User talk:Neil Brick/Sandbox/Cult and Ritual Abuse (book)

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

Article name

I'm thinking this article is going to need a rename because it is about a book. Maybe something like Cult and Ritual Abuse (book), but let's see what others think as well. D. Matt Innis 03:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is fine with me. Neil Brick 03:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be for the best, I think. --Joe Quick 14:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, please move it to "Cult and Ritual Abuse (book)" (fully capitalized). --Larry Sanger 17:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I regret the pattern

I object to the pattern of importing book articles that argue that ritual abuse is widespread, but apparently cannot be challenged because they "merely report the book". Might I, then, keep producing articles about books that present only one view of an issue, until CZ is filled with them?

Further, literature is often associated with fiction. Should this book not be under the oversight of a social science workgroup? Howard C. Berkowitz 03:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

CZ can have books on many topics. I don't see a problem with this as long as the articles are accurate. Neil Brick 03:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a good question, Howard. It probably should be on the forum, though. Do you want to start it? D. Matt Innis 03:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No, just put it in the workgroup - it's an academic book.Gareth Leng 12:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification of affililiation

It's useful to identify an individual with their academic affiliation. ", and is the executive director of a professional organization dedicated to treating survivors of cult and ritual abuse," however, is not useful if it does not identify the organization. Further, the wording assumes the existence of the disorders. Might I suggest a more neutral phrasing might be "a professional organization for the concern of patients reporting experiences with cult and ritual abuse"? Howard C. Berkowitz 15:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just do it, seems fine by me.Gareth Leng 16:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to change the text; I'm having a little trouble tracking the organization, which seems to have gone through some name changes. Will put in my best information. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is turning into an argument defending the book's premise

The book has a premise. It is fair to say that many disagree with the premise. I believe it to be fair, within CZ: Neutrality Policy, to articulate the disagreement.

This article is alleged to be about a book, not about the overall existence or nonexistence of the conflation of cults and ritual abuse. Trying to counterargue the disagreements gets away from the topic of a specific book. Generally, CZ has not had articles on specific books, other than long-recognized literary or intellectual masterpieces. It certainly has not, and in my opinion should not, have articles focused on advocacy books. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

To make the article neutral, I thought it important to counterbalance Victor's arguments in the paragraph before. Neil Brick 04:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's making it neutral. The book makes premises. There are disagreements with its premises. When you start arguing with the critics, you've left the subject of the book proper.

Frankly, I'm dubious that any article about a specific research project or advocacy book can ever be completely neutral. Homeopathy probably was our toughest challenge, but it took on a set of ideas as a whole. There have been less controversial issues about complementary and alternative medicine, but all dealt with a set of ideas; there are no articles about individual books or publications.

If you ever expect to see a CZ-style consensus, you are going to have to accept that there will be arguments you don't like. Again, look at homeopathy, and perhaps some of its voluminous talk archives. It presents the basic ideas of the field, accurately enough that practicing homeopaths could live with it. It also makes it clear that there is no widespread medical acceptance of those ideas.

I have difficulty with the definition saying "the phenomenon of ritual abuse", because there is no consensus that systematic ritual abuse exists. The definition could say that it discusses ritual abuse from the perspective of writers who believe in its existence. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The article itself is well balanced and neutral throughout now. The first paragraph describes their credentials and goals "raising awareness." The second paragraph gives a balanced view of their views "Some authors contend that these claims represents fantasy material, dissimulation, or delusions. Others maintain that patients' descriptions of ritualized trauma may constitute a newly identified psychiatric syndrome."

The next three paragraphs provide balanced critiques of the book, two neutral and one anti. The paragraph on Victor and the reply also provide a balance view of the topic.

The word "phenomenon" is appropriate in the counter balancing sentence in the third paragraph because it explains the point of view of those defending the concept. Neil Brick 01:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as one with a bit of experience in what is considered neutral in CZ articles on highly controversial subjects, no, I don't think it is neutral. I think it shows great defensiveness to put four and five sources on a counterarguing sentence. One good reference makes the point.

I would suggest the point is made, not overemphasized, by rephrasing: "Others however, believe that there is empirical evidence for the existence of ritual abuse as a serious phenomenon." This attempt to improve the prose, however, does not change my position that these individual book articles are inherently non-neutral and probably not maintainable. We don't usually have articles on individual books and studies other than those of the greatest note, or as part of well-interlinked groups of articles (i.e., not "orphaned" or "walled gardens"). It is not CZ policy to have articles that "give a voice" to any group. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) The skeptical sentence has 33 words, while the counter one only has 18 words. IMO, an encyclopedia should have articles about books, and the way to do this is by making the page neutral, like we are. I think that counters can use more refs if needed. The paragraphs are about the same length and appear to have the same number of points. Neil Brick 03:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't make such sweeping statements, Howard, such as "We don't usually have articles on individual books and studies other than those of the greatest note". I have written a couple of articles about individual books that are clearly not "of the greatest note," merely books that happen to interest me, and, by extension, probably a couple of other people in the world. These books are not "Hamlet" or "Huckleberry Finn" or "The Great Gatsby". I intend to keep writing such articles, as my fancy dictates. Surely you aren't going to tell me that I can't? Hayford Peirce 04:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed two paragraphs

I removed two paragraphs because they did not seem to be about the book. They appear well written, though, and I hadn't checked the sources, so they might be relevant to some other article - perhaps on ritual abuse - I don't know, but I'll put them here for now.

Ritual child abuse is cited by Victor as one of a series of examples of moral panics. It is "an extension of sensationalized concern about an epidemic of child abuse, and later sexual child abuse. Initially, some mental health specialists who claimed to have developed new medical techniques capable of detecting illegal sexual contact between adults and children ("sexual child abuse") [also "sexual ritual abuse", (SRA)] believed that their clients' accounts of sexual victimization by secret satanic cults might be true. This book is one of Victor's examples of "Some of these therapists communicated their "discovery" of SRA, by publishing articles in specialized professional journals and in popular culture books.

Others believe that ritual abuse is a valid and occurring phenomenon with empirical evidence to back its existence. In one study of 2,709 members of the American Psychological Association over 90% of psychologists who had seen cases of ritual abuse believed that the reported harm took place and believed that the alleged ritualism occurred. Researchers have found ritualistic abuse in substantiate cases of day care sexual abuse. Gould stated that "the evidence is rapidly accumulating that the problem of ritual abuse is considerable in scope and extremely grave in its consequences...Evidence also continues to accumulate that the ritual abuse of children constitutes a child abuse problem of significant scope." D. Matt Innis 04:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with this. Neil Brick 03:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

At a minimum, I believe the article must contain the view that some reasonably authoritative sources believe that SRA is a moral panic. I would rather not stop working on other things to write an article on moral panics, but it is fair, I believe, to introduce that idea as part of the sociological context for this book.

For the record, I have no argument that child abuse exists. I have no argument that there are organized, commercial child pornographic and pedophiliac groups. I find, however, little plausible explanation for SRA, if for no reason other than cui bono, but I do not want to keep arguing that in each book. This is why, if the book articles survive, that they must be subordinate to a more general article(s) presenting the strongly opposed views. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't look to see who wrote what, I only saw diatribe that did not sound relevant to this book. It is relevant to the subject of this book, but that is not what the article is about. Let me take another look to see if I can interface it better perhaps. If nothing else, Gareth is always good at this. D. Matt Innis 04:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I put part of the first paragraph in as a reference for now. Feel free to revert or make other changes. D. Matt Innis 04:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Attempt to unify big picture

We have no article on cults.

We have no article on ritual abuse. There is an article on (male) circumcision, which in part stalled on whether it should include females or there should be an article, consistent with usage in world medical and ethical bodies, on female genital mutilation.

We have no article on Satanism.

Fully understanding that not all trauma or recovered memories are suggested to be sexual, I created a preliminary article, medicalizing sexual offenses. In no way am I committed to that specific title, although the subject is important. It needs a parent topic of sexual offenses, as well as on sexual offenses against children, child abuse (which isn't always sexual), and criminalizing consensual sexual activities. I offer it in the goal of establishing context for a number of difficult articles.

In this case, there needs to be a parent topic of trauma, including purely emotional, physical (i.e., multisystem trauma medicine is an interdisciplinary centered around surgery but not limited to it), and interactions: if there is recovered memory and trauma, it certainly could apply to an accident victim just as much as to a crime victim. There need to be contextualizing articles on subjects I mentioned at the start of this post.

The issues raised are relevant here, and in recovered memory, since the topics are at the intersection of law, health sciences, ethics and social sciences.

If some of these redlinks can be filled in, remembering family friendliness, and the articles (or Related Pages) be well-linked, it would be a start on taking individual studies and books and putting them into broader and — dare I say more encyclopedic' — contexts. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Victor quote: linking, walled gardens and orphans

I have again moved what I consider a key quote, from Victor, out of a footnote and into a blockquote. Note that it now contains a number of wikilinks, blue and red.

Perhaps not obvious to a newcomer, but there is a good deal of feeling at Citizendium, and even at Wikipedia, that what are variously called "orphaned articles", which have very few wikilinks from or to them, or "walled gardens", which are articles that link only among a small set of articles, are a very bad approach to knowledge navigation. Essentially, they can be found only through search engines.

"Strong", or highly linked articles, can be found by a reader starting at a core article and working into depth, or starting from a low-level point and getting context. A search engine might bring a reader to the first article, but a good wiki design provides a powerful mechanism that a search engine cannot replace.

When terms that can be wikilinked are relatively obscure in quotes in footnotes, that defeats the goal of navigation. There are a number of articles, in these areas, which are variously orphaned or in walled gardens. Even if it is a matter of creating lemmas and/or Related Articles pages without full articles, I am going to start giving the orphans parents and breaking down the garden walls. That may, or may not, demonstrate interesting common contexts and patterns. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Howard, let me say that I consider all of the above to be entirely your own opinion. I hardly know what you are talking about, or how to respond to it. I *do* understand what you are saying but vehemently disagree with it. If I, for instance, want to write an article about Matt Helm, I don't see why it absolutely has to link to 70 other articles. It would be nice if it did, and it does, actually, link to a number of others, but WHAT IS THE PROBLEM, AS YOU SEE IT, WITH STAND-ALONE ARTICLES? I think that your approach to this is very idiosyncratic and not at all part of "a good deal of feeling at Citizendium, and even at Wikipedia, that what are variously called "orphaned articles", which have very few wikilinks from or to them, or "walled gardens". As far as I can recall, in nearly two years here at CZ, I have *never* encountered the term "walled gardens". I wish you would restrain your inclinations in making *very* sweeping statements about CZ and its policies, at least as you perceive them -- the reality is not always what you assert it to be. Hayford Peirce 04:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

For more discussion on this topic see the forum thread at; http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2610.msg20578.html

studies and numbers

Neil, I really think that this deserves some more explanation: "In one study of 2,709 members of the American Psychological Association over 90% of psychologists who had seen cases of ritual abuse believed that the reported harm took place and believed that the alleged ritualism occurred."

Okay, that *sounds* very impressive. But careful reading of it leads to another question: "How many of the 2,709 members *had* seen cases of ritual abuse? Ten, perhaps? If so, 90% of them is not quite the same as leading the reader to believe that 90% of 2,709 members believed in it.

If you can't bring in some better figures, then I think Howard should delete this parag. Hayford Peirce 19:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is a more complete source. In summary 30% saw at least one case of "ristualistic or religion related abuse" in c. 10 years (depending on when the survey was taken). Chris Day 20:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Schwarzenegger the Deleter? (Is Terminator that far off?) How did I get that role? Well, yes, I do put resistive Terminators into lots of electronic systems... Howard C. Berkowitz 20:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, i find it strange that this article is citing Faller for the (incomplete) statistic whereas the book itself (link above, pg56) paraphrases the work of "Bottoms, Shaver & Goodman, 1991" directly and more completely. Chris Day 20:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me the time to fix the quote before deleting it.Neil Brick 03:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I see your revised statement still in the indented form -- as if this is a *direct* quote from some source. Isn't it the case that you yourself are writing this statement and indenting it as if it were a quotation? If this isn't the case, and this is a direct quotation, then how can the wording of the quotation change?

Also, you are going to have to say, "these 30% of psychologists saw *alleged* instances of ritual abuse -- you are saying "they saw ritual abuse and then 30% of them agreed that it was ritual abuse." This absolutely is not neutral and cannot be allowed to stand. This whole passage will have to be rewritten, and ALSO made clear to the reader that it is YOU, not the study, that is responsible for this "quotation". In other words, at the very minimum, no more indentations of what are NOT quotations. Hayford Peirce 04:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth noting an additional quote from the ERIC abstract (the paper is non-free): "A few clinical psychologists account for a huge proportion of all ritual case reports, and almost all clinical psychologists who reported any ritualistic or religion-related cases believe their clients' stories on the basis of their clients' dramatic emotions and clinical symptoms, even though there is often no external evidence for them." Howard C. Berkowitz 04:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I note that the blockquote here has two consecutive footnotes. Is this identical, verbatim quoted text from both sources? If not, which is it from, or is it a paraphrase? Howard C. Berkowitz 18:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as i can tell it's paraphrased. The source for these data is "Bottoms, Shaver & Goodman, 1991" as cited in Cult and Ritual Abuse, pg56. Chris Day 18:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I've already "deblocked" it and rewritten it. Now there's the question of the other "blockquote". Hayford Peirce 18:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent)And I clarified that they say they have seen "at least one" case. One problem with these percentages is that it hides the raw data. I want to know how many cases these professionals saw, not if they saw them or not. If everyone of those 30% saw more than ten cases then it means that they either see cases where others do not, or the 70% completely miss these cases. One would expect that if 70% see none, then of the 30% that see at least one case it should be one or two cases and rarely a few might see more (possibly up to ten or more?). And to be even more complete we should know what percentage of their patients the one or two (or ten) represent. As is so often the case with stats they often hide more than they reveal. Chris Day 18:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at the primary source for all these data ( "Bottoms, Shaver & Goodman, 1991") and it's a conference talk. Is there an actual publication on this work? And if not why not? Chris Day 18:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"Comments and critiques" -- editing needed

I have removed the blockquotes from the other "quotation" and rewritten it to make it more neutral and less assertive. That leaves the blockquote by "Victor" (who should be fully identified in the text). Is ABSOLUTELY EVERY WORD of that "blockquote" a direct quotation from Victor? Or only part of it? Or none of it? Please clarify this by removing any NON-VICTOR text from the blockquote and putting it in the text part of the article. Thanks. Hayford Peirce 18:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this. I was unable to find the quote in the article, so I have removed the blockquote.Neil Brick 18:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

It appears that I have accidentally undone another editor's comments (a few words) unknowingly. I am wondering if there is a problem with the software.Neil Brick 18:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried to do an undo here because Neil, inadvertently or not, had changed the text of Chris' comments from what is here to "One would expect if 70% see none then most of the 30% see one or two cases at most. " to "One would expect that if 70% see none, then of the 30% that see at least one case it should be one or two cases at most. " I undid that change, because I believe that other than a minor typographic change, user comments on a talk page are sacrosanct other than from Constabulary action. If something written by another Citizen seems unclear, it's perfectly appropriate to request clarification. "Grammar fixing" of more than an erroneous typo, however, can change meaning. Neil, Chris is British. His phrasing might be BE rather than AE. If you have questions, ask; don't change another person's text in a manner that changes their chosen expression.

Precisely what problem do you think the software might have?Howard C. Berkowitz 18:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

More likely an edit clash and the changes I made to grammar on my original comments got lost. Chris Day 18:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Chris. I did not change the text intentionally. We were editing at the same time and his edit was deleted due to timing.Neil Brick 18:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

As to the software, there should be a warning if the text has changed since you started writing your post. If it is missed or absent then the result is to revert to an older version when you post. Chris Day 18:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

American Journal of Psychiatry book review

The final laudatory book review quote, alas, is from a volume of the AJP just before their back issues went online: Coomaraswamy, R. (Summer 1996). Cult and Ritual Abuse: Its History, Anthropology and Recent Discovery in Contemporary America. American Journal of Psychotherapy 50: 383. The link given merely takes one to the main AJP page.

Given this a recommendation, I would feel better if I could check the source. Is there another archive that has the actual text online? Howard C. Berkowitz 19:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I found the full text through EBSCO's MasterFile Premier. The review does say what it's quoted to have said. Shamira Gelbman 20:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Howard C. Berkowitz 20:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

passage removed from main text.

I have removed:

• Initially, some mental health specialists who claimed to have developed new medical techniques capable of detecting illegal sexual contact between adults and children ("sexual child abuse") [also "sexual ritual abuse", (SRA)] believed that their clients' accounts of sexual victimization by secret satanic cults might be true.

This doesn't tell us WHO these "some" specialists are, and why they believe these accounts are true. This passage also makes no sense at all in light of the opening line of the next paragraph, which says "However, some workers believe that these claims of ritual abuse are true." Should that be "do NOT believe", or what? Or is the previous passage that I have removed not credible? It can't be both. Hayford Peirce 20:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is the exact quote, followed by the endnote:

Initially, some mental health specialists who claimed to have developed new medical techniques capable of detecting illegal sexual contact between adults and children ("sexual child abuse") believed that their clients' accounts of sexual victimization by secret satanic cults might be true. These mental health professionals included some psychotherapists specialized in the treatment of mental disorders characterized by dissociated memory processes. They claimed that these disorders were caused primarily by sexual activity forced upon a child by an adult. (Mulhern 1991, 1994, provides a detailed history of the roles of these mental health professionals in the social construction of SRA.) These mental health professionals also included some child protection social workers specialized in the detection and treatment of sexually victimized children. (Nathan and Snedeker 1995, provide a detailed study of the history of the role of these mental health professionals in the social construction of SRA.)

• Mulhern, Sherrill. 1991. "Satanism and Psychotherapy: A Rumor in Search of an Inquisition". In The

Satanism Scare, edited by James T. Richardson, Joel Best and David G. Bromley. New York: Aldine De Gruyter, 145-172.

• Nathan, Debbie, and Snedeker, Michael. 1995. Satan's Silence: Ritual Abuse and the Making of a

Modern American Witch Hunt. New York: Basic Books.

There's even more discussion; the question is how much to quote and how much to paraphrase. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to those more knowledgeable than I.... Hayford Peirce 21:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't find an online copy of Sociological Perspectives; the link is to a scan/copied version of the text, which appears to be from Sociological Perspectives, 41 (1998): 541-565, which is given as the bibliographic reference [1] in a Google Books text. Nevertheless, I think some of this is important to note in terms of criticism, in that the book author are stating, as fact, views that are, at least, controversial. (added signature later) Howard C. Berkowitz 17:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

bibliography -- all books appear to be small press except one

There's a Harper Collins book in the list, but all the other seem to be published in places like Brandon, Or, and Larimee, Wyoming. And not by Universities in those cities.... Hayford Peirce 22:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

my recent rollback

Neil, you are trying to get your personal views into this article again by your last three edits. I have changed everything back to the last previous version by me. None of the edits you made are justifiable -- they are clearly made in order to advance what are your views about this subject. Please be advised that your views are very much in the minority, are not at all mainstream, and are not backed up by mainstream sources. If you persist in making such editorial changes without first discussing them on the talk page, I will do whatever I can to see that your views are no longer viable in any way whatsoever. Hayford Peirce 03:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned by this. D. Matt Innis 03:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Cult_and_Ritual_Abuse_(book)&diff=100472997&oldid=100472982

Hayford's rollback of my three edits.

I strongly disagree with your assessment of my edits.

I deleted "a professor of sociology at Jamestown Community College, a part of the New York State university system." None of the other authors have this description after their name and I found it unnecessary.

I added a much smaller version of this reference back, that was deleted by another editor.

"In one study, a high percentage of therapists believed their clients' ritual abuse accounts, "though there is often no external evidence for them."Bottoms, B. (August 1991). "Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association (99th, San Francisco, CA, August 16-20, 1991).".

"

I trimmed two lines out of the Best review, already by far the longest review in the article and still even after trimming, still the longest review.

"written by Joel Best, professor of sociology and criminal justice at the University of Delaware"

and

"Noblitt and Perskin regularly acknowledge the evidence for a particular point is not compelling, that, for example, many historians doubt there were witches in medieval Europe. But this hardly matters, others believed there were witches, and, even if there weren't, is the larger pattern, not the specific elements, that matter."

That's all I did. I do not see either of these edits as unjustified or trying to get my personal views into the article. They seem to be minor ones and needed ones. I believe your assessment of my editing here to be unfair and unjustified.Neil Brick 04:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me address the Best review. Clearly, it is a negative review of the book. It also gives specific reasons for doubting the authors, not generic "it's interesting." It was a three page review, and there were far more criticisms that I did believe were too long.

Frankly, I put in the identifications to preempt arguments about authority. Further, the authors' affiliations are given, although the fact that both are strong partisans in support of the widespread ritual abuse position is not, perhaps, adequately disclosed.

As far as the Shaver and Goodman comment, it's not about the book. There's a whole article about Satanic ritual abuse in which the subject is being discuss. Best criticizes the writing of the book. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The other reviews have only one or two lines attributed them. This one was huge and I only deleted two lines from it. I do not see this as unreasonable or promoting my own views, but fair in terms of the weight given the review. Victor's information is not about the book, yet he gets a whole paragraph. I did not touch this part other than the minor deletion of his bio. I add one short line and I even weight it with "though there is often no external evidence for them" (them being the Satanic ritual abuse allegations) and I get accused of "trying to get (my) personal views into this article." If we add one or two identifications, then perhaps we should add these to all reviews.

And honestly, after making a couple of minor edits and being told "If you persist in making such editorial changes without first discussing them on the talk page, I will do whatever I can to see that your views are no longer viable in any way whatsoever" I find unnecessary and unduly harsh. I have tried as hard as possible to follow the rules at CZ. I was told not to edit the Satanic ritual abuse page and I have not. I was told to be civil and even in the face of incivility where another editor has had his remarks stricken from talk pages, I have not once been uncivil. Yes, at times my views may differ from other editors. But I have never wholly reverted anyone else's edits. This has been done to me more than once. I have always gone to the talk pages. I have made small and minor edits compared to others. I believe that my treatment in this section is unfair and I hope that this type of treatment will not continue.Neil Brick 04:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

appropriateness

I agree with Howard (above) about the general utility of an article like this about a specific book. (BTW, I've read it. It demonstrated that those therapists who believe in the reality of the phenomenon are the ones whom patients claiming the abuse are likely to seek out.) What we need first are the more general articles. There is no justification in a balanced encyclopedia for this article. DavidGoodman 23:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I am unsure how the book demonstrated this, since I read it too and didn't note any information about this. Those suffering from a particular problem are of course more likely to seek out those that know about the problem. Those with a foot problem usually go to a podiatrist. Those suffering from trauma may try to look for a psychiatric professional that knows about trauma. And the same for ritual abuse. The more general articles on the topic have now been written. A balanced encyclopedia covers a wide variety of topics, and this book, as well others on the topic, should be included. Neil Brick 03:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

more reviews/abstracts on the book

Cult and ritual abuse: Its history, anthropology, and recent discovery in contemporary America, (rev.ed.). APA Cult and Ritual Abuse: Sadism Not Sophism A review of Cult and Ritual Abuse: Its History, Anthropology, and Recent Discovery in Contemporary America (Rev. ed.) by James Randall Noblitt and Pamela Sue Perskin Westport, CT: Praeger/Greenwood, 2000. 269 pp. ISBN 0-275-96665-8. $24.95 paperback Reviewed by John Schmuttermaier Neil Brick 03:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)