Talk:Satanic panic

Discussion of specific sources

External links

I've replaced Lanning and the listing of periodicals with a link to the DMOZ project. Lanning is cited several times in the body now, and is no longer the definitive source now that there are so many scholarly books. The second link was not a good choice either - as a list of articles it added little information; if the articles are actually relevant, they should be included as in-line citations. Per WP:ELNO #1, there's nothing here the page wouldn't contain were it a featured article. WLU (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of the second source. It provides the reader an excellent source of information not provided elsewhere. It should be included as per WP:ELYES #3 ""amount of detail" ResearchEditor (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The full text of ELYES #3 is "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." The source contains neither neutral nor accurate material - it's a summary of articles. There is no original analysis. All the sources can be integrated as there is no copyright or detail issues. It's not statistics, credits, an interview or a textbook. It's a bibliography and there's no reason to include it. If the articles are worth integrating, they should be integrated but that does not mean the page should be integrated. ELNO # 9 bars search engine results, how is this different from a google search result? How can we be sure this is neutral, contains both sides of the debate, is up to date, is updated with new sources, was compiled by a reliable source, that the summaries are accurate? The link is now redundant to the page and doesn't include books which, as recent edits have proven, are so critical to the debate. The 'amount of detail' argument is irrelevant. Every single article could be included if appropriate, what level of detail is prevented from being integrated into the page? If an article can't be integrated, it's because it's inappropriate, not because it has too much detail. There's no reason to keep it as an EL, and I'll be removing it again when the page is unlocked. WLU (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It is neutral and accurate, because it contains a summary of articles. There is no requirement that an EL contain original analysis. Due to its enormous amount of detail, it would be impossible to integrate it into an article. It is definitely critical to the debate, as it provides four full web pages of resources from both sides of the argument. WP:ELYES #3 definitely applies to this EL. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

One person's neutral is another person's bias. Is Wolf Davidson a scholar, does he have a noteworthy opinion, is he qualified to summarize the articles and will he be accurate? Is he selecting all possible sources or just a biased list of those he likes? Many of the articles are irrelevant to SRA as well. Considering he's a technical writer, it would be my guess that he's irrelevant to the debate, as is his opinion. If it's just a list of sources, integrate the appropriate ones. The articles may be 'accurate', but that doesn't a giant text dump of summary is. If the page adds no original analysis, it's no better than having the journal abstracts, which should be linked as inline citations. I have never referrered to the page, nor do I recall anyone else doing so, so I fail to see how a technical writer's personal webpage could be "critical to the debate". There is no detail that could not be integrated, since it's a series of article summaries. By their very nature, they could all be integrated, or should not be and therefore are irrelevant. So your interpretation of ELYES #3 is inappropriate and inaccurate. WLU (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree that all could be integrated. The list is four large web pages. It would make the wiki-article really large. The information can be useful to our readers. If we are too strict in our application of guidelines to ELs, then we do a disservice to our readers by not giving them enough resource information. Therefore I believe that WP:ELYES #3 definitely applies to this EL. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the page is to be informative in an encyclopedic manner. Citing joe random website isn't helpful and is out of keeping with WP:EL. I would disagree with linking to religious tolerance's list despite offering several advantages, including explicitly dividing into pro and con and listing internet sites. If the SRA page gets too long because there's too many sources, that's of great service to readers and can be dealt with by splitting to appropriate sub-pages; there is also the {{reflist|2}} option. And if we can't cite it because it's not an appropriate source, why are we linking to it? We don't have to use every single journal article that exists, only the ones that improve the page. WLU (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

{undent}Note discussion. WLU (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a good idea to ask for neutral feedback. This idea interests me [WP:GTL] "Further reading -

This section may also be titled "Bibliography", but that title is best reserved for material :authored by the article subject, as it is ambiguous and may also refer to the references.

This is a bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of any books,articles, web pages, etc that you :recommend as further reading, useful background, or sources of further information to readers." :ResearchEditor (talk) 03:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That's unrelated to external links, but whatever. I would recommend to readers Satanic Panic by Victor, Speak of the Devil by LaFontaine, Satan's Silence by Nathan and Snedeker, Evil Incarnate by Frankfurter, the religious tolerance website and Skeptic's Dictionary. But really I recommend not bothering; only the most recent and classic texts should go there and there aren't many; Frankfurter is newest, Victor is classic, but both are heavily referenced already. Or we just don't put it in at all because the really useful ones are already embedded quite prominently. But ultimately I am uninterested in the idea and don't think it's a good one. WLU (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

An NPOV list of Further Reading would probably be more appropriate. But I do agree that most from both sides are already imbedded in the article. ResearchEditor (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have brought the discussion of the EL to WP:3O. IMO, more input would be good on this. ResearchEditor (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

This discussion was listed for a third opinion. In this case, I don't believe that the link in question is a useful link for either an External links section, or an Additional reading section. The site provides little more than a list of articles. The material itself is neither included on nor accessible from those pages. Some have brief summaries, but they do not provide the reader with a better understanding of the subject of this article. I believe that usefulness to the reader is the underlying theme of WP:EL, and should be the primary concern. Jim Miller (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Per this third opinion, I have removed the link from the external links section. The people at DMOZ will add a link to their page if they think it is appropriate, but I am not certain of their vetting process. WLU (talk) 01:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

list of 2000 and after sources

Though it doesn't make sense to me to delineate between a source from 1998 as opposed to one from 2001, here's the list.

SRA as Moral Panic/False Memory

Academic Pub - 5

Critcher, Chas. (2003) Moral Panics and the Media. Open University Press.

de Young, Mary. (2004) The Day Care Ritual Abuse Moral Panic. McFarland & Company.

Frankfurter, David. (2006) Evil Incarnate: Rumors of Demonic Conspiracy and Satanic Abuse in History. Princeton.

Jenkins, Philip. (2004) Moral Panic: Changing Concepts of the Child Molester in Modern America. Yale.

McCloud, Sean. (2003). Making the American Religious Fringe: Exotics, Subversives, and Journalists, 1955-1993. UNC Press.

Peer Reviewed Journals - 4

Cavaglion, Gabriel. (2005). "The Cultural Construction of Contemporary Satanic Legends in Israel." Folklore 116(3):255-271.

Frankfurter, David. (2001). "Ritual as Accusation and Atrocity: Satanic Ritual Abuse, Gnostic Libertinism, and Primal Murders". History of Religions 40 (4):352–380.

Frankfurter, David. (2003). "The Satanic Ritual Abuse Panic as Religious Studies Data." Numen 50(1):108-117.

Sjöberg, Rickard L. (2002) "False Claims of Victimization: A Historical Illustration of a Contemporary Problem." Nordic Journal of Psychiatry 56(2):132-136.

Book Sections - 2

Best, Joel. (2002). "Victimization and the Victim Industry." In The Study of Social Problems: Seven Perspectives. Edited by, Earl Rubington and Martin S. Weinberg. Oxford.

Richardson, James T. (2003). "Satanism and Witchcraft: Social Construction of a Melded but Mistaken Identity." In New Religious Movements and Religious Liberty in America. Edited by Derek H. Davis and Barry Hankins Baylor Univeristy Press.

Book Reviews - 1

Wallis, John. (2007) "Recent Studies on Religion and Violence: A Review Essay." Nova Religio 11(1):97-104.

SRA as a Real Form of Abuse - 1

Academic Pub.

Noblitt, James Randall, and Perskin Pamela Sue. (2000). Cult and Ritual Abuse: Its History, Anthropology, and Recent Discovery in Contemporary America. New York: Praeger. (Note : revised edition with new chapter)

Non-academic pub. - 6

Griffis, Ph.D., Dale (2001). Secret Weapons. Far Hills, NJ: New Horizon Press. ISBN 0-88282-196-2.

Karriker, Wanda (2003). Morning, Come Quickly. Catawba, NC: Sandime, LTD. ISBN 0-9717171-0-9.

Lacter, E.; Lehman, K. (2008). "Guidelines to Diagnosis of Ritual Abuse/Mind Control Traumatic Stress

Noblitt, James Randall and Perskin, Pamela Sue (eds). (2008) Ritual Abuse in the Twenty-first Century: Psychological, Forensic, Social and Political Considerations Robert Reed Publishers - popular and self published

Oksana, Chrystine (2001). Safe Passage to Healing - A Guide for Survivors of Ritual Abuse. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse.com. ISBN 0-595-201000-8. - self-published, out. - The 1994 version of the book was published by HarperPerennial.

If Harper refused to issue a second printing, that strongly suggests there's no acceptance of the topic anymore. WLU (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This is only an inference. There could be many reasons why the book was not republished by Harper. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The point is that it was not republished and the current book is not a reliable source. WLU (talk) 01:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Rutz, Carol (2001). A Nation Betrayed. Grass Lake, MI: Fidelity Publishing. ISBN 0-9710102-0-X.

Peer Reviewed Journals - 3

Pepinsky, H. (2005). "Sharing and Responding to Memories". American Behavioral Scientist. 48 (10): 1360. doi:10.1177/0002764205277013.

