Talk:Satanic panic/Archive 6

Source discussion
Note the discussion of sources on a sub-page: Talk:Satanic ritual abuse/list of scholarly texts WLU (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

attributions needed for extreme statements
These statements in the article : No proof of these claims has ever been found; Victor, 1993, p. 3-4 the proof presented by those who alleged the reality of cult-based abuse primarily consisted of the memories of adults recalling childhood abuse, the testimony of young children and "extremely controversial confessions". Edge362

are extreme statements. Court cases with convictions, like the recent Hammond case, prove these statements to be false. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:V - verifiability, not truth. Unless there's a secondary source that counters Victor, it trumps news reports.  Where or who is Hammond?  Did it involve an intergenerational conspiracy?  Did it involve forced ingestion of feces, semen, blood, urine, manufacturing of pornography, cannibalism, infanticide, necrophilia or the other 'extreme claims'?  Did this all occur within the context of a wide-spread network of extremely secretive groups and families? Because Victor and Edge that you are citing appear to be discussing exclusively one of the four definitions, the 'extreme claim' end that Geraldo reported on, the really nutter ones like Michelle Pazder described.  And I don't believe there's been proof of them.  Would Hammond be a pseudosatanist perhaps?  Fortunately these extreme statements are backed by very reliable sources.  Hammond does not disprove them.  WLU (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is that there are satanic cult abuse court cases with convictions that have been cited by reliable news sources. If certain sources decide to ignore this evidence, then wikipedian editors need to attribute these sources, since these are extreme statements that ignore many other reliable sources. ResearchEditor (talk) 05:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The books I'm using are scholarly and reliable. I'm certainly not going to edit based on the citation of a single news case, of which I have no idea the contents.  If you have equally reliable sources that contradict the sources I have summarized, add them. WLU (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added sources about convictions on SRA cases like the Hammond LA case under court cases, and your edits have deleted them twice now. IMO, some of the books you are using have an extreme skeptical bias, and these statements need to be attributed accordingly. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that Victor's book is over fifteen years old, and his conclusive statements (such as those stated above) should be considered historical, rather then factual.
 * Furthermore, Victor has no expertise in the field of child abuse, memory or forensic interviewing techniques, so it is uncertain on what basis he is drawing his conclusions. Whilst Victor is an academic, "Satanic Panic" lacks any of the features of scholarly work (e.g. a chapter on methodology or analysis) and it appears to be a a populist and journalistic treatment rather then an academic one.
 * Victor's subsequent involvement in the False Memory Syndrome Foundation does not add to his credibility, nor does the fact that Satanic Panic contains pages of endorsements by pro-paedophile luminaries such as Ralph Underwager and Richard Gardner.
 * Over-reliance on Victor's book, in short, appears to me to be a clear case of undue weight, WLU. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(carriage return joke)The reliability of a source comes from the oversight placed on the source, which is in this case based on the publisher, not by our discussion of whether or not we like the methodology. Victor examines the phenomenon as a sociologist, not by delving into the allegations of false memory as a psychologist might; he also focuses mainly on the 'nutter' version of SRA, the vast, religious world-view conspiracy Satan-is-real-and-his-minions-control-the-government, at a time near the peak of the movement. That's where I'm using him mostly. In addition, given the eight and more books I've gotten out on the subject, all of which cite Victor, all of which are scholarly from a university library and academic publishers, and all of which I've seen to date are skeptical of the 'nutter-conspiracy' version that Geraldo, the recovered memory allegations and movement and basically all of which the big fuss was over in the 80s and 90s in Britain, Canada, Australia and the UK, I'm of the opinion that undue weight is actually placed on the credulous sources on the page. Please re-read WP:UNDUE - undue weight is when a minority viewpoint is given too much text, focus and sourcing.  Victor's opinion is the majority and not the minority  so it is  impossible  to give it undue weight; it's like saying Darwin's viewpoint on evolution gets undue weight in the modern synthesis article. Also, the page is a work in progress, I've got 7 more sources sitting on my table I've yet to read and integrate, so Victor will eventually be diluted when those are used more as well. Undue weight would be giving Noblitt's ideas and his 'psychotherapists believe their patients so it must be true' viewpoint prominence, and ignoring or minimizing the number of sources that discuss the involvement of leading question/coercive interviewing and hypnotherapeutic regression/memory implantation techniques in the creation of false memories and unfounded allegations of SRA. The page should mostly be about the cult-based SRA allegations because that was where the fuss was kicked up in the 80s and 90s; pseudodsatanism, acting out and obsessive-compulsive abusers are crimes, they are simply rare variations on child abuse. The big stink and the big bucket of unproven allegations was over cult-based allegations, cannibalism, leading questioning and therapy techniques and false memories that were exported to the UK and Canada, not isolated incidents of abuse with satanic overtones.

Citing undue weight on Victor is a red herring and a mis-understanding of the policy. Further, the section immediately below WP:UNDUE is Neutral_point_of_view - I've done and am doing the research. I'm digging up, reading and summarizing new sources. As they have all to date been negative, I'm actually adding a much-needed majority scholarly opinion on the article, which treats SRA in most cases as unproven allegations that can be assumed as false, and as a social phenomenon, a moral panic. UNDUE is not about how many times a single source is used, it's about how much the page represents the majority opinion. Victor's later involvement in the FMSF (no doubt inspired by his research on SRA leading him to believe it was a ridiculous, iatrogenic phenomenon) and his citation by the modern bugbears of child sexual abuse and pedophilia does not reduce the scholarly weight of his work; scholarly criticisms of his book and conclusions would. Because Nazis/pedophiles/Saddam Hussein/Robert Mugabe/scary person we don't like cited research does not make it invalid, only a counter-investigation that directly counters the claims found therein.

Incidentally, the section title is misleading - the views are attributed, to Victor and Edge. They may need expanding or extra sources, but it's fact-tagged sentences and opinions that require attribution. WLU (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

'''Citing WP:Undue about the use of Victor as a source 17 times is a clear understanding of the policy, in terms of proportionality. You have never proven that Victor has the majority opinion, as I have previously shown with my survey of google scholar, and if he does why do you need to cite him 17 times'''. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the rest of you, but I think Victor's ties to FMSF needs to be mentioned in the article. Forest Path (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? Do you have a policy-based reason?  Otherwise it looks like a sneaky way of criticizing Victor, saying "but his opinions can't be trusted 'cause he's a secret child molester just like the rest of the false memory crowd".  I oppose that just as much as I would oppose a statement for Noblitt that would say "Noblitt profits from the ongoing belief in SRA through conference fees and credulous, victimized-by-incompetent-therapist clients" (which, incidentally, I could source but do not wish to because I think it irrelevant).  Everyone on every side of every scholarly debate has some vested interest even if it is just pride, and of course those who believe SRA is bunk are going to aggregate with other 'bunkers'.  I think there's absolutely no reason to cite the memberships of every cited author on the page and no reason to single out Victor in particular.  His reliability is vetted through his publisher like every other scholar so there's no reason to add a qualifier, particularly since his opinions are not being expressed on false memories.  Speaking of which, eventually I plan on adding info on the links between false memories and SRA when I get around to digging them up.  Of course, others willing to do so are welcome.  WLU (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that Victor's connection to an advocacy special interest group needs to be cited in the article. ResearchEditor (talk)


 * Wrong again. It's not an "advocacy special interest group", and it appears not to be WP:UNDUE weight.  Your arguments are not based on a reasonable interpretation of WIkipedia policies.  We've gone through this before.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The FMSF is definitely an advocacy group as well as a special interest group. Those are its major roles and its major purpose. I will repeat my argument again about WP:UNDUE.


 * No editors have been able to produce any data in reply to my argument of undue weight. "My question about "and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each" has not been answered. From the actual section: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."


 * Victor and his viewpoints are not 8.5 to 17 more prominent than all of the other opinions on the page. This is totally undue weight." Adding to his arguments further only violates the concept of undue weight further. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree that Victor's connection needs to be mentioned. And I still see no reason beyond opinion on why associations need to be mentioned particularly given the relative dearth of discussion of false memories in the article.  Right now it's irrelevant and in the future it'll be unnecessary.  The publisher is reliable, so there's no need to qualify.
 * Regards undue weight, there's little agreement with the opinion that Victor is undue weight. Seek an outside comment if you'd like but I see no reason to reduce the citations or cease to expand the page based on Victor.  Putting it in bold won't change my mind.  Why do you think it's undue weight?  I invite you to revisit this section of archive 5 and search for "it's reliable".  It's the first of 6 reasons that refers to the WP:UNDUE criteria for what undue weight is.  Please explain how the use of Victor is undue weight.  Simple number of citations is not a reason.  Undue weight is about the sources, not the opinion of editors.  Your google search has not convinced me that it's undue weight, but finding and adding sources that disagree with Victor might.  WLU (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't claim having read Victor. But if Victor's connection to FMSF is as circumstantial (not really substantial) as CSICOP's connection with FMSF and pedophilia (see way above), I am afraid that some editors are using "guilt by association" straw-man arguments again. —Cesar Tort 15:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the associations of authors are in large part irrelevant to the page - the publisher and oversight is primary. Any criticisms of authors which give the impression of guilt by association must be sourced as well, preferrably in as reliable a source (i.e. a criticism in a review or editorial published by a peer-reviewed journal, possibly a comment in a scholarly book) and should ideally be self-explanatory as to why the relationship is important or relevant.  This is essentially the same standard that I would apply to criticisms of a specific source, and WP:BLP may be a concern.  There's lots of sources and good ones, so let's use them to build the page, not arguments or ad hominen.  WLU (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I believe that Victor's affiliations should be cited in the article. Readers need to know about the connections and possible biases a researcher may have. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

WLU claims "Victor's opinion is the majority and not the minority so it is impossible to give it undue weight."

This claim is demonstratably false. There are three studies in America, Australia and Britain that demonstrate that (a) clients with a history of ritual abuse present frequently to mental health professionals and that (b) the majority of mental health professionals who encounter these clients believe that their history is indicative of genuine victimisation.

In Bottoms and Shavers study, approx 800 of the 2700 psychologists surveyed stated that they had encountered at least one case of ritual or religion-related abuse. The authors state: "Overwhelmingly, our respondents believed their clients' claims."

Bottoms and Shavers figures are replicated in other studies in Britain and Australia, which found that between a quarter and a third of clinicians have encountered a case of ritual abuse, and over 90% believe that such disclosures are indicative of genuine victimisation. (Andrews, B., J. Morton, et al. "The recovery of memories in clinical practice: Experiences and beliefs of British Psychological Society Practitioners", The Psychologist: Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 8, 5, 1995, 209-214, Schmuttermaier, J. and A. Veno "Counselors' beliefs about ritual abuse: An Australian Study", Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 8, 3, 1999, 45 - 63.)

WLU's claim that Victor's opinion is the "majority" (of whom?) is demonstratably false. The excessive sourcing of Victor is a clear case of undue weight. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 05:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WLU states: "Undue weight would be giving Noblitt's ideas and his 'psychotherapists believe their patients so it must be true' viewpoint prominence"
 * Noblitt has never made any such claim, and I don't believe you've ever read his works.
 * You've got a particularly biased view of clinicians who work with ritually abused clients, WLU, and no evidence to support your pejorative attitude save the speculations of Victor, Frankfurter et al. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, I've been too busy reading other whole books including Victor, Frankfurter and Edge. I may get to Noblitt one day but until then I'm working with what others put on the page.  The "therapists believe" position is the most commonly discussed 'proof' of SRA that I've seen.  Victor and the Utah report cite this, and Noblitt is used for this purpose (permalink for use, the 'b' use of the reference).  I don't have evidence, you're correct, but I do have a reliable source to verify the claim.  The page is not about truth, it's about verifiability.  So, verify your counter-claim.  Unless a source has been discredited or is unreliable, there is no reason not to use it.  I've got lots of 'SRA is bunk' sources, and am not averse to 'SRA is not bunk' sources being added if reliable.  WLU (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So, WLU: You are only reading "skeptical" sources, and those sources claim that the only evidence of SRA is "therapists believe". So it it accurate for you to cite that claim in this article as fact?
 * A more accurate summation would be that: "Authors who are skeptical of claims of SRA suggest that the only evidence of SRA are the disclosures of clients in therapy" or "Some sources suggest that therapists are uncritically accepting their clients histories of SRA as fact".
 * Instead, you are just entrenching the POV of a source that you happen to share, despite the fact that this POV (a) does not reflect the range of views in the literature, and (b) is contradicted by research findings.
 * Again, I don't know why you've taken on such a combatitative and non-consensus-driven approach to this page, but it's in clear contrast to your previous (and much more constructive) efforts. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, I've read several books now, all say much the same thing. The non-skeptical side is problematic and other editors are addressing it.  In order to counterbalance the article from becoming severely skewed towards wholesale acceptance of a very controversial concept (and because I find the credulous side rather absurd) I've been reading mostly the source texts of, and written by reliable skeptics.  If I do get around to adding "therapists believe" I will of course cite my sources and page numbers.  But for us to decide who is a skeptical author and who is not is OR, and for us to discount them based on if they're a skeptic or not is also inappropriate.  And constructive is a point of view - I believe relying on Noblitt to be unconstructive 'cause it's nutty, but I don't remove Noblitt and my qualifications of his statements are based on reliable sources.  I don't make this shit up, I source people who are relialby published.  WLU (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Edge and Lanning and criminal charges
Lanning and Edge both discuss the relationship of SRA to the criminal justice system - in particular, some areas have added or tried to add laws, legislation or some other form of judicial ruling that would allow 'extra' punishment if an incident of abuse involved SRA. To give an example, you might get 25 years for first degree murder, but life if it's first degree murder in the context of a satanic ritual. You might get 5 years for killing a family pet, but 25 years if it's in the context of a satanic ritual. I think Vermont acutally tried this, and there may have been other juristdictions. Lanning and Edge both point out that this is stupid and unnecessary for in most cases penalties are covered by existing crimes. I'd like to add this to the page, but I'd love suggestions on where and how. Any ideas? Court cases doesn't quite apply, but perhaps it could be shoehorned in or the title changed to "Criminal charges" or "Judicial system" or something. Perhaps a sub-section? WLU (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If this section is included, then a balancing section would be needed citing the places, such as Illinois, where laws on ritual abuse were added to the legal system.ResearchEditor (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Lanning and Edge both cite Illinois as a place where such legislation has been enacted, and use it as examples for why this legislation is problematic. I've no problem with Illinois being cited, and then using Lanning and Edge to demonstrate why such legilation is stupid unnecessary, which both are explicit on.  Are there any other places with such SRA-specific legislation?  WLU (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * California and Idaho are two others. We would also need to explain the reasons why this legislation was important to some. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We do not need to "explain", we need sources to justify where there are areas with specific laws aimed at SRA and what the reaction has been. But this is based on what sources say, not on what we think.  There is no TRUTH to report, there is only verifiabilty.  If it's important to the debate and not just to individual editors, then there should be a reliable source discussing it.  We never explain, that is NPOV, we cite what others have said.  WLU (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Closed section
I'm collapsing the above section (again). It's irrelevant to the page, wikipedia is not a discussion forum and it's about a completely separate topic. Keeping it open will invite a continuation of the discussion when that is not in the best interest of the page or contributors. Please do not re-open it without good reason, and I don't see any here. I am not amused by any party's contributions. If this page someday includes pedophilia and false memory, it may be relevant then. Until that point it is a divergence, distraction, and far too likely to incite acrimony. Take it up on your talk pages or e-mail people, not here. WLU (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight
The discussion of undue weight is still lingering like a dead woodchuck under the porch. So let me say - if the skeptical position of "SRA is a moral panic out of proportion with the reality of actual abuse in ritual contexts" is indeed undue weight, this should be easy to demonstrate using reliable sources. So rather than harping on the talk page, expand the existing page with what is believed to be the mainstream position (or even significant minority position). If it's really disproportionate, find the appropriate sources and add them. I am supremely unconvinced by arguments when I've a significant number of books and articles that disagree with the idea that Victor is a minority position. But perhaps I'm wrong due to a biased sample of literature taken from my library. Removing sourcing that is attributed to extremely reliable sources is inappropriate. Instead, find equally reliable sources and add them. Quoting WP:UNDUE, * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; The first two apply, the third does not so I urge everyone to put their efforts towards documenting and sourcing rather than ongoing debates on the talk page. The only way the issue of undue weight will be settled is through adequate sourcing.
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

As a final point, if you really have issues with how Victor or other sources are used, it's absurd to state that it's just 'too many'. Demonstrate why the specific uses are inappropriate. I have never seen any policy or guideline that states the use of sources must be below a certain number. Victor has many uses, including definitions, descriptions, timelines, basic information AND what I'm guessing is the real issue with it's use, debunking. So which use, where, which sentence, why and are there counter-sources. Or take it up an one of a variety of venues which exists to settle disputes like this. WLU (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Can the pro-SRA editors list some books they would like to see used in the article? So far, all I'm hearing is that Victor is being used too much and other sources are being misrepresented.  But if the existing article doesn't represent the majority view as some are alleging, then there should be plenty of other sources out there that can be incorporated into this article. Forest Path (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is the essence of NPOV and giving due weight to sources. If the sources are there, they should be on the page.  A dearth of sources for a specific POV makes for undue weight if that POV gets excessive text.  WLU (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not absurd to say "too many." This is the point of the proportionality argument. It appears this still has not been understood. If one editor is allowed to cite Victor 17 times, then another editor should be allowed to cite all other reliable sources 17 times (like Noblitt). It is necessary to remove the majority of the references to Victor, because he is so overquoted at this point. You are overciting him, based on the unproven belief that he is 17 times more prominent than any other author on the topic. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 17 citations to one source does seem like a lot. Whether it's WP:undue weight or not, I'm not sure.  But with so many cites to that one book, it seems fair that other books could be used for similar density of citations.  I haven't read the  Noblitt book, but if it has relevant info, I don't see any reason not to use it more.  If there is a general limitation of cites for one book, that should apply in general for the article, not selectively. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The proportionality argument is for amount of text - many of Victor's references are descriptive; they could be replaced but are better supplemented. Further, Victor is quoted twice, in Satanic_ritual_abuse, which is actually attributed to Geraldo, and again research - both could be replaced, with attribution to Geraldo and a paraphrase respectively.  Arguably, also in History.   Noblitt can be cited 17 times and I have never said it can't.  Expand with Noblitt, go ahead.  And to engage in sarcasm, I actually believe he is 47.6 times more prominent than any other author on the topic, but that 0.6 is going to be tough to get into the page.  Still, since I am aiming for an exact, specific number of citations rather than simply trying to include the relevant information, I'm falling well short.  End sarcasm.  There is no reason to limit the number of uses of a reliable source that represents a widespread pont of view.  As every source I've seen published after 1993 also cites Victor, I'd say there's a great case to be made that both sides see it as a prominent representation of at least part of the debate.  WLU (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes questions are the best answer
[Important: my comments here are not describing any individual. This is a general observation that I hope will help the article to progress.]

A skeptic does not assume truth without proof. Questions, hints and guesses do not establish an understanding of reality. When there is no proof, it is necessary to acknowledge that we simply do not have the answer, and that's OK. We hope there will be a definitive answer some day. With many questions, there will be. With some, there may never be an answer.

For a Wikipedia article, when there is no proof, we explain the question and report how reliable sources have discussed the question. The problems in this article, and many other articles that engage what has been called the "skeptics vs believers" dynamic, result not from unanswered questions but from editors on both sides deciding that they know what the answer is and using sources as a lever to present their contentions. The result is badly written articles that read like arguments rather than effective explorations of difficult topics.

While there may be a majority of sources that find actual instances of Satanic abuse to lack credibility, that is not the same thing as a majority of sources reporting a proven scientific fact, such as the earth being roughly spherical rather than flat. In that case, there is no wiggle room for alternate ideas and presenting the flat earth theory in that context would be simply incorrect. But that's not the story in this article.

There are many possible explanations for SRA - from actual ritual abuse, to nonsense imposed by bad therapists, to a cultural panic based on fear of cults, to hallucinations by psychotic patients, to actual child abuse that's incorrectly recalled as ritualistic when maybe it was "only" child abuse, to actual abuse by non-cultists who pretend to be cultists as a way of scaring their victims, and many more.

The answer is not known; that's the best approach for the article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I am not really for or against SRA.  I'm still confused by this phenomenon.  I think there are many possible explanations for what is going on and they should all be presented to the reader.  Personally, I'm wondering if there is abuse going on in these fundamentalist families, but since their world view is different than ours, they view any kind of abuse as 'Satanic.'  I'm sure there are sources that mention this as a possible explanation.  I'm not pushing for this, I'm just saying we should list out all the possible explanations that are presented in books and journals and then let the reader decide. Forest Path (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ross-Loftus
References have been requested. I started to work on this, but I've run out of time for now, so I'll post here one I've found so far. Actually, I just noticed that this one is already used in the article, but only for one sentence on a narrow part of the topic. This source has a lot more to offer, I've only started to read it and found some useful quotes.

All editors are welcome to integrate this info into the article.




 * SRA and dissociation, MPD, PTSD:

page 49:

"...we cannot reach any firm negative conclusions about the reality of multigenerational orthodox Satanic ritual abuse based on the present lack of objective evidence. We are prevented from doing so not simply because it is impossible to prove a negative, but because the quality and tenacity of much police investigation of dissociation, which might uncover extensive information hidden behind amnesia barriers, are suspect. In the case of law enforcement, any definciencies are probably attributable to the allocation of resources rather than to a lack of investigative expertise; in the case of forensic psychiatry, the problem is disregard of MPD and dissociation."

page 73:

"Satanism and multiple personality disorder are connected in so far as many alleged ritual abuse survivors in therapy have MPD. Why is this the case?  To grossly oversimplify, there are two possibilities: either ritual abuse causes MPD, or MPD causes false memories of ritual abuse.  These possibilities are not mutually exclusive."

page 88-89:

"MPD is a dissociative strategy for coping with overwhelming trauma, and since ritual abuse is one of the most devastating forms of trauma a child can experience, it is to be expected that many survivors of such abuse will have MPD. "On the other side of the equation, people with MPD have the most fragmented memories of anyone in our culture, and since they are highly hypnotizable, they are highly suggestible; this means that they must inevitably experience significant contamination of their memories from cultural sources, therapist expectations, and the media. Contamination of the MPD field with pseudo-memories of ritual abuse is unavoidable. "The undeniable fact of false memories does not discredit either MPD or Satanic ritual abuse as a real phenomenon, however, as long as one avoids dichotomized, black-and-while, all-or-nothing thinking.

...

"One cannot understand Satanic ritual abuse without understanding complex dissociation and its relationship with trauma.

...

"Opinions about Satanic ritual abuse, expressed by highly skeptical mental-health professionals, sociologists, and other professionals often carry little real weight because they are based on preconceived ideological positions and lack knowledge of the relevant literature, intellectual rigor, and often direct experience with the psychotherapy of ritual abuse survivors. The polarized skeptic represents the extreme pole of the hypnotic logic and has pulled so far out into 'objective relatity' that he or she sees no reality at all.

"The believer, by contrast, has been fully absorbed into the hypnotic inner reality of the client and uncritically considers everything to have concrete and literal reality; this is a hypnotic suspension of critical faqculties. The believer has also lost reality, but in the opposite direction.  It is surprising how many people actually represent these two extreme poles in fairly pure form., and I am dismayed at how few participants in the 'debate' achieve a balanced middle ground."


 * alternative hypotheses of SRA

"...making the assumption that they [these alternative hypotheses] are alternatives to the hypothesis that the memories are historically accurate and real. None of the alternative hypotheses can account fully for the memories of Satanic ritual abuse survivors; however, each of the hypotheses, when advanced in a reasonable fashion, contributes something to our overall understanding."

[note: the book lists various hypotheses with supporting arguments for each, and with arguments for each contending that none of them fully explains the situation. The bullet points listed here are direct quotes of section headings from the book.]


 * Urban legend and rumour panic
 * The patients are psychotic or delusional
 * SRA as a form of Munchausen's Syndrome
 * Histrionic behavior secondary to contamination by books and movies
 * Contamination by Therapists
 * Drug hallucinations
 * Hysteria fanned by Christian Fundamentalists
 * cased by Isolated psychopaths
 * Satanism is a cover for organized crime
 * An age-old cultural myth and superstitious fears


 * summary paragraph

page 99:

"Ritual abuse is a complex and perplexing phenomenon, and we simply do not know what percentage of survivor memories are real. Given the history of man's barbarity, and the large-scale atrocities committed by all races in the twentieth century, it is important that we not adopt the role of good Germans who looked the other way while the Nazies carried out their human sacrifices. It is equally important not to foster a hysterical with hunt.  Satanic ritual abuse should be a subject of dispassionate investigation.  We should expect to discover a complex, heterogeneous, and fluctuatiing combination of fact, fantasy, and fiction as we learn more, and we should not endorse any one hypothesis prematurely, to the exclusion of others."

Much of the above book is available on Google books by following the ISBN number link. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Somewhat ironically, Ross gives considerable space in his book to the possibility that "The Illuminati" are a shadowy global organisation of elites intertwined with the Freemasons, Rosicrucians and Knights Templar, etc.
 * He actually repeats an old conspiracy theory as fact - that the Illuminati were behind the French Revolution! (No, I'm not kidding, read p 10)
 * It's a very strange book, to say the least. Ross certainly does not dismiss the possibility that the "strong" conspiratorial theory regarding SRA is true. In fact, he gives that possibility considerably more consideration then I would.
 * More to the point, Cesar Tort is consistently misquoting Ross in claiming that Ross is a "skeptic". Tort also claiming that Loftus is a co-author, when she is not listed as such. She wrote the afterward, in which she disagrees with most of what Ross has written.
 * I don't know if Tort has actually read this book. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll be getting the book today and reading it. WLU (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

more POV edits
These two edits are biased and not NPOV.

1)The deletion of this statement : "Coons has stated that Victor's cursory review of the evidence at 61 locations where SRA was alleged to occur, makes it difficult to understand what really did happen at these locations." ref name = Fraser

was deleted as "quote mining." In reality, this is how Noblitt cited the data. If an editor has trouble with a reliable sources' statement, then the editor should find another reliable source to answer it and not delete the entire statement.

2)Changing this : "Coons has examined the records of 29 patients that made allegations of SRA. He stated that 79% of these patients had DID or DDNOS diagnosis, but he was unable to find external corroboration of the allegations made." ref name=Coons/ as cited in ref name = Noblitt/

to this : "Commenting on the study, Philip Coons stated that patients were held together in a ward dedicated to dissociative disorders with ample opportunity to socialize, that the memories were recovered through the use of hypnosis (which he considers questionableref name = Coons/, no cases were referred to law enforcement for verification, nor was verification attempted through family members, that existing injuries could have been self-inflicted, that the experiences reported were "strikingly similar" and that "many of the SRA reports developed while patients were hospitalized". ref name = Fraser/

It is fine to add data from a reliable source, but not all right to delete Noblitt's opinion on the study. And Noblitt's opinon of the study is more neutral and NPOV. In general, it is not acceptable to pick and choose which reliable sources and reliable opinions one wants in an article ResearchEditor (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read on Google Books the actual statement by Coons, so there's no need to go to Noblitt. I don't care how Noblitt cited the data, this is how Coons discussed Victor, and Coons statement, which can be read using the google books link, does not use "cursory" in the pejorative sense - he uses it to mean that Victor's description is short and does not detail the allegations.  The way it was portrayed made it look like Coons was criticizing Victor for not going into detail.  He was not.  Coons is available, so we can debate based on the source if needed.
 * If Noblitt cites Coons, then we should cite Coons directly when the source is available. If you want to cite Noblitt's analysis of Coons own interpretation, then do that.  Totally separate sourcing issues - the statement was not sourcing Noblitt's opinion on Coons, it was citing Coons.  I've cut out the middle-man.  I'm now citing Coons opinion on Young, which is legitimate.  WLU (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You state that "I don't care how Noblitt cited the data." But Noblitt is a reliable source and his opinion deserves mention in the article. I have no objection to adding Coons' opinion. But Noblitt's opinion should not have been deleted. This makes the edit POV. ResearchEditor (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is Noblitt's opinion as to what Coons' opinion was notable? His opinion that it is notable might be notable....  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

ResearchEditor, I've not read Noblitt yet, so I can't comment on the specifics. But as a general approach for this, instead of focusing on the specific change that WLU made when he re-sourced that content to Coons, I suggest you add a summary of the Noblitt source on that issue to the article. Citing Noblitt's direct reporting of Coons is better done by citing Coons directly. On the other hand, if Noblitt adds an interpretation of Coons' results, that could be useful; as would be an explanation of Noblitt's overall view of the situation. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, what I removed was a third-party citation summarizing the initial citation. Since the initial citation is available, attribution to Noblitt is unnecessary per CITE.  If Noblitt has an opinion on Coons' statement, that can be added but that was not the use of the original citation.  There is a fundamental difference between the two uses.  WLU (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Memory, Trauma treatment and the Law
I've a copy of for two weeks via the magic of Interlibrary Loan (wikipedia owes me $2 and that's not counting overdue fees). If anyone would like verification of how this source is represented on any of the pages, please let me know in the next two weeks.

Regards SRA, I've photocopied the sections that are mentioned in the index, as well as all discussion of Victor and full listing of the references section, all 30 pages. So I've a permanent record for this page at least. WLU (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a copy of the entire book. Let's work out a version on the talk page that all can agree with. ResearchEditor (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have huge issues with how you represent sources, statements by sources, attribution, verification and how you summarize. I have no idea if this is due to errors, deliberate misrepresentation, a complete lack of understanding of how sources should be represented, being blinded by a POV or a a second language issue.  I also do not care to speculate.  One thing I do know is that I do not trust you to adequately summarize a source, hence my statement that this is a chance for independent verification for the use of a source across multiple contentious pages.  WLU (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Because Noblitt is becoming more prominent and because I see it as having been mis-attributed on the main page, I will be stopping by my local library to pick up a copy soon, hopefully tonight. Thank God for alumni privileges.  WLU (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And I have huge issues with how your edits pick and choose sources, how your edits misrepresent the concept of undue weight, how your edits change material to fit a more biased and skeptical POV and how your edits delete reliable sources on a variety of pages on wikipedia to fit a skeptical POV. I have shown this several times on this page. At this point, I believe your edits do not represent a neutral point of view. Futhermore, your edits do not represent consensus on the talk page and often totally ignore consensus and other editors' points of view. I do not trust your edits to adequately summarize a source and I believe your edits need to be checked for bias. Needing to cite a source 17 times in one article, stating you plan to continue using this source to edit with, ignoring consensus around these issues and not seeing how this is undue weight is very problematic. And Noblitt was not misattributed. The statements were directly from the book and the references clearly stated how they were cited.  ResearchEditor (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This edit here is a good example of some of what I am talking about above. Minimizing a source's statements that does not fit the skeptical point of view. ResearchEditor (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See below - my concerns are about the attribution and nuancing, properly done all the information can be on the page. WLU (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

content & sources, not editors
Please discuss content and references, not editors. We all know that this topic generates emotional responses. It's not helpful to question motives or accuse people of mis-quoting sources. Certainly, there have been inaccuracies in representation of sources, and all-around, there has been editing from personal POV's - cherry-picking sources to lever in personal POV rather than dispassionately evaluating and presenting balanced views. That can be conscious and intentional, or an unintentional, unconscious result of personal bias. That's not the ideal method, but since none of us is immune to our own biases, it's almost impossible to avoid.

I don't believe that anyone working on this page is lying to make their points. I just don't see it. I have seen that elsewhere in Wikipedia, but not here and now. I request that everyone banish those ideas completely and work together, assume the best, not the worst of fellow editors.

It's clear that this topic brings an emotional charge. But that's not needed or helpful. It's just information. It's a twisted story. We're not going to solve it, but we can report it as fairly as possible. By acknowledging our biases (internally, to ourselves) and deciding we will not let them determine the results we can collaborate to write the best possible article.

Here's a challenge: What would it take for this controversial page to become a Featured Article? Of course, the first thing that would require before all else is actual NPOV or it fails before it starts. Can we make that happen? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow
For anyone who has not read Memory, Trauma Treatment and the Law, I urge you in the strongest possible way to do so. It's got about 11 pages on SRA and it is by far the most even-handed treatment I have ever seen. JAR, do you have a copy? It's really, really good and it's treatment on the page is far from its potential and far from it's current slightly one-sidedness. If I had my way I'd copyvio it to the entire page. There's a series of X cited in Hammond references that should be used - particularly Goodman. It's worth tracking down a scanner and e-mailing it to anyone who doesn't have a copy. It's so good even-handed it hurts. WLU (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WLU, you might be interested to read the infamous Greenbaum speech, delivered in 1992 by Hammond. You'll find that Hammond has extensive experience with patients disclosing SRA, and you might be a little startled by his conclusions. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the one where Hammond claims that there is a specific Jewish doctor who programmed whole generations of people with the CIA, presented at one of the conferences cited by Victor for being unreliable and passing around rumours as truth? I won't be citing that, and I will argue very strongly against it being cited.  I also won't discount MTT&L for being written by someone who appears to be enamoured of tenuously patched together, uncorroborated conspiracy theories.  MTT&L is reliable, I doubt Hammond is but overall I don't care because the citations should be to books and articles from reliable publishers, not to web fora.  WLU (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

another POV edit - deleting a reliable source's information
This data was deleted :

"'It has been stated that unfounded generalizations about SRA are often made without appropriately referring to published research and that the FMSF circulates data that comes from biased and unscientific sources and from the same data derives unfounded conclusions. In general, there are numerous examples of media bias promoted in part by FMSF proponents regarding ritual abuse. ref name = Noblitt'"

from the article, because :

Noblitt is paraphrasing someone else, there....

Actually he is not. These are directly from the book. I am requesting this be immediately restored to the article. ResearchEditor (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Does Noblitt say this, or does Noblitt quote someone else saying this? There's a difference and if Noblitt does not himself say this, it's legit to remove it (possibly somewhat lazy if it's simply a matter of attributing it to someone else).  WLU (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The first sentence is a direct paraphrase of two related statements he made. The second is part of a direct paraphrase and part an accurate synopsis of several pages. ResearchEditor (talk)
 * JAR has replaced the statement. I've re-worded to mostly remove it, but here's my rationale - it's more that it's unclear if all the statements are about FMS and SRA or if some are about FMS exclusively without referring to SRA.  This could be cleared up by someone with access to the book and if it's explicit (page number please, use if possible), please do so.
 * Rubin stated that Perskin (first author) is paraphrasing someone else. If so, this should be attributed to X in Perskin rather than Perskin.
 * "...that the FMSF circulates data that comes from biased and unscientific sources and from the same data derives unfounded conclusions." is unclear if this is about sources regarding SRA or data in general; should be clarified. If the latter, WP:COAT is a concern though given the involvement of the FMSF in this section then it may be proper.
 * "It has been stated..." is one of the perennial awkward phrases used that makes it unclear if this is "one person has stated" or "this is a general criticism" - very different, the first requires attribution while the second does not. If Perskin dues make this summary and cites multiple sources when saying "...unfounded generalizations about SRA are often made without appropriately referring to published research", source Perskin and it's fine.  If this is Perskin's own analysis, attribute.
 * The sentence "It has been stated that unfounded generalizations about SRA are often made without appropriately referring to published research and that the FMSF circulates data that comes from biased and unscientific sources and from the same data derives unfounded conclusions" links two potentially incompatible ideas, one about SRA and one about the FMSF. Are they linked?  Should they be?  I've no problem including the bit before the and but it should be severed from the comment about the FMSF after clarifying what the source has to say.  Also, the bit before the and, due to its section, implies that it's talking about unfounded generalizations of SRA and false memory.  Without that qualification, it's a general statement about SRA that should be in a higher section, not in the bit about false memory.  If it's about false memory, sever it from the statement about the FMSF and make it clearer.
 * Just generally, if Perskin's going to be used a lot for specific ideas, then we should start including page numbers. WLU (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In reply, I am willing to cite page numbers if all other editors are willing to do the same.


 * This line "It has been stated that unfounded generalizations about ritual abuse are often made without appropriately referring to published research." comes from page 55 of the 2000 version (this updated the 1995 version). If another editor can think of a better way to state "It has been stated that" in a similar NPOV fashion, please do so. The paragraph it is from discusses SRA.


 * This line "The FMSF circulates data that comes from biased and unscientific sources and from the same data derives unfounded conclusions." comes from page 226. This is from the chapter "Nihilists and Revisionists" about ritual abuse and is a retort to the previous paragraph in the SRA article.


 * This line "In general, there are several examples of media bias promoted in part by FMSF proponents regarding ritual abuse" comes from "Chapter 15: The Media." The part about media bias comes from page 182, the second paragraph. The chapter cites several examples of media bias in regard to ritual abuse, some of which are promoted by FMSF proponents, defined by Noblitt as individuals representing the FMSF or apologists for the FMSF.


 * I am requesting that the entire paragraph be restored to the article as written below.


 * "It has been stated that unfounded generalizations about ritual abuse are often made without appropriately referring to published research. . The FMSF circulates data that comes from biased and unscientific sources and from the same data derives unfounded conclusions. . In general, there are several examples of media bias promoted in part by FMSF proponents regarding ritual abuse.


 * Since it is important that all data in the article be held up to the same high standards, I am requesting that all data added to the article be discussed in this manner. ResearchEditor (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Page 55 is part of the google books preview for the 2000 version. It has no reference but he does refer to MTT&L, which discusses Goodman (Noblitt's real citation for evidence) quite extensively and concludes with:

Overall, the view taken in this book is that RA reports of patients may be mostly fictitious, a blending of internal and external sources, but sometimes mostly genuine. [Van B, 1990] In most cases, these reports represent a mixture of fact and fantasy, derived perhaps from genunie and often extremely sadistic abuse by perpetrators, in more by a patient who is often prone to fragmentation and shifting states of consciousness, who easily confuses fantasy and reality and who is highly suggestible. Thus, RA reports can neither be fully accepted at face value nor fully dismissed. These reports are rarely entirely a product of therapeutic or other external suggestive influences, nor are the reports devoid at times of significant suggestive distortions. Ritual abuse reports often begin with genuine and sometimes extreme abuse experiences that become embellished - internally due to the patients need to develop an explanatory model for his/her extreme distress (Frank, 1961) and externally due to a variety of suggestive influences, of which psychotherapy represents only one source of suggestions. We refer to this as the embellishment hypothesis, although we acknolwedge that with a highly suggestible population at least some of the allegations may be entirely false.
 * From Brown, Sheflin and Hammond, 1998, p. 64-65. That's extremely representative of what MTT&L has to say overall.  I don't think 'it has been stated' is a good way of including it, but given the statement's placement and sourcing in Noblitt and Perskin, I don't think it's really worth including.  At best I might say "Noblitt and Perskin have stated', 'it has been stated' suggests the idea has general acceptance.  I'll have to review more later as my copy of N&P is 15 and the preview cuts out at the other pages.  WLU (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thia appears to be a different page than in the actual book. I have no problem with attributing the first sentence, since it is a statement based on his own research. ResearchEditor (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Noblitt & Perskin
I got Noblitt and Perskin from the library. An initial review proved illuminating. It's a nearly embarrassingly bad book - one of his sources is Ms magazine, another is The Satan Seller by Mike Warnke (which he acknowledges was debunked by Cornerstone, yet still cites). It's full of single-study case reports which can not be aggregated due to WP:OR. It's reference to satanic ritual abuse is limited, making it of dubious use for extensive sourcing, though it does appear to use ritual abuse as a synonym; despite this, care must be taken to ensure that he's not talking about Voodoo, Masonry, Shamanism or other ritual-involving religions. His methods and descriptions of cases looks like textbook descriptions of means of inducing false memories per critical authors. None of this means it is any less reliable, or that it can be discarded; reliability is through publisher and oversight, not our analysis. So despite being a really terrible source that is prima facie absurd and from a dubious scholar (did I mention his thesis was on astrology?), it's still in and can still be used, but I urge caution and it is well open to any counter-claims. Does anyone have any reviews in scholarly journals, positive or negative?

