of a sociological issue. However, whilst it does encompass some of this area, it encompasses sufficiently large areas of science to warrant the production of peer-reviewed sources. --J.StuartClarke (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Regards AT's two sources cited regarding SRA, if this is the best proof you've got, then there's little here. Boon and Draijer described 27 patients (incidentally, 27/71 is 38%, not 38.8) who mentioned some form of SRA in the course of treatment. First, what was the treatment? Was it repressed memory therapy? Was there hypnosis involved? Second, was this confirmed by the police, forensic evidence, or anything besides the patient's testimonies? And the resemblance of SRA and drawings isn't really convincing either - leading questions, the Internet, and I remember reading something about a checklist of symptoms used by social workers to 'diagnose' SRA. If the page is to portray SRA as a reality, as something that's beyond isolated incidents, actual proof in reliable sources is required. The best we can do with this is 'patients reported SRA'.

One thing I think the page is lacking is a discussion of the possibility of using recovered memory therapy and leading questions to induce false memories in regards to satanic ritual abuse. It must be out there, does anyone have any reliable sources on this? It's definitely part of the social and scientific debate but we do need a source for it. WLU (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

section break, arbitrary

There was an unsourced section about it in a previous incarnation of the article.[1] Sourcing it would not be difficult at all. —Cesar Tort 18:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, that falls greviously afoul of BLP (or not, isn't she dead?) and isn't sourced at all - it could not go on the current page. Anyone feel like setting up a sub page to work on a draft? Even just a list of sources would be helpful.

Wow, that old page really was atrocious. Two references and 15 external links. Yick. WLU (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Just create that subpage within my user page or yours and I'll be happy to type sections of the sources I have so that you may pick up and rephrase them for the article. (And make a link in this talk to that subpage). —Cesar Tort 19:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

linkety link link link. WLU (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

<undent>The point is that the science is a social process and is no particular guarantor of neutrality or even truth. In fact the scientific literature is as far as possible from a NPOV because it is paradigm bound. Papers that deviate from the prevailing paradigm are ruthlessly discriminated against. This was Kuhn’s point.

It is fruitless to appeal to the scientific literature to arbitrate the existence or not of SRA. The journals Science and Nature are research journals in the natural and biological sciences almost exclusively. And while it just might be possible to see a clinical paper describing the treatment of survivors of SRA in the Lancet, Science and Nature are hardly sources to look to for unassailable evidence of SRA.

But is there such a thing as unassailable evidence? Ludwig Fleck(1981, Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, Univ Chicago Press) describes the painstaking process of the establishment of a scientific fact.

But what is a scientific fact ? My name is Joseph Schwartz. This is a fact. Is it a scientific fact? And here we are into the ideology of science, science as myth in our culture. A scientific fact is presumably certain and unassailable as in the advertising slogans for drug x “It is a scientific fact, x works faster than any other leading brand”. An appeal to science is an appeal to a mythical certainty. In the case of SRA such an appeal evades the responsibility to sift the evidence we have in front of us. Instead it appeals to a mythical non-existent authority to arbitrate the matter. For example consider the Rodney King beating in 1991. Has Wikipedia maintained a neutral NPOV? It seems so to me. But there is no scientific literature supporting the argument that the acquittal of the four cops triggered the LA civil rebellion, the worst in LA’s history.

SRA challenges most of us, particularly we are middle class and reasonably protected from violence and atrocities. But atrocity is a fact of modern life. Is it really so difficult to believe that people exist who would band together to abuse those vulnerable in our society? On the contrary, isn’t such abuse the rule rather than the exception as the long campaign against police brutality shows? Joseph Schwartz86.136.8.125 (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Spaced and formatted for readability and per WP:TALK. There's nothing here worth replying to. WLU (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. But I would reply to Joseph Schwartz's phrase anyway: "to sift the evidence we have in front of us".

Evidence?? For criminologists there's no forensic evidence for the 1980s and 90s SRA craze. Haven't you read the article? Can you cite a peer-reviewed mainstraim criminology journal which endorses the reality of SRA? —189.145.190.2 (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Pepinksy, H. "A Struggle To Inquire Without Becoming an Un-Critical Non-Criminologist", Critical Criminology, 11, 2002, 61 - 73. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You are citing a single article. Without an URL or at least an abstract we cannot know what it's about. Furthermore, even if Pepinksy believes in SRA, I said "a peer-reviewed mainstraim criminology journal which endorses the reality of SRA", not an isolated article. —Cesar Tort 04:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You asked for peer-review, you got it. You asked for criminology, you got it. Now you want an entire journal - do you mean an entire issue of a journal? Or do you mean the "journal" itself? What do you mean by that? You want to hear the editorial board chanting "SRA is real" all at once?

It's fascinating watching editors set their own arbitrary standards of "proof" here, and then, when it's met, make it higher/broader/larger or just shift it somewhere else. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You are not listening to me. I repeat for the third —and last— time what I said: "a peer-reviewed mainstraim criminology journal which endorses the reality of SRA".

That does not exist. You cite a single article (without internet reference or abstract to check and see the accuracy of what you wrote above) and expect us to believe that that means the community of criminologists endorses SRA? It's indeed fascinating watching how an editor sets his own standards of logic...

—Cesar Tort 06:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And my point is that journals don't "endorse" reality. They publish articles. I don't get the impression that you are familiar with the function of academic journals. And your reference to a "community of criminologists" somewhat escapes me - is this a village somewhere that I'm unfamiliar with?

Why is it that Abuse Truth was targetted with such force whilst Cesar wanders around, spouting crap and generally wasting other editors time? --Biaothanatoi (talk) 05:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that journals deny reality, but that's a different point. However, the main issue is that they don't just publish articles. They, if the journal is a peer-reviewed one, get a team of specialists in the appropriate field to evaluate said article for factual accuracy and whether what is being written about can be verified. They are a very basic and widely used benchmark for scientific accuracy. I admit that they have sometimes made mistakes, but these are extremely rare, and have not altered the fact that being published in a peer-reviewed journal is viewed, not just by scientists but by Wikipedia, which is important in this case, as being a litmus test of an article's veritability. --J.StuartClarke (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The "debunking" sources for Michelle Remembers

Can we start applying the same standards for "sceptical" sources as we do for "non-sceptical" sources?

The "debunking" sources for Michelle Remembers includes one journalistic treatment that at least deserves a mention, followed by references to:

- "Kerr Cuhulain", the "Preceptor General" of the "Officers of Avalon", published by such luminary houses as Llewellyn Publications, whose featured book is currently "The Case for Ghosts: An Objective Look at the Paranormal".

- A journalist from the Fortean Times, a magazine about paranormal phenomena in Britain.

- Michael Aquino, who was quietly processed out of the military after allegations of satanic ritual abuse involving him, and his wife, were settled by the army for a substantial sum.

Whilst editors demand that sources that treat SRA survivors seriously are "unquestionably" credible, they are providing multiple references to "paranormal" publications and books written by people accused of serious crimes against children.

I can't imagine a better illustration of the bias that dominates editing on this page. Can we have some balance here?

--Biaothanatoi (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Further up on the page, I cited two peer-reviewed books from Oxford University Press justifying the claim that Michelle Remembers is generally considered unreliable. We don't need to resort to the Fortean Times to support this, and I would have no problem with relying solely upon reliable published sources. That isn't going to change the underlying fact, just the citations used to support it. Also, I'd like to see some substantiation for your charge of serious criminal activity by a living person. If you can't support it, it cannot stay on Wikipedia, even on a talk page. Please refer to WP:BLP. You can't just fling around accusations like that without substantial proof in reliable sources. *** Crotalus *** 01:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not the critique of Michelle Remembers per se, but the fact that five sources have been used to back up the critique and four of them are dubious, whilst elsewhere you, and other editors, demand "unquestionable" sources for "non-sceptical" statements.

