February 2008 (UTC) - Still discussing  

WP:RS is a guideline, and WP:IAR allows us to use it if RS interferes with improving wikipedia.  If Lanning is good demonstration of the mainstream opinion on SRA, then it's completely suitable.  Currently, there is a feeling that the credibility given to the concept is giving undue weight to the existence of a highly improbable condition.  
The journal of psychohistory is not peer reviewed (Lloyd DeMause alone edits it). See Journal of Psychohistory and Psychohistory#Criticism as well - it's not a universally accepted discipline.  DeMause uses a Freudian dodge to respond to criticism - "it's resistance, not a valid criticism".  
As stated above, it's use by many, many reliable sources, gives it a lot of credibility.  
Religioustolerance.org is not the source for the report, it is a convenience link, making objections to RT.org a red herring.    18:57, 8