Based on the abstract, I'm not sure what position this is supposed to support. It appears to be about designing a college seminar. WLU (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Pepisnky definitely has a pro-position. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thinking that because it has a pro-position makes it relevant to the page seems an erroneous conclusion. This is why I think the list is less than useful - the title and position of each reference matters less than the specific contents. If this were a page about college seminars or courses discussing satanic ritual abuse, perhaps it might be more useful. Purely based on the abstract I can't see it as useful, I'm curious about how the body could be used. WLU (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've read the full text and the paper will not be cited on this page. As I suspected, it is about a college seminar, mentions of ritual abuse are tangential, lack detail or sources and not the main thrust of the paper (which is, as I said, about designing a college seminar on feminist justice, dealing with guests and students and grading). Placing any weight or text on this paper would be undue weight. WLU (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Pepinsky, Hal. (2002) "A struggle to inquire without becoming an un-critical non-criminologist." Critical Criminology 11(1):61-73

• Valente S (2000). "Controversies and challenges of ritual abuse". J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv. 38 (11): 8–17. PMID 11105292. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Is this about ritual abuse or satanic ritual abuse? The former isn't really relevant to this page. What are the definitions used by Valente? WLU (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Book reviews - 1

Psychiatr Serv 52:978-979, July 2001 © 2001 American Psychiatric Association [3]for Noblitt, JR; Perskin PS (2000). Cult and ritual abuse: its history,anthropology, and recent discovery in contemporary America. New York:Praeger.

Articles - 3

Lacter, E (2008). "Brief Synopsis of the Literature on the Existence of Ritualistic Abuse".

An Empirical Look at the Ritual Abuse Controversy - Randy Noblitt, PhD - [5]

Karriker, Wanda (November, 2007). "Helpful healing methods: As rated by approximately 900 respondents to the“International Survey for Adult Survivors of Extreme Abuse (EAS).""

“The Satanism and Ritual Abuse Archive”, by Diana Napolis, is published on the world-wide web at: [This archive contains 92 cases as of February 12, 2008.]

Middle Ground

Books - 1

Scott, S. (2001). The politics and experience of ritual abuse: beyond disbelief. Open University Press. ISBN 0335204198.

Peer reviewed journals - 1

Bader, Christopher D. (2003) "Supernatural support groups: Who are the UFO abductees and ritual-abuse survivors?" Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 42(4):669-678.

ResearchEditor (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

list of 2000 academic publishers and peer reviewed journal sources

1998 is just as good ... but the point of the exercise cleary was to establish how the academy sees SRA so non-academic books, "articles" and book reviews are out -- so are second editions of books published well before 2000 (or 1998). The list isn't close to being complete either but RE, after your gigantic text dump, cut and past job from a bibliography housed on a pro-SRA site I can understand why you keep on wanting to jump the gun.PelleSmith (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course the list isn't complete. There are sources missing from both sides of the debate. IMO, the point of the exercise is not prove a previously determined point. The point of the exercise is to look at the information. The list shows that there are many peer reviewed journal articles from the 90's that are pro and many that are not. This is when the topic was most notable in the media and academia. There are comparatively fewer articles in the last decade, meaning this period is much less notable.

And "Prometheus Books" is not an academic publisher, so I will delete the book from the academic publisher list below. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

From Prometheus Books - "Prometheus Books is a publishing company founded in August 1969 by Paul Kurtz and publishes scientific, educational, and popular books, especially those of a secular humanist or scientific skepticism nature" which seems pretty clear. Would you like this brought to the RS noticeboard? WLU (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I had assumed an academic publisher was either university affiliated or distributes academic research and scholarship. Maybe the noticeboard would be a good idea. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The importance is the reputation for fact checking as well as the topics discussed. Specializing in publication of scientific and educational books seems fine to me. I've used the noticeboards several times, so you go ahead and do so. WLU (talk) 12:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. ResearchEditor (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. WLU (talk) 01:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

SRA as Moral Panic/False Memory

Books - 7

Critcher, Chas. (2003) Moral Panics and the Media. Open University Press.

de Young, Mary. (2004) The Day Care Ritual Abuse Moral Panic. McFarland & Company.

Ellis, Bill. (2000). Raising the Devil: Satanism, New Religions, and the Media. University Press of Kentucky.

Frankfurter, David. (2006) Evil Incarnate: Rumors of Demonic Conspiracy and Satanic Abuse in History. Princeton.

Jenkins, Philip. (2004) Moral Panic: Changing Concepts of the Child Molester in Modern America. Yale.

McCloud, Sean. (2003). Making the American Religious Fringe: Exotics, Subversives, and Journalists, 1955-1993. UNC Press.

McGrath, Malcom and Baker, Robert A. (2001). Demons of the Modern World. Prometheus Books.

Peer Reviewed Journals - 6

Cavaglion, Gabriel. (2005). "The Cultural Construction of Contemporary Satanic Legends in Israel." Folklore 116(3):255-271.

de Young, Mary. (2007). "Two Decades After McMartin: A Follow-up of 22 Convicted Day Care Employees." Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 34(4):9-33.

Frankfurter, David. (2001). "Ritual as Accusation and Atrocity: Satanic Ritual Abuse, Gnostic Libertinism, and Primal Murders". History of Religions 40 (4):352–380.

Frankfurter, David. (2003). "The Satanic Ritual Abuse Panic as Religious Studies Data." Numen 50(1):108-117.

Loftus, Elizabeth F. and Davis, Deborah. (2006). "Recovered Memories." Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. 2:469-498

Sjöberg, Rickard L. (2002) "False Claims of Victimization: A Historical Illustration of a Contemporary Problem." Nordic Journal of Psychiatry 56(2):132-136.

Book Sections - 2

Best, Joel. (2002). "Victimization and the Victim Industry." In The Study of Social Problems: Seven Perspectives. Edited by, Earl Rubington and Martin S. Weinberg. Oxford.

Richardson, James T. (2003). "Satanism and Witchcraft: Social Construction of a Melded but Mistaken Identity." In New Religious Movements and Religious Liberty in America. Edited by Derek H. Davis and Barry Hankins Baylor Univeristy Press.

SRA as a Real Form of Abuse

Peer Reviewed Journals - 3

Pepinsky, H. (2005). "Sharing and Responding to Memories". American Behavioral Scientist. 48 (10): 1360. doi:10.1177/0002764205277013.

Pepinsky, Hal. (2002) "A struggle to inquire without becoming an un-critical non-criminologist." Critical Criminology 11(1):61-73

Valente, S. (2000). "Controversies and challenges of ritual abuse.". J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv 38 (11): 8-17.

Middle Ground

Books - 1

Scott, S. (2001). The politics and experience of ritual abuse: beyond disbelief. Open University Press. ISBN 0335204198.

Peer reviewed journals - 1

Bader, Christopher D. (2003) "Supernatural support groups: Who are the UFO abductees and ritual-abuse survivors?" Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 42(4):669-678.

I discuss Scott's book here. It's not about satanic ritual abuse, it's about pseudosatanism, which is pedophiles using satanism as a cover to make the kids look like they're making it up and to coerce them into not disclosing. I consider it irrelevant. WLU (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Scott talks about "a continuum of belief" p. 90 - 92 discussing in part Satanism. On pages 86 - 87 she discusses survivor accounts of SRA. on p. 92 - 97 she discusses "the embodiment of belief" in her index listed under "satanism." There are other sections discussing satanism as well. Not all accounts appear to be pseudosatanism. I consider it part of the debate. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Using Scott's books and those sections, all you can say discuss is what some of her focus group members (a total of 37 apparently) believe their abusers believed about their ritual abuse (of which Satanism is mentioned by 20 and Scott explicitly discusses several non-satanic forms of ritual abuse). Interviewees emphasized thier limited knowledge of their abuser's belif systems on page 87 and on 88-9 Scott discusses her impression of how the interviewees routinely blocked out, along with the trauma, occult beliefs and practices. 90-91 she talks about how some abusers may not have believed in the rituals while others may have. 92 has some equivocation about how they might believe on different levels, half-belief and contextual belief. 93 discusses Kent's laughably bad hypothesis that the rituals are cobbled together to offend different groups (i.e. they're fake) and mentions Kent's quote-mining from the bible. 93 also discusses how the abused didn't understand the meaning of the rituals. And again these are allegations, Scott doesn't discuss proof.