I made no charge against Aquino. I stated the facts: Allegations against him were made in the Presidio case, those charges were settled by the Army, and Aquino was processed out of the army. He would later be questioned in relation to other instances of ritual sexual abuse, in which there were convictions, and where children picked him out of a line-up. These facts have been in the public domain for twenty years. They do not constitute allegations against Aquino, but they do call into question his credibility as a source on child sexual abuse. I'm suprised that you are unaware of Aquino and the Presidio case.

There are a range of books which address the Presidio case, and the clinican who treated the sexually abused children, Ehrensaft, published a follow-up study in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry in 1992. If you are interested in popular sources, then you might want to read "New Twist In Presidio Molestings, Edward W. Lempinen, Robert Popp, 30 October 1987, The San Francisco Chronicle, p1" and "Satanist Accused in Child Sex Case, Erik Ingram, The San Francisco Chronicle, 17 May 1989, p24. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Parity of sources applies - if we've got good sources debunking them, we use them. If they deal more with the cultural phenomenon than the factual reality of events, Fortean and Skeptic's Dictionary are adequate sources. WP:REDFLAG - debunking Michelle remembers doesn't take much as it's an entire book of extreme claims (got it from the library yesterday; a skim through the final chapters and Satan and Mary, Mother of God, has appeared several times each). The sources to debunk do not require extreme reliability. Really, MR requires independent corroboration to be used as a source because it's so just fucking crazy.

Regards Aquino, there's no real proof I've seen of the allegations, and let's face it, SRA accusations were tossed around like t-shirts at a rock concert.

Parity of sources says we don't need much to debunk MR. WLU (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, those popular sources are pretty hard for anyone to access - print from half a decade before the internet got going aren't really accessible. This is a bit better. And as a final point, this page is about SRA, Aquino is not a topic. So let's drop it. Credibility is given by publisher, not by author. On creationist pages, creationists are cited, despite lacking any scientific credibility. We can cite people who might not be neutral, disinterested parties. In fact, we do it all the time. You don't study something like this unless you are interested in it, whether it's because you were accused of a crime or because you were abused as a child or you are interested in the history of your cult. WLU (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Michelle Remembers is a red herring. The reason why it has been given such prominence in "sceptical" accounts of SRA is because it's not a good source, and, using the ost hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, "sceptics" argue that, because Michelle Remembers was an early SRA claim, therefore it is the source of all SRA claims.

Your proposed test in relation to assessment of credibility - disregard the author, focus on the publisher - is an approach I've never heard of before. I would suggest to you that a person who has no expertise in the study or treatment of child sexual abuse, other then being accused of sexual abuse, is not a credible source on child sexual abuse. I would hope that this is not a controversial statement. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the reason Michelle Remembers is given such prominence is because it's seen as the kicking off point for the SRA hysteria. If you doubt my interpretation of WP:RS or WP:V, you can re-read those pages, or you can bring it up on their talk pages, or on the various noticeboards. I could be wrong, that's how I see the policy playing out. Incidentally, someone with no expertise on the study of child sexual abuse would be strongly motivated to read up on it - being accused of CSA in a court of law definitely whets the appetite for the literature. Which is extremely controversial over SRA, and it's easy to see that there is skepticism. WLU (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of the skeptical sources for MR are poor. Aquino's book is not a RS. If "credibility is given by publisher" then his book's publisher (http://www.phoenixpublishing.com/) is not RS either. It is a publisher of Wiccan books. And there have been serious criticisms of skepdic.com on wikipedia. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Skeptic.27s_dictionary

IMO, it should not be used as a reference or EL unless we absolutely need to use it as one. IMO, the theory of Parity of sources applies does not apply here. "If an article is written about a well-known topic, it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced by obscure texts that lack peer review." SRA is a well-known topic. And if MR is well-known enough to start some unproven "hysteria" that lasts for a decade around the world, then the fringe theory concept does not apply there either.

I think the skeptics of the concept of SRA need to stop using nonreliable sources to back their claims. These skeptics need to start applying the standards that they use when judging sources and data of other beliefs to themselves. Abuse truth (talk) 05:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Michelle Remembers isn't so much a poor source, as it is a non-source full of unsubstantiated, wildly extreme, supernatural allegations. Seriously, Satan himself shows up in the book. Given this extreme of a claim, the parity of sources required to show it's a false, ridiculous fantasy is extremely low. Michelle Remembers might require a highly reliable source to prove it is true or to discuss the literary and cultural implications of the book, but to demonstrate that it's not an accurate, factual summary of events that really happened doesn't take much. In order for the book to be proven true, you would have to first prove that a) God exists b) Jesus exists c) Mary, the mother of Jesus exists (and speaks French) d) Satan exists and e) Jesus, Mary and Satan all arrived in Vancouver in the 50's to respectively torture and save some 5 year old girl for no apparent reason. The Daily Mail article is more than enough to blow any interpretation of factual accuracy out of the water, the rest are just context and icing on the cake. Again, it is the factual accuracy of the book that is important for this page, because this page discusses in part, the factual accuracy of the SRA allegations kicked off by MR. WLU (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed Michelle Remembers does not even remotely qualify as a reliable source for the purposes of inclusion. Having said that, if the book can be proven to meet notability requirements, a separate page on the book itself might be reasonable. And I would very much request that Abuse truth perhaps observe a bit more closely the guideline of assuming good faith. Seeking to insure content which does not even remotely qualify under WP:RS guidelines, like Michelle Remembers, is included with any particular weight, has nothing to do with any existing bias of others, but is seemingly more based on following wikipedia policies. If Abuse truth can point out in multiple reliable sources that that book served as an instigator of then it could be mentioned. I would also urge Abuse truth to read the WP:Fringe theory guidelines more closely. Several different Kennedy assassination theories have been given credence by any number of people for several decades now, and they all still qualify individually as fringe theories. John Carter (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Book is definitely notable, and has it's own page Michelle Remembers, where both I and AT are active editors. WLU (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I am confused by John Carter's comments above. I agree with WLU that the book is notable. However, I am not the editor that originally included any of the material on MR. Nor do I agree with much of the paragraph as it is written. Carter does make an interesting comment above though "point out in multiple reliable sources that that book served as an instigator of then it could be mentioned." It does appear that many of the statements made in the section are not RS's and these claims perhaps should not be included. Abuse truth (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Changes to page

Per old discussion, changes have been made:

• The list of allegations deleted, and the list of satanic ritual abuse allegations placed in see also
• The phrasing of SRA and the courts adjusted to reflect a more neutral phrasing that does not assume the allegations are true
• Since there is a a very RS and a dubious source justifying the statements, I removed the dubious source and left the academic text in
• The Church of Satan rule on not harming children has been moved out of the lead

Turns out my library has a copy of Framing abuse, so I might get it to look into the text it justifies. The book summary doesn't mention the US by the way, just the United Kingdom, so it's possible any reference to the States might be bogus, I'll have to see.

If I might make a suggestion, a good place to start might be to review the sources on the page and determine if they justify the text they accompany, and slowly weed out the less reliable ones. There does indeed appear to be a fairly extensive discussion of SRA in many reliable sources, so let's build on those.

WLU (talk) 11:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish that, per current disccussion, you had not made these changes, or rather other changes. But as I am not a peer-reviewed RS per se, I will not engage in a discussion I left because of some POV pushing 'guy' and his pals. I'm happy that in general the SRA discussion seems erudite and well-mannered nowaday, and that at least two editors are still active in showing that scientific and other medical expertise is available on the side of those stating that SRA has been experienced. --Gwyndon (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• "scientific and other medical expertise is available..."

As stated many times, unlike ritualized child abuse there's no forensic evidence for SRA claims such as the paradigmatic McMartin case. —Cesar Tort 17:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what changes you are referring to Gwyndon, from what you posted in an above section, you were opposing the page move. I haven't moved the page, these are changes that were more-or-less agreed on previously in discussion. If you have comments that you think will impact or inform the limited changes I have made, please post them so we can discuss. WLU (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Rational for my recent edits

I have made three changes to the SRA page. Two are restorations of changes originally made by editor WLU without consensus.

