Talk:Pace memorandum/Archive 1

message: I'm not exactly sure why the article was nominated for speedy deletion. This is not the way to do it if you want a discussion about it. The article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. If you want to start an deletion discussion, then you need to start an AfD. The only reason I'm not removing the speedy tag is that I started the article myself. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: speedy deletion is warranted, at least for nomination becuase I feel, along with the other commenter on this page, that it is unnecessary. we will wait for others to look at it, and review. I could care less about the topic. If I cared about the topic, I'd delete every article that had any anti-LDS feel. I'm not like that. It's just a bad topic, bad article, and needs to be merged as was previously suggested. Well referenced? Yeah, to other wikipedia articles, or to non-link information that can't be readily contested. We'll wait for further discussion --Carterdriggs 10:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy deletion?

message: Nominated for neutrality review as per guidelines, and text above.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carterdriggs (talk • contribs) 10:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to specifically set out what your concerns are with respect to NPOV. What statements are problematic? What statements are made that are uncited and POV? It does little good to nominate it for review when your only complaint so far has been that the article deals with unproven allegations that have been investigated by church and state. Are you concerned about NPOV, or are you trying to start an AFD? If you want deletion to be discussed, you need to start an WP:AFD. If you have specific concerns, I'm sure we can find someone who can review for neutrality/bias. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then find someone who can verify it's neutrality, and this time, preferrably not an administartor who's a friend of yours. --12.47.205.126 10:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm tired of you pretending that your articles aren't biased? It's ridiculous, and offensive. I don't have to cite specific instances, because it's the WHOLE article! --12.47.205.126 11:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sure user Carter Driggs knows what tags he's using, and it seems like you just wish he weren't using them. --12.47.205.126 11:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That's fine—I have no problem with users using IP addresses, but it's not really so great when you sign as an IP address and make it appear that this IP address user is supporting a different user, that is, Carterdriggs. You referred to Carterdriggs in the 3rd person, which made it look like another user was commenting. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: Okay, I've reviewed the article and this talk page discussion. I have to say I think that it is written in a tone that does not contain any strong POV. However I do think some work could be done and would welcome discussion on the following;
#"Some members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have complained " - this was an histroical event and the lead makes it sound like breaking news. Possibly something like "in 199x some members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints made complaints that..."
#"no reliable evidence has been produced that suggests that these allegations are true." Again reword to make it past tense. Also I'd like to see this strongly cited with an in-line as it is a bold statement.
#Background. Again a strong in line citation at the end of this section.
#"It was also widely reported that..." weasel words unless we can back this up (specifically the word widely)
#"Scott's warning is reflective of the beliefs of SRA skeptics..." I can't see that comment in the cited material. If I'm wrong sorry, otherwise is this original research ?
This is without prejudice to any AFD or merge as discussed above. However I would suspect it would survive as the events are notable and there is sufficent reliable sources to provide content for a stand alone article.
I am not removing the POV tag at present, and would be delighted if a third party would also like to comment. However I would urge User:Carterdriggs to consider removing it. I hope that we can all collaborate to improve the article.I understand that things like this generate a lot of powerful debate due to the nature of them, but let us all remain constructive and polite to resolve editing dificulties. Pedro :  Chat   12:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comments—I think they are very helpful. I feel comfortable with all the points you make and am completely in agreement that the changes/adjustments you suggest would be appropriate. I think you are probably right with #5 that it is WP:OR, because I can't remember specifically reading that kind of suggestion in the sources I used when writing the article. I too would be happy to see other previously uninvolved editors review it and see what they think. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: All, I will try to review over the weekend. Please accept my apologies in advance for slow responses as I have family commitments more important than Wikipedia. I have made one minor change to the article, in debolding "satanic ritual abuse". Please do not revert this. Please all feel free to ask for other third party opinions on this, and I thank you all for using this talk page and not edit waring. There will be a way through this, of that I assure you, and I ask for your further patience and contributions as we work towards the aim of creating an encyclopedic article, of the standards that we would expect to come across were we reders indifferent of the subject. Best. Pedro :  Chat   20:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Review 

