Talk:Satanic panic/Archive 4

message: New reference, from the Australian government I believe.  Could be useful, explicitly mentions SRA.   WLU (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New reference 

message: we don't need to constantly argue about the tone of the article and if it supports a majority or minority view, or what those views are- freud talked about it before any of use were born, so I think that the only possible view is that it is unknown if true. majority or minority viewpoint don't matter as much NOW, if some references essentially pre-date psychology itself. 66.220.110.83 (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SRA exists vs. SRA does not exist 

message: I've archived the talk page; even with archiving, it's still 48K long, which is pretty lengthy.  If there are issues I archived, please post a summary with a link to the archived discussion of points rather than replacing either the entire archive, or the whole section.  And please keep posts short (I am referring specifically to Ellen Lacter - long posts are extremely aggravating, particularly when they repeat information already on the page).  
Two reminders:
#Wikipedia is a work in progress.  The page has a lot of editors, so a massive re-write is not a good idea.  Adding sources and text one-by-one makes for digestible chunks.
#Please remain civil.  I'm talking about YOU, skeptics, including ME.  The page is aggravating to edit and discuss about, let's all take a deep breath.  Including me.  My wikistress is up because of this page and I know it is affecting my talk page comments on both this and other pages.  WLU (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived 

message: Regards reference 46, Framing abuse by Kitzinger, I got the book out of the library yesterday.  In the index, and on a brief flip through there is no mention of satan, satanic abuse, ritual abuse, the United States, religion, religious leaders, the satanic panic, courts, judicial systems, guilt, or anything else that really supports the sentence "In America and Britain journalists framed the charges against the defendants as evidence of a moral panic and mass hysteria; child protection workers and social workers involved were bound by their professional codes of confidentiality and unable to comment on the specifics of the cases"  There is focus on two cases - Cleveland and Orkney, both in the UK.  Based on my reading, the main focus of the book is on how the media's portrayal of the cases affected the public's perception of the event years later - not on guilt or innocence (though there is discussion on how the media left out and selectively reported details that were more convincing of the guilt of the parents.  If anyone on this talk page has read the book or is responsible for placing the text on the page, could you refer me to the page number (and chapter in case we have different versions) so I can verify?  Right now I'm tempted to excise the statement for having a) nothing to do with the U.S. b) nothing to do with the outcome of court cases and c) nothing to do with satanic ritual abuse.  If nothing else, it would allow the most nuanced, hopefully most neutral, portrayal of the book's contents.  Kitzinger appears to be very carefully saying nothing about the suspects' guilt or innocence, but I admit it is a cursory flip-through.  Got some other scholarly books from the same section in the library, some of which discuss SRA specifically, hopefully I'll find time to read them.  WLU (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I don't mind it's pretty interesting.  I've read the prologue and skipped the methodology - SRA is mentioned, twice, in passing.  Basically "S/RA was part of the times (reference, date; reference, date).  No analysis.  But interesting book and pretty quick to read so if it does come up I will attempt to modify or represent the source (or leave it as is if it is already fairly represented).  There is an extensive discussion of Orkney, but no discussion of SRA to date.  WLU (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  To address WLU's concerns: (a) The scope of Wikipedia is broader then America. There have been a number of high-profile "SRA" cases in Britain, and her book talks extensively about these controversies. (b) The topic of SRA is broader then the question of "guilt", "innocence", or specific court cases. It's strange to read you arguing that the public's response to SRA is irrelevant to this article, given your preference for "moral panic" theory in relation to SRA. (b) As WLU states, the book refers specifically to controversies over organised and ritual abuse, including SRA. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But does it explicitly use the phrase "satanic ritual abuse" or some close derivative thereof? If the answer is no, then we can't use it. Doing so would be original research. We can't infer what an author might have meant. Moreover, I still have concerns about the fact that this book was published by a fringe publisher and written by someone who is not a sociologist or criminologist. *** Crotalus *** 11:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kitzinger 

message: Reading through the Utah report from the archives and the RT analysis, I'm unconvinced on the report for a couple reasons.  One, it's no longer available.  Two, the overall statement was that proof was found.  Their proof appears to be the testimony of three individuals, who were indeed abused when extremely young, with memories of robed figures, candles, altars and sacrifices, in addition to the physical and sexual abuse.  Three cases recalling information from a very young age.  RT says there was basically no evidence, despite convincing testimony.  People believed in SRA, but on no factual basis as there was no evidence found.  Out of 225 cases investigated over two years, only 1 had merit (that's roughly 0.44%).  The Zion abuse was ritual, but unrelated to satanism.  Reports of victims appear to be based on recovered memories, which the APA refuses to commit to either way .  Allegations based on recovered memories are in my opinion, absolute bullshit and should not be considered evidence.  Evidence is forensic, not memories that can only be accessed via hypnosis and never verified.  Using one controversy as evidence of another is ridiculous.  WLU (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utah report