1) I have changed "from existence of SRA remains unclear, with varying degrees of proof, corroboration and testimony found when investigating claims made by individuals disclosing SRA"

back to:

"The existence of SRA is believed by social workers, therapists, members of law enforcement, government and the general public, with varying degrees of proof, corroboration and testimony by individuals disclosing SRA."

I have made the above change because I believe the original version was more NPOV and more accurate to the sources.

2)I have added the Specific Cases section back to the page as it originally was. There was no consensus for its entire deletion. Several editors did not agree to this or want it. If it is to be deleted because of a not agreed upon definition of SRA as a "conspiracy theory" then I will fight its deletion. It if is to be edited down some because some think that the SRA page is too long with a link to a full page as the section exists now, then I would be open to compromise on this.

3)I have changed the phrase in the MR section to "though the book is now considered by some to be untrue." IMO, it is OR to assert otherwise. I am willing to discuss this also.

Remember that with edits 1) and 2) I am only restoring the page to what it was, before it was changed w/o consensus. Abuse truth (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

1) Your version is unjustified. WLU's seems closer to matching the sources.

2) The Specific Cases were split off to a subpage, not deleted. Pay attention.

3) That one seems appropriate, although "by most credible researchers" is probably more accurate. I'll put that one back. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Further, the cases placed undue weight on allegations that were not corroborated, and in many of those cases the 'satanic' element were the minority of the accusations, making it suspect whether there was any significant involvement such that it's justified in calling them cases of SRA.

Your addition of social workers, therapists, etc. also placed undue weight on a minority of opinions, and further, not all members of those groups believe in SRA. If it were to be universal and this could be demonstrated, that might be a worthwhile revision, but there is doubt in all of those groups. Portraying entire professions as believing that SRA is unambiguously real is original research and a violation of WP:NPOV. That statement was justified by two references - a privately published paper by Noblitt, meaning he could not pass a peer-review board and neither was it published in a set of conference proceedings after the fact, meaning he does not have the support of his peers in his conclusions. This places an incredible amount of undue weight on a very suspect source that is borderline unreliable, particularly for a statement about several groups of occupations, representing an enormous group of people. The second source is a paper published by a single state's government, which is now a dead link and wayback doesn't seem to have a copy. Anyone save a copy? Wayback does seem to have some documents, here's some pages [2] (one case of satanic RA, couched as 'cloaking crimes in ritual), The majority of those interviewed indicated that they believe that ritual crime is possible and probably is occurring. This same group of leaders could not produce any clear evidence to support their beliefs, and state that they just, "feel that it's possible." (speaks for itself), there are many isolated instances of ritual abuse of children perpetrated either by individuals or small groups, and sometimes those people have used at least the trappings of Satanism or other religious or "magic" orders in the course of the abuse. What hasn't been corroborated is the multitude of reports of abuse "survivors" claiming to have been party to human sacrifices, sexual abuse of young children, torture, and other atrocities committed by well-organized groups which pervade every level of government, every social status and every state in the country. The lack of prosecution of such reports does not mean the the reports are fictitious. (note that this document is over 12 years old). A second report is unarchived, but here's a wonderful 'rebuttal' from Jerry McMullin, that reeks of conspiracy mongering - 'No!!! They didn't find it because they are too powerful/part of it/they didn't look right/pick your apologetics'. Whatever. The key conclusions were a) one couple abused their children ritualisticall and b) a non-satanic organization, possibly with Christian roots with a name like Zion, molested kids. [3]. This is all very thin for a statement like 'social workers, cops, therapists and the general public believe in SRA'. Very thin.

As for MR, are there any sources that consider it factual? Consider that MR itself is not a source, certainly not a reliable one, and is full of extreme claims. WLU (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish to support the majority view that the material which was recently restored should not be included in this article, but kept in the other article, as wikipedia guidelines and policies indicate that material should not be redundantly included in multiple articles. If the content exists in a separate article, then there is no reason whatsoever for it to be included here as well. John Carter (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My replies to the above comments:

In reply to Arthur Rubin:

1) I have morphed all three versions of ours, AR's, WLU's and mine (AT's) to get this

"though the book is now generally considered by some to be untrue"

If we say more than some, it is OR. There has been no poll taken on how many people believe this. We do know some have, so using some is the most accurate phrase we can use. No source I have seen has disproven the entire book. Therefore, it would be OR to say "completely."

2) I am paying attention. There was no consensus developed to split off an entire section to a different page. I am open to a compromise on this issue. A smaller section due to the length of the SRA page with a link to the new cases page would be okay with me.

3) Using the phrase "by most credible researchers" is OR. I have morphed the original phrase with WLUs to get this:

"The existence of SRA remains unclear and is believed by social workers, therapists, members of law enforcement, government and the general public, with varying degrees of proof, corroboration and testimony by individuals disclosing SRA."

In reply to WLU:

The convictions in some of the listed cases should be sufficient corroboration of the charges. I would disagree with this statement about Noblitt's paper "meaning he could not pass a peer-review board and neither was it published in a set of conference proceedings after the fact, meaning he does not have the support of his peers in his conclusions." This is only conjecture, we don't know the real reason why it is not published yet.

I have a copy of the Utah study. It describes ritual groups as psuedo-satanists, generational cults and "fringe" forms of satanism. The task force submitted "points of evidence from local and national sources." This included the "successful prosecution of cases of child abuse which contain indisputable elements of ritual abuse." "Independent identification, by victims unknown to each other, of the same perpetrators." and "Independent detailed reports, in many different states and foreign countries, of identical acts of ritual abuse." Noblitt's paper cited "Chronology of Ritual Abuse Convictions - Data Accumulated and Reported by Newton (1997)" "Michael Newton (cited in Noblitt, 1998a) accumulated data on criminal convictions in the U.S. where allegations of ritual abuse of children were made. He found cases of 145 defendants who were sentenced."

Whether there is a source that considers MR as factual is not important. IMO, it is OR to state more than the sources can back. As editors, we aren't allowed to draw conclusions based on a data base or the lack of one.

In reply to John Carter: From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Content_fork "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another." If both articles have related topics, their content may overlap. Abuse truth (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Reply to AT. 1) If you are talking about Michelle Remembers, WP:REDFLAG. Polls do not determine moves, consensus and policy do. 2) There is policy to support the spin out of the individual cases (undue weight is placed on the evidence by having a long list of mostly unverified claims in which the satanic aspects of the abuse are suspect; placing the articles in the page supports a synthesis that SRA is a real, world-wide problem; lists are ubiquitous feature of wikipedia; have I missed any?), to date I have seen no policy reason to keep it here. If one side of the disagreeing parties have no policy-based reasons to keep the page, then it's merely subjective preference and therefore their opinion on the matter has no real weight. Feel free to take this to WP:DR or a WP:RFC if you'd like, which will almost certainly come down on the side of moving out the list of cases. 3) As replied above, not all of those bodies uniformly believe that SRA exists, and this sentence is justified by extremely tenuous sources. 4) Convictions for what? Satanic ritual abuse? Or child sexual abuse? We acknowledge that child abuse with elements of satanic rituals have occurred. That is why there is a full, separate article on them. There's no need to repeat. 5) Nobblitt's paper is privately published, see WP:SPS. If what he says is widely accepted, it should be easy to find other, more reliable sources. If he's a lone voice in the wilderness, he shouldn't be cited here at all in a self-published paper. WP:UNDUE - If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. If it gets published in a reliable source, then we source that. Until then, it is not a good choice. 6) I wouldn't mind a copy of the Utah report to read through it more carefully and possibly mine it for sources, could you mail it to me? 7) What is the actual citation for Newton, 1997? We have neither Newton nor Noblitt 1998a. If Noblitt cites Newton, we should cite Newton, not Noblitt. Google scholar turns up nothing, google itself turns up I believe the privately published Noblitt paper again, which lacks a full citation. A lot of people cite Noblitt citing Newton, but none I have found cite Newton himself. The only evidence I can find is the privately published conference presentation we already have on the page, which I do not find to be a reliable source, which does not not provide a citation for Newton. In fact, looking over the Noblitt manuscript, the Noblitt 199a that Noblitt himself is citing is privately published. Newton's data is useless to source anything, based on the third hand citation we have, that is impossible to track down, funnelled through no less than two self-published sources. This should be removed, if you disagree, take it to WP:RSN and see what they think.

The comments by multiple editors point to your ongoing reverts being firmly against WP:CONSENSUS. Please do not revert again without having convinced the other editors of an acceptable compromise. WLU (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have made several edits to the page.

I have made the same minor edits to MR that I made before. They were reverted by AR stating "No reasons given for change." The reasons were on the talk page above. I will repeat them here.

I have morphed all three versions of ours, AR's, WLU's and mine (AT's) to get this

"though the book is now generally considered by some to be untrue"

If we say more than some, it is OR. There has been no poll taken on how many people believe this. We do know some have, so using some is the most accurate phrase we can use. No source I have seen has disproven the entire book. Therefore, it would be OR to say "completely."

Using the phrase "by most credible researchers" is OR. I have morphed the original phrase with WLUs to get this:

"The existence of SRA remains unclear and is believed by social workers, therapists, members of law enforcement, government and the general public, with varying degrees of proof, corroboration and testimony by individuals disclosing SRA."

I believe these should be acceptable edits, since they have combined the opinions of several editors.

About the MR section, the way I read "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" WP:REDFLAG is that if a source wants to make an exceptional claim, then an exceptional source is needed to back this. I don't read this as allowing editors to drop the bar to bring in weaker sources. "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included." I do not believe that this guideline applies in this case.

Noblitt's paper is IMO RS. This was only discussed briefly above, with no consensus, yet the paper was removed as a source. Below find evidence of why I believe it is a RS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

Noblitt, J.R. (1995). Psychometric measures of trauma among psychiatric patients reporting ritual abuse. Psychological Reports, 77(3), 743-747.

Noblitt,, J.R. & Perskin, P. (2000). Cult and ritual Abuse: Its history, anthropology, and recent discovery in contemporary America; Revised edition. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Reviews of the book above by the APA and AJP:

http://www.psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/52/7/978 which is copywritten by the APA. "Psychiatr Serv 52:978-979, July 2001 © 2001 American Psychiatric Association" It concludes: "The authors explore the similarities between the experiences of Noblitt's patients and experiences reported in other cultures around the world. They carefully distinguish between satanic cults and contemporary neopagan and Wicca practices. Also discussed are the challenges presented by the media and skeptical practitioners. Although the writing is uneven at times, anyone who is interested in the topic of cult and ritual abuse will find this book worth the time to read." The author of the article is well-published and reputable. "Dr. Fletcher is assistant professor of psychiatry and director of the behavior sciences research core in the Graduate School of Nursing at the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester."

The review in the "American Journal of Psychotherapy" (Summer 1996; 50(3) p383) stated:

Whether or not one believes in MPD and/or Ritual Abuse, this book provides one with what is probably the most comprehensive and reasonable review of the subject that has appeared up to now. The primary author, James Noblitt, provides us with a personal historical review of his experience with MPD. Starting out as an "unbeliever", he provides case histories of patients that led him to believe in the reality of the syndrome and to develop expertise in its therapy. This in itself would make the book of value. However, even more significant is the manner in which he introduces us to the problem of ritual abuse. Describing himself as a "secular psychologist," and specifically repudiating any belief in Satanism, he describes case after case of sexual abuse of a ritual nature - ritual in the sense that it is surrounded with cultic practices. He documents the similarity of such practices from widely seperated parts of the country; and even on an international basis. because he writes from a non-fundamentalist and non-religious point of view and because he sees riutal abuse in a wider context than Satanism as such, he provides the reader with both important information and a perspectie that is clinically helpful ... They also discuss their negative experience with police agencies and the FBI, pointing out that contrary to generally accepted opinion, the FBI has never published a study stating that there is no evidence of organised cult or ritual activity associated with sexual abuse in the United States ... Of the many books on this sunbject that I have read, this is perhaps the most helpful and is highly recommended to those who deal with these problems whether or not they believe in ritual abuse."

Also, Noblitt is a professor and even the Director of the Psychology program at Alliant International University -- not a position easily attained.

I have restored the two references to the paper for now pending discussion. These were deleted w/o consensus.

I have also restored a much shortened version of "specific cases" section. (which was deleted in its entirety w/o consensus). I hope to make this a bit larger, but I do believe that it should be mentioned in at least two paragraphs on this page, with a pointer to the other page. I would be happy to e-mail the Utah report to you. Please send me your e-mail address. Abuse truth (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Noblitt's status as an RS is in dispute, and should remain out of the article until consensus is obtained.

I've tried yet another comprimise for Michelle Remembers.

The specific cases were split off, not removed, and probably should remain split off.

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Noblitt's book may be a reliable source (though should be used carefully given the concerns about it raised in the linked pages below) but discussing it here is a red herring since it is not being disputed. His self-published conference paper is, in my opinion, not a RS, particularly for the information it attempts to justify. If he can't get the paper published in a peer-reviewed source that means he is the only one in mainstream academia that supports his conclusions. Take it up on one of the noticeboards if you'd like, engage the larger community and see what the response is. And for the love of fucking God, the list of cases was not deleted against consensus. We do not need complete agreement to make edits, particularly when the 'opposing' parties have no real points to make beyond 'I want it'. Right now the only reason I can see you giving for the return of any form of the list of allegations is 'there was not consensus'. Well, it was opposed by you and from my reading, no other dedicated contributors. Your reasoning here seemed to be 'but it does exist'. We're not disputing this, we're discussing if it's appropriate to have a list in the main article. We're not trying to delete the information, just place it on a different page so it doesn't look like a WP:SYNTH to prove that SRA is real and a big problem. The old use of the cases placed undue weight on the individual cases, representing a tiny minority of all crimes, making press because they are salacious, in addition to being in some cases tenuously related to actual satan worship. If you have further issue with this, take it up at DR or any of the other various ways of getting an independent opinion. Or cite a policy or even a guideline to support a reason for including the very long list of cases on this page. And please stop repeating 'deleted without consensus' because a) there was considerable agreement bar perhaps you and biot and b) it wasn't deleted. You have not expressed a reason I can recall beyond 'I want it' for keeping the list in. 'I want it' is not a policy, guideline or even an essay. Seriously, how many times must it be repeated and how many times must you be reverted before you realize it? See WP:DE, disruptive editing can get you blocked. WLU (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

←I have a quick suggestion. I've not had time to do much editing lately, so I can't help with this directly, but perhaps this idea will be of use. I suggest keeping the specific court case info in the separate list article, however, to give it at least some weight in this article rather than have it simply listed in the See Also section.

That could be done by adding additional info to Satanic ritual abuse #SRA in the courts, with a paragraph summarizing an overview of the number and kinds of cases that have occurred, and in what territories. Then at the top of that section, there could be a {{Main}} link to list of satanic ritual abuse allegations to give sufficient attention to the split-off list. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not averse to having the list linked as an in-line wikilink, that would give it more prominence. I think any analysis and summary with numbers should be done with extreme care (more accurately, I don't think it should be done at all). The list contains many allegations, fewer charges, and in many of the cases the 'satanic' aspect of what is more often simply abuse, is often tenuous, minor, unconfirmed, and doesn't impact the sentencing. I'll make a change in a sec per your suggestion. WLU (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the latest version of the MR quote and believe it is a good compromise. I do not however believe that many of the sources that back it should be in there. Noblitt's paper is far more RS than most of the sources for MR #4 - 8 on the page. I have tried to explain this several times and bia actually showed this previously on this page, but possibly due to the heat of the discussion, other editors appear to have missed this.

