Humanities desk
< January 7	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 8

Is this newspaper clipping from 1985 real?

I've seen this image of a newspaper clipping [1] passed around online a fair amount, but I haven't been able to track it down in any newspaper archive. Does anyone know if it is real, or what paper it was published in?

Text:

Friday, August 9, 1985
Naked Witches
Salem, Ore.
Police say about 150 nude women fondled each other and joined in a ceremony involving the display of symbols associated with satanism at a state park, but no laws were broken.
Associated Press

Margalob (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fake. 1985 was the height of the Satanic panic in the US, partly encouraged by conservative Christians, emboldened by the backing of the Reagan administration. If the AP had reported this, there would be entire books written about it. The fact that there aren't tells me that it never happened. Also, there's something odd about the layout of the clipping. Keep in mind, people used to churn out fakes and hoaxes way before the internet. Former reality television show actor Donald Trump even tried a hoax of his own in the New York Times just four years after this with the Central Park jogger case, so it was a popular pastime for people with too much time on their hands. Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tipper Gore was not in any way part of the "Reagan administration." The PMRC backed widespread claims that rock music was satanic, MTV was satanic, Dungeons and Dragons was satanic, etc... while the Reagan administration touted "Just Say No." 12.116.29.106 (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax? I suppose you're talking about this ad? (TimesMachine link for those who have access -- see page 13.)

I thought it was a deeply nasty piece of writing and it permanently colored my view of Trump. But I don't think it was a hoax. --Trovatore (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, you are mistaken. Our articles cover this already, so you are just rewriting history. The rising Christian power in the US was directly connected to the Reagan admin and those who helped Reagan get in office. There are entire books about this association, so you may want to visit the library. Before Reagan, the GOP had isolated evangelicals, keeping them away from the reigns of power. Reagan was the first to let them in and give them significant power in the government. The reasons for this are seen in the complex lobbying coalitions that emerged to work together to fulfill the objectives of the Powell memo, and to also achieve the long-term goals of the Council for National Policy.

"Satanic ritual abuse brought together several groups normally unlikely to associate, including psychotherapists, self-help groups, religious fundamentalists and law enforcement. Initial accusations were made in the context of the rising political power of conservative Christianity within the United States, and religious fundamentalists enthusiastically promoted rumors of SRA.
The Parents Music Resource Center was founded in May 1985. The group's formation was cemented with the financial help of Mike Love of the Beach Boys, and Joseph Coors, the owner of Coors beers. Both had actively supported Reagan's candidacy, and Coors offered offices to the PMRC. Tipper Gore was a founding member along with Susan Baker, wife of Treasury Secretary James Baker in Reagan’s cabinet.
The public advocacy group "Bothered About Dungeons & Dragons" (B.A.D.D.) [arose] in 1983…[it] achieved some success in airing its views in the press, both through conservative Christian media properties as well as mainstream outlets. The organization distributed its materials in Australia through conservative advocacy groups affiliated with the Reverend Fred Nile, such as the Australian Federation for Decency.
Steven P. Miller: "By 1980, the momentum lay on the right side of the evangelical continuum. Ronald Reagan's victory linked evangelicalism with political conservatism in the popular imagination for decades to come. The Christian Right—a movement propelled by evangelicals but also containing sympathetic Catholics, Mormons, and a handful of Jewish allies—received disproportionate media attention, not least because its leaders served up a steady dish of spectacles. The Christian Right gave liberals an enduring foil, sparking the first of two evangelical scares. The reaction against Jerry Falwell and other Christian Right leaders led to the creation of People for the American Way. The public impact of evangelicalism was not strictly political, as the satanism scare and the PTL scandal revealed. Evangelical anxieties and spectacles were American anxieties and spectacles, too. This dynamic hindered Pat Robertson's presidential campaign, even as evangelical influence within the Republican Party remained strong."

Tipper Gore isn’t mentioned anywhere regarding the Satanic panic. Viriditas (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I was 24 then and it did not happen, for it or anything like it wouldn't have happened. In addition, the column's width is narrow, ok for ads perhaps, but not for most subject matter. Also the ink and the type are far too crude for 80s copy which was way better than decades earlier. Even worse, a quick search shows that the date of the supposed incident is Vivek Ramaswamy's birthdate, which strongly suggests it is a recent hoax. Modocc (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. However, a reverse google image search traces it to a Twitter post[2] which attributes it to a real clipping from The 15 Association newsletter, a gay BDSM fraternity.[3] According to that link, the image is from a newsletter in the possession of the GLBT Historical Society. Viriditas (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Twitter post? Really? That claims that an otherwise unknown AP blurb was printed up solely in an obscure newsletter that happens to be buried in some box held by a gay organization. Real cute. I'm not buying into that mess... You do know the Associated Press distributes its stories nationwide. Right? Modocc (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just reporting what I found; I’m not giving it any kind of authenticity. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a reliable source reporting on the ad. It is also covered in the section Central Park Five § Media coverage, cited to reliable sources. --Lambiam 10:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I offer to you, the Red Deer Advocate, August 10, 1985, page 16: [4]. --Golbez (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph about the cadets is hilarious. Viriditas (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Oregon Statesman covered it on Aug 7, 1985. Newspapers.com is a pay site, but that's where it is if anyone wants to know. And the Asbury Press covered it on Aug 9, its first paragraph matching that clipping exactly, though it's a longer story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Women In Conscious Creative Action was incorporated April 11, 1984. [5] and they have a Facebook webpage. The AP didn't get the Wicca organization's name right, and from what Norma Joyce said of their event the two cadets reported to the police that reported to the AP, a load-of-rubbish regarding them fondling each other. Of coarse cameras were fewer, but it is possible they took pics of their body paint (I have old pics of my fiancée with body paint that she took long before we met). Back then we didn't have mobile phone cameras everywhere though. Modocc (talk) 05:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page scan is even better! Nude women legal Fish love prevents sleep Tick Tock · VCRs for $769. https://imgur.com/2MSq2jy Temerarius (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://imgur.com/a/M5f8PjF "Meet draws complaints" by Theresa Nova of the Statesman-Journal 7 Aug 1985 Temerarius (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most stories have a kernel of truth. I remember that a women's group performed a full moon ceremony in the west country and a reporter wrote that this was a traditional ceremony which had been performed for thousands of years. A common motive for fakery is financial gain. In the local press correspondents for local clubs were (and still may be) invited to file match reports for the sports pages. In the nineteenth century a newspaper received a report and published it without question. However, the match never took place. Prior to the alleged event a lot of people had placed bets on the scoreline, which corresponded with the fictitious scoreline transmitted to the newspaper. 2A02:C7B:228:3400:A180:B29C:E1CD:CF6B (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the meeting of the women took place, but there was no sexual activities or satanism involved. That was untrue, and the news media repeated those false claims across the wires at the height of the Satanic panic. Viriditas (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved The newspaper clipping was real. Temerarius (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. It lacks the full story whether it is from the fraternity newsletter or not. Modocc (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not worry too much about it. I hurriedly went buying the "1984" single by Eurythmics, the one featuring the Sex Crime song, envisioning I might need it either as a study subject or a fancy charm. One my mother had had a Salem menthol smoking period earlier on, two they dared broadcast the tale widely enough for leading me to self-timer pictures of myself so I would check whether I looked as a cadet or not. Considerations regarding gay-related matters were also involved in my behavioural mood, they must have been quite explicitly present in the motivation of the broadcaster. --Askedonty (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read up above again. The fraternity in the 1980s performed a kind of informal archival clipping service related to special interest stories in their domain. This was a common hobby in the 1980s and I’ve written at least one article about a man who made this his lifelong pursuit (Peter Tamony). There’s also some crossover with practices like scrapbooking (which were huge in the 80s) and media preservation methods. In other words, the fraternity has nothing to do with this story, it’s only one group that clipped the news story and popularized it through increased attention given by archivists. Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

say in recent airline scare

In recent light of Alaska Airlines Flight 1282, I'm hoping Sully Sullenberger would have his say in the case. If that happens, perhaps he might report from KPIX-TV, right?2603:7000:8641:810E:5086:91A8:2BB3:5B76 (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." Clarityfiend (talk) 06:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But if he gets his say, I predict that he will then say that this was something that should not have happened. Also predictably, he will say that the crew responded quite adequately, as they have been trained to do. Since he is a pilot, not an engineer, his opinions on the structural failure itself are as good as yours and mine. --Lambiam 10:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adequate would have been pulling the CVR circuit breaker after landing. --46.114.2.44 (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ugliness

Unattractiveness#Legality states: "Similarly, according to The Economist, Washington DC has laws that prohibit lookism." If this is really the case, then there must me pertinent citable laws, right? So why is this presented like secret insider information then? Hildeoc (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might be possible to find that info in the cited article, but it appears to require a subscription. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a subscription, and it doesn't really go into more detail. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D.C. CODE ANN. §§ 2-1401.02(22), 2-1402.11 (2001) from Corbet, William R. (2001). "Hotness Discrimination". Catholic University Law Review. fn #62

Since, as a foreigner, I'm not familiar with US law as such, would you, Fiveby, or anybody else in the know mind including this accordingly in the said article, upon further review?--Hildeoc (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me what should be added. A link to the relevant statute? The DC code prohibits (in certain contexts) discrimination based on "personal appearance", so a realtor cannot refuse to sell property to a client because they have no peyes, and also not because they are too good-looking. In finding a partner to mate with, discrimination based on physical appearance, however sad, is as of todai still legal in Washington DC. --Lambiam 18:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam: But these legal provisions, even though limited in scope like virtually any legal regulation, can still be considered relevant in the context of the lemma in question, can't they? Hildeoc (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it is still not clear what should be added. The relevant statute contains eight clauses concerning discriminatory practices with regard to personal appearance – itself the subject of a complicated definition – comprising together almost 700 words, not counting the clauses listing exceptions to the stated prohibitions. Wikipedia editors summarizing this in a helpful way will require original research. --Lambiam 22:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam et al.: So what do we do about that passage then? Hildeoc (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion should more properly take place on the talk page of the article, but here are my latest findings. I don't have access to the article in the Economist, but using Google search I can see^[6] it contains the phrase "In places where “lookism” is already prohibited (eg, Washington, DC), such statutes have not provoked a flood of frivolous cases, she says." Some more Google fu shows that "she" refers to Deborah Rhode. It is not clear from this sentence whether the claim that "lookism" is on the books in Washington, DC, is that of the Economist or – more likely – Rhode, so the current phrasing ("according to The Economist") may be inappropriate. More importantly, in either case Washington, DC, is merely mentioned parenthetically as an example, so singling it out this way in our article gives it (IMO) undue attention. Quoting from an opinion piece Rhode wrote in 2010 for The Dallas Morning News,^[7]

We also have enough experience with prohibitions on appearance discrimination to challenge opponents' arguments. Already, one state (Michigan) and six jurisdictions (Washington, D.C.; Howard County, Md.; San Francisco; Santa Cruz, Calif.; Madison, Wis.; and Urbana, Ill.) have banned such discrimination. Some of these laws date back to the 1970s and 1980s, while some are more recent; some cover height and weight only, while others cover looks broadly; but all make exceptions for reasonable business needs.

Such bans have not produced a barrage of loony litigation or an erosion of support for civil rights remedies generally. These cities and counties each receive between zero and nine complaints a year, while the entire state of Michigan totals about 30, with fewer than one a year ending up in court.

This seems to me a better source to base any attributed reference to US examples on, and the second paragraph appears relevant in view of the often heard counterargument of the threat of a flood of frivolous cases. Note, though, that it is not clear which ones prohibit discrimination based on appearance. Another source, also from 2010, is more explicit in this regard: "Numerous state and local governments have outlawed appearance discrimination on some basis including, among others, Michigan; New York; Illinois; San Francisco; Santa Cruz, Calif.; Madison, Wisc.; Birmingham, Ala.; and Washington, D.C."^[8] (Note they mention two more US states.) 2010 is quite some time ago, so the specific examples mentioned may have become a somewhat meaningless selection. --Lambiam 09:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just delete the section, but if 'lookism' must be imported into the article then Santa Cruz' "purple hair ordinance" is probably a more noteworthy example. Post, Robert (January 2000). "Prejudicial Appearances" (PDF). California Law Review. fiveby(zero) 14:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam: "Note, though, that it is not clear which ones prohibit discrimination based on appearance." What do you mean? It clearly says "We also have enough experience with prohibitions on appearance discrimination to challenge opponents' arguments" before. Hildeoc (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. --Lambiam 21:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian nationalism.

There is something vary confusing. Writen is: "The origins of modern Ukrainian nationalism emerge during the 17th-century Cossack uprising against the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth led by Bohdan Khmelnytsky. Ukrainian nationalism draws upon a single national identity of culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics (or the government), religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history, that dates back to the 9th century." But, historically, it is not true. At this time an ukrainian identity was not known. None of the above: "...national identity of culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics (or the government), religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history..." was not Ukrainian. The term "ukraine" originated from "the edge land", "the military border zone", "the Land-in-Between", "no man's land"... against the Ottoman Empire. All the Cossack Hetmans, such as Boghdan Khmelnytsky, Taras Bulba, and many others, ran in the fight "for "Russian land" and "for Russian soul and faith" but not "for Ukrainian" whatever. We can talk about Ukrainian nationalism only after the October Revolution, when the territorial units of the former Soviet Union began to recognize and identify themselves as territorial and national entities, units and identities. FilipTu (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking a question? --Error (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalism often utilises stories, legends and myths that are not (or not provably) historically true. British nationalism embraces stories about "King Arthur" which might have been distantly inspired by a sub-Roman British war leader who, if he existed at all, was not a King. Swiss nationalism pivots around "William Tell", a story with no historical proof whatsoever and almost certainly pure fiction.

The passage you are critiquing talks about belief in a shared singular history: it does not assert that the belief is factually accurate. As for whether such beliefs arose from the 17th century or in the early 20th (about which I have no position), the article should follow Reliable sources only. If it does not, it should be improved, and indeed it carries prominent banners at the top of the Article and Talk pages saying so. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.104.88 (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Reconstruction of Nations by Timothy Snyder is a great book about the origin of Polish, Lithuanian and Ukrainian nationalisms. All of which, according to the author, only started to emerge in the 19th century, creating national foundation myths that went back to the Middle Ages and skipped the Early Modern period. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably German and Italian nationalism didn't really start to exist in their modern forms until the 19th century. We have an article Romantic nationalism... -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the section Ukrainian language § History of the spoken language we read, "During the 19th century, a revival of Ukrainian self-identification manifested in the literary classes of both Russian-Empire Dnieper Ukraine and Austrian Galicia." The reactions of Tsarist Russia – persecuting expressions of Ukrainian culture and especially language, banning the teaching of Ukrainian from schools, a ban on Ukrainian-language books, public performances and lectures, and so on – did little to suppress the nationalistic sentiments. As our article states, "By the time of the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the collapse of Austro-Hungary in 1918, Ukrainians were ready to openly develop a body of national literature, institute a Ukrainian-language educational system, and form an independent state (the Ukrainian People's Republic, shortly joined by the West Ukrainian People's Republic)." So, while one can question the use of the term "revival" in the first sentence, it appears that the roots of Ukrainian nationalism are older than the October Revolution. The sentence quoted above about "[t]he origins of modern Ukrainian nationalism" is somewhat ambiguous. I think it is true that the intelligentsia promoting Ukrainian nationalism viewed the Cossack rebellions as a national(istic) uprising, in which case these are the claimed origins (not claimed by Wikipedia, but by Ukrainian nationalists). For all I know this viewpoint may well be a myth invented centuries later, but without reliable sources stating so we cannot put the alternative point of view in the article. --Lambiam 19:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]