Talk:Satanic panic/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Teniwiker37 block

Teniwiker37 has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:ResearchEditor - at least for now. User_talk:Teniwiker37#Appeal. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Split

The page is officially too long. Suggestions on where to split it? I'm thinking we spin off the history section. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Since when is this page officially too long? If it were full of pap, yes it would be. But if it is full of facts supported by sources, there is no need to worry about its length. No well-written article is too long. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:SIZERULE puts us close - there's issues like printability, reader fatigue, load time (particularly for slow connections), and the page is at 98K right now. There's lots of sources, which does mitigate this a bit, but the search feature puts us at 96K and 13,221 words. If we keep the article as is, there's a realistic limit to what we should add which can make for a worse article (particularly for sections like false memory, DID, and other "explanation" sections). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, perhaps there's not much left to add to this article anymore. So, with your one example, instead of a FMSF or False Memory section, you could just put in one short explanatory paragraph with a "Main article:" link at the top of the section, forwarding the reader to the full article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

WLU and Arthur:

As to splitting the article, this should have been done long time ago. I would reduce the “Court cases” section to a small paragraph and move there whatever sentence present in this article that is absent in the sister article.

The same with the sections on DID and False memories, as user “AllGloryToTheHypnotoad” suggested above. The article reads quite well until reaching these three sections. It’s obvious that only the very fastidious reader who’s deeply involved in this topic could read the whole article in a single sitting. What is not clear to me is exactly how to split the latest two sections.

Cheers,

Cesar Tort 15:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome has been created

Thought the editors here might be interested. There's a lot of sources that are yet untapped on the talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

ALL CAPS IS VERY CONVINCING

This article is TENDENTIOUS - ALL WAS WRITTEN TO PROVE NON-EXISTANCE of satanic rituals! It's not credible! You should add the investigations of former FBI chief TED GUNDERSON! Google: "Robert Green arrested"! Search for Alex Jones' videos on human sacrifices! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.140.110 (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"FBI chief"? Not hardly. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That comment needs more exclamation points. Then I'll believe in baby-eating intergenerational satanists. Tsk, if only anonymous accounts understood how convincing exclamation points. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Alex Jones. 'Nuff said. Auntie E. (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

<cough>DABPAGE</cough> WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that Alex Jones. Yeah, I think we're done - unless anyone else sees a good reason to put a radio host on the same footing as scholars. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to report this, but Ted Gunderson has a rather uncritical Wikipedia page. DougHill (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much any article that has "conspiracy theorist" in the lead automatically discounts them as a reliable source. "Conspiracy theorist" basically means "I have to fail Occam's razor to defend my points." WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

FAQ

I'm half-assedly working my way through an Autism FAQ akin to what is used in Talk:Evolution/FAQ, essentially to head off the vaccine-autism nutters. I'm thinking one might be useful here as well given the steady stream of single purpose accounts and sockpuppets. An edit notice might also be a good idea - "Please read the FAQ before posting new sections. Sections that raise issues that have already been resolved will be deleted without further comment." Hopefully ResearchEditor and his/her myraid sockpuppets would simply give up after a while. We keep revisiting the same ground again and again, and it's both frustrating and a waste of time. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

talk:Satanic ritual abuse/FAQ WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

100 References

Do we really need 100 references in the lede? C1k3 (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Especially since none of them is reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of them are from peer reviewed journals, are reliable and back up the statement that the SRA phenomenon is real. [1] Areftipo (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You're fucking kidding me. ResearchEditor isn't even trying anymore. Arthur, can't you simply block him as a sockpuppet? Or semiprotect the page permanently? That seemed to slow him down on a couple other pages, and it makes tracking down his sockpuppets easier. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe that user talk space edits count towards autoconfirmation. How about full protection then? The editing has settled down, and there's a substantial number of admins who are aware of the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence an editor is a sockpuppet, just because the editor uses the same reliable sources many do to show the phenomenon is real. These references should be included in the page. Those in the field that see this page know that there is something seriously wrong with this part of Wikipedia. Areftipo (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the fact that the editor uses the same unreliable sources doesn't mean he's a sockpuppet. It should be checked, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

