User talk:Neil Brick/Sandbox/Hell Minus One

The {{subpages}} template is designed to be used within article clusters and their related pages.
It will not function on User talk pages.

Template as per talk below: I am the author of most of the text at the wikipedia article (there have been edits made by others).Neil Brick 21:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

	NOTICE, please do not remove from top of page.
	I released this article to Wikipedia. In particular, the identical text that appears there is of my sole authorship. Therefore, no credit for Wikipedia content on the Citizendium applies.
	Check the history of edits to see who inserted this notice.

Serious neutrality problem

Until there is some community-agreed neutral article about the existence of satanic ritual abuse, I have a serious problem with articles talking about how individuals recounted it, reported it to uncontrolled surveys, etc. The existence of the phenomenon is certainly not generally accepted.

This took place in the United States. While a police detective may say he confirmed it, the U.S. legal system operates on the assumption of "innocent until proved guilty in a court of law." None of the citations refer to a court determination, only police statements and reports from news organizations.

The statement "Kimberly Perkins: “The lack of prosecution of such reports does not mean that the reports are fictitious.”[4]" is, in the legal system, does not mean anything.

There are statements that there is physical evidence, but no details from a neutral physician.

Presumably living people are the subject of these allegations. I'm really concerned about CZ's position here, both as a home for non-neutral statements, and, in the case of living people, liability. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

IMO, her story is presented neutrally in the article. There were confessions that were discussed in the print and television media. The article simply reports the data available about the book and her story. I don't see where there is a liability issue, since no one is named and there were written confessions with excerpts published in media outlets. Neil Brick 21:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Neil, I don't accept that satanic ritual itself is a neutral concept. Also, the article promotes her book. The article assumes satanic ritual abuse exists.

The lead, saying s "Anne’s story has been confirmed by physical evidence and by the written and verbal confessions of her mother and stepfather" is not neutral. It does not produce the physical evidence, either in details that could be interpreted by neutral medical personnel, or in the form of a report by a clearly neutral medical authority.

Again, in the American legal systems, confessions prove nothing unless they are stipulated in a court of law. Media are not a court of law, but recognized news media have a certain leeway that general publications do not.

Sorry, I can't support this article at all, especially if it is the harbinger of a series on allegations of satanic conspiracies, which don't even make sense in Church of Satan theology, silly as I find it.

It further disturbs me to find this is being propagated at Wikipedia as well, which gives me the impression of advocacy rather than contributing to a neutral body of knowledge. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't see how this article does anything more than simply discuss her story. All statements are documented and back by sources. I am willing to compromise on certain statements in the article, but I do believe the article has a place in Citizendium. Neil Brick 21:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry. While there is documentation, they do not meet any reasonable test of authority. Police and prosecutors, in the American legal system, explicitly do not determine guilt; that is the job of the judiciary. While I can't speak to Utah, it can be surprisingly easy for an aggressive prosecutor to get an indictment from many state grand juries.

At least one of the journalists involved, Kimberly Perkins, is retired from active coverage, and has no national representation as an investigative reporter. It's sad to say, but television news no longer features the integrity of a Edward R. Murrow or Walter Cronkite. Sensationalism is the order of the day; I'd ask any neutral party to read Perkins' summation and imply she is only reporting, not drawing conclusions and reporting them as fact.

"Discuss her story"? As the old TV show used to say, there were millions of stories in the Naked City. Why should this one get any more credence than any other random allegation, unless one is convinced there is a large scale coverup of Satanist ritual abuse, hidden better than virtually any government secret, and one must reveal it? You might start by presenting non-anecdotal evidence that satanist ritual abuse exists, and why, from any known Satanist theology, they would want to be doing it.

After the Extreme Abuse Survey, I am very concerned that you may be bringing in a series of allegations of ritual abuse and mind control, none with strong evidence from neutral parties. It would comfort me if there was more contribution on the nature and rationale of the (using the legal term) conspiracy, not anecdotes, not self-selecting surveys that don't meet any reasonable social science criterion of validation. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I am more concerned that the article talks about "Jenny", Kim Perkins and Rachael and we have no idea who they are? It's also not clear who abused her (though I assume it was her parents) or what made it satanic or ritual or abuse? It needs work. D. Matt Innis 00:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Kimberley Perkins is the retired Utah TV journalist who made the flat statment that ritual abuse exists, but is hard to prosecute. I think Rachael is an alias used in some reports about Anne, but I'm not sure. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's the sort of problem I see with it, the story is told in the footnotes, not the article. D. Matt Innis 00:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Unfortunately there are no neutral parties in the field. There is the FMSF, the Eberle's, Underwager and affiliated researchers to the FMSF (predominately those that defend alleged and convicted perpetrators) and survivors and therapists that claim ritual abuse exists that have published journal articles and have written books. The use of the word "conspiracy" in my opinion would be pejorative, since it connotates falsehood. The name "Rachel" was an alias used by Anne to protect her identity in 1995. This could be clarified in the article. Neil Brick 03:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No neutral people? Are you seriously suggesting that the world is divided into perpetrators and their protectors, and the victims of the perpetrators? Anyone who doubts any allegations must be protecting? Does that make me a protector because I find some of the claims implausible? That has the flavor of what Wiccans call the times of the burnings; anyone suspected of witchcraft was guilty; anyone who questioned it also became guilty.

By saying "alleged and convicted", are you suggesting that all allegations are true, and just that some perpetrators get away with it? If not, what do you mean by that phrasing? Are there ever inaccurate accusations?

Sorry, if that's the case, it does meet my definition of a conspiracy: either you agree with the assertion, or you are denying it. There seems a basic question that never gets addressed: why are all these wildly varying accused groups abusing children? Do you really believe that intelligence agencies wait for graduates of lesser abuse to become operational trainees, rather than selecting adults with demonstrated potential? Howard C. Berkowitz 03:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, IMO, there are no neutral parties. It became a very emotional debate early on, with the media either strongly backing one side or the other. It is difficult to tell whether certain cases were false accusations or whether they were cover ups of data at times. And it appears that some of those promoting skeptical theories did have ideological leanings toward pro-incest philosophies (Underwager, Gardner) or were pornographers themselves (Eberle's). It would be nice if there was a neutral party to go through all of the cases and sort out of all the data from the last 25 years. Early on, there were a few attempts to do this (like Hechler's book). But even one that attempted to tell a neutral story (like Stanton from Newsweek 1997) was attacked by the FMSF and the story was never published.Neil Brick 04:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If there are no neutral parties, and I doubt the truth of all allegations of child abuse, I don't particularly like the implications that I am pro-incest, pro-abuse, or anti-accusation-is-enough. That is, logically, what you are saying: either agree with you, or be counted as an abuser.

But, to take that out of personal terms, what you are saying is that it is impossible to write a neutral article on the subject. Since Citizendium has a basic principle of neutrality, are you saying that you want an exception, or that you are withdrawing the article because it cannot be neutral? Howard C. Berkowitz 04:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No inference was made or meant about any of the contributors on this page. It is interesting that the story of a woman that is backed by reported confessions would be this controversial and would not be allowed to stay on the page as is. I think that the article should be her account of the story. If there are other published accounts of her story, then they should be included. I believe that the article is neutral now, as it uses the word alleged, etc. throughout and has been critiqued several times in the present article.Neil Brick 05:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia issue -- please take the necessary steps

Hi, Neil, I see that this article is 100% the same as a recently created one at Wikipedia, and yet you have not said that it is a copy of a Wikipedia article. This raises a whole separate issue. You can check off the Wikipedia box at the bottom of the article, and then put a template on the talk page saying that you yourself are the 100% author of the Wikipedia article. If you do those things, I'll bow out and let others discuss. Otherwise, acting as a Constable, I will delete the article. Hayford Peirce 21:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

