User talk:Howard C. Berkowitz/Ritual abuse issues

Comments by Hayford, I believe before the large move

This whole discussion makes me want to either grit my teeth, or scream, or both, but I *do* wonder, in my official capacity as Constable as to why you, Howard, just removed Neil's last comment? Would you please explain? If your explanation is not sufficient, would you then please restore it. Thanks. Hayford Peirce 03:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hayford, I am not sure how to go about this, but the same editor is editing my talk page comments, three times in the last day or so. On another page, he deleted two urls from my talk page comment without a notice in the edit summary. I assumed good faith this was an accident, but it is happening too many times. On this page, he deleted a brief quoted description of a study I had posted without a comment in the edit summary. I asked him not to do so again. Please let me know what I should do about this. Thanks. Neil Brick 03:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been having a *very* difficult time trying to figure out what is going on with this whole discussion and issue. Let me look at your talk page more carefully -- I glanced at it once, but saw nothing amiss. Stand by. Hayford Peirce 03:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see nothing on your talk page that he has changed. You are apparently also referring to *another* article's talk page where he supposedly removed your comments. Which one? I am not going to spend HOURS and hours researching this issue. I say to both you and Howard: if one or the other does something unprofessional (in your opinion), then instantly send a message to the official place: constables@citizendium.org. Please don't wait to bring it up three days later. In the meantime, let me caution both of you to think CAREFULLY before you write comments to each other on all the various pages that you seem to have going. And be absolutely CERTAIN that you are acting correctly before removing ANY material written by the other person. Hayford Peirce 03:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Just before I came back and saw this, I sent a note to the Constabulary. I deny deliberately deleting any link that had an actual function, although I did reformat some that were not usable hyperlinks. Please see my email.

For the record, I am not an editor on this article. I am an author. I am an Editor in the Engineering, Computers, and Military workgroups. While The Other Place calls everyone an editor, that is not CZ terminology. Gareth, incidentally, is an Editor in a workgroup relevant to this article; perhaps that is something to consider when continuing to argue his changes and his rejection of the inclusion of certain links. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where the "editor"-"Editor" discussion cropped up, but Howard is, in fact, correct here. Editors at CZ are more exalted persons than at WP, where *everyone* is an editor. Here we are "authors" (all of us) and "Editors", some of us. An Editor can be an author, but not vice-versa. As Howard says, Gareth is an official Editor in the Workgroup under which this article falls. If he makes an official decision in his capacity as Editor about something in this article you may, I suppose, discuss it briefly with him, but basically it is a closed door. There are official ways to appeal his decision, but simply arguing interminably about it on the Talk page is not one of them. Hayford Peirce 03:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) You deleted two urls at the Satanic ritual abuse page in my talk page comment see [1] line 318

You deleted a brief quote from a journal article on this page see [2] The cite journal already had a url.

And now you deleted an entire paragraph at this dif here [3] though it has been stated above this was an edit conflict.

Again I am asking, please do not delete any more of my talk page comments. Thank you. Neil Brick 03:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Before we get side tracked here, why were the deleted articles relevant to the Satanic ritual abuse article? Neither article mentions it. Both were about crimes involving aggravated rape. What am I missing here? Chris Day 03:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The Hammond, LA case discussed Satanic ritual abuse also, this is from one article "Detectives also believe that members dressed in black to perform rituals that included _____ on a pentagram"

[4] "According to Bernard, the rituals took place in what was called “the room,” which was the church's youth room....The rituals had a Satanic theme, including a Pentagram, the use of animals and animal parts such as chicken feet and the use of animal ____."Neil Brick 04:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

But Howard didn't delete that one. Chris Day 04:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Howard also explained why he deleted the quote:

The citation was adequately described by the URL. The quote I removed was removed as irrelevant to the talk page discussion. It might become relevant if there was consensus to keep the citation at all, but, I would note, both Gareth and disagree with it being in the article at all. Is there a particular reason to restore it here? [5]

Chris Day 04:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The two urls deleted at the Satanic ritual abuse page were directly related to the case. They were deleted without any comment in the edit summary.