This statement I made below was also apparently ignored:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

By the above, Noblitt is definitely RS. I will list only a few of his contribution to the literature. Psychometric Measures of Trauma Among Psychiatric Patients Reporting Ritual Abuse (1995). Psychological Reports, 77, 743-747. Cult and Ritual Abuse: Its History, Anthropology, and Recent Discovery in Contemporary America, Revised Edition. (2000) with Pamela Sue Perskin. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishing. Psychopharmacology Update column for the Dallas Psychological Association monthly newsletter. (2005 - 2006) A monthly column informing the community of professional psychologists of various aspects of psychopharmacological interventions as well as updates regarding legislation to advance opportunities for prescriptive authority for psychologists. Appreciating diversity in academic settings (Spring, 2006) with James Noblitt. Texas Psychologist.

It is stated above that we do not need complete agreement to make edits on the page, but when I make an edit I am accused of going against consensus (which actually never existed, since consensus means we all work out an agreement). IMO, the right way to have dealt with the deletion of the section would have been to bring it up on the talk page and then hammer out an agreement, even if it took a while. And actually I did state why I wanted the section on the page. It is because the cases, some with convictions, are cases of SRA or at least have elements of SRA in them. I will wait awhile before re-adding Noblitt's paper back in as a reference. I like Jack-A-Roe's idea: That could be done by adding additional info to Satanic ritual abuse #SRA in the courts, with a paragraph summarizing an overview of the number and kinds of cases that have occurred, and in what territories. Then at the top of that section, there could be a {{Main}} link to list of satanic ritual abuse allegations to give sufficient attention to the split-off list. I also see the WLU agrees with only part of this. In the spirit of compromise I will add a bit more and hopefully all editors will at least agree to the spirit of this. Abuse truth (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The section wasn't deleted. It was moved to a subpage. I would have to see what happens to see how it could be improved. Jack-A-Roe generally has good ideas, but you misinterpret everything said, even from those who generally agree with you.

I don't think Noblitt, himself, qualifies as a expert. There are too many people, even among the "believe the children" grouping, who think he doesn't adequately research his statements. Still, it's possible.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Archived

I've archived the talk page; even with archiving, it's still 48K long, which is pretty lengthy. If there are issues I archived, please post a summary with a link to the archived discussion of points rather than replacing either the entire archive, or the whole section. And please keep posts short (I am referring specifically to Ellen Lacter - long posts are extremely aggravating, particularly when they repeat information already on the page).

Two reminders:

1. Wikipedia is a work in progress. The page has a lot of editors, so a massive re-write is not a good idea. Adding sources and text one-by-one makes for digestible chunks.
2. Please remain civil. I'm talking about YOU, skeptics, including ME. The page is aggravating to edit and discuss about, let's all take a deep breath. Including me. My wikistress is up because of this page and I know it is affecting my talk page comments on both this and other pages. WLU (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Kitzinger

Regards reference 46, Framing abuse by Kitzinger, I got the book out of the library yesterday. In the index, and on a brief flip through there is no mention of satan, satanic abuse, ritual abuse, the United States, religion, religious leaders, the satanic panic, courts, judicial systems, guilt, or anything else that really supports the sentence "In America and Britain journalists framed the charges against the defendants as evidence of a moral panic and mass hysteria; child protection workers and social workers involved were bound by their professional codes of confidentiality and unable to comment on the specifics of the cases" There is focus on two cases - Cleveland and Orkney, both in the UK. Based on my reading, the main focus of the book is on how the media's portrayal of the cases affected the public's perception of the event years later - not on guilt or innocence (though there is discussion on how the media left out and selectively reported details that were more convincing of the guilt of the parents. If anyone on this talk page has read the book or is responsible for placing the text on the page, could you refer me to the page number (and chapter in case we have different versions) so I can verify? Right now I'm tempted to excise the statement for having a) nothing to do with the U.S. b) nothing to do with the outcome of court cases and c) nothing to do with satanic ritual abuse. If nothing else, it would allow the most nuanced, hopefully most neutral, portrayal of the book's contents. Kitzinger appears to be very carefully saying nothing about the suspects' guilt or innocence, but I admit it is a cursory flip-through. Got some other scholarly books from the same section in the library, some of which discuss SRA specifically, hopefully I'll find time to read them. WLU (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• If it doesn't specifically mention satanic ritual abuse or some other very similar phrase, then its current inclusion in the article is original research and clearly should be removed. Thanks for taking the time to check the source. *** Crotalus *** 23:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't mind it's pretty interesting. I've read the prologue and skipped the methodology - SRA is mentioned, twice, in passing. Basically "S/RA was part of the times (reference, date; reference, date). No analysis. But interesting book and pretty quick to read so if it does come up I will attempt to modify or represent the source (or leave it as is if it is already fairly represented). There is an extensive discussion of Orkney, but no discussion of SRA to date. WLU (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

To address WLU's concerns: (a) The scope of Wikipedia is broader then America. There have been a number of high-profile "SRA" cases in Britain, and her book talks extensively about these controversies. (b) The topic of SRA is broader then the question of "guilt", "innocence", or specific court cases. It's strange to read you arguing that the public's response to SRA is irrelevant to this article, given your preference for "moral panic" theory in relation to SRA. (b) As WLU states, the book refers specifically to controversies over organised and ritual abuse, including SRA. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

But does it explicitly use the phrase "satanic ritual abuse" or some close derivative thereof? If the answer is no, then we can't use it. Doing so would be original research. We can't infer what an author might have meant. Moreover, I still have concerns about the fact that this book was published by a fringe publisher and written by someone who is not a sociologist or criminologist. *** Crotalus *** 11:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Utah report

Reading through the Utah report from the archives and the RT analysis, I'm unconvinced on the report for a couple reasons. One, it's no longer available. Two, the overall statement was that proof was found. Their proof appears to be the testimony of three individuals, who were indeed abused when extremely young, with memories of robed figures, candles, altars and sacrifices, in addition to the physical and sexual abuse.[4] Three cases recalling information from a very young age. RT says there was basically no evidence, despite convincing testimony. People believed in SRA, but on no factual basis as there was no evidence found. Out of 225 cases investigated over two years, only 1 had merit (that's roughly 0.44%). The Zion abuse was ritual, but unrelated to satanism. Reports of victims appear to be based on recovered memories, which the APA refuses to commit to either way [5]. Allegations based on recovered memories are in my opinion, absolute bullshit and should not be considered evidence. Evidence is forensic, not memories that can only be accessed via hypnosis and never verified. Using one controversy as evidence of another is ridiculous. WLU (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Noblitt's book

Skeptic's dictionary popped up these links regarding Noblitt's book Cult & Ritual Abuse: Its History, Anthropology, and Recent Discovery in Contemporary America [6] and [7]. Haven't read yet, but they feed the fire. WLU (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should consider that in this and related topics, many of the sources have activist or personal agendas other than pure science. That applies to sources on both sides of the debate. While Noblitt may be involved with an advocacy organization, so are those members of the advisory board of the FSMF that are quoted here and there in this article and others regarding abuse memory issues. Since there are questions about reliability of sources, but on the other hand, some of the questionable sources have been published by third parties, it seems we need to include the sources, but if there is criticism of them, we can include that also, if it's WP:V itself. That way, the reader can see the whole conflict and make their own determinations of who to believe or not.