message: I'm surprised that the article doesn't reference the 1993 film The God Makers II at all. This is where Ed Decker tried to use the Pace memo in order to support his assertion that Mormonism and Satanism were tied together. The title of the article appears  to line right up with Decker’s goal.  Decker says:
For years, we at Saints Alive have warned of the Luciferian roots of Mormonism and the satanic worship within its ranks. Now at last the LDS church has officially acknowledged that we were right. Recently, a secret internal report surfaced from Mormon bishop Glen Pace, a member of the presiding bishopric of the LDS church.  It alleged that widespread satanic ritual abuse across America, Mexico and elsewhere was being perpetrated by both members and leaders of the Mormon church, bishops, temple workers and even tabernacle choir members. Acts of sexual or physical torture and murder were done in a religious or occult context, and subjected children to molestation by parents and other adults. At least 45 of the scores of LDS victims Pace interviewed for his report claimed they were forced to observe or participate in human sacrifice. Obviously there are some who would like to lay the blame on infiltrators or individual preferences, but the broader issues is that  Joseph Smith was deeply involved in the occult.  It is therefore quite natural to surmise that Smith's followers would be involved in the same practices that he advocated.
“Therefore it is quite natural...?” The title of this article appears to lead toward the same conclusion. It's a load of garbage (particularly the last couple of sentences), but that's the tie-in he was trying to make. The question is, is this article attempting to lead the reader to the same conclusion or not? I don't have any issue with an article that deals with the Pace memo, but the title of this article doesn't work for me any more than "Satanic ritual abuse and Joseph Smith" would. Bochica 04:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: God Makers II

message: I have deleted this from the article.
See also
* Day care sexual abuse hysteria
The case appears to be in no way connnected to a day care.Abuse truth 02:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  deletion of "see also" section 

message: WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY
This is an unofficial poll to see if it would be even possible to reach a consensus on the name for this page.  I'm calling it unofficial because from what I've seen, I don't think that a consensus could currently be reached.  I am hoping that this unofficial poll will generate useful dialog which could eventually get to a point where we could reach a consensus.
I'm going to give a list of possibilities that I've seen in the discussions above.  Please feel free to add any new ones that you think should be added, but add them at the end so that previous votes aren't invalidated.  Also, feel free to change your votes as the options change, just timestamp your new vote.  In the proposed titles below, "..." represents "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".  I have done this so that what we are working on will not get lost in the length of the title.  Just follow my lead in the format of the voting:
#Rename to: Ritualized child abuse and ...
#Leave as: Ritualized child abuse and members of ...
#Rename to: Alleged ritualized child abuse and members of ...
#Rename to: Investigation into alleged ritualized child abuse and members of ...
#Rename to: Pace memo
#Rename to: Pace investigation
#Rename to: Pace investigation about alleged ritualized child abuse and members of ...
#Merge with: Glenn L. Pace
#Revert to original name: Satanic ritual abuse and ...
*6) While 4 is the most accurate, it is a very long title.  6 becomes the shortest that also maintains the essence of what the article is about. — Val42 01:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment #9 was added after I commented — I don't see a big difference between #1 and #9; I think #9 is probably more descriptive and accurate, but I can understand if some are hesitant to include the word "Satanic" in the title with a name of a church. #9 is probably ideal, but I still support #1 as a good compromise selection. Snocrates 00:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was not sufficient "consensus" to make the change to #3, in my opinion. (There are as many votes against #3 as in favor.) You're jumping the gun a bit. Snocrates 20:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The change should not have been made before a consensus was reached. And I want to reemphasize that #3 is the best choice. --TrustTruth 21:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There doesn't have to be sufficient consensus. There wasn't sufficient consensus for you to change it back the way you did. The title is POV no doubt about it. You guys are going to have to get comfortable with the fact that it will be changed and for good. Carter | Talk to me 00:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You need to brush up on your WP policy/procedure. The reason the title is as it is now is because that was the original title. We're trying to reach a consensus on a potential change. Unilaterally changing it is not helping to achieve that—in fact, you will probably just anger people and make them more unwilling to compromise. Please don't move the page again. Snocrates 01:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You tell me where I'm wrong in policy. WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY period. WP:NPOV clears things up. Nowhere am I wrong in policy. Nowhere. Carter | Talk to me 02:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol. OK, you just keep telling yourself that. Anyway, we're trying to reach a consensus and I suggest it would help if you refrained from moving it. Snocrates 02:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I wrong? Seriously. Any admin would back me up. I just had the page move protected, but unfortunately right after you snuck the last move in. Granting that an admin was willing to move protect the page says something. Anyways, it's to you I suggest not moving it again. Carter | Talk to me 02:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: How do you know the page wasn't protected as a result of my supplemental comment to your request? I informed the admin on the request page what you were doing and suggested that if anything, the page needed to be protected from your unilateral actions. It is not "up to me" to "suggest" that it not be moved again—pages should be moved as a result of consensus, not the other way around. TrustTruth, for one — who agrees with you that the name should be #3 — has agreed that a move at this stage is premature. Just loosen up and let things play out. The intent of the poll was to stimulate constructive discussion, not to start an edit war on the title. Right now you are the only one trying to change things around. Snocrates 02:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: *Comment (already voted above): I could support including "alleged" in the type of name suggested by TrustTruth. My main concern is not that the word is inaccurate but that it adds to wordiness and length, so if other parts of the name were cut out, I could agree to using "alleged". Snocrates 21:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unofficial poll

message: Well, after two weeks, the opinions were three #1, three #3, one #6 and two #9.  I'm specifically avoiding the discussion about the rename that recently happenned because it is a separate issue.  I've eliminated those that didn't get at least two votes and copied those titles down to here.  Again, this is not an official poll but is trying to build a consensus for a move.  If you're still going with what you said above for the same reasons, just reference that in your comments here.  Note that the numbering has changed because of the reduced list:
#Rename to: Ritualized child abuse and ...
#Rename to: Alleged ritualized child abuse and members of ...
#Revert to original name: Satanic ritual abuse and ...
*#2: This is the most accurate of these options, though I would support changing "and members of" to "in". — Val42 04:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment (already voted above): I could support including "alleged" in the type of name suggested by TrustTruth. My main concern is not that the word is inaccurate but that it adds to wordiness and length, so if other parts of the name were cut out, I could agree to using "alleged". Snocrates 21:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Round 2

message: Below find an important post from a new user who didn't know where to post information on this debate. (It was posted above in the middle of another section.) I am personally unable to vouch for the information below, but I do believe the source to be a solid one. Also, two urls below can be visited to be checked out. Abuse truth 01:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (user Lndwlkr writes below: (my first time and I don't know where this belongs) 
I was contacted by someone concerning this Pace Memo. I was quite involved in this at
the time. Pace came to see me because we were interviewing many of the same people. Matt
Jacobsen who investigated for the AG's office also came to see me before he wrote his
report. I was very disappointed in him and his work ethic. He was not interested in going
over the information I had gathered but rather in seeing the sights of San Francisco where
I was living then. Interviewing people claiming satanic/ritual abuse was not easy. Over ten
years many people came forward or agreed to speak with me about their abusive lives. I 
have now interviewed well over 100 people claiming they were ritually or satanically abused. I often interviewed other family members and therapists. There was quite a bit of
confirmation and evidence for the often later remembered brutal family histories. Some
people never forgot what happened, most did. 
The Tanners were the first to publish the Memo. I knew people often gave them 
information and I went into the bookstore asking Sandra if they had anything on child abuse
as I was studying the intergenerational aspects of it. She said they had a wild memo and
were holding onto it until they could get more information. I said, "The Pace Memo." She said,  "Yes I think that is the name on it." I had heard of it because there was a committee of community leaders, mostly therapists, and law enforcement discussing what they
were hearing and Pace was a member and I was interviewing some of these members. Several
books have now come out by therapists and survivors regarding this subject in Mormonism.  
Pace heard from the people he was interviewing that I was also interviewing them and he
asked if he could come and see me. I told him it was obvious to me these members, sometimes
in high LDS positions, were using the church to protect them and to promote their brand of
ritual abuse. He asked, "What could be done?" I said, "Quit worshiping the dead, baptizing them and emphasizing genealogy, and spend more time on solving living peoples problems." 
In the intervening years and by educating the press it is now obvious to the public that ritual abuse exists in many churches and there is a serious institutional child abuse problem. The civil lawsuits are legion. I gather facts and evidence for those same lawsuits in RL. I have worked and continue to do so on major and successful lawsuits naming the LDS Church as defendant and on suits where other organizations like the Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses,Boys Schools, Boy Scouts, etc, are named. 
I don't think anyone can deny that it is now proved that the FLDS,
the polygamy practicing offshoot of the LDS, made incest and ritualized sham marriages, really child rape, a tenet of their religion as have other offshoots, like the Kingstons. Most members of these groups are born in and have no escape. However when the cults do recruit they look to Mormons naturally because the belief systems are so intertwined and Mormons with a long history in LDS practice often hail from polygamy and believe it will again be practiced in heaven. This is the easiest recruit.  
Satanism is well documented in law enforcement. It is an often criminal practice and is
related to white supremacy. This is something I found strongly in my study that NO ONE
wanted me to discuss. Even when interviewed for a PBS documentary I was told to keep these
findings to myself. However one of the strongest correlations in the study is that the
parents were racist, often actively racist. Some comments from persons studied:
*"MY skin was valued for whiteness." 
*"My hands were measured to prove I was pure German."
*"I was valued for my red hair."
So early on I knew I had dropped into racist America and started asking what groups did your father or other abusive cult members belong to?