WP template

Here's the template you should use, either using all the present text within it, or modifying that text as needed. Please move it to the top of the page, under the Subpage template. Thanks! Hayford Peirce 21:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

{{WPauthor}}

Put in nowiki to show what actually needs to be coded. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Constable action

Hello all, I did move the majority of the article to User talk:Neil Brick/Hell minus one. While the memoir may or may not be something to write about, it wasn't clear that the remainder of the text was talking about the memoir, which I believe is what the article is about. Regardless, Neil, clean it up and put something together that is neutral (meaning covers all competing perspectives more thoroughly) and we'll go from there. D. Matt Innis 23:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, surely this article would fall under other workgroups besides psychology. D. Matt Innis 23:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, for social science, sociology may be more relevant than psychology, with due regard that there is such a discipline as social psychology. Nevertheless, if one assumes these abusing groups exist, then the behavior of a group within a society seems much closer to sociology. If one assumes they do not exist, sociology still applies, as it addresses why a group would have such intensive beliefs. Psychology could be relevant in discussing her reactions as a person.

Things get blurry between law and media, since the claims of proof seem to be in law enforcement and media, not the courts. If Satanism is involved, one might want input from Religion. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Do any of those fields make regular scholarly study of claims of satanic ritual abuse enough to be a reasonable voice concerning that subject? D. Matt Innis 23:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that makes this title workable is that it is the title of a book, so that is what the article should be about. Unless someone can convince me otherwise, to write articles about everyone who claims to be subjected to abuse doesn't seem to be reasonably maintainable. What about the literature workgroup? D. Matt Innis 00:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's more the negative assertion. See, for example, the National Academy of Science [1], Understanding Child Abuse and Neglect (1993), Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (CBASSE). The term "ritual abuse" appears once in the book and never "Satanic". Look at our article Pseudoscience#Other. I've never seen a serious scientific source suggest it is other than a conspiracy theory. addition See one Distinguished Professor, Psychology and Social Behavior at Stanford: http://socialecology.uci.edu/faculty/eloftus/ (and I'm not related to the Berkowitz in the paper she cites)

The maintainability point is well taken. I've published engineering books, but don't necessarily try to keep them updated once some of the technologies became obsolete. Even if literature were to take it, is it rational to offer a policy that any book can have its own article? Matt, I used to work for the Library of Congress, which has the right to accession any book copyrighted in the U.S. At most, it took in 20 percent of them. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As a one-time writer myself, I am firmly of the belief that CZ ought to have an article about each and every book ever published in the world. As long as someone else writes them! Just because the LoC doesn't have enough space to take in every *physical* book, what does that have to do with CZ not having articles about even the most trivial books -- *as long as they're written in an encyclopedic way*? That's what we're here for, remember? Hayford Peirce 01:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave that up to the literature workgroup! I think we should leave the satanic ritual abuse to the experts in psychology, sociology and religion. I bet they have lots to say, too, but I don't think it should be on an article titled Hell Minus One. That should be reserved for the book. I suggest remove psychology and replace it with literature and make this article about the book only. I will leave that to those who decide content, though and back out of here. D. Matt Innis 01:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I have made some major changes to the article, attributing statements to the media, using more neutral terminology and changing cquotes to blockquotes. I agree that it should be in the literature section and will work on this next.Neil Brick 04:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Neil, but that wasn't much better. Let's work on it in you talk space and when you are done, ask me on my talk page and I will be glad to come take a look and even help. You might consider asking for some help from others in the Literature workgroup as well. Until then, don't put the article back in mainspace. D. Matt Innis 04:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In all honesty, I am not happy about this. The article at this point uses neutral language throughout and clearly attributes sources showing that the statements made belong either to Anne or some other source. I am willing to see some additional minor changes, but I don't see how it could be more neutral in terms of terminology or source attribution. Neil Brick 05:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)