ResearchEditor, this is pathetic. Like the SRA-is-real hypothesis itself, the idea that a series of non-overalpping new editors, pushing the exact same point of view as you, who previously showed no interest in SRA, suddenly read 100 articles on the topic, showed up, knew how to use the references tags, made no other edits to any other page, with the same stupid "gap between footnotes" error that RE used to make, is so insulting to both our intelligence and Occam's razor, it staggers me. How stupid do you think we are? Why even bother justifying your edits on the talk page or in edit summaries, it's transparently obvious who you are and what you are doing, and it's equally obvious that it's not going to get you anywhere. Do you know what the definition of insanity is? A person who does the same thing repeatedly, and expects different results. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because editors have the same point of view on this topic, doesn't mean they are the same person. Many researchers believes the phenomenon is real. The sock check showed there is no evidence. Reference tags are easy to use, anyone can use the little ref box above. I thought that the definition of insanity was denying reality. The reality is that sources show that the SRA phenomenon is real. Areftipo (talk) 04:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Research Editor (previously known as “Abuse Truth”):

I hadn’t edited Wikipedia for a long time. But today I felt moved to try to communicate with you.

This is the Nth time that hundreds of references are dumped here. Do you remember that back in 2008 I wrote humorously about this photo: “Poor WLU trying to figure out which of these is a reliable source”?

I would recommend you to email those SRA pro-authenticity advocates who have edited this article, people such as Daniel Santos or Biao. Ask any of them if it is wise to editwar in the wiki with dozens (yes: dozens) of socks. If you don’t want to take any advise from us, you still could take a little piece of advice from them.

Cesar Tort 19:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"Obvious sockpuppet is obvious." C1k3 (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The new Corsini article is good example of an article with different sources from different perspectives, those that do and don't believe the phenomenon exists. It has many sources and covers different opinions on the SRA topic, unlike this article. The new Noblitt book is an excellent book with chapters from many experts in the field. The extreme abuse survey had over 1000 respondents and was a good initial study on the SRA topic. Hypnosis when used responsibly by trained professionals can help trauma victims. The peer reviewed sources I found are in several places on the Internet. It is important that they be included here also. It is odd that all of a sudden a few new posters appear that weren't on this page above. Is there a way to check these for sock puppets also, just to be sure? Areftipo (talk) 04:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Does this person really think we won't notice a new editor coming in with exactly the same material and suspect, perhaps, it's ResearchEditor again? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we've long since established there are certain...limitations...on the ability of that particular editor to grasp certain...relatively simple...points. It's too bad that semiprotection considers user-space edits as contributing to autoconfirmation. Though I do certainly appreciate how it has slowed down the nonsense.

Perhaps we could add a couple of the links to the spam blacklist? I'm thinking saferchildren.net, but it does have some possibly legitimate uses as a convenience link. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Eh. WP:RBI. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:BBA? (Block, block, abuse)? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I can honestly say that I hate this person; hopefully he/she experiences some SRA of his/her own. C1k3 (talk) 04:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Don’t worry C1k3. We might try go to the conference to help survivors of child ritual abuse. It will be held on August 6 - 8, 2010 at the DoubleTree Hotel near Bradley International Airport, 16 Ella Grasso Turnpike, Windsor Locks, CT 06096. And perhaps our Satanic Cabal against The Truth will come along. Lots of fun await us this Summer... Cesar Tort 05:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Aha! Hail Satan.  ;) C1k3 (talk) 06:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I prefer hail Santa. If you're going to praise a mythological being, at least choose one that gives away presents.

It does look like ResearchEditor is getting less creative and labour-intensive with his contributions, perhaps he's getting frustrated? Poor little guy... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Guys, can we keep it on topic? It's a touchy subject for some readers and while I know it's frustrating dealing with socks, people are being upset by the comments being made. Thanks! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Who? C1k3 (talk) 05:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. No matter what we are expected to hold ourselves to a higher standard than blocked POV-pushers and supporters of fringe theories. CIVIL and NPA both still apply, even when discussing blocked editors and off-wiki people. We must even entertain new discussions and sources regarding the topic, if they are raised. The issue of course, is that ResearchEditor's 120+ sockpuppets have consistently failed to provide any - merely recycling old and flawed sources that ignore or could not reflect the change in the scholarly and child services community since the late 90s. The same damned reason s/he was blocked in the first place. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