Number one answer was: John Birch Society, then survivalists, KKK and militias. In the early 60's there were many firesides, an LDS sponsored activity, that supported Birch
organizing within. The President of the LDS was a well known Bircher. Secondly I found 
named cult members to be active KKK'ers. The people claiming Satanic ritual abuse often did
not know they were part of this group until I showed them the evidence through research. I
first found the evidence in Blazing Crosses in Zion: The Ku Klux Klan in Utah by Larry 
Gerlach and then much more information on KKK organizing activity using the railroad stops.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated polygamy groups as supremacists and this is
very important because extremists easily rationalize behavior that society considers abhorrent. 
Children who were sold to other men by their parents forgave them because they knew the family had so little money, struggling farmers in Idaho and Utah. I wish I did not know all
that I do about this because it changes you. In civil cases I researched and found evidence on there were many aberrant practices that we simply did not use because it would make the 
case harder for the jury to believe and other evidence supported the facts alleged. Four
cases involved bestiality. One woman I interviewed had a father who was arrested for
cruelty to animals. Kids alleging satanic/ritual abuse usually allege maltreatment of
animals as part of it as in this is what will happen to you if you tell. Another reason
perpetrators may use the satanic excuse is because this does make the allegations
unbelievable to many people even though it is often the only way young children have of
speaking about horrific acts against them.
I have a website devoted to exposing institutional ritual abuse at http://www.childpro.org. We
are currently revamping it and adding information including some of my presentations to law
enforcement about this. 
And just one last thing to the skeptics: If you come from a highly religious family where
everything good is attributed to GOD or Jesus and everything bad is attributed to Satan and
you have the cognitive power of a 4 year old and dad says while locking you in the closet
and abusing you, "This is not me, this is Satan in me." is it not easier in order to live
with those abusive acts to think it is not your dad but it is Satan. After all on Sunday
dad is at the church podium and Satan is vanished for the time being.   
Personally I do not believe in Satan but I do believe there are highly religious
individuals who are split off from their bad side and who commit these acts using this 
rationalization. I have also written about the many LDS who have married relatives with
deleterious genetic consequences and this article called Fatal Inheritance: Mormon Eugenics
is avaialble at: http://www.human-nature.com/science-as-culture/walker.html In fact it was through
studying genetics that I first found out about satanic/ritual abuse. I was interviewing an
LDS woman with several genetic disorders in her family and I asked about consanguinity
(marrying relatives esp. first degree as in uncle/niece a practice preached by the early
LDS and followed by the polygamists) and she said, "Yes the same surname is on both sides
of the family line." This is common in polygamy and although LDS she hailed from that
practice. 
My email is lwalker@childpro.org if people want more information but I do not have time
to enter into a lengthy debate about the reality of satanic ritual abuse of children. END
Lndwlkr 21:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important information on subject 

message: This (above) discussion is related to the renaming issue, but is outside the scope of the Unofficial Poll that is going on.  However, I notice in this discussion that there are two editors that want this article to be merged somewhere else.  I'm just wondering why this wasn't brought up in the first round of discussion?  I proposed some merge alternatives.  I also made provisions for bringing up new alternatives.  After some time of discussion on the current proposal, I will bring up the option to merge again, because of this discussion.  But for now, I just would like comment on why support for a merger wasn't brought up during the first round. It could guide me in what alternatives to provide in the next round (assuming that we don't arrive at a consensus). — Val42 09:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My very first edit to this article suggested a merge into Satanic ritual abuse; upon further research the more appropriate article, IMO, is False allegation of child sexual abuse. The memo is already heavily highlighted in Glenn L. Pace's article. --Storm Rider (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the idea of a merger. I believe there is enough substantial information for the article to stand on its own. Also, False allegation of child sexual abuse would not be the appropriate place for this information, since IMO there is no data proving or explaining the possibility of false allegations in this case.Abuse truth 01:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merger is less desireable than a rename, IMO. The information here and the amount of references is about the amount that would justifiably cause an editor to separate this information from a "main article" anyway, so we may as well keep them separate and come up with a name by consensus. Ubi Terrarum 23:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is there really a desire for a merge?

message: At 04:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Everything discussed in this article is relevant to the Pace memo, and there appears to be no relevant information outside that contained in the memo that could be added. "Pace memorandum" would definitely be an appropriate title in my opinion. Bochica 02:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think an article title centered around Pace memorandum is most likely to be viable.  Also try looking at the sources/references (especially the non-partisan ones) and see what labels they use in their headings and/or indices.  Too many of the citations are to offline sources for me to do this test. "Allegations" in a title often ends up with further dispute (example); it really isn't a great word for a title.  GRBerry 18:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we then, for the most part, in agreed then? Would Pace memorandum be suitable? I think so. Carter | Talk to me 15:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am open to putting the word "alleged" in the article. The title I have proposed in the section below is Satanic_ritual_abuse_allegations_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints. Abuse truth 03:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Is the article title appropriate

message: Coming from the RfC request, I definitely don't like the current title, as it suggests abuse actually occurred, which hasn't been established by a long shot.  The other problem is that this is all based around the Pace Memorandum, which suggests to me that the title should probably be "Pace Memorandum".  If that doesn't work, then it should probably include the word "allegations" in the title. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 22:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Everything discussed in this article is relevant to the Pace memo, and there appears to be no relevant information outside that contained in the memo that could be added. "Pace memorandum" would definitely be an appropriate title in my opinion. Bochica 02:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think an article title centered around Pace memorandum is most likely to be viable.  Also try looking at the sources/references (especially the non-partisan ones) and see what labels they use in their headings and/or indices.  Too many of the citations are to offline sources for me to do this test. "Allegations" in a title often ends up with further dispute (example); it really isn't a great word for a title.  GRBerry 18:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we then, for the most part, in agreed then? Would Pace memorandum be suitable? I think so. Carter | Talk to me 15:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am open to putting the word "alleged" in the article. The title I have proposed in the section below is Satanic_ritual_abuse_allegations_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints. Abuse truth 03:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: From RfC

message: I have an idea. A good compromise title could be "Satanic Ritual Abuse Allegations and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."  This states that they are only allegations and haven't been proven in court. Abuse truth 21:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's take it one step further and simplify it to "Satanic Ritual Abuse Allegations among Latter-day Saints". --TrustTruth 21:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise title for article 

message: There are currently discussions going on in three different sections about what the name of this article should be.  Each of the three sections is reaching a different consensus.  I figure that editors in one of these sections is going to see that the consensus in their section is totally in their favor and perform the rename according to that consensus.  Therefore, I am proposing that all of this renaming discussion be consolidated into this section.  I would suggest that we could at least reach a consensus that we should hold this one discussion in one section.
Here are the current proposals that are leading.  In these summaries, "..." means "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" so that the substance of what we are discussing doesn't get lost in the length of the title.  If you have any other suggestions, please add them at the end.
#Rename to "Pace memorandum"
#Merge to Glenn L. Pace
#Merge to "Satanic ritual abuse"
#Rename to "Alleged ritualized child abuse and certain members of ..."
#Rename to "Ritualized child abuse and ..."
#Rename to "Alleged ritualized child abuse and members of ..."
#Rename to "Satanic ritual abuse allegations among Latter-day Saints"
====Voting====
*#7: This is probably the best name for this article. — Val42 04:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Carter, I think it would be better to follow Snocrates' counsel. Let a third party do so that no one in the future can accuse whatever happens on being done by a subjective party. --Storm Rider (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I agree with all of you. Thank you all for your input. Carter | Talk to me 06:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to sound like a "me too"er, but this is part of consensus building.  I agree that we should let an administrator do it through the official process.  Also, once this discussion gets archived, someone should remember to add in a topic (to the unarchived portion) that links to the discussion on the name change.  That way, if/when it comes up again, people will be able to see that this name was chosen by consensus. — Val42 (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I've taken the initiative to propose the move to #1 at WP:RM. Historically on this page, I haven't been strongly pushing for a change but I nevertheless think somewhat of a consensus has built around #1. If anyone strongly objects to this action I've undertaken, it hasn't been voiced yet. Snocrates 02:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This article has been moved to Pace memorandum as the result of the discussion here and a move request listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Dekimasuよ! 10:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consolidation of rename

