Talk:False allegation of child sexual abuse

message: This section should be relocated from Day care sex abuse hysteria to this article and a "see also" placed there, rather than the other way around as it is now.  The section is more directly relevant to this article and has broader relevance than day care abuse hysteria.  I have posted the same request in the Day care sex abuse hysteria discussion section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.127.252.195 (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: False allegations when interviewing children

message: Created so I can link from Child Sexual Abuse.  This needs more data, more citations, and a global outlook.  Editing by law-enforcment experts, family-law experts, and experts outside the United States is especially welcome.  Please link from other Wiki articles where appropriate. Dfpc 20:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why have a separate article from [[[Child sexual abuse]]? This would make more sense as a section of that article. Especially since there are no sources. -Will Beback · † · 22:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like a big enough topic for its own article.  If it must be merged with something, it should probably be merged with a well-written general article on false police reports and false prosecutions.  I don't know of any such article. Dfpc 23:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's such a big topic there should be plenty of sources available. Right now it's just an essay. -Will Beback · † · 23:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is plenty of sources for he who knows how to find them (which I do). It goes against my policy to add useful information to wikipedia so I will try not to do so. But in the book Jeopardy in the Courtroom, by Stephen Ceci, there is lots of information on this subject, so if anyone bothers to read it, then the article has potential. Voice of Britain 09:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial article

message: Copied from User_talk:Voice of Britain: I just did a "fresh start" less than 2 weeks ago. I trust within a week or two you will fill in the article so it is at least as informative as the old one. BTW, before doing wholesale changes, it's a good idea to discuss it on the talk page first.  It avoids reverts like the one Fuzzygenius made. Dfpc 18:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, even at this point it has more accurate information that the last version. If possible I hope it remains short and accurate rather than ending up as bloated, oversized, unsourced articles as seems common here. Voice of Britain 18:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is now sourced primarly from just one book. I've requested verbatim quotes of the material being cited since it appears to contradict what another source says.  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 07:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, specific quotes with pages numbers are necessary here.  A book, while certainly a verifiable source, may only represent opinions and not empirical facts or statements. DPetersontalk 12:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we are best off assuming nothing VoB said is reliable, SqueakBox 23:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: why?~kinda 23:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Quotes and page numbers are necessary, otherwise the lines may be considered OR (Wikipedia:OR) DPetersontalk 23:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Since he was banned, that is reason enough. DPetersontalk 23:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Voice of Britain's Fresh Start

message: Here is an offsite website which quotes the study for verification:
We recommend a recent research paper on the rate of false
accusations by Mikkelsen, Gutheil and Emons. [Footnote: Mikkelsen,
M.D., Gutheil, M.D. & Emens, B.A, "False sexual-abuse allegations by
children and adolescents: Contextual factors and clinical subtypes"
American Journal of Psychotherapy, October, 1992.] That paper noted
the following:
"False allegations of sexual abuse by children and adolescents are
statistically uncommon, occurring at the rate of 2 to 10 percent of
all cases with rates up to 50% in special situations such as heated
custody disputes. Nevertheless, when they do occur, they can be
extremely detrimental to all involved including the accuser. Thus it
is important to those who evaluate these allegations be open to the
possibility of a false allegation and have a knowledge of the
principal clinical subtypes of false allegation. Our research
indicates that it is a narrow focus on the reporter and ignorance or
dismissal of the broader contextual factors that often leads to the
perpetuation of a false allegation.
"The literature and our own clinical research has revealed four
clinical subtypes of false allegations: (1) Allegations arising in the
context of custody disputes: (2) Allegations stemming from
psychological disturbances on the part of the accuser; (3) Allegations
resulting from conscious manipulation by the child or adolescent; (4)
Allegations based on iatrogenic elements.
"This material is presented in the interests of heightening the
awareness of this serious miscarriage of clinical and legal processes
and its severe and potentially irreversible social consequences."
the link you removed was indeed relevant, if you'd bother to look at it. ~kinda 00:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further

message: Added by me for the time being.  I realize that what is really needed here is a broader section describing how changes to legal tests and police practices in different countries may have increased the likelihood of false CSA allegations occurring.  Please bear with me.  I hope to do some more work and improve/rewrite this accordingly.  I believe some of the legal detail should go in similar fact evidence but at present that article is quite inadequate and mainly deals with Canada (any lawyers out there?).  Furthermore there is a close relationship between CSA cases and changes in the law concerning similar fact evidence in the UK with associated media claims that unreliable allegations have lead to convictions.68.68.37.190 (talk) 10:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Effect of changes to legal tests (UK)

message: This section has no sources at all. IMO, it either needs to be sourced or deleted. Abuse truth 21:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kern county section tag

message: I found a source which quotes prevalence figures of 0.21% in 1993, and 0.11% in 2004.  You want that added to the (irrelevant) paragraph, or shall we just drop the whole thing as irrelevant to this article.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be probably be good to add that to the section with the source. Adds NPOV. Abuse truth 03:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexual abuse prevalence figures

message: I've fully protected this article because of edit warring. Please work on a compromise here or take this to dispute resolution. thankyou--Hu12 (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Full protection

message: Is this article supposed to be centered on cases from the United States? Or should it be expanded to cover cases from around the world? If it's not supposed to be expanded then I think it should be renamed to False allegations of child sexual abuse in the United States. Ospinad (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The title should not be changed because it's not just a legal concept it's also a psychological one.  You are welcome to seek out reports from other countries and add them.  The article is not limited to events in the United States.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a "worldwide view" tag. Biscuittin (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Expand or rename