Personally, I know not much about SRA, but other areas of the abuse-memory science debates I have read a lot about, and in those areas I've seen these same conflicts going on and on, in the actual scientific literature, with arguing between respected researchers over years. It's unlikely that we'll figure this out on our own, so to find a bona-fide NPOV approach, I suggest we present all the sides, including reliably published criticisms of each side by the other when that is needed. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Advocacy matters less than the reviewer - Noblitt's paper is irrelevant as self-published. The links above point to caution with using the book and some extra sources. I agree with everything you say, actual reliable sources for both sides should be sourced. WLU (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The glowing review of Noblitt and Perskin's book from the Journal of Child Sexual Abuse was reproduced here last year. I'm concerned that you think that the "Masonic Info" review is worth a dime. The entire piece is ad hominem, scurrilous and consistently misrepresents the views of the authors. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Checking whether an author accurately represents his professional qualifications is not an ad hominem. It appears the book was relatively well-reviewed in Psychiatric Services ([8]) as well. I admit that I don't remember exactly what Noblitt and Perskin were being cited for. On the three points it's being cited on currently, it seems reasonable. <eleland/talkedits> 11:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Noblitt and Perskin are fringe conspiracy theorists. Didn't Noblitt revise an edition of Michelle Remembers, or didn't both relate her story as if it were real in Cult and Ritual Abuse? Caution is a must when handling these authors. —Cesar Tort 22:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Caution is, it seems, a must when looking at what POV some people try to keep out of this SRA article, with biased statements like this, who at the same time pretend to be neutral judges on the block of someone who tries, very hard and very civilly, to contribute to this page - something I stopped a long time ago, for some editors seemed to feel they 'own' this page, and that being 'sceptic' means every fringe sectarian and self-published website is credible as long as it is negative concerning *this* topic. The amount of arguments and sources and links user "Abuse truth" brings are in direct relation to what some editors demand - it takes ten scientists for a pro, while one wiccan will suffice for a "contra" argument. And of course some will neither accept the ten scientists not the dozens of professionals who, out of experience with the topic, accept it as a rare and dubitable fact, but a fact nonetheless. While I welcome the civil way, WLU handles his part, please welcome the civil way and effort that those two editors bring into this topic who are sceptic of some 'sceptics' and less sceptic on the extistence of the topic the article is about. The block of a user should not be based on the bias of editors (admin or not) who prefer not to have that users contributions because they conflict with their own world-view (or POV). Just my 2 € cents. --Gwyndon (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read the archived talk pages. It has been discussed that if, as per WP policy ("extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources") this article were restricted to peer-reviewed journals and academic publications, it would be far more skeptical than its present incarnation.

I guess the "scientists" you mention are psychotherapists? Some mental health professionals are notorious for believing stuff like the sexual abuse during UFO abductions that their clients tell them. That's why, following policy, we must restrict the article to sources by sociologists and criminologists. As to psychiatry itself, I still have to see an American Psychiatry Association report endorsing the reality of SRA.

By the way, WLU is on wikibreak.

—Cesar Tort 05:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Cesar, it is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy to excise all psychological and psychiatric literature on a topic, particularly on such facetious grounds as "some mental health professionals believe in UFOs".

I'm appalled that Abuse Truth has been banned whilst you continue your blatant NPOV edits without censor or comment from our fellow "objective" editors. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 05:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• "blatant NPOV edits"

Of course: my edits are NPOV. Is this a compliment or do you want me to behave like our POV-pusher friend? :)

—Cesar Tort 05:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Carl Sagan

Carl Sagan discussed the SRA panic in The Demon-Haunted World.

“

The more I look into claims of alien abduction, the more similar they seem to reports of recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse. And theres a third class of related claims, repressed memories of satanic ritual cults - in which sexual torture, coprophilia, infanticide and cannibalism are said to be prominently featured. In a survey of 2,700 members of the American Psychological Association, 12 per cent replied that they had treated cases of satanic ritual abuse (while 30 per cent reported cases of abuse done in the name of religion). Something like 10,000 cases are reported annually in the United States in recent years. A significant number of those touting the peril of rampant satanism in America, including law enforcement officers who organize seminars on the subject, turn out to be Christian fundamentalists; their sects explicitly require a literal devil to be meddling in everyday human life. The connection is neatly drawn in the saying "No Satan, no God." Apparently, there is a pervasive police gullibility problem on this matter.

”

Sagan then goes on to discuss Lanning's report (Investigators Guide to Allegations of Ritual Child Abuse) at length. He calls it "a highly skeptical FBI report on the general subject of satanic abuse." So it isn't just OCRT that believes that this is indeed an FBI report. If there is evidence to the contrary, I would be interested to see it.

I'm not generally in favor of citing Sagan on this article, since his specialty was not criminology or sociology. But Biaothanatoi and the other believers can't have it both ways. Either we stick to peer-reviewed academic sources in relevant disciplines, or we don't. And if we don't, then Sagan is certainly a lot more prominent than most of the people being cited here now. *** Crotalus *** 11:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, insofar as SRA was a cultural phenomenon (or rather, for the sake of scrupulous fairness, SRA gave rise to a cultural phenomenon, whether or not there was anything to the core claims), and Sagan was a significant voice on the interaction between science, culture, and pseudoscience/paranormal beliefs, he's a valid source. As I have been saying for a while now, I think it's important to segregate discussion of the core claim that ritualized child abuse is or was a serious problem in modern Western societies, and discussion of the cultural or social implications of the SRA scare. <eleland/talkedits> 11:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never advocated for an article that does not address the concerns of skeptics and people who don't take SRA seriously. In fact, I've posted more links to serious 'skeptical' sources then any other editor before or since. These comments are just another example of Crotalus' inability to AGF in relation to editors that he doesn't agree with.

Post Sagan if you think he adds anything to the article, although I can't seee how. We already discuss the study that he quotes at length. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 05:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Biao, have you considered the apparent contradiction in repeatedly, vehemently insisting that everyone else is incapable of assuming bad faith? Doesn't that seem to you like an assumption of bad faith in itself? <eleland/talkedits> 05:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Summing up SRA

I want to sum this up. Satanic Ritual Abuse is a controversial topic because the testimonies of its victims are hard to believe. However, the sceptics here deny all cases of SRA, which to me is much more based on a belief than those who do acknowledge its existence. No one of the latter group says that all cases of SRA are true, but each case should be investigated without any set precedent.

When I read the definition of SRA, I also have to think of Christian Ritual Abuse or Islamic Ritual Abuse, something that cannot be denied and still goes on. So why should it suddenly be so farfetched when Christianity or the Islam is being replaced by Satanism? The following testimony to the FBI shows one case of SRA: http://www.hammondstar.com/articles/2007/12/03/top_stories/9453.txt

Another issue that keeps coming up is the ad hominem argument when statements of pedophiles or their supporters are used as sources in the denial of SRA. This is not a good argument because criminals do have an agenda to defend and punishment to avoid. If the statements of these groups are ignored, 99% of the sources against SRA here fall out.

The bogus freelance journalist John Earl has been presented by the sceptics as a strong card but the only work he ever published is in the pro-pedophile IPT Journal and his cooperation with the Eberles (known as the child pornographers).

About the Lanning Report, investigator Alex Constantine wrote:

