Talk:Satanic panic/Archive 3

message: I hadn't noticed this section of the essay - could be mined for sources on the England section.  Note that I'm not advocating the use of this page as a source, but it might have links to information we don't have on the page yet.  WLU 18:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RT link on England

message: The lead paragraph opens with two sensible sentences before dissolving into a POV tug-of-war over whether SRA exists. Most of the content and its sources are already contained within the article, and so I propose that we delete much of it and leave the opening paragraph relatively minimal. 
There are a number of issues in the text at the moment, in particular:
::(a) The sourcing of religioustolerance.org, a website written by a small group of people who misrepresent themselves as "consultants", have no professional experience or expertise in the field of child abuse, and have never published any written work beyond their own website.
:: (b) The opening paragraph is USA-centric, focusing on the American media-driven controversies over SRA without acknowledging the international context. There are a number of substantiated SRA cases listed on the page in which Satanic rituals were a feature of organised child abuse, and, in South Africa, Belgium, Argentina and Brazil, such cases included links to international child trafficking and organ trafficking. 
:: (c) It has already been pointed out here that the reference to "daycare sexual abuse hysteria" is profoundly POV and factually incorrect. There are a number of well-recognised experts on the subject of child abuse, like Finkelhor and Faller, who have undertaken empirical research on ritualsitic sexual abuse in multi-perpetrator daycar cases, and found ritual activity to be related to the most severe forms of maltreatment.
I propose that much of this material is removed, and we let the article speak to the complexities of the issue, rather then trying to ram it into the first few paragraphs. --Biaothanatoi 23:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nobody has disagreed, so I've made some changes with specific reference to controversy. All the sourced info is already available in the article itself, so I see no reason to have it repeated in a push-and-shove way in the opening para. Also, I'd like some clarity on the credibility of RT.org - it seems to me that RT.org cannot be regarded as a credible source on child abuse and should not be quoted here. They misrepresent themselves as "consultants" when they are not, they have no experience or expertise regarding child abuse/the law/psychology, and they are only published on their own website. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, look at how RT is used - very, very minimally, and only to justify skepticism.  I think it's reasonable.  I do agree with the above comments regarding removing stuff from the lead, but given the length of the article I think it could be expanded.  One thing that could be included is the mention of places where SRA has been purported as it does occupy a huge proportion of the article.  WLU (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taming the lead paragraph 

message: OK, the page is very long.  I've archived everything I don't believe is a current discussion.  Feel free to pull stuff out - I left in two sections at the top that contain some useful links and advice given the apparent aversion to using citation templates.  I propose that we basically use that page of the archive to archive everything else that comes up between now and 2008.  Page is currently getting a lot of traffic and it's cleaner to read if we dump resolved issues in there as they reach consensus.  WLU 20:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just to say that I think we are getting somewhere with this article, and it's been largely due to the mediation of WLU in a long-standing editing war. Thanks for all your hard work on this page. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: Here is a list of books on SRA that have been published by academic presses. There are four of them I have found so far; if anyone knows any others, I would be interested to hear about it.
*
*
*
*
*** Crotalus *** 20:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A number of these books meet the standard that you set out here, however, I would piont out that the definition of a credible source is set out by Wikipedia policy, and not by you. You are in no position to attempt to strike out credible references on this subject simply because of their publishing house. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:V: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is." Note that peer-reviewed materials and university presses are listed before "respected publishing houses," implying that they take precedence. *** Crotalus *** 02:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, by the way, Jenny Kitzinger's book is not an acceptable source because it is not even published by a "respected publishing house." It is published by Pluto Press, a self-proclaimed "radical book publisher" (see ). "Pluto Press," the page notes, "has always had a radical political agenda." This is their own words. We generally don't take fringe publishers that seriously when it comes to sourcing. *** Crotalus *** 02:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Radical" does not equal "fringe". Kitzinger is a Professor of Media and Communication Studies at the School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, Cardiff University. As a professor, she is a credible author and you cannot strike out her work simply because you don't like the political view of her publishing house. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 03:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, a Professor of Media and Communication Studies' work would not be necessarily be considered "expert" about SRA, only about media coverage of SRA.  Hence, we cannot list it unless the publishing house is considered generally reliable.  I agree that "radical" does not mean "fringe", but we need a better source that it isn't "fringe".  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And that's exactly the manner in which the book is quoted - the engagement of defendents in SRA cases with the media. These objections are completely superious and I will vigorously block any attempt to delete Kitzinger from this article on such a shallow basis. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 03:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  Crotalus, Your efforts here stink of a pissing contest, in which you seem to think you stack up "your" sources, attack "mine", and see what's left. You attempted to delete Noblitt on completely spurious grounds, and now you attack Kitzinger in a similar way. Your approach here has nothing to do with Wikipedia, NPOV and balance - you are simply raising facetious objections to legitimate references in an attempt to obliterate sources that don't accord with your POV. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 03:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Academic books on this subject

message: :Could someone please explain to me how this section is at all relevant (or preferably edit the section to reflect this).  This article seems to be reasonably well-edited, this content has been there for a good deal of time, and there -is- discussion about the relevance of other sections, so it seems strange that 5 paragraphs just sat there while apparently having nothing to do with the article...Tiak (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've just reread the article and it seems I managed to miss the word "ritualistic" once in the beginning of the section...  All the same, the point remains that it fails to detail that the crimes were ritualistic or satanic, or portrayed as such.Tiak (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article states that the crimes involved organised, ritualistic abuse. What is your point? Do you want graphic details? --Biaothanatoi (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mornington Peninsula, Victoria

message: Crotalus and a range of anonymous IP editors and single-edit usernames have recently flooded onto this page, making significant changes, deleting information and triggering massive reverts without attempting to build consensus or clarify their concerns. Crotalus, in particular, is claiming that all literature that supports his POV is the "majority" position, while attempting to delete credible sources which contradict such a claim.
In particular, he has deleted - and continues to block - references to Noblitt and Perskin's "Cult and Ritual Abuse", which he claims is a "fringe book" that has never been reviewed in the academic press. Abuse Truth has already demostrated that their book has been well-received in the press, and I've posted (above) the glowing review of "Cult and Ritual Abuse" in the Journal of Psychotherapy. 
There is now so much chaffe accross this discussion page that I'm reposting the review for your consideration. The review in the "American Journal of Psychotherapy" (Summer 1996; 50(3) p383) stated: 
:: Whether or not one believes in MPD and/or Ritual Abuse, this book provides one with what is probably the most comprehensive and reasonable review of the subject that has appeared up to now. The primary author, James Noblitt, provides us with a personal historical review of his experience with MPD. Starting out as an "unbeliever", he provides case histories of patients that led him to believe in the reality of the syndrome and to develop expertise in its therapy. This in itself would make the book of value. 
:: However, even more significant is the manner in which he introduces us to the problem of ritual abuse. Describing himself as a "secular psychologist," and specifically repudiating any belief in Satanism, he describes case after case of sexual abuse of a ritual nature - ritual in the sense that it is surrounded with cultic practices. He documents the similarity of such practices from widely seperated parts of the country; and even on an international basis. because he writes from a non-fundamentalist and non-religious point of view and because he sees riutal abuse in a wider context than Satanism as such, he provides the reader with both important information and a perspectie that is clinically helpful ... 
:: They also discuss their negative experience with police agencies and the FBI, pointing out that contrary to generally accepted opinion, the FBI has never published a study stating that there is no evidence of organised cult or ritual activity associated with sexual abuse in the United States ... 
:: Of the many books on this sunbject that I have read, this is perhaps the most helpful and is highly recommended to those who deal with these problems whether or not they believe in ritual abuse." 
Crotalus claims on this page that the article has been referencing "low-quality" sources for too long, but it appears that he considers all literature that takes claims of SRA seriously as "low quality". I am somewhat circumspect about his/her capacity to objectively consider credible sources on their merits on this topic. Crotalus has indicated a considerable bias on this matter and a willingness to ignore the concerns of other editors. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Biaothanatoi above. With the help of senior editors, this page was becoming an accurate, well-balanced source of information. It is crucial that all editors work together on building this page via consensus and not by simply deleting information they disagree with.Abuse truth (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crotalus' attacks on Noblitt, and failure to build consensus or seek clarification 

message: Anyone else have a view on whether this case is relevant? As far as I can see, the only allegations of SRA were made by a person serving life imprisonment for murder. I don't doubt that the case is complex and it seems likely that there were multiple rapes and murders committed over many years. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Van Rooyen case 

message: AT, I did not put the sentence you added back in because it isn't sourced.
Accusations and substantiated allegations of child abuse ocurring within the context of satanic rituals have been documented on all the continents but Asia, with a greater number and higher profile of cases being reported in the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia.
Can you please source this?  Daniel Santos (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: I left this out of my revert because I want to hear ARs side of this story.  The information AT put in appears accurate, sourced and relevant.  Why do you feel it should be removed? Daniel Santos (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History / Freud

message: I reverted changes that AR removed from evidence.  I see nothing wrong with it the second sentence and would like to know why AR removed it?  The only problem I can possibly see with the 1st sentence is that it is an estimate and I wish it had a page number tied to it so we can see how they came up with that estimate.  Was this based upon a study?  If it was, then it will be better to source the actual study rather than their book (although both wouldn't hurt).  But I put the sentence back in, partially to keep them together.
An estimated 93% of therapists working with alleged ritual abuse survivors in the early and mid 1990's believed that ritual abuse occurs. Studies have shown a connection between dissociative identity disorder and SRA, and researchers have found ritualistic abuse in substantiated cases of day care sexual abuse.
Daniel Santos (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence

message: I have re-added what AR removed from this section and I believe this information is so relevant, as well as sourced that it's removal was irresponsible and I implore you to be more discerning with reverts (everybody really).  If there is a reason why you removed this, please let us know.  This is one of those areas I can't possibly imagine a legitimate reason for removing it. Daniel Santos (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SRA in the courts

message: I felt that I should re-add what was removed here because the original is misleading.  However, (playing devil's advocate -- no pun intended :) I should like to hear more about why studies prove that DID is less controversial.  I know that the science is rock solid, and there are plenty of references for that (even in the DID article), but I don't have personal knowledge about it's state of dispute.  None the less, the original paragraph gave the false impression that scientists were "trying" to make a case for DID -- this is off by about a mile or 2 thousand. Daniel Santos (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dissociative identity disorder and SRA

message: It should show up at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation within a few hours, when the case management robot finds it. All parties feel free to participate, in accordance with mediation guidelines. I have omitted the issues which other users brought up, they are free to add those as "additional issues" to the mediation page.
Please indicate that you accept the request for mediation, so we can proceed at a decent pace. This one will probably take quite a long time to work through the system. <eleland/talkedits> 21:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very interested in the process of mediation. However, I hesitate to agree to it at this point. I would want to be certain that the process will be used to ensure an amicable compromise amongst all parties and will not be used as a process to promote one POV over another on the page.Abuse truth (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been involved in mediations before - some have worked, some haven't. Be assured that you will have ample opportunity to make your arguments and that all sides will be heard. Unless we all sign up to the mediation at the outset, it won't happen. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Mediation is non-binding; if you find that the process is pushing a "denialist" POV you can walk away at any time. Even if mediation completes you don't need to follow the results after. The idea is to facilitate a compromise between the parties, not to impose a solution. <eleland/talkedits> 17:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation request filed 

message: Hello, I'm not familiar with this page, so I am adding information here on the talk page instead of to the main article.
This text came from the page about False allegation of child sexual abuse.  The topic of that page focuses on questions of individual child abuse, usually within families, and does not address group or ritual abuse.  So the text about the court cases listed below, which seem to have valid information, don't belong on that page.  They might be good to add to this article, or they could make up a new article on "False allegations of organized ritual abuse".
So, I'm posting that text here for editors on this page to decide if it's useful and where best to place it.  I'll sign here; the rest of the info below is text I did not write, that came from the other article.  You are welcome to use it or not, as you prefer.  (The references are included in the wikitext - they won't show up here on the talk page, but they are in the text and will appear if placed on a page with a footnote section)... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  some SRA court cases info moved from another page 

message: the article is so much better than it was 3 or six months ago, so congrats people. even if its contentious process it is producing good work 66.220.110.83 (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags 

message: Here are some reasons why I think Lanning is a reliable source - WLU (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes