User talk:Cesar Tort/archive1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Madness and Civilization

Hi Cesar. Just in case you look in again, I've rewritten this article that you started back in 2006. Still needs something on what Foucault says about history and what it says about his philosophy. By the way, it's excellent that you to tread where no angels dare. I may not share your views on demographic shift (not sure where exactly you stand) but believe we need articulate editors here putting the case from every perspective. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Demographic shift is an understatement. Genocide of the white people, or perhaps more accurately genocidal levels of immigration is what concerns me. Therefore, besides minor or occasional edits I cannot edit the wiki anymore. It is run by the politically-correct, multi-cultural liberals that are part of the problem that is killing us. —Cesar Tort 05:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Psychohistory

“Cultural relativism is crap, believed only by idiots, ignoramuses, anthropologists and historians. The Convention on the Rights of the Child explicitly rejects cultural relativism... Cultural relativists are merely denying human rights. (On a moral level, they are still violating human rights.) The reason anthropology and history are fucked is because they reject psychology and that is the only possible explanation for both culture and history.”

—Ark's flaming discussion in Talk:Early infanticidal childrearing.

Ark referred to the antagonism between psychohistory and history and anthropology: like psychiatry and academic psychology, both deny the “I” domain of the subjective self even in psychological phenomena, as explained in my user page. —Cesar Tort 05:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Jesus

Retrieved from Slrubenstein's talk page:

I have noticed that you are interested in the historical Jesus. Since 1987 I became interested in Morton Smith, especially his book Jesus the magician.

I know there has been a lot of controversy about The secret Gospel and the Clement letter. But that doesn't interest me much. The portrait that secular humanist Paul Kurtz (whom I know personally) presents about Jesus in The transcendental temptation, in which he mentions Smith's book, strikes me as realistic.

Do you hold a particular view on Smith? (BTW, I corresponded to him just before he died.)

—Cesar Tort 06:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that when he was in his prime, he was one of the most important historians of religion especially of Judaism during the Hellenic and Roman period. I believe his book on Jesus was respected, and still is only to the extent to which it is dated. There has been a lot of work by younger historians since he retired, and I think his writings have been supplanted by them (e.g. E.P Sanders and Paula Fredricksen) ... but I bet even newer and more current works on Jesus still cite him. He has been supplanted by younger historians of Judaism during the Hellenic/Roman period (e.g. by Shaye J. D. Cohen) but again I imagine even theystill cite him. I never knew him but don't doubt that in his day he was a great scholar. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have handy a Harper & Row copy of Jesus the magician, page 27 describes a most realistic picture of who might have been the historical Jesus:

...a carpenter in Nazareth where his family lived, went back for a visit after he had set up as an exorcist, but was regarded with contempt by the townspeople and could do no miracle there. Even his brothers did not believe him, and once, at the beginning of his career, his family and friends tried to put him under arrest as insane. For his part, he rejected them, said that his true family were his followers, and had nothing to do with them through all his later career. This coherent and credible account is broken in the gospels into half a dozen fragments.

Curiously, deMause told me by e-mail a couple of years ago that Jesus could have been swaddled (Luke 2:7), i.e., badly abused as a baby (swaddling was an almost universal practice by then). Donald Capps has published an interesting psychobiography of an abused child Jesus.

—Cesar Tort 17:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If you like Smith, I think you would really like Sanders. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sander's views on Paul look interesting. My favorite on this subject is Hyam Maccoby's The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity. —Cesar Tort 20:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Cultural relativism etc.

I'm replying here so as not to clutter the Talk:Psychohistorical views on infanticide page.

One of the main issues here is your and deMause's misunderstanding of Cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is not a 'worldview' as such. It is essentially a tool employed so as to maintain objectivity while studying a particular culture. That in no way, shape or form means that an anthropologist agrees with or condones practices like warfare, female circumcision, or infanticide. However, in searching for how a particular culture operates from an insider's perspective (we call this the emic perspective) it is important not to bias research by imposing your culture's view of any given practice. It is only in this way that we can understand the question: Why?

You and he also seem to overlook the field of applied anthropology in which anthropological theory is used to solve problems in a culturally specific way. As is obvious, outlawing something like female circumcision has little to no effect on the practice, but if we study the practice by understanding the norms for that culture we figure out a way to inform cultures in ways that they will accept instead of trying to simply force our cultural perspective upon them (which has been disastrous historically).

