Talk:Satanic panic/Archive 1

message: The "bizarre party gag" assertion is not supported or even mentioned in either the Black Mass or the Catherine de' Medici articles.  It's a cute-sounding little anecdote but unless something can be produced to substantiate it in some manner I think it should be deleted.
I also don't think it's relevant to this article anyhow and wouldn't be missed; even if it can be substantiated, the story belongs in the Black Mass article, not here.  The historical origins of SRA should not be a catalogue of the history of Satanism unless the history is particularly relevant.  Yes, I understand SRA claims often center around alleged practices of alleged Black Masses, but that fact can be listed under a description of SRA claims/practices with a link to the Black Mass article and leave it at that.  Unnecessary, repetitive of other wikipedia content, irrelevant, it seems to me.  Bsktcase 20:56, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Mass appropriateness/relevance 

message: I personally believe SRA is complete, mass-hysterical nonsense, and yet another example of an embarrassing period in US history in particular.  Having said that, I think this article is severely POV, and that concerns me.
The fact that this page and its Talk page occasionally see counter-POV, and that the counter-POV is often vandalism, or otherwise lame or unsubstantiated (in other words, that there don't seem to have been quality pro-SRA contributions to date) doesn't make the anti-SRA POV acceptable.
NPOV:
:The neutral point of view policy states that one should write articles without bias, representing all views fairly.
:The neutral point of view policy is easily misunderstood. The policy doesn't assume that it's possible to write an article from just a single unbiased, "objective" point of view. The policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct.
This article states, implies, insinuates, snarks, finger-points, mocks and laughs about one particular side being correct.  It is patronizing, dismissive, and arrogant, IMO.  The fact that there are solid anti-SRA citations, and the notable lack of pro-SRA facts and citations, does not make this superior attitude OK for wikipedia.  We're here to describe what the issue is, not to win an argument.
I don't have time to 
NPOVify this article myself in one evening.  I don't want to trash the good anti-SRA facts and citations already present, and I certainly don't have any pro-SRA information myself to add.  But I'll work on trying to improve the overall neutrality of language and attitude a bit at a time and hope others will assist.
:Well, if you want others to follow your lead, you'll have to be more specific about where you see all those things you mention.  They're quite a varied lot, actually, and it worries me that you group them all together.  Surely any "finger-point[ing], mock[ing] and laugh[ing]" can be removed, but when the facts themselves imply the conclusion, how can you both report the facts and not imply the conclusion? -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:14, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I'm pretty sure that the history of just this section is more than sufficient to demonstrate a clear pattern, but the entire record is still below. 
I'm fairly familiar with arguements and actors on both sides of this bit of history and I'd like a chance to create a serious, NPOV overview. Not only is this article a failure in those terms, it also fails to address some of the more important consequences and tragedies of the period - and also some interesting evolutions in understandings, particularly centering around the understanding of memory formation and storage. 
For now, I'm reverting the revert on my last edit, for the reasons given the first time and expanded below. It's effect is out of proportion to it's consequence in this context, and also has the effect of making what is an inherently facinating factoid into just another rock to hit people with.
I'm also re-establishing the POV tag - there's no fair-minded observer that could read this discussion page and conclude that the issues have been resolved, save to the satisfaction of those doing the reverting, removing and (allegedly) threatening. 
Ya know, guys, if you don't want people to beleve in 'conspiracies', satanic or otherwise, against those you disagree with - try not to act as if you were members, jr. grade, in search of the Majick Decoder Ring of Asmodeus-Cuthulu. Not only does this shoot your credibility on this topic, it's certainly enough to provoke truly skeptical review of anything else you've written about. 
--Firewheel 00:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summation and history of current POV dispute

message: The article says Reports of SRA began occurring as early as the 1960s and also The first case of alleged SRA occurred in Kern County, California in 1982.  Should it say the first prosecution?  —Tamfang 22:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  timeline 

message: I have reason to wish a better, more balanced and above all current article on this topic. I have need, occasionally, to refer to this episode in history as a reference in the context of discussions about ethics and authoritarian approaches to complex social issues.
While the history of the article itself may be ironically cited as an illustration of the  authoritarian personality in practice, with particular emphasis on the preservation of a shared base of assumptions. However arguably valid my observation may be, it's also arguably true that there are many, many better illustrations of such behavior.
The problem with this article is that it is not an article about anything, it is rather an excuse for a continuation of very old and tiresome arguments that have long been resolved in the minds of reasonable people. I note little if any new insight into the phenomena, save when that insight may serve to suggest there is no phenomenon.
What I want to see is pretty simple:
*The history of the controversy in context.
*Discussion of what led to the phenomenon - including all perspectives. NPOV doesn't apply here, as it's the very points of view that are the data points. It seems to me the the phenomena itself could be described - on all sides - as "leaping at a premise and sprawling to a conclusion."
*The evolution of understanding - in other words, what have we learned about abuse, about memory, about motives and suchlike since this came to our cultural notice? Many such references exist within the article, but cited as factoids in support one position or another.
*Some attempt at synthesis and summation.
I'd be willing to contribute to such an article, given a general respect for persons and what I understand to be the guiding principles of Wikipedia. I don't mean to seem rude - but there it is.
68.190.189.207 22:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Bob. Please do contribute. MaxMangel 01:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious questions regarding the intent and utility of this article 

message: Ritual Abuse - Blind Spot/Omission? 88.72.0.96 17:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe some helpful ideas here 

message: An editor has categorized the article as "Crimes involving the Satanism or the occult". I don't know what to say about it since those people accused of SRA in the 1980s, like those of the McMartin preschool trial, were innocent. —Cesar Tort 13:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page was already more than 200 kilobytes long. I have archived it. —Cesar Tort 19:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh? You archived the whole thing? But there were active discussions on there. Maybe you should have archived only the old stuff...? This is only going to cause the SRA fruitcakes to claim they're being censored by a Wiki-conspiracy. Eleland 22:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope not. At any event there were some rather long posts by an user that were no longer needed. If any SRA advocate posts something here that has already been discussed, I will place the latter posts back :) —Cesar Tort 23:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No longer needed? So the guy is banned, hopefully? So he doesn;t just come back and start it all up again? DreamGuy 21:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At least User:Biaothanatoi was willing to discuss —unlike 128.187.0.164, as you can see below. —Cesar Tort 22:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category issue & archived

message: The brief mention of David Frankfurter's Evil Incarnate needs some explanation. His scholarly work gives the big picture about the SRA craze.
Book Description from Amazon Books: 
—Cesar Tort 23:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read the book but couldn't find in Frankfurter's work all references for the citations needed in the tagged section. I hope other editors will fill the gaps. BTW, has anyone of you read Satan's Silence? I haven't but they say it's a good skeptical book :) —Cesar Tort 06:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prof. David Frankfurter's work 

message: On July 8 I reverted User:128.187.0.164's massive copyedits. Today, he did it again without any discussion in talk page.
I reverted them again.
128.187.0.164: please discuss your proposals here before changing the article radically.
Thank you.
—Cesar Tort 22:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  128.187.0.164's massive copyedits 

message: According to :
It is important to realize that the above definition [of satanic ritual abuse] is relatively restrictive. It excludes a number of behaviors which are known to exist: 
*	Abuse by non-Satanic, abusive pedophiles 3 who pretend to be Satanists in order to gain better control of their victims through fear.
*	Mass murderers by a person who claims to be a Satanist and who tries to use the "Devil made me do it" defense when arrested. They are generally found to have little or no knowledge of Satanism.
*	Abuse and murder by psychotic individuals and psychopaths who are primarily motivated by their mental illness, not by any religious belief system.
*	Abuse by non-Satanists who engage in behaviors like SRA but are motivated by Christian or other beliefs.
This kind of information could be useful, since many people seem to be confused by our conclusion that SRA is a myth, on the basis that this or that individual abused a child while mumbling about Satan. The point is that no organized conspiratorial network exists, not that nobody's ever been abused by someone claiming to be a Satanist.Eleland 22:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great point, Eleland. Thanks. I hope the new editors will take notice. —Cesar Tort 23:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on scope and definition 

message: There are three fascinating articles about a witch hunt for satanic ritual abuse.
The Outbreak of Mass Allegations of Satanist Child Abuse in the Parish of Rättvik, Sweden, 1670–71: Two Texts by Gustav J. Elvius
Rickard L. SjöBerg
History of Psychiatry 2004; 15; 477 DOI: 10.1177/0957154X04048755 
A Short and Simple Account of the Tribulations and Abductions of Children by the Evil Witches of Rättvik
Gustav J. Elvius
History of Psychiatry 2004; 15; 483 DOI: 10.1177/0957154X0401500409
Letter to the Bishop of the Diocese of Västerås 31 January 1671
Gustav J. Elvius
History of Psychiatry 2004; 15; 486 DOI: 10.1177/0957154X0401500410
The final reference has this gem:
"Many children say that they had no idea that they had been abducted until other children testified against them and the threats, bribes and persistency of their parents eventually created a situation in which the children started to believe in the abductions and memories began to grow."
Remember it was written in 1670.  Happy hunting! --CloudSurfer 01:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations from Sweden in 1670 

message: I find it strange that this section has been added. I propose that it be deleted. Please consider the following information and let me know why you believe that this section should remain.
There are two ritual abuse cases in which evidence of tunnels were found in concordance with the children's disclosures. The first, and most famous, are the tunnels found under the McMartin preschool, as excavated by UCLA archeologist Gary Sickel (http://www.geocities.com/kidhistory/mcmartin.htm). 
(It is worth noting that the McMartin case did not 'collapse', but rather, resulted in two hung juries, and that a third trial did not take plce since parents felt it would be too harmful to the complainant children.)
Previously, editors of this page have claimed that Sickel's excavation was 'debunked' by pointing to articles 'published' by the 'Institute of Psychological Therapy' (IPT). These editors failed to note:
(a) that the IPT was founded by Dr Ralph Underwager, who stepped down from the board of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation after advocating for the decriminalisation of paedophilia in 1993,
(b) that the IPT 'journal' is not peer-reviewed nor published offline, making it simply an extension of the IPT website,
(c) the question as to whether a psychologist possesses the expertise to 'debunk' the work of an archeologist.
In 1990, Beatrix Campbell took documentary makers to the tunnel in Nottingham where children in the case stated they had been ritually abused. In the tunnel, there was satanic graffiti and candles set into the walls. Nottingham is built on sandstone and there are many large caves in the area.
Whether you take the information above as corroboration of the children's accounts or not should be, for the purposes of this article, irrelevant. The article is factually incorrect in stating that there is no other explanation for the children's accounts of tunnels other then a 'psychological' one. This is a clearly biased and POV statement intended to direct the reader to dismiss accounts of ritual abuse on the basis that there are elements contained within (such as tunnels) that cannot be physically corroborated. In fact, such corroboration did occur in at these two high-profile cases. 
If no strong argument for this new section is forthcoming, then I propose it be deleted on the basis that it has no basis in fact and is POV.
Biaothanatoi 12:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of any arguments otherwise, I have deleted this section on the basis that it is factually incorrect. Let me know if you think it should be restored and why. Biaothanatoi 11:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The new reference to tunnels 

message: The previous section on the Minnesota case was removed by editors, although their reasoning was not discussed here. I believe that removal was justified on the basis that the information contained in that section was false and misleading, claiming as it did that all people involved in the case had been 'exonerated', when, in fact, one of the accused had been convicted, a number of parents confessed to sexually abusing their children and underwent treatment, and parental rights for six other children were terminated.
I am about to include a new section on the Minnesota ritual abuse case, including extensive footnotes. If you disagree with any information contained in this section, please discuss your concerns here. Biaothanatoi 11:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Minnesota ritual abuse case 

message: I propose to delete the reference to Diana Napolis' psychological problems for the following reasons:
(a) Napolis has never written a book, journal article, newspaper article or conference paper about ritual abuse, and she is not a significant figure in ritual abuse literature or research. The details of her life history contained here do not contribute to the article, and appear instead scurrilous and libelous. 
(b) There are published authors referred to in this article who have a checkered history, however, that history is not mentioned, although it does call into question their objectivity and the value of their work. For instance, Paul and Shirley Eberle are referenced in the McMartin section, although they are professional pornography manufacturers and distributers who came to the attention of the LAPD vice squad in the 1970s after distributing paedophilic material. Why is their work relied upon and their history ignored, whilst Napolis is singled out, although she has not contributed to the public debate on ritual abuse?
In light of the above, it is reasonable to conclude that Napolis' problems have been given special attention in an attempt to construe all people who argue that ritual abuse occurs as psychologically ill. This is a prejudicial piece of information which attempts to misinform the reader. Large-scale studies have been undertaken in America, Australia and Britain which have found that between a quarter and a third of health professionals will encounter a client with a history of ritual abuse in their career, and the majority of these professionals believe that this history is indicative of genuine trauma.  
If a strong argument for keeping Napolis' history in the article is not forthcoming, I will delete it on the basis that it is irrelevant and prejudicial to the reader. Biaothanatoi 11:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've deleted the reference to Diana Napolis. If an editor feels that it adds important informatin to the article, please discuss it here. Biaothanatoi 00:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The reference to Diana Napolis 

message: I am making significant additions to the prevalence section, which currently focuses on satanic murder rather then satanic ritual abuse. Whilst murder is a common feature of many allegations of ritual abuse, it is not a defining characteristic of those allegations, and many allegations of ritual abuse do not involve murder.
The discussion on murder is not only irrelevant to a 'prevalence' section, but it seems designed to construe all allegations of ritual abuse as improbable. The statement that "those who believe that there is organized Satanic ritual abuse going on in the United States claim that large numbers of people are ritually murdered annually" is pejorative in that it attributes an extreme belief to all people who believe in SRA, without providing a verifiable source for such an assertion. As such, it is biased and POV. There are dozens of published accounts of clinical encounters with children and adults disclosing ritual abuse, and these accounts demonstrate that, whilst many clinicians believe that their clients have been sadistically abused, they often doubt the veracity of their more extreme disclosures. 
I am providing extensive references to peer-reviewed and large-scale prevalence studies on abuse and ritual abuse. If you object to the relevance or accuracy of these studies, please discuss your concerns here. Biaothanatoi 01:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The prevalence section