message: I have added this section. All of this data came from one article
 in   .
This weekend, I hope to track down additional online sources to back up and verify this data. The article also cites sources to back up this data, which I hope to try to track down and add as references. Abuse truth (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding "A review of the data of false allegations" section

message: This article has been improved and focused a lot, with plenty of solid references added.  The court cases section though only had information about Satanic ritual abuse and did not fit with the topic of this article. Maybe there should be a separate article on "False accusations of satanic ritual abuse", or maybe those court cases can be merged into the article about Satanic ritual abuse.  
I don't know much about that topic, so instead of making that decision myself, I moved the text of the court cases section in full, to Talk:Satanic ritual abuse -- at this link. That way, editors who are familiar with that topic can decide if they want to merge it into that article or make a separate article. For this page though, the court cases were a total non-sequitur to the text of the article which is why they were moved. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Off-topic court cases moved to different article

message: I removed the following sentence from that (new) section as being SYN.  As I noted in a comment, I have a source which estimates true prevalence at less than .01%.  That is still too common, but the sources are carefully selected.  (I think Child Abuse and Neglect might be considered to have an interest in creating reports (I mean, creating interest in reports) of child abuse.)
Prevalence figures range between 10% in the UK    or up to 62% for females and 16% for males in the United States.    
:I have added the section back with the other sections that have new references. Please feel free to add data with reliable sources to back your claims, but please do not delete well sourced data from the article.Abuse truth (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Prevalence

message: Arthur Rubin, would you please elaborate on this edit?
* 20:30, 2 January 2008 Arthur Rubin  (→Prevalence - Adding appropriate tags.)
You added a tag that states:
*This section contains information of unclear or questionable importance or relevance to the article's subject matter. Please help improve this article by clarifying or removing superfluous information. 
What part of that section do you feel is in need of that tag?   I've reviewed the section and don't see the problem.  But if something is off-topic or not stated clearly, we should fix it, so please point out the part you find of concern.  Thanks.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My thinking was that the prevalence of child sexual abuse is not entirely related to the prevalence here, and each paragraph (and sometimes each sentence or phrase) has a different definition of "false allegation", making comparisons WP:SYN.  However, I think replacing the first paragraph of the section with a corrected analysis taken from child sexual abuse#Epidemiology should handle the issue.  I'll take care of it, but I expect AT to revert.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At first reading, your changes seem appropriate.  A few references were removed though.  It looks like they might not be needed, but just in case we want them later, I'll post that paragraph here for reference.  I'm not saying we do need to include this, I just don't want to lose track of it in the page history. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, for now.  Some of the other references contribute more to incidence than to prevalence, though.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As per my most recent edit, I have restored the section above. If the other paragraph is already in the Child Sexual Abuse article, why should it replace data here. I have no problem with it being here, as long as the other data is included.Abuse truth (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If accurately sourced, it should be in the child sexual abuse article, as it's most relevant there.  In any case, the section should only be summarized in one paragrpah here.  All the other paragraphs relate to prevalence (or incidence) of claims of child sexual abuse, and are most relevant here.  You might consider rewriting the summary, noting it shouldn't get much longer.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes no sense to bring in data from the child sexual abuse article and replace the data in this article. And there is no guideline stating that there can't be two paragraphs of data on this topic.Abuse truth (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I boldly removed two paras which were not relevant to the topic in hand. I believe that anyone coming to the article fresh would have seen that they did not fit. The article reads quite well now, without any sense that any POV is being pushed. I'm not sure about the quality of all the sources and may examine them all in detail when I have a chance. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid there is some relevance, much as it reads better without the paragraphs.  The number of allegations of child sexual abuse can be estimated (depending on the degree of allegation or of sexual abuse required for inclusion, whether allegations within therepy are counted if not reported to another person, etc.), but the number of false allegations is related to the number of true occurences.  The  may be adequate to indicate that, perhaps a modified  should be used. — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevance tag in "prevalence" section

message: I have added four categories to the article that fit the topic. ResearchEditor (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories added

message: I have deleted a section that has its own page and made it a see also. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted section, made see also

message: I removed this section because the focus of this article is false allegation of abuse, not denial of genuine abuse. 99.234.101.193 (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of section on false allegations and denial

message: Is it appropriate to bring in to the article that a totally false allegation is/could be a form of psychological abuse of the child and/or the accused? Godtadet (talk) 09:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reliable source for that? Legitimus (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I know i have read it, i will look it up. Godtadet (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  False allegation as psychological abuse 

message: Just fixing the header so it stops setting off vandal alarms on IRC, don't mind me... Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandal alarms on the word pedo_phile 

message: WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on False allegation of child sexual abuse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.jaacap.com/pt/re/jaacap/abstract.00004484-198607000-00001.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110905013149/http://www.innocent.org.uk/misc/carers.html to http://www.innocent.org.uk/misc/carers.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110819212046/http://lawiki.org/index.php?title=Evidence_of_disposition to http://lawiki.org/index.php?title=Evidence_of_disposition
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on False allegation of child sexual abuse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928044230/http://www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm55/5563/5563.pdf to http://www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm55/5563/5563.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110603012044/http://www.false-allegations.org.uk/links.html to http://www.false-allegations.org.uk/links.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Let us add another big lie: Operation Midland#Carl Beech ("Nick") Zezen (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The link should presumably be to Operation Midland#Carl Beech ("Nick").  But, it's unclear what changes  wants to have made.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

text: I've no objection to you doing that, if properly sourced.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carl Beech UK 2019