That particular article actually makes a much bigger deal of any controversy that may exist because of this, as news sources often do. Let me put it this way: People wear different hats when doing different things. If you don't study something objectively then you are not going to get useful data. Anthropologists are perfectly capable of studying a culture objectively one day while on the next are equally capable of recognizing that there are injustices in said culture.--Woland (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This last sentence, "anthropologists are perfectly capable of studying a culture objectively one day while on the next..." sounds a bit schizophrenic to me.

Just curious: did you read the Robert Godwin article I called you attention to? I mean —and here in my talk page I can talk in the most blunt, politically incorrect way— it's pretty obvious for me that, because of many Muslims' childrearing ways, Jewish people (in general) belong to what deMause calls a superior psychoclass.

This has nothing to do with race. It only means the level of psychological integration among the Jews (or in the case of Muslim terrorists the level of psychological dissociation) that a particular mode of childrearing causes.

I would be most interested to know your opinion about Godwin's article, The land that developmental time forgot.

—Cesar Tort 19:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This last sentence, "anthropologists are perfectly capable of studying a culture objectively one day while on the next..." sounds a bit schizophrenic to me.

Maybe so, but that is just good science. Science is nothing without objectivity. Academic research must be undertaken without personal feelings, beliefs, etc that may cloud one's perception.

I did read the article and basically found it to be so offensive and disturbing that I really don't know what to say about it. It makes many many many invalid and untested assumptions which makes me seriously question the level of scholarship of Godwin. If time allows I'll try to give a more scholarly critique in the next few days. --Woland (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's amazing that we seem to be living in the very antipodes, Woland. To me it's an obvious category error to use the method of science to understand the humanities. Science is the study of the empirical world. Physics is its paradigm. You must be objective in hard sciences, yes. But humanities are impossible to understand without subjectivity.

I'll give you a single example. I have read some books on the Holocaust. But the only one which actually got me there was a confessional book, Gene Church's telling of Jack Oran's (born as Yakoff Skurnik) story: his horrific experiences in Auschwitz. I met Skurnik at a Houston conference in 1996 about those experiences. Without this sort of emotions and subjective testimony, an academic textbook on the Holocaust is like a black-and-white film. Only the emotions of a victim bring the film to real color —and life.

—Cesar Tort 20:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like oral history to me which I also think is pretty cool but I think what you're getting at is the difference between qualitative and quantitative data. I agree that some parts of the social sciences lend themselves better to qualitative data but (1) that doesn't mean that there aren't other areas that lend themselves better to quantitative data and (2) it doesn't mean that we can't gather and interpret qualitative data using the scientific method. There is a really good book (well, really good for people with an anthropology background, but it's pretty readable I think for people who don't have that background) called Research Methods in Cultural Anthropology by H. Russell Bernard that gives an excellent overview of this. Essentially he identifies three norms of science that must be adhered to if we are going to call whatever it is we're doing 'science.'

These norms being that science must be objective, methodological and reliable. By objective we mean that we are explicit about our measurements so that findings may be subject to peer review where potential bias can be pointed out. The method of science is based on three assumptions, (1) that there is an objective reality, (2) reality can be understood and studied through direct observation and (3) material explanations are sufficient explanations for natural phenomena. The final norm is that science must be reliable. That is to say, as Bernard writes, that what is true in Detroit is just as true in Vladivostok. So, as I said, there is no reason why we can't gather things like ethnographic information (which are sometimes better at expressing themselves qualitatively; see Franz Boaz )while adhering to the norms and methods of science. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a strict positivist by any means but I do consider myself to be a scientist at heart.

Personally I like Survival in Auschwitz.--Woland (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to Bernard's criteria as summarized above. Maybe we are getting closer. One of my favorite books is The Gulag Archipelago. It may be said that Solzhenitsyn managed to merge superbly both qualitative (subjective) and quantitative (objective) data. This is the method used by deMause. I cannot understand why, after its firsts paragraphs, you found his essay On writing childhood history that he started "to take a horribly wrong turn". —Cesar Tort 18:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head:

I discovered I simply could make no sense at all of what Roheim and others were saying. This was particularly true about childhood. Roheim wrote, for instance, that the Australian aborigines he observed were excellent parents, even though they ate every other child, out of what they called "baby hunger," and forced their other children to eat parts of their siblings. This "doesn't seem to have affected the personality development of the surviving children, Roheim said, and in fact, he concluded, these were really "good mothers. [Who] eat their own children.(6) Doubtful that eating your sibling could fail to be traumatic, I began to question the rest of Roheim's happy aboriginal childhood" thesis. I turned to the publications of other ethnographers, and found little help, other than a confirmation of the cannibalism of Australian infants. It was only when I began publishing a new scholarly journal, The Journal of Psychological Anthropology, and was able to publish psychoan-thropologist Arthur Hippler's first-hand observations of an Australian aborigine tribe, that I learned what Roheim had left out:

(1) Relying on an ethnography from the early 20th century is probably a bad idea for many reasons, (2) It is easy to see from his writing why deMause is "Doubtful that eating your sibling could fail to be traumatic..." namely that he is viewing it through the lens of his culture and what his culture says about 'cannibalism.' I don't think that it is intentional but there is a serious bias here that borders on ethnocentrism, even if it is unconscious.

Generally, (aside from starving people doing it out of necessity) cannibalism (or anthrophagy, literally: people eating) can be lumped into two (maybe three) categories. (1) It is often performed as an insult to enemies or (2) there is what we call funerary cannibalism which is essentially the eating of the dead as sign of reverence (sometimes people let it rot for awhile before trying to gag some of it down). If you wanted to create a third category for something like, "cannibalism as a way to absorb the power/spirit of someone" that would probably work too but this may be more of a subcategory for the other two. Case in point; the cannibalism practiced by the Australian aborigine tribe looks like a combination of 2 and 3. One of the interesting things is that cultures who practice (or used to) anthrophagy don't see themselves as 'cannibals' at all and in fact often use it as an insult when talking about their enemies. To the cultures that practice it it is simply a part of life. Other cultures simply do not always have the same 'hang-ups' that we do.

That example is really just a random selection. To me much of what he is saying rests on assumptions and assertions that he makes because of his cultural bias and his fixation on Freud (who also made a lot of assumptions and assertions). Similar comments could be made about his assumptions about incest. The thing about incest is that it is defined differently for different cultures who have different ideas about kinship and who you could marry or not marry or even be in close proximity to (with the Yanamamo it's considered incest if you're even relatively close to or make eye contact with your mother-in-law.

This is what I mean by "wrong turn." By starting out with assumptions he loses his ability to be objective.--Woland (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, had you read the entire article you would have hit the passage in which deMause explains how he distanced himself from Freud as to the myth that childhood was much happier in the past.

As to incest —and cannibalism!— you talk about "ethnocentrism"; that "to the cultures that practice it is simply a part of life", and that deMause "is viewing it through the lens of his culture".

I am sorry but you are mistaken. You are forgetting the pov of the sacrificed child. As Fitz John Porter Poole commented in a 1983 article published in The Ethnography of Cannibalism about the New Guinea cannibals:

Having witnessed their parents' mortuary anthropophagy, many of these children suddenly avoided their parents, shrieked in their presence, or expressed unusual fear of them. After such experiences, several children recounted dreams or constructed fantasies about animal-man beings with the faces or other features of particular parents who were smeared with blood and organs.

Sometimes I wonder, Woland, if you have indeed read the archived 2002 flame war in talk:Early infanticidal childrearing. Here is a passage from my selection of that flame war:

And the interpretation of child abuse in the case of infants is acultural. Infants do not have culture so are incapable of "interpreting" anything through a cultural filter. And yet again, you persist in ignoring the child's point of view, as if the rationalization of the child abuser mattered to them. Only anthropologists care about how the members of the primitive culture rationalize their behaviors. Anthropologists are just very bizarre people, and about as relevant to most people's view of what constitutes child molestation as experts in the paranormal. The relevant experts in the area are developmental psychologists. –Ark [1]

—Cesar Tort 22:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) I did read much of that flame war but I wasn't aware that it was required reading for this course. Perhaps in the future you could write it on the syllabus. Mostly what I read was Ark foaming at the mouth and generally being uncivil, as such I saw no reason to bring it up.

