Jump to content

Talk:List of satanic ritual abuse allegations

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

LIES

[edit]

I don't even get why half these things are so arbitrarily called 'Satanic Ritual abuse" allegations. Many of them don't even claim any kind of Satanistic leanings. For one example, I loooked up the "Superior Universal Alignment" cult, they are a freaking UFO cult, not one with satanic elements. It's as if people just arbitarily label any cult that does harmful things "Satanic"{even if just 'alledged" to have done ritual murder/abuse}, when most of them don't even consider themselves satanists. This is why Satanists all over the world are so persecuted, because of even suppoedly even-handed secular articles and reports on 'alledged ritual abuse" allmost always terming it "satanic". This is absolutely absurd and unjust stupidity. To my understanding there is but ONE person that even called himself a Satanist or referanced any material from the Satanist religion/philosophy whom has done any real harm, that was Richard Ramirez{The Night Stalker serial killer}. So why does this bullshit persists even today?--Iconoclastithon (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not what they are, but what they are perceived as. And Christian interpretation is basically the law. There are Christians who think that virtually all of Hollywood is a satanic cult. The absurdity is "Satanic ritual abuse" and the fact that there is an acronym for it. The absurdity is the existence of Christians. And the biggest absurdity of all is that those people call themselves civilized. They are primitive, crude and barbaric. Telling is that these things are mostly found in lesser secularized nations, like South Africa, USA and the British islands, and not in highly secularized nations like Sweden and Japan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its my supposition that ritual abuse is a method used by abusers to strengthen the loyalty between the abusers, to establish a justification for continued and regular abuse in some cases, and also to further ensure the domination of the victim by the abusing group.Merxa (talk) 06:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have also looked them up and I am not sure either.

I wonder if it is true or not, the conviction and the kookiness of the founder notwithstanding.

See http://www.apologeticsindex.org/s52.html

And

http://marcianitosverdes.haaan.com/2016/05/los-orgenes-de-lineamiento-universal-superior/

for more info and photos.

  • it's clear that this article has been hijacked by people involved with the cults or those trying to vindicate the perpetrators. How can every allegation relating to these satanic cults be all falsified. It makes no sense. It's unfortunate that the facts cannot be put out there for the public. Marty2Hotty (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, you are 100% right.SRA IS VERY REAL. 2001:FB1:10B:C9B7:686D:F981:8FF1:7CC2 (talk) 02:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prod

[edit]

Contents of the page have momentarily been pasted from satanic ritual abuse, which is currently protected from editing. Please see Talk:Satanic ritual abuse#Spin-out news clippings for a discussion. A list of notable events, particularly a lengthy one, is more appropriate as a separate 'list of' article than keeping the same list in the main body. Contents are identical to the extant page, barring the paste of some old information. WLU (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Owen case

[edit]

Does anyone have access to sources that detail the result of the family appeal? I can find plenty of sources detailing they did indeed appeal and that the case was adjourned until July of 2007, but I have not been able to find the results of the appeal. Vassyana (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last mention on 26 January 2008 in an article in the Sunday Tribune (Bracken, A. "News - Report advises state against holding public inquiry into murder of baby found in 1973", 6 Jane 2008, Sunday Tribune, p 4.) Summarised below. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The state has been advised not to launch a full public inquiry into the death of a murdered infant discovered in 1973 in south Dublin.
It is understood a public inquiry has been not been recommended because of the legal difficulties that would be brought about by the serious allegations made against certain people, and because of the amount of time that has elapsed since the infant's death.
A judicial review of coroner Dr Kieran Geraghty's findings, taken by Owen's father and three of her sisters, is currently before the High Court.
The four are challenging the coroner's findings that Owen is the mother of the infant.

Additionally, with reference to this case; there were and are a number of references by Cynthia Owen where she alleges a ritual aspect to the crimes; none of these appear in this section on the case. Without these, is it's inclusion in this article justified ? I'm not suggesting it be removed; just that the relevant references/allegations of 'ritual' aspects need to be added if it is to remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.99.158 (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, there is a reference to this allegation in this section.Merxa (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

here's one of the places where Cynthia Owen alleges that she was ritually abused - https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/michael-clifford/frank-mullen-i-couldnt-leave-a-legacy-like-that-behind-me-396206.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:51BC:9A00:310F:2458:201A:2D46 (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

added refs

[edit]

I have added some refs to the article on Australia and Belgium. ResearchEditor (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New info

[edit]

New info for the Hosanna investigation [1]; trial is to start this month apparently. WLU (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Netherlands

[edit]

There has been some activity on the SRA in the Netherlands page. I have re-worked and merged the content to this page, in the Netherlands section. I don't believe there is any need for a separate page and have done my best to merge all the content that was relevant from the SRA in the N page. Discuss? WLU (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the rewriting of WLU had huge impact on the content of the page about satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands (my whole contribution has been wiped out!), I want to make some remarks about his version.
WLU says that between 1984 and 1985 allegations of SRA appeared twice in the Netherlands - as part of discussions about dissociative identity disorder and in 1989 when allegations of SRA were made in Oude Pekela. This is wrong. The first time allegations about satanic ritual abuse were made was in 1990 and it was not in a discussion about the multiple personality disorder or in the debauchery scandal in Oude Pekela.
After Bennett G. Braun, Roberta G. Sachs and Richard P. Kluft held workshops in the Netherlands in 1984, the Dutch psychotherapists who attended these workshops knew something about multiple personality disorder and probably also about satanic ritual abuse (that is, when Braun c.s. informed those therapists about their experiences with cult survivors), but the Dutch therapists did not inform e.g. the media of their knowledge. Also in 1989 when newsmagazine Tijdsein broadcasted four times about satanic ritual abuse, the Dutch mpd therapists refused to comment. The first time they did that was in 1993 in two programs of newsmagazine Nova!
The debauchery scandal in Oude Pekela was not in 1989 but lasted from May 1987 till October 1988. During this period neither the investigating authorities nor the media ever mentioned satanic ritual abuse. Also Fred Jonker and Ietje Jonker-Bakker never did that in this period. They started their allegations after they had heard about the phenomenon satanic ritual abuse during a conference where they have met mpd therapists c.s. from the United States. The first time Jonker and Jonker-Bakker got public with these allegations was during a lecture in 1990 in Great Britain. This lecture resulted in their 1991 article in the International Journal on Child Abuse and Neglect.
Then the debauchery scandal in Oude Pekela itself. WLU says that between 1985 and 1988 the idea that SRA was occuring in the Netherlands was adopted and promoted by conservative christians. This is wrong, because the first time this group heard about satanic ritual abuse was in 1989 when Tijdsein brought that issue. Tijdsein is a newsmagazine from a relatively conservative broadcasting company, the Evangelische Omroep. Furthermore WLU says that a group of parents published allegations in a conservative magazine that their children had witnessed SRA and had been ritually abused. I have never heard about such a group of parents or about such an article. Which conservative magazine published that article? I would love to read it. It is true that some parents said that their children told them about satanic ritual abuse, but that was not in 1987-1988, but again in Tijdsein, to be specific in the second broadcast in June 1989... after the parents had seen the first broadcast in April 1989, where cult survivors from the United States and the United Kingdom told stories that were almost word by word duplicated by the parents of Oude Pekela in the second broadcast!
Finally, it is true that the State Secretary of Justice responded to the allegations of mpd therapist Suzette Boon c.s. in Nova by appointing a multidisciplinary workgroup to study SRA in the Netherlands, but it was not the State Secretary that produced a report. The report was produced by the Werkgroep Ritueel Misbruik, the State Secretary only appointed this independent scientific workgroup. By the way, the Werkgroup Ritueel Misbruik did not use the term dissociative identity disorder, but multiple personality disorder. Also Braun c.s. did not held workshops about the dissociative identity disorder in 1984, but about the multiple personality disorder.
Criminologist1963 (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your contributions were not wiped out, they were merged. You are more than welcome to edit the page further. I did my best to maintain all the content as accurately as I could, but I am not perfect and do not have access to, and can't read, all the sources. It's not my version because I don't own the page.
The information was mostly taken from the text you placed on the original page. If the current information is incorrect, feel free to adjust it using reliable sources. Blaming other editors just makes the page more acrimonious.
Responding to specific points - the article was published in Tijdsein apparently, by the company Evangelische Omroep. I'll modify who produced the report. Dissociative identity disorder should remain as it is - though it was called MPD in the past, on wikipedia it is referred to as DID; functionally, they are considered the same condition. WLU (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasm aside, I have updated according to your suggestions. Please let me know if there are any other issues, or feel free to make the changes yourself. WLU (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit that the word published is confusing in my text about Tijdsein. To clear misunderstandings, Tijdsein is not a magazine as in newspaper, but it was a television newsmagazine and was broadcasted by the relatively conservative broadcasting company Evangelische Omroep. Criminologist1963 (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusted. WLU (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added my original text to the text of WLU. I have added two white spaces every time a part of my text ends and the text of WLU begins, so that the reader can see what the original text is and what the point of view of WLU is. Finally, I want to point out that my summary of the discussion in the Netherlands is based on more then a decade of scientific research. Criminologist1963 (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{Undent}The page is about SRA allegations throughout the world. It was in keeping with the policies and guidelines of wikipedia. I have repeatedly explained why the original text is problematic and how my edits are designed to bring this in keeping with the manual of style. I have repeatedly mentioned content forks are not suitable for wikipedia, and now there is a content fork on the same page. Please cease, there is no reason for the original text to stay on the page, and you do not own the original text, or the idea of SRA in the Netherlands. The reader does not care, and should not see 'your' text and 'my' text. It does not matter what the summary is of, what matters are the policies, guidelines and sources. You have not indicated that there is any problem with the text on the page. Accordingly I am going to revert. WLU (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to explain several times that you are not the expert on satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands (in fact you have not the slightest idea of the course of the discussion in the Netherlands), that you base your text on unreliable sources and that you have to rely on what people write about this issue, especially if they researched this matter for over a decade as I did.
I do not own the the text, but neither do you and you do not have the right to destroy every time the contributions of other people if they write things you do not like or do not seem to understand because you are not familiair with the situation in the Netherlands! Therefore again, I will undo your vandalism. Please note that I have left your contribution on the page, while you always wipe my text out! Criminologist1963 (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Criminologist, this isn't how Wikipedia works. We don't present the reader with two alternative versions of an article, we keep working on the text until there is one single version for which there is WP:CONSENSUS. Instead of reverting to "your" version, you need to collaborate with others, bringing up issues point by point. Fwiiw, the Netherlands section may be substantial enough to become a WP:SS sub-article. --dab (𒁳) 16:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. The section is substantial enough to become a sub-article. In fact, the section was almost a year a sub-article before WLU started his actions. Criminologist1963 (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dbachmann (dab)'s statement was "the Netherlands section may be substantial enough to become a sub-article". I disagree, and so do three other people (1, 2, 3) based on the history of the old page. The text you pasted in, based on a cursory review, is the exact same as this version, except the word 'alleged' has replaced 'said. The old version has a large number of unsourced statements, significant original research and several non-neutral statements. There are a variety of ways to resolve disputes on wikipedia. Edit warring is not one of them. Please base your discussion on something other than "you are destroying my text". How is "your" text superior? I have pointed to several policies and guidelines on why I made the changes I did. Please review these policies and guidelines and any others you feel are relevant and state why your old, unchanged, unwikified, unlinked, incorrectly toned, non-neutral, conclusion-drawing, citation template-lacking version is better. Or, state what is wrong with the current version. But please review the policies and guidelines that have been pointed out to you repeatedly and edit based on them.
What would be your preferred method to resolve this? Would you like a third opinion? If Dbachmann has an opinion on which version is better, then that is inappropriate and a request for comment would be preferred. Otherwise we could seek mediation, all the way up to arbitration, which is somewhat absurd. I really can't see myself budging because I have made my changes according to the rules on wikipedia, which you do not seem to be familiar with. It can be difficult to see your work get changed, but that is the reality of wikipedia. Look at the bottom of the edit screen - you will see the following:

Please note:

  • If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.
This applies to everyone, including me and you. I don't mind having my work edited, but I do dislike seeing a page substantially worsened for no good reason. WLU (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation or arbitration is a possibility, but then we would still be in the shady world of Wikipedia where everyone is hiding behind aliases. If I am discussing with someone, I want to look him/her in the eyes, confront him/her with my arguments, listen to his/her arguments and let others decide which arguments are the most convincing. We can do this in a court of law, but also in the regular media (radio or television).
I am not afraid to go public with my arguments, because I know what I am talking about. Can you say the same from your arguments, which are based only on unreliable sources? Therefore, I dare you to meet me in the public arena where everyone can hear our arguments. Criminologist1963 (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My arguments are based on policies. You don't even know what mediation or arbitration is. Aliases have nothing to do with this and are irrelevant. This is not gladiator combat and you don't get to have your way because you really, really want to. WLU (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are hiding behind policies of the shady world of Wikipedia, where people only have aliases. You do not have the guts to start a real discussion. The only thing you can do is wiping out serious contributions, only because you do not like what a contributor says. This is very childish. You should be ashamed of yourself. This is not a preschool.
By the way, it seems to me that the one who vandalizes serious contributions of other people again and again is the one who does not know the meaning of arbitration or mediation. And do not threat me with blocking me from Wikipedia on my user page. If you want to threat me, do it here in the open! Criminologist1963 (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like many editors here, I have a username (as do you, mijnheer); but this language "(shady world of Wikipedia, where people only have aliases)" is not only absurd but demonstrably false. My name, face, ancestry, even my pathetic little IMDb listing, are right here on my userpage for the planet to see. Could we please return to discussing substance and not fanciful strawmen? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then you are the exception which proves the rule. But I did not mean you, I meant WLU, and also Biaothanatoi who has insulted and harassed me last year.
I would like to talk substance, but unfortunately it is impossible to talk substance with people who again and again eliminate serious contributions which are based on thorough scientific research and replace them by contributions which are almost entirely based on dubious sources. They do not try to reach consensus, they only want to push their own point of view. Criminologist1963 (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not threat me with blocking from Wikipedia on my user page. If you want to threat me WLU, do it here in the open. Since you are the one who is vandalizing the page about Satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands, you should be the one being blocked and not me. The only thing I do, is putting a summary based on more than a decade thorough scientific research on that page.
If you think you know better about the situation in the Netherlands than me WLU, then give me arguments that are based on thorough scientific research. I can deliver proof of every word I have written in my contribution. My archive about the debauchery scandal in Oude Pekela alone, consists of more than 200 newspaper and scientific articles, books, television programs et cetera. What do you have WLU? Nothing, except the dubious article by Jonker and Jonker-Bakker.
Therefore, I ask you again to stop vandalizing my contributions!!! Criminologist1963 (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I can't block you, therefore I can't threaten you
  2. I'm not vandalizing. The definition of vandalism is actions taken to deliberately worsen wikipedia. I am removing several of the various content forks you persist in establishing.
  3. I'm not going to argue based on science or scientific research. I'm arguing based on wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Arguments based on scientific research are irrelevant on wikipedia, except when they are in line with the policies and guidelines.
  4. I am not vandalizing your contributions. I can't. I am editing text on wikipedia, which is allowed. To consistently revert to a preferred version that is not in keeping with the policies and guidelines is pretty much page ownership. That is a policy - you do not own the page and do not get to determine the contents. Your actions do not seem to have added any new sources, and contain significant other problems with wikipedia's policies - see no original research and neutral point of view. Arguments from expertise carry no weight on wikipedia since the Essjay controversy. At best you should be expanding the section with new sources, but those expansions should still be in line with the policies and guidelines.
  5. What is wrong with the current version? What is lacking? If you explain what you think is missing, I can either integrate it for you, provide suggestions on how to integrate it yourself, or explain why it is inappropriate to include the information. WLU (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several days ago I made contribution to the Administrators Noticeboard. Normally WLU responds within an hour to my contributions, but this time he did not react. Instead the whole item about satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands vanished from the Administrators Noticeboard yesterday or today: an item WLU started in the first place. Therefore I put the text of my last contribution on the Administrators Noticeboard here:
Since a few months, the objectivity and neutrality of Wikipedia is questioned in articles in Dutch newspapers, such as NRC Handelsblad. The authors say that many of the articles in Wikipedia have incorrect information and when they try to correct the articles they are confronted with laymen on Wikipedia who eliminate their contributions, saying that it did not fit the policies of Wikipedia. When I read this, I thought 'hey, where have I heard this before?'. I hope you understand that such articles in national newspapers are killing for the reputation of Wikipedia as an objective encyclopedia. The only reason those articles are published is because of WLU, Biaothanatoi and other laymen at Wikipedia, who are not open for arguments from experts when they tell them that their texts are factually incorrect. Criminologist1963 (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I have read it. See WP:ARCHIVE for what happened at AN. Based on your contribution here and what you have said at AN, I see no reason to change the main page or any of the redirects that you have created, blanked, deleted or reverted. What happens outside of wikipedia does not matter. What does matter is wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Until your comments indicate the text is problematic per those rules, there is no reason to change anything. I also see no reason to repeat myself further, but am correcting your misapprehension that I haven't read your comment. I did, I have nothing new to say. WLU (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Netherlands redux

[edit]

The previous section is quite messy. Let's start a new one. Who thinks the Netherlands issue is sufficiently lengthy to be spun out to a new article? I for one do not - the new page would be stubby and there's not a whole lot there that is unique enough to not be covered here. The only extra feature I can see is that it was reported in peer-reviewed journals, but aside from that it's ultimately not a lengthy page and given satanic ritual abuse's status as a historical moral panic, it's unlikely to have any new information added. WLU (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT

[edit]

Yes put your head in the sand like an ostrich. More and more I get the idea that Wikipedia is not a serious encyclopedia with scientifically based articles, but a kindergarten or even worse a mental institution. It is very sad that laymen can destroy serious contributions in Wikipedia. Contributors like WLU seem to think that they own articles and that they can undo scientifically based contributions, which do not fit their own point of view or which they not seem to comprehend. Well, they are wrong! Criminologist1963 (talk) 11:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe there is a serious problem with how wikipedia is run, you should bring this up at the venues available. They include the administrator's noticeboard, the village pump, and the policies and guidelines pages. There are several criticisms of wikipedia's perceived failures, you can read and discuss them at WP:FAIL and it's associated talk page. DO NOT DISRUPT WIKIPEDIA TO MAKE YOUR POINT. If you believe there is a serious problem with wikipedia, do not seek to correct it here by edit warring. If you are just pushing to get your version on wikipedia, and will not tolerate alternatives, go somewhere else because wikipedia is NOT the place for you. Seek consensus on talk pages, based on the policies and guidelines rather than spurious objections not based on policies. There is absolutely no reason to continuously recreate a content fork. There is no reason to revert to a flawed version. There is no reason to completely avoid reading and referring to the policies and guidelines. You give every indication of being a single-purpose account dedicated to getting one, and only one version of the contents on to wikipedia. This is inappropriate and suggests that wikipedia is NOT the venue for you. WLU (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you say is true. However, the point is that you should say that to yourself, not to me. Change the world and begin with yourself. Criminologist1963 (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid argument, and if that's the basis for your edits, you are essentially committing vandalism, as you are deliberately worsening wikipedia to make a point. Hence, your next unjustified edit will be reported as vandalism. WLU (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you have to do. I will report you too then. Criminologist1963 (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why no canada?

[edit]

There's a couple "satanic ritual abuse" cases that occurred in Canada, at least. Why no section? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't found sufficient sources to really go into detail on the Canada section. And patriotic shame over my country being sucked into this BS. But mostly the former, I'll try to remember/track down Canadian refs if I find the time. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 15:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ra_case.htm has a good list of all, not just Canada. I'm at work right now or else I'd add them. I'm reading about all this stuff, so I'll be adding sources in future - maybe over Xmas when I have some time? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You never have time, no-one ever does : )
Note that generally and historically (on the SRA page as well as WP:RSN - see here) rt.org is not really seen as reliable. I'd use it similarly to the WP:MEDRS recommendations on news stories on medical issues - mine it for sources and use them whenever possible. In this area, I would very carefully venture that it may be useful for very basic, non-controversial facts but other sources are preferrable. Citing it as a link of convenience might be OK. Victor discusses some cases, and I vaguely recall seeing other mentions in other sources. As with yourself, finding the time is problematic. Google books may be very fruitful here if you searched first for satanic.ritual.abuse then in books that crop up, look for the specific Canadian locations for discussions. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 15:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No no, I'll have time - over Xmas, when I'm finishing my paper on SRA. Really, it's not the time, I'm just an unreliable jerk - and though I'd also like to write articles on many of the individual cases, I'm not sure they satisfy WP:N. As for OCRT, I was referring to it as a source of lists of SRA cases; I'm not finding anything wrong on that site, however, and have been plowing through mounds of scholarly articles and books on the topic for a few months now. Though, strangely, even the OCRT site doesn't have the Hamilton, Ontario SRA case listed. I should email him and let him know.... AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, what are the odds that there's this many people reading up on SRA? I've a variety of electronic resources on the topic if you're interested, some free stuff and some PDFs e-mailed to me by students with good libraries. Send me an e-mail. Any suggestions on the current SRA page? WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 20:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an aside, re: religioustolerance.org... I just finished reading Mary deYoung's book, and she uses it as a reference. I think I might have also seen it as a reference either in a journal article, or in Shupe & Misztal's book of essays on fundamentalism. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! Also, Linda Deutschmann's textbook "Deviance and Social Control", 4th ed., also uses OCRT as a reference on the Paul Ingram case. I think it'd be a good idea to reopen that discussion on OCRT. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tags

[edit]

Can the tags be removed from the Netherlands section? Any objections? WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 15:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 days is forever in wikitime. Removing. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 16:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hosanna Church Case

[edit]

Why is it that this article claims evidence was found of SRA, when Prosecutor Freitas was the only one who claimed there was, despite the FBI -- according to all offered sources -- NOT finding evidence of pentagrams, animal blood, et cetera?

Talk about misinformation.. 12.96.43.96 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Satanic murder in Russia

[edit]

A few years ago I read in Swedish Metro about a Satanic murder in Moscow in which a group of Satanic teenagers killed and cannibalised a number of other teenagers, one of which was stabbed 666 times as part of a ritual. I don't remember the details. Does anybody else have any memory of hearing about this?

Najhoant (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compliments

[edit]

(from Talk:Satanic ritual abuse in The Netherlands, now a redirect WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

The article about satanic ritual abuse is both neutral and historical. This is exactly how the discussion developed in the Netherlands.

Polite Woman 11:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that needs to be verifiably proven, and demonstrated to be the point of view of the fast majority of sources. Also, if it's original research not published somewhere reputable before, we can't include it. Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia and congratulations on your very first edit. <eleland/talkedits> 12:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

[edit]

(merged from Talk:Satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Will this article be merged into Satanic ritual abuse (SRA) so that the tag in SRA about focusing too much in the USA may be removed, eliminating the content fork as well? —16:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've merged it to the list of satanic ritual abuse allegations#The Netherlands, and there's a discussion here. I'm thinking of redirecting this page to that section since it was empty to start. WLU (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm still concerned about the complaint in main SRA article that that article is provincial (USA, etc). Couldn't we use some of the material here in that article in order to remove the tag? —Cesar Tort 18:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, but the sources are for the most part in Dutch, which presents a problem. I've added a bit more info on the British interest, but only because I turned it up last night while digging through Intimate Enemies. If we could get our hands on Puntam, 1991, that apparently focusses on the Netherlands incident; were we careful we could simply import text and sources from the list page. The issue is linking the incidents together without engaging in a synthesis and avoiding undue weight or emphasis on one section. Ultimately the Netherlands incident seems rather minor, but perhaps only because I'm reading mostly English sources. There's bits in my books but not much that's substantial on cursory review. We can't give all incidents the same weight or too much weight overall to the section. If you've an idea, I say go ahead. WLU (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am basically concerned to remove the f— tag in SRA article. And BTW, I added dozens of sources in Spanish in the article on Aztec human sacrifice. —Cesar Tort 20:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Criminologist1963: see my recent post in this discussion. I already left a note in your talk. —Cesar Tort 02:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I remember, the allegations sexual abuse in Oude Pekela in the Netherlands were generally not described as satanic ritual. Ritual satanism may have been an aspect by some of the believers in the allegations, but it was not prominent. Much more prominent was the involvement of a clown. Andries (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename discussion for all ritual abuse cases

[edit]

Editors note generalized discussion affecting all ritual abuse cases, at Talk:Satanic_ritual_abuse#Rename_discussion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orkney - the dismissal of the first judgment as "most unfortunate"

[edit]

This seems to be inverted in sense, but is a direct quote from the report ! Report in GoogleBooks Better to remove it altogether ?
The only way I can make sense of it is that "the first judgement was unfortunate, so it is consequently unfortunate that action had to be taken to get it dismissed". At the moment, it seems as though the report is supporting the first judgement !
Isaiah 5:20 "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil"
It is unfortunate that very often when English is unclear, ambiguous or misunderstood, the meaning becomes diametrically opposite ! Is that a named feature in linguistics ?
--195.137.93.171 (talk) 09:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohler multiple prepetrator case

[edit]

At what point will we add the Mohler case? One disturbing aspect is the extradition from Florida of one of the accused. Ritual murder is one allegation made in the media but not being prosecuted by the state. Jared Mohler - one web item reports trial date now moved a third time into Feb 2012 per http://www.kmbc.com/news/27587051/detail.html Darrel (of Sweet Springs FL) and Burrell have tentative Oct 2011 dates in Lexington MO. For the protection of the civil rights of the accused, would federal authority be able to move the trials to another state? Question: have any of the accused sons of the patriarch had deviant behavior convictions subsequent to the alleged 1980's events? G. Robert Shiplett 13:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grshiplett (talk • contribs)

Added three convicted cases for Uk

[edit]

The UK section appeared biased in that it included several false allegations and none of the cases where people were convicted based on significant corroborative evidence. There are others too (Ealing 1993- the "devil church"; 4 in one extended family found guilty; Pembroke 1994- six men guilty, doubt cast on one or two of the convictions later) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.23.222 (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No sources and these aren't necessarily "satanic ritual abuse" in the way the term is used on wikipedia. Removed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any publicly available sources for the Pembroke or Ealing ones? I think so, last time I checked there is an article about both detailing the convictions still available somewhere on the Independent site. Both are described (by both skeptics and believers) as "SRA" or "RA". The Plymouth M Family, GM, EM, PM, EA, etc. has been discussed publicly in relation to ritualistic abuse as well. It is mentioned as "the West country case" in pro-RA literature while the anti-SRA British False Memory Society speaks of "a now septuagenarian grandmother" (i.e. EM, this was 2003) claiming her innocence along with the rest of the family in their newsletter. Swindon B family, proven beyond doubt by DNA on the incestuous children, since 2010 widely believed on the Penhill Estate & further afield to be the subject of a certain "true life story" misery memoir book. I have a personal source who grew up with the mother up in Penhill Anfield satanic abuse was in the Liverpool Daily Post, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.192.59 (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a case for a main article on the Kidwelly case and Colin Batley?Billlion (talk) 08:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New case in Finland?

[edit]

The lower court in Satakunta, Finland has just convicted Anneli Auer and her "boyfriend" to 7 and 10 years in prison for something that seems to be satanic ritual abuse. (See fi:Ulvilan surma) Unfortunately all the court proceedings are secret for the next 60 years. The police also claim that she murdered her husband because of "satanic" motives, but the Finnish courts disagreed.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd say that doesn't qualify it for this article, then. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having read more on the subject, there are several experts who argue in that this is a case of satanic ritual abuse as described in the article, i.e. a witch hunt. We would need reliable sources for the opinions though. Will look. Naturally we will never know what Really happened. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in List of satanic ritual abuse allegations

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of satanic ritual abuse allegations's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Macleans":

  • From Lawrence Pazder: Paul Grescoe (October 27, 1980). "Things That Go Bump in Victoria". Maclean's.
  • From Michelle Remembers: Paul Grescoe (October 27, 1980). "Things That Go Bump in Victoria". Maclean's.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done HelenOnline 07:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on List of satanic ritual abuse allegations which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/justice-for-noleen-murphy-born-and-murdered-4th-april-1973
    Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on List of satanic ritual abuse allegations which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/justice-for-noleen-murphy-born-and-murdered-4th-april-1973
    Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on List of satanic ritual abuse allegations which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/justice-for-noleen-murphy-born-and-murdered-4th-april-1973
    Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

wow, no Prescott case?

[edit]

Wow! Under "Canada", there is utterly no mention of the Prescott case or the Cornwall sex ring case. These were SRA allegations that went on forever; one was even mentioned in the House of Commons! http://www.religioustolerance.org/ra_presc.htm I have no time to add this now, as there are so many sources; anyone else want to check it out? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of satanic ritual abuse allegations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of satanic ritual abuse allegations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of satanic ritual abuse allegations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of satanic ritual abuse allegations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_satanic_ritual_abuse_allegations&oldid=1232100089#Merge?"