However, it looks like Research Editor really wants to have an extra ration of cookies and coffee for a cabal in his forthcoming Ritual Abuse conference. Am I wrong, RE? :) Cesar Tort 15:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

While I think we all understand the brevity of the situation, I must sincerely ask you to not feed disruptive editors :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Corsini

Undent. Incidentally, there's a 2010 edition of Corsini out, I'll be very interested when the 4th edition is digitized on google books, to see if they still give SRA far too much credibility. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

And on an unbelievable note, Corsini Volume 4 has been digitized, and appears to repeat the article from previous versions, without substantial updating. Their newest reference is from Noblitt's latest self-published nonsense, and otherwise there is nothing after 1997. Unbelievable. It actually favourably cites the extreme abuse survey nonsense as if it justified SRA having a world-wide reach, and recommends hypnosis as treatment for SRA. Unbelievable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I've figured it out. They've got the same person to write it each time, one George F. Rhoades, who apparently still runs workshops on ritual abuse [2]. Apparently he's not big with the reading of new books. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No shit, he does Christian Therapy too. What were the chances? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm just surprised and disappointed that such an apparently high-profile publication would be so...credulous. I tried to track down the authors and editors to get a comment from them, but to date have had no luck. Seriously, with Jeffrey Victor, David Frankfurter, Mary DeYoung and Jean LaFontaine to choose from, why pick a no-name nonacademic therapist from Hawaii who hasn't published in the field in over a decade? Then there's a couple less involved people to choose from who would have been better - Hammond, Loftus, Kent, Nathan, McNally. Even the third-stringers, McHugh, the Eberles, Faller, all were involved in the SRA phenomenon, but none are asked to write the chapter. What, is it voluntary submission or something? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah? And what exactly qualifies you to pass judgment on this? Since you profess to be so knowledgeable on this issue you might want to tell us your real name so we can pass judgment on your credentials too. Because as it is I will take the "no-name nonacademic therapist from Hawaii" over some wikipedia admin. The real "no name" here is you, so act accordingly, and with appropriate respect for people who are at least published. 82.21.25.194 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC).

Says the utterly anonymous and apparently irony-impaired contributor. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Satanists POV

I've raised this point on this talk page before but someone seems to have deleted it, but if you read the satanic bible some of the rules of the earth are "do not harm young children" and "Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food" so satanists are actually very against satanic ritual abuse —Preceding unsigned comment added by -ross616- (talk • contribs) 00:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, but the "Satanists" who were supposedly ritually abusing kids were almost always asserted as not being from the Church of Satan, but rather from some weird multi-generational world-spanning secretive ancient cult... or something. Maybe this is because the fundies were scared of being sued by Peter Gilmore. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Elsewhere in the internet I have been told by a SRA believer that "There are plenty of fanatic satanists out there..." The problem I see with child advocates, such as this guy, is that they cannot distinguish between real, historical ritualistic abuse of children and moral panic episodes. However, I think that the current article makes the distinction clear about the Church of Satan. --Cesar Tort 01:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's in the archives. The CoS has about as much to do with SRA as the Salem Witch Trials had to do with witches. It's not worth going into in extreme detail, but if someone has a source that discusses the CoS (there's a brief bit in the "Historical precedents" section) then I say go for it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, a warning: if we continually equivocate "Church of Satan" with "Satanists" (and I started it, I know), we'll drag this page into the Satanist movement's perpetual civil war over who the real "Satanists" are. There are many "Satanists", and suffice to say the whole thing has turned into something resembling a trademark infringement battle - even here on Wikipedia a few years back. Better to just refer to "actual Satanists", in contrast to the fictional satanists referred to by the SRA advocates. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