message: *#7: This is probably the best name for this article. — Val42 04:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: *Moving Would anyone have a problem with me wrapping up the discussion and moving to option number 1? I think it's time. Carter | Talk to me 18:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Carter, I think it would be better to follow Snocrates' counsel. Let a third party do so that no one in the future can accuse whatever happens on being done by a subjective party. --Storm Rider (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I agree with all of you. Thank you all for your input. Carter | Talk to me 06:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to sound like a "me too"er, but this is part of consensus building.  I agree that we should let an administrator do it through the official process.  Also, once this discussion gets archived, someone should remember to add in a topic (to the unarchived portion) that links to the discussion on the name change.  That way, if/when it comes up again, people will be able to see that this name was chosen by consensus. — Val42 (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I've taken the initiative to propose the move to #1 at WP:RM. Historically on this page, I haven't been strongly pushing for a change but I nevertheless think somewhat of a consensus has built around #1. If anyone strongly objects to this action I've undertaken, it hasn't been voiced yet. Snocrates 02:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This article has been moved to Pace memorandum as the result of the discussion here and a move request listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Dekimasuよ! 10:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving

message: The reason I deleted this category is because it does not seem to fit. The topic is a situation where false allegations were made and then proven without merit or false by an investigative group of professionals. How does violence play in that arena?  
I would also agree with Snocrates that I do not see how Mormon cosmology is a applicable category. Who does these things and why? It is almost as if someone just slaps categories on an article without thought. Am I missing something? I would like to delete both categories; thoughts? --Storm Rider (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why Day Care Sexual Abuse Hysteria is a category on this page. This page has nothing to do with day care abuse.Abuse truth (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That article relates to this articles because it also represents diverse situations where false accusations were made. How would that not be applicable? --Storm Rider (talk) 06:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that Day Care Sexual Abuse Hysteria is a valid "See also" article to cite. I think I'm going to delete the Mormon cosmology category; if anyone has a good argument for why it should be there feel free to restore it. I'm unsure about the Mormonism and violence category. I think it could very well apply, but it doesn't fit as well as the other articles there, so I would err on the side of caution and not include it. Snocrates 07:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mormonism and violence and other categories

message: "Scott's warning is reflective of the beliefs of SRA skeptics, who believe that most allegations of SRA result from the controversial practices of recovered memory therapy, which have been shown to produce false memories about a subject's childhood.[14][15][16] However, these sources have not attempted to show that false memories of SRA can be produced in therapy.[17]"
This paragraph appears to have little to do with the memorandum and appears to be simply adding an unrelated POV to the article. Please feel free to comment on this.Abuse truth (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that they have a little to do with the subject of this article.  They directly follow the previous paragraphs in this section related to this topic.  However, it may be relevant to discuss if this entire section is relevant or not. — Val42 (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a logical wrap-up to the section and the article. To me, the real question is whether or not it is WP:OR. I don't see any sources cited in the paragraph that make this connection, so WP should not be the one making it without that. Snocrates 22:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. It does appear to be WP:OR.Abuse truth (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will be deleting the paragraph for now, due to the violation of WP:OR.Abuse truth (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on possible removal of paragraph 

message: I have added a short sentence to the background section for clarity. ResearchEditor (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Allegations were world-wide, not just the US.  The 'child and non-consenting adult' line is a poor choice for the same reason it was a poor choice in the SRA page - if it's child, it's abuse.  If it's a non-consenting adult, it's abuse.  If its a consenting adult, it's not abuse.  So it makes for a long, complicated, unnecessary sentence.  The sources are not included in the main SRA page, suggesting they're poor choices for this page.  Plus, they're 'e.g.' sources, meaning they don't actually source the statement, they're examples of the allegations.  Given its a basic statement with a long main page, I don't see the need to include separate sourcing, though we could use Victor or Frankfurter as a good universal source for the history of SRA.  It's debatable to me whether background needs to be a separate section at all, a sentence in the next section could probably do the same thing.  WLU (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  addition of shortened version for clarity 

message: In this version, citations were restored.  The reason I removed them was not because they were unlinked, it was because with the original report, there is no need for secondary news sources for 'extra' citations.  Since the news stories are unlinked, but the report is, there's no value added by citing news stories.  Had I my druthers, I'd re-remove them but I'm open to discussing if there's a reason to keep them.  WLU (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I misinterpreted your reasoning based on the edit summary; thanks for posting. I thought that having neutral secondary sources to supplement a primary source was preferable, since it avoids the appearance of WP editors drawing their own conclusions from a report which some may suspect may not say what the article claims it says. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: S'cool.  If the original report clearly justifies the statement right before it, I don't see any interpretation being needed.  We are allowed to use primary sources in the article about the source itself I think, and technically this would be a secondary source anyway since it summarizes the case notes of the investigators.  Also, given the quotes in the preceding sentence, and having a quoted sentence justified by three sources suggests they're either all quoting the original document (which is legitimate in intent but erroneous in my mind since the original is the only source required) or all are talking about different things but happens to use the same word (which isn't legit).  If the news stories were linked, I'd probably integrate them into a single reference/footnote but unlinked they don't really add much to the page in my mind.  Take 'em out?  WLU (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I think it might be worth finding out what they actually say. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but can anybody find them?  Google turns up little for the first but there's more for the second.  Unfortunately the report itself is 60 pages long and scanned, so I can't search it electronically.  Scanning quickly I can't find a mention of a head of psychiatry, and lacking the original news clippings I can't really say much (though I would guess that they're cribbed from the RT.org website).  If the report doesn't contain any statements by the head of psychiatry, the report citation is in the wrong spot, but that's pending a more thorough review.  WLU (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Of course someone can find them. One might actually have to go to a library, but there are plenty that have archives of both SL Trib and SL Des News. I live in NZ and my library has the Trib archives. The Des News article is available in their internet archives, and I've added the link to it. The final quote doesn't come from the Des News article at least, but there's some other good information in the article that should could probably be used and cited to it. The quote that says "to substantiate with physical evidence the incidents reported" is used in the lead of the Des News article, and it's placed in quotes there, which suggests it's a quote from the report. What I'm getting out of this is I think probably what's intended is that the three citations apply to the entire paragraph; authors haven't yet bothered to apply specific references to the specific sentences in the paragraph. I'm going to begin fiddling with it. I agree though that the report itself should be looked through, to see if we can find the "absurd" quote and the head of psychiatry quote. They are certainly not in the Des News article, but to me they sound more like something a newspaper would dig up rather than something that would appear in a government report. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Copies of the SL Trib article are readily available online (it's actually an Associated Press story). I've confirmed that the PDF copy I've linked to is a match to the actual text of the article as it appears in the Factiva newspaper database. I don't care if the article is linked to or not — it's not a source directly from AP or the SL Trib, so there's at least the appearance that it might not be what it says it is, but I have confirmed that it is. Both statements in question come from this article. The "absurd" quote comes from the co-author of the report and the head of psychiatry statement also comes from this article. Problem solved? As for the Des News article, as I said it's looking helpful but somewhat superfluous, but you could decide whether or not you think we still need it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, and good work!  Researching sucks but it's the best way to solve disagreements.  What's attributed to the report is attributed to the report, what's in the article is in the article.  Absolutely top shelf and I wish my only contribution wasn't an initial complaint.  WLU (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: The changes I've just made are far from perfect, but I think it's a start. I went through the report, and there's nothing about "absurd" or the head of psychiatry at LDS Hospital — nor are they in the Des News article, so for the time being I'm assuming these quotes are from the SL Tribune, which article will have to be dug up for confirmation (I can do that later). I've had to change the statement that the report says the accusations against church leaders are absurd to "others" said that, but I've added a {Who?} tag to the "others" statement since it's clearly vague and unhelpful until we can look at the SL Trib article. I've added specific page citations from the report for the statements in the paragraph. At this point, the Des News article is looking somewhat superfluous, though I think perhaps it's a handy link to at least include somewhere as the article sums up the report very well, I think. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Copies of the SL Trib article are readily available online (it's actually an Associated Press story). I've confirmed that the PDF copy I've linked to is a match to the actual text of the article as it appears in the Factiva newspaper database. I don't care if the article is linked to or not — it's not a source directly from AP or the SL Trib, so there's at least the appearance that it might not be what it says it is, but I have confirmed that it is. Both statements in question come from this article. The "absurd" quote comes from the co-author of the report and the head of psychiatry statement also comes from this article. Problem solved? As for the Des News article, as I said it's looking helpful but somewhat superfluous, but you could decide whether or not you think we still need it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, and good work!  Researching sucks but it's the best way to solve disagreements.  What's attributed to the report is attributed to the report, what's in the article is in the article.  Absolutely top shelf and I wish my only contribution wasn't an initial complaint.  WLU (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of what I've done to this paragraph

message: This phrase was recently changed : "The state of Utah investigated these claims after the Pace memorandum was leaked to the press in 1991, but they were unable "to substantiate with physical evidence the incidents reported." This statement was accurate. The one that replaced it is OR.  ResearchEditor (talk) 03:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll leave this to Good Ol'factory to answer since s/he's done the legwork.  The statement contains multiple parts, what is inaccurate - that it was investigated, that it was leaked or that the state was unable to substantiate?  The sentence is sourced to Desert News (the link appears to be broken or subscription-only access) and the report itself - what page discusses physical evidence? WLU (talk) 04:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The change was made by a different editor. The part that is OR is "however, no reliable evidence was uncovered that suggested that these allegations were true." The statement that is accurate is : they were unable "to substantiate with physical evidence the incidents reported." Physical evidence is only one form of reliable evidence, other forms of evidence are also considered reliable in court. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're splitting hairs, the two statements are equivalent.  Testimonies are not reliable, particularly in SRA cases.  Further, the statements are currently in quotes, suggesting direct copy from sources - Good Ol'Factory will have to clarify if they're indeed direct quotations (in which case they could be summarized but using the direct quotation as a source) or if it's a paraphrase and the wrong punctuation.  So, I hand the discussion over to him/her.  WLU (talk) 04:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would respectfully disagree. If the statements were similar, there would be no need to change the original one. The one that is there now is not in quotes, I used quotes above to separate it from the rest of the sentence. In the US, certain testimonies can produce a guilty verdict. SRA cases have the same burden of evidence as other cases in the US. It would be good to have another opinion on this, as you suggest above. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would strongly disagree with your position Research. There was no evidence found to bring charges. The alternative "quote" in question attempts to cheery pick and has a decidedly different tone; as if the charges were true, but evidence was not found. With the state spending over $250,000 just to find proof, no evidence was found. Someone is trying to twist history to say, charges were made, they were true, but they just couldn't prove it. --Storm Rider (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't suggest another opinion, I suggested asking G O'F what s/he found in the source documents.  If they're direct quotes, no third opinion is needed as there is no flexibility - only discussion about how they should be worded.  If they're not quotes, then we've a larger problem.  But as G O'F has access to all the source documents used, s/he is the only person at this point who can verify the contents of the sources.  So we needs wait on his/her return.  The quotes are on the main page, which is why verification should precede re-wording.  And I'll agree with Storm Rider that the suggested phrasing does make it sound like there is truth to be found rather than verifiability and neutrality.  Reviewing the page a bit more closely, I think you're talking about the lead rather than the Pace_memorandum#Government_investigation section.  I've adjusted the lead to reflect the body/Pace_memorandum#Government_investigation section more closely. WLU (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Better. Good job. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Oop, sorry for being away during this discussion. As you've probably figured out, what was originally in quotes was a quote from the report, which was also quoted in the Deseret News article, but the change was essentially a rewording of it and I don't have a problem with how it now stands. In fact, I think the lead has been improved. By the way, I've added links to all of the sources, so everyone should have access to them now — the report and the SL Trib article, I mean. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

text: It is a bit of a funny URL, and seeing how I found it from a search of the archives, I probably plugged in the wrong URL for linking to it. I tried it after clearing my cache and it didn't work either. I'll try to work on getting that right. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as someone's able to read the article and make sure it's adequately attributed, that eases my concerns.  WLU (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  disagree with recent edit 

message: I have made some edits to the lead to try to make it NPOV and to try to make it a more "concise overview" and "briefly describe its notable controversies" as stated in WP:lead. I have added information from the sources already provided to the report section, in an attempt to balance the material and try to more accurately represent the sources. I also made a few minor changes in the spirit of Let the facts speak for themselves. ResearchEditor (talk) 07:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  edits to lead and report sections