(2) I also read where deMause rejected some of the ideas of Freud (I also think it's fairly obvious from the ideas he has that differ) however, what I was getting at is that they share ideas (in the philosophical sense) about why people are the way they are, what factors play into it, and how it can be studied. That is to say that they share a certain heuristic perspective as well as a similar metatheory perspective.

(3) In regards to New Guinea cannibals, I was talking specifically about Australian aboriginal cannibalism, if only to illustrate a point, that being that he was starting out with an assumption based on his enculturation.

I'm not sure where this conversation is going at the moment but I have a few points that I feel I need to clarify.

Perhaps the biggest underlying assumption of cultural anthropology is that culture is an adaptation that humans (well, their ancestors) developed which turned out to be pretty successful. Now, there is differing opinion as to whether every single aspect of any given culture is adaptive (and people are constantly testing this) but for the most part cultures are in fact adaptations to the local environment. Getting back to cultural relativism, anthropologists are not trying to be apologists for child molesters, people/cultures who kill/neglect their children or people who fly planes into buildings. The underlying question(s) of cultural anthropology could be something like: If culture is in fact an adaptation to local environments (1) what would we expect to see if this were true and (2) how do we go about testing and what kind of data would confirm this observation? What I'm trying to say is that we generally predict not only that cultural norms will be different cross-culturally but also that members of that culture will react to those norms in culturally specific ways. Example: If culture is adaptive then I predict that cultures with a higher infant mortality rate have fewer resources than those with lower infant mortality rates. These cultures will adopt culturally specific ways to deal with the loss of children (like not naming them until x age).

As I see it, this is where anthropologists differ from psychohistorians. It is difficult for me to wrap my brain around why (1) psychohistorians think that anthropologists discount the individual. In fact one of the general rules when studying a culture is to first study the smallest unit possible (i.e. the individual) and then work your way up. This isn't always possible but its a good rule of thumb. Big theories in any field tend to talk about the larger effects but that doesn't mean that the individual isn't studied and taken into account. (2) Why psychohistorians accuse anthropologists of this and then turn around and make large generalizations themselves about child-hood cross-culturally is beyond me.

So far as I can parse, what psychohistorians are saying is: that all humans share an intrinsic perspective on things like cannibalism, incest, abuse etc and that how pervasive these things are in a given culture will determine how far along they are on a progressive ladder. I'll stop now because I'm just babbling. --Woland (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No: psychohistorians don't say that all humans share an intrinsic perspective on things. Here in my town, almost half millennia ago Sahagún was shocked to see that some parents killed and ate their children with zero sense of guilt or remorse. What psychohistorians do say is that the level of empathy is differential among cultures. Yes: this is similar to 19th century evolutionary anthropology. But it's quite different. You say above "if culture is in fact an adaptation to local environments...". Psychohistorians would say that culture is an adaptation to a given psychogenic mode of childrearing.

Of course, we agree to disagree :) Cesar Tort 17:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification,though to some extent I feel we are using different terminology for the same thing(s). --Woland (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Racism

The United States pours out more green house gases than any other country. This proves that Americans are fixated at the anal stage. What are green house gases but our own waste, and we derive great pleaure from observing, measuring, sometimes pretending to hold in, then releasing our reenhouse gasses; obviously greenhouse gasses = shit. As Freud remarked shit = money = death. It is quite clear that greenhouse gases = death as they are literally killing the planet and will cause more and mor ehuman death. They also equal money as the main justification for our not signing the Kyoto protocol is the econoic costs of regulating our emissions. It is no surprise that just as the US reaches its peak as one of the world's wealthiest and economically most powerful countries, we lose control of our ability to control our waste. I think we realize that the economic prosperity we enjoy is hollow, really does ewual death, and this being the case we may as well enjoy the real thing, the production of death. In this we are less evolved that Muslim countires. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything you have said above except the last sentence. We can imagine how this world would be if Islamic terrorists could nuke cities (the US did it twice, yes, but then it was World War II).

Yes: I admire Al Gore's efforts about what you say. I take this as an opportunity to show what psychohistorians hold. Most of them believe that some Democrats (again, I think in Al Gore) belong to a more evolved "psychoclass" than those of the Republican right, who are only concerned about shit profit. Ironically, it seems that both of us belong to a similar American psychoclass (I lived about five years in the US): at least with regard of taking care of the environment.

—Cesar Tort 02:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Global warming will destroy most life on the planet, and reduce human society and population levels to the paleolithic (e.g. the last ice age). Terrorists using nucelar weapons will kill only a fraction of all human deaths in WWII. even using biological weapons they would probably kill only a fraction of those who died from the Black Death. In the January 21 issue of The New Yorker there is a profile of Mike McCannell, the new Director of intenlligence for the US; he states clearly that Islamic terrorists are not even the threat to the US that communism or fascism was. This is not to minimize the loss of life in any terrorist attack. But American's regression to a stage when all they could do was consume and play with their own shit, and identify the accumulation of shit with wealth, is destroying most life on earth. We are far more regressive and uncivilized than Islamic terrorists (let alone all the Muslims who are not terrorists). Slrubenstein | Talk 10:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

May I call to your attention what User:Aetheling wrote yesterday about Lawrence Keeley's War Before Civilization in this talk page? What matters is not bare numbers but proportions of deaths per population quantity. Muslim terrorists have killed more Iraq civilians willingly than the collateral damage —i.e., Iraq civilians were not the target— of US bombings during the Iraq war. And what about China's greenhouse gases and the statistical projections of such gases that are to be expelled in India in the near future? Surely the US is not the only devil here. —Cesar Tort 16:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Cultural relativism (continued)

Thank you for the welcome. I will probably create a real user page in the near future :).

However, you mistake my meaning. I did not mean to debate what psychohistorians thought about cultural relativism, or whether cultural relativism is good or bad - I merely commented that "cultural relativism" as a phrase has different meanings for anthropologists and non-anthropologists. While people from outside the discipline seem to believe that "cultural relativism", as spoken of by anthropologists, is akin to moral relativism, they are (usually) mistaken. While there probably are a few anthropologists who champion something that could be seen as that kind of relativism (there are fringe people in every discipline), it is most certainly not a majority view.

As I wrote on the discussion page of Psychohistory, cultural relativism is, for anthropologists, a research methodology, not a moral stance. So if your average anthropologist says that he/she/lamp is all in favour of cultural relativism, that is most probably what he/she/lamp is talking about. The present article misrepresents anthropology, which is why I would like to see it changed

from:

"Psychohistorians also believe that the extreme cultural relativism proposed by many anthropologists is contrary to the letter and spirit of human rights.[9]"

to something like this (changes bolded):

"Psychohistorians also believe that the extreme cultural relativism that they feel many anthropologists champion is contrary to the letter and spirit of human rights.[9]"

Your claim that many anthropologists propose extreme cultural relativism is unsourced as is. The thing that your source says is that the source believes that anthropologists are what they are, not that that is what the discipline actually is. It may seem like a subtle nuance, but I think it's a very important one.

-R2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.184.161.226 (talk) 10:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Curious. The stuff I read in the 2007 Encyclopedia Britannica in the article anthropology says that anthropology "resists universal values of any kind" regarding cultures. Take a look at this.

Re: wikiquotes

Hey. You asked me to take a look at the wikiquotes from deMause. I'm answering here, to avoid crowding the talk:Psychohistory page.

It's very hard for me to really form an opinion on those quotes because I don't know the context. I haven't read deMause myself. However, a few comments:

-he seems to have a polemic relationship to traditional historiography and anthropology. In order to differentiate Psychohistory from existing disciplines, he is exaggerating and concentrating on the differences, as opposed to the similarities between it and other disciplines. He is seizing on extreme cases of stuff (for example cannibalism, which I seriously doubt has been particularly common anywhere except possibly Papua New-Guinea, where I think it was mainly practiced in war, against the enemy), and arguing based on them. I think he risks a straw man argument there, but I can't say, as I don't know the context around those quotes.

-I do not agree with the psychological way of looking at culture: which is to say that society starts at the level of the individual and does not really transcend it, and that people think in the same categories and the same ways cross-culturally. I don't mean to be ridiculous here: all people know love, hate, fear, pain, and so on, but the way that they experience and interpret these feelings are not identical. This is basically what the cultural relativist argument a la anthropology is: people have culturally encoded systems of meaning, which have to be approached from the inside to be understood.

-HOWEVER. Regardless of culture, or what constitutes happiness for a given person or group, some universalist values can certainly be stated. I believe that rape, death, torture and so on are - for everyone - equally degrading. This is the place where relativism ends, and things like human rights - enforced universally - step in.

-This might sound like a slightly schizophrenic position, and to some degree it is, but absolute relativism or absolute universalism, however satisfying they might theoretically be cannot be defended. Absolute universalism is always one particular, often Western way of thinking, that is enforced a priori and thrust on everyone else. No questions are asked, and the voices of other cultures and peoples are silenced. I cannot see this as something desirable. On the other side of the coin, absolute relativism is equally detestable: a situation where one cannot make moral judgements, and every group and people can only be approached by their own standards. This does not really lead to any real freedom, but rather apartheid: every people becomes a thing sui generis, impossible to understand or interact with. This is also a ridiculous position, because we must admit that we are all humans: there are definetely a great many things, both physical and mental, that we all share.

-What does this leave us with? Vagueness, a kind of ill-defined middle ground between relativism and universalism, where you hang somewhere in between. At least for an ethnographer, you cannot adopt brutal universalism, because at that point you are telling your informants who they are and what they represent, rather than trying to inquire about their cultural world. If you choose complete relativism, you are taking a rather callous, and morally questionable stance. So between arrogance and indifference, there's really no chance but to take the middle ground, and move from between one pole and the other.

-Hrrr. That was pretty unclear. I can point you at an article that explains this a whole lot better than I ever could. This kind of movement between relativism and universalism is characteristic especially of human rights anthropology, and I would argue the human rights regime as a whole. Even though human rights are committed to a certain universalism, the way in which they are adapted and actually implemented on the field, far from the gleaming pristine halls of European law courts, has a certain degree of flexibility, just like any other legal code.

-R2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.184.161.226 (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes: this is a huge subject. Impossible to discuss in talk pages. In talk:psychohistory I only wanted to make the point that, though anthropology in Finland (I see your I.P.s) might have become civilized, we have pretty Neanderthal relativists here in Mexico. Psychohistory is not about the old British universalism, based on social, economic and technology progress; it's based on observing the less abusive forms of childrearing (and therefore, the less dissociated peoples that such childrearing creates in different societies). Of course, deMause's model has its problems. User:Aetheling has posted interesting comments on this subject here and here. —Cesar Tort 09:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think my sympathies still lie more with Woland and his comments above on this talk page. I'm not personally a huge fan of combining psychoanalytic/psychological complexes and stuff with ethnography focused on the level of society. The school of thought that I represent holds that there is more to society than the individual, and that there are emergent social forms that cannot be reduced back to the individual; thus, categorizing a culture or society through psychological means becomes problematic.

-R2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.184.161.226 (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that psychoanalysis is nonsense; that deMause's writing is weakest when he speculates about the motivations of the US going to war, and that, like international politics, there are other emergent forms from mere individual motivations, etc. However, his model is strongest when trying to explain schizoid personalities among the cultures. I for one have read about the pre-Columbian past of Mexico. It's all too clear to me that anthropologists in the INAH have no clue whatsoever about why the pre-Columbian people in Mesoamerica institutionalized human sacrifice like no other culture has. The politically correct explanations of sacrifice in current anthropology are dumb. Only by understanding people in our times who also have the drive to serially murder it is possible to understand native Americans or what deMause calls the "infanticidal psychoclass". Have you read Infanticide? This is the article which has received most of my edits in Wikipedia. But as I said, the subject is huge for discussion in a talk page. —Cesar Tort 16:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

By "the drive to serially murder..." I meant that criminologist Lonnie Athens developed a theory about how a process of brutalization by parents or peers that usually occurs in childhood results in violent crimes in adulthood. Richard Rhodes' Why They Kill describes Athens' observations about domestic and societal violence in the criminals' backgrounds. The same applies to entire infanticidal societies and their childrearing practices, believe it or not :) —Cesar Tort 09:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

al-Hassan Ibn al-Haytham

Hi. Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Islamic Golden Age/archive1 has been lurking at the back of my mind, and I've just come across an article about an al-Hassan Ibn al-Haytham on the BBC News, see [2]. I haven't looked into him in depth (yet), but it seems that my education was a little lacking (or possibly, a little westernized). Mike Peel (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Arthur C. Clarke

Retrieved from User talk:Haiduc:

Hi Haiduc. Before he betrayed us with 2010: Odyssey Two for money, Arthur C. Clarke used to be my idol. I even corresponded to him in the 1990s. Now that he is dead, his ex lovers might start to speak out. Be patient. If the ephebophile claims are true, my educated guess is that sources will be forthcoming in the near future. Clarke was far way beyond mankind's grasp in many ways. Maybe that's why the Clarkives are to be published in 50 years... Cesar Tort 21:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Too bad I do not have fifty years left in me! Haiduc (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Ceser, Clarke certainly let his name be attached to a lot of junk in his later years, over which we can only roll our eyes. I expect you realize he may have really needed the money, and maybe we can give him a little break about that. I have seen no sign that he lived in an ostentatious or extravagant way, and I think he must have needed it to keep himself going in the face of serious medical problems, and to maintain his extended family. I tend to sympathize, having some similar issues myself. I do hope nothing truly wicked about him emerges, but we will have to see about that. I think he was kind, at least, which I see as a central virtue. Best, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, someone put Occult into the Childhood's End page in place of Overmind, and after having a look around here I wondered if it might have been you. I was preparing to re-write the lead sentence myself, but I see someone has changed it, as if it were a typo (which I doubt very much). Anyhow, "Occult" in that sentence certainly troubled me, and if that came from you I would be interested to discuss it. It may be all about the definitions of words. -- B Wwheaton (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No. It wasn't me. Clarke himself wrote in the new edition that he was skeptical of such claims.

Writing 2010 was a betrayal of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Kubrick and his fans. That's why you don't see mention of 2010 and the other Odysseys in most obituaries. Clarke didn't have to sustain an extended family. Two hired people would have been enough. After you write Hamlet, writing a sequel for money is treason. It's just nothing to do with the real Hamlet. Clarke should have asked permission to Kubrick. He didn't. Scott Meredith showed him the green bill and Clarke took it. I think it was Ezra Pound who said that everything that has been written for money is worthless. I agree. I told this to Clarke but he was old by then. Too bad that after Kubrick no one has filmed something similar. I wish I could do something to film Childhood's End but I don't know how to contact Kimberly Peirce. —Cesar Tort 20:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, Cesar, I really love and admire your purity, even though I cannot quite agree. I think after writing CE and 2001, one should not be sentenced to being required to equal or surpass them for life. And that extended family was not his caretakers, they were his friends, adopted family. The later, lesser works are simply detached from the earlier monuments; is that so terrible? Even Shakespeare and Bach had a right to bad days. (I really know nothing about any betrayal of Kubrick; I might agree with you that he did badly on that, if I were more informed.)

But I digress. I rewrote the lead plot summary paragraphs of the Childhood's End article a few days ago, you might like to take a look. It was a quick and dirty job, but needed doing. All the best, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 04:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bill. Some time ago I edited such article in my own way.

I totally agree with you that we must tolerate, say, Newton's trappings with alchemy and his loonie interpretation of the Book of Revelation. However, this is a far cry from writing Hamlet II for money, thus betraying a masterpiece. Clarke could've easily made more money had he tried, thru his friendship with Kubrick, to find a director for his best novels. (Kubrick did ask him not to film the stupid novel 2010 by the way.) You can't write Hamlet II for money, resuscitating the prince of Denmark, even if you are Shakespeare. You simply can't.

I felt horrible when trying to read 2010: my most valued ideals had been betrayed for the sake of the green bill. I never wrote a strong letter to Clarke about the subject, but I felt tempted to do so...

—Cesar Tort 04:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I found your Karellen article at our first interaction. I liked it a lot, with a fine collection of what are to me the most moving excerpts from the book. I think the current Wiki article is not nearly as good. I doubt, given the wiki ground rules, that it ever will be improved to be as powerful as your collection of "good parts". ("Karellen" surely looks weird in that image; especially his ears--they almost come out of the side of his neck. The goatish connection, maybe? — though in Karellen's case, for most un-goat-like being.)