He deleted the citation without any notice in the edit summary. When I returned the quote to the page, then he explained why he deleted it. It was relevant to the talk page discussion, because it decscribed the debated study in more detail.Neil Brick 04:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

For one there was not even an article, just a title and a photo. The other had no clear connection to Satanic abuse. If it was somehow related to the hammond star one why didn't you explain the significance? Chris Day 04:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Conflating ritual abuse, Satanic ritual abuse, sadism, and an assortment of other things apparently allows the term "satanic" to be applied to whatever one pleases. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

One article did have information on the case backing up the occurrence. I have not advocated for conflating terms, but have stated there is an overlap and that some articles may discuss both concepts. Neil Brick 11:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Pentagrams do not equate to Satanism

On my talk page, spell out terms, no ---- family friendly, or have them deleted

A Pentagram is not an exclusively Satanic symbol.

In point of fact, many known tribal and modern neopagan Earth religions will perform what is properly called the Great Rite, within a pentagram, as a blessing of the Earth's fertility. It is an act involving consenting adults. No children are present or desired.

This ignorant equating of symbols to whatever one wants to call Satanism is deeply offensive to Wiccans, for example. While I recognize that we don't know accurately the scope of the Burnings of the middle ages, to call the practice good-oriented Witch (a term of respect) abusive and Satanic,is about as welcome as spraying a swastika on a synagogue. I am dead serious here.

Swastikas, incidentally, were good symbols in a number of South Asian and Native American cultures before the seemingly inconceivable Adolf Hitler was conceived. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Swastikas, both left and right handed ones, are very common in English churches. On organ pipes and brasses. Chris Day 05:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that I have made any statements specifically about pentagrams. I have cited articles that mention Satanic ritual abuse as a topic. Neil Brick 11:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Data dumps

Politely, since this is my talk page, you are wrong about this. Random deleting? Yes, you have a point. Reformatting data dumps? In my mind, the same category as Chris fixing a broken <ref> *** <ref/>

This isn't a content issue. Polluting talk pages with dumps and bad formatting is behavior. Show me a place where I've deliberately deleted any actual content and I'll lick it off the screen.

A data dump is bad enough because it adds no value. A badly formatted data dump is worse. I was able to take two or three screens worth of data dump on Talk: Satanic ritual abuse and reformat it such that it was a bunch of bulleted links that could be seen in context. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

And I agree Howard, that it looked much better, but you lost some of the detail, which took a one problem and turned it into two problems. D. Matt Innis 05:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent)The data I have sent was in specific response to the topic to the talk page concerns. I have no problem with reformatting my comments if needed, but I disagree with deleting information from my talk page comments.Neil Brick 11:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'd suggest that cutting and pasting tens of references is not good talk etiquette. Instead I'd suggest it is better to make clear points and then use the articles to clarify the points you are trying to make. For the record, I usually ignore random data dumps, on the other hand I will read a reasoned argument. Chris Day 04:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

In spite of my comments in the section just below, in which I argue for the semi-inviolability of talk pages, I *do* agree with Chris -- they shouldn't be used as massive data dumps. Hayford Peirce 04:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall that someone made a request for information to support Neil's position. D. Matt Innis 04:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, but without context pasting many many references are worthless. We all know it has been in the news. The question is how reliable is the testimony and reporting? Chris Day 04:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I considered it unresponsive.Howard C. Berkowitz 05:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I think that the fact that the references showed legal cases and convictions showed that the phenomenon does exist. I thought I had provided context by explaining the reasons for the references. Neil Brick 11:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Views of article talk pages

Chris makes the point that some of the deleted material from the talk page was duplicated and hence not needed. I take the other point of view: Talk pages are for "robust argument and discussion" as they say about the U.S. policies concerning free speech. If it isn't unprofessional (and that covers a wide ground), then I don't see why a little extraneous material can't be allowed to live on a talk page UNLESS A RELEVANT EDITOR absolutely finds some reason why it shouldn't be there. No one would be happy if I, in my capacity AS AN AUTHOR, simply started deleting their comments and links from various talk pages. Or am I wrong about this? No one would mind? Please, people, LEAVE THE TALK PAGES ALONE! If you have a really serious problem with something appearing on a talk page, help from the Constabulary is only a single email away. Email us at: constables@citizendium.org. Thanks! Hayford Peirce 04:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Though we have talk page etiquette, trying to enforce it as an author only aggravates a strained relationship and lends itself to accusations of dubious intentions. It is best to leave other's comments alone, lest ye be blamed for what might be an innocent mistake. Just don't do it and avoid all accusation of impropriety. D. Matt Innis 04:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hayford, I believe you are wrong about never changing anything on a talk page. Random deleting? Yes, you have a point. Reformatting data dumps? In my mind, the same category as Chris fixing a broken <ref> *** <ref/>

This isn't a content issue. Polluting talk pages with dumps and bad formatting is behavior. Show me a place where I've deliberately deleted any actual content and I'll lick it off the screen.

Data dumps, again

A data dump is bad enough because it adds no value. A badly formatted data dump is worse. I was able to take two or three screens worth of data dump on Talk: Satanic ritual abuse and reformat it such that it was a bunch of bulleted links that could be seen in context. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I was not arguing that it was duplicated but that it was not obviously even relevant. There was not mention of satanic abuse in the NYTimes article. I actually thought it was a different case and possibly mistakenly pasted into page.

Since then I have done a google search for the case (search term bernard+hosanna+satanic) and the top hit suggests that this is a horrendously complicated case. Is this really the most clear cases we have to work with for the Satanic abuse article? It certainly explains why there was not mention of Satanic abuse in the NYTimes article. We have to realise that just because the guy is guilty of horrendous crimes this does not automatically make him a satanist. Chris Day 04:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

A response like that is perfectly reasonable and was all that was necessary on the talk page, thanks Chris. D. Matt Innis 04:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to confirm this is very complicated [6]. This is exactly why random refs are not useful without contextual discussion. Neil I assume you knew this case was complicated but you presented it as a slam dunk example of Satanic ritual abuse? I don't have the inclination to research this more but it is exactly why nobody takes data dumps that seriously. Last time I saw it was on the homeopathy article talk page and again it was without context and only half the story. Chris Day 05:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) The case has had several descriptions of Satanic rituals being used in the media. Abuse was described as happening in those rituals. This is why I cited the case on the talk page.Neil Brick 11:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

response not in time sequence but in a logical flow I will respond very carefully to Mr. Brick: I believe we all understand that you believe that the links supported your position on Satanic ritual abuse. I am perfectly willing to agree that you put them up, in good faith, because you believed them to support that position.

Nevertheless, you have more than one person looking at them and finding them unconvincing. It is not useful to repeat that you think they are supportive. We understand you think that. Others do not think some, at least, are supportive or even relevant. Once there is a single round of presentation and disagreement, it isn't, in my opinion, terrbly useful to repeat your belief about their being supportive. Adding new substantive discussion, addressing the points being made, might help; lots of additional links without context do not.

In such a response, you might also get more support if you made an effort to do something that may not — this is not meant in any sarcastic way — that may not be the case in other forums: stay with a narrow definition of Satanic ritual abuse and build outward from strongest cases.

Try not to use SRA and RA unless others agree to what they mean, and try to keep Satanic ritual abuse on Satanic ritual abuse. There is an article on ritual abuse where some of the discussion may better fit. There may need to be other subarticles of ritual abuse. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The only link that has been discussed in detail so far was the Hammond, LA case. The mainstream media did mention the use of Satanic rituals in abuse situations as I have shown. There were convictions of rape. Of course one cannot be convicted of simply using a Satanic ritual. This is why I assumed it was an example of Satanic ritual abuse. This page [7] appears to be self published and not a reliable source.Neil Brick 23:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Chris, I received an interlibrary loan of Nathan's book yesterday, but haven't yet started reading.

This is one of the reasons I absolutely reject the "SRA", which as far as I can tell conflates about five different things. Matt, this is what I believe I was saying and was being brushed off. Indeed, I had article page content saying much the same thing pulled onto the talk page by Mr. Brick; at this point, the Satanic ritual abuse article page has relatively little content left.

At first look, however, this was ritual abuse that, if anything, was Christian. Now, female genital mutilation is sometimes called Muslim, but principally is associated with specific cultures that happen to be Muslim. Would anyone suggest infibulation is not abuse? Is it done in terms of the ritual of a culture?

Using the words of politeness in removing criticism of one's agenda makes it neither polite nor professional. Howard C. Berkowitz 05:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I moved a large quote onto the talk page, one of which we had disagreed on the appropriate length for discussion. I thought this preferable to editing back and forth. I have proposed a definition for Satanic ritual abuse on the talk page.Neil Brick 23:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Nathan is known in the field for her extreme views on the topic and in my opinion can hardly be considered a balanced or neutral source on the topic. Neil Brick 11:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

"The field"? Sir, shall I give links to websites that name some of your web views as extreme and not balanced or neutral? In order to move on, I suggest you accept that you are on one side, there really are some people that are trying to look objectively at this, there are people that are on another side, and that you are simply not an acknowledged authority on neutrality in this field. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I believe you are on one side also as per your talk page comments and the sources you have used. Nathan is a journalist and to the best of my knowledge neither a psychologist nor a sociologist.Neil Brick 23:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Who brushed you off? D. Matt Innis 05:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

These are all issues that are being dealt with on the article talk page by an editor. It looks like he is receptive? D. Matt Innis 05:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The Editor has good will but limited time. On the talk page of Satanic ritual abuse, I have repeatedly asked that SRA, especially when obviously meant with a fluid definition (i.e., "literature" uses it for sexual, sadistic, satanist, Satanist, and, presumably, socialist), not be used. That has been ignored.

Every effort I have made to make the definition, in the context of an article, specific has been argued by Mr. Brick. Note that I created ritual abuse with the intent of having that as a parent article, and created a stub for sadism. Hand-waving a conflated mixed definition will get us nowhere. Related Articles, Stubs, etc., are all viable CZ ways to try for some precision. Unfortunately, and I'll be blunt on my own talk page, there are advocacy groups that don't seem to want precision, but want a moral crisis. As Chris points out, a number of the "supportive" links don't contain anything about Satanism. Some, which I have verified, point to decent academic articles with "sadistic" or "sexual" in their titles, which turn out to have perhaps one passing paragraph and a footnote mentioning Satanic abuse, sometimes only to point out imprecision.

"Extreme". As I asked on Talk: Satanic ritual abuse, what is "mild" abuse? "Indoctrination", not defined. But the biggie -- "Satanic"! DE DEBBIL MADE ME DO IT! How much more scary and emotional can you get?

Broad statement about pentagrams being Satanic=

Flat statement: generic statements about pentagrams implying something is Satanic is incredibly offensive to Wiccans. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You've lost some

Where is my response that asks everyone to be patient while the editors do their work? D. Matt Innis 22:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

As you said, Matt, it's my talk page and I can delete things. I understand you said that. I privately shared my thoughts, but felt that it was inappropriate here. Please feel free to move this discussion to the Forum. You make calls on what you see as inappropriate on article talk pages; I made such a call here. Essentially, I don't believe we have sufficient Editors to solve these issues in a reasonable time, and other mechanisms have to be explored. I didn't want to argue that point here. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)