I've also taken out two more books and photocopied three more from my local university library. All are  skeptical from what I have briefly scanned. I have a difficult time accepting that Victor is UNDUE given the main competition is Noblitt and so many scholarly sources take an approach similar, and explicitly so, with Victor. One source in particular has stated that the default position is currently skepticism (~2003 I think). Will be adding when the time comes around. What is 'pro-SRA' that is newer than Noblitt? What newer sources cite Noblitt? If the 'SRA exists' position is to be expanded on the page, there needs to be more sources. WLU (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Review. Review but no text.  WLU (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reviews. WLU (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm... WLU (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would strongly disagree with the assessment above. Critiquing two of the hundreds of references Noblitt uses hardly stands as a criticism of an extremely well sourced book. I wonder if Victor's book (and his connection to the FMSF) would be able to stand up to that intense of an examination. As I stated before, Victor is undue due to the concept of proportionality. He does not deserve 17 citations.


 * The publisher of Noblitt's book, Prager Publishing, received numerous honors.
 * "Each year the library media and ALA select "Best" or "Outstanding" Academic and Reference titles. These honors are bestowed by Booklist, Choice, Library Journal, ALA's RUSA Outstanding Reference committee, and by the New York Public Library. This year Greenwood and Praeger received 22 such honors."


 * Noblitt is the Program Director of the Clinical Psychology Dept at Alliant University, and he is well respected in the dissociative disorders field.


 * For instance, a review in the "American Journal of Psychotherapy" (Summer 1996; 50(3) p383) stated: "Whether or not one believes in MPD and/or Ritual Abuse, this book provides one with what is probably the most comprehensive and reasonable review of the subject that has appeared up to now. The primary author, James Noblitt, provides us with a personal historical review of his experience with MPD. Starting out as an "unbeliever", he provides case histories of patients that led him to believe in the reality of the syndrome and to develop expertise in its therapy. This in itself would make the book of value. However, even more significant is the manner in which he introduces us to the problem of ritual abuse. Describing himself as a "secular psychologist," and specifically repudiating any belief in Satanism, he describes case after case of sexual abuse of a ritual nature - ritual in the sense that it is surrounded with cultic practices. He documents the similarity of such practices from widely separated parts of the country; and even on an international basis. because he writes from a non-fundamentalist and non-religious point of view and because he sees ritual abuse in a wider context than Satanism as such, he provides the reader with both important information and a perspective that is clinically helpful ... They also discuss their negative experience with police agencies and the FBI, pointing out that contrary to generally accepted opinion, the FBI has never published a study stating that there is no evidence of organized cult or ritual activity associated with sexual abuse in the United States ... Of the many books on this subject that I have read, this is perhaps the most helpful and is highly recommended to those who deal with these problems whether or not they believe in ritual abuse."


 * This review is somewhat positive. http://www.psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/52/7/978 which is copywritten by the APA. "Psychiatr Serv 52:978-979, July 2001 © 2001 American Psychiatric Association" It concludes: "The authors explore the similarities between the experiences of Noblitt's patients and experiences reported in other cultures around the world. They carefully distinguish between satanic cults and contemporary neopagan and Wicca practices. Also discussed are the challenges presented by the media and skeptical practitioners. Although the writing is uneven at times, anyone who is interested in the topic of cult and ritual abuse will find this book worth the time to read."


 * This negative review you cite at http://books.google.ca/books?id=zJkTTpfyJ-8C#reviews_anchor is self published by someone named "Quimbisero"


 * This negative review you cite at http://www.csicop.org/si/9609/conspiracy.html is not surprisingly from csicop.


 * As stated on this talk page before :
 * "The links between CSICOP, the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, and the pro-paedophile publication Paidika have been in the public domain since the mid-1990s and they constitute verifiable historical information that are clearly relevant to the assessment of the credibility of CSICOP." ResearchEditor (talk) 02:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The CSICOP/CSI review is probably not "reliable", as it appears to be a review of a conference, rather than of the book; is published by CSICOP, criticised in the book; and the author of the review had no particular expertise (a graduate student?) at the time. However, the fact that Noblitt & Perskin are the creators of that organization, and that they apparently support the Illuminati theory as fact (rather than a racist rant), would tend to discredit the book, even if from a respected publisher.  Difficult, difficult.  If the Illuminati theory appears as fact in the book, that would need to be noted in this article.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Research Editor: The claim that Promtheus Books/CSICOP (both founded by Paul Kurtz) is pro-pedophile is preposterous and even libelous. In 1994 I listened to Carl Sagan in the CSICOP conference using the word "betrayal" against incestous parents. This was no less that the keynote address in the CSICOP conference and it pretty much represents what a common CSICOPer believes about pedophilia (I know it because I have seen CSICOPers debating Liz Loftus in the Seattle conference). Thus, could you abstain from riding that dead horse in this talk page? Thank you. —Cesar Tort 15:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Tort, Prometheus employed an editor of Paidika (which is a pro-paedophile organisation) Vern Bullough as an editor of it's Human Sexuality series. Under the stewardship of Bullough, Prometheus published a book called "Children's Sexual Encounters with Adults" in which child sexual assault is referred to a a "sexual encounter".
 * You can draw you own conclusions about these facts, however, they are facts, and they do call into question the objectivity of Prometheus Books on matters relating to child sexual assault. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Still riding this hobby horse, Biao? Take a look at this one. —Cesar Tort 01:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The hobby horse here, Tort, is yours, and it's called CSICOP. You stop pointing to it as the sole credible authority and I'll stop shooting at it. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

{undent}An author can not be discredited and discarded by an ad hominem attack; in addition to being a logical fallacy it's completely irrelevant to wikipedia. Publisher determines reliability. Prometheus books is a reliable publisher of academic books, the books published by Prometheus are reliable and can not be discarded because of the author. Published criticisms in equally reliable sources can be used if they criticize the books themselves for specific reasons. Please stop sniping at each other, WP:NPA. If you've a problem with anyone's use of a source, comment on that, not on the editor. WLU (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

More sources
The question arises: Is there such a thing as ritualistic child abuse? Some authors argue that there is not and that the reports of so-called surviviors fall into the realm of false memories (Fraser, 197; Jenkins, 1998; Snedeker and Nathan, 2001; Faller, 2003). Jenkins (1998) explains that, despite numerous reports to child protection agencies, media coverage, and publications, no firm proof existst that satanic cults practising ritualistic abuse exist and is "an eerily postmodern dominance of created illusion over supposedly objective reality" (p. 177). On the other side of the argument are authors and reported survivors who contend that this type of abuse is very real (see Noblitt and Perskin, 2000).

When this book was originally published, there was a great deal of interest in and concern about ritual abuse, most child welfare professionals believed in its existence, and the federal government funded research into its characteristics and effects (Bybee & Mowbray, 1993; Goodman, Bottoms, Qin & Shaver, 1994; Valliere, Bybee & Mowbray, 1988; Waterman, Kelly, Oliverie & McCord, 1993). BUt responses to allegations of ritual abuse have undergone a transformation in the last 10 years, so that any case involving ritual elements elicits great skepticism. In fact, it is no longer au courant to believe in the existence of ritual abuse (Chaffin & Stern, 2001; Myers, 1998)

There appears to be several reasons for the change in perceptions of ritual abuse. One reason for disbelief is the paucity of physical documentation of the victims' reports, specifically of the alleged ritual murders (Lanning, 1990). If the accumulated accounts were true, one would expect hundreds of missing children and adults to be reported and graves or ritual burial sites to be discovered. There is no such evidence. Nevertheless, some corroboration has been found (Faller, 1994c, 1996a; Snow & Sorenson, 1990; Stickel, 1993).

I'm assuming Stickel, 1993 is the Stickel referred to here. There's more stuff, some quite good, but lengthy. There's info on the FMSF as well, reasons for doubt and corroboration.

Part of the problem on this page and SRA in general is that the extremes divide (which is documented in several sources including Brown, Scheflin and Hammond). One pole says that SRA is cult-based abuse that is intergenerational, with a supernatural goal. Lacking all these features, an allegation is not SRA and since no evidence exists of intergenerational cults, SRA is bunk in all forms. The other pole is that any abuse involving ritual elements is ritual abuse; satanic ritual abuse is a synonym for ritual abuse. There is proof of abuse with ritual elements. Therefore, SRA exists and it is real. The scholarly sources support neither uniformly and generally nuance between the two. I've no problem with the sources position. Unfortunately since many of the sources are unclear if it's ritual abuse (Noblitt doesn't seem to really distinguish between ritual abuse and satanic ritual abuse, or he does but SRA only appears on three pages in the 1995 version and 7 in the 2000). This muddies the waters considerably and makes it difficult to clarify and wildly invites OR speculation. WLU (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, there is evidence of intergenerational cults, there are eyewitness accounts, which are a form of evidence. Since there are different definitions of SRA with differing amounts of evidence, all we can do is fairly represent the reliable sources.


 * "Thus, the evidence from victims in this long-term outcome study suggests that ritual abuse may be particularly traumagenic." (study cited is Briere, J. (1988). The long-term clinical correlates of childhood sexual victimization. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 528, 327-334. - unable to find abstract)


 * Experiences with Ritualist Child Sexual Abuse: A Case Study from the Netherlands.
 * Authors:	Jonker, F.; Jonker-Bakker, P.
 * Source:	Child Abuse and Neglect: The International Journal, v15 n3 p191-96 1991
 * The case of apparent ritual sexual abuse of children in a community in the Netherlands is described in terms of the children's stories, behaviors, and physical symptoms and the community's reaction to reactions of police and other professionals. Suggestions are made for improving interviews and evaluations of such types of sexual abuse.


 * Effects of ritual abuse: The results of three surveys in The Netherlands
 * Fred Jonker and Ietje Jonker-Bakker, Oude Pekela, The Netherlands
 * Child Abuse & Neglect Volume 21, Issue 6, June 1997, Pages 541-556
 * Results: Data from the 1990 and 1994 surveys indicate that 39% of the children involved, who lived in supportive family environments, had changed as a result of the abuse. They exhibited behavior within acceptable, normal guidelines for childhood development. In 1994, 7% of the children involved showed signs of more severe behavioral disorders.
 * Conclusion: The findings indicate that physical and behavioral signs apparent in the 1990 and 1994 surveys were not recognized at the time the abuse occurred. Many of the children exhibit normal, acceptable behavior at the time of the most recent survey (1994).ResearchEditor (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply to WLU 16:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC): WLU, you've expressed clearly a point I was also getting to with some of my prior comments, and you've related it directly to sources which is a strong approach.

I recommend changing the article title to Satanic and cult ritual abuse or Cult and Satanic ritual child abuse (I prefer the latter for readability, but either will do); we started to discuss this previously but got distracted by an unrelated topic, so I'm bringing this up again now.

The change of title can help because third-party evidence about cult abuse does exist (as one example, The Children of God; others can be found), even if evidence of specifically Satanic abuse has been been elusive.

Even with the title change though, there are still multiple sides to the story; some ritual abuse may be real, but that does not explain the extent of the media coverage and all the other aspects we've been discussion. Still, there is not much difference in terms of media panic, or psychological symptoms, whether the ritual abuse reported is "cult" or "satanic". If the title of the article is changed, we might want to have a separate section for SRA in particular, with regard to the media frenzy, since that part of the story is something that happened during a certain period of time. It's not the whole story though, as we've seen, there are many possible explanations short of (and including) the idea that real ritual abuse may have occurred. By including cults in general it allows for a more thorough exploration of the topic. It wouldn't make sense to have a separate article on cult-abuse, since there is so much overlap, but cult-abuse does exist (maybe even more than SRA), so it needs a place to be noted. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Re the "no forensic evidence" you question in the new thread below, is that church case with body fluids "satanic" abuse? If not, it should go to Ritualized child abuse. We may change the title not of this article on SRA, but the other one maybe to Ritualized abuse to include adult abuse cases, e.g. the witch hunting in 21st century Africa (is there already a WP article on ritualistic abuse?). That makes much more sense to me. There must be a single article about the intergenerational, and sometimes conspiratorial claims and moral panic, which sent innocent people to jail and bankrupted the legal system in some Western countries the 1980s and early 1990s. There's no question about that. —Cesar Tort 02:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking more and more about the definitions of SRA by different parties. I'm thinking of a reorganization of the page based more on claims and positions rather than 'fact' or 'non-fact'.  SRA has been approached as a moral panic, and clearly the strong position of SRA is intergenerational abuse and absurdist propaganda started by Michelle Smith is a moral panic.  I think there might be merit in arranging the page by the positions of different groups involved in the controversy.  As a moral panic.  As blood libel.  As a crime.  As a set of false memories/artifact of questioning and therapy techniques.  There's sources that support all these positions and the fighting over the truth of assertions wipes out much of the nuancing and discussions that occurs in the scholarly sources.  The sources state that there's no intergenerational cult SRA but there are people who have been abused by groups in situations involing rituals in which satan is invoked.  There's so many different definitions of SRA that opposing groups can look at the exact same evidence and both will say "see, I'm right".
 * All the discussions of 'ritual abuse' is unhelpful without an explicit definition of ritual abuse from the source to see if the meanings converge or not. At least initially when people discussed SRA it looked to be a definition of ritual abuse with a supernatural goal, and it was dismissed.  As evidence came in that children were abused in ritual contexts the definitions had to change to accomodate the new evidence.  I'd say this is where the 'isolated crazy' and 'satanist to scare kids' came in.  Now skeptics can still point to it and say 'that's not SRA because they are really just perverts with a good backstory' while non-skeptics can say 'SRA exists because here are children being abused within rituals that are satanic'.  Scholars are now skeptical of SRA (Faller, 2003) but believe that children are abused In any case, the scholarly sources are much better at making distinctions than popular.  The question becomes should the SRA be solely about the moral panic started by Michelle Remembers and should the proven allegations be moved to another page?  Should there be an umbrella page and several sub-pages?  In the mean time until I can come up with a clearer comment, I'll integrate what I've found in new sources and keep banging my head.  WLU (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I concur with reorganizing based on the varied definitions.  That will help to resolve the confusion of "what it really is" and the conflict connected to that question, since there are multiple answers.  Regarding the question of partitioning SRA to focus only on the Michelle Remembers panic, I do not think the article should be devoted only to that because the term "Satanic ritual abuse" is associated with more than just the moral panic.  If there is too much information available for that section and the article gets too large, we can address a split-off article as a separate issue at that time.   --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, moral panic is going to soak up much of the skeptical literature I think but not enough to have its own article. I think the false memory bits might be its own article, either immediately or eventually.  This is going to be messy for a while.  WLU (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it'll be messy but better in the long run. Regarding the false memory issue, I think it's important that however that is handled, it should not be blended with the more general false memory debate, because most false memory issues have nothing to do with ritual abuse and combining them would obscure the science with the moral panic.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with JAR above about the title change to Cult and Satanic ritual child abuse. This way the article can be more inclusive and not have to deal with which cases fit. I would respectfully disagree with CT's ideas above. The ideas of "panic" and "innocent" people going to jail are not held by many in the field, so should not be the basis for a wiki page. Hammond et al is an excellent neutral source for the FM/SRA debate, p. 406-408. IMO, it is good enough for at least three lines in the article. ResearchEditor (talk) 06:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * God forbid that "pro-moral panic" editors on this page ever read the liteature suggesting that the "false memory" debate are, themselves, a "moral panic" about a non-existent mental illness ... wouldn't that be a shock? --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

forensic evidence?
I ran across this in Googling regarding a prior comment above:



It seemed useful so I added it to the list of cases article. Then I noticed this already in that article:



It seems to me that since the police found bodily fluids and scrubbed-off pentagrams in the room where the alleged cult rituals took place, that shows that there has been forensic evidence in at least this one case.

That implies that the sources used in the SRA article, stating there has never been any evidence found, may have overstated it a bit. Therefore, the text in the article regarding those sources should be modified to include attribution, rather than presenting it as a unquestioned fact. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Definition again - that's evidence of one type of satanic ritual abuse, but there's multiple types. When sources assert that no evidence is found, I believe (in the face of much actual evidence of some types of SRA) they're talking about the intergenerational cults that practice human sacrifice.   For 'strong' opponents, it's the intergenerational murderers that is key (with intergenerational defined as 'lasting longer than the lifetime of the church's creator'), since this isn't the case, this is one of the sub-types that is 'abuse within satanic rituals but not SRA.  WLU (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Clarity in separating the types will make a big difference in improving the article.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Another topic to clarify is what is evidence and what isn't. Some sources state that anecdotal evidence is possible evidence of the existence of SRA and is taken very seriously by these sources. Other sources state that symptomology shows the possibility that SRA exists. Others accept criminal convictions of SRA-type cases. And some don't accept these convictions and deny any existence. ResearchEditor (talk) 06:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

small or agreed upon edits, added data
I have made a few edits, mostly small, for accuracy. I added a few lines to the False Memories section, as it was agreed to on this talk page to add the section back with proper attribution. I added Noblitt's analysis of Coons interpretation of Victor with proper attribution, as was agreed to on this talk page. I fixed a couple of spelling errors. I added "SRA" to allegations to clarify the phrase. I added a short phrase from Van B, who is already cited as a ref. I added a shortened paraphrase of Lanning's "middle ground" view, which should be less controversial than the actual quote from his conclusion. I took out the word "may" from "There are incidents of extreme sadistic crimes (some of which may be connected to Satanism)" as Hammond on p. 407 clearly states this. I added a line from K. Paley in the MPD section where she was already cited. I added a line from Hammond et al about their view of iatrogenesis and SRA (p.408) attributed to them. ResearchEditor (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

request for source text re Noblitt review
The following statement in the article features a very strong statement of the authors opinion about Noblitt:

As WLU pointed out above (00:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)), the link to the abstract has no content.

Does anyone have the text of this book review? If yes, please provide a quote showing the context of the author's comment. If no-one has access, then we may need to question the use of that source, especially since the term "incoherent" is a rather extreme description of a published author's work. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't go that far. Velikovsky's work is incoherent, but it wasn't published as non-fiction by a major publisher.  Still, if we can't verify the actual content of the review, it's got to go.  (For the record, the quotes I've seen from Noblitt seem incoherent, but we still can't use it without a reliable source.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's what I meant, published as non-fiction. ...    --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not how we do things at Wikipedia. Everyone everywhere doesn't have good access to all sources.  Anyone with access to an academic library can access this source.  Its that simple.  A properly cited review by an expert scholar published in a peer reviewed journal does not "go" simply because some of you don't have access to proper research facilities.  The suggestion that the source doesn't exist because you don't have access is equally absurd.  How about asking the editor who is using it for a copy?  Here is what Best wrote:
 * "I should confess that I approached the book with deep skepticism but that I hoped it would at least present a coherent case for believing in ritual abuse. The book fails even this modest test; coherence is not one of its strengths."
 * This review is very rough on the methodology employed by the writers to interpret their various points of data. Then, towards the end Best adds this gem:
 * "I kept waiting for the Noblitt and Perskin to mention the 'Blood Libel,' the long repeated claims that Jews sacrificed Christian children during Passover rituals. To their credit they do not invoke this particular story, presumably because they recognize it as racist, destructive and false. But the outrageous claims about the Blood Libel are not unlike many other claims that they accept as legitimate ..."
 * I would like to make it very clear that our policies regarding WP:V and WP:RS do not in any way disqualify sources because one or more editors do not wish to or are incapable of visiting a library. Please, please drop that argument completely now and in the future.PelleSmith (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Chill out please, we can do without the judgmental comments. This is a collaboration, not a fight; I asked if anyone could provide the quotes.  Thanks for doing so. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly chill. Comments like these in regards to an obvious RS, require a clear response right away: "Still, if we can't verify the actual content of the review, it's got to go" and "If no-one has access, then we may need to question the use of that source."  Unless you two checked with the obvious places where one finds peer reviewed academic journals and found that this source was fabricated or misrepresented it is simply not right to make either of those suggestions.  It amounts to saying -- well I live in the middle of the forest and have no access to printed material so nothing is a reliable source unless its on my library shelf ... PelleSmith (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, calling an appeal to policy and basic common sense a "judgmental comment" is a pretty far fetched. PelleSmith (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The comment that was judgmental was the description of editors as lazy.  Thank you for providing the requested quotes and saving us a trip to the library.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Lazy" removed.PelleSmith (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(bing!)I tried to stay close to Best's review - JAR I've sent you the review, Rubin, you'd need to send me an e-mail as I can't attach from wiki. Protections on the PDF file means I can't copy-paste, but I believe I stayed close to the original. Here's the shortest I can manage 'cause it's a lot of typing: I should confess that I approached their [N&P] book with deep skepticism but that I hoped it would at least present a coherent case for believing in ritual abuse. The book fails even this modest test; coherence is not one of its strengths...Regrettably Noblitt fails to to locate [cases of ritual abuse in his private practice] in any larger context...nor does he explain what-if anything-he knew about other ritual abuse claims...those who find this convincing will, of course, be convinced...[N&P] invoke the principle of parsimony...In practice they seem to find it more parsimonious to accept extraordinary reporst of abuse by patients who the authors acknowledge are seriously disturbed than to question those reports and the therapeutic process that produced them...There is nothing wrong with [N&P] writing from their convictions. However, anyone hoping to understand the ritual abuse debate would be well advised to also examine works by skeptics and not simply take this book at face value. In the middle there's a section where it discusses the mutually contradictory claims made in the book and how N&P shoehorn each into support for SRA claims. Best is indeed very critical; I also think it is important to include counter-claims against N&P's books in every spot where it's used, since N&P is one of the few books to take claims seriously when the consensus in the majority of scholarly circles is against SRA (and I'm reading LaFontaine, 1998, Speak of the Devil, which is also excoriating of the idea that there is any credence to SRA claims. Cambridge University Press, unimpeachable source). Skepticism is the norm. I wouldn't go so far as to insist N&P be removed (though I think that's a good idea since it's a ridiculous book in terms of claims, methodology, research and credulity) but the review points out all the flaws I see with the book.

I would say that the comments in this section are a bit harsh, can we live and let live on this? We are all editors in good standing and there's no reason to doubt the main thrust of our contributions even if we disagree over details and wording. Lack of electronic access is only a factor if there is reason to doubt that the summary of the source is accurate. In this case there is reason to doubt because it is a contentious point, but fortunately we have access to an electronic version. JAR - from my experience on wikipedia there's rarely a reason to state a source is mis-represented and/or challenge paper-only texts unless the contributor has a history of extremely tenuous or inaccurate representation of sources. I'll admit that I believe SRA is absolute shit, a moral panic and completely discredited, but I have always done my best to rely on the sources to say so. That being said, I always appreciate your efforts to temper my skepticism in a manner that is fair to the sources. I've forwarded this one on to you, and please challenge my interpretation if you think it's warranted.

Civility is a challenge on this page from all people, and it's definitely one of the pages where I am guilty of being less than friendly. Accordingly, I'm hardly someone to lecture, so I'll just say let us please calm down and remember WP:AGF. WLU (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * WLU, thanks for your comments. I didn't realize this was the same review you sent me, thanks for that reminder too; I will review the text that you sent me.   I did not intend in any way to imply that there was any purposeful misrepresentation of the source.  If it came across that way with regards to anyone in this discussion - or any editor - I apologize for not being more clear in the way I stated my question.   --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You had the review all along and you got on my case for using the word "lazy". Jeesh.PelleSmith (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is really funny - as it turns out, no I did not have it. The one I thought WLU was referring to is a different review.  Now, WLU has sent me the one we are discussing.  Anyway, whatever happened with this discussion, let's have a good chuckle and move forward with improving the content.  Best wishes to all...  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, I sent JAR the review immediately before posting my comment above. JAR, do you agree with the summary of the review and criticisms of N&P's book?  Pelle, thanks for your input and invaluable assistance with electronic versions, it is greatly appreciated.  But everyone makes mistakes and sometimes leaving out a comment is more helpful than adding.  JAR has always been in my experience a very fair and dedicated editor.  WLU (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt it. I just firmly believe in nipping policy confusion in the bud--particularly in terms of WP:V and WP:RS.  My original commentary had far less to do with the content itself than with the reasons that were brewing for inclusion and/or exclusion based upon the supposed reliability of the source.  Carry on!PelleSmith (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * WLU, I'm puzzled by your approach to Noblitt and Perksin. You state, "Regrettably Noblitt fails to to locate [cases of ritual abuse in his private practice] in any larger context".
 * This is demonstratably inaccurate. The book contains an extensive literature review that capably summarises the research evidence regarding ritual abuse. You have also made a number of assumptions about Noblitt's beliefs about ritual abuse that do not appear in his work, and I don't know where such assumptions are coming form, if not your own apparent biases regarding clinicians who take ritual abuse seriously.
 * If you are interested in other research on ritual abuse, I would direct you to Sara Scott's 2001 "Beyond Disbelief: The politics and experience of ritual abuse". Scott is a rape crisis counsellor in Britain, and she was a foster parent of a child with a history of ritual abuse. Scott provides a critique of La Fontaine's work, as well as an analysis of her own doctoral research with adults disclosing a history of ritual abuse.
 * Meanwhile, painting Noblitt as the "counter-point" to Victor is a very strange position to take. A number of academic texts on ritual abuse were published during the 1990s that took disclosures of SRA seriously, including Valerie Sinason's "Treating Survivors of Satanist Abuse", Sakheim and Devine's "Out of Darkness" and Frazer's "The Dilemma of Ritual Abuse".
 * I'd suggest that you take this body of literature into account on this page, and revise your assumption that professionals who take disclosures of ritual abuse are all simplistic zealots. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a direct quote actually. I don't say that, the reliable source I am quoting does.  I've got Scott.  Her definition of ritual abuse does not include satanic ritual abuse.  She accepts as SRA the cases in which the satanic rituals are covers for sexual abuse.  She specifically states "In this book I use the term 'ritual abuse' to refer to one dimension of the childhood abuse described by my informants."  She goes on to cite Finkelhor, in which the magical rituals are used to frighten children.  And she also states "Such a definition does not assume that ritual abuse is necessarily coupled to a particular belief system as do the terms 'satanic ritual abuse' or 'satanist abuse'."  Scott is talking about any type of abuse that occurs in rituals, irrespective of the supernatural or religious beliefs of the abusers.  That's pseudosatanism (more broadly pseudoritualism) as defined by Finkelhor and not the intergenerational cult abuse that is focussed on by Victor, Frankfurter, LaFontaine, Lanning, Pazder & Smith, Noblitt, Coleman, etc.  The page and allegations need to distinguish between the extremes of cult abuse (for which the term panic is most appropriate) and pseudosatanists who use the rituals as a cover or to terrorize, and the random nutjobs who are literally insane (i.e. obsessive compulsive disorder and schizophrenia).  The page, and most allegations, do not, which leads to an extremely messy debate.  Scott's comments are focussed on something I, and Finkelhor, would probably not consider actual SRA.  Her work could probably be used extensively in ritualized child abuse, which is a different page.
 * Incidentally, the majority of the credulous in professional circles are therapists, for whom the forensic evidence is less important; they believe their patients and that is sufficient proof for them (and it is a limited number of therapists who produce the majority of the allegations). The skeptics are usually the researchers and police who have to investigate to a finer level of detail, who find out that in fact there usually isn't much proof.
 * But if the other sources are relevant and reliable (university press) then they should be integrated. Noblitt and Perskin however, has been criticized in a book review by a professor in a peer-reviewed journal, for ignoring the skeptical literature. WLU (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Review
Does anyone have access to this full review? I'm curious of other opinions on Memory, TT & the Law. WLU (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

New edits
I have made some edits, mostly small, in an attempt to increase the accuracy of the page. I made a small change to a Hammond citation, as the source did not state or imply the word I deleted. I moved the Best sentence with the other Best sentence, because it does not discuss FMS specifically. I added attributions to opinions, including adding attributions to the refs I added. In an attempt at compromise, I attempted to clarify the Lanning quote, trying to put it in context fairly without citing the entire conclusion. IMO, it is better to let the readers infer meaning directly, than for editors to decide the meaning. I fixed a couple of refs and spelling errors. In reference to the comment about "flying," the existence of a screen memory does not decrease nor increase the accuracy of a survivor's account of ritual abuse. Children under extreme circumstances, like ritual abuse, can be tortured into believing anything. As adults, they can separate out the actual memories from the theatrically based ones as best as one can. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see below pertaining to a portion of these edits.PelleSmith (talk) 04:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Creating the illusion of disagreement
This recent edit inserts claims from Coleman in ways that are confusing and deceptive. LaFontaine claims SRA remains unsubstantiated, specifying that there was certainly no substantiation of "satanic" elements. Following this with a "however" and then mentioning that "accounts" of SRA exist creates the illusion that something in LaFontaine's statement is being contradicted when nothing is at all. We all know that accounts exist from the clients of psychiatrists, and LaFontaine hardly disputes that. At best this reference to Coleman is superfluous but more realistically it is completely deceptive. The addition of a second "however" statement after LaFontaine's criticism of the techniques used by investigators is likewise deceptive, and in this case is a blatant violation of WP:OR by suggestion--or at best simply out of place all together. Again we are to think that something is supposed to contradict LaFontaine, but nothing in the statement does. Nothing in what has been added deals with the techniques used by investigators instead it claims that children who have suffered abuse do not behave normally, as if to suggest that therefore unconventional techniques are necessary. Either we're asked to make this OR leap or the addition is completely irrelevant to that particular section. I'm going to remove both of these "however" statements.PelleSmith (talk) 04:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Though I respectfully disagree with the analysis above, because I do believe this research does reply at least in part to the statements made, since they provide evidence of ritual abuse. In compromise, I have moved both statements made by reliable sources to a different section. ResearchEditor (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless Coleman is specifically citing and criticizing the same cases as Lafontaine, this is absolutely a synthesis. Also see this review of the book, which pretty much confirms what I'd expect - the evidence is still in the form of testimonials.  That is not evidence, so juxtaposing Coleman with accounts from her clients, particularly given the harsh criticism made of therapists and the use of leading techniques, next to LaFontaine, who was paid by the government to investiage actual allegations reported by police and social workers, is absurd and a huge violation of WP:UNDUE.  Further, definitions of SRA are notoriously slippy as cited in multiple sources, and to make a statement that X is wrong about SRA is completely inappropriate without first a discussion over whether sources agree upon a definition of SRA and further if they're even looking at the same thing.  Client testimonials are not evidence.  I have removed it.  I've also made many other changes.  I've also removed the Department of Justice blurb - it was only a definition, their citation was suspect and it's not peer reviewed.  I didn't see it adding much since its not actual research, the section it was in.  WLU (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hammond et al.
Hammond et al. states that an "alternative hypothesis" besides "iatrogenic suggestion" should be put forth to define the frequency of ritual abuse memories in victims, because there is data that shows that it is very difficult to implant bizarre occurrences via "post-event" suggestion.[18]

What page is this statement from? Hammond is over 700 pages long and I'd like to see the original context. WLU (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * p.408 ResearchEditor (talk) 03:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Integrated. WLU (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

recent edits
I have made some recent edits to the page to restore some recently deleted reliable sources, add accuracy to some sources' statements and add attributions.

I have added : Lanning, 1992, as cited by Coons in Fraser, 1997, p. 106, to let readers know that this is Coon's interpretation of Lanning.

I have restored Noblitt's statement on DID/SRA because he states that SRA is used to create alters and this shows a connection between MPD and SRA.

I have restored Hammond's statement on "iatrogenic suggestion," because it is more accurate as per source.

I have slightly changed the Sachs and Braun statement to make it more accurate to the source, see p. 147.

I have deleted a small part of a Frankfurter sentence, because it was unneeded detail.

I have added a few necessary attributions to opinions and an additional ref for clarity.

I have restored the DOJ Canada data, because it is notable and published by a government agency.

I have restored the Coleman data, because it was published by a reliable source.

I have restored the Schumacher data, because it is from a reliable source and the article does talk about ritual abuse and its effects.

I have restored a couple of Kent and Noblitt lines, because if the skeptical data can be put throughout the article, then Kent and Noblitt should be too as appropriate, even in the skepticism section as a reply, since this helps make the section NPOV. And the research section is now mixed also. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "As appropriate" is right ... and this addition was quite far from being so: "Specific parts of satanic abuse records may appear to have scriptural etymologies and could easily have been conceived by those that wanted to defame or reverse Judeo-Christian religions." I'll put this plainly once again.  Trying to cast doubt upon critics who are actually criticizing the veracity of these accounts by simply referencing elements of the accounts is simply not appropriate and clearly only serves the function of creating the appearance of disagreement.  The content of possibly false memories has nothing to do with the reality of their referents.PelleSmith (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In reply, we report what reliable sources state, our opinions as editors should not censor what a reliable source states. If there is a reliable source stating what you state above, then please add it.


 * Unless the source's opinion is given undue weight, in which case we do not source it. WLU (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I deleted a bad ref. I made a few changes for accuracy of sources. I have changed "some scholars" since this is OR. As editors, we use the nomenclature the reliable sources use. "Could be" is accurate as per source, and as per my argument above. "Therapist believers" is OR, not used in the literature. I've added attribution to Faller's opinion. If there is disagreement over the DOJ ref, let's discuss here rather than add and delete. ResearchEditor (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you prefer "advocates" to believers, as that is a term used "in the literature"? It is not correct simply to say "therapists" as most therapists do not believe in veracity of "satanic" ritual abuse--whether they believe some form of abuse is present or not.  "Some scholars" is not OR, though it may be too vague.  If you want to be more specific you'll have to do better than "skeptics".  Using terms like "skeptics" to represent a mainline view is misleading to say the least.  Also, we do not simply report what reliable sources tell us, we add relevant pieces of information that are verifiable vis-a-vis reliable sources.  Irrelevant information, however reliable, has no place in any given entry.  That is clearly the issue here, not reliability per se.  The Kent bit I deleted was entirely irrelevant and in context completely misleading.  In a paragraph about veracity it simply does not belong.  Find another place for it.PelleSmith (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What "bad ref" would that be? The DOJ report is not notable as it does not have its own wikipedia page.  It is a list of definitions, which we already have several of in much better references - scholarly publications, not government documents.


 * Kent does not say anything. All he is saying is that you may be able to read into the allegations of patients reporting SRA the existence of possible connections between different religious groups.  And as numerous responses to him say, this is nothing.  There is no finding, there is nothing to report, because many allegations are passed between therapy groups, and he has a huge volume of sources to cherry-pick from.  He's got all of freemasonry, any pagan source, the entire bible which can itself be used to justify nearly anything, and no real corroboration.  We are not obligated to report everything that mentions SRA, and there is so much opposition to Kent's assertions that it adds nothing; the list of qualifications that accompany it would dwarf the original statement and render it useless.  It should be removed.  There are two editors who oppose this addition; 'because there is skeptical literature' isn't a reason to include it.  If a reference and accompanying text adds something to the page, it is appropriate.  Kent adds nothing.
 * The Department of Justice link lists only definitions of cult and ritual abuse. There are many, many definitions of what SRA is, and no real agreement.  It is not a research piece, its reference is to another document, it's not scholarly and it's a definition.  The information it contains is redundant to many other sources and nothing is added by including it.  WLU (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Regards Lanning in Coons in Fraser - what are you citing? Are you citing Lanning, 1992, which we already have? Are you citing Fraser? Are you citing a chapter in Fraser written by Coons? Pick one and go with it. If it's analysis by Coons, cite coons. If it's Lannings own words, we have Lanning. If Coons is a chapter in Fraser, cite Fraser with the approprate page numbers. What does page 106 of Fraser say? WLU (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Does anyone besides Noblitt think that SRA is used to generate alters? If no-one believes this except Noblitt, giving it prominence on the page is undue weight to one ridiculous assertion.  When Noblitt represents the majority-minority opinion on the reality of SRA, that's legit because other people agree with him.  When he's citing his own theory of SRA, what it is, why it exists and how it is used and no-one else believes him', that's his own pet theory with no other weight behind it.  I've never seen in any other source the allegation that SRA is used to create alters, I have seen the idea that people with high levels of dissociation creating memories of SRA through iatrogenic therapeutic processes that nearly every governing body in the world now warns against.  WLU (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Faller is not stating her opinion - McMartin is and was controversial and is still argued over. 12 bodies and no child sexual abuse were found in Matamoros, and the witness in Country Walk recanted.  These are not opinions, these are facts, and do not need to be qualified as someone's opinion.  WLU (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As editors, we may believe that "nothing is added" to an article by reporting from a reliable source, or we may believe that "something is added." However, the important thing is to report what the reliable sources state, without our opinions. And Kent also cites survivor accounts, literature in the field and journalism to back his arguments. The DOJ article was published by a government source, therefore notable. I may believe that Lanning's work is not scholarly, yet it is notable in the field.


 * Coons is a chapter is Fraser. It is his opinion of Lanning.


 * Noblitt is a reliable source. He deserves at least some weight in the article, considering the extremely heavy amount given to Victor (17 references) and Lanning. An editor may not be familiar with a concept, this does not mean it is not discussed in the literature.


 * Faller makes extreme statements like "considered ultimately false by professionals and the public" This is his opinion. ResearchEditor (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Regards the allegations of SRA and functioning - several authors have stated that those who allege SRA display remarkably poor functioning. This should be stated and should be cited to numerous sources.  I've several others if I get around to integrating.  But regards SRA, these are allegations and should be phrased this way, particularly since there are researchers who say it is the iatrogenic process that creates the trauma as well.  The individuals who show the most damage are those who were abused in organized abuse, by multiple perpetrators, who engage in more horrific and traumatizing acts while abusing children.  But organized abuse is not SRA and should not be conflated.  A 'satanic overtone' is bullshit and does not make it satanic ritual abuse - what is a 'satanic overtone'?  What is Schumacher's definition?  Including and blurring the lines between ritual abuse and SRA is improper, yet it is done repeatedly.  This is correlation, not causation and the distinctions are fuzzy and contested.  WLU (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) In terms of weight you are arguing from a false premise. We simply don't give fringe theories the same weight as respected mainline scholarly points of view.  We also, again, do not report everything that a source tells us.  Information has to be relevant.  The Kent problem isn't simply that he "adds nothing" but in fact, in your use of Kent, he adds something deceptive.  Please tell me how your use of him is relevant at all in a section about the veracity of the claims?PelleSmith (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Kent states that he believes this abuse could occur. So this is relevant to the argument. And Kent is not fringe, he is a respected author published in peer reviewed journals. ResearchEditor (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The DOJ paper is a lenghty document. It's table of contents is as follows:

Executive Summary

Mandate of the Canadian Farm Women's Network

Forward

Introduction

Background

Context

Objectives

Methodology

Summary of Research/Informing Rural Canadians

Definitions of Family Violence

Abuse Cycle

Victims of Family Violence

Child and youth abuse

Violence against women

Violence against physically and mentally handicapped persons

Elder abuse

Violence against men

Other victims of violence

Results of Family Violence

Suicide

Murder and attempted murder

Drug and alcohol abuse

Mental and emotional abuse

Spousal abuse

Assaults and battery

Sexual Abuse

Dating violence

Cult and ritual abuse

Violence in the workplace

Robbery and property damage

Costs of Violence to Society

The Voice of Canadian Farm Women

Rural and Remote Canada

Farm and Rural Community Needs Relating to Family Violence

The Need for Sensitization of Professionals to the Factors that Relate to Family Violence on Family Farms

Recognizing Myths About the Economics of Farming and the Image of Farmers

Recognizing Stress on the Farm

Recognizing Fear on the Farm

Recognizing Emotional Attachments on the Farm

Traditional Male and Female Role Models on the Farm

Recognizing Verbal and Emotional Abuse on the Farm

Eliminating Physical Abuse on the Farm

Recognizing Extended Family Relationships on the Farm

Rural Education and Awareness Campaign/Method of Prevention

Research and Studies on Rural and Farm Families

Needs

Process

Community Ownership of the Problem of Family Violence

Economic Security for Rural Women

Flexible Rural Child Care

Government Services in Rural Communities

Special Challenges for Disabled Farm Family Members

Recommendations from Canadian Farm Women

Recommendations from Canadian Farm Women To:

Federal Government

Department of Justice

Solicitor General

Health Canada

Agriculture Canada

Human Resource Development Canada

Provincial Governments

Department of Health

Department of Education

Appendix A: Glossary

Bibliography


 * There is one section that discusses cult abuse. It is three paragraphs long, eight sentences, out of a 78 page document.  It is about family violence in rural Canada, prepared by a consultant for the government.  Kenneth Lanning is a reknowned figure specifically in the field of child abuse and pedophile rings.  His document is 54 pages long and completely focussed on the topic of SRA from beginning to end.  It is cited in nearly every source that discusses SRA.  And you are comparing them.  I believe you are mistaken that the DOJ adds anything not already provided by scholarly sources.  It is a list of definitions and a blurb saying that DOJ described SRA in a certain way.  Bibby also has a definition.  Use Bibby, but put it in a different section.  The DOJ report is not research so it is erroneous to put it in the research section.
 * Faller's statement is easily backed up by the myriad other sources cited on the page, including Jenkins explicitly, for SRA being pretty much over. And Faller cites other authors in her statement.  She is summarizing other work, she is not giving her opinion.  WLU (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether an editor considers a reliable source's statements "deceptive" or "relevant" is opinion only. Kent is clearly talking about SRA and the possibility of its existence. No evidence has been given that there is a mainline scholarly point of view in this field. The evidence given has shown that there are numerous beliefs and definitions in the field. If Victor can be given 18 references, which is far more than he is notable for, other reliable sources need to be used to balance this. If an author discusses "satanic overtones" in a ritual abuse case, then obviously this is SRA and regardless of our beliefs about definitions, it should be reported. If Faller can be backed, then please do so, Otherwise it is her opinion. The DOJ is notable, and should be reported on. 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)ResearchEditor (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely a mainline scholarly POV and a simple search for the term in any number of social science and humanities databases will show you an overwhelming majority of scholars treating this as something like a "moral panic". In Goode and Ben Yahuda's very mainstream and uncontroversial book on Moral Panic SRA features as a prime example.  Victor's perspective is the mainline perspective ... though I agree that he should not be so heavily relied upon.  FYI, your attempt to call the supporters of a mainline perspective simply "skeptics" while insisting on calling the minority advocates "therapists" is a disheartening piece of POV pushing to say the least.  I have made both designations equivalent, stating general professional affiliation along with SRA perspective in both cases.PelleSmith (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) The above has not been proven and to the contrary, a search I did on google scholar found that the two sides were almost evenly represented. The literature uses the two terms, so this is what we should use. ResearchEditor (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've a whole stack of books that disagree and represent the scholarly opinion that SRA is a case of overblown bunk. If it is easy to demonstrate that it is not considered a moral panic, cite the specific references.  Right now the 'believer' side is primarily represented through a single text - Noblitt and Perskin.  That's it.  I've found what, 5 books in the past 2 months that are heavily, heavily critical of the reality of SRA?  It was pretty easy.  So do the same and demonstrate in that fashion that SRA is taken seriously in the present.  You can not cite a google scholar search, you can only demonstrate by finding and citing the appropriate sources.  WLU (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And I have cited numerous journal articles that it exists or could exist. Many of those are repeatedly deleted from the article. ResearchEditor (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Undent. Read WP:N. Notability is about pages. If notability were a concern, you would have to be writing a page about the DOJ report. We are talking about citation, which is completely different. This is verging on a three revert violation. You were cautioned as part of your block months ago to avoid this. You are close to getting blocked again. Convince us, seek a request for comment or pursue other avenues of dispute resolution. Do not edit war.

Since guidelines on content are vague, is up to editor consensus to determine if a source a) should be included, b) is accurately summarized and c) appropriate to the page and section. I believe the DOJ report should not be included because it is not a scholarly source, no research has been done to compile it, and it adds nothing to the page (numerous other scholarly sources provide as adequate and better definitions).  It is only accurately summarized because it is quoted verbatim, and disengenuously so because it is not evidence of anything - it is a consultants opinion published by the government, which is not the same as an investigation published in a peer-reviewed journal or press or quoted by other reliable sources (criteria which Victor, LaFontaine and Lanning meet).  It is also inappropriate because the section is labelled "research" - at best it should go in definitions, where it is redundant and better sources are already used (particularly Finkelhor, who just about everybody quotes as the first source of any definitions). Also, it gives the impression that the Department of Justice investigated SRA. It did not. It hired a consultant, who as one part of their review of the literature on rural violence, cited one low-quality source - Citation 23, "A Progress Report. Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women." The Department of Justice is reporting nothing, it is quoting another panel, which was not peer-reviewed or published in any scholarly journals anywhere that I have seen. WLU (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree -- The DOJ source should go. At best it is an appeal to authority by those supporting a fringe perspective.PelleSmith (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, my exact reasoning. JAR may have a point to make about it as he was the one who originally found and added it, but he's also unlikely to edit-war to include it.  WLU (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting, two editors want the information about the DOJ included, but yet two don't, so it isn't. Sounds like consensus wasn't achieved here. ResearchEditor (talk) 01:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see a second person who wants the DOJ report included. If you are talking about JAR, I don't think he has given an opinion on its use on the current page.  WLU (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

section break
Regards this edit, the use of Hechler is inappropriate. He is saying the McMartin kids may have been abused, which is very, very different from saying they were abused in the context of satanic rituals. The same goes for Summit, except it is quoted in the Journal of Psychohistory, which is not peer reviewed - Lloyd DeMause is the sole editor and the sole person who decided what went into the volume. It is not a reliable source. And even were it, there is a difference between "these kids were abused" and "these kids were SRAbused". Juxtaposing a statement when the source does not differentiate between abuse and SRA is inappropriate, it's a synthesis by ommission. Also, saying the McMartin kids may have been abused is stupid - it's clearly the authors opinion and the author isn't even sure. So Hechler is one person arguing that a group of children may have been abused without qualifying if it's a very specific type of abuse that is the topic of the page. Go put it on McMartin preschool trial, which is about McMartin and not SRA. The McMartin page also barely mentions SRA, making me wonder how much of a feature the SRA allegations were in the trial. WLU (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What is happening is that consensus is not being followed and that all of my edits are being deleted by two other editors. The replies to Faller are valid. It appears that any excuse is being used to promote one point of view in the article and delete the other. Both Hechler and Summit are clearly RS. ResearchEditor (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Mainline scholarly POVs are not simply "one POV" where fringe POVs are "another POV." Sorry but that's a horrible argument.  Your continued mention of RS this RS that is another appeal to authority -- the authority of WP:V -- when said authority has nothing to do with relevance.  Your view that relevance is simply a matter of opinion is entirely misguided as well.  Maybe I'll start quoting reliable sources all over this entry about oranges and keep reverting removals of them since they are after all "reliable."PelleSmith (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, your edits have no consensus RE. Replies to Faller are not since they are apparently about a different topic and represent a bait-and-switch.  They may be reliable, but Hechler and Summit (which isn't reliable) are irrelevant to this page.  They should be used in the Country Walk and McMartin pages respectively.  If you believe our interpretations are inappropriate, seek a request for comment.
 * Regards Kent, it's a net 0 effect - Kent makes his claims. They're exactly the same as the other claims made by believing therapists - there's coherence to the stories.  The only difference is a) he's published and b) he's published in a journal of religion.  Then, there are a series of rebuttals from LaFontaine and Frankfurter, both of whom tear him a new asshole for his absurd claims that neglect to consider other sources of data.  We can cite Kent, and then the pile-on by other authors that point out how damned stupid his assertions are, repeatedly, from multiple authors.  I've added LaFontaine, and could add Frankfurter as well, as well as the back and forth.  But I think it's pointless since Kent just ends up having his ass handed to him and looking like a douche.  I'd rather save the time.  Kent's 'evidence' is nothing but his belief his patients are telling the truth then shoehorning the 'evidence' into whatever form he considers justifying it (mixing up Mormonism, Freemasonry and Christianity in the process - why would satanists draw from three mutually hostile religions in the first place?).  La Fontaine and Frankfurter both point this out.  The net is zero.  But hey, why not since it's just time.  WLU (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Both Hechler and Summit are clearly RS."


 * Research Editor: I don't know how many, many times it has been told to you, here and in other talk pages, that the Journal of Psychohistory (JP), which I subscribe BTW, is not a RS? It's not peer-reviewed and Summit's old article in JP (written in the years when the SRA was taken at face value in the media) is so embarrasing that I have not seen reference to it in the latest issues of the JP. —Cesar Tort 17:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The point is that Summit is RS, he has published in numerous journals. "Relevance" is determined by the reliable sources, not by editors. If the reliable sources state arguments about SRA, then they should be included in the article. If the editors determine relevance and eliminate one whole side of the argument, then the other side has undue weight. ResearchEditor (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So you are accepting now that JP is not a RS? In which peer-reviewed journals has Summit published his SRA stuff? —Cesar Tort 17:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, reliable sources do not necessarily have to be peer reviewed journals. ResearchEditor (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It does not matter if Summit has published in other journals. People are not reliable sources; the only real time a person can be used as such is when they are a noted scholar, on a subject that lacks reliable sources, in an area where their expertise is relevant.  The point is this article is in the journal of psychohistory and is not a reliable source because as always reliability is determined by publisher not author.  Take it to WP:RS/N if you don't believe us.  Relevance is determined by how a source engages with the topic, as decided by editors.  And for every argument the believer side has made, the critical perspective shoots down.  Quickly.  Often repeatedly.  WLU (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree. For every argument on the side of those horribly abused, there are those that incorrectly infer without evidence and without a connection to these victims that there is some sort of panic going on, neglecting the fact that maybe there is simply an increase in conscious awareness of the fact that this abuse occurs.


 * Also "Wikipedia articles should strive to cover all major and significant-minority scholarly interpretations on topics for which scholarly sources exist." The Journal of Psychohistory definitely fits in this category. ResearchEditor (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But only with due weight. The perspective you are talking about was supported in a very small sector of the academy (therapists publishing in a very narrow range of publications specifically dealing with the treatment of child abuse) throughout the 1990s, and more heavily in the first half of the decade.  It no longer lingers as anything but a very fringe perspective even within psychotherapy.  Count the number of sources published in the last ten years that support this perspective and you wont need more than ten fingers to do so.  Within the rest of the social sciences this episode is considered a "moral panic" and/or a "social problem", same goes for religious studies more broadly construed.  Fringe theories are treated as such, and that's within policy.  Just because you are trying desperately to create the illusion of some kind of 50/50 contested split within the academy on this issue doesn't mean we have to buy what you are selling.  Lets keep on working on the list and see how it turns out.  90% of your sources will fit this bill--1988-1998, obscure child abuse (advocacy) journals, little to no evidence provided for the veracity of claims with almost all emphasis on "belief" as a method of therapy.  Prove me wrong.PelleSmith (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * DeMause would not be considered a scholarly interpretation because it is not published in a scholarly reliable source. It's basically DeMause's own webzine or monthly newspaper, it's not a reliable source, so it can not be used.  WLU (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)`
 * I'm sure WP:RSN would be happy to respond. Publisher is obviously very important. There is also the consideration that a well know scholar in the relevant field may publish from time to time in a less reliable publication. You might be sent back by RSN to decide whether that applied here. Obviously we have two viewpoints here and both need to be represented as best they can. Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide which of the two viewpoints is winning the debate. I really liked the approach below, of listing the sources for each side. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping the lists will help settle things. We'll see.PelleSmith (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Source List
It may be time to compile a source list. Skeptics v. Advocates. It can be a continuing process since it may take some time, but it might be worth the effort since it would finally settle the constant claims that there is no mainline POV here when there clearly is. Of particular value in a case like this are sources that don't consist entirely of strong advocacy one way or the other, but mention the phenomena in one light or the other, even if in passing. Of course the other sources are important as well, but an actual sense of the more general consensus is actually better seen through smaller mentions.PelleSmith (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have access to Brown, Scheflin and Hammond? It's surprisingly good but obviously anti any explanation invoking FMS.  Does the best job I've seen of negotiating between the two POVs.  I have photocopies but unfortunately no PDFs.  If you're really interested I could try scanning.  WLU (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me get back to you on that. I struggled with titles for the two opposing positions and this is what I came up with.PelleSmith (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This has to take account of recent consensus. You will find a lot of "credible" literature from around the time that SRA was a popular fad among care professionals and psychiatrists. forestPIG 20:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by that? Please explain.PelleSmith (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess he means that, because of media fuss, SRA was advertised as real in the 1980s and early '90s before it was discredited. And thanks a lot for gathering the long overdue list of scholarly articles & books related to SRA. Good job! —Cesar Tort 23:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with Cesar's assessment and what I think ForesticPig is saying - we'll find much more credulous literature in the 80s and 90s, but past the mid-90s the tide turned and scholarly consensus settled on 'it's nutter, we're done here'. I'm surprised Frankfurter's Evil Incarnate was published in 2006 as it's a bit late for the debate, but since he's basically approaching the whole phenomenon as an anthropological-historical-religious exercise I suppose it has to be retrospective.  Unfortunately we can't discard sources due to date, but most of the later sources deal with and discount the earlier credulous stuff for us.  WLU (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do add to the list. My intention was simply to get it started.PelleSmith (talk) 06:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with the assessment above that the tide has turned, though the bulk of the credible literature was published in the early 1990's. And SRA's existence certainly hasn't been discredited, but there are sources that ignore one side of the argument and only promote the unprovable social argument of panic. These sources for the most part of course are not people in the field of psychology or law, but outside analysts trying to explain trends without a connection to the actual data, victims or symptomology of the victims of these horrible crimes.ResearchEditor (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Will you please arrange your additions in alphabetical order and stick to standard and consistent formatting. This process will take some time and is just getting started, there is no rush to throw things up there in a less organized manner.  Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Categorization of Sources
I hope that it is clear that we are sourcing views that express either a belief or disbelief in the existence of "satanic ritual abuse"--which happens to be the subject matter of this entry. Sources will need to be reviewed by anyone who has doubts about whether or not they actually fit this bill or have been otherwise categorized incorrectly. The only way to solve disagreements here will also be to quote directly from a source if someone challenges the inclusion on the list. Is that acceptable to everyone?PelleSmith (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have already removed two sources that RE added because they expressly do not come down on one side or another and in fact are not concerned with veracity. I ask RE to please do us all a favor and remove these sources him/herself to save us the time, energy and frustration of reviewing them all.  I would also like to note that there is a preponderance of sources from the mid to late 1990s which were written from the perspective of therapy and have a much more nuanced notion of "belief" than we are lead to believe.  For instance, one source added by RE and written by Susan C. Van Benschoten, states: "Objective reality and experiential truth simply can not be disentangled with certainty.  However, what is always irrefutably true and undeniably accurate is the survivor's experience, and it is this which must be believed without question, embraced, and struggled with in the therapy."  This therapeutic perspective is one by which "belief" becomes a necessary part of the therapist-patient relationship regardless of veracity.  Adding the many sources from this time period which support this perspective is completely deceptive to the project at hand.PelleSmith (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To anyone removing sources from the list, I suggest that instead of deleting them, they be moved to a contested section so others can review the sources without searching the page history and guessing at which entries are deletions.  Thanks a lot.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone has added a section for "middle ground" sources. This seems like a good idea, since there are other "alternative hypotheses" as noted above in the section on the book. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with JAR's suggestion above. I added the section for "middle ground" sources. Van Benschoten, a reliable source in a peer reviewed journal is on the "pro" side. Therefore it should be added. We must report what the reliable sources state and not delete them due to not fitting into a certain POV. ResearchEditor (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then don't add sources to the wrong category. It creates more work for the rest of, not to mention less trust in the job you are doing.PelleSmith (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The "wrong" category? You named the categories, and they look like artificial distinctions to me. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed collapse
Research Editor has dumped a large amount of references in the previous list by PelleSmith under the heading “SRA as a Real Form of Abuse”. I wonder how many of these references are really written by pro-authenticity advocates of the SRA phenomenon? In the archived talk pages we can see the strategy of some editors (and a few suspected pro-authenticity meatpuppets) to dump mamooth bibliographies into this talk page. Instead of huge lists what we need is the very limited list of academic press and peer-reviewed journals. I’d recommend to collapse the rest of the list, either by skeptics or believers alike. —Cesar Tort 19:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting choice of words "dumped" vs. "added." "To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. Most people are trying to help the project, not hurt it." ResearchEditor (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok then please go to the list and correct your errors and put some effort in alphabetizing your list. Good faith is extended to those who put some effort into being balanced.  I'll withhold judgment but I asked nicely once already.  Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is our opportunity to go through the sources and get rid of the bad ones once and for all. I've already removed two.  I'm afraid that we need to vet this issue thoroughly or else there will always be claims from editors like RE about the lack of scholarly consensus, etc.PelleSmith (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a clear lack of scholarly consensus. This is very apparent from the list. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment above. You are entirely wrong about that.  All your sources fit a very narrow and dated sector of scholarship, which has been identified by sociologists as part of the panic.PelleSmith (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The first thing to do is to make sure that references actually do deal with authenticity and veracity, the next order of business is to evaluate the sources that remain more thoroughly. In doing so we can deal with the nature of the source -- scholarship v. popular non-fiction, peer-reviewed article v. opinion piece etc.PelleSmith (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * WLU is more familiar with the diverse sources than me. Perhaps he is on a weekend vacation. It would be nice if RE does the job. Will he? Citing Lanning, Colin A. Ross and Elizabeth F. Loftus as "Middle Ground" makes me harbor doubts about RE's categorization. It looks like some of the recent references have to be moved. —Cesar Tort 21:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ross and Lanning's book is middle ground because they both have opposite perspectives. Therefore the entire book cannot be categorized as either pro or con. Just like Fraser's book or Sackheim's book. Once again AGF. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Cesar Tort, please omit the insults. The list of sources started by PelleSmith was part of a request for sources. ResearchEditor provided sources according to that request. You might not agree with the categorization of those sources, but that's no reason to say that they were "dumped" on the page or that there are any "pro-authenticity meatpuppets" involved here. I am not making any judgments about the quality of the sources at this time, just noting that they were requested, and that your response was not helpful to this discussion. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that sources were requested but the manner by which RE provided them does resemble a dump. Some of them don't support the POV he claims they do, and in all they were not formatted helpfully.  I've asked him to help with both of those things.PelleSmith (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Citing Lanning as neutral is problematic, at best. &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Lanning is "middle ground" since his perspective depends on what type of RA one is talking about. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ...And Loftus as well! JAR: User:WLU used the term "massive dump" here. See that archived talk and it's almost sure meatpuppetry was involved in the dumping of massive references. I was not accusing RE for this. —Cesar Tort 22:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK - no worries - thanks for clearing that up. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All of this is more or less irrelevant anyway - a numbering of sources is less important than if, and how each should be used on the page. We can't sort out what the current scholarly opinion is based on throwing up a bunch of sources.  Individual studies only make localized points, but the books and articles making general statements are much more useful - like in WP:MEDRS, review articles and position statements that are designed to summarize the majority opinion are more useful than individual articles; primary sources can't and shouldn't be used to debunk secondary.  'Sorting' the sources into 'supports' and 'doesn't support' papers over any source that tries to put any sort of nuance on the point, and each can support different versions and definitions of SRA.  A flat list is not helpful and neither is a false sorting or allocation to spurious categories.  If a source is reliable, it may be used, and the discussion then becomes is it appropriate, what points does it make, and finally if it's accurately summarized.  It's not hard, it's just tedious.  No-one should simply remove a source because they disagree, or add one because they agree.  It's a matter of how each source is used.  WLU (talk) 00:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"Citing Lanning as neutral is problematic, at best. &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)" - this addresses my point completely. Lanning can be used, depending on your opinion and definition, to support the idea that there is no such thing as SRA, that ritual abuse exists but is not a serious problem, that those who allege SRA should be taken seriously, that they should not, that they're crazy, that they've had false memories implanted, that they're victims who have been abused (satanically), etc. etc. etc. It's sufficiently lengthy and thoughtful that it could be quote mined for any position on the spectrum. Saying a source is neutral, pro or con doesn't make it neutral, pro or con. WLU (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * WLU, good point. I concur that the categorizing and sorting of sources is not an effective or dependable approach.   --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That only proves that the categorizing of "some sources" is not an effective approach. The vast majority seem to fit one of three basic categories: 1) "Satanic" ritual abuse is a fantasy and the lack of corroboration makes this clear, but the existence of non-satanic abuse is not precluded by this fact 2) Satanic ritual abuse is a real form of abuse, and the testimony of patients corroborates this and 3) the actual veracity of "satanic" ritual abuse doesn't matter, but treatment regimes for patients alleging SRA requires enacting a relationship of trust based upon "belief".  Outside of basically Stephen Kent and various popular writers, the latter two categories are strictly populated by mental health professionals, and a survey of the literature should show that many of those claimed in category 2 are actually in category 3, and that few if any remain in category 2 at this stage.PelleSmith (talk) 02:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The above categorization is OR and cannot be used in terms of editing on the page. And there is a fourth category. Criminal convictions involving those committing RA and SRA crimes. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that that would probably be a good way of organizing the page (nicely summarized BTW) but in practice I think many sources will bridge several categories. I see a tri-modal organization in which there are peaks of supporters in each of the three areas and sources that slide between them.  But we'll have to see.  One point that is missing is the key contribution of children, one of the two groups that provided testimony to it's importance (the other being adults with recovered memories).  The "believe the children" group has one foot in SRA and another foot in child advocacy; they have a middling role that should be documented as well.  I'm guessing that different approaches will all work and converge once we start using them, so there's no harm in trying a different way.  WLU (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Stepping Back
Listing sources is a good thing no matter how you slice it because it makes them known. Starting to categorize them, however rudimentary this categorization is, is also helpful because it allows us to sort and group various arguments, not to mention get a basic idea of how supported various arguments are and by what groups. Any survey of a field of scholarship begins with a literature review, for good reason. There are perennial arguments on this entry about how well supported various POVs are, and these arguments will persist forever unless such a review of the literature is undertaken. I thoroughly agree that this isn't about sheer number, nor should a superficial count of sources be given much weight. We need to vet these sources and understand their place in the field. This means at first listing them and categorizing them. I created the particular categories that I did based upon the most central disagreement that I can see regarding this particular field of research. I welcome other suggestions.PelleSmith (talk) 01:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Listing sources is useful, but I don't see it solving any of the disagreements on the page by itself. One area I could see it as useful is assisting a badly-needed reorganization and clarifying points on the page that need expansion.  Listing sources is useful simply based on making people aware of them but to actually integrate with the page they need to be read and summarized.  That's always a pain in the ass, but by actually doing it, then we'll get an idea of the important contents of each one.  The appropriate weight should flow from there.  This page should be a review of literature and summary of the scholarship, but unlike an essay it stops there.  I see no harm in it, but personally I will probably continue to read and source from what I have on hand electronically or on paper.  But that's how I work and it's far from the only way - so long as it is agreed the page improves, then the method is secondary (UCS and IAR exist for good reason).  WLU (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I know that someone else mentioned this already, but I'd like to formally propose this. Books that are not published by an academic press and/or written by a recognized scholar are not worth listing. Do people agree with this?PelleSmith (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For me the peer review and oversight always comes from the publisher, not the author. I essentially agree, books published by a scholarly press, particularly university press, are among our best sources per WP:RS.  Books by noted authors may be allowable with caution, per WP:FRINGE; if it's on a less scholarly area then they are more suitable.  When Rabbit Howls, Michelle Remembers, The Courage to Heal and the like, by lay persons in popular press are almost certainly irrelevant and should only be used when there is WP:CONSENSUS that it serves some purpose.  But in essence popular books can be dropped from the resource list in my opinion.  WLU (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with JAR below. And notability is also important. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:V is the policy, no new special limits are needed for this page. No sources should be dropped without evaluation based on opinion that the publisher is a popular press.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * JAR, I think you might not understand the specificity of the list above. I am not asking to drop non-academic sources from the entry altogether, but the request for sources above deals with "scholarship" on SRA.  It is an attempt to understand the research field, and popular sources are not considered RS in terms of "scholarship."  They can be used int he entry if correctly attributed and contexutalized.  Please see the scope of reliability in the very policy you quote because reliability is variable and contextual:
 * "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is."
 * "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text."
 * As you can see, WP:V does not simply compel us to except all sources as equally reliable, or equally usable without correct attribution and context.PelleSmith (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, sources need to be vetted and we don't automatically accept all sources. But that decision is not as simple as omitting all non-academic sources; if it were that simple, the policy wouldn't need so many words. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Excuse me JAR, but in a subject such as this one, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources" is policy. For instance, RE wrote above: "I would disagree with the assessment above that the tide has turned, though the bulk of the credible literature was published in the early 1990's. And SRA's existence certainly hasn't been discredited..." If this is so, please display a list of (1) academic books and (2) peer-reviewed journals published in this century which support the existence of SRA (keyword: existence —I'm not talking about therapies on purported SRA survivors, etc.). —Cesar Tort 03:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Therapist working with survivors with cases published in peer-reviewed journals are evidence of the veracity of the claims made. News reports of criminal convictions of SRA cases are another source of evidence of SRA claims made. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Cesar, I'm not arguing for the existence of SRA, and I'm not a surrogate for ResearchEditor. If you want to know what RE has in mind, you have to ask RE.  There are a variety of circumstances that could have resulted in SRA allegations; actual SRA is one, moral panic is another; but they are not the only two possibilities.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm also disagreeing on this one - if a reliable source says one thing, and it contradicts a less reliable one, the less reliable source is discarded. This means that the Victor alone gets rid of pretty much everything by a popular press.  Adding LaFontaine, Frankfurter and Lanning to that list means the sources must be of equal pedigree in order to say anything meaningful.  Crappy shock-pop books worked when the page was not based on the scholarly debate.  Now that scholars have weighed in, pop books are out.  I think you'd find this interpretation is quite mainstream, but a trip to RS/N would make it official.  Pop sources are not automatically out, but they must be used very, very carefully on this one.  See WP:MEDRS as well - pop sources are disparaged when more reliable ones are available.  This is my interpretation and experience on wikipedia based on the policies I've read and the pages I've edited.  But there's no guarantee that I'm right and the reason noticeboards exist is for clarification.  A lack of reliability means we are less able to trust that the information contained in a source is accurate, ergo less reason to include it.  WLU (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * These "scholars" have an obvious bias making extreme statements and ignoring large amounts of data. They are hardly reliable sources. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course we should use non-scholarly sources when necessary. I was merely responding to the claim that SRA has not been discredited in academic circles. Of course it has. RE: prove me wrong with academic/peer-reviewed, 21st century sources. Please do it. —Cesar Tort 03:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * See the list for these. However, most articles on both sides of the debate were published in the 90's. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Does this mean that you cannot point out to a single academic book or peer-reviewed journal published in this century which accepts the existence of SRA (remember: we are not talking of "therapies", but of forensic evidence)? —Cesar Tort 03:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * CT, I don't know if it's a language thing, but your tone is pretty strong. The sources will prove SRA has been discredited, or not.  I believe, based on my readings to date, that this is the case.  Other editors are free to disagree and make their case based on the sources.  Editors make the case, which can be rejected or accepted by the remainder, but ultimately the argument stands or does not.  Pointing out that it's a particular editor or not does sound combative, and makes it harder to work together.  We've a list of sources, let's review and demonstrate which are suitable and which are not.  WLU (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The amount of reliable sources on the pro side clearly shows that this isn't the case and that at this point, in terms of the literature, neither side has a majority view. Suitability should only be determined by the peer reviewed sources themselves, not our OR interpretation of them. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to create a subpage for the list itself? I'm not very good with things like that.PelleSmith (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I had already created a page for SRA. Please feel free to use it (I can archive the rest of the SRA discussions if you wish): User talk:Cesar Tort/SRA list —Cesar Tort 14:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can it be linked to this page instead of userspace? Is that just how it goes?PelleSmith (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean something like Talk:Satanic ritual abuse/list of scholarly texts? I'll have to ask for advise. —Cesar Tort 15:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have beel told here that maybe (it's not clear) it is not allowed. We can ask for further assistance to clear up the issue. Meanwhile we can use my existing subpage. If it turns out it's ok with policy, we'd simply cut and paste it. —Cesar Tort 15:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Subpage
I am copying & pasting from Wiki Help, linked above:

An editor is asking if we could create something like Talk:Satanic ritual abuse/list of scholarly texts. Is it ok with policy? —Cesar Tort 15:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The relevant guidance is at WP:SP - it appears that this proposal may fall under item 3 of disallowed uses, but it's not entirely clear. – ukexpat (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Does the user want to use that subpage temporarily, in order to draft/flesh out a list of sources, or does the user intend for the list to live in that subpage permanently, as sort of an appendix to the article? If the former is correct, then I would think this is allowed. If the latter, definitely not.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If it were used to list works for use in citations, I'd think it would be fine. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

So we may do it within these limits. Any suggestion for a better title before creating the page? —Cesar Tort 15:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the title doesn't matter so much. I agree that the list isn't going to sit there permanently.  We can move it back to talk or to userspace or just to offwiki at a later date if anyone wants to preserve it.  It is interesting that there is any objection at all to doing something like this.  If anything listing sources and vetting them should be seen always as a benefit to this project.  Goes to show how out of touch some Wikipedians are with basic research methods.  For instance, one would think that keeping permanent bibliographic/literature review subpages would be a benefit to any entry and the editing thereof.  Whatever, lets create the subpage.PelleSmith (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK: I've cut the whole thing and will create it in a minute. —Cesar Tort 16:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Talk:Satanic ritual abuse/list of scholarly texts has been created. —Cesar Tort 16:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Quote from Van Benschoten showing it should be on the pro side : ""Although the prevalence of satanic ritual abuse is not known, its involvement in a variety of social contexts and diverse belief systems has been reported. Highly secretive and rigidly structured cults have been implicated, as well as groups exploiting day care centers, groups disguised as traditional religious structures, families (including multigenerational involvement), small self-styled adolescent groups, child pornography and drug rings, and individuals acting either independently or within loosely knit groups (Brown, 1986: Gallant, 1986, 1988; Gould, 1986, 1987; Kahaner, 1988;Young, 1989)." ResearchEditor (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I already quoted van Benschoten who does not take a position on veracity. Please read it again: "Objective reality and experiential truth simply can not be disentangled with certainty. However, what is always irrefutably true and undeniably accurate is the survivor's experience, and it is this which must be believed without question, embraced, and struggled with in the therapy."  This perspective is CLEAR.  Please do not add this back to the advocacy side.PelleSmith (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how that could be summarized as anything except "patients are traumatized but that doesn't mean SRA is real." Something that many therapists say and agree on - the false memory debate means proof rests on forensics, not on testimonials.  There's a citation to that effect in the article.  WLU (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What "false memory" debate, WLU? Such a debate was alive when your source-of-choice, Jeffrey Victor, was writing in the late 80s and early 90s.
 * Fifteen years later, things have moved on, but you seem increasingly enmeshed in a set of historical debates of very limited relevance. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A few responses

 * "Lanning is 'middle ground' since his perspective depends on what type of RA one is talking about." —ResearchEditor, above

I guess you haven't read him. He talks about abuse, not about RA.


 * "Therapist working with survivors with cases published in peer-reviewed journals are evidence of the veracity of the claims made." —ResearchEditor, above

Sure. And do therapists working with survivors of UFO abductions who published in respected houses (like John Edward Mack's book) are also evidence of the veracity of the claims made?


 * "These 'scholars' have an obvious bias making extreme statements and ignoring large amounts of data. They are hardly reliable sources." —ResearchEditor, above

Are you trying to say that your own criterion, not WP policies, is the parameter to see what is a RS? —Cesar Tort 03:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have read Lanning. He talks about ritual abuse in detail. I don't know anything about the field of UFOs. I consider therapists eyewitnesses to a person's reality. Of course the individual themselves is an eyewitness to the actual crime. So these accounts are definitely evidence. What I meant about "reliable sources" above was that their data and conclusions are not reliable, so they are hardly reliable sources of information. They do need to be reported on, just like the therapists that publish in peer reviewed journals need to be reported on. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 90% of these therapists published between 1989-1992. None of them provide evidence for veracity of the claims made by their patients.  Sometimes they also make it completely clear that believing the claims is necessary for the process of therapy, and has nothing to do with veracity in the first place.  When most of your sources come from a very limited time frame and the same 4-5 obscure child advocacy and abuse journals, by a mad rush of therapists seeking to publish something about SRA this fact needs the most attention.  Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again, I disagree. Eyewitness accounts of crimes are evidence. Symptomology is also evidence. Most of the sources on both sides of the topic were published around this time. It was a hotly debated topic with several legal cases going on at the time. The above assertion about this fact needing attention is OR and any explanation is only conjecture. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But we're not a court of law, and primary sources are not eligible here. Symptomatology is evidence of dysfunction, but your statement ignores all the discussion and debate that SRA allegations are based purely on iatrogenic therapy and coerced testimony from children.  We can't cite primary sources, but we can cite secondary sources that summarize primary sources.  And we can't ignore the fact that many authors have pointed out the existence of symptoms is evidence of nothing but pathology.  It is not proof that the pathology was caused by a specific set of events of extremely dubious nature even if the therapists decide that this is true.  We should be citing the secondary sources that analyze the debate overall.  Even citing specific cases like news stories is dubious because it deals with a specific case, not the overall phenomenon.  Which is why scholarly books are our best option.  WLU (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * RE correctly points out that traumatic symptomology is evidence of trauma, WLU, and the clinical literature agrees with him - including Memory, Trauma Treatment and the Law, which I also hold in high esteem.
 * Meanwhile, whilst many people have claimed that histories of child sexual abuse are the product of post-hoc suggestion, however, this claim lacks empirical support. Again, the absence of an empirical basis for such a claim is documented in MTT&L.
 * You appear to be dismissing an evidence-based claim as lacking empirical support (e.g. trauma symptoms are indicative of trauma) whilst accepting another claim despite it's speculative basis (e.g. trauma histories are the product of post-hoc suggestion).
 * You state that "scholarly books are our best option" but your approach is POV. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

{undent} But the trauma may come from a memory of an event that never actually occurred, so the individual is being traumatized by a false memory rather than an event. And there are people who believe that there is empirical support for false memories, including recommendations from many world-wide organziations to avoid the very forms of treatment that are believed to create false memories. MTT&L is one perspective that false memories are impossible; there are others. In any case, the important issue is the source used; if a source is reliable, it should be used. If it is used, it is a matter of where and how. The debate is polarized, but there are sides and opinions. Both should be represented to the degree with which they are held in prominence today. WLU (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Treating abuse today
Treating abuse today is not a reliable source. WLU (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I moved all those citations to the "articles" section.PelleSmith (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I commented on the talk page because it was inserted and I removed it (due to it being an unreliable source). Sources do not get to be used because they have a font and layout comparable to actual peer-reviewed journals, it is their peer-review status that makes them appropriate.  WLU (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Treating Abuse Today" should not be tossed out just because it's no longer published.  It has been cited a lot, including in peer-reviewed journals and books published by respected publishers.  It printed articles by respected experts like S Dallam and J Freyd.  It's not clear whether or not it was peer-reviewed; it did have an editorial board.  And, according to policy, peer-review adds value, but non-peer-reviewed sources are not automatically considered unreliable; it's a continuum, not a binary choice.  For example, articles by respected experts are reliable even if not peer-reviewed. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it means that we rely on peer-reviewed sources when possible and don't use non-peer-reviewed sources to rebut the more reliable ones. Not sure how that will work here, but ...PelleSmith (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If there's only unreliable sources talking about SRA and providing evidence these days, then citing them as if they had merit is placing undue weight on them and the idea that the debate is still ongoing. WLU (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My comment here did not address that point, WLU. What I was addressing is the idea that an entire journal would be declared unreliable because it is assumed it's not peer-reviewed.  It's out of print, it did have an editorial board, it's unknown if they did peer reviews, unless you have a source for that.  Even if there were no peer-reviews, if articles were written by noted experts, those articles can well be reliable and would need to be addressed on an individual basis, not en masse.  I am not arguing that SRA is real, that's a separate discussion and as I've stated several times, I don't have a position on that question. My comment here is only about the use of that journal, that did include papers by noted experts. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If the description given by Mental Health Matters (see above) is correct then it was never a peer-reviewed journal.  A "news journal" is not peer-reviewed.  Regarding your larger point, Skeptical Inquirer also contains several articles by "noted experts" but I would not count those articles on par with peer-reviewed publications.  If "experts" are publishing certain information only in a non peer-reviewed settings then this information is automatically of a lesser quality and or quite frankly suspect.  There is no reason why well published "experts" should not have published the same information in peer-reviewed journals and/or through academic presses.  Sometimes scholars understand full well that in certain settings the more fringe aspects of their theories wont fly so they take advantage of editorializing where they can.  Their "expertise" does not afford them reliability in these instances.  In fact that is the very reason why we don't rely on "experts" as much as certain types of "sources."PelleSmith (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

{Undent}I disagree again JAR - my interpretation of RS is that the use of 'expert testimonies' are only applicable in very limited cases where reliable sources are not available. Lack of publication in reliable sources indicates that the issues are not accepted by the mainstream; this is OK when the topic itself is a fringe topic. Since SRA has received much interest from the mainstream scholars, it's not really fringe - it just needs improvements to the referencing. I believe my interpretation of RS and V is quite mainstream. An entire journal can be discarded if it's not peer-reviewed because it's basically a fanzine or something similar at that point. An editorial board is not the same thing as a peer review board in my mind - Lloyd DeMause acts as an editor of the Journal of Psychohistory, but that's not the same thing as vetting by a peer reviewer. I agree with and believe PS is using the correct interpretation of RS and V, I particularly agree with the statement that respectable experts making mainstream claims should have no trouble publishing in regular journals. It may be a question for the RS/N. The non PR sources are not automatically excluded from use, but they should be discussed for consensus before being included, unlike academic press which can automatically be placed. WP:MEDRS supports this (though for medical sources) and think of if wikipedia were the Encyclopedia Britannica - would the EB editorial board allow the sourcing of ridiculously low-quality sources or represent ideas that were not mainstream? Since we are not experts, we use a criteria other than expertise, which is reliability. But it could be a question that is best addressed to the RS/N, I've no problem with you raising the issue there. Also, the google search indicates it's indexed by google, most of those are citations for Treating Abuse Today articles; the number that are citing it as a source is considerably less in an already limited pool of 185 total hits. WLU (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Skeptical Inquirer also contains several articles by "noted experts" but I would not count those articles on par with peer-reviewed publications." —PS, above


 * On November 1989 Paul Kurtz, the creator of Skeptical Inquirer, told me that his magazine was peer-reviewed. However, I don't have a source to back his statement. —Cesar Tort 02:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur with moving these citations to the articles' section until more information can be found. I agree with JAR above that "it has been cited a lot, including in peer-reviewed journals and books published by respected publishers. It printed articles by respected experts like S Dallam and J Freyd.... non-peer-reviewed sources are not automatically considered unreliable; it's a continuum, not a binary choice."  ResearchEditor (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In this case it is a binary choice. It's not peer reviewed.  And the raw google scholar result is somewhat abusrd.  It gets 185 hits.  Psychology today gets 24,000.  Canadian Journal of Psychiatry gets 15,000.  Child abuse and neglect gets 9,000.  Sociology of religion gets 18,500.  Even if it's reliable, which it is not, it's so ridiculously miniscule in circulation and citation by real sources that it's not worth citing or considering it a significant publication.  And raw google search results are not indicative of anything.  The first 78 of 185 hits are to the journal itself, indicating the top results are not of the journal being cited by anyone.  The first real hit is to a book where the phrase, not necesarily the journal, is mentioned once.  The second is to the phrase again.  But the biggest objection is that it is not a reliable source, it's not a scholarly book, it's a newsletter.  So I do not think it is worth including as a source of further discussion.  Right now there's an even-ish split that it's worth including, I would suggest if there is still a belief it is worth including, I would take it to a noticeboard or request for comment.  I'm basing my objections purely on the source's lack of reliability, in my opinion that comes before any other objections.  WLU (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Matamoros murders
I am dismayed to see this case in this article. It was widely publicized here in Mexico. FYI, in the drug lords Mexican wars it's pretty common to decapitate or otherwise mutilate the enemies and leave the human remains for the shocked press to see. Very common. This was one of the first murders of drug lords with body mutilation of the already death bodies. I remember I saw the perpetrator confessing how he did it on TV. Since he talked in slang Spanish I understood perfectly.

