Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ritualized child abuse

This page has been created as a POV fork from the Satanic Ritual Abuse page by Cesar Tort, in order to shift content from that article into this one, thus stripping the SRA article of substantiated cases of ritualistic abuse, and enabling to entrench his own POV in the SRA article. See here:


 * Once Ritualized child abuse is created as a legitimate WP article, there would be no reason to impede us the moving of the legitimate cases of child ritual abuse to the moved article. We can even do it before the SRA page is unlocked. This strategy would comply with WP’s due weight policy by vindicating the majority view in history and sociology that the subjects are distinct (RCA is about actual forensic evidence, while SRA is about a 1980s and 90’s moral panic more analogous with witch-hunts than with ritual crime). —Cesar Tort 20:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Cesar Tort's creation of this article appears to be a strategy designed bypass the process of consensus-building at SRA, entrench his own particular view in another article, and then shift content from one article to another.

It wouldn't be such a problem if this article actually had any merit, but he's just taken material from the article on psychohistory, and, in his own words, added "some content totally unrelated to deMause’s theories to justify the moving". The result is a vanity piece that synthesises unrelated material from elsewhere on WP and entrenches Cesar's ideosyncratic historical and theoretical interests.

The content of this article is a clear example of synthesis and original research, and the users conduct in creation of the article fails to AGF. I recommend that the article be deleted, and that the user return to SRA to discuss his concerns with other editors in accordance with Wikipedia policy.

--Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep


 * "The content is bizarre and I've never come across anything like it before."


 * This means that you haven't read much of anthropology and other related disciplines. Have you?


 * As to the POV issue, the real POV article today is Satanic ritual abuse (SRA), about which you say in your basically single account userpage:

At the moment, I'm advocating for the reform of the Satanic Ritual Abuse article on Wikipedia. Whilst the role of ritualistic activity in organised child sexual abuse is not clear, we know that it does occur, and that it is related to the most severe forms of child maltreatment and sexual exploitation. For years, the SRA article has instead suggested that most people with a history of SRA are fantasists, and the professionals who support them are malicious and corrupt. In my experience as a researcher, nothing could be further from the truth.


 * If the SRA article is locked right now it's precisely because editors like User:Biaothanatoi have tried to push nonsense like Michelle Remembers in an encyclopedic article.


 * On the other hand, this article merely recounts well-known historical, ethnological and anthropological facts that nobody disputes —hardly POV.


 * We will see in the forthcoming months how these two articles evolve, especially the SRA article, about which I doubt it will be unlocked for too much time if the credulous pov-pushers persist with their unreliable sources.


 * Oh, yes: even without User:Eleland's idea to split the SRA article, an article on ritualistic child abuse was needed. Another editor totally unrelated with the SRA controversy could very well have started it.


 * My guess is that User:Biaothanatoi nominated this article for deletion because he wants one single article, SRA, to put together facts (ritualized child abuse) with fiction (the Satanic claims on the 1980s and '90s in the US and other Western countries).


 * —Cesar Tort 00:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please remember that this discussion is about the article, not other editors. Comment and discuss based on policy and guidelines, not motives and people.  Friendly reminder... WLU (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete
 * I agree with WLU above. Let's focus on content. I agree with Biaothanatoi above. The RCA article was created by one editor only. It also appears to be a POV fork that was discussed on the SRA talk page and the split was not agreed to by at least five editors there. Abuse truth (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What user "Abuse truth" is not telling here is that he is one of the pov pushers who has defended Michelle Remembers in talk:SRA: a totally discredited "Satanic" abuse book. If real cases of abuse, such as the article I started, are mixed together with the Satanic ritual abuse page, the Wikipedia readership might conclude that both, fiction, and real facts, are two sides of the same social phenomenon.


 * Also, no editor of WP needs consensus to create a legitimate article of its own. Furthermore, two or three editors that user "Abuse truth" is talking about are pure SPAs with only one Wikipedia entry ever —and precisely in the voting of talk:SRA as to whether creating another "child abuse" article was in order!


 * —Cesar Tort 05:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually Cesar Tort is incorrect. In talk:SRA I asked skeptical editors to provide reliable sources to back their claims. I stated that "Most of the skeptical sources for MR are poor....I think the skeptics of the concept of SRA need to stop using nonreliable sources to back their claims. These skeptics need to start applying the standards that they use when judging sources and data of other beliefs to themselves." And one of the two voters (there weren't three) has
 * provided several peer reviewed journal articles as sources to the SRA talk page. Even one editor skeptical about the existence of SRA voted against the split proposal. Abuse truth (talk) 06:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The split from SRA into articles on (alleged) Santanic ritual (child) abuse and (real) Ritualized child abuse seems appropriate.  It should be noted that AT refuses to accept the concensus removal of the list of SRA to to a separate article, so his/her opinions should be given little weight except where quoting specific policies and guidelines.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)