Talk:Satanic ritual abuse: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz
(Corrected article to topic)
imported>Neil Brick
Line 10: Line 10:


::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.[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 20:04, 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.[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 20:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::The sources are adequately described and verifiable. I can find journal articles to replace them.[[User:Neil Brick|Neil Brick]] 02:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:17, 21 March 2009

This article is developing and not approved.
 Main Article
 Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition:  The infliction of nonconsensual rituals, based on Satanic symbols or belief [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories:  Religion, Law and Psychology [Editors asked to check categories]
 Talk Archive:  1, 2  English language variant:  American English

"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.Neil Brick 02:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Satanic_ritual_abuse&oldid=600030"