There are two big questions I would love insight into in my lifetime. First is whether the laws of nature can be understood in some finite representation. Gōdel's incompleteness theorem suggests to me that maybe no such finite "Final Book" of physics can exist, but I am not sure Gōdel is even relevant. But if it is infinite, then the sort of vertiginous revolutions we have seen in physics since 1895 may go on ad infinitum, and all bets are off. Of course that is my favored answer, as it suggests things will never be boring. The second is about the probability of Life emerging de novo from the non-living astronomical panorama we observe. At this point I think we have no rational basis at all for having an opinion. We could be the only life extant, from here clear out to the Horizon, nearly 13 billion light years away, and be looking at a vast desert. Or we could be looking at the lights of the Big City, teaming with every imaginable variety, filling every niche with adorable (and/or awful) creatures. The Bar Scene from Star Wars writ large. Here I also have a hope, which is that the styles and varieties of life, and of Mind too, go on without end, that there will always be new surprises and new vistas waiting for us. But God will be what God will be, I suppose. I think the clues we have are thrillingly suggestive, if a bit terrifying.

About 2010, etc, I guess we just have to disagree. Clarke gave us such a riches of ideas that I cannot fault him if the well ran dry towards the end; Ich habe genug.

Best, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You may have'd enough about 2010 Bill, not me. Nobody on the planet has loved the film 2001 more than me, not even Piers Bizoni. What Clarke did was something like reviving Hamlet for money: an outrageous shame and a treason for people like us. I don't care at all if he fucked with teen boys. Believe me! But an unauthorized biography condemning his literary treason is in order. One of the reasons why I have zero contact with Clarke fans in the internet forums, and not even watch their pages, is because people don't want to see something so obvious. He is the only sci-fi writer I loved, the only one. Asimov et al's writing seem rubbish to me. There's an image in the first film of Batman when Jack Nicholson's clowns paint over with wide brush some masterpieces of great painters. One would except that sort of vandalism coming from a joker, but never coming from the author himself —for money! And that is 2010: Odyssey Two. —Cesar Tort 18:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There may be more to the story about this than I know. I only read the book and saw the movie, and just thought it was nowhere near the standard set by CE & 2001. But I don't see how it diminishes the great works, that there were ordinary ones. That just seems to show that Clarke was human to me, not outrageous. Maybe I am too morally flabby, but I really don't get it. Bill Wwheaton (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In literature there's a cliché: once and author finishes a great work, it's no longer hers.

It's difficult to convey my feelings unless you read my autobiography (a 275,000-word MS in Spanish), but I'll try the impossible task of summarizing it in a nutshell. If you are a Hamlet fan how would you have felt that, for money, Shakespeare wrote Hamlet Redivivus?

When I was a boy I wanted to become a second Kubrick. A major catastrophe, something as maddening as Sophie's Choice (all of this is in my autobio), prevented me from reaching my goals. In 1968 I was ten years old and went with my dad to see both 2001 and The Planet of the Apes (my father used to compose orchestra music and in the early 1960's he turned down a Warner & Bros. job to compose soundtracks). I loved the music of the Apes film, especially that of the desert and beach scenes, as well as Taylor's cursing of mankind at the end of the film.

A few years later I received my first big shock in a market society when, with enormous enthusiasm, with my cousin I watched Beneath the Planet of the Apes: a complete bullshit and betrayal of the first film.

For years I loved Clarke's statements that a sequel to 2001 was clearly impossible. Even my brother bothered me with jokes that Clarke was writing a sequel. I couldn't expect that my worst nightmares would became true in 1982 and for the same commercial reasons that bastardized the Apes film.

But there's more to this story...

—Cesar Tort 21:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. Wish my Spanish was better. I discovered Clarke when I was in the hospital for 17 months between the ages of 11 & 14, getting a hip fixed up. I had lots of time to think, and a need for a wider view. Anyhow, it is always a pleasure to meet someone who has been affected by Clarke as importantly as I was, whatever our differences. CE has always had a strange emotional impact on me ("He writes like an angel..."), but the thing I really value Clarke for is his ideas, the vistas he opened up for me when I my horizons were just forming. All the best, Wwheaton (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I read Childhood's End (CE) in 1984. CE was the book that most influenced my young mind. In fact, