User talk:Know-censorship

There is a group of editors who has taken control of the ritual abuse topic who are essentially presenting political opinion as general information. The entire subject as covered on Wikipedia violates its own "POV" standards. This is a disservice to the public, and most importantly, to children who may unfortunately be suffering at the hands of these groups. The existence of ritual abuse is quite clearly documented. Eventually the evidence will be overwhelming and undeniable. In future readers may wonder why Wikipedia for years allowed its editors to engage in a rather ruthless effort that essentially aided the cover-up of criminal activity.

July 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted.

I disagree, on the contrary, it was the most constructive thing I could do.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ''If you feel the article is inaccurate, state your claims on the talk page, don't vandalize the page itself please.

Thanks!'' sherpajohn (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User:ResearchEditor
Ahem. Your assertions, like that of the above-mentioned banned editor, have been refuted conclusively. Unless you can provide new evidence from reliable sources contradicting the present form of the article, it should stand.

Oh, and by the way, you shouldn't insert comments in the middle of a templated warning. It confuses matters. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC) It's easy to claim that assertions have been refuted when you won't allow the posting of bonafide peer-reviewed, media, and court material. You people shouldn't be aiding and abetting criminal activity. You won't get away with it forever.Know-censorship (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Claiming people who revert vandalism to an online encyclopedia are breaking the law is disengenious. Please read: WikiBullying —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherpajohn (talk • contribs) 02:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't censorship, this is due weight on the scholarly opinion. Much as we don't treat Holocaust deniers with the same weight as WWII historians, or Creationists with the same weight as biologists on pages about evolution, or flat-earthers with the same weight as scientific geologists, we don't give the tinfoil-hat wearing, satanic-ritual-abuse-is-an-MK-ULTRA-spin-off, conspiracy crowd the same weight as serious sociologists, social psychologists, anthropologists and other researchers who have pretty much universally and conclusively decided that the whole thing is an embarrassing error and mark of shame on the history of social work and related mental health professions.  If you can find real books that discuss the reality of these claims in detail, that haven't been discounted already, then the page could be adjusted.  Good luck, I'll be intrigued by what you find.  Most of the peer-reviewed sources you allude to here are either old, or if current then from absurdly low impact journals.  If your claims have any merit, it should be easy to proveit.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN/I
I have opened an AN/I thread on your problematic behavior. You may wish to comment there. *** Crotalus *** 19:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't find that thread, or a thread referring to my username, please provide a link. Know-censorship (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see AN/I. I have no opinion on whether you're a banned editor returning, as I was not familiar with the situation.  However I can tell you, based only on what I've seen here, that you need to change your approach to editing, or it's likely you'll be blocked.  Friday (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Good sources are most certainly allowed. How about letting us know what these sources are?  Friday (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

For example, The Australian, the newspaper, is that one ok or is it considered a tabloid? I've seen from the discussion page attached to the SRA article that some sources have been disallowed according to one editor's opinion of their merit. When one editor asserts that a publication is not a valid source and another one does, who is the next arbiter of such a dispute?
 * The best, most reliable sources are scholarly publications. Newspapers, particularly single newspaper articles, are not adequate to counter the opinions of many high-quality reliable sources from university and scholarly press.  Rather clearly, the most recent and best scholarly sources deal with satanic ritual abuse as a moral panic.  The exceptions are the terrible publications by Randy Noblitt, now so unaccepted they are published by vanity press, and a variety of third-string publications that are reluctant to publish directly.  Please review the archives of talk:satanic ritual abuse to see how these were dealt with.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment from talk:satanic ritual abuse
Rather than deleting it outright, I'm userfying your comments.

"from talk:satanic ritual abuse Ritual Abuse and Satanic Ritual Abuse as covered on Wikipedia constitute a violation of its own 'POV' standards. This is a disservice to the public, and most importantly, to children who may unfortunately be suffering at the hands of trafficking groups. The existence of ritual abuse is quite clearly documented. It is inevitable that it will mount until overwhelming and undeniable. In future readers may wonder why Wikipedia for years allowed a few editors to engage in a rather ruthless effort that essentially aided the cover-up of criminal activity.Know-censorship (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)"

If we're violating our standards on neutrality, it should be easy to demonstrate this with reliable sources. Rather than posting long (or short), useless screeds on the subject, show us we're wrong with reliable sources. Your opinion is worthless, no offence, you must verify your claims with sources. A single newspaper article, particularly a fairly right-wing one like The Australian, isn't enough to revolutionize an entire article. Incidentally, were you referring to the 2007 piece by Robert Lusetich on MKULTRA? If so, it's old, tangential and based on the input of Carol Rutz, who I would charitably call "not a reliable witness". WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)