Talk:Satanic panic/Archive 2

message: The quotation from Mary de Young on "moral panics" in the first paragraph is biased in that it's primary position in the article clearly infers that "moral panic" theory is the likely explanation for SRA. This is not the consensus position amongst those who are skeptical of SRA, and it ignores the significant body of empirical research which suggests that allegations of SRA are based on factual experiences of organised and ritualistic abuse.
Whilst moral panic is one explanation of Satanic Ritual Abuse, but it's not the only one - even amongst the skeptics. Elaine Showalter claimed that is was evidence of "pre-millenial anxiety", Linley Hood claimed it was evidence of homophobic attacks on gay childcare workers, Debbie Nathan claimed it was evidence of a backlash against working mothers placing their children in daycare, Ralph Underwager claimed it was a conspiracy created be lesbians and feminist seeking to undermine the nuclear family, John Pooley claimed it was evidence of temporary frontal lobe epilepsy, David Frankfurter claims it's an expression of a universal human need to beleive in ultimate evil, Jeffrey Victor claimed it was an invention of fundamentalist Christians, Richard Ofshe claimed that it was the result of hypnotic police interviewing techniques, Pamela Freyd claimed it was the result of psychotherapeutic malpractice. And so on.
I'm deleting de Young's quote on the basis of it's POV and biased positioning. de Young's contributions to the debate on "moral panic" are important but the centrality given to her opinion is clearly designed to influence the reader to the "moral panic" position. It fails to acknowledge the diversity of the skeptical positions on SRA, let alone on the debate as a whole. Perhaps someone wants to start up a passage on the 'moral panic' position on SRA? Or even a summary of alternative explanations, like the many that I've listed above?
--Biaothanatoi 00:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I don't see how these explanations are contradictory, especially since de Young specifically mentions "the patriarchy thesis" and "feminist arguments", "religious fundamentalist notions of premillennarian evil", "a hierarchy of abuse with the 'ultimate evil' of satanic ritual abuse at its peak", etc etc. In any case, the use of the quotation was not to privilege a "moral panic explanation" over other skeptical explanations, but to summarize the skeptical view on the subject. And the skeptical view is, in fact, also the mainstream view. I'm aware of the burgeoning network of websites, message boards, and activist groups insisting that academia and the media got it all wrong, that SRA is really a widespread, highly organized network spanning the globe, etc. But this is a fringe theory which needs to be treated as such. I'm afraid that your recent edits to the article have involved extensive synthesis of apparently reliable sources to advance an argument that, taken individually, they do not make. The mainstream view of McMartin, for example, is that "That case, in which hundreds of children made increasingly bizarre claims of abuse against the family owners and employers of a preschool in Manhattan Beach (Los Angeles County), eventually fell apart in acquittals, hung juries and questions about prosecutorial excess." . The supposed archaeological evidence of backfilled tunnels has been received with wide skepticism, despite your incredibly prejudicial conclusion that they "have yet to be refuted by an archaeologist". Since there is a clear mainstream view of SRA, this article should be written to it. It can certainly accommodate the claims of the SRA movement but should not be beholden to them. < eleland // talkedits > 15:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The many skeptical opinions on SRA are worth noting, but I see no reason why "moral panic" theory be privileged over any other. I also see no disjunction between your quote on McMartin and the information I provided. In fact, I detailed the defence's argument in greater detail then any preceeding author.  --Biaothanatoi 14:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moral panic theory - Mary De Young 

message: What do you think of moving the non-satanic cases to :False allegation of child sexual abuse? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move some case studies

message: I am removing the section below because it is unsourced. It is also ambiguous.
Repeated descriptions of secret rooms
While most SRA accounts are regarded by modern eyes as absurd and impossible, the abuse setting of a secret room, tunnel, or other "special" location is a theme which not only is noticeable in (now disproven) victim recollections, but has also been verified by several official investigations. Abuse truth 23:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of Repeated descriptions of secret rooms section 

message: An editor here has accused me of slandering Dr Ralph Underwager, the founder of the Institute of Psychological Therapies and the False Memory Syndrome Foundation.
For his interest, I have provided exerpts of an article published in The Sunday Times, called "Child abuse expert says paedophilia part of 'god's will' - Dr Ralph Underwager" by Liz Lightfoot, 19 December 1993.
::AN AMERICAN psychologist whose evidence has been widely used to discredit child witnesses in sexual abuse cases has claimed that men who have sex with children could defend their behaviour as part of God's will ...
:: Last night Underwager admitted that his credibility had been damaged by the interview, in which he urged paedophiles to defend themselves publicly. He denied that he approved of the behaviour, but added that "scientific evidence" showed 60% of women sexually abused as children reported that the experience had been good for them. He contended the same could be true for boys. 
:: He confirmed that he had approved the article in the journal Paidika, subtitled the Journal of Paedophilia, before publication. In it he stated: "Paedophiles need to become more positive and make the claim that paedophilia is an acceptable expression of God's will for love and unity among human beings. 
:: "The solution that I'm suggesting is that paedophiles become much more positive. They should directly attack the concept, the image, the picture of the paedophile as an evil, wicked and reprehensible exploiter of children." ...
:: He has been forced to resign from his high-profile position as a founding member of the False Memory Society (FMS) following the article. The FMS, which has branches in America and Britain, was set up to examine the phenomenon of adults in therapy who falsely recall being abused as children. It told Underwager he could remain a member only if he was prepared to state that any sexual contact between a child and an adult was always destructive. 
:: "I am a scientist and I could not agree to that because it is not a statement based on scientific research," he said this weekend ...
:: Underwager said he believed feminists were jealous of men's ability to love other men or children and had stirred up hysteria over paedophilia. "The point where men may say that maleness can include the intimacy and closeness of sex may make women jealous," he said in the interview. "This would hold true for male bonding, and paedophile sex too." 
--Biaothanatoi 01:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ralph Underwager and the Institute of Psychologal Therapies 

message: I've substantially rewritten the section on "questioning children", which made a number of unsourced and factually incorrect assertions regarding the reliability of children's testimony.
There is a considerable body of research into children's testimony and the accuracy of their memory - research sparked in no small way by the controversies over ritual abuse. This research does not suggest that children are highly suggestible or easily led by adults. What it demonstrates is that, whlist leading interview techniques impact on both adults and children, they rarely lead to false reports. 
Play therapy with very young children has also been successfully tendered as evidence of sexual abuse in court for years now, and whilst it may be a controversial technique amongst those influenced by the False Memory Syndrome movement, it does not attract the same skepticism in legal or academic circles.
I've also included information in this section on children's difficulties in sexual assault trials, which is well documented by researchers in America, Australia and Britain. It is pertinent to the issue of questioning children. I can provide further sources and information on this matter if other editors think it would add to the article. 
--Biaothanatoi 04:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "questioning children" section 

message: This is a strange section for a number of reasons, and I suggest that it be substantively rewritten.
For instance, not a single source is provided for any assertion in the entire section, and a number of statements are made at such a level of generality that they can be easily disproven. The most concerning aspect of this article is that it uses the phrase "recovered memory therapy" to refer to a "technique" through which memories of child abuse are recovered.
There is no psychotherapeutic technique called "recovered memory therapy". The phrase was invented by Richard Ofshe and Ethan Waters in their book "Making Monsters" to auspice both evidence-based treatment for PTSD as well as fringe practices such as 'rebirthing', 'past-life regression', etc. This was a rhetorical strategy designed to undermine the credibility of all treatment for traumatic amnesia.
As you can read in this article, Richard Ofshe's theories on SRA were thrown out of court in Paul Ingram case, where the judge called his logic "odd" and his conclusions unfounded, and called into question his professional capacity and expertise. The fact that Ofshe later promulgated those same conclusions through his advocacy work with the False Memory Syndrome Foundation does not mean that we should reproduce them here as fact, particularly since they have been found to be lacking in court, and robustly contested by his academic peers.
--Biaothanatoi 06:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rewritten - see what you think. --Biaothanatoi 01:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "hypnosis and false memories" section 

message: For anyone who is interested in edits relating to this topic, I'm having some difficulty at Satanic ritual abuse and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with editors who are incredulous that the term "Satanic ritual abuse" is even appropriate for what is discussed there. Would love to see input/assistance from editors here who are familiar with the topic. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interested editors?

message: Over at the fringe theories noticeboard I have posted a broad review of certain recent edits to this page; in summary, I believe that reliable published sources have been selectively misquoted and misinterpreted to push a fringe POV. Please try and keep the resulting discussion in one place. <eleland/talkedits> 15:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broad summary of contested issues at [[WP:FTN]] 

message: I will be reverting this section back to its previous version. 
the changes below were made without being sourced: 
:Further information: Day care sex abuse hysteria Cases of child molestation involving allegations of satanic rituals in the United States cluster in the early mid 1990s, growing out of 1980s cases of day care sex abuse hysteria without explicit connections to satanism.
:Early cases were the Kern County child abuse cases of 1982-1984 (with the convictions overturned in 1996), and the McMartin preschool nursery case, initiated in 1983, with the trial lasting from 1987 to 1990 (when charges were dropped).Abuse truth 00:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: since you seem to be in agreement with "cluster in the 1980s and early 1990s", what part of "Early cases were the Kern County child abuse cases of 1982-1984 (with the convictions overturned in 1996), and the McMartin preschool nursery case, initiated in 1983, with the trial lasting from 1987 to 1990 (when charges were dropped)" is controversial? The links are, after all, to fully developed articles. --dab (𒁳) 17:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Speaking of changes to this section, it is interesting that the information on the Minnesota case has been quietly deleted. The case overview was amply footnoted and I can't see a basis for it's deletion whatsoever. I'll replace it later today. --Biaothanatoi 01:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The statements about the Kern County case are false - one of those convicted served a full sentence and was only released a few years ago. Sheesh. If skeptical editors want to contribute to the article, can you please try to avoid outright fabrications or misleading generalisations? --Biaothanatoi 05:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, "hysterical". Ingram's wife, daughters and son all accused him of sexual assault, Ingram confessed and went to jail, and his son showed up at his parole application in 1997 to reinforce that his father was a very dangerous man. But if Richard Ofshe says that he's innocent (even if Ofshe's argument was thrown of court) then it must be true! --Biaothanatoi 01:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  unsourced changes to United States 

message: This section is a POV fork from the main article. From the outset, the author refers to MPD as a political movement rather then a recognized psychological disorder, and they claim that the (very few) allegations of SRA in the Netherlands were the product of a few workshops whose ideas “found their way” to the “conservative religious community”. The author goes on to infer that the Oude Pekala case can be attributed to the conservative religious media. 
This argument is highly speculative and at times contrary to known facts. Meanwhile, the general thrust of the author's skeptical account of SRA is covered extensively elsewhere in the article, and does not bear repeating here. 
The Oude Pekala incident has been exhaustively documented by the treating clinicians, Drs Jonker and Jonker-Bakker. They provided an overview of the case in the journal Child Abuse and Neglect in 1991, and they presented the results of a cohort study of the children who disclosed abuse in the same journal in 1997. I will be adding a summary of their work to this article, and deleting the POV editorializing. As it stands, the author is clearly pushing a specific POV that allegations of SRA in the Netherlands are unfounded. The facts of the case suggests that, at the very least, serious harm came to some children at Oude Pekala, and the article should reflect that. 
It looks as though the author speaks Dutch and subsequently has access to newspaper articles that us monolinguists can't read. I've tried to keep as much info as I can from these sources. --Biaothanatoi 06:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV pushing in the Netherlands section 

message: I trimmed the external links again.  I removed the following:
*Child abuse and neglect 
**This isn't about SRA, it's about child abuse
*Conviction List: Ritual Child Abuse at Believe The Children
**This is a personal webpage to sourced, yet not linked entries, to US-only crimes.  The next entry features world-wide reports and seems more useful
* Lucifer's Lodge: Satanic Ritual Abuse in the Catholic Church
**This is just a link to a book, it's spam.  The book could be a reference but the page should not be an EL
* Documented Cases of Satanic Ritual Abuse at a Tripod page
**This is just a personal webpage with linked sources.  It's better than the conviction list, but it's full of this person's interpretations and linking of facts
* Entry in Skeptic's Dictionary 
**Skeptic's dictionary is already linked as a reference.  
* Geraldo Rivera's Influence on the Satanic Ritual Abuse and Recovered Memory Hoaxes at Religious Tolerance
**I just don't see the need.  The page is SRA, not a single public figure's role in SRA.  Further, it appears to be mostly the page author's (BA Robinson) interpretation of things, and there's only six references.  
:: I am adding back the link : Conviction List: Ritual Child Abuse at Believe The Children because it is not a personal page, 
::and it adds balance to the page. "Balance - When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner.  This link was also previously discussed on this talk page here. 
::I agree the Geraldo link above should be deleted. It appears to still be there, so I will delete it.Abuse truth 02:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I question the reliablility of the Ritual Child Abuse site listed above.  I don't think that site is reputable, under our definitions.  Also see #Attack site removal below.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: It was an ArbComm decision which was apparently blanked and reopened.  It's clear that any site which violates the privacy of ANY editor can be banned.  There was a finding, that any site which has the primary purpose of "outing" individuals could be banned from external links, but that's been reversed.  I think the site in question is also unreliable to the point of the information being more-likely-than not incorrect, but I'll need to research that.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd like to hear your reasoning. The site in question contains a bibliography of hundreds of peer-reviewed journal articles pertaining to ritual child sexual abuse dating from 1980 to the present day. The webmaster has clearly demonstrated a concern about verifiability and accuracy. On what basis do you claim that the list of convictions has been falsified? --Biaothanatoi 05:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see how the site  violates the privacy of any editor. The site has never been proven to be inaccurate. It describes court decisions with full citations. It appears to be more factual in nature than Satanic Media Watch and News Exchange  http://www.smwane.dk/ which remains on the page. I will be restoring the link to the page. Abuse truth 01:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. Dab and Rubin, the list of convictions contains information that is verifiable and in the public domain. If you feel that is has been falsified, then please do some research and show us where. Rubin's "suspicions" about the site and Dab's ad hominem attacks are not justification for the removal of the link. --Biaothanatoi 05:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack site removal 

message: I archived the pages for discussions that ended on or before September 30th, since the page was getting stupid-long.  It's still pretty long.  WLU 14:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: Unfortunately, even though the skeptical view of SRA is the mainstream view, the article is currently written to confine skeptical views to a "skepticism" ghetto (where they are presented in a misleading, mocking fashion by rapid-fire listing various explanations, giving the impression that skeptics are just randomly stabbing in the dark at explaining the SRA phenomenon). This is out-of-line with both style and NPOV practice.
:Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion that the skeptical view of SRA is the mainstream view? Or is this an unsourced statement? Abuse truth 20:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For starters, try Google News: "satanic ritual abuse" since 1997. <eleland/talkedits> 22:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Eleland, if you'd like to see the 'skepticism' section or incorporated more generally into the article, then feel free to do so in a way that is balanced and NPOV. In the past, you've preferred to entrench your own beliefs about SRA within the article as fact, so it'd be nice to see you take a different tact this time. --Biaothanatoi 01:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Criticisms" 

message: It is notable that Eleland has yet to establish that a single fact added to this article, over the last month, has been incorrect. In contrast, much of the information contained in his previous version was demonstratably wrong or misleading.
His criticisms are almost entirely ad hominem, aimed either at other editors or at authors of sources that conflict with his POV. He has consistently sought to characterise those, like myself, who have a different POV to him as people prone to lying, conspiracy and misrepresentation. He points to apparent breaches of WP policy or style, not in order to correct the article, but rather as 'evidence' as to why editors who disagree with him cannot be trusted. 
If Eleland is going to continue his campaign of bullying and harrasment then I see no other option then to go to mediation or arbitration. What do other editors think? --Biaothanatoi 06:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't reply to this screed, other than to note that "my previous version" is a stub article from September 2002 of dubious relevance to the current dispute. I made minor edits twice in 2003, adding brief mentions of specific cases or allegations (Martensville, and some crap from Scott Peterson's lawyers). In the intervening four years I haven't touched this piece, and I don't know why Biao insists on treating me as its sole legitimate representative. Oh, and of course I'd be amenable to mediation, either through the informal "Cabal" or the formal "Committee". <eleland/talkedits> 07:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm treating you as the main author of this article, because your user page states "I created Winnipeg General Strike, Squamish Five, Satanic ritual abuse, Cluster bomb, and Domino theory among others". Is this statement true or not? --Biaothanatoi 04:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eleland's criticisms 

message: The Alien abduction section looked like a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, so I removed it.  WLU 02:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alien abductions 

message: I'm going through the sources to try to justify them and provide better ones.  Some are tough, particularly my last edit - these really need citations to independant sources.  When I google them, I come up with wikipedia as the first hit, and many others that cite them as urban legends and 'stuff I heard' on fora and non-reliable sources.  They need pubmed id, ISBNs, doi #s, anything to link them to a concrete source.  This proves they exist, and allows them to be found so we can read through them and see if they back up the citations.  It also adds much-needed credibility to a really rough article.  Finally, the paragraph I commented out in Evidence looked a lot like original research - without the source saying 'Satanic ritual abuse', to call these SRA because it's in daycares, involved multiple perpetrators and had ritual elements (what kind of rituals?  Hindu?  Freemasonic?  Shriner?  Coronation?) seems way out of line.  This whole page is begging for a RFC or something else to comb out the sections.  WLU 21:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Why the negative connotation? 
Would you brand somebody a "Self-confessed Christian, or a self-confessed Jew?
Modern day satanism, the only true form of this religion, embraces children as sacred beings, hence SRA is just silly it should be called FRA, for fuckwit ritual abuse.
I wish a minority of imbeciles would discontinue ruining a logical, self-improving religion for the rest of us.
Being tarred with the same brush as a bunch of kid rapers is bullshit, I'd kill all of the bastard kiddy-fiddlers before I touched a kid myself.
Proud Laveyan Satanist.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.157.127 (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-Confessed Satanist? 

message: Recently a conflict has arisen as to the relative weight given to various POVs on this issue, and to the quality of sourcing. What conclusions should this article draw about the real / mythic nature of SRA, which sources should it use, and are the current sources accurately represented? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleland (talk • contribs)  21:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like enough eyes are on the page now to deal with this. If problems continue, somebody else can open the RfC. <eleland/talkedits> 02:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: Article tone POV, and sourcing 