Since Adolfo de Jesús Constanzo, the Matamoros drug lord, had learned some of his Tarot and santería stuff in Puerto Rico (santería is legal there and in Cuba), the Mexican press used the case in a sensationalistic way. Santería is not "Satanic" but a mixture of African shamanism with Catholic superstitions. However, the Spanish-speaking press started to use the term "narco-satánicos" (Satanic drug lords) and it made its way to the US press.

Many years ago I read an article in Skeptical Inquirer demythologizing the case of its SRA trappings. But I'd have to look for it. Meanwhile I edited a bit the sentence of the Matamoros case.

—Cesar Tort 15:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know this general subject of SRA too well. But I can corroborate that Constanzo was interested in santería and palo mayombe, not satanism, combined with a healthy dose of antisocial personality disorder and/or psychosis of unknown etiology (possibly drug-induced, but who knows).  I can also confirm the neither santería nor palo mayombe normally feature human sacrifice.  Some old co-workers of mine would be livid if they heard such a thing.Legitimus (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Great! Please provide some sources. If the Matamoros incident had nothing to do with Satanism —the "Satanic" element being rather sensationalistic journalism—, this should be mentioned in the article. —Cesar Tort 17:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Several sources cite it as an example of something related to SRA - Faller as an example that's erroneous, and Lanning as a case of actual ritual killing/sacrifice and how easy it was to find evidence - in comparison to SRA where thousands were reputed to be killed but no evidence ever turned up. I don't think it's worth expanding on this page, but the Matamoros page might do with extra info.  WLU (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cesar Tort, may I offer you something to think about? If the "satanic" element was simply sensational journalism and this sensationalism indicated that a greater "Satanic panic" had taken hold, then perhaps the article should retain the Matamoros topic? After all, this article is a redirect for Satanic Panic. Also, "Satanic ritual abuse" cases generally have nothing to do with actual Satanism; instead they're manufactured hysteria. I'd suggest if there was some hysteria in the reportage, this case could still count, whether or not "satanism" had anything to do with it at all. Your feelings? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Right. I think you're right. I was merely reacting to the phrasing of an editor who recently edited that sentence (fortunately changed by WLU) which seemed to convey that the Matamoros case was genuine SRA. Feel free to add sources or improve the sentence. It's a long time since I read the Mexican newspapers on the subject and didn't keep the old papers for my library. —Cesar Tort 02:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Try this -- Green, Thomas. (1991). "Accusations of Satanism and Racial Tensions in Matamoros Cult Murders." In The Satanism Scare. Edited by James T. Richardson. Aldine Transaction.PelleSmith (talk) 03:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * WLU, as to your recent revert of another editor, I have seen in the believers' literature that they shove under our noses this and the McMartin's case as iconic proofs of the reality of SRA. Maybe a few words on each of these, especially to make it clear that Matamoros was not SRA, is in order. —Cesar Tort 20:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ya, but we don't have to, and shouldn't dig into, every single allegation and false allegation of SRA that exists. At best, the Matamoros murders page should do so; for SRA it is sufficient to mention it, and mention that it's not actually SRA.  There were no children involved, there was no sexual abuse, and as mentioned it wasn't satanic.  The page has a lot of red herrings already, and should focus on the broadest aspects of SRA, not the absolute specifics of each case.  If the murders were considered but rejected as SRA, then it's worth mentioning that they were considered and rejected; I don't really think a lot is added by going into the details of why, the specifics of the case.  WLU (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

lack of compromise and consensus in edits on the SRA page
I have tried to attempt a compromise and consensus for several sections of the page without success. Again, my edits were reverted in whole, stating that one reliable sources opinion trumps the others', so the other source (The New York Times) cannot be included on the page. With all due respect, this is ridiculous. If the New York Times or another reliable source disagrees with or contradicts another reliable source, then it should be cited on the page. I will AGF and hope that other editor's edits will honestly and fairly work toward a compromise on this and not simply delete my entire version entirely again.

In terms of "The therapists who advocate the veracity of SRA claims" the part "who advocate the veracity of SRA claims" is OR, because it is not in any source. If authors here can find it in a source then it can stay. Otherwise, it should be deleted. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Simply stating "therapists" is entirely incorrect so you have the option of deleting all the content or finding a better way to specify. The terms "advocate" and "advocacy" are used in sources about about SRA to classify those who believe in the veracity of the claims.  Do you deny that that the descriptor used is accurate?  Do you have a better suggestion?  You didn't like "believers" either, which is another basic factual statement about those who "believe" the accounts of their patients to be true.PelleSmith (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW I'm not sure how you have "tried to attempt a compromise and consensus" when you are the sole editor in support of your edits. What exactly does that mean?PelleSmith (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also the information you keep on adding about McMartin, etc. is complete hearsay and basically the worst kind of information that we should always stay away from in writing Wikipedia entries. Someone's opinion that there could still have been child abuse at McMartin is not worth noting in the face of almost unanimous agreement based upon available evidence that there was not.  The necessary amount of skepticism regarding the consensus is already built into the fact of not stating that there definitely beyond any doubt was not any abuse--anything more is to suggest that there are credible alternatives still out there when there are not.PelleSmith (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Again the entire section was deleted without discussion. I have tried different versions and attempted to compromise on content with no success. Faller's opinion is accepted, but the NY Times isn't. These edits that delete the content of the NY Times are incredibly biased. There is no unanimous agreement on McMartin, look at the sources. The trial lasted many years. It is time for a RFC. ResearchEditor (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no absolute truth, but there is an accepted conclusion. What current, or post trial sources back the position that abuse did occur, or that SRA occured?  All you have are three pieces of complete hearsay ... not alternate theories but ... oh but it could have still been abuse.  Let it drop.PelleSmith (talk) 05:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * McMartin is the most debunked case of SRA. In fact, some of the star witnesses have started to recant, as I added in the WP's article on the subject today (a section which RE removed but I hope it will stay). —Cesar Tort 06:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Tort's claim is false. The "recantation" that he refers to involved a child who was interviewed as part of the McMartin investigation, but he was not a prosecution witness in the legal proceedings that followed, and therefore his disclosures did not constitute evidence for any of the charges against the accused.
 * Do you just make this up as you go along, Tort? --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Curiously, I had corrected this mistake in the McMartin's article just before you posted the above. —Cesar Tort 189.137.251.191 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you would like to include the fact that nearly 400 current and former students of McMartin disclosed sexual abuse at the preschool, and that, to date, only one of those children has retracted their disclosures? And none of the child complainants involved in the legal proceedings has retracted their statement?
 * Because that would be a fair and accurate summary of the situation to date. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) In addition to this, in the McMartin case, nine of 11 jurors at a press conference following the trial stated that they believed the children's testimony and there were six years of criminal trials. In the County Walk case, Fuster (the main defendant) had been previously convicted for manslaughter and for fondling a 9 year old child and Fuster's own son was treated for gonorrhea of his throat. The reason for deleting my edit with data contrary to Faller's from reliable sources was : "people('s) opinion on hypothetical situations is complete hearsay and has no business in a wikipedia entry." Yet Faller's opinion only is allowed. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As per above and the fact that now two editors want the new section in the article, I have re-written the small section and toned it down even more. If opposing editor's do not agree, please suggest a different version. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, I thought the issue was whether McMartin involved a satanic cult, given the article title? So far, it does not seem like it did.  After all, abuse happens in a secular setting all the time.  I'm just trying to be neutral party here, as neither a skeptic nor a believer.Legitimus (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As to the question of recanters, it would not be accurate to say that 400 "current and former students of McMartin disclosed sexual abuse in the preschool", absent actual analysis of the interviews (which should not occur, because of privacy considerations), and it may not be accurate that only one of the children retracted his/her testimony. As any of the children who actually presented testimony at the trial, who then retracted, might be found guilty of perjury, we don't know how many children privately admitted guilt.  (Futhermore, "believed the children" may not mean they believe even the "cult abuse" claims (not to mention SRA claims), but merely the "abuse" claims.)
 * But none of this relates to this article. There is no evidence that anyone (including the prosecutors) believed the SRA claims in McMartin, which would, in turn, not be relevant to the court case.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The NYT article was a book review published in 1986, as opposed to a scholarly book published in 2003. The NYT can not be used to contradict a publication in a scholarly volume, particularly when it was published 17 years in the past and it's a book review.  And Faller specifically says, in a scholarly volume on child sexual abuse, that SRA was initially more accepted but became negative and in fact rejected in the time between the two editions.  And it's a book review, not a law review or an investigation and it was published before there was significant skepticism of SRA.  So I would say that the NYT article is not a good choice.  And was the Country Walk case a confirmed case of satanic ritual abuse?  Or child abuse?  They're different.  Also, .  Apparently Fuster's son was falsely diagnosed with gonorrhea of the throat, and the coercive questioning of children endemic to that time was a factor in the confession.  If you'd prefer, we can leave out the Matamoros, McMartin and Country Walk cases completely - I only added them because they are falsely considered corroboration of SRA in the US, despite being far from accepted.  McMartin is still heavily debated, Country Walk also, and both occurred when the SRA phenomenon was starting, a source of unknown and there was no literature, critical or otherwise on the subject.  Interviewing techniques, the use of anatomical dolls, the false memory debate, all were used and the criticisms had not yet arisen.  I'll be picking up Satan's Silence hopefully today, I'll see what it says.  The McMartin trial is only one case of alleged SRA and does not necessarily feed the entire page, though it is considered iconic (and absurdly contested; ultimately I believe every conviction was overturned).  Country Walk doesn't even have its own page.  WLU (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "If you'd prefer, we can leave out the Matamoros, McMartin and Country Walk cases completely." Agreed. I would prefer to leave these three cases out. As you state above, they are heavily debated and their SRA content is uncertain in the research. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To feed the discussion, Hechler's The Battle and the Backlash was published while the McMartin trial was ongoing, ergo it is impossible for it to conclude on the outcome; it has minimal mention of Country Walk. Satan's Silence has a long discussion of the Country Walk case and the basis for Fuster's prosecution appears to be the testimony of his wife, which was only given after months of interrogation and coercion, as well as a length period of 'therapy' which really looks like a how-to manual for recovered memory.  Also, .  This backs Faller's statement that both are, despite being considered supporting of SRA allegations, quite controverisal and equivocal.  The reason I initially placed them was because Faller cited them as reasons people believed SRA had merit as prosecuted cases of SRA when this impression is challenged quite significantly by others.  Also, regards the NYT book review of Unspeakable Acts, .  WLU (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Hechler's book is an excellent source of information on both sides of the McMartin case and has an interview from one of the lawyers in the case. It should be included in any discussion on the case. Agreed that the cases are controversial. Since they are, we need to include both sides of the argument to fairly represent this controversy. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hechler's book was published 20 years ago, before the case concluded with no convictions, before Zirpolo recanted, before "The greatest weight of opinion now seems to be that the children’s tales of ritual abuse were the product of inappropriate, leading and repeated questioning by investigators", etc. etc. etc. Hechler is a poor choice to justify the statement 'some people believe the allegations have occurred'.  Wyatt's statement would suggest that placing emphasis on those 'some people' is undue weight, both on this page and McMartin.  This point is backed by Talbot, Ramsland, Zirpolo, Earl, Linder, O'Connor and again Wyatt.  Who, after the trial and in particular after the year 2000, thinks that there was merit to the McMartin accusations?  There's no controversy left.  WLU (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A book that came out 20 years ago is in no way a reliable source for what people believe today. At best it'd be a cite for what some people believed back then, which is certainly not under dispute (it went to trial, so at least the prosecutors believed it). DreamGuy (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that it would be a cite for what people believed back then. So it should be cited as an opinion on the case. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I said "at best", not that I thought it was something there was any reason to do. Don't "agree" with positions nobody actually had and try to set up a false consensus. There's no reason to use the book as a cite for that purpose, as I already explained. Why are you clinging so desperately to it? DreamGuy (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That'd be an amusing summary to put in: "In 1988, before the case had concluded with all charges dismissed and the recantation of one of the children's statements, Hechler concluded that there may have been some abuse that occurred at McMartin preschool."  Now there is something I can put on my user page with pride.  It is because of qualifications like that, that inform the context of the source, that make the Hechler source a poor choice for a statement that some people think there may have been merit.  WLU (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent revert at Satanic Ritual Abuse
Retrieved from Cesar Tort's talk page:

You reverted my edit in total without waiting for my talk page comment. WLU stated on the SRA talk page "If you'd prefer, we can leave out the Matamoros, McMartin and Country Walk cases completely - I only added them..." I agreed to this. Please revert your edit as soon as possible. Thank you. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? Didn't it ocurred to you that other editors disagree with such deletion? —Cesar Tort 19:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus was not achieved, so the revert is defensible. Me suggesting we could take it out doesn't mean we should.  Just because one editor prefers, does not mean all do.  WLU (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. I'll just copy and paste here the Edit summaries:


 * deleted as per agreement on talk - cases still heavily debated and SRA content uncertain in literature —ResearchEditor


 * rv – "as per agreement on talk"??? —Cesar Tort

—Cesar Tort 23:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have moved the section below to talk to discuss a consensus version. Please do not restore until consensus is reached. Two editors have agreed the section could be deleted, a third wants the section kept.


 * Three cases considered corroborating in North America (the McMartin preschool trial, a pre-school in Country Walk, Florida and the murders in Matamoros, by Adolfo Constanzo) are all problematic. McMartin was extremely controversial and considered ultimately false by professionals and the public; the convicting testimony in the Country Walk case recanted once the witness realized she was not immune from incarceration, and the Matamoros murders produced the bodies of 12 adults who were ritually sacrificed by a cult inspired by the film The Believers, but did not involve children or sexual abuse. ref name = Faller ResearchEditor (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, you deleted without consensus. I had to restore it. —Cesar Tort 03:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The advantage of the section is that it addresses the three cases considered 'proof' of SRA in the collective unconscious of the general public; this is why Faller, an academic, discusses them. Faller also discounts them.  Seeing as McMartin and Matamoros are referenced by several other authors also, there seems merit in including them.  What are the advantages of removing the section?  WLU (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There's absolutely no reason to remove them. RE would like to because fair inclusion of the information goes against the conclusion he wants people to make. DreamGuy (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason I removed them was that both editors working on the section agreed to this at the time. Cesar Tort removed them against consensus at the time. If the quote stays, then a balancing quote is needed, since there are differing opinions in the literature on this topic. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again I had to revert you. "...considered false by some sources" is an understatement. You've been blocked previously for reverting without consensus. For the last time, please stop. —Cesar Tort 03:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again you have simply reverted w/o offering a compromise version or allowing the section to be brought to talk. This is edit warring. You are entitled to your opinion, however there are several opinions on this topic from reliable sources and they need to be represented in the article. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "w/o offering a compromise version..."


 * Doesn't it occur to you that you are the one who should compromise? I've never been blocked for pov pushing. You are the one who's entering blocking land. If you want to advance a "compromise version", please add it in in talk. Never use mainspace when you have had a history of edit warring. And wait for more than one editor agreeing with you before a major change in article. Now the page has been —thanks god!— protected again. Take it as an opportunity to avoid further problems and discuss your ideas in this page. Cesar Tort 03:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * People pushing a view use the concept of "compromise" as a tactic. Compromise to someone once, and then they demand more, and more, until they get everything they wanted in the first place. We cannot on principle compromise in a way that violates Wikipedia's core policies, such as WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and so forth, which is what RE essentially demands of us. We can't expect a compromise that will make everyone happy when there's someone with an agenda who will never be happy with anything except his view being accepted as the only right one. DreamGuy (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Consensus is not a tactic, but a wikipedia policy. All editors need to compromise. If one looks at my edits, they will see that I have done this regularly. The way the core policies are applied, especially WP:NPOV depends on one's view of the field and this needs to be negotiated. The reverts of my compromise edits have at times verged on edit warring, simply deleting them without any attempt at consensus. ResearchEditor (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Compromise isn't needed if one of the editors is interpreting the relevant policies and guidelines inappropriately; the proper response in that regard is to seek clarification on the policies and guidelines or seek dispute resolution. Few people agree that your edits are NPOV, just as you would not see ours as NPOV, despite our beliefs that this is the case.  The debate should be over specific points - is the point appropriate, is the sourcing adequate, is the summary accurate.  I will venture that myself stating it might be worth removing the section about the veracity of American claims might be worth discussing is most certainly not consensus to remove.  WLU (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

{undent}Rereading the section, my question before was "What are the advantages of removing the section?" RE's response was "The reason I removed them was that both editors working on the section agreed to this at the time". That's not a reason and it's not even really factually correct as. I've stated why now I think it's a good thing to keep them - they're iconic cases in the American mind that are considered supporting the idea of SRA actually existing, and a reliable source saying why this is inapplicable. So can anyone think of why removing this discussion will help the page? ResearchEditor, this is the original question asked and it is the discussion of this specific point that should be the focus of this section of the talk page. WLU (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The source is only one viewpoint. If it stays, it should not stand alone. There was a controversy over these cases and this should be clearly cited. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the controversy was that the cases are used as proof of the existence of ritual abuse, when in fact they do not support the existence of ritual abuse in any way. In other words, they are dealt with by a source stating they are believed by the public to support SRA's existence, but in fact this is in error.  In other words, they are appropriately dealt with now, and should not be modified, particularly not with sources that predate the outcomes of the trials and book reviews that ignore the controversies surrounding the cases.  WLU (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard
Note discussion - Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. WLU (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * According to one of the editors responses, it looks like "Basic Books has a solid reputation as a non-fiction publisher". We can use Satan's silence. —Cesar Tort 19:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As does Noblitt & Perskin, so it is in as well. WLU (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Other related articles
I would encourage the editors here who disagree with the content of User:ResearchEditor's edits on this article, if they have some spare time, take a look at his contribution history for the other articles he has edited. The same things he did to this article have been done to other articles on related topics. DreamGuy (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think most of us are aware of the polarization, debate, and one-sided nature of some of the contributions. I also think the interplay between the memory wars and SRA is very badly under-represented on this page.  These are content issues which certainly need to be addressed.  WLU (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi DreamGuy. I've already posted my comment in one of such pages. —Cesar Tort 15:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * IMO, some of the edits made by the three editors above are very one-sided and polarizing. Furthermore, some of the edits made by the editors above also delete reliable sources from the nonskeptical point of view. My edits never delete reliable sources or opinions from reliable sources without full consensus. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are either deluded about the nature of your edits or are lying. You have certainly deleted reliable sources and opinions from reliable sources without full consensus-- and you've done so in the last 24 hours, in fact. I invite anyone to check his contribution history to see if his edits match his claims and am quite confident anyone who does will see what I mean. DreamGuy (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What I stated is true. ResearchEditor (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection
I have protected the page to stiffle a revert war. Please seek consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I really appreciate. —Cesar Tort 03:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I do too. Consensus needs to be achieved here first before edits are made. ResearchEditor (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Consensus needs to be achieved here first before edits are made." Good lord in heaven! Please follow your own advise. No one but you was interested in removing again and again the McMartin and Matamoros sections. —Cesar Tort 16:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your edit above twists the facts. Every one of my edits has made an attempt to find consensus. Your edits have not. I removed the section because the two editors working on it agreed to it and no one else said anything. Then you reverted anyway. I added balancing quotes to the section as a compromise, trying to find consensus, asking others to provide a balancing quote. All that happened was repeated reverts of my edits. My edits were the only ones trying to find consensus in this situation. And at least two other editors disagreed with that section without a balancing quote, but they were ignored. ResearchEditor (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's nonsense. "My edits were the only ones trying to find consensus in this situation." is just a completely ridiculous thing to even try to claim. When we try to work toward consensus, that does not mean that everyone is going to be happy. You constantly make demands about how articles should be written that do not meet WP:NPOV policy standards, and seem to think consensus is an attempt to force others to compromise closer to your views, and then you just make more demands and expect another compromise, and then repeat until (you hope) the article reflects your views. You can't charge do whatever you want, declare it to be "consensus" and then complain when everyone else disagrees and try to claim that you're the only one working toward consensus. That's not how the real world works. DreamGuy (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus means everyone agrees with the changes. We may not all be happy, but we agree. No effort was made to work toward consensus in this case. The original quote was extreme and did not represent the field. My edits (particularly in this case) do meet WP:NPOV standards, because the reliable sources in the field do not agree on one point only, so a balance is necessary to achieve accuracy. Balance was needed. Some edits on this page and others appear to want to force the extremely skeptical version of events on the issues, to the exclusion of all other viewpoints. This violates WP:NPOV. ResearchEditor (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

{undent} As I've just posted in the "McMartin" talk page, AbuseTruth/Research Editor (RE) has not understood NPOV and UNDUE after so much time he has been editing in the wiki. Editors have been trying to educate RE a dozen times and he's still resilient to harbor the slightest cognitive dissonance in order to maintain intact his pushing ways in search of The Truth. It's really sad... What can we do with this sort of behavior, DreamGuy? Going again to the blocking admins? —Cesar Tort 00:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Respectfully disagree. The list of SRA reliable sources recently compiled shows that the sources are about even in terms of numbers of peer reviewed journal articles. This would mean that there is no majority view on this topic and that the article needs to be balanced not to violate NPOV and UNDUE. My edits always follow wikipedia policy. I have clearly shown this repeatedly. ResearchEditor (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You always "respectfully disagree" in your posts but in mainspace you push a nonmaistream pov relentlessly. Neither WLU nor PelleSmith nor other editors agree with the claim that "the list of SRA reliable sources recently compiled shows that the sources are about even." This is bull and you know it. How many times I have to ask you to provide us, here and in other talk pages, with a single 21st century RS, whether peer-reviewed journal or academic book, which represents your pov on SRA? —Cesar Tort 01:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

list of scholarly texts "score"
the list

SRA as either Moral Panic/False Memory:

books total - 19 (13 academic publishers)

Peer Reviewed Journals - 34

Book sections - 8

Book reviews - 4

articles - 8

contested - 1

written the year 2000 or after - 13

--

SRA as a Real Form of Abuse:

books total - 16 (3 academic publishers)

peer reviewed journals - 29

book sections - 8

book reviews - 2

articles - 15

contested - 1

written the year 2000 or after- 12

--

"Middle Ground" or No stance:

books - 5

peer reviewed journals - 15 (note - some of these were contested and may be "real form of abuse")

book sections - 2

articles - 4

written the year 2000 or after - 1

ResearchEditor (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You haven't responded (and you recently altered PelleSmith's list BTW). Here we go again.


 * Cite specifically a 21st century peer-reviewed journal or academic book which accepts the existence of SRA. By existence I don't mean therapists who believe in their clients, but scholars or academics who accept as factual the basic SRA claims such as child sexual abuse in satanic settings among intergenerational families, or tunnels beneath the pre-schools to perpetrate the abuse; or conspiracies up to the highest level of the government to protect the satanists; or animal, child and human sacrifice by the hundreds if not thousands in our times. A specific 21st century academic source please. —Cesar Tort 06:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

And even with the older sources I still have to see that you are acting on good faith. For example, in the archived list you placed the Walter Young article from 1993, "Sadistic Ritual Abuse" in the category SRA as a Real Form of Abuse, under the heading "Peer Reviewed Journals." But it's not a pro article but one for the in-between/no stance. Here are a few quotes:

"Descriptions of satanic rituals and sacrifice go back to the very origins of written history, but there has been no real documentation that the alleged practices have taken place. Often such reports of satanic activity have been politically motivated and driven by attempts to persecute heretics or other socially undesirable groups or individuals.' (p. 448)"

After defining "sadistic ritual abuse" Walter Young goes on to say—:

"Frequently there are reports of child pornography, child prostitution, and significant abuse in the child's home. These reports have included both adults and children. Adolescents have also reported experiences with deviant activities. There remain no data on prevalence or validity, but much unsubstantiated speculation exists."

Walter Young's is a 1993 article. But if we take into account the way that you have been editing the list        it corroborates once more that you, Abuse Truth, are completely abusing the list. —Cesar Tort 15:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Cesar, the editor's user name is User:ResearchEditor, not Abuse Truth. You talk about "good faith", yet you don't show it yourself in the way you repeatedly hound this one user.   When someone changes their name and tries to learn from their mistakes, they deserve encouragement, not disparagement. You have plenty of very strong POV yourself, and you make that known quite clearly; that's OK, no problem - but note that you feel like yours is correct because it's yours.


 * You don't agree with the edits, OK, so discuss the content, not the editor. It doesn't matter what that one editor thinks. Consensus and reliable sources will take care of that in due time.  The list of texts was posted for editing by all.  You don't agree with the changes,  so fix them.  Just because another user does not have the same POV about a topic as yours does not make that other editor wrong.  And, even if the other editor is wrong, that does not mean that they are not editing in good faith, it just means they're mistaken.


 * Your comment that RE is "abusing the list" and using that word in conjunction with RE's prior user name is unfriendly, disrespectful, and downright mean. It's a form of baiting and taunting; with your knowledge and intelligence,  I'm sure you can see this.  I strongly recommend that you strike out that comment and consider more carefully before hitting the save button next time. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "and tries to learn from [his] mistakes..."


 * Do you sincerely believe this? Sorry but I won't strike my comment. I can use the passive voice if you wish: The list has been abused in a campaign for revealing The Truth in Wikipedia. Happy now? —Cesar Tort 03:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A more accurate score of the list:
If we count peer reviewed/academic publications from 2000 onward there are only 2 on the pro side. Noblitt's book was notably published prior to 2000, in the mid 1990s. Putting a later addition up and counting it is hogwash. Many, many more entries could be put into the skeptical side. My recommendation is focusing on, amongst other things, these points (particularly if no one intends to continue the slow job that Pelle Smith started):


 * 1) Almost all of the peer-reviewed/academic publications are from a narrow slot in time (only two in this century). Virtually all of them were published by therapists, with one or two notable exceptions from criminology and religious studies.
 * 2) On the other hand the skeptical side has many recent publications and spans the social sciences (anthropology, sociology, psychology), criminology and religious studies.
 * 3) "Articles" and "non-academic books" as they are classified in said list should never, ever be counted in any attempt to figure out what current academic  consensus is. To do so is simply preposterous.

—Cesar Tort 16:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Below you can see two lists: the bogus one by RE and the real list by PelleSmith. As PS put it in edit summary: "not even finished -- but only academic sources make any sense here." —Cesar Tort 15:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
This discussion was listed for a third opinion. In this case, I don't believe that the link in question is a useful link for either an External links section, or an Additional reading section. The site provides little more than a list of articles. The material itself is neither included on nor accessible from those pages. Some have brief summaries, but they do not provide the reader with a better understanding of the subject of this article. I believe that usefulness to the reader is the underlying theme of WP:EL, and should be the primary concern. Jim Miller (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Per this third opinion, I have removed the link from the external links section. The people at DMOZ will add a link to their page if they think it is appropriate, but I am not certain of their vetting process.  WLU (talk) 01:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

list of 2000 and after sources
Though it doesn't make sense to me to delineate between a source from 1998 as opposed to one from 2001, here's the list.

'''SRA as Moral Panic/False Memory

Academic Pub - 5'''

Critcher, Chas. (2003) Moral Panics and the Media. Open University Press.

de Young, Mary. (2004) The Day Care Ritual Abuse Moral Panic. McFarland & Company.

Frankfurter, David. (2006) Evil Incarnate: Rumors of Demonic Conspiracy and Satanic Abuse in History. Princeton.

Jenkins, Philip. (2004) Moral Panic: Changing Concepts of the Child Molester in Modern America. Yale.

McCloud, Sean. (2003). Making the American Religious Fringe: Exotics, Subversives, and Journalists, 1955-1993. UNC Press.

Peer Reviewed Journals - 4

Cavaglion, Gabriel. (2005). "The Cultural Construction of Contemporary Satanic Legends in Israel." Folklore 116(3):255-271.

Frankfurter, David. (2001). "Ritual as Accusation and Atrocity: Satanic Ritual Abuse, Gnostic Libertinism, and Primal Murders". History of Religions 40 (4):352–380.

Frankfurter, David. (2003). "The Satanic Ritual Abuse Panic as Religious Studies Data." Numen 50(1):108-117.

Sjöberg, Rickard L. (2002) "False Claims of Victimization: A Historical Illustration of a Contemporary Problem." Nordic Journal of Psychiatry 56(2):132-136.

Book Sections - 2

Best, Joel. (2002). "Victimization and the Victim Industry." In The Study of Social Problems: Seven Perspectives. Edited by, Earl Rubington and Martin S. Weinberg. Oxford.

Richardson, James T. (2003). "Satanism and Witchcraft: Social Construction of a Melded but Mistaken Identity." In New Religious Movements and Religious Liberty in America. Edited by Derek H. Davis and Barry Hankins Baylor Univeristy Press.

Book Reviews - 1

Wallis, John. (2007) "Recent Studies on Religion and Violence: A Review Essay." Nova Religio 11(1):97-104.

SRA as a Real Form of Abuse - 1

Academic Pub.

Noblitt, James Randall, and Perskin Pamela Sue. (2000). Cult and Ritual Abuse: Its History, Anthropology, and Recent Discovery in Contemporary America. New York: Praeger. (Note : revised edition with new chapter)

'''Non-academic pub. - 6'''

Griffis, Ph.D., Dale (2001). Secret Weapons. Far Hills, NJ: New Horizon Press. ISBN 0-88282-196-2.

Karriker, Wanda (2003). Morning, Come Quickly. Catawba, NC: Sandime, LTD. ISBN 0-9717171-0-9.

Lacter, E.; Lehman, K. (2008). "Guidelines to Diagnosis of Ritual Abuse/Mind Control Traumatic Stress

Noblitt, James Randall and Perskin, Pamela Sue (eds). (2008) Ritual Abuse in the Twenty-first Century: Psychological, Forensic, Social and Political Considerations Robert Reed Publishers - popular and self published

Oksana, Chrystine (2001). Safe Passage to Healing - A Guide for Survivors of Ritual Abuse. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse.com. ISBN 0-595-201000-8. - self-published, out. - The 1994 version of the book was published by HarperPerennial.
 * If Harper refused to issue a second printing, that strongly suggests there's no acceptance of the topic anymore. WLU (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is only an inference. There could be many reasons why the book was not republished by Harper. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is that it was not republished and the current book is not a reliable source. WLU (talk) 01:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Rutz, Carol (2001). A Nation Betrayed. Grass Lake, MI: Fidelity Publishing. ISBN 0-9710102-0-X.

Peer Reviewed Journals - 3


 * Based on the abstract, I'm not sure what position this is supposed to support. It appears to be about designing a college seminar.  WLU (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Pepisnky definitely has a pro-position. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thinking that because it has a pro-position makes it relevant to the page seems an erroneous conclusion. This is why I think the list is less than useful - the title and position of each reference matters less than the specific contents.  If this were a page about college seminars or courses discussing satanic ritual abuse, perhaps it might be more useful.  Purely based on the abstract I can't see it as useful, I'm curious about how the body could be used.  WLU (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read the full text and the paper will not be cited on this page. As I suspected, it is about a college seminar, mentions of ritual abuse are tangential, lack detail or sources and not the main thrust of the paper (which is, as I said, about designing a college seminar on feminist justice, dealing with guests and students and grading).  Placing any weight or text on this paper would be undue weight.  WLU (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Pepinsky, Hal. (2002) "A struggle to inquire without becoming an un-critical non-criminologist." Critical Criminology 11(1):61-73


 * Is this about ritual abuse or satanic ritual abuse? The former isn't really relevant to this page.  What are the definitions used by Valente?  WLU (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this about ritual abuse or satanic ritual abuse? The former isn't really relevant to this page.  What are the definitions used by Valente?  WLU (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Book reviews - 1

Psychiatr Serv 52:978-979, July 2001 © 2001 American Psychiatric Association [3]for Noblitt, JR; Perskin PS (2000). Cult and ritual abuse: its history,anthropology, and recent discovery in contemporary America. New York:Praeger.

Articles - 3

Lacter, E (2008). "Brief Synopsis of the Literature on the Existence of Ritualistic Abuse".

An Empirical Look at the Ritual Abuse Controversy - Randy Noblitt, PhD - [5]

Karriker, Wanda (November, 2007). "Helpful healing methods: As rated by approximately 900 respondents to the“International Survey for Adult Survivors of Extreme Abuse (EAS).""

“The Satanism and Ritual Abuse Archive”, by Diana Napolis, is published on the world-wide web at: [This archive contains 92 cases as of February 12, 2008.]

'''Middle Ground

Books - 1'''

Scott, S. (2001). The politics and experience of ritual abuse: beyond disbelief. Open University Press. ISBN 0335204198.

Peer reviewed journals - 1

Bader, Christopher D. (2003) "Supernatural support groups: Who are the UFO abductees and ritual-abuse survivors?" Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 42(4):669-678.

ResearchEditor (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

list of 2000 academic publishers and peer reviewed journal sources
1998 is just as good ... but the point of the exercise cleary was to establish how the academy sees SRA so non-academic books, "articles" and book reviews are out -- so are second editions of books published well before 2000 (or 1998). The list isn't close to being complete either but RE, after your gigantic text dump, cut and past job from a bibliography housed on a pro-SRA site I can understand why you keep on wanting to jump the gun.PelleSmith (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course the list isn't complete. There are sources missing from both sides of the debate. IMO, the point of the exercise is not prove a previously determined point. The point of the exercise is to look at the information. The list shows that there are many peer reviewed journal articles from the 90's that are pro and many that are not. This is when the topic was most notable in the media and academia. There are comparatively fewer articles in the last decade, meaning this period is much less notable.


 * And "Prometheus Books" is not an academic publisher, so I will delete the book from the academic publisher list below. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * From Prometheus Books - "Prometheus Books is a publishing company founded in August 1969 by Paul Kurtz and publishes scientific, educational, and popular books, especially those of a secular humanist or scientific skepticism nature" which seems pretty clear.  Would you like this brought to the RS noticeboard?  WLU (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I had assumed an academic publisher was either university affiliated or distributes academic research and scholarship. Maybe the noticeboard would be a good idea. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The importance is the reputation for fact checking as well as the topics discussed. Specializing in publication of scientific and educational books seems fine to me.  I've used the noticeboards several times, so you go ahead and do so.  WLU (talk) 12:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. ResearchEditor (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. WLU (talk) 01:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

SRA as Moral Panic/False Memory
Books - 7

Critcher, Chas. (2003) Moral Panics and the Media. Open University Press.

de Young, Mary. (2004) The Day Care Ritual Abuse Moral Panic. McFarland & Company.

Ellis, Bill. (2000). Raising the Devil: Satanism, New Religions, and the Media. University Press of Kentucky.

Frankfurter, David. (2006) Evil Incarnate: Rumors of Demonic Conspiracy and Satanic Abuse in History. Princeton.

Jenkins, Philip. (2004) Moral Panic: Changing Concepts of the Child Molester in Modern America. Yale.

McCloud, Sean. (2003). Making the American Religious Fringe: Exotics, Subversives, and Journalists, 1955-1993. UNC Press.

McGrath, Malcom and Baker, Robert A. (2001). Demons of the Modern World. Prometheus Books.

Peer Reviewed Journals - 6

Cavaglion, Gabriel. (2005). "The Cultural Construction of Contemporary Satanic Legends in Israel." Folklore 116(3):255-271.

de Young, Mary. (2007). "Two Decades After McMartin: A Follow-up of 22 Convicted Day Care Employees." Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 34(4):9-33.

Frankfurter, David. (2001). "Ritual as Accusation and Atrocity: Satanic Ritual Abuse, Gnostic Libertinism, and Primal Murders". History of Religions 40 (4):352–380.

Frankfurter, David. (2003). "The Satanic Ritual Abuse Panic as Religious Studies Data." Numen 50(1):108-117.

Loftus, Elizabeth F. and Davis, Deborah. (2006). "Recovered Memories." Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. 2:469-498

Sjöberg, Rickard L. (2002) "False Claims of Victimization: A Historical Illustration of a Contemporary Problem." Nordic Journal of Psychiatry 56(2):132-136.

Book Sections - 2

Best, Joel. (2002). "Victimization and the Victim Industry." In The Study of Social Problems: Seven Perspectives. Edited by, Earl Rubington and Martin S. Weinberg. Oxford.

Richardson, James T. (2003). "Satanism and Witchcraft: Social Construction of a Melded but Mistaken Identity." In New Religious Movements and Religious Liberty in America. Edited by Derek H. Davis and Barry Hankins Baylor Univeristy Press.

SRA as a Real Form of Abuse
Peer Reviewed Journals - 3

Pepinsky, Hal. (2002) "A struggle to inquire without becoming an un-critical non-criminologist." Critical Criminology 11(1):61-73

Valente, S. (2000). "Controversies and challenges of ritual abuse.". J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv 38 (11): 8-17.

Middle Ground
Books - 1

Scott, S. (2001). The politics and experience of ritual abuse: beyond disbelief. Open University Press. ISBN 0335204198.

Peer reviewed journals - 1

Bader, Christopher D. (2003) "Supernatural support groups: Who are the UFO abductees and ritual-abuse survivors?" Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 42(4):669-678.


 * I discuss Scott's book here. It's not about satanic ritual abuse, it's about pseudosatanism, which is pedophiles using satanism as a cover to make the kids look like they're making it up and to coerce them into not disclosing.  I consider it irrelevant. WLU (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Scott talks about "a continuum of belief" p. 90 - 92 discussing in part Satanism. On pages 86 - 87 she discusses survivor accounts of SRA. on p. 92 - 97 she discusses "the embodiment of belief" in her index listed under "satanism." There are other sections discussing satanism as well. Not all accounts appear to be pseudosatanism. I consider it part of the debate. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Using Scott's books and those sections, all you can say discuss is what some of her focus group members (a total of 37 apparently) believe their abusers believed about their ritual abuse (of which Satanism is mentioned by 20 and Scott explicitly discusses several non-satanic forms of ritual abuse). Interviewees emphasized thier limited knowledge of their abuser's belif systems on page 87 and on 88-9 Scott discusses her impression of how the interviewees routinely blocked out, along with the trauma, occult beliefs and practices.  90-91 she talks about how some abusers may not have believed in the rituals while others may have.  92 has some equivocation about how they might believe on different levels, half-belief and contextual belief. 93 discusses Kent's laughably bad hypothesis that the rituals are cobbled together to offend different groups (i.e. they're fake) and mentions Kent's quote-mining from the bible.  93 also discusses how the abused didn't understand the meaning of the rituals.  And again these are allegations, Scott doesn't discuss proof.
 * So if we were to use Scott on the page, I suppose it could discuss the lack of cohesion, clarity, detail and limited knowledge of the belief systems of the alleged abusers by the alleged abused. We could also discuss how Scott has the impression that occult beliefs and practices were routinely "blocked out" along with trauma (which raises the question of false memory for me).  But really the sections I've read is mostly about what the abused think about their abusers, which again raises the specter of therapists believing with no evidence beyond testimony from clients.  WLU (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)