So if we were to use Scott on the page, I suppose it could discuss the lack of cohesion, clarity, detail and limited knowledge of the belief systems of the alleged abusers by the alleged abused. We could also discuss how Scott has the impression that occult beliefs and practices were routinely "blocked out" along with trauma (which raises the question of false memory for me). But really the sections I've read is mostly about what the abused think about their abusers, which again raises the specter of therapists believing with no evidence beyond testimony from clients. WLU (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Paucity of 21st century credulous academic sources

• "There are comparatively fewer articles in the last decade, meaning this period is much less notable." —ResearchEditor

Actually, it means that SRA was discredited, since this century's scholarship is mainly skeptical. This is the main finding in the above exercise. —Cesar Tort 03:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is only an inference. It could mean that the topic simply dropped from the public eye for many reasons, like people got bored with it, or it no longer had shock value to attract readers, or there was a political period of repression where historically it has been found that child abuse issues have lost favor with public interest. All of these could be inferred from the data. Also, it could be seen that due to this loss of interest, only a couple of skeptical writers with academic publishers kept publishing about the topic, other than survivors and therapists, who kept publishing in primarily non-academic publishing houses. The only thing one can conclusively conclude from the exercise is that "there are comparatively fewer articles in the last decade, meaning this period is much less notable." ResearchEditor (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If only you would use the correct terminology to describe exactly what you have just described--your basic facts are not necessarily incorrect. The "moral panic" is now over, so there is no more frenzy of therapy and child advocacy related publications and no reactionary frenzy of debunking skepticism. As you point out, "child abuse issues" (more accurately child abuse hysteria) "have lost favor with public interest." That does explain the lack of pro-SRA publication in peer-reviewed journals, but not why academic publications persist from the moral panic perspective. The fact that you refer to "shock value" as if that is the reason for advocacy, as opposed to "exposing the truth" is confusing but it does fit well with the moral panic explanation. What we now have are academic publishing houses publishing sober retrospective studies on the early days of a phenomena that is clearly consensed in the academy as having been a satanically oriented moral panic--abuse may very well have occurred in most or all patient histories but the "satanic", "cultic" and "ritual" aspects of this abuse are clearly not believed. Occam's razor my friend. The simplest explanation for the fact that virtually all recent academic publications about SRA come down on the side of moral panic is ... ta da ... because that's the current academic consensus. Sophistry never really makes as much sense as the obvious.PelleSmith (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever simple explanation or opinion either of us may have cannot be used on the page. Since we need to accurately reflect the research, the bulk of the page should cover the majority of the research pro and con earlier, since this is the period most notable. There could be a section near the end covering the last ten years or so, including M, T, T and L and Noblitt's revisions and new chapter to his second edition as well as all of the peer reviewed sources and other decided upon reliable sources. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Except that period is not "most notable" for research on the phenomenon of SRA. Please provide an RS stating that. Research on this phenomenon has been continuous. Your claim of "notability" is a violation of WP:NOR. There are, on the other hand, a slew of reliable sources stating that this period is the height of the "moral panic." Even if you do not you wish to agree with the expert conclusions of social scientists, and chose instead of "panic" or "hysteria" to say that child abuse issues were "in favor" at that time, this establishes nothing regarding the "notability" of research. Unless you are prepared to produce a reliable source I suggest you drop this red herring and scurry along to something else.PelleSmith (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

I've archive the page up to roughly July 23rd. I'd rather wait for longer before archiving, at least a month since the discussion died, but at 300K the page was hard to navigate. Any discussions that were not dead, please pull from the archive or restart here. WLU (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've archived a bit more (36K more to be exact); I've taken out things that the last comment was the 29th of July, which was rather recent. Pull from the archive if desired or start over and re-state. WLU (talk) 01:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Archiving that is OK with me. —Cesar Tort 02:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ways to mediate editing

IMO, the editing on page is more contentious at times than it needs to be. I am wondering if the editors would agree to wait on further editing of the page, until we can develop a procedure that works better in terms of editing, such as WP:DR, WP:COOL and WP:M. ResearchEditor (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need to further restrain us from editing it. There's no basic disagreement between most editors concerned. Even Jack would only object the tone of some of my previous posts. And I scarcely edit in SRA mainspace. —Cesar Tort 01:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The editing on this page is contentious because some editors here fail to abide by WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:FRINGE. RE if you simply abide by these fundamental principles here on Wikipedia then your edits wont meet the type of "heated" opposition you act so worried about. It gets more and more tiring to see you pretend in whatever way possible that there is a legitimate academic debate about SRA and that the various legitimate opponents in this debate, for instance, get all worked up about their positions. Nonesense. You're pushing a fringe POV. Its pretty simple. Hostility is a natural reaction to editors who are undermining the encyclopedic quality of entries, especially those who do it systematically and with great effort. Nevertheless hostility is not an ideal reaction, and I do agree that it should be avoided as much as possible, but I refuse to gloss over its cause.PelleSmith (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Editing needs to include addition of reliable sources in a manner that is accurate to the letter and spirit of the source. If consensus determines an edit is a poor one, not in keeping with the policies and guidelines, it should be removed. If it is felt that the interpretation of the P&Gs is incorrect, then dispute resolution including the appropriate noticeboards, third opinion and requests for comments should be used. There is no need for a new procedure. So long as the page is not locked, I will add information from sources as I believe appropriate. WLU (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO, there is no excuse for the violation of the guidelines of wikipedia, including those of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I do abide by all of the guidelines of wikipedia, including those of WP:NPOV. The page is overrun by panic theories at this point, with Victor being given 17 citations. This violates WP:UNDUE. Adding more information on this topic only violates the guideline of WP:UNDUE more. There is definitely a legitimate academic debate about SRA, this is shown by the number of sources on both sides of the debate. It is a fringe POV to state and promote that there is only one side of the debate. It has been clearly shown that there is a need for a new procedure, based on the contentiousness of the talk page, the number of locks on the regular page and the violations of wikipedia guidelines on both pages. ResearchEditor (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There "is" not. Not in the present tense. And the debate that "was", only existed within psychotherapy/child advocacy with sociologists and various other social scientists always being "skeptical" of what was clearly a moral panic. Now even that debate no longer exists. You represent a fringe view and pushing it unbalances the entry and violates WP:NPOV.PelleSmith (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• "I do abide by all of the guidelines of wikipedia, including those of WP:NPOV.."

That's exactly what you believed and stated when you were blocked a few months ago. But it's not the way that the blocking admins saw your SPA edits. —Cesar Tort 20:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

A conviction that there is only one person adhering to NPOV, and that you are it, is a problem that points to the truth. There was an academic debate about SRA. There are two sides and the credulous one is the fringe. There were two investigations that looked into actual allegations of SRA, one in England by LaFontaine. One in the United States of 12,000 allegations. Both found pseudosatanism, no real satanism. Those were the two actual investigations for actual satanic ritual abuse, and they found nothing. There was also a huge debate in the scientific investigation of memory on whether it was possible to create memories of events that didn't actually occur. There's a minor debate on whether SRA is used to create cult programming and pliant identities. There are citations for all of this, and it is the citations that determine page contents. So add citations, don't clog up the talk page. WLU (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Having a different opinion on the research and its conclusions certainly is not a violation of any wikipedia guideline or the truth on either side of the line.

In reply to the above, there was only one blocking admin. There was no reference to SPA in the block.

Yet, the debate does continue. There are three peer reviewed journal articles and Noblitt's book (which does count since it was a second edition with a new chapter) in the last eight years. He has a new book out, continuing the debate, though it is self published. So whether it is an RS or not would have to be debated. Some of the court cases that were moved to the List of SRA allegations page also backed the existence of SRA, especially the very recent case in Hammond, LA. Even M, T, T and L, probably the most accurate, comprehensive and neutral source written on the topic states that some cases are genuine.

The debate on the scientific investigation showed that it has never been proven that traumatic memories can be created. Pezdek's study backs this conclusion. The skeptics debating theories of iatrogenesis and social construct theory have been answered by Gleaves; Brown, Frischholz and Scheflin; and Ross.

The idea of "moral panic" has only been backed by biased references that ignore data contrary to their opinion. The debate is indeed alive and well. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The very very few pro-side therapists who have recently published in peer-reviewed journals are no match for criminologists and police investigators, sociologists, religion-studies professors and even lawmakers. Unlike psychotherapists, criminologists and the police deal with the hard evidence. Claims in the therapist's office without evidence have all the marks of bogus allegations. —Cesar Tort 05:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

RE, reality wont change just because you keep on vocally claiming an account of it that contradicts what can be empirically observed. The continual repetition of your mantra only provides the rest of us with more evidence of how entrenched you are in pushing your POV. Can you please provide some sourcing for you various claims about a there being a current academic debate?PelleSmith (talk) 12:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't get to have an "opinion on the research and its conclusions". We get to cite what research says. Making our own conclusions is original research. MTT&L is hardly the last gasp in sources and itself concludes that the evidence for SRA is equivocal, taking the position that reports are mostly fictitious, but sometimes mostly genuine. Taking the position that MTT&L's overall conclusion is that SRA reports are mostly true completely misses that most of the chapter's conclusion is heavily weighted towards the idea that SRA can not be taken as literally and completely true, that events happened as explained by "survivors". WLU (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor observations

Today I printed the article to read it carefully and I have a few observations in mind. Both the sections labeled as "Research" and "Skepticism" look mislabeled to me. Therapies, mentioned in that section, are no research at all. The long Lanning citation seems middle ground, as well as the below sentence: "Lanning describes common dynamics of the use of fear to control multiple young victims." I am not taking issue with Lanning. I'm just saying that these quotations look more middle ground than outright skepticism (like the sort that one reads in the book Satan's Silence). It's the heading "Skepticism" what should be changed. Minor points: the British report that found 62 cases "of alleged ritual abuse" states that "all cases of organized [my emphasis] abuse represented..." I guess a better word is "ritual" since "organized" can be many other sorts of abuse. And in the section on "Court cases", does the phrase "throughout the world" is hyperbole? I mean, have SRAs been reported in China, Laos and other Buddhist countries? Finally, WLU, now that you've got the Ross/Loftus book, under the section "False memories" you might want to cite the main conclusions of these fairly notable authors from the pro and con side of the debate. —Cesar Tort 05:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The whole page is due for a re-write, it's been cobbled together piecemeal for too long and now it needs reorganization. It would be easier to do so were the page unambiguously considered a moral panic, but an alternative is to reorganize it into sections titled "as a moral panic", "as real events", "as false memory", etc. I'm not sure how many headings there would be but I'm pretty sure it would be met with resistance. I'd actually use a level 2 heading of "Explanations" with each of the sub-headings beneath it.

Regards the 62 cases, organized is what the source used and it did not distinguish between organized groups (i.e. interlinked networks of pedophiles) and SRA; the book overall is called "organized abuse" and deals with more than just SRA.

Throughout the world is somewhat appropriate since they appeared in North America, Europe, New Zealand, Australia, and if we count all cases discussed in the list of allegations page, South Africa and South America. Obviously there's a huge overlap with SRA allegations and Christianity but I'm not sure what could be done with this without engaging in original research.

I've several other books and articles to get to before I get to Ross. I've also a large number of citations from Victor, LaFontaine, Frankfurter, Hammond et al. and other sources to integrate that I've not gotten around to. It'd be nice if someone else were also reading the books and adding information, real-life concerns soak up more of my time than in the past and I'm unable to contribute to the same degree I could in months past. This page alone is taking up 90% of my time on wikipedia, and it's a lot less time than it used to be. WLU (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Right. I wish I could help you but in the country where I am living (just for the moment I hope!) it's impossible to get those books from a local library. However, I'll continue to read more of the Frankfurter book I purchased thru Amazon Books and see if there's any more relevant stuff to include it in the page. —Cesar Tort 15:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Re-writing

Like Cesar, I've re-read the page a bit and I don't think it gives enough credit to the discreditation of the phenomenon. Here I have re-written the lead, and moved and expanded text now in History. There are three sources saying the phenomenon is no longer current. Faller I have read, and it is explicit. Clapton is also explicit, as is Jenkins. Faller and Jenkins in particular are the nails on the coffin as far as I am concerned. Both address the phenomenon as a whole, occur a decade after the demise of the phenomenon, are explicit, are meant to summarize, and are from the most reliable sources available. Faller states that the phenomenon is no longer mainstream, thus provides for the existence of Noblitt's fringe position. Unless there are other reliable sources saying that the SRA phenomenon is ongoing, explicitly says it, not just is published on the topic, the issue is dead. Three sources, all reliable, all explicit, all summarizing the phenomenon as a whole, all after the fact, all agreeing it's dead, means a very reliable and explicit source is required to say otherwise. WLU (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Incredibly POV edits - allowing only extremely skeptical points of view while deleting reliable sources

The deletion of this phrase (bold shows section deleted)

“ Victor reviews 61 allegations of SRA in America and concludes there is no basis to them, but this review has been described as cursory and it is impossible to tell from his description what actually occurred at the locations discussed.Fraser, GA (1997). The Dilemma of Ritual Abuse:Cautions and Guides for Therapists. American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc. pp. 105–117. ISBN 0880484780. ”

is IMO inexcusable. The reason is given only as "so what." The opinion comes from a reliable source. This is an incredibly POV edit.

The deletion of this line

“ Braun and Sachs stated that they have succesfully helped treat nine patients from different parts of the US (and knew of 50 others) involved as children in the forced participation of satanic cult worship involving cannabalism, human sacrifice and ritualistic sex. Template:Cite article in Braun, B. (1986). Treatment of MultiplePersonality Disorder. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press Inc. p. 206. ISBN 0-88048-096-3. ”

is also inexcusable. This also comes from a reliable source. The excuse is given as "remove ... this has nothing to do with "research"... reporting on the claims of patients before anyone knew what was going on ... hardly accounts for research"

It appears the only "research" that will be allowed is that of extremely skeptical sociologists, ones who have had no real contact with either court cases or survivors of ritual abuse. Even sources published by the APA that differ from this extremist view will not be allowed. The page was once a balance of the research in the field. These POV pushing edits are making the page an extreme skeptical soapbox. ResearchEditor (talk) 06:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, your insistence that the NPOVing and mainstreaming of the entry is making into a POV soapbox is evidence of your own fringe editing. It isn't acceptable and we will continue to make sure it doesn't infect the page. Regarding your second point, please explain how anything about that information qualifies as "research". Until you do it doesn't belong in that section at the very least. Braun and Sachs have produced no "research" about this and the comment is completely anecdotal. Again, just because you say its so doesn't make it so. You can't just but your POVized head against consensus here and in the academy and expect its going to stick. You have not answered the questions we posed to you above either, about producing a reliable source that still claims there is a valid academic debate here in the first place.PelleSmith (talk) 11:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Braun and Sachs have worked with specific cases, unlike Frankfurter, Victor and LaFontaine. Their data is published in an APA published book. If simply adding data contrary to the extreme skeptical POV is considered "infecting the page" then there is definitely a problem with the editing here. The extreme skeptical writers have been given far too much weight on the page, 3 authors getting nearly 38% of the 127 citations. And there is no consensus, because everyone needs to come to an agreement to have consensus. This has not happened. ResearchEditor (talk) 07:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

In the quote you wish to use Braun and Sachs provide NO data. Please review this simply fact and respond to it. You are quoting an anecdotal statement which cannot be considered "data". "Everyone" does not have to come to an agreement, especially not when an SPA pushing fringe theories is around. Those three authors represent the mainstream view and have written some of the most authoritative books on the subject matter. There is nothing UNDUE about using them so often. What is undue is selectively quoting sources that are now considered to back a fringe theory as if they are given equal weight in academia when they are clearly not. For the last time -- provide a recent reliable source that makes the case for there still being a controversy in the academy, because all of our sources say the opposite. It is becoming more clear now that you are editing against core Wikipedia policies, and the persistence of doing so will lead inevitably to more behavioral sanctions. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

For the love of God, ResearchEditor, NPOV does not mean you get to push your favored sources with a specific POV into every section of the article. The POV you are tryng to represent is a minority one, and the existence of sources from the fringe minority does not mean that those sources are notable. Your whole strategy, as seen on this article and others you edit, is to hunt down sources to support your own view and overload the articles so that they essentially ONLY represent your view. That's a huge violation of WP:NPOV policy, and you know it is because you've been banned in the past for it. You can't just pick and choose sources and use them to advance whatever you want. DreamGuy (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My edits add a balanced view to these article, one that counters the undue weight given the extreme skeptical view given by the editors here. Other editors should not delete or collapse data in an article, simply because it doesn't agree with an extremely skeptical perspective.ResearchEditor (talk) 07:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

FALSE. For the last time, what you call "extremely skeptical" is mainstream. Your edits actually violate UNDUE by pushing a fringe position. Simply claiming otherwise doesn't change facts. Provide us with a current source that says otherwise.PelleSmith (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

{undent}For one thing, Fraser's description is incorrect, or the version I have corrects this. They are now cited to pages 330-354. Victor only includes the rumours which are credible, in which a source can be identified. He gives the source, the date, the location, a brief summary and the evidence for the rumour. I've qualified more since these are rumours he is tracking down, and added court cases. I've also included allegations from Canada, which brings the total up to 67. The actual statement from P. 107-8 of Fraser is:

“ Research on Satanic Ritual Abuse: Interestingly, the first research on SRA was not performed by psychiatrists or psychologists but by sociologists and anthropologists (various sources- WLU). These scientists failed to find objective evidence that SRA literally occurs. Instead, they believe that SRA develops as a rumor or folk legend whose spread is feuled by media hype, Christian fundamentalism, mental health and law enforcement professionals, and child abuse advocates. One example of a rumor panic about satanic cults occurred near Jamestown in western New York in May 1988 (Victor 1989, 1991), when school officials from numerous schools in the area reported hundreds of children absent because of parental fears of satanic abuse. There were reports of mutilated animals, satanic graffiti, and corpses being found. The police were deluged with telephone calls; town meetings were held, and prayer meetings were held in churches. Subsequently, from a search of small-town newspapers, Victor (1991) documented evidence of 61 other satanic cult rumours in widespread locations across the United States. Thes rumours occured between 1982 and 1993 and peaked in 1988 and 1989. Unfortunately it is impossible to tell from Victor's cursory review of the evidence what really did happen at these 61 locations. There is no question, however, that reports of satanic activity provoked a media frenzy in many locations. ”

Please tell me how this paragraph can be interpreted as anything except "there has been no evidence of SRA found, but lots of rumors". The main thrust of that paragraph is not that Victor's discussion is not credible, it's found in the statement "Instead, they believe that SRA develops as a rumor or folk legend whose spread is feuled by media hype, Christian fundamentalism, mental health and law enforcement professionals, and child abuse advocates". Taking the point that Victor's review was cursory in the pejorative sense is the worst sort of quote mining, particularly since Fraser's summary of the evidence points towards an extremely skeptical approach. Fraser's statement that Victor is 'cursory' is regretful - Fraser wishes there were more details describing how the rumours started (BTW, I keep alternating "rumors" with "rumours". I'm not even sure which one is correct per WP:ENGVAR; for that matter, I'm not even sure if "-our" is a Canadianism in this case).

One thing became extremely apparent as I read that section of Fraser for a couple pages. It's an excellent skeptical source that should be represented more. ResearchEditor, I'll direct this one to you. Why, despite a rather lengthy and detailed skeptical section in Fraser, a reference I believe you added and respect, is your only use of the book to insert an illegitemate criticism of Victor's review? I can add probably three more citations about three different ways the SRA phenomenon is bunk from this book section alone, yet none of those are already in the page. Pelle, Cesar, DreamGuy, please review the pages available in the book as they are quite interesting and I've already added 14 revisions of expansion and have real-life stuff to get to.

So to directly reply, removing the criticism of Victor is not violating NPOV, it's a removal of a quote-mined selection which mis-interprets Fraser's analysis of Victor quite badly. I've already discussed this by the way (Talk:Satanic_ritual_abuse/Archive_6#more_POV_edits). In addition, it actually is possible to tell what happened from Victor's description - nothing. No charges were laid, no evidence found. I don't know what info Fraser is working off of, perhaps he missed appendix IV of Victor '93. My edit summary of "so what" is based on the analysis I made on June 27th, as well as a re-reading of Victor's summary of the 67 cases and Fraser's acutal intent in describing the review as "cursory". Braun and Sachs are probably the earliest discussions of SRA and DID, the date is from 1986, before any critical literature existed, and before any discussion of the potential for dissociation and leading therapy techniques to result in false allegations arose. There are many sources which discuss that testimony from patients is not evidence and are in fact discredited. Coming from a reliable source is not a reason to include every reference to SRA, particularly one this early - will we cite Michelle Remembers next? At best, AT BEST all the cases where there have been testimonials from patients could be combined into a single line stating "Several therapists have reported their patients alleging SRA". Which would lead into the several other researchers who have found that testimonials are often contaminated, patients are often dissociative and prone to fantasy, possibly Noblitt's reversal of cause and effect (i.e. DID and dissociation causes memories of SRA, SRA does not create DID), the lack of forensic evidence despite reports to police, etc. We could even feed in the fact that the believers are pretty much only religious fundamentalists, child advocates and therapists, and how the sources of the allegations are only coerced children and recovered memories.

Incidentally, RE if you are really dedicated to NPOV as you believe yourself to be, you can add the criticisms summarized by Fraser 107-111 (which covers Goodman's studies by the way, which are summarized in MTT&L, which are also critical, which are also not yet integrated). There is a very large volume of critical information which can still be integrated, which I have right now and have not added because of time limitations. I find less and less reason to be patient when you ResearchEditor, have access to the sources, which are indeed critical, but you are not adding them. I have avoided commenting for a long, long time on your own approach but now I am doing so - your use of sources misrepresents them, ignores those that have critical commentary (praising MTT&L and not using it's critical perspectives is particularly egregious) then proclaiming the page is POV would be laughable were it not so frustrating. You have no points in your section and are consistently shoehorning your own perspective on SRA in a way that abuses the sources. WLU (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My edits of MTT&L's overall view were unbiased. I presented both sides of theirs as accurately as I could. Many parts of Fraser's book could be used. I was not the original editor that placed it in the article, but I believe the data replying to Victor should stay. If the article is basically going to be about "panic" then at least a couple of lines should be allowed to rebut this theory.

The edits lately to the article have only been to promote "panic" theory, yet there is a great deal of data that contradicts this theory and this data should be allowed to be presented and stay in the article. The slant and number of these extremely skeptical edits violates WP:UNDUE. ResearchEditor (talk) 07:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Research editor: I am truly amazed. After the long post by WLU demonstrating that the source has been abused, you simply restored your sentence—:

Yet this review has been described as cursory and it is impossible to tell from his description what actually occurred at the locations discussed.<ref. name = Fraser/>

—and your reason for doing it was: "but I believe the data replying to Victor should stay", totally ignoring the substance of WLU's argument!

There's no question about it: your multiple edits will be reverted. —Cesar Tort 08:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Regards this edit, LaFontaine backs this up, as does Lanning, MTT&L, Clapton, Putnam, Victor, Frankfurter in the most recent summary of SRA to date (2006), the report from Utah, Goleman citing Bottoms, Shaver and Goodman, and the report of the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (possibly BS&G). Since this is discussed at length in the body of the article, there is no requirement of a citation in the lead. The Hossana Church trial does not refute this because for one, I don't believe the charge was one of SRA, and for two, the trial is not done and the details sparse. I don't think the Hosanna case alone, reported in newspapers, can discredit all previous investigations. The edit summary was "court cases like the recent Hammond LA case show this to be false" - there are no other court cases "like" Hammond/Hosanna church. McMartin was thrown out, the other US allegations were also considered problematic, suspect, or simply pseudosatanism. An analysis by someone aware of the SRA phenomenon is required before we can put in the lead the idea that one case disproves all previous analysis, or remove a well-referenced statement from the lead based on this idea. The courts have yet to determine if Hosanna was the result of a lone nut, a satan-worshipping nut, a pedophile with a bunch of nut fullowers, or the result of an intergenerational satanic cult. Until it's reported in something better than newspapers, something that explicitly links it to the SRA phenomenon of the 90s, it's WP:UNDUE to say this one case discredits all the scholarly analysis to date. WLU (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Several trials have backed up the fact that this isn't true. IMO, the statement needs to be qualified.ResearchEditor (talk) 06:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, in which cases were the defendants prosecuted for satanic ritual abuse? WLU (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your recent edit summary that "satanism has little to do with SRA." Take a look at my proposal to move the other article. —Cesar Tort 19:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I already moved the article "Ritualized child abuse" to "Religious abuse": a far larger and, unlike the article I created, uncontested subject. —Cesar Tort 04:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Karnac books

Seeking an opinion on Karnac books. This is in regards to this reference, now moved here and collapsed with another reference to Sachs. This is yet another example of "patient testimonials = truth", which is inappropriate, particularly given the links between SRA and DID and dissociation and recovered memory and suggestability of DID patients. Surveys and statements by patients alleging SRA proves nothing. WLU (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hard for me to give any advise here. I've only got a single Karnac book in my library (a deMause's one, BTW). —Cesar Tort 19:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've an inkling that it'll be reliable. It's basically a regurgitation of the old "believe the children/people in therapy", the only thing to distinguish it is its date and publisher. A new publication in a low-value publisher would be yet more evidence that the idea is fringe. WLU (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

recent edit

Hi WLU. I see that you removed a couple of phrases. Your edit summary: "just seems unnecessary and sets of OR alarm bells by reading it; wording adjustments, citation templates, adding Clapton." I think I can add Frankfurter citations to "...now permeating the American psyche" and to "Thus by the late 1980s the therapists' recognition of SRA lead to the acceptance of the phenomenon by a segment of the society" so that they won't look OR.

Also, why removing the title of Victor's chapter: "Construction of Satanic Ritual Abuse and the Creation of False Memories"? I've got a better template for an article in a book. As far as I understand, the title of articles ought to be mentioned. —Cesar Tort 15:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If you can reference the "permeation", that's OK but I wonder how necessary it is, how much it adds, and how much it truly permeated the American psyche. Victor states that the SRA panics were not much attended to in the larger cities and I don't know how much McMartin was seen as a SRA case (Abuse of Innocence hasn't mentioned it much so far). Though much of my spare time and psyche invoves SRA, I think it's a bit strong to say it permeated. Though I'll be over-ruled if you can find a second citation. Also, watch the use of "Thus", which presents a conclusion. It looks like both a synthesis and an essay. It may be an artifact of the sentence or my own reading. It's not in words to avoid but I'd still be leery of using it.

For me the book that it is published in is the most important thing to make clear with page numbers a close second; find the book, know the page, and the chapter is more or less irrelevant in my opinion. I've always hated including chapter titles in the {{cite book}} and other templates - if the overall purpose of the reference is to provide the reader with an indication of where it came from, then a page numbers always made more sense to me. That being said, WP:CIT doesn't mention chapters but Template:Cite book does have an argument for it. After a bit of work, {{cite book}} with chapter = Chapter title and editor = Editor name produces the standard citation template with "Chapter title", in Editor name, so I guess I have no point. Citing chapters is always a pain in the ass. WLU (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks that I misremembered what Frankfurter actually wrote (already corrected it in article).

What about this citation template?

| last = Victor
| first = Jeffrey 
 | author-link = 
 | contribution = Construction of Satanic Ritual Abuse and the Creation of False Memories
 | editor-last = De Rivera
 | editor-first = Joseph & Theodore Sarbin (eds.)
 | title = Believed-In-Imaginings: The Narrative Construction of Reality
 | volume = 
 | pages = 
 | publisher = American Psychological Association
 | place = Washington, D.C.
 | year = 1998}

—Cesar Tort 16:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Meh, now that I'm aware of the chapter argument in {{cite book}} I'm inclined to just use that. The problem is a simple cite book requires editor/author, ISBN, title, publisher, and year, which are all generally easy to find. When adding a chapter, you need the chapter title, the chapter pages, the editor of the volume PLUS the author of the chapter, as well as all the above information; to enforce a universal standard makes it a lot harder to harmonize the citation templates and some of the info will be hard to get, without necessarily adding a lot of usefulness. Still, if you've got it you might as well put it in. The above template produces the following template:

Victor, Jeffrey (1998). "Construction of Satanic Ritual Abuse and the Creation of False Memories". In De Rivera, Joseph & Theodore Sarbin (eds.) (ed.). Believed-In-Imaginings: The Narrative Construction of Reality. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. {{cite book}}: |editor-first= has generic name (help)

You can see that the contribution (chapter) title, editors and location hasn't appeared. Change it to

| last = Victor
| first = Jeffrey 
 | author-link = 
 | chapter = Construction of Satanic Ritual Abuse and the Creation of False Memories
 | editor = De Rivera J & Sarbin T (eds.)
 | title = Believed-In-Imaginings: The Narrative Construction of Reality
 | volume = 
 | pages = 
 | publisher = American Psychological Association
 | location = Washington, D.C.
 | year = 1998

and you get:

Victor, Jeffrey (1998). "Construction of Satanic Ritual Abuse and the Creation of False Memories". In De Rivera J & Sarbin T (eds.) (ed.). Believed-In-Imaginings: The Narrative Construction of Reality. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)

Still missing page numbers and ISBN, but this way you can at least see the full author, chapter title, volume title, editors and location. I still argue that page numbers would be more useful, but if you're going to take this approach you might as well get the best out of it. ISBN and page nubmers strike me as more useful than chapter titles, and the cite book rather than {{citation}} (what I think you're trying to use) forces them as an argument (and diberri will generate the template for you with the ISBN). WLU (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

ok, I'll leave it as it is. It's not big deal after all. —Cesar Tort 19:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Obscure prose

I made this section—:

Daycare cases reported as ritual abuse, when compared to those without allegations of ritual abuse, tend to have more perpetrators, sexual contact, a higher number of victims, greater severity of abuse, more types of abuse and greater impacts on the children's behavior; in cases where SRA is alleged children and adults demonstrate high levels of traumatization and long-term behavioral effects.

—to look invisible for the moment since it needs rewriting in clearer prose. —Cesar Tort 03:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight given three extremely skeptical authors

Below see the data on this.

Frankfurter 11

Victor 24

LaFontaine 13

48 out of 127 citations (almost 38%) have been given to three authors, all extremely skeptical about the existence of SRA. This violates WP:UNDUE. If this extremely skeptical point of view is so popular in the field, then why does the article need to cite only three authors so many times. The answer could be that "panic theory" is being given undue weight in the article. ResearchEditor (talk) 07:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are the one who is not answering the question, asked several times to you, to provide sources of this century which say that the debate is going on in academic circles. Also, among your multiple edits, without requesting citation you have simply removed the sentence—:

During the height of the recovered memory controversy of the early 1990s, SRA figured as an example of the horrors that psychotherapists could retrieve through various techniques.

I recetly added that sentence and can source it.

Your edits will have to be reverted once more. You have been told several times to ask for comment before making multiple changes per the AT unblock. You must "discuss major changes before making them". —Cesar Tort 07:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines apply the same to me as they do to anyone else. As I have previously stated the unblock simply states to follow policy, which I have. If I need to ask for comment on my edits, then all editors do. The quote you mention above had no source. I deleted it as OR. Please provide a source for it. Many of my additions are simply deleted, even when they are from reliable sources. ResearchEditor (talk) 07:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You are supposed to wait and see for, say, a couple of months after you add a citation tag before deleting the content. —Cesar Tort 08:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard of the above. Please cite the wiki guideline. ResearchEditor (talk) 06:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Good God, RE, that's not how WP:UNDUE weight works. UNdue weight is for minority positions being advanced more than they should be. The cites you are complaining about is NOT the minority position. The crazy obscure sources from insignificant and highly disputed minor individuals you come up with are the ones pushing undue weight. DreamGuy (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The policy of undue weight is much more complex than how DG describes it above. "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." There has been no evidence presented that there is a majority position. Actually there are many peer reviewed journal articles on both sides of the issue. Victor's prominence is not equal to 1/5 of the field or more. He should not be cited that many times. And the refs I cite are often well known in the field. ResearchEditor (talk) 06:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

My comments are this:

1. Asserting that there are 'too many' is stupid. If you are going to complain about citations form each scholar, look at each citation, what it is citing, what the text is saying, then make a case for why that citation is a) incorrect b) inadequate c) misrepresentive of the scholarly consensus or d) undue weight. Arguments based on pure number are STUPID AND NONSENSICAL so please stop making them. What would you have us do, remove a specific percent of them at random? Even if weight were given to the idea that there are just too many, that does not help us decide which should be removed.
2. If it is undue weight, then per that policy, it should be easy to demonstrate that SRA as a moral panic is undue weight by adding references - balance the undue weight on skepticism by finding and sourcing a similar or greater number of reference of equal scholarly merit that indicate SRA is taken seriously as a current problem. If you can not do so, then that suggests quite clearly to me that skepticism is the majority opinion, not the minority. WP:UNDUE says "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED ON THIS PAGE. I literally can not place more emphasis on that. If there are so many freaking great references that think kids are being killed, eaten and locked in boxes to produce dissociative alters for the purposes of murder and prostitution, put your sources where your mouth is and put them on the page. Not some crappy, wishy-washy BS about how one guy treated a bunch of people with DID who also alleged SRA. Statements where unequivocal proof has been found, where police officers have arrested people for actual intergenerational murder and cannibalism, scholars who have reviewed evidence other than testimony from children and patients. Even if a significant minority hold this viewpoint, it should be possible to find them published in mainstream sources. I don't think you will because I don't think they exist. I still have many sources that I could add to the page and each one I read adds more, and all of it is skeptical. If the credulous position has any weight, you should be able to do the same. If you can't, then that is very clearly an indication that the credulous position is shit and has been thoroughly rejected.
3. Find me a policy that says there can only be a certain percentage, a certain number, a limitation in terms of quantity of the number of times a source can be cited. Sources are used as appropriate, not restricted for arbitrary reasons.
4. My good faith is done and my civility is on the way out. I'm sick of repeating the same arguments and I'm sick of you recycling the same objections. They do not have weight, obviously. I was willing to give SRA some credibility until I actually started reading. If you have no new argument to present, if you're just going to insist on repeating "it's POV and undue weight", go to a message board. Go to Wikipedia Review. Go complain to Jimbo. File an arb complaint, post on a noticeboard, but just quit with the repeptition. It wastes my time. WLU (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You contradict yourself frequently in this melodramatic over-reaction, WLU.

If an "argument by numbers" is stupid, then why did you write a list of post-2000 publications, and then count them, as proof of academic consensus?

You demand that RE supply "unequivocal proof" of SRA, and yet two of your favorite sources (Victor and Frankfurter) are purely theoretical works. Why do you require such a low burden of proof from yourself, and such a high one from RE?

You call clinical accounts of treating RA patients "wishy-washy BS", and yet clinical accounts are a crucial part of psychological and psychiatric literature, and they always have been. Are you simply cleaving off a significant body of scientific literature because it contradicts your POV?

I would be crucified if I went through a select group of credible, peer-reviewed sources that took SRA seriously, and ammended this article accordingly, entrenching that POV in sentence by sentence. I would be flayed alive. And yet you've done exactly this for the sceptical team, and when RE raised his concerns quite validly, and politely, you flamed him.

You sound like a bully, WLU. If you can't work with other editors here, don't invent excuses. Take some time on the bench. And try putting into practice the same standards you demand of others. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In reply to WLU, "in proportion to the prominence of each" basically states what I am saying. Using three authors (in this case skeptics) for over 1/3 of the citations in the article totally violates this principle. Argument on pure number are the whole point of the undue weight argument. Your excuses for not wanting to follow AGF and WP:CIVIL are poor ones. The whole point of these policies to ensure an environment on wikipedia where people can work on editing without attack. ResearchEditor (talk) 06:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As to civility, take a look at PS's posts below: I believe he hit the nail. And you still have not answered the thrust of WLU's argument. I'll merely paste here his above words: If it is undue weight, then per that policy, it should be easy to demonstrate that SRA as a moral panic is undue weight by adding references. Of course, we refer to this century's refs. —Cesar Tort 06:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Kent

In this edit RE removes criticisms of Kent. This is stupid. The majority position is that SRA is bunk, and here are two major authors in the field, specialists in the study of human historical behavior (religion and anthropology) addressing someone publishing outside of their specialty (Kent is a sociologist) on a fringe topic. As I said before (search for "zero"), if Kent is going to be cited, the rebuttals that are made in the same journal are required to balance out any weight given to his opinion. The replies to Kent are detailed, noteworthy, made by credible experts, and certainly require inclusion to demonstrate the absurdity of his position and to avoid undue weight. We could take Kent out, since really he adds nothing, but I would still include the idea that the material of the allegations are almost certainly easy to cobble together from a variety of sources. Kent is apparently an idiot and his arguments are obviously bad, and this is demonstrated. That the journals published rebuttals from two authors, and rebuttals of his rebuttal is an indication that Kent is in a minority position and the replies from recognized scholars should accordingly be given the appropriate weight. WLU (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100% with WLU above. Context is everything. Either don't include it at all, or put it in its context. If Kent is a reliable source worth mentioning, then the other sources disputing him are equally reliable and not including them totally slants the perspective. We can't have all these cites to extreme minority views masquerading as the only views out there. It's the complete opposite of what WP:NPOV policy is all about. DreamGuy (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

WLU's edit has an interesting argument above: "Kent is apparently an idiot." The Kent section as it stood was absurd. It had one line from him and then the entire section criticized him, obviously extremely unbalanced. Kent did publish at least three peer reviewed journal articles on the topic. And he is well known in Canada for his work. WLU's edits have set up a biased debate, making sure that every topic and every source that does not fit the extreme skeptical perspective are eliminated from the page and attacked on the talk page, while all of the extremely skeptical authors are perfect and cannot be questioned and can be cited up as many times as his edits would like to cite them, violating the principle of WP:UNDUE.ResearchEditor (talk) 07:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't bold-type us please: it makes for very bad reading. —Cesar Tort 06:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I was just removing the bold as you mentioned this. ResearchEditor (talk) 07:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

placing F's references in different format

I see that references of Frankfurter's book are being changed to a different format. Be careful to remove the "p. 2" which appears in ref. #9. Otherwise readers might believe that the whole dozen citations or so to Frankfurter's book refer to a single page! (when I added that page, I was referring only about TV broadcasts on SRA). —Cesar Tort 18:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep them straight, but History is in dire need of a re-work followed by a proof-read. Please keep that in mind as a speicific concern, if I wasn't the one who added the ref I'm less certain (and if it was me and more than a week ago, I've probably forgotten where I got it and why I added it). WLU (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. If you are going to place references in that way, we must do it properly. Take a look at this article I've been editing. Those guys on Mesoamerica subjects are really good and have already gotten several FA articles. They're a good example for referencing (Harvard style or whichever academic style). —Cesar Tort 18:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm exhausted

I've done a middling review, reorganization, rework and rewrite of much of the page. I haven't touched DID yet, my sources haven't really dealt with it in detail. The page places much more emphasis on skepticisms as is proper per WP:UNDUE. I tried to keep what I could but some stuff was dropped - my edit summaries usually indicate if I took something out outright. I expect ResearchEditor to complain. My response is - source it. Find a reliable source that verifies the credulous stuff.

What the hell is that section on Stephen Kent doing there? That's just his opinion and its way too long. I'm putting it here until we're decided.

Stephen Kent has attributed the alleged rituals reported by his patients to a religious, anti-Christian framework that could have been used by alleged intergenerational satanists to justify their actions. Jean La Fontaine has criticized this approach for relying on the accounts of a small number of alleged survivors whose allegations have resulted in no prosecution despite the police being informed in the majority of the cases. La Fontaine goes on to state that there are numerous sources for the allegations besides scripture, including "fundamentalist literature or preaching, the mass media, horror films and magazines as well as the effects of certain forms of therapy or the stories of other survivors" and that it is not well founded to consider the statements by survivors as proof of SRA. The criticism goes on to state that Kent's failure to consider origins other than scripture was either "an academic weakness" or an indication that Kent had accepted the truth of the allegations in advance of a search for explanations. La Fontaine has also pointed out that while ethically testimony from patient informants should be treated with respect, it should not be accepted as literal truth as the credibility of research in social sciences rests on intellectual probity and sound methods rather than an abdication of reasoning in favour of advocating for emotional testimonies of individuals percieved as credible. La Fontaine finishes his discussion with a belief that Kent's work was advocacy rather than research. David Frankfurter also pointed out that Kent's approach is "simplistic" and fails to acknowledge the debate over recovered memory therapy and recovered memories in general within psychology, and as well as the skeptical arguments presented by law enforcement officials, journalists, and psychologists. Frankfurter goes on to state that Kent's process seemed to be assuming that the rituals alleged actually existed, then seeking any confirmation he could find within a variety of sources, including Freemasonry, Judaism, Mormonism, the writings of Aleister Crowley, fertility cults and ancient Egyptian religion. Frankfurter points out that the sources used by Kent regarding Freemasonry are outdated and sensationalistic and refers to the entire process as "an exercise of the imagination" rather than an academic discussion. Frankfurter points out that a similar method was used to justify allegations of blood libel in Europe. Other failings pointed out by Frankfurter include a failure to acknowledge the nature or context of the SRA conspiracy theory writings, and a lack of a trained research psychologist's perspective on the function of a patient's stories.

I managed to knock off 3k worth of text. I feel proud. WLU (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll read this edited version of article. My only objection for the moment is that it sells Loftus as "the scientific" pov in a hotly disputed academic topic. Make no mistakes. I've defended Loftus off the wiki. But here we need a bit more balance in a subject that is still unresolved in the academia. —Cesar Tort 20:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've already read it. It's good that the links to the main articles on Michele Remembers and McMartin are cited at the top of that section. Also, the fact that "SRA resulted in a large loss of credibility to the profession" (child rights advocates, as cited in the Legacy section) ought to be considered among those editors who want to push SRA as a genuine form of child abuse. —Cesar Tort 23:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall adding Loftus, but that doesn't mean it's not there. I've read barely anything by Loftus so I haven't added anything by her; I know recovered memory isn't the be-all and end-all of SRA allegations, but I do think it needs to be expanded some more. The whole recovered memory debate is a mess and a minefield on wikipedia, unhelped by ResearchEditor's push. I've asked DreamGuy to assist if he can on that section. From my reading of the sources the history is something like this - recovered memory of Smith results in Michelle Remembers; increased awareness of child abuse produces allegations and workers unwilling to take no for an answer. This results in the McMartin trials and rumours (covered by Victor), and coerced testimonies from kids (covered by... this needs more detail and it'll have to come from someone who links McMartin with SRA; what I've read of McMartin so far has actually mentioned SRA very briefly, odd considering it does appear to be iconic). Therapists jump on the bandwagon and start to use suspect techniques on their patients with an expectation of finding SRA childhood memories. The susceptible ones who easily dissociate begin developing false memories, assisted by therapists who are assisted with memory-creating techniques like hypnosis and truth serum (Loftus, needs expansion). The the bubble bursts and skepticism sets in - techniques for interviewing kids change, major governing bodies start saying you shouldn't drug your patients. SRA drops off the face of interest and it starts to be analyzed by sociologists and anthropologists as a historical phenomenon (Frankfurter and de Young, which I got from the library today; oh, look, another skeptical source from a reliable publisher from my university library. Actually a pretty funny book, you should see what she says about Noblitt...). WLU (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The whole SRA affair is but a displacement (psychology) in order not to touch the real perps: like the schizo mother of the first boy in McMartin who started everything displaced so as not to incriminate herself or her (presumably incestous) husband. The reason of this taboo (displacement among the rest of the hysterical parents who started the panic) has to do with the problem of attachment to the perpetrator. This is my own OR by synthesis of course; and unless I get my stuff published —a kind of middle ground between the pro and con sides (as can be seen in the "Walls of Silence" forum linked above)— we cannot add a single word of it here. Suffice it so say that RE, JAR and Biao are wrong when they state that my skeptcism is on the extreme side of the debate. —Cesar Tort 01:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Cesar, that's an interesting and perceptive comment and I appreciate that you posted it. But you're wrong about me and what I think about you. I have never had any issue with what you call your "skepticism". The only complaint I've had with you is with your comments about two other editors. I perceive you to be an intelligent and deep person; but I've been surprised and saddened at the way you've chosen to treat your debate adversaries. That's not a wiki-policy comment, it's a personal observation; you can accept and learn from it, or ignore it, or repel it with arguments; your choice. Best wishes... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

When people get fed up and start acting out of frustration it quite often has a legitimate cause. I'm all for suggestions that we be respectful of others, but when some people are completely disrespectful of basic Wikipedia policies and conventions the very worst thing we can possibly do is to let that fact slide simply because some "fed up" editor is less than civil. After all this isn't a retreat center where the goal is to live in harmony with one another, but an encyclopedia where the goal is the accurate representation of facts. I suggest protecting the encyclopedia from the abusive crimes perpetrated against it, instead of protecting the perpetrators just because the police are being a little rough with their handcuffs.PelleSmith (talk) 04:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

PelleSmith, my note to Cesar was in specific response to his mention of my name in his comment, not in general with regard to any issues you may be considering. Your feelings that there are or were any "abusive crimes" by any editor against the encyclopedia are just that: your feelings. None of the people working on this page are "police"; and none are "perpetrators." Disagreements about content are part of the process; the results will be determined by consensus and sources. I don't know where you got the "retreat center where the goal is to live in harmony with one another" idea - my view is simply that we're all better off with mutual respect than with emnity and bitterness. If you choose bitterness as your path, you are welcome to it. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh please--that was just a colorful metaphor. If you don't like metaphors then so be it, but don't read nonsense into it--clearly I don't think anyone is the "police". If you want me to put it all in plain English I'll be happy to. This is NOT a "content dispute" and trying to make it sound like one is a detriment to progress here. RE is editing in violation of several core policies as he pushes a fringe POV with reckless abandon. I don't care what your particular "take" on SRA is, but that is a simple fact. What I don't appreciate is commentary that picks on someone like Cesar's reaction to something that in Wiki terms is egregiously against core policy and in human terms justifiably frustrating without in any way validating the causal facts of the reaction. I don't chose bitterness, nor am I bitter, I'm just not gonna beat around the bush here anymore (FYI the commentary on my mood is quite frankly ironic given your supposed interest in keeping things civil). If you do comment on civility while dancing around the other issues I will bluntly and frankly point them out. If you want to consider that bitter go right ahead, but I'm not gonna play that game. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

{pretentious undent because I'm longwinded}JAR would perhaps best be described as "non-skeptical" rather than a "believer". This is not a "if he's not with us he is against us" case, which is how it is being set up. JAR has been flexible in his approach to sources and commented when he has felt it necessary. So please do not paint him with the same brush as RE. JAR has been on RE's side, but I believe it is only because RE has no-one else on his/her side and JAR firmly believes everyone deserves a fair hearing. Again, I believe this, I don't know if it's true, and JAR may dispute it. But please get off his back. JAR has never repeatedly brought up the same spurious points, repeatedly inserted or removed sources against consensus simply because he liked them, and he always seems to read and reply to comments in a thoughtful manner that indicates what he wants is what is best for wikipedia. I would guess JAR is taking a middle position that only looks extreme (to us) because the talk page has become polarized. Polarization is bad, and right now one side is pretty much controlling the page. I believe it is the correct side, but this is because I have read a lot of books, articles, chapters and webpages on this shitty, shitty topic. There still needs to be, per WP:UNDUE, discussion of the non-skeptical side, and I would much rather JAR, who understands sourcing and policies, be the one adding them. I very much doubt this is going to happen because he keeps getting shit on, on this talk page, for no. good. reason. A reminder that SRA was a witchunt in which you were either pro-child or anti-false accusation, and in that discussion the fact that children may have been non-satanically abused may have been lost. Let's not lose the fact that there are contributors who are interested in a fair case for both sides, and that the case for each side should be made through the sources, not through the talk page.

That being said, I'm still giving no credence to any of RE's arguments until a new one comes up. I picked up de Young yesterday. The title of the book calls SRA a moral panic. It was published after the fact in 2004. SRA is a moral panic, I think this has been clearly established. Let's move forward. WLU (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

WLU, I'm not interested in commenting on JAR, nor in painting him with the same brush as RE. The type of commentary he made above is not "what is best for Wikipedia." In fact it subtly validates RE's egregious policy violations by not recognizing the source of frustration here -- namely those policy violations. I don't agree with an approach that does this (and find its subtlety even less pleasing) and hence I will make comments about it. Sorry for sounding so terse about this, but that's how it is for this guy. JAR is free to criticize Cesar all he wants, but I'm also free to critique that criticism, and quite frankly find said critique to be necessary in this situation.PelleSmith (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Lack of balance

The only reason that RE is the only representative of the "other side" of this debate is because editors have shit on any non-sceptic on this page since it was first written. That's why, as Tort notes, "one side" is dominating this page. You've cleared out everyone else . This page does not reflect the variety of opinions on the subject of SRA. Far from being "outside the mainstream", SRA has been mainstreamed to the point where it is integrated into existing literature on sexual assault, domestic violence and child protection. See, for instance:

Joan C. Golston, "Ritual Abuse", in Schulz, W. (eds) The phenomenon of torture : readings and commentary, Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Press, c2007

Sarson, J. and L. McDonald "Ritual Abuse-Torture in Families", in Jackson, N. (ed) Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence, Routledge, 2007

McLeod, K. and Goddard, C. R. (2005) ‘The ritual abuse of children – A critical perspective’ Children Australia, 30 (1):27-34

For practitioners in the field of violence and abuse, ritual abuse is still a serious issue, and the literature reflects this. You've simply ignored this literature, or, when it's been cited, altered the criteria for inclusion and insulted those editors who sourced it. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

But do those refs. talk about satanic ritual abuse? I wrote most of the article Religious abuse in which ritualistic abuse of children is the main subject. But this is not SRA. That's the point. —Cesar Tort 03:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Tort. They do refer to satanic forms of ritual abuse. But don't worry, I'm not going to bother breaking up the self-congratulatory love-in that has developed on this page, as you and others have successively bullied every other viewpoint into silence.

I do look forward to hearing your excuse for excluding these sources. I presume: "Oh, satanic forms of ritual abuse, but not satanic ritual abuse, so it's completely different and unrelated! Let's accuse Biaothanatoi of breaching WP policy and wasting our time, and then suggest that he's a zealous idiot who is misrepresenting the facts!"

"And then, let's forget he ever mentioned these sources, because they are recent, published by reputable houses/journals, and therefore they directly contradict the POV that we've so lovingly entrenched in this article over the last six months!" --Biaothanatoi (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Re your first ref., Joan C. Golston, "Ritual Abuse", I could not find any reference to Satan or children in the index to that book.[1] For God’s sake: it includes part of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago (which by the way I am rereading after his death). Are you sure the other two refs. talk specifically of SRA? —Cesar Tort 03:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

And even in this PDF of the specific chapter by Joan C. Golston [2] I cannot find mention of SRA. It is very hard to look thru a long a PDF without proper searching devices anyway. Could you type an actual SRA quotation? —Cesar Tort 04:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the book, Tort. Bizarre idea, I know, but just, for once, pick up the book, and then you can invent specious objections.

Golston has been writing about ritual abuse (including satanic rituals) for over fifteen years.

e.g. Golston, J. "Ritual abuse: Raising hell in psychotherapy: Creation of cruelty: The political military and multigenerational training of torturers: Violent initiation and the role of traumatic dissociation," Treating Abuse Today Vol. 3, No. 6,1993, pp. 12-19, Golston, J.. "Raising hell in psychotherapy. Part II. Comparative abuse: Shedding light on ritual abuse through the study of torture methods in political repression, sexual sadism, and genocide." Treating Abuse Today Vol. 2 No. 6, 1992, pp. 5-16. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 05:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The book you first cited is 2007; the above refs. are 1992-1993: the time when several scholars swallowed the SRA claims. It'd be interesting to see an actual quotation of the 2007 book. Of course: you yourself can add it in mainspace if you wish. —Cesar Tort 05:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if the references did somehow make it on the page, more than likely they would later be deleted. The SRA page has become an extreme skeptical soapbox, where anyone editing for balance against this position has been reverted and called a POV pusher (one of the more polite terms used). Intentionally or unintentionally, the ad hominem attacks against anyone editing from a neutral or pro-SRA stance have been strong and have discouraged the creation of a balanced page of research. The page has turned into a non-encyclopedic opinion piece for extreme skepticism. Any attempt to change this and moderate it, even with sources from the APA, are reverted and the person who placed the edit is called a POV pusher. ResearchEditor (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, don't use bold-type for entire paragraphs. It is difficult to read. —Cesar Tort 06:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for removing it. —Cesar Tort 07:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Tag

Now that the article has been rewritten and what remained of the fringe POV version removed I start to wonder for how long does the tag will have to remain at the top of the article? —Cesar Tort 00:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added a further tag as i have concerns that the article only covers this from a US perspective and doesn't provide a worldwide view. There is no mention of the major 2006 BBC documentary on the subject, When Satan Came To Town[3][4], which is an excellent source. --neon white talk 20:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The article did include sections about the U.K. and Australia before the reorg, when they were shortened. Yes: I believe a section on both should be helpful. —Cesar Tort 04:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The tags need to stay up there. The page does not represent the research fairly and there are numerous violations of WP:UNDUE. The most obvious one is the constant citing of three extremely skeptical authors, attacking the SRA argument with theory, having not worked with any victims of SRA.

I will repeat this phrase from WP:UNDUE. "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Below is a violation of "proportionality."

Two days ago, these three authors had over 1/3 of the citations on the page.

Frankfurter 11

Victor 24

LaFontaine 13

48 out of 127 citations (almost 38%) have been given to three authors, all extremely skeptical about the existence of SRA. If the skeptical argument is so popular in the research, then why do these three author need to be cited so much.

And also as cited above- "two of your favorite sources (Victor and Frankfurter) are purely theoretical works. Why do you require such a low burden of proof from yourself, and such a high one from RE?" Skeptical edits have set up a biased debate, making sure that every topic and every source that does not fit the extreme skeptical perspective are eliminated from the page and attacked on the talk page, while all of the extremely skeptical authors are perfect and cannot be questioned and be cited as many times as one would like.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ResearchEditor (talk • contribs)