message: In this edit, I commented out the newest source added.  The reference is not to B, S & G, which I have still failed to find, but to Faller, in the APSAC Advisor, a news journal, not a scientific journal.  I doubt that a news publication did a survey of 2300 clients, and if they did, I am reluctant to endorse it until I've seen their methods.  Also, the wording discussed the BSG reference.  This looks like a case of a book citing a news article which cited a journal article, a third-hand reference at best.  I can't find a version of the original BSG article, so I'd rather the information were not in the page until at minimum a reliable source can be found for the existence of the study itself.  Before references are added to the page, can we be sure they exist through a reliable source, ideally a pubmed citation, doi or google scholar citation?  The only place I can find many of these sources is in web forums, personal webpages and other dubious places, it looks like the references are getting pasted and passed around in a variety of unofficial websites, which isn't helping their credibility or that of the page.  WLU 16:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will try and get the original article. Hope that all sources in the article are held to this high a standard. Abuse truth 02:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For anything that's a scholarly article, it's generally not a big deal to get some sort of confirmation that it exists, if not a link to an abstract or even full text.  Also, since they're generally the most reliable articles and useful for providing proof (ie you can make the firmest statements and conclusions based on them) it's nice to have confirmation that it exists and ideally some sort of summary or link to the actual content.  Many of the sources on this page are quite problematic for their dubious reliability, I'm trying to be evenhanded, but it's an enormous undertaking and exhausting to try to track down 160-odd references.  Let me know if I'm removing things that you think should remain and we can discuss.  WLU 16:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Biaothanatoi - is there any on-line source for the info you just added to Australia or are you referencing from hard-copy press clippings?  I'd like to see the original source and it's always handy to have some sort of weblink for readers, but the article will survive without one.  Unfortunately The Age doesn't have an archive that goes back further than 12 months.  And have a look at citation templates - it's an easy way to standardize the formatting of references and makes it easier to track down the original sources; there's one there for news articles as well.    WLU 17:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The articles that I've listed are available online, but they aren't authorised republications and so they breach copyright. Not much we can do about that - some sources are over fifteen years old. --Biaothanatoi 04:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: This page was getting extremely long, so I've archived another big chunk of it. I tried to keep any discussions that were active less than a week on here. If you want to continue any of the archived topics, create a new topic here. Please do not edit the archive. -- Kesh 21:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Archive 

message: http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/garyhughes/index.php/theaustralian/comments/ritual_abuse_real_or_not/ - it's a blog, so there needs be some digging to see if they could be considered a reliable source.  It is a blog of a senior writer of a national newspaper I believe.  WLU 01:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trying to find Bottoms, Shaver and Goodman.  Found this and this and this and this and this and this one available as pdf and this, the only ref I found to B, S & G 1993 on google scholar was to a conference ( Repressed memory and allegations of ritual and religion-related child abuse; GS Goodman, J Qin, BL Bottoms, PR Shaver - Clark Conference on Memories of Trauma, Worchester, MA, 1993).  Does anyone have an actual citation that would let us see the original work?  WLU 01:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this, this.  Also, if the B, S & G is cited in the book, but the book does not contain the full article, the better thing to do is provide the full citation, perhaps with an 'as cited in' and then the book citation.  WLU 01:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The citation has been fixed. Abuse truth 02:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lurvely.  Have a gander at WP:TALK, it'll help standardize your talk page comments so they look like everyone else's - makes it easier to read.  WLU 02:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New source 

message: I'm again slogging through the article attempting to standardize the referencing.  When adding or reorganizaing material, please consider using citation templates.  They are extremely easy to generate, using the following tools:
*  - generates a  template requiring only a search term, usually the article title works
* pubmed/isbn template generator - generates a citation template for books and journals using ISBN or PUBMED ID numbers.  I prefer this one, because it automatically results in a link to the pubmed abstract in the template.  
Regards general formatting, I believe the preference is for punctuation to precede the reference, and there should not be spaces, punctuation or other breaks between citations.  Also, no spaces between words/phrases/sentences and the citation - all these leave gaps or hanging punctuation which look odd to my eye.  
Also, for any newspaper references, please attempt to find some sort of link to the article through google or the individual newspaper archives.  I've managed to find a fair number, but it's extremely tedious to do so for dozens of articles in a row.  If the page is taken for a RFC (as is my intention), these are things that will be pointed out.  
For repeated references, please use the  tag, it means fewer endnotes in an already very long list.  
Finally, please do not use e.g., see, for example, etc. in references justifying statements (unless it's things like 'numerous books were written').  Either the reference justifies the statement, or it doesn't.  To provide examples and say this demonstrates the point, without said example explicitly demonstrating said point, is original research and to be avoided.  Links are vital in these cases, so readers can determine if the example is justified, and so editors can tweak the phrasing to accurately represent the article.  
If anyone has questions about formatting, citation templates or other wikification stuff, I'm happy to answer questions (but leave me a note on my talk page to get my attention).  A RFC will definitely work to improve the page, but there's no point getting dinged for minor stuff that's easy to correct first.  WLU (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General comments on references