Another "expert," a universally quoted debunker of ritual abuse, hails from the FBI. Agent Ken Lanning of Quantico has provided RA debunkers, namely pedophiles, propagandists and mind control operatives in academia and the press, with an illusory pillar of debate. Fatal flaws in Lanning's "research report," a denial that the cult abuse of children exists, were exposed as a hoax by a law enforcement insider: I have spoken to Ken Lanning, I know others who have spoken to him and we all take issue with Ken's *opinion* and how this report is being used. It should also be stated that I work within the System in some capacity and have some experience in investigations. I've also been involved on the metaphysical path for a long time. I'm not too excited about "witch hunts" because I'd be the first one put on the stake by a "hysterical," know nothing public. But neither am I too pleased by what I have been learning about the atrocities that are occurring, the reasons for it, and the artful skewing of perceptions.... Ken Lanning is an armchair analyst and he has *not* personally investigated many cases of RA. Law enforcement and others sometimes *consult* with him about cases and how to proceed. He is not aware of all RA cases. The FBI, Childrens Services, and law enforcement do not keep statistics on ritual crime. No one is keeping track, therefore no one can say with authority how prevalent RA is. The DAs are not bringing evidence of RA into cases unless they really have to because of Freedom of Religion issues and reports like Lanning's. He has a confusing, difficult time defining RA. He has told others that he prefers to categorize RA under Sex Rings or Gang Violence. Someone like him cannot deal with or understand metaphysical intent. Few people can. Nor can he officially acknowledge RA because of various Governmental entities which have been implicated. The FBI and has been implicated in at least *botching* some RA case investigations and in some instances *covering up* the evidence. The CIA has been implicated in far worse fashion.... There are many cases of ritual murder and brainwashing. Lanning professes not to know of any. There is more to this issue than is apparent on the surface. I have understood some of what is going on due to my personal contact with victims, my personal experience with how cover ups occur, and the sheer time I have put in investigating this phenomenon. There are mechanisms being put in place to make the RA claims "incredible." Of course, not everything anyone says is true, but there are too many people around the world who are victims of this horror and if there are any responsible people here, it would behoove you to pay attention. Immortale (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You've not said anything here to detract from Lanning's reliability as a source. You haven't even said who Constantine is or where this quote came from. In this article we have to stick to high quality mainly academic sources. If there are any sources used here that you do not think are reliable, please say so and why. thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Alex Constantine is the esteemed author of Virtual Government: CIA Mind Control Operations in America, Psychic Dictatorship in the U.S.A., and The Covert War Against Rock : What You Don't Know About the Deaths of Jim Morrison, Tupac Shakur, Michael Hutchence, Brian Jones, Jimi Hendrix, Phil Ochs, Bob Marley, Peter Tosh, John Lennon, and The Notorious B.I.G. His blog makes for hours of entertainment: you can learn about "THE WARREN BUFFETT 9/11 CONNECTIONS" and "the CIA-Mafia-Internet-Omaha-MB Nexus." <eleland/talkedits> 05:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeap! Alex Constantine seems to be a conspiracy buff. In Google book search I found this abstract of Virtual Government: CIA Mind Control Operations in America: "a compelling book for readers interested in conspiracy theory", and the book has a chapter: "How the ClA uses cults to lay the groundwork for trauma-based programming, such as in the shocking McMartin preschool case".[9] Also, in book The Covert War Against Rock Constantine covers the cases of the above mentioned rock stars. "This long-overdue report offers disturbing evidence that there may be more behind these deaths than accident, psychosis, and indulgence."[10]

Not exactly a RS... :) Cesar Tort 07:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Itsmejudith wrote: In this article we have to stick to high quality mainly academic sources. That's your own private spin to it. Wikipedia wants a Neutral Point of View, which means that the article needs to be balanced. Having only academic sources would be just one side of the coin.

I've had my share with skeptics on various topics and one thing seem constant in their belief: they always claim that the majority of the scientists/ experts is right, even when strong opposing evidence is presented by an 'outsider'. Glad to see that you guys weren't around during Galileo Galilei's time.

If anyone would read more than random abstracts, you'll see that Alex Constantine is an excellent researcher and doesn't call himself a 'conspiracy theorist'. His books have received very positive reviews on amazon.com and the facts he lays out can be verified by independent sources. One review is by skeptic Jonathan Schaper on Constantine's book Psychic Dictatorship in the USA, who gave it 5 stars out of five and was agreed with by 65 people out of 70, and I'm quoting his comments here:

I do not agree with everything is this book. For example, while I do agree that False Memory Syndrome has been abused in order to cover up real crimes, false memories have also been used to convict innocent people. I have a degree in psychology and the main reason I decided not to go into the profession is because of my disgust with much of it, including its many manufactured "diseases". However, there is still much that is valid with the profession and I have witnessed people being given indisputably false memories under experimental conditions. But this, of course, does not mean every memory is false (in fact, this supports his overall thesis). One has to be careful in criticizing anything with too broad a brush stroke.

That being said, this is a very thoroughly researched book on the history of mind control experiments, especially in the U.S., with references to, e.g., articles written by Nobel Prize recipients. This book blows the lid off of violations of human rights committed by the U.S. government and others, adding to the damage done by the CIA's already damning public admissions about their MK-Ultra program (and only about 5% of the MK-Ultra files avoided destruction in an attempted coverup before it was discovered by the public!). Even if you reject half of the data and conclusions in this book, what is left is not only extremely informative but terrifying.

It is clear from Alex Constantine's writing that he is not a sensationalist, but is genuinely outraged at the injustices committed by the government and wishes to expose them. While this quest may, in my opinion, at times blind him when he is assessing his data, much of it is indisputable and I consider him to be a courageous advocate for the freedom and dignity of human beings and not a charlatan or a phony like many other authors.

Alex Constantine has indeed managed to change the opinion of hardcore skeptics in SRA. Point out false facts in his work, instead of using the ad hominem argument. And here's an article to start with: http://aconstantineblacklist.blogspot.com/2008/02/mcmartin-preschool-revisited-part-one.html

Immortale (talk) 08:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Immortale, you seem to have a mistaken idea about how Wikipedia works. We go by reliable sources, not our own original research. And Constantine's books are not reliable sources because they are published by a fringe press devoted to conspiracy theories (Feral House). Our policy on verifiability specifically says that "the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." Fringe publishers are considered questionable sources: "publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves." Self-published sources, like the blog post linked to above, are also deprecated except in a few very narrow areas. The use of Wikipedia for the purpose of pushing fringe theories is strongly discouraged. Furthermore, arguing your opinion about the merits of Constantine's ideas is beside the point completely; if they haven't been accepted in the mainstream, then they will not be the basis of this article. Period. *** Crotalus *** 09:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's reliable sources is a guideline, not a policy. That people who represent one side of the article (the skeptical ones) are pushing their own view as a policy for the WHOLE article is against Wikipedia's rules. A neutral article is one with all important sides present. But reading the verifiability where it says: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, is quite a statement. This means that it's okay to publish lies, as long as it is mentioned in the 'mainstream papers' and 'respected publishing houses'. If Wikipedia sticks to this, then it will bury itself eventually.

And with 'respected publishing houses', I assume you mean 'wealthy publishing houses' because Feral Press is respected, and is not entirely devoted to conspiracy theories as you misleadingly mentioned. (from their Wikipedia page: 'Subjects of Feral House books cover a wide area').

If reliable sources would be such a strict requirement in this article, then it needs a good re-write. Anything that is tied to the FMS is pseudoscience. One article in a peer-reviewed journal that levels the research done by Loftus can be found here:

http://users.owt.com/crook/memory/

One problem with finding satanic ritual abuse is the fact that lawyers prefer keeping Satan out of the crime (Satan doesn't exist after all) and stick to the details of these horrific crimes. No lawyer wants to bring up the jinxed label of SRA because it would instantly make him or her unreliable. When crimes of ritualistic abuse are examined for satanic elements, much evidence surfaces. Two impressive lists can be found here (there’s much more to be found there):

http://members.aol.com/SMARTNEWS/Sample-Issue-43.htm

http://members.aol.com/smartnews/Sample-Issue-50.htm

And a recent article of the Notorious Beast of Jersey, the predatory pedophile Edward Paisnel, who assaulted children at Jersey during the 1960s and 1970s, did use satanic methods. There even was forensic evidence. And it will be interesting what the current findings at the Jersey children's home will reveal. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/feb/26/childprotection.ukcrime

There are victims of these horrific crimes who have to read at Wikipedia that a bunch of academics have decided it's all based on fantasy. And when people like Alex Constantine put a tremendous effort in researching these atrocities, exposing this grave injustice, some people still look the other way. Colin Ross regards himself a conspiracy theorist but is not being judged as such here. Alex Constantine never calls himself a conspiracy theorist.

http://www.totse.com/en/politics/central_intelligence_agency/ciamindr.html

Regarding the global satanic conspiracy (which I don’t believe), why assuming there’s a global conspiracy of therapists, clinicians and social workers, that implant false memories in patients?

