Talk:Satanic ritual abuse

"Some observers"

It really isn't very helpful to add two consecutive footnotes to "some observers", with only references to apparently hard-copy books from non-academic sources, to a verifiable online press release. The additional citations, with no description of the authors or their credentials, does not add information or substantiation to the press release.

At the very least, explain who these people may be, and why they are qualified as independent supporters of the online press release, accusing Wikipedia of pedophilia. I had not explicitly said the press release was from Neil Brick's organization, to avoid the appearance of "persecution". Nevertheless, is there now a conflict of interest/Topic Informant situation here when the author of a press release, without adding his connection, starts adding sources, not easily verifiable, to support his position? Howard C. Berkowitz 19:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The press release was not added by me. I have no problem if it is deleted. Neil Brick 19:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but I do have a problem of the press release being deleted. It is a public document by a contributor to the topic, which indicates a personal position on the subject. If I write an article on some subject, and I have presented, in public, an opinion on that subject, I believe it only fair that any Citizen be free to cite that information in that article.Howard C. Berkowitz 20:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The sources are adequately described and verifiable. I can find journal articles to replace them. The sources in my edit were meant to verify "is of very serious concern to some observers" and not to verify the newly added part of the sentence to where they were moved.Neil Brick 02:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Adequately described? There is no description at all. The place to which they were moved was entirely accurate: they were not writing in peer-reviewed publications, books from well-known publisher, or even sources verifiable online. If, incidentally, either are so definitive, why must there be two in a row? You will note that I use one citation for each point; if it made a better argument, I could be repetitive and redundant again.

CZ: Neutrality Policy is going to show, at least, that there are diametrically opposed views. In keeping with neutrality policy, the mainstream view is going to get relatively more emphasis. Again, I suggest you read homeopathy and look at how a minority position is described accurately. Incidentally, it might be logical to define Satan and Satanism first, assuming that there is a correlation between them and the ritual abuse theory. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I have attempt to clarify the text, separating the sections out. Also, most of the sources were skeptical ones, so I attempted to add some balance by adding journal articles and other sources (neutrality). I was unable to find any evidence that IPT was peer reviewed. Robinson's page is definitely not peer reviewed. BTW, I did not write the press release.Neil Brick 21:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The authoritative Victor publication was Sociological Perspectives (University of California Press), 41(3): 541-565 (1998). [1] An academic Citizen was able to provide the PDF from JSTOR, which I am now reading and trying to find the relationship of the IPT piece, which looks like a precursor. I'm certainly willing to try to find the exact provenance of the IPT piece; as I scan through the 1998 article, there is very similar text that I'm willing to substitute, with the caveat that it's more lengthy.

As far as the press release, I am perfectly willing to hear that someone else wrote it. Nevertheless, it appears on the S.M.A.R.T. site, where the "Debating The Non-Believers: Getting equal time for Survivors’ Views" page [[2]] states

Neil Brick is a survivor of alleged Masonic Ritual Abuse and MK-ULTRA. He is the editor of S.M.A.R.T. - A Ritual Abuse Newsletter. He has published many articles on ritual abuse

There seems to be no disclaimer of the press release being an individual opinion, and the release is from S.M.A.R.T. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree with making the quote "more lengthy." It is already fairly long. It would be better to have a peer reviewed source in its place.

I believe that any Citizen should be able to support their opinion on topics in Citizendium with appropriate sourcing, whether they have made their opinion public or not. My sources were good ones and now they are even better. If one looks at the style of writing of the press release, it is clearly different from mine here.Neil Brick 03:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

All right. For the record, the IPT citation, which I am replacing, is [

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume3/j3_3_1.htm]. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Questionable reference; problem of conflating sadism and Satanism

This article is titled "Satanic ritual abuse", so it would seem the I have moved the two references out of the text, as they are example of a continuing problem in which terms such as "sadism", "ritual abuse" and "Satanism" seem to be used interchangeably. The only way we will achieve any precision is to be precise with terminology. Conflating various undefined terms is no way to be precise.

• "Ritual Abuse Frequently Asked Questions" [3] defines ritual abuse as "generally used to mean prolonged, extreme, sadistic abuse, especially of children, within a group setting. The group's ideology is used to justify the abuse, and abuse is used to teach the group's ideology. The activities are kept secret from society at large, as they violate norms and laws."

The article, however, is not entitled "ritual abuse".

• Goodwin, G. (1991). Sadistic abuse: definition, recognition, and treatment. Dissociation 6 (2/3): 181-187. only mentions "Satan" in one table and one footnote.

The title term is "sadistic abuse", not Satanic abuse, so it hardly is authoritative on Satanism ritual abuse. It's just fine in an article on sadistic abuse.

Howard C. Berkowitz 03:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Along similar lines, I've been wondering about the following sentence in the first paragraph: "The same source refers to it as synonymous for cult related abuse, ritual abuse, ritualized abuse, sadistic ritual abuse and organized sadistic abuse[1]" This does not sound right, surely there is non-satanic versions of ritual abuse? If so, Satanic riual abuse cannot be synonymous with ritual abuse. Similarly, surely there are cults that are not satanists? Chris Day 04:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Now I see that the second paragraph addresses this. So who are the authors of this definitive source, how could they be sloppy with terminology this way? Is it a reliable source? Or is the terminology really this garbbled in the field? Chris Day 04:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Religion, Law or Anthropology Editor Assistance Requested

I request a ruling that an article dealing with "Satanic ritual abuse" certainly can use sources that specifically address Satanic belief systems or symbols, but that the term is not synonymous with generic ritual abuse. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Assorted questions

"Gould"? "Young"? "Victor"? These are used without first names, and also without the sources in which the quotations appear, which makes this read like notes for an article, as opposed to a live article. Who cares what these different people say? Context must be provided so we can understand why we should care.

The Gould quote does not mention Satanic ritual abuse.

"One article has termed the Wikipedia article on the subject a promotion of pedophilia"--who cares either about what "one article" says, or about the Wikipedia article? This is taken completely out of context.

Meanwhile, virtually nothing is said here about what Satanic ritual abuse is alleged to be.

Please make an effort to construct a narrative, as opposed to collecting what appear to be quotations that might be used in the writing of a later draft. --Larry Sanger 04:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It appears that some of my transition statements to add context for the sources are being deleted and replaced by quotes.Neil Brick 04:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Excessive quote

I pared down a quote from Victor because it was way too long and instead of this being discussed on the talk page it was simply restored to the page as a revert. Rather than pare it down again, I am asking the author of the quote to do so. It is a large portion of the page and gives one paper far too much weight on the topic.Neil Brick 04:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)