Jump to content

Talk:Pace memorandum/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Invalid points

This article states numerous times that everything in it is 'alleged'. I question, taking that into consideration, if it is necessary to have this article at all. I will nominate it for deletion for this reason, should more reliable references, and the reson we need a page discussing 'alleged' events not be provided.

once again, more factual references are needed, and other pov's. The references provided are useless as far as obtaining any factual evidence for the most part, and seem to be there just to look like references are cited. This is just my opinion though.--Carterdriggs 07:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of the article is not to prove that the alleged events occurred. On the contrary, it is a notable incident because it was part of the great "Satanism" scare of the 1980s-1990s in the United States, and many people view the Satanism scare one huge hoax or delusion. I tried to keep NPOV in writing this so that the reader could make up his or her own mind. I think there are ample sources cited to demonstrate notability. IMO, there is not really any solid evidence that any Satanic ritual abuse has occurred in the U.S., but there is a page on it that discusses the controversy. That's what this page does, and a separate page was created rather than adding a huge section to that article. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 07:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't understand your claim that "only one side" is presented. The allegations are set out, as are Pace's comments on them (that he believed them), and then it's set out that the state of Utah investigated and essentially found nothing. What side isn't being presented? Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 07:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Rich, if this is part of the whole Satanism scare of the 80s and 90s, maybe it should be part of that article, Satanic ritual abuse. I suspect that the high correlation is more a propros in a singe article than in separate articles. In fact, it seems like there are not a lot of single articles. Do you think that this one is significantly different such that a merge is unworkable? --Storm Rider (talk) 08:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if you look at that article, there are a lot of brief mentions of incidents that then link to main articles: e.g., West Memphis 3; Adam (unsolved Thames murder case). The article there is just getting too unwieldy to include every relevant incident there. It's slowly becoming more of a category-foundation type article. If the information were to be included there, it wouldn't be long until the calls started there to make it a separate article. I see no problem with it being separate, and it seems to be the trend with these types of issues.
The concern expressed here as I understood it was that the article was POV and only presenting "one side" of the story. Merging the article wouldn't really do anything to help resolve those (perceived) problems, I don't think—but you'd have to ask Carter exactly what he had in mind as I was not at all clear about it. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 09:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Nope, POV is not my issue. My concern is that you stated and the article states that this is part of a larger phenomena in society. There is an article for that topic, but this one, which was never part of the topic article is broken out separate. We brake an article out when it is so significant that it deserves a separate article. My questions left unanswered from above are: is this article significantly different? and 2) is a merge unworkable?
Your argument that the article is getting too unwieldy is specious; relative to a vast number of articles it is short. The whole article, Satanic ritual abuse, is about a specific type of false accusations. That appears to be exactly this situation. Accusations were made, no evidence found to support the claims. That is the meat of this article. Am I missing something or is there another motive for the article that I am missing; something that makes this unique and deserving of a separate article from the main topic.
The name of the article is also incorrect. There is no correlation between the LDS church and the Satanic rituals. There does appear a correlation between members of the LDS church who abused their children, RACHEL HOPKINS: PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, being the one found in the references. There have been leaders who commented on the issue within the membership, Pace being the main one. I have seen no evidence to support tying Satanic ritual abuse to the LDS church.
Also, you mention the West Memphis 3, which is a completely different type of article. 3 men were found guilty, sent to jail, remain in jail, and are believed innocent. That is significantly different than this article where no one was convicted because there were no trials, because there was no evidence to support any of the claims. The more I review this the more uncomfortable I become; I see no reason for a separate article. --Storm Rider (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I obviously do, and it does differ in some respects from Satanic ritual abuse for the very reasons you outline. Being "uncomfortable" with a topic is not a good reason to merge it. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
We sure seem to be talking past one another and I don't know how I can communicate more clearly. My discomfort is with you and your editing. There is no difference between this article and the main article except in the main article there were actually individuals who were convicted. You have evaded all questions posed, please answer them:
  1. Was anyone convicted?
  2. Was the LDS involved in any of the stories or was it just members of the LDS church?
  3. How is the article unwieldy? By what standards is it unwieldy or is it just your preference?
  4. What exactly is significant about this article than the main article?
I readily tire of BS and you have provided nothing but you wishes and continue to dodge every opportunity at discussion. It is difficult to assume good faith when you actions are so seem so contrary; just share your bloody thoughts by answering some simple questions. --Storm Rider (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
No one asks you to stick around to deal with the, as you so eloquently put it, "[my] BS" (vocab of a true scholar, I see), so if you tire of it, you are free to leave this page or WP in general. The onus is on you to prove that a merge is appropriate, not upon me to prove otherwise. I suggest you calm down—we've heard your views, and I understand them, at least, and it's not really necessary to go on and on ad infinitum, as you seem to want to. I've also made my comments, which you can review at your leisure; if you have failed to grasp my points, that's fine, but I think we need to open it up to others now. I've decided to back off this issue and this will be my last comments here for awhile. You seem to be taking this very seriously, which is kind of amusing for me, but at the same time, reminds me of why I'm glad I have a real life. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 10:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion?

I'm not exactly sure why the article was nominated for speedy deletion. This is not the way to do it if you want a discussion about it. The article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. If you want to start an deletion discussion, then you need to start an AfD. The only reason I'm not removing the speedy tag is that I started the article myself. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

speedy deletion is warranted, at least for nomination becuase I feel, along with the other commenter on this page, that it is unnecessary. we will wait for others to look at it, and review. I could care less about the topic. If I cared about the topic, I'd delete every article that had any anti-LDS feel. I'm not like that. It's just a bad topic, bad article, and needs to be merged as was previously suggested. Well referenced? Yeah, to other wikipedia articles, or to non-link information that can't be readily contested. We'll wait for further discussion --Carterdriggs 10:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

So I'm curious—which one of the qualification for speedy deletion does this fit under?

  1. Patent nonsense and gibberish
  2. Test pages
  3. Pure vandalism
  4. Recreation of deleted material
  5. Banned user
  6. Housekeeping
  7. Author requests deletion
  8. Office actions
  9. Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity
  10. Blatant copyright infringement
  11. No context
  12. No content
  13. Transwikied articles
  14. No assertion of importance/significance

Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity --Carterdriggs 10:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I think this article is about more than disparaging a subject or entity. It is not an attack page. It discusses a historical event that was relatively prominent and newsworthy in the news of the time and place. When I wrote the article, I tried to make it NPOV and present "both sides" by just presenting factual information and providing solid references. It sounds like you just aren't that thrilled about the topic even existing, which is fine, but it's not for you to take it out on the article. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I am against the deletion of the article. I believe that the information presented is substantial enough to deserve its own page. Abuse truth 00:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

Nominated for neutrality review as per guidelines, and text above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carterdriggs (talk • contribs) 10:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to specifically set out what your concerns are with respect to NPOV. What statements are problematic? What statements are made that are uncited and POV? It does little good to nominate it for review when your only complaint so far has been that the article deals with unproven allegations that have been investigated by church and state. Are you concerned about NPOV, or are you trying to start an AFD? If you want deletion to be discussed, you need to start an WP:AFD. If you have specific concerns, I'm sure we can find someone who can review for neutrality/bias. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Then find someone who can verify it's neutrality, and this time, preferrably not an administartor who's a friend of yours. --12.47.205.126 10:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm tired of you pretending that your articles aren't biased? It's ridiculous, and offensive. I don't have to cite specific instances, because it's the WHOLE article! --12.47.205.126 11:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure user Carter Driggs knows what tags he's using, and it seems like you just wish he weren't using them. --12.47.205.126 11:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note to the anon IP. "and this time, preferrably not an administartor who's a friend of yours". Please do not make unsubstantiated allegations. This talk page is for improving the article. For the record I have never interacted with Rich Uncle Skeleton prior to this. Pedro :  Chat  11:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • In the past, anon 12.47.205.126 has made a comment on my talk page, and that comment was quickly edited by Carterdriggs to indicate that it was his/hers. See HERE. That IP address and Carterdriggs have also been active on the same WP pages the past few days. It seems to me to be a fairly obvious case of anon-IP sockpuppetry, which I'm a little disappointed about. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was leaving work and had signed out, and edited signature when I got home cause I wanted you to know who you were talking to. Anyways, sorry for the unsubstantiated remark Admin, and read what I've said on your talk page. Thank you. --Carterdriggs 11:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine—I have no problem with users using IP addresses, but it's not really so great when you sign as an IP address and make it appear that this IP address user is supporting a different user, that is, Carterdriggs. You referred to Carterdriggs in the 3rd person, which made it look like another user was commenting. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the article is neutral and presents both sides of the issue. Abuse truth 00:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Okay, I've reviewed the article and this talk page discussion. I have to say I think that it is written in a tone that does not contain any strong POV. However I do think some work could be done and would welcome discussion on the following;

  1. "Some members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have complained " - this was an histroical event and the lead makes it sound like breaking news. Possibly something like "in 199x some members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints made complaints that..."
  2. "no reliable evidence has been produced that suggests that these allegations are true." Again reword to make it past tense. Also I'd like to see this strongly cited with an in-line as it is a bold statement.
  3. Background. Again a strong in line citation at the end of this section.
  4. "It was also widely reported that..." weasel words unless we can back this up (specifically the word widely)
  5. "Scott's warning is reflective of the beliefs of SRA skeptics..." I can't see that comment in the cited material. If I'm wrong sorry, otherwise is this original research ?

This is without prejudice to any AFD or merge as discussed above. However I would suspect it would survive as the events are notable and there is sufficent reliable sources to provide content for a stand alone article.

I am not removing the POV tag at present, and would be delighted if a third party would also like to comment. However I would urge User:Carterdriggs to consider removing it. I hope that we can all collaborate to improve the article.I understand that things like this generate a lot of powerful debate due to the nature of them, but let us all remain constructive and polite to resolve editing dificulties. Pedro :  Chat  12:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments—I think they are very helpful. I feel comfortable with all the points you make and am completely in agreement that the changes/adjustments you suggest would be appropriate. I think you are probably right with #5 that it is WP:OR, because I can't remember specifically reading that kind of suggestion in the sources I used when writing the article. I too would be happy to see other previously uninvolved editors review it and see what they think. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Pace memo

This is an excellent memo; it would be helpful if we actual use in as it is written. The first sentence reads:

Pursuant to the Committee's request, I am writing this memorandum to pass along what I have learned about ritualistic child abuse.

Now I know that when one writes for STAR magazine or other fine, contemporary publications, it is the norm to sensationalize the topic. However, doing so on Wikipedia fails WP:NPOV and WP:OR. There is a difference between ritualistic child abuse, which is what Pace reported on, and Satanic ritual abuse, which is actually a subset of the first category. If we are going to actual make this something more than a farce, how about we forget about the spin and quote the source. This is getting deeper by the minute, Rich, and you are failing to take a breath and realize the numerous shortfalls to this silliness. It is beneath you. --Storm Rider (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It was suggested by the administrator that the tag be removed, which I will do, once the article no longer ties Satanic Ritual Abuse to the LDS church. It was stated before, and not by me, that it is no problem to tie Ritual Child Abuse to it, but Satanic? No, I think not. This just stays in line with Rich Uncle Skeleton writing or contributing mostly to articles that have something to do with the LDS church....and controversy. A title like Ritual Child Abuse, and the LDS church is someting that, while uncomfortable, I can deal with. Any thoughts? Carterdriggs 22:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Read the entire memo, not just the first lines. It farily clearly links the ritual abuse to Satanism, and SRA is a term that has been used to describe this type of abuse—the last part of the memo focuses quite heavily on LDS scriptures and links to Satan, Cain, secret combos, etc. Read the other sources that are provided, too. Go to a library and look up the newspaper articles. It is clear from these other sources that they are talking about "SRA", not general ritual child abuse in the abstract. Renaming could be a possibility, but to be legitimate we would probably need to first change the name of the article Satanic ritual abuse, since that is the generally accepted term being used right now in WP articles. I don't think a tag that states the article has been nominated to check for NPOV is the right tag to leave on if the concern is over the name of the article, though. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The title is ONE of the concerns. The tag will stay as a result. You, I'm sure will ask for specifics AGAIN, but I implore you to just read. Carterdriggs 00:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It has now been reviewed by two outside readers per the nomination, and both have said overall it is neutral. The tag says it has been nominated for review. That nomination is in the process of being fulfilled, if it has not been fulfilled already (I'm sure we can get a third and fourth reader too). If you have other ongoing concerns about the article, you (or whoseever they are) should use the tag specific to those concerns, not the one about nominating it for review when this has happened or is happening. It's a technical point about templates, but important to get right in the view of some editors. :) Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I can understand your desire for a more narrow reading of the memo; after all if you took the memo in its entirety you would lose the wonderfully sensationalistic term "Satanic"; doesn't it just reach off the page and grab the prurient nature of the reader. It is particularly good when you can tie it to a church; it is a shame it could not be the more common target of the Catholic church, but the LDS church will do just fine, after all it is an evil cult you know and this just adds more fuel to that bit of fire. What we really need to do is have a picture of Satan superimposed over the picture of Gordon B. Hinckley; gosh Rich, you would be really a good editor if you could accomplish that. Of course, if you want to be really good you could also cause the Theme from the Exorcist to play as soon as a reader clicks on the article. Then we would really have a more sensational article.
What on earth is the value of a statement like, Abuse truth's, "I am against the deletion of the article. I believe that the information presented is substantial enough to deserve its own page." That is a vote, not an evaluation. Why is it substantial? relative to what? Do any of you read the friggin main article???? It is like working with spoiled brats, "Because I want it that way" is not a answer to a question, it is a personal wish fit for conversation between preteens. I can't believe how many times I get this kind of drivel as an attempt at a response. Look people, if you can't engage and explain yourself, please, please stop editing and just create a blog. This is a bloody encyclopedia. I see how quickly any of you have answered the questions above! For goodness sakes don't answer questions then you would have to see for yourself how specious your position is.
I think we are at logger heads and there will be no agreement reached between us. I hate voting and I think it can be evil, but I would like to see input from other readers rather than just keep this amongst us good friends. I would think a vote on a merge and/or a rename of the article itself. Satanic may fit a narrow definition (and appeal to that wonderful sensationalistic POV you pander to so much), but it does not encompass the totality of Pace's memorandum, the reason it was requested, or all of the cases that were brought up and discussed in the memo. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This seems to boil down to a question of wether the article title should start with the word "Satanic" or not. I am at work and cannot access the cited work by Pace, so cannot judge at the moment. User:Storm Rider I would ask that you calm down and not use discussion to make sleights at other editors "Do any of you read the friggin main article???? It is like working with spoiled brats". Until I can peruse the Pace memo over the weekend no comment. This is an under active talk page so a !vote will not achieve anything. I would ask all concerned to take a breath and question in their hearts 1) if the "Satanic" part of the title is fully matched by the sources and 2) If dropping that part in the title would make the article less relevant or meaningful to an encyclopedia. Pedro :  Chat  07:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Pedro. Yes, I would appreciate it if I could have some good faith assumption floated my way. I'm tired of being personally WP:ATTACKed just because some editors don't agree with my choice of edit topics or my style of writing. (I was not "sensationalistic" in my writing—if you think this is sensational, then you haven't read the sensational material related to this topic. So far two independent editors have said overall it is written in a NPOV style. Yes, it can be improved, but I don't like the blanket accusations.) There are kinder and more amicable ways of dealing with these issues, and it shouldn't take Pedro coming in to meet that standard.

I think upon reviewing the Pace memorandum (again) that so-called "Satanism" was quite a central feature of the allegations that were being made. At the end of the memo, Pace comments at some length from LDS scriptures regarding Satan's deal with Cain to make him Master Mahan, secret combinations inspired by Satan, etc. Some of the central allegations were how the complainants claimed they were baptized in blood to cancel their LDS baptism; some claimed to have been held under water and then "rescued" by someone who claimed to be a representative of Satan. Clearly, these allegations were about more than just "secular" ritualized child abuse. There was a definite theme of "Satanism" running throughout, and it's not not really fair to say what the accusations were was not "Satanic ritual abuse" just because Pace didn't use the precise term in his lead sentence of the memo. (In fact, the term was likely invented after he wrote the memorandum, but things can (and are) retroactively named all the time as they come to be recognized in retrospect as part of a pattern.) In any case, until this can be reviewed by Pedro and perhaps someone else, I think we should stop the edit war and leave it at "Satanic" for now, since that's the name of the article right now and it makes little sense to change the introduction until the name changes. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 09:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Administrator note I have also watched the slow revert war going on on one sentence. I'd like to remind Rich Uncle Skeleton and Storm Rider of WP:3RR at this point in time. I will fully protect if this continues, until editing disputes are resolved. Let's ensure no-one get a 3RR warning on their user page over this please. Pedro :  Chat  09:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment (from one of the guilty parties) Thanks for the reminder. I realized I had done a third edit right after I made the last edit, and I wished I hadn't right after I hit submit. I'm planning on laying off it from here on out and look forward to your review when you get a chance, Pedro. I have no quibble with temporary protection until things can simmer down. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 09:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Pretty good spin above on why Pace included several references to specific scriptures to the Committee. However, it misrepresents what Pace stated. The reason for the inclusion as he stated was as follows:
"The few priesthood leaders who have had to face these issues are crying out for help because they don’t want to give their own opinions and yet there is no place to go for an answer. A bishop will go to his stake president who says he doesn’t believe it is happening and that the member is just crazy. The stake president might go to an Area Presidency who will react in a similar way. Most people are afraid to surface it to the First Presidency for fear of getting the same reaction and don’t want to appear crazy themselves for asking the question.
I hope you will excuse me if I am being presumptuous, but I am concluding this paper with scriptures I feel support my belief that these activities are real and cannot be ignored.
The things I have been writing about go back to Cain and Abel:"
He then proceeded to cite multiple scriptures all dealing with Satan's interactions with humanity. As he states above, his purpose was to demonstrate that these types of things have been evident throughout history and they should not be rejected out of hand. LDS believe that all works of darkness emanate from Satan. Using Rich's standard we would have to call the little boy who stole gum at the grocery store a Satanist because he sinned.
My contention is that the instances recounted by Pace all fall under ritualistic child abuse (the same terms Pace used in his memo) which is a broader category than Satanic ritual abuse. In fact, Pace defined ritualistic child abuse as follows:
"Ritualistic child abuse is the most hideous of all child abuse. The basic objective is premeditated—to systematically and methodically torture and terrorize children until they are forced to dissociate. The torture is not a consequence of the loss of temper, but the execution of well-planned, well-thought out rituals often performed by close relatives. The only escape for the children is to dissociate. They will develop a new personality to enable them to endure various forms of abuse. When the episode is over, the core personality is again in control and the individual is not conscious of what happened. Dissociation also serves the purposes of the occult because the children have no day-to-day memory of the atrocities. They go through adolescence and early adulthood with no active memory of what is taking place. Oftentimes they continue in rituals through their teens and early twenties, unaware of their involvement."
All child abuse could be considered satanic, just as all murders and rapes could be considered satanic and the works of Satan, Pace's article simply includes the function of Satan in a broader context of ritualistic child abuse.
Pace's memo and plea is to take the claims of these individuals seriously, not that all of their memories are true. Pace was not and is not qualified to make such statements. His entire professional career was as an accountant and he had no training as a mental health professional (something left out of the article). He does not allege that each of people interviewed recounted true stories, but simply that they believed they were true stories. He felt strongly that something happened to them, but did not stated their memories were accurate. That is the heinous nature of these crimes against children; it results in severe mental disturbance such as schizophrenia. The truth between actual events and hallucinations becomes completely blurred for these victims.
Pedro, I would also add that nothing in the article or in any of the sources alleges The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was involved in any of these instances of abuse. What they do allege is that some of those who perpetrated these heinous acts were members of the church. Sensational is defined as "producing or designed to produce a startling effect, strong reaction, intense interest, etc., esp. by exaggerated, superficial, or lurid elements". I submit that this article is designed to be sensational by use two elements "Satanic" and the name of the Mormon church. The abuse when beyond Satanic worship and Satanic ritual abuse is just a subset of the full abuse that was alleged. Two, the LDS church was not involved as portrayed by the title; just members. Last of all, after the state of Utah expended a considerable sum of money not one person was convicted of wrong doing. --Storm Rider (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I wish you would stop ascribing intents to my edits which were made in good faith. One of your two definitions of "sensational" clearly involves an element of intent, and I did not have that intent. Please restrict your comments to improving the article and stop the subtle (and the not-so-subtle) WP:ATTACKs. If you meant the non-intentional meaning of sensational, I apologize, but you should definitely specify that as your comments are ripe for misinterpretation. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Enough already on whining about being personally attacked! I have not attacked you personally, I have certainly attacked your edits and the manner in which you have refused to explain your reasoning. You seem to think that "a good faith" edit trumps accuracy, fairness of tone, balance, synthesis, and original research. Please show me that policy; it is my understaning of policy that they all are of superior value to wikipedia than an individual's good faith edits.
You have not yet answered one question of the many I have asked that would allow others to understand your position and you have reverted anyone that has dared to edit the article in a manner contrary to your express desires; this is known as ownership and is not acceptable on wikipedia. It is easy for a new editor to assume that because they created an article it therefore must remain as they first wrote it and only they are entitled to edit it in a substantive manner. I suggest your review the policy. --Storm Rider (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I think I have said enough on this page already and won't be making any more substantive comments, at least for awhile. Anyone interested in my views can read them above. I suggest that everyone and the article would benefit from some diversity of input at this point. We have heard voices from both sides, some more shrill than others, and I doubt anyone is really interested in hearing more from those same voices. Cheers. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Editorial comments are getting more interesting; unfortunately, they are just as vacuous and seemingly motivated more by a desire to read one's own words, but alas Wikipedia is open to all without any claim to expertise or merit. What remains is that not one reason that supports keeping the title of the article is currently based upon:
  1. There was no historical event or participation even alleged by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in ritualistic child abuse; there are only allegations that members of the church had participated in such abuse. The title is POV and misleads readers to assume the LDS church itself participated in abuse.
  2. Stating that this title must stay because "Renaming could be a possibility, but to be legitimate we would probably need to first change the name of the article Satanic ritual abuse, since that is the generally accepted term being used right now in WP articles." is unaccepted reasoning as clarified in WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ALLORNOTHING. It does not matter what another title is or was called; are you are proposing that this article be merged?
  3. When Pace stated in the opening of his memo, "Pursuant to the Committee’s request, I am writing this memorandum to pass along what I have learned about ritualistic child abuse.", he is clear he was not reporting on Satanic ritual abuse even though clearly knew that some of the cases he reviewed included such. To use only the narrower subset of ritualistic child abuse is a synthesis of the full purpose of the memo resulting in sensational, POV editing.
  4. A member of the presiding bishopric with no qualifications in mental health (professionally, he was an accountant), in a private memorandum, summarized that he interviewed 60 individuals who claimed to be victims of ritualized child abuse perpetrated by their parents and others and that he was convinced that some of them had to have endured some form of abuse. This private memorandum pales in value to the review by the State of Utah by qualified individuals that found no legitimacy to any of the claims.
  5. Not one case was found to have any supporting evidence as determined by the State of Utah. Not only was the church ever alleged to have been involved, but not even a single member was charged or convicted of any of the claimed abuse. The title is a red-herring and is blatantly fraudulent; no satanic ritual abuse involving the LDS church is discussed in the article.
  6. Pace's memo is clear that some of the abuse involved Satanic ritual, but he was addressing a much larger issue of ritualized child abuse. It is more sensational to name the article Satanic, particularly when also including the name of a church, but it is a clear, mendacious misnomer and perpetrates a POV and unworthy of an encyclopedia article.
A decision needs to reached on whether this article should remain on its own or merged into another article. If it remains, the title must be changed because it fails to meet Wikipedia policy on many levels. --Storm Rider (talk) 03:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
In the light of the above argument, I have two items about notability:
  1. Since this is an article about allegations only, does it meet notability guidelines? It certainly has a lot of information, but still it must be notable.
  2. Whether or not this article is notable, the Glenn L. Pace article doesn't stand on its own without this article. Since that article is a stub anyway, I suggest that it be merged with this article.
Anybody have any other input? — Val42 03:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really want to get involved in this brouhaha, but as a suggestion, perhaps as a compromise the article could be renamed Pace memorandum rather than being merged with another. Rich Uncle Skeleton seems to want to keep the article separate, while others seems to want to merge it. Why not just rename it under a more innocuous name? The content of the article to me seems fairly NPOV. Snocrates 23:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Further Review

All, I will try to review over the weekend. Please accept my apologies in advance for slow responses as I have family commitments more important than Wikipedia. I have made one minor change to the article, in debolding "satanic ritual abuse". Please do not revert this. Please all feel free to ask for other third party opinions on this, and I thank you all for using this talk page and not edit waring. There will be a way through this, of that I assure you, and I ask for your further patience and contributions as we work towards the aim of creating an encyclopedic article, of the standards that we would expect to come across were we reders indifferent of the subject. Best. Pedro :  Chat  20:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

God Makers II

I'm surprised that the article doesn't reference the 1993 film The God Makers II at all. This is where Ed Decker tried to use the Pace memo in order to support his assertion that Mormonism and Satanism were tied together. The title of the article appears to line right up with Decker’s goal. Decker says:

For years, we at Saints Alive have warned of the Luciferian roots of Mormonism and the satanic worship within its ranks. Now at last the LDS church has officially acknowledged that we were right. Recently, a secret internal report surfaced from Mormon bishop Glen Pace, a member of the presiding bishopric of the LDS church. It alleged that widespread satanic ritual abuse across America, Mexico and elsewhere was being perpetrated by both members and leaders of the Mormon church, bishops, temple workers and even tabernacle choir members. Acts of sexual or physical torture and murder were done in a religious or occult context, and subjected children to molestation by parents and other adults. At least 45 of the scores of LDS victims Pace interviewed for his report claimed they were forced to observe or participate in human sacrifice. Obviously there are some who would like to lay the blame on infiltrators or individual preferences, but the broader issues is that Joseph Smith was deeply involved in the occult. It is therefore quite natural to surmise that Smith's followers would be involved in the same practices that he advocated.

“Therefore it is quite natural...?” The title of this article appears to lead toward the same conclusion. It's a load of garbage (particularly the last couple of sentences), but that's the tie-in he was trying to make. The question is, is this article attempting to lead the reader to the same conclusion or not? I don't have any issue with an article that deals with the Pace memo, but the title of this article doesn't work for me any more than "Satanic ritual abuse and Joseph Smith" would. Bochica 04:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

deletion of "see also" section

I have deleted this from the article.

See also

  • Day care sexual abuse hysteria

The case appears to be in no way connnected to a day care.Abuse truth 02:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Page title changed

I've moved this to Ritualized child abuse and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from the previous title as that had too much (imho) POV'ness in making out that it was the Church rather than members, etc. This should not terminate discussion on the future of the article. --AlisonW 21:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This page was moved without consensus on the talk page. Also, this change is pending an editor's decision (see above). I have moved the page back to the original title pending consensus and the editor's decision. Abuse truth 21:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
'Consensus' is not a relevant issue here, this is a case of 'being bold' in trying to make the title more NPOV whilst other discussion continues. Similarly, "the editor's decision" is a non-sequitor as no one (or group) of editors makes the final decision on any of the content of WP. Without adequate argument then why the change should not proceed I'm re-moving the page. --AlisonW 23:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Well shouldn't the title include the word "accusations" in it? Since the article isn't about abuse but accusations of abuse, putting a title like "xx abuse and the church xx" would be POV, since it leads the reader to believe the article is about factual abuse taking place. Arthurrh 00:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I have yet to agree with any proposed title. There is nothing that supports mentioning the title of the LDS church; not a single member, leader, or individual was found guilty by an in depth review. I think the topic really is the memo written by Pace and his personal belief that ritualized child abuse was taking place. However, he had no training to determine the truthfulness or reality of this type of abuse given the psychological condition of the those who claimed the abuse. His memo would have a completely different value if he had been a trained, mental health professional; unfortunatley he was a professional accountant. I don't mean to be rude, but his opinion has all the value of Joe Blow down the street; there is no merit given his lack of expertise.
BTW, thank you AlisonW for being bold; we need to respond appropriately and make a final decision because the current title is unacceptable.
I almost feel the article should be merged into Pace's own page. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storm Rider (talk • contribs) 06:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that consensus is not a relevant issue here. "Wikipedia works fundamentally by building consensus. Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process." A major change like this necessitates consensus first. It appears the change is locked in. I disagree with this change and believe the original title should be in place until a full discussion takes place. Abuse truth 23:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion it should stay with the new accurate (although they are claims) but less sensationalistic title unless there is a consensus to change it back, rather than the other way around. Alanraywiki 23:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY clearly says polls and votes make no difference. The title was POV no matter how you look at it. AlisonW was absolutely right in doing what she did in saying consensus doesn't matter. Carter | Talk to me 12:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This page needs to be renamed "Alleged ritualized child abuse and certain members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". --TrustTruth 02:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Unofficial poll

WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY

This is an unofficial poll to see if it would be even possible to reach a consensus on the name for this page. I'm calling it unofficial because from what I've seen, I don't think that a consensus could currently be reached. I am hoping that this unofficial poll will generate useful dialog which could eventually get to a point where we could reach a consensus.

I'm going to give a list of possibilities that I've seen in the discussions above. Please feel free to add any new ones that you think should be added, but add them at the end so that previous votes aren't invalidated. Also, feel free to change your votes as the options change, just timestamp your new vote. In the proposed titles below, "..." represents "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". I have done this so that what we are working on will not get lost in the length of the title. Just follow my lead in the format of the voting:

  1. Rename to: Ritualized child abuse and ...
  2. Leave as: Ritualized child abuse and members of ...
  3. Rename to: Alleged ritualized child abuse and members of ...
  4. Rename to: Investigation into alleged ritualized child abuse and members of ...
  5. Rename to: Pace memo
  6. Rename to: Pace investigation
  7. Rename to: Pace investigation about alleged ritualized child abuse and members of ...
  8. Merge with: Glenn L. Pace
  9. Revert to original name: Satanic ritual abuse and ...
  • 6) While 4 is the most accurate, it is a very long title. 6 becomes the shortest that also maintains the essence of what the article is about. — Val42 01:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I pick #1, because it is short and to the point, and I think the concerns about "sensationalism" are a bit bizarre. For heaven's sake, if anyone gets the wrong idea from the title, this nice, short, to-the-point article will quickly disabuse them of any wild notions. I have been LDS my entire life, and I have noticed that Mormons have been slandered so often that some of us can get a little over-sensitive about things like this. Honestly, I think the people complaining about it should try to think of something more productive (and less petty) to do with their time. Try making positive arguments for your faith rather than going into a tizzy over every perceived sleight. BBickmore 05:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • #1 best balances an informative title and reasonable length. I think adding "members of" does little but add unneeded length — this incident did involve an official high-level investigation by the LDS Church — it wasn't just "members" investigating other members with no official church involvement. I think the article as written is relatively NPOV and any concerns with an over-expansive title (i.e., that these are just allegations that were never proven) are amply addressed by the content of the article and adding "alleged" to the title seems a bit overly sensitive. I could perhaps support "Pace memorandum" (as I suggested above) if that was where consensus was leaning, but unfortunately I don't think the events in question are known by that title quite well enough and a descriptive title seems more appropriate to me. Snocrates 07:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment #9 was added after I commented — I don't see a big difference between #1 and #9; I think #9 is probably more descriptive and accurate, but I can understand if some are hesitant to include the word "Satanic" in the title with a name of a church. #9 is probably ideal, but I still support #1 as a good compromise selection. Snocrates 00:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • #3 Agree with Arthurrh, the topic is the discussion of allegations and the fact that not one person was found guilty. #1 would be valid if there was actual abuse, which the legal system determined there was not. Titles should reflect the content of the article or the topic; the topic is allegations, not actual abuse. However, I still think the best step is to merge this article into either Pace's article or the main article. --Storm Rider (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
There was not sufficient "consensus" to make the change to #3, in my opinion. (There are as many votes against #3 as in favor.) You're jumping the gun a bit. Snocrates 20:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The change should not have been made before a consensus was reached. And I want to reemphasize that #3 is the best choice. --TrustTruth 21:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
There doesn't have to be sufficient consensus. There wasn't sufficient consensus for you to change it back the way you did. The title is POV no doubt about it. You guys are going to have to get comfortable with the fact that it will be changed and for good. Carter | Talk to me 00:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
You need to brush up on your WP policy/procedure. The reason the title is as it is now is because that was the original title. We're trying to reach a consensus on a potential change. Unilaterally changing it is not helping to achieve that—in fact, you will probably just anger people and make them more unwilling to compromise. Please don't move the page again. Snocrates 01:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
You tell me where I'm wrong in policy. WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY period. WP:NPOV clears things up. Nowhere am I wrong in policy. Nowhere. Carter | Talk to me 02:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Lol. OK, you just keep telling yourself that. Anyway, we're trying to reach a consensus and I suggest it would help if you refrained from moving it. Snocrates 02:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Am I wrong? Seriously. Any admin would back me up. I just had the page move protected, but unfortunately right after you snuck the last move in. Granting that an admin was willing to move protect the page says something. Anyways, it's to you I suggest not moving it again. Carter | Talk to me 02:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
How do you know the page wasn't protected as a result of my supplemental comment to your request? I informed the admin on the request page what you were doing and suggested that if anything, the page needed to be protected from your unilateral actions. It is not "up to me" to "suggest" that it not be moved again—pages should be moved as a result of consensus, not the other way around. TrustTruth, for one — who agrees with you that the name should be #3 — has agreed that a move at this stage is premature. Just loosen up and let things play out. The intent of the poll was to stimulate constructive discussion, not to start an edit war on the title. Right now you are the only one trying to change things around. Snocrates 02:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Round 2

Well, after two weeks, the opinions were three #1, three #3, one #6 and two #9. I'm specifically avoiding the discussion about the rename that recently happenned because it is a separate issue. I've eliminated those that didn't get at least two votes and copied those titles down to here. Again, this is not an official poll but is trying to build a consensus for a move. If you're still going with what you said above for the same reasons, just reference that in your comments here. Note that the numbering has changed because of the reduced list:

  1. Rename to: Ritualized child abuse and ...
  2. Rename to: Alleged ritualized child abuse and members of ...
  3. Revert to original name: Satanic ritual abuse and ...
  • #2: This is the most accurate of these options, though I would support changing "and members of" to "in". — Val42 04:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • #1: For essentially the same reasons I voted for this one in the first poll. I think it avoids unnecessary wordiness and length (avoiding the needless "alleged"—this feature is well-explained in the text of the article; avoiding "members of", which doesn't really add much) but at the same time addresses some of the concerns of the "sensationalism" of using the phrase "Satanic ritual abuse". Essentially, I see it as a compromise between two more "extreme" alternatives in either direction, which are #2 and #3, and therefore I think it is the best hope for compromise. (...I applaud Val42 for his efforts in working towards consensus...) Snocrates 10:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • #2: This is the most npov of the options. As far as the rest of name name, and in the interest of less wordiness, it could be "Alleged ritualilzed child abuse among Latter-day Saints" or "Alleged ritual abuse among Latter-day Saints". --TrustTruth 15:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (already voted above): I could support including "alleged" in the type of name suggested by TrustTruth. My main concern is not that the word is inaccurate but that it adds to wordiness and length, so if other parts of the name were cut out, I could agree to using "alleged". Snocrates 21:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Abstain (creator) As the creator of the article, and therefore the original title, I think it's best if I abstain. However, I would like to reassure editors that subjectively I had no ill intent when I named the article what I named it. I figured it involved SRA and the LDS Church, so I just put the two together. I was not familiar with any other articles that used the "alleged" terminology, so I didn't use it. That being said, I think any of the proposals work well and I at least would be satisfied with any of the choices. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • #1 Out of these choices, I would select #1, but ideally I think it should be moved to Pace memorandum with redirects kept for all other options. Ubi Terrarum 23:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Important information on subject

Below find an important post from a new user who didn't know where to post information on this debate. (It was posted above in the middle of another section.) I am personally unable to vouch for the information below, but I do believe the source to be a solid one. Also, two urls below can be visited to be checked out. Abuse truth 01:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(user Lndwlkr writes below: (my first time and I don't know where this belongs)

I was contacted by someone concerning this Pace Memo. I was quite involved in this at the time. Pace came to see me because we were interviewing many of the same people. Matt Jacobsen who investigated for the AG's office also came to see me before he wrote his report. I was very disappointed in him and his work ethic. He was not interested in going over the information I had gathered but rather in seeing the sights of San Francisco where I was living then. Interviewing people claiming satanic/ritual abuse was not easy. Over ten years many people came forward or agreed to speak with me about their abusive lives. I have now interviewed well over 100 people claiming they were ritually or satanically abused. I often interviewed other family members and therapists. There was quite a bit of confirmation and evidence for the often later remembered brutal family histories. Some people never forgot what happened, most did.

The Tanners were the first to publish the Memo. I knew people often gave them information and I went into the bookstore asking Sandra if they had anything on child abuse as I was studying the intergenerational aspects of it. She said they had a wild memo and were holding onto it until they could get more information. I said, "The Pace Memo." She said, "Yes I think that is the name on it." I had heard of it because there was a committee of community leaders, mostly therapists, and law enforcement discussing what they were hearing and Pace was a member and I was interviewing some of these members. Several books have now come out by therapists and survivors regarding this subject in Mormonism.

Pace heard from the people he was interviewing that I was also interviewing them and he asked if he could come and see me. I told him it was obvious to me these members, sometimes in high LDS positions, were using the church to protect them and to promote their brand of ritual abuse. He asked, "What could be done?" I said, "Quit worshiping the dead, baptizing them and emphasizing genealogy, and spend more time on solving living peoples problems."

In the intervening years and by educating the press it is now obvious to the public that ritual abuse exists in many churches and there is a serious institutional child abuse problem. The civil lawsuits are legion. I gather facts and evidence for those same lawsuits in RL. I have worked and continue to do so on major and successful lawsuits naming the LDS Church as defendant and on suits where other organizations like the Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses,Boys Schools, Boy Scouts, etc, are named.

I don't think anyone can deny that it is now proved that the FLDS, the polygamy practicing offshoot of the LDS, made incest and ritualized sham marriages, really child rape, a tenet of their religion as have other offshoots, like the Kingstons. Most members of these groups are born in and have no escape. However when the cults do recruit they look to Mormons naturally because the belief systems are so intertwined and Mormons with a long history in LDS practice often hail from polygamy and believe it will again be practiced in heaven. This is the easiest recruit.

Satanism is well documented in law enforcement. It is an often criminal practice and is related to white supremacy. This is something I found strongly in my study that NO ONE wanted me to discuss. Even when interviewed for a PBS documentary I was told to keep these findings to myself. However one of the strongest correlations in the study is that the parents were racist, often actively racist. Some comments from persons studied:

  • "MY skin was valued for whiteness."
  • "My hands were measured to prove I was pure German."
  • "I was valued for my red hair."

So early on I knew I had dropped into racist America and started asking what groups did your father or other abusive cult members belong to?

Number one answer was: John Birch Society, then survivalists, KKK and militias. In the early 60's there were many firesides, an LDS sponsored activity, that supported Birch organizing within. The President of the LDS was a well known Bircher. Secondly I found named cult members to be active KKK'ers. The people claiming Satanic ritual abuse often did not know they were part of this group until I showed them the evidence through research. I first found the evidence in Blazing Crosses in Zion: The Ku Klux Klan in Utah by Larry Gerlach and then much more information on KKK organizing activity using the railroad stops. The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated polygamy groups as supremacists and this is very important because extremists easily rationalize behavior that society considers abhorrent.

Children who were sold to other men by their parents forgave them because they knew the family had so little money, struggling farmers in Idaho and Utah. I wish I did not know all that I do about this because it changes you. In civil cases I researched and found evidence on there were many aberrant practices that we simply did not use because it would make the case harder for the jury to believe and other evidence supported the facts alleged. Four cases involved bestiality. One woman I interviewed had a father who was arrested for cruelty to animals. Kids alleging satanic/ritual abuse usually allege maltreatment of animals as part of it as in this is what will happen to you if you tell. Another reason perpetrators may use the satanic excuse is because this does make the allegations unbelievable to many people even though it is often the only way young children have of speaking about horrific acts against them.

I have a website devoted to exposing institutional ritual abuse at http://www.childpro.org. We are currently revamping it and adding information including some of my presentations to law enforcement about this.

And just one last thing to the skeptics: If you come from a highly religious family where everything good is attributed to GOD or Jesus and everything bad is attributed to Satan and you have the cognitive power of a 4 year old and dad says while locking you in the closet and abusing you, "This is not me, this is Satan in me." is it not easier in order to live with those abusive acts to think it is not your dad but it is Satan. After all on Sunday dad is at the church podium and Satan is vanished for the time being.

Personally I do not believe in Satan but I do believe there are highly religious individuals who are split off from their bad side and who commit these acts using this rationalization. I have also written about the many LDS who have married relatives with deleterious genetic consequences and this article called Fatal Inheritance: Mormon Eugenics is avaialble at: http://www.human-nature.com/science-as-culture/walker.html In fact it was through studying genetics that I first found out about satanic/ritual abuse. I was interviewing an LDS woman with several genetic disorders in her family and I asked about consanguinity (marrying relatives esp. first degree as in uncle/niece a practice preached by the early LDS and followed by the polygamists) and she said, "Yes the same surname is on both sides of the family line." This is common in polygamy and although LDS she hailed from that practice.

My email is lwalker@childpro.org if people want more information but I do not have time to enter into a lengthy debate about the reality of satanic ritual abuse of children. END Lndwlkr 21:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

change of page name

I have changed the name back to the original one, which was changed without consensus on the talk page. Once we have consensus here, then we can change or not change it permanently. Abuse truth 22:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree that the initial change should not have been made without consensus. Can anyone discern any consensus developing in the above discussion? I can't. Snocrates 22:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

At this point I can't either. Hopefully we will come to consensus soon. I found information about edit locks.

Wikipedia:Edit lock
Wikipedia does not use software article locks on pages, because some feel that this would be contrary to the policy and spirit of openness. Page protection is never to be used for closing down an article's normal development and community editing.

The edit lock on the title previously IMO did not follow this guideline. Abuse truth 23:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're probably right about that. I see no reason for freezing the page. No consensus seems to be developing, but that doesn't give an editor a right to make a change and then lock it into place. Snocrates 21:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

new edit lock on page

Once again an edit lock has been placed on the page, this time without explanation of the tags placed on the page. This is against wikpedia policy :

Wikipedia:Edit lock Wikipedia does not use software article locks on pages, because some feel that this would be contrary to the policy and spirit of openness. Page protection is never to be used for closing down an article's normal development and community editing.

I request that the edit lock be removed. Abuse truth 02:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Read this and you'll see. The lock won't be removed. Carter | Talk to me 02:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
See the section above (polling on the name change) as to why the edit lock was added. An editor has been unilaterally changing the name—s/he changed it and then requested that his/her change be locked it. I commented at the request that a lock may be appropriate to prevent this editor from moving the page for a third time. Apparently someone thinks "NOTADEMOCRACY" means "I'MINCHARGE". Snocrates 02:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with the current title being locked in until a decision has been made. However, it would be good to hear an explanation of why the tags were added.Abuse truth 03:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The tags added are self-explanatory. If a POV tag was added, that means the person who added it feels the section is POV etc. As for the tags here the section is CLEARLY speculation

However, one commentator has suggested that Apostle Richard G. Scott's sermon in the April 1992 general conference of the church may have been related to the SRA allegations.

therefore the tag was added. There is the explanation for the tags even though I felt it shouldn't have been needed. Carter | Talk to me 03:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
?? On this point, the speculation is being done by the commentator — who is cited — not by any WP editor. It is not POV to report that a commentator has speculated. ?? Snocrates 03:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It just adds to the entire article being speculation and not credible. That's my concern. The article is not credible. Carter | Talk to me 03:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
With respect, what is reported is well-cited. Whether or not the incidents in question actually happened is another matter, but the article does not take a position on that. Snocrates 03:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree; the article takes a definite position. The title does not indicate an alledged event; it states clearly that Satanic ritual abuse took place and the LDS church was involved. Do you understand something different by the title? It is impossible to arrive at an alternative understanding in the English language.
What is so dishonest about this article is that the entire event was found to have no merit by the courts. We have a memo that was written by an individual, an accountant no less, with no experience of understanding the mentally disturbed making a judgement call where he had no ability to make such a call. What is more disturbing to me is 1) that he was asked in the first place, and 2) why the heck he did say professionals were needed to review the situation. The allegations were far too serious to have sent some twit with no professional experience to investigate. --Storm Rider (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. This article deals with allegations and that should be clear. No abuse was proven in a court of law. Pace is not a psychologist (he is also not a twit) and his memo alone should not be grounds for making conclusions. --TrustTruth 16:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok...given the above arguments, and taking into consideration they are extraordinarily valid, do you think we could change the name of the article or merge it into Satanic ritual abuse? Just about every reference used doesn't even mention the name of the church. Just ritualistic child abuse. That main article is not too big to where this couldn't just be a section under specific cases. Carter | Talk to me 18:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Carter, it is very, very difficult to gain concensus for actions particularly for topics as contentious as religion. I think it is a good decision to merge it into the main article. It is already mentioned in Pace's article. Personally, I see no reason for its existence. However, as can be seen above, some editors feel strongly that even though the LDS church was never alledged to have been involved, there appears to be a benefit to relating Satanic rituals to the name of the LDS church. Carter, this may be the time to put this article up for deletion, though I might wait for a few days; your choice. It is one way to force a final decision. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Which is exactly why I think the article should at a bare minimum include the word "alleged" and go even further by dropping the church name and replace it with "among Latter-day Saints". --TrustTruth 19:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree with TrustTruth's proposal to include "alleged" but otherwise decrease wordiness (see voting section above), I disagree that the definite meaning of the (current/original) title is necessarily an open and shut case and that is clearly "takes a position" that "Satanic ritual abuse took place and the LDS church was involved". Maybe I'm just able to consider multiple meanings for a series of words that some others can't or won't consider. For instance, if you had an article called "Seventh-day Adventist Church and war", the article could, in theory, (1) state that the SDA Church has been directly involved in waging war, or (2) state that the SDA Church has supported war in the abstract, or (3) state that the SDA Church has supported some specific wars and opposed others, or (4) state that the SDA Church is a pacifist organization and is opposed to war in the abstract, or any number of other possibilities. That's just an analogy, of course, and perhaps not a very good one, but just because an entity and a concept are included in a title doesn't "give away the ending" of the entire article necessarily. They can be interpreted in different ways. Snocrates 21:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes Snocrates, language is fluid and can carry many meanings. However, the objective is to ensure that the article's title properly reflects the contents of the article. No where in the article is it alledged that the LDS church is involved in any degree with Satanic ritual abuse. Do you agree with that statement?
The article is about a memo that alledged that there were individuals who were also members of the LDS church that had participated in ritual abuse and that the charges were investigated by the state of Utah, which found the charges were without merit. Please explain how the LDS church is applicable? When you read the title do you think that typical reader will understand that the article has nothing to do with the LDS church? This is typical yellow journalism. The fact that we have to discuss it to this degree is surprising; but it is a public encyclopedia open to all to participate. It is the type of experience that gives democracy a bad name. Cheers. --Storm Rider (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
But as Carter is keen to always remind us, WP is NOTADEMOCRACY. :) Snocrates 00:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Storm Rider it is with you I agree most. That is why I have nominated it for deletion. Snocrates, while many conclusions can be drawn all the time, not many conclusions other than the LDS church was involved in SRA can be drawn from this title. I've chosen to use something to end the discussion once and for all. I do not think I am in charge and it was rude of you to allege otherwise. We need to be adults here. Carter | Talk to me 00:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
When you say "[w]e need to be adults", does that include refraining from accusing others of "vandalism" to administrators when you have a dispute with another editor? Snocrates 00:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy
It states "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page." I believe that this is exactly what is happening here. As Carter states:
"Snocrates, while many conclusions can be drawn all the time, not many conclusions other than the LDS church was involved in SRA can be drawn from this title. I've chosen to use something to end the discussion once and for all." Carter is the one proposing the page deletion. Current revision (00:05, 8 November 2007) (edit) (undo) Carter (Talk | contribs) (afd)Abuse truth 03:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no discussion about content and content has nothing to do with a proposed AfD. One issue is the title (which is not content), a second issue is that there is nothing to the allegations and it more properly should go in the article on False allegation of child sexual abuse or even merge into Glenn L. Pace becuase it seems like the most interesting thing is that he, a member of the Presiding Bishopric, wrote a memo regarding a topic in which he had no expertise to determine the validity of the claims. The memo was given to the Tanners with the result of a mountain being made out of a mole hill. They were false allegations, Pace believed the stories of psychologically disturbed individuals, and the courts found all allegations to have no merit. --Storm Rider (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
You keep saying "the courts found x" but I see nothing in the article or through my own research that indicates that anything ever went to court. Snocrates 05:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Nothing ever went to court. "The courts" have decided nothing with respect to this issue and are irrelevant, as far as I can see. Ubi Terrarum 23:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me, I confused the Utah Attorney General's Office with the term "courts". Since you both thoroughly read all the articles supporting these false claims I would have thought you would have clarified the difference rather than quibble. However, it is obvious that you both have difficulty understanding the import of the main legal advisor to the State; the individual responsible for law enforcement and public prosecutions. However, let's just be clear what the article said in relation to the topic:
  • "A Governor’s Task Force on Ritual Abuse was created in March 1990 out of concerns raised by the Governor’s Commission on Women and Family and the state Task Force on Child Abuse. The task force concluded that ritual abuse was occurring in Utah as a significant problem and recommended that the legislature appropriate $250,000 to the Attorney General’s office to hire four investigators for a year. Some funds were appropriated, and two investigators were hired."
  • "Investigator Mike King told KUTV that he and another investigator talked to "hundreds" of victims who alleged they were raped, tortured, forced to perform horrible acts [,]…brainwashed, saw babies murdered or were forced to participate in ritual murders. ‘I really feel for these people and I would like to help them, but we just couldn’t find the evidence."’ Gerald Lazar, head of psychiatry at LDS Hospital, said "he has never been able to independently verify memories of satanic ritual abuse."
I hope this clears up this absolutely horrible confusion and makes it perfectly clear that after spending years and hundreds of thousands of dollars absolutely nothing was found to support the ridiculous allegations in this article. --Storm Rider (talk) 04:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that's self-evident from what the article says. There's no need to blow a gasket, I was just commenting on/confirming what someone else had said. Whether or not the allegations are true is irrelevant when a NPOV is taken in writing about the events as they were reported at the time. Ubi Terrarum 05:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there really a desire for a merge?

This (above) discussion is related to the renaming issue, but is outside the scope of the Unofficial Poll that is going on. However, I notice in this discussion that there are two editors that want this article to be merged somewhere else. I'm just wondering why this wasn't brought up in the first round of discussion? I proposed some merge alternatives. I also made provisions for bringing up new alternatives. After some time of discussion on the current proposal, I will bring up the option to merge again, because of this discussion. But for now, I just would like comment on why support for a merger wasn't brought up during the first round. It could guide me in what alternatives to provide in the next round (assuming that we don't arrive at a consensus). — Val42 09:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

My very first edit to this article suggested a merge into Satanic ritual abuse; upon further research the more appropriate article, IMO, is False allegation of child sexual abuse. The memo is already heavily highlighted in Glenn L. Pace's article. --Storm Rider (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the idea of a merger. I believe there is enough substantial information for the article to stand on its own. Also, False allegation of child sexual abuse would not be the appropriate place for this information, since IMO there is no data proving or explaining the possibility of false allegations in this case.Abuse truth 01:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Merger is less desireable than a rename, IMO. The information here and the amount of references is about the amount that would justifiably cause an editor to separate this information from a "main article" anyway, so we may as well keep them separate and come up with a name by consensus. Ubi Terrarum 23:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Is the article title appropriate

At 04:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC) an RFC request was posted here with the reason "the article title has been a topic of serious debate without any concensus being achieved". The issue has resolved (see later sections).

The title of the article has been debated without achieving concensus; is it appropriately descriptive of the event(s)? --Storm Rider (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Given the discussion above, I am not sure if an additional RfC should be requested to for compliance wiht policy and guidelines. Let's hope this garners enough attention to obtain additional input from other editors. --Storm Rider (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, DO NOT DELETE THIS PAGE IT IS FACTUAL AND FULL OF INFORMATION THAT THE WORLD DESERVES TO KNOW ABOUT, I KNOW THIS IS FACTUAL BECAUSE OF MY OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE INVESTIGATION. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.88.161 (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

From RfC

Coming from the RfC request, I definitely don't like the current title, as it suggests abuse actually occurred, which hasn't been established by a long shot. The other problem is that this is all based around the Pace Memorandum, which suggests to me that the title should probably be "Pace Memorandum". If that doesn't work, then it should probably include the word "allegations" in the title. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 22:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Everything discussed in this article is relevant to the Pace memo, and there appears to be no relevant information outside that contained in the memo that could be added. "Pace memorandum" would definitely be an appropriate title in my opinion. Bochica 02:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I think an article title centered around Pace memorandum is most likely to be viable. Also try looking at the sources/references (especially the non-partisan ones) and see what labels they use in their headings and/or indices. Too many of the citations are to offline sources for me to do this test. "Allegations" in a title often ends up with further dispute (example); it really isn't a great word for a title. GRBerry 18:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Are we then, for the most part, in agreed then? Would Pace memorandum be suitable? I think so. Carter | Talk to me 15:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I am open to putting the word "alleged" in the article. The title I have proposed in the section below is Satanic_ritual_abuse_allegations_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints. Abuse truth 03:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Compromise title for article

I have an idea. A good compromise title could be "Satanic Ritual Abuse Allegations and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." This states that they are only allegations and haven't been proven in court. Abuse truth 21:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's take it one step further and simplify it to "Satanic Ritual Abuse Allegations among Latter-day Saints". --TrustTruth 21:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Consolidation of rename

There are currently discussions going on in three different sections about what the name of this article should be. Each of the three sections is reaching a different consensus. I figure that editors in one of these sections is going to see that the consensus in their section is totally in their favor and perform the rename according to that consensus. Therefore, I am proposing that all of this renaming discussion be consolidated into this section. I would suggest that we could at least reach a consensus that we should hold this one discussion in one section.

Here are the current proposals that are leading. In these summaries, "..." means "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" so that the substance of what we are discussing doesn't get lost in the length of the title. If you have any other suggestions, please add them at the end.

  1. Rename to "Pace memorandum"
  2. Merge to Glenn L. Pace
  3. Merge to "Satanic ritual abuse"
  4. Rename to "Alleged ritualized child abuse and certain members of ..."
  5. Rename to "Ritualized child abuse and ..."
  6. Rename to "Alleged ritualized child abuse and members of ..."
  7. Rename to "Satanic ritual abuse allegations among Latter-day Saints"

Voting

Moving

  • Moving Would anyone have a problem with me wrapping up the discussion and moving to option number 1? I think it's time. Carter | Talk to me 18:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I would like to propose we wait until at least 11/22 (two more days). This will give people a week from when the voting opened. Abuse truth (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Submit to WP:RM for a move : I think before this gets formally moved (assuming here that #1 is indeed the consensus), it should be placed in the WP:RM line-up and then be performed by an admin at the appropriate time (which may only be a few more days considering the number of comments already made here, but we can leave it to an impartial admin to decide when to do it). This will give people one last chance to comment and make sure that no one can complain about a move performed without ample notice. It also avoids the problem of someone who has been pushing for a move being the one who moves it. If a disinterested admin does it, we can be sure WP procedures on consensus building have been followed and the mover will not be open to accusations of bias. Snocrates 02:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Carter, I think it would be better to follow Snocrates' counsel. Let a third party do so that no one in the future can accuse whatever happens on being done by a subjective party. --Storm Rider (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I agree with all of you. Thank you all for your input. Carter | Talk to me 06:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I hate to sound like a "me too"er, but this is part of consensus building. I agree that we should let an administrator do it through the official process. Also, once this discussion gets archived, someone should remember to add in a topic (to the unarchived portion) that links to the discussion on the name change. That way, if/when it comes up again, people will be able to see that this name was chosen by consensus. — Val42 (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I've taken the initiative to propose the move to #1 at WP:RM. Historically on this page, I haven't been strongly pushing for a change but I nevertheless think somewhat of a consensus has built around #1. If anyone strongly objects to this action I've undertaken, it hasn't been voiced yet. Snocrates 02:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
This article has been moved to Pace memorandum as the result of the discussion here and a move request listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Dekimasuよ! 10:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Mormonism and violence and other categories

The reason I deleted this category is because it does not seem to fit. The topic is a situation where false allegations were made and then proven without merit or false by an investigative group of professionals. How does violence play in that arena?

I would also agree with Snocrates that I do not see how Mormon cosmology is a applicable category. Who does these things and why? It is almost as if someone just slaps categories on an article without thought. Am I missing something? I would like to delete both categories; thoughts? --Storm Rider (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why Day Care Sexual Abuse Hysteria is a category on this page. This page has nothing to do with day care abuse.Abuse truth (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
That article relates to this articles because it also represents diverse situations where false accusations were made. How would that not be applicable? --Storm Rider (talk) 06:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Day Care Sexual Abuse Hysteria is a valid "See also" article to cite. I think I'm going to delete the Mormon cosmology category; if anyone has a good argument for why it should be there feel free to restore it. I'm unsure about the Mormonism and violence category. I think it could very well apply, but it doesn't fit as well as the other articles there, so I would err on the side of caution and not include it. Snocrates 07:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on possible removal of paragraph

"Scott's warning is reflective of the beliefs of SRA skeptics, who believe that most allegations of SRA result from the controversial practices of recovered memory therapy, which have been shown to produce false memories about a subject's childhood.[14][15][16] However, these sources have not attempted to show that false memories of SRA can be produced in therapy.[17]"

This paragraph appears to have little to do with the memorandum and appears to be simply adding an unrelated POV to the article. Please feel free to comment on this.Abuse truth (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that they have a little to do with the subject of this article. They directly follow the previous paragraphs in this section related to this topic. However, it may be relevant to discuss if this entire section is relevant or not. — Val42 (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a logical wrap-up to the section and the article. To me, the real question is whether or not it is WP:OR. I don't see any sources cited in the paragraph that make this connection, so WP should not be the one making it without that. Snocrates 22:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Good point. It does appear to be WP:OR.Abuse truth (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I will be deleting the paragraph for now, due to the violation of WP:OR.Abuse truth (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

addition of shortened version for clarity

I have added a short sentence to the background section for clarity. ResearchEditor (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Allegations were world-wide, not just the US. The 'child and non-consenting adult' line is a poor choice for the same reason it was a poor choice in the SRA page - if it's child, it's abuse. If it's a non-consenting adult, it's abuse. If its a consenting adult, it's not abuse. So it makes for a long, complicated, unnecessary sentence. The sources are not included in the main SRA page, suggesting they're poor choices for this page. Plus, they're 'e.g.' sources, meaning they don't actually source the statement, they're examples of the allegations. Given its a basic statement with a long main page, I don't see the need to include separate sourcing, though we could use Victor or Frankfurter as a good universal source for the history of SRA. It's debatable to me whether background needs to be a separate section at all, a sentence in the next section could probably do the same thing. WLU (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources

In this version, citations were restored. The reason I removed them was not because they were unlinked, it was because with the original report, there is no need for secondary news sources for 'extra' citations. Since the news stories are unlinked, but the report is, there's no value added by citing news stories. Had I my druthers, I'd re-remove them but I'm open to discussing if there's a reason to keep them. WLU (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I misinterpreted your reasoning based on the edit summary; thanks for posting. I thought that having neutral secondary sources to supplement a primary source was preferable, since it avoids the appearance of WP editors drawing their own conclusions from a report which some may suspect may not say what the article claims it says. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
S'cool. If the original report clearly justifies the statement right before it, I don't see any interpretation being needed. We are allowed to use primary sources in the article about the source itself I think, and technically this would be a secondary source anyway since it summarizes the case notes of the investigators. Also, given the quotes in the preceding sentence, and having a quoted sentence justified by three sources suggests they're either all quoting the original document (which is legitimate in intent but erroneous in my mind since the original is the only source required) or all are talking about different things but happens to use the same word (which isn't legit). If the news stories were linked, I'd probably integrate them into a single reference/footnote but unlinked they don't really add much to the page in my mind. Take 'em out? WLU (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it might be worth finding out what they actually say. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but can anybody find them? Google turns up little for the first but there's more for the second. Unfortunately the report itself is 60 pages long and scanned, so I can't search it electronically. Scanning quickly I can't find a mention of a head of psychiatry, and lacking the original news clippings I can't really say much (though I would guess that they're cribbed from the RT.org website). If the report doesn't contain any statements by the head of psychiatry, the report citation is in the wrong spot, but that's pending a more thorough review. WLU (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course someone can find them. One might actually have to go to a library, but there are plenty that have archives of both SL Trib and SL Des News. I live in NZ and my library has the Trib archives. The Des News article is available in their internet archives, and I've added the link to it. The final quote doesn't come from the Des News article at least, but there's some other good information in the article that should could probably be used and cited to it. The quote that says "to substantiate with physical evidence the incidents reported" is used in the lead of the Des News article, and it's placed in quotes there, which suggests it's a quote from the report. What I'm getting out of this is I think probably what's intended is that the three citations apply to the entire paragraph; authors haven't yet bothered to apply specific references to the specific sentences in the paragraph. I'm going to begin fiddling with it. I agree though that the report itself should be looked through, to see if we can find the "absurd" quote and the head of psychiatry quote. They are certainly not in the Des News article, but to me they sound more like something a newspaper would dig up rather than something that would appear in a government report. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Summary of what I've done to this paragraph

The changes I've just made are far from perfect, but I think it's a start. I went through the report, and there's nothing about "absurd" or the head of psychiatry at LDS Hospital — nor are they in the Des News article, so for the time being I'm assuming these quotes are from the SL Tribune, which article will have to be dug up for confirmation (I can do that later). I've had to change the statement that the report says the accusations against church leaders are absurd to "others" said that, but I've added a {Who?} tag to the "others" statement since it's clearly vague and unhelpful until we can look at the SL Trib article. I've added specific page citations from the report for the statements in the paragraph. At this point, the Des News article is looking somewhat superfluous, though I think perhaps it's a handy link to at least include somewhere as the article sums up the report very well, I think. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Copies of the SL Trib article are readily available online (it's actually an Associated Press story). I've confirmed that the PDF copy I've linked to is a match to the actual text of the article as it appears in the Factiva newspaper database. I don't care if the article is linked to or not — it's not a source directly from AP or the SL Trib, so there's at least the appearance that it might not be what it says it is, but I have confirmed that it is. Both statements in question come from this article. The "absurd" quote comes from the co-author of the report and the head of psychiatry statement also comes from this article. Problem solved? As for the Des News article, as I said it's looking helpful but somewhat superfluous, but you could decide whether or not you think we still need it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Yup, and good work! Researching sucks but it's the best way to solve disagreements. What's attributed to the report is attributed to the report, what's in the article is in the article. Absolutely top shelf and I wish my only contribution wasn't an initial complaint. WLU (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

disagree with recent edit

This phrase was recently changed : "The state of Utah investigated these claims after the Pace memorandum was leaked to the press in 1991, but they were unable "to substantiate with physical evidence the incidents reported." This statement was accurate. The one that replaced it is OR. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave this to Good Ol'factory to answer since s/he's done the legwork. The statement contains multiple parts, what is inaccurate - that it was investigated, that it was leaked or that the state was unable to substantiate? The sentence is sourced to Desert News (the link appears to be broken or subscription-only access) and the report itself - what page discusses physical evidence? WLU (talk) 04:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The change was made by a different editor. The part that is OR is "however, no reliable evidence was uncovered that suggested that these allegations were true." The statement that is accurate is : they were unable "to substantiate with physical evidence the incidents reported." Physical evidence is only one form of reliable evidence, other forms of evidence are also considered reliable in court. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
You're splitting hairs, the two statements are equivalent. Testimonies are not reliable, particularly in SRA cases. Further, the statements are currently in quotes, suggesting direct copy from sources - Good Ol'Factory will have to clarify if they're indeed direct quotations (in which case they could be summarized but using the direct quotation as a source) or if it's a paraphrase and the wrong punctuation. So, I hand the discussion over to him/her. WLU (talk) 04:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I would respectfully disagree. If the statements were similar, there would be no need to change the original one. The one that is there now is not in quotes, I used quotes above to separate it from the rest of the sentence. In the US, certain testimonies can produce a guilty verdict. SRA cases have the same burden of evidence as other cases in the US. It would be good to have another opinion on this, as you suggest above. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I would strongly disagree with your position Research. There was no evidence found to bring charges. The alternative "quote" in question attempts to cheery pick and has a decidedly different tone; as if the charges were true, but evidence was not found. With the state spending over $250,000 just to find proof, no evidence was found. Someone is trying to twist history to say, charges were made, they were true, but they just couldn't prove it. --Storm Rider (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't suggest another opinion, I suggested asking G O'F what s/he found in the source documents. If they're direct quotes, no third opinion is needed as there is no flexibility - only discussion about how they should be worded. If they're not quotes, then we've a larger problem. But as G O'F has access to all the source documents used, s/he is the only person at this point who can verify the contents of the sources. So we needs wait on his/her return. The quotes are on the main page, which is why verification should precede re-wording. And I'll agree with Storm Rider that the suggested phrasing does make it sound like there is truth to be found rather than verifiability and neutrality. Reviewing the page a bit more closely, I think you're talking about the lead rather than the Pace_memorandum#Government_investigation section. I've adjusted the lead to reflect the body/Pace_memorandum#Government_investigation section more closely. WLU (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Better. Good job. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Oop, sorry for being away during this discussion. As you've probably figured out, what was originally in quotes was a quote from the report, which was also quoted in the Deseret News article, but the change was essentially a rewording of it and I don't have a problem with how it now stands. In fact, I think the lead has been improved. By the way, I've added links to all of the sources, so everyone should have access to them now — the report and the SL Trib article, I mean. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(bing)I still can't access the Desert News link - don't know if that's an artifact of my computer or not. I'm satisfied with the discussion and current depiction of sources, though I may have a go at re-wording to remove the quotes later on. Death to quotes! Thanks for the good work G O'F. WLU (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a bit of a funny URL, and seeing how I found it from a search of the archives, I probably plugged in the wrong URL for linking to it. I tried it after clearing my cache and it didn't work either. I'll try to work on getting that right. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
So long as someone's able to read the article and make sure it's adequately attributed, that eases my concerns. WLU (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The Utah report in general and in specific

I just wanted to post some comments about the Utah report mentioned in this article, since the above conversations on this page (to me) reflect some confusion as to what it exactly says. I read the report, and it is actually quite open to the possibility of the existence of satanic ritual abuse in Utah and elsewhere. However, this article is not about the Utah report — it's about the Pace memorandum and its specific allegations, which in part prompted the Utah report. With respect to the Pace memorandum allegations against LDS Church leaders, the author of the report told the media they were "absurd" (this is not in the report, as the Pace memorandum allegations are not addressed in the report specifically as a separate issue from SRA in Utah generally). But the report does not say that all claims of SRA are necessarily absurd, or made up, or whatever. It actually sets out some past examples of what appears to be proven SRA. This distinction may be a source some of the confusion and disputes from above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a good distinction made between the Pace memorandum and the government's investigation and the claim that the allegations were absurd.
One thing that has always interested me is the choice of Pace to investigate the initial allegations. He was an accountant by profession and does not begin to qualify as someone qualified to understand the complexities of schizophrenics and others with severe psychological problems, which many, if not all, of the victims were alledged to have been. You would have thought that professionals would have been enlisted for this investigation by the Church. What is even more perplexing is how he felt qualified to determine the value of the allegations being made.
I suspect that Pace rues the day he ever put those thoughts down on paper. Even more interesting is who forwarded the document on to the Tannners? That individual would need to have access to some very confidential documents and yet was essentially collaborating with those who sought to destroy the LDS Church. Someone had to think that something stank to high heaven in Denmark at the church office building during those days. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

edits to lead and report sections

I have made some edits to the lead to try to make it NPOV and to try to make it a more "concise overview" and "briefly describe its notable controversies" as stated in WP:lead. I have added information from the sources already provided to the report section, in an attempt to balance the material and try to more accurately represent the sources. I also made a few minor changes in the spirit of Let the facts speak for themselves. ResearchEditor (talk) 07:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pace_memorandum/Archive_1&oldid=1085464030"