'Satanism or simply people who are victims of "Gang Stalking"'?. People who believe that Devil Worshippers are abusing Children may simply be victims of Gang Stalking. Gang Stalking is now recognised as a genuine anti-social group activity where a number of people will systematically target an individual for secret harassment. The targeted victim of Gang-stalking often develops delusional ideas about who is harassing him/her. Gang Stalking rarely results in criminal prosecution of the individuals involved, and is rarely reported in the Media due to the perpetrators lying about their activities. Gang stalking can best be described as 'recreational sadism'.Johnwrd (talk) 09:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If citations could be provided, this might be suitable for this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd actually like to see a "gang stalking" article first. Maybe it's just called something different? But we don't have a gang stalking article here at WP, and if it exists it'd be nice to have an article on it. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

well here is a source that gives the Satanic Rules of the Earth, (http://churchofsatan.com/Pages/Eleven.html) and I do agree with the point about the argument over "real" Satanists, but if it is clarified that this is not the view of EVERY Satanist then I think it should be included as the CoS is the more public face of Satanism and therefore the organisation most people would logically connect with SRA which, as I see it, basically amounts to implied slander. Either way, as the CoS is so public I think it is worth mentioning that they actively forbid SRA

how about, under a header of "The Church of Satan and Satanic Ritual Abuse" something like "since its inception in 1966, Anton Szandor LaVey's Church of Satan has been opposed to ritual abuse, and the The Satanic Bible, published in 1969, contains a list of the "Laws of the Earth" which actively forbids it. These Laws include: 9: Do not harm little children and 10:Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food. However, it should be noted that the Church of Satan does not represent every Satanist"

I'm not sure how exactly the numbering should be done but I will leave that open to the discussion if anybody can help -ross616- (talk) 02:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say that is original research; what we really need is an explicit source saying the two have been conflated to no end. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Full page protection

The page receives essentially no edits these days that aren't ResearchEditor sockpuppet vandalism. Given that the phenomenon is over, there's minimal research on the topic, and we basically waste database and bandwidth resources simply reverting his nonsense, how about we ignore the rules and get the page fully protected, permanently? We put a big ol' edit notice on the talk page to use the {{editprotected}} template if anyone has a suggestion, leave a permanent section at the top of the talk page, add a note to the FAQ, and then none of us have to waste time and aggravation dealing with the same "100 sources" nonsense. WP:NO-PREEMPT does say "Persistent vandalism, or the possibility of future vandalism for highly trafficked articles, rarely provides a basis for full-protection." This is certainly a matter of persistent vandalism. Given the topic is essentially dead, and the page quite lengthy and elaborate, I can't see an urgent need for editing that makes full protection a bad thing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:RPP is the place for such requests. It's not a bad idea, given ResearchEditor's willingness to be dishonest. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Posted. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel awkward adding indefinite full protection because of one person, so I've done it for a month in the first instance. Once we see whether it inconveniences others, we can take it from there. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That works for me. The edits since RE got the boot have been mostly minor and vandalism reverts (due to RE's POV-pushing). Full protection for a month will give a sense of how settled the page truly is. Thanks for the testdrive. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I really really really really really don't like the idea of full protection - I've got a very very very very very low opinion of Wikipedia admins and don't think they should be the only ones to edit a page. I agree, though, that the page is pretty much "completed", if there is such a thing. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history, the only people editing the page lately are basically RE socks and people reverting RE's sock additions. The risks are low; in fact, we've reduced the risk of bad information getting into the page since RE now can't edit. Also, if you try to edit the page, you get "view source" along with an edit notice that says "to edit the page, you need to use the {{editprotected}} template." If you click on the link, you are sent to this talk page with a preloaded section making it relatively easy to actually get to the point where an edit can be debated and finalized. Most admins attracted by the notice will either be those well-familiar with the page, or random admins checking the editprotected page. Either way, we need to build consensus before the edit is actually implemented and any admin able to read the consensus should essentially be a channel to make the edit, and not affect the content of the edit itself. At worst, we're delaying an edit by a day or so. Frankly, if this means not having to deal with RE's endless socks, it's worth it in my mind and a much better use of everyone's time. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Conspiracy theories

Claims of satanic ritual abuse are clearly claims of bizarre and elaborate conspiracies. So I suggest that this page be listed at Category:Conspiracy theories. DougHill (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There's an article that needs attention since it seems that conspiracists have edited it. I'll repost here what I said in Talk:Alex_Constantine:

Alex Constantine seems to be a conspiracy buff. In Google book search I found this abstract of Virtual Government: CIA Mind Control Operations in America: "a compelling book for readers interested in conspiracy theory", and the book has a chapter: "How the ClA uses cults to lay the groundwork for trauma-based programming, such as in the shocking McMartin preschool case".[3] Also, in the book The Covert War Against Rock Constantine covers the cases of the above mentioned rock stars. "This long-overdue report offers disturbing evidence that there may be more behind these deaths than accident, psychosis, and indulgence."[4]

Cesar Tort 17:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Easily qualifies for the category - there are dozens of mentions in the article itself and lots of references. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do it also in the Constantine article (since I'd been in a long wikibreak I forgot how to do it...). Cesar Tort 18:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but it probably shouldn't be done through full protection. I wouldn't be surprised if a rational person would object. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Arthur, if you search for "conspiracy", there are literally dozens of appearances (well-close, 21 appearances of the word not including references) and all have references (including books specifically about conspiracy theories). Since the reason we have full protection is to prevent sockpuppeting vandalism rather than a content dispute, I think any admin (who can edit through protection, I thought) would be willing to add it (particularly with lots of sources and several people agreeing on the talk page).

Cesar, just add [[Category:Conspiracy theorists]] to the bottom of the page, and it'll appear. One area of concern on the AC page is whether it meets the criteria and there are sources. You'd need third-party sources stating Constantine is a conspiracy theorist; using his own books to claim this would probably be OR (unless it's blatantly obvious). Looking at his bibliography, I don't see anything this obvious. I'm not saying you couldn't or shouldn't do it, I'm just saying it doesn't have the sourcing quite yet - probably easy to address. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The rules for editing through full protection is that there must be a clear consensus for the edit. I don't see it yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff, thanks. So far no objections and I don't see any more, but no harm in waiting. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, conspiracy theory est. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is inaccurate and outdated! It does not cite anything factual or ANY legitimate studies by legitimate bodies of knowledge.78.105.80.132 (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Really. Can you give us some examples? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes protection (level 2)

As part of the pending changes trial, it is possible to use pending changes protection, level 2, which requires review of edits made by non-autoconfirmed users. This avoids the recourse to long term full protection in order to handle persistent sockpuppetry, as in the present case. A rough consensus is needed to use level 2 protection. Cenarium (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

While I haven't been actively engaged in editing or discussion, I've been lurking around this talk page for quite a few months and think some degree of protection is in order. The page is evolving into a very complete (if maybe a bit long) and well-composed article that could easily be dashed by ongoing sockpuppet, malicious, or POV edits. So, if it counts, I'd like to vote for the level 2 protection. 156.98.129.16 (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Cenarium, why would a rough consensus of editors on the page be needed to reduce an article from full protection to pending changes level two? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Its use is kind of controversial, see Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes#Level_2_protection. There's no agreed policy but it would be better to have a rough consensus. Cenarium (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it would be controversial to use on an article that's already fully protected, as this is. PC2 would open up access, but without letting in too much of the bad stuff, so it seems like a good compromise. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and I think there's enough support to use it here now. I just didn't want to give an opinion initially. Cenarium (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sort of ignorant of the concept of pending changes protection, but it's probably better than full protection with only admins able to edit. After all, the point of Wikipedia is that "anyone can edit", not just administrators. The article needs to be protected from loonies, sure, but not from well-meaning editors who may have something important to add that the eds here haven't yet thought of (e.g., a short mention and link to a fab new article like Satanic Ritual Abuse in Italy, which someone someday could write). AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe the advantage is that the pending changes option can be applied indefinitely, while we're using full protection as a stopgap that expires in a couple weeks.

I'd totally support this page being part of the trial. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd support it too. I should have made that clear in my previous post. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Unholy alliance

Bruce D. Perry in The Boy Who Was Raised as a Dog discusses an unholy alliance between Attachment therapy and SRA where foster carers and caseworkers - convinced of the reality of SRA - used attachment therapy techniques to extract "disclosures". As attachment therapy at that time consisted of things like enforced holding, accompanied by "aversive stimulation" (digging knuckles into the ribs etc), verbal taunting and extreme exhaustion and deprivation, until the child disclosed, they obtained some startling "disclosures". I haven't seen this connection mentioned elsewhere but he describes it's use in the Lappe/Vernon case. Is this worth including? Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything like that in the SRA books I've read. The SRA phenom did use suspect psychological techniques, but these included things like asking leading questions of toddlers, or even breaking down the child with repeated questioning. Nothing specific about attachment therapy, though. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 02:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the conjunction of the two may have been purely coincidental to that particular case. Presumably existing attachment therapy beliefs and methods happened to chime with the suspicion of SRA in those children. AT belief systems include a belief in early hidden trauma causing rage that has to be "vented" by disclosure, enforced by enraging the child and demanding that they disclose what the therapist wants to hear. He points out that it also chimed with certain fundamentalist christian beliefs about the sinful nature of childen and the need to break a childs "will". (In the case Perry describes the boy was actually killed by the foster parents in the course of an extreme form of AT parenting techniques involving the production of physical exhaustion - in this case by making him run up and down the stairs repeatedly. He was beaten to death when he refused.) Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality ?

While the refutation of most of the conspiracy theories is all very commendable, this is certainly not a neutral article - while the 'list of satanic abuse allegations' page is linked at least twice people seem to ignore the fact that there are some authenticated occurrences of ritual abuse summarised in that page. This should at least be mentioned in the opening paragraph to counterbalance the 'scepticism is the default position' remark. The phenomenon of 'ritual abuse' should either be treated seperately to the events that are believed to be discredited that fall under the 'SRA Panic'heading, which this article seems mostly concerned with - why, indeed, if SRA specifically refers to those particular high profile US & UK cases only, does the more general heading 'ritual abuse' not have a seperate article but instead leads to this contested cul-de-sac ?

We're not talking about real goblins and ghoulies here, but authenticated criminal acts that share certain features that have either or both a pseudo-religious or psychological cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.168.69 (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a far cry from the "thousands of satanists eat millions of babies" that was the real concern during the SRA moral panic. Minor acts are covered by the definitions section on Criminal and delusional satanism. Neutrality is determined by representation in reliable sources. Most sources deal with the moral panic, and don't focus on the essentially tangential minor acts and isolated incidents that characterize criminal and delusional satanism. Ergo, the page does the same. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Could then the heading 'Ritual Abuse' have an article of it's own, rather than leading directly into this SRA article, if the term SRA is defined only by that particular media panic ? Or lead to both this article and the 'list of satanic abuse allegations' one, (with perhaps 'ritual' substituting the 'satanic' tag on the latter) ?

It's all 'criminal & delusional' as far as I'm concerned, but the phenomenon is all drawn into the orbit of this article, which then in it's summation of the particular historical SRA issue ('skepticism is the default position')gives the impression -perhaps unintentionally- that the type of abuse characterised by pseudo-religious, ritual trappings/justifications doesn't exist.

Opening paragraphs, esp. this sort, give an introduction, historical and general overview, and summation. I don't think, therefore, that the definitions section's mention of 'criminal & delusional satanism' is sufficient. The SRA panic article, in other words, is better treated as a footnote or addendum to a ritual abuse article rather than the other way around, acknowledging certainly the dominant impression the former has had on public consciousness (though not perhaps so much outside the US & UK - perhaps this is part of the problem.)

The self-styled satanists have alrady inadvertently pointed out that satanism can be whatever the practicioner -deluded criminal or otherwise- wants it to be, so a ritual abuse, or ritual crime, article might be the better way to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.65.153 (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope. That option has been discussed before and discarded. The scholarly, lengthy volumes about SRA do not focus on the few criminal and delusional crimes that actually happened. They examine the situation and circumstances of the moral panic. SRA is primarily the moral panic, citing the small number of examples (there's roughly five of them I'm aware of) is undue weight on the minor tangents to the McMartin preschool and similar freak-out trials that are the centre of the actual phenomena. That'd be a coatrack and POV fork. It would be based on low-reliability sources that essentially totally avoid dealing with what nearly everyone thinks of when you say "satanic ritual abuse". It wasn't a media panic by the way, massive portions of the US and international community was freaking out over this. The media didn't help, but it wasn't just reporters. And much as we don't maintain lists of "all robberies/murders/bank robberies/any other crime", we don't have a list of all "ritual" crimes. Some stuff on the list of... page are somewhat questionable since they're reported on the basis of news stories rather than scholarly sources that characterize McMartin and other cases. Our goal is to write an encyclopedia, not advocate for ritual abuse being real. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You're arguing points that have been brought up before. Please see the archives. Aside from that, what "verified" ritual abuse cases are you referring to? We'll need to know that before considering an entire RA article. Right now, the only ones I'm aware of are all tied to the SRA panic, none of which are verified and many of which are proven hoaxes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Also please consider that any attempted forking between this article and a "Real Ritual Abuses That Actually Happened" article will just create a back door for the fundie nutters to sneak back into the discussion. Every debunked case covered by this article will appear in the other article, except it'll be asserted to have been a real Satanic Ritual Abuse case. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Though I maintain that the term 'SRA' isn't generally known outside the US.

Incidentally, my reason for having the changes made was due to public statements from respected professional dealing with rape and abuse victims in Ireland who stated that a small minority of the cases they dealt with were cases of ritual abuse. The reference I made to the Cynthia Owen case in Ireland was because that there was indeed official reluctance to deal with her case, and, which is of more concern, that there was a tone of sarcastic disbelief from certain media, etc., when she claimed that the abuse perpetrated on her was was ritualistic. This certainly had a negative effect on her case, until her child's body was eventually found. There have been further allegations from this woman which have not yet been dealt with, along with other, seperate claims of ritual abuse,& I have no doubt that the fact that the studies debunking the McMartin case in America & others are used to hamper them.

I realise that all this falls outside the concerns of an encyclopedia, but I think it would be helpful for Wikipedia contributors to bear in mind if and when there are further cases alleged or studies written.

Also, I now see that if my own position stands opposed to that presented by the dominant studies in this area ( which are in the main 'America-centric' and concerned with the case which were bloated by conspiracists ) rather than that of the contributors here, who must primarily reflect academic opinion. However no matter how many times I read it I cannot but come to the conclusion that it subtly supports rather than neutrally records these studies.

I suppose that I am hoping for an unloaded study that can impartially assess cases of sexual or masochistic abuse throughout history - in light of the fact that sexualised rituals have/do occur(red) in certain religious contexts, and there seem to be isolated propensities in the psychology of certain people to direct these attentions on young/innocent/virginal targets due to a perceived gain to the assailant, rather than solely preying on their weakness.

In the absence of such a study I concede I don't have much of a case here.

But I'll repeat my plea for more prominence - just a line in the opening section - referring to the opposing view.

By the way, and I know by saying this it will seem that I've been sneakily crusading for the cons. theorists all along - have you looked at the recent Casa Pia case in Portugal ? It has certain obvious correspondances with the American Franklin claims - abuse of youths from an institution by politicians and other high-profile individuals, allegations of official protection of the accused and so on, but in the Portuguese case it appears to have all been proven. There, too, was allegations of 'satanism' (small 's'), but they don't seem to have been a major issue in the trial.

Either when horrific crimes of this sort occur, people cannot help but label them 'satanism', or, as with the Irish case the 'satanic' or ritual element has to be suppressed for the victim's case to be taken seriously. Regards, JMR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.186.244 (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you read a little of the literature, you'll find out that some of the most important sources debunking the SRA scare are British.

As for Ireland - haven't looked into it, but it sounds similar to the Isle of Lewis case a few years ago. What happened was the fundamentalist nutbars exported their lunacy out of the US and into England. They got quashed pretty quickly due to a couple high-profile cases in central England, so their story then fanned out into the periphery, eventually surfacing way out in Lewis a few years ago, where a case of familial incest got exploded into allegations against entire families. I wouldn't be surprised if it's now moved to Ireland.

The conspiracy theory story out of Portugal also sounds similar to a story in Ontario, where some town up towards Kingston was allegedly the centre of a vast Satanic conspiracy involving all the city leaders, judges, police etc.; it was believable enough back then to even get mentioned in Parliament. As for most of this stuff, I believe it when I see it. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Irish case was indeed a family incest case, but the only 'satanic' claims originated from the particular victim who tried to have the case taken against her abusers - the media disparaged her story at every turn as a result of this element to her claim.

The Casa Pia case is not a 'theory'- lawyer Hugo Marçal, Physician João Ferreira Diniz, former UN Ambassador Jorge Ritto, Manuel Abrantes, Casa Pia’s former deputy head, Portuguese TV personality Carlos Cruz, Casa Pia driver Carlos Silvino have been convicted of operating and/or availing of a child abuse ring in a chairitable home. There are further allegations against seemingly200 others that can be called either a 'conspiracy theory' or a 'cover-up' according to individual bias, but the rest of the case is proven. Anyway, the point being that the 'SRA' allegations - which as far as I can tell are either fabrications or at least heavily gilded elaborations of some criminal acts - can blind people to the fact that the two of the discredited characteristics of the cases (namely elaborate child abuse rings containing persons of political influence that have hampered the investigations, and abuse of minors with pseudo-religious ritualised elements) do exist, proven respectively by Casa Pia, the Owen case, 'satanic crime' cases that are admitted to have occurred in the Wiki SRA article and some of the Wiki 'List of Ritual Abuse Allegationsarticle. There is no proof of any overlap of these characteristics in any particular case, even where this is often alleged it may be at least sometimes only a popular accretion like some of the sensationalist ones. But the overall picture is nonetheless evolving somewhat to one that doesn't necessarily end in the SRA impasse, and I trust that contributors here won't allow the necessary buffering against NWO-ers IFItalic text it becomes apparent a new approach is called for. Thanks to those who've responded to my comments, regards, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.77.127 (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're calling for, at this point. The Casa Pia case is a Child prostitution ring; there's going to be abusive behavior, but calling it "ritual abuse" seems undue. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I've conceded defeat - in the absence of widespread scholarly recognition of riual abuse as a type-specific phenomenon. The last comment from me was a response to the contribution that immediately preceded it. And I'll sign off on this for good here - I agree that the Casa Pia case has no genuine connection with ritual abuse - there are the usual rumours that it does; I haven't seen anything convincing (the rumours are either false or a neglected element in the trial - we'll default to 'false' in light of lack of evidence). I brought it up to show that there are abuse crimes that occur that do involve high profile abusers and cover up, quite apart from the well-known clerical ones. And there are seperate crimes (murder as well as other forms of abuse) that have occurred that do have a 'ritualistic' element, whether this is pseudo-satanism or any other appellation. There are some acknowledged in the existing article as it stands, and on the List of Abuse Allegations article. Therefore any case that contains either or both of these characteristics cannot be discredited because the specific SRA cases shared them - the refutal of the SRA cases was dependant on quite different grounds. But when cases of either/both ritual abuse / concealed abuse by high-profile persons arises in the world at large they are dismissed (the succinct Wikipedia SRA article is sometimes referred to) because of the similarities. I'm not qualified to correct the situation, and have painted myself into a corner, but the 'taxonomy' of the various strands as they converge in this article seems deficient (which of course can only reflect the most current relevant literature, and not redetermine it). At the very least a case remains to do away with the heading 'Ritual Abuse' altogether rather than consider it as a alternative name for SRA which is the impression given when a search under that heading automatically redirects to SRA, when the two are clearly distinct.

Again, I was conceding defeat - at least with the above qualifications - & I don't think there's a need at present to spend further time on this issue.... .... until the reptilians declare themselves openly, of course.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.223.83 (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well at least you made some interesting comments here on categorization and affinities of motivations in related abuse crimes, unlike the general tone of the talk page dominated by moron wikipedia "editors" who think joking about with "hail satan" on the talk pages adds something to the discussion other than embarrassment for wikipedia itself. Unless they finally decide to hire professional editors wikipedia will remain the garbage site it is it seems...82.21.25.194 (talk) 08:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with WLU here. Case in point: [5]. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

AGTTH, comments like that can get you and wikipedia in trouble, in addition to being in bad taste. We all know about the quality of Napolis' thoughts but since she hasn't re-appeared to spam anything in years, let's let that sleeping dog lie. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)