Cesar Tort claims that there are no criminologists supporting the SRA claim. But there are, for example at http://critcrim.org (The American Society of Criminology (ASC) Division on Critical Criminology and the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS) Section on Critical Criminology)

I am skeptical of all crime counting, but it makes theoretical sense to me (in that power corrupts) that persons of wealth and high power or socio-political standing--including those wearing robes and badges--are as likely to rape and at extremes serially murder their children as are poor folks in our hills and hollers and ghettoes. I believe adults rape, murder and otherwise violate children more than children violate anyone. But "empirical evidence" is what counts in my social science and legal communities, and you cannot experience what you will not hear. We are limited by the written data sets and analyses we apply. Jeanette and other survivors are more likely to be hospitalized, re-shocked, medicated and terrified into silence than listened to. Certainly we will read more about them than we learn from them in their own terms and words. I recently had a respected and rather radical colleague tell me that she guessed that we just disagreed on whether this satanic ritual stuff happens any more than among social outcasts on extreme occasion. She has met someone who reports having been falsely accused, but has not, I do not think, listened to a self-proclaimed victim's own testimony. She has on the other hand spent ample time listening to prisoners, and would readily accept that prisoners are more violated than violent. Validating testimony from children and of critical memories of childhood is the ultimate challenge to our democratic values, to our empathy for others' grievances. (From: A CRIMINOLOGIST'S QUEST FOR PEACE by Hal Pepinsky, Chapter 5 TRANSCENDING LITERATYRANNY http://critcrim.org/critpapers/pepinsky-book5.htm )

Immortale (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You could just as easily have stopped after the first paragraph. Based on that statement, you fundamentally disagree with our policy on verifiability. You can try to have that policy changed if you wish, but it is one of our oldest and most important policies and your chances of modifying it are not good. The bottom line is that your goal here (to prove a specific set of beliefs about SRA and to promote Alex Constantine) is at cross-purposes with the goal of Wikipedia, which is to write a high-quality, free-content, neutral encyclopedia. You can adapt yourself to Wikipedia's goals, or you can contribute your content to another project where it is more appropriate. *** Crotalus *** 16:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I merely observe that Wikipedia's own policy states that it's allowed to publish lies as long as they are published in the mainstream press. If I agree with that or not, isn't the issue here as I'm mentioning in the rest of my post, sources of peer-reviewed, academic and respected journals, just like the skeptics want it, but apparently that isn't good enough because now - ad hominem - something is wrong with me. I don't promote Alex Constantine, but defend his work as being high quality research. If you catch a lie in his work, I'll be happy to hear it. Immortale (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, I looked through the subset of your references that are actually reliable by our standards. The "Lost in the Mall" paper critical of Loftus is certainly reliable, and interesting, but it does not prove anything. It shows that two researchers disagree with one of the most widely cited findings relating to false memories. So? The "memory wars" of the nineties were fierce, and these kinds of accusations went back and forth a lot. If this paper had really, in the view of most scientists, "levelled" Loftus's research, and showed it to be "pseudoscience" and "a breach of professional ethics," she would not have continued to be a widely respected academic, and her research would not have continued to be widely cited and influential. She would not have been elected to the NAS, showered with honorary doctorates, etc etc etc. Again, it's not our role to pore over a scientific controversy and decide, as amateur Wikipedians, where the truth lies. We only report what the scientists eventually decided.

The next article is about a lone, insane, vicious paedophile rapist, who happened to incorporate "satanic" and BDSM elements into his crimes. Again - so what? As has been repeatedly stated on this talk page, nobody doubts that occasional lone nuts, or even small groups of nuts, have abused children in "Satanic" fashion. The point is that they're not part of a conspiracy. They're not the tip of the iceberg, they're the larger part of it.

And the Pepinsky article is full of statements of personal conviction - but also full of self-conscious admissions that no evidence exists. He remarks repeatedly about how skeptical his colleagues are. Again - so what? So one criminologist personally believes that an unspecified number of people have been Satanically abused, and that "it makes theoretical sense," to him, that persons in wealth and power are just as likely to rape as other people, but he doesn't have any evidence, he acknowledges this, and none of his colleagues seem to agree with him. Worth mentioning, maybe, but It's not very weighty, and doesn't really effect how we should summarize the evidence overall. <eleland/talkedits> 16:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You talk about 'most scientists' as if it's one controlled organization in the world. There's no scientific consensus on False Memories. And then we have to give both sides equal space in the article. According my research, most scientists related to the field and psychologists, clinicians and therapists reject the False Memory Syndrome. Not that they reject false memories, but they reject the scientific basis on which false memories are presented in abused children. Loftus never severely traumatized children and then examined them years later. Thank god for that. FMSF denies the existence of repressed memory. The popularity in the mass media of FMS was at its height during the 1990s, but many turned away after its exposure of the fraud and propaganda methods of the FMSF. Jennifer Freyd, daughter of FMFS founder Pamela Freyd, has made public allegations of their true agenda. She also leveled Loftus research on False Memories, is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Oregon, and received just about as many awards and honors as Loftus. Lots of scientific, peer-reviewed, academic research debunking FMS has appeared over the last years. For example Jim Hopper, Ph.D. has published articles that exposed research faults by Loftus.

Again, there's no world-wide conspiracy of therapists, clinicians and psychologists implanting false memories in patients. Actually, most of the clients had already disturbing memories of abuse prior to the visit of these people. See this academic, peer-reviewed research: Doubts about False Memory SyndromeImmortale (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

For the love of God people, stop pissing around the pot. If you have a source that points to FMS being implicated in SRA, put it in. If you have a source that disputes FMS causing SRA allegations, put it in. If your sources on FMS never mention SRA, don't put it in as that's original research. And please shorten your posts. The talk page will never prove the existence of SRA so stop dumping thousands of words onto the page. We've talked in circles enough. WLU (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That's quite an 'argument' you found here. If all critique is being talked away like this, we soon can call Skepticism a pseudoscience. While I posted about 2300 words on this page, WLU managed to top that with approximately 3850 words (and I'm not counting the archived pages).Immortale (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent>The page is based on reliable sources, not arguments. The page attracts a large number of posters with no familiarity with wikipedia or its policies, and they try to pov-push with large volumes of pointless rhetoric, which we all have to read and waste our time on. Hence, if you don't have a source to discuss, don't post. If you have a source, add it to the page, and don't post. If it is contested, then discuss. But don't waste time with lengthy arguments and pointless, repetitious discussion. The page is past the point where basic issues need to be addressed, we all know the sources need to be reviewed, clarified, expanded, removed, added or otherwise worked with. I've been editing this page for about six monhts now, and wikipedia in general for nearly a year and a half. I base my discussions and contributions on policies and guidelines. Yet another user with minimal experience informing us of the truth leads me to remain unconvinced. And don't bother commenting on me, the talk page is for discussing improvements to Satanic ritual abuse, not criticizing other editors. If your comments are unrelated to Satanic ritual abuse, please do not post them. I'm sick of fruitless discussion.

For the record, that's not an argument, that's a prompt to do what we're supposed to do. Build an encyclopedia. wikipedia is not a forum for discussion, so just expand the page if you've got a relevant source. WLU (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Criminal Conviction

I thought case info was supposed be in the "list of cases" not on this main summary page- which is why I still feel zero need to source the accurate text I have added. I have read all those case pages a million times and I know that, for better or worse, some of those ended in state action. Yet this main summary page, where many users will get their only info on the subject. HAS NOTHING on the true fact (as everyone admits) that some of these cases ended with conviction et al (again no matter how relatively "satanic" each case was or was not). In fact the page uses language which, though technically correct and a reasonably good summary of the facts, attempts to connect the small sample of debunked "moral hysteria" cases with the larger groups of all satanically-connected child-abuse case, SOME OF WHICH ENDED IN CRIMINAL CONVICTION OR LOSS OF PARENTAL RIGHTS. Again look at my tiny edits- I am actually trying to make things more clear and making a necessary change for the continued legitimacy of the page. If you continue to allow it to become a POV haven I don't think anyone will take it seriously. Just one little phrase is all I ask. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.180.2 (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It would help your point if you try to write in a more coherent way. English is not my native language but I can easily discern between a post making a clear point and a more nebulous one. And please sign your posts. —Cesar Tort 08:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

well from reading the below posts I guess understanding things isn't your strong suit. good thing for you the ro-bot signs my posts lol. also I don't believe my paragraph was nebulous and incomprehensible. I think your overarching concern to check and make sure is someone else blocked from posting on talk pages and that you were dead wrong on the issue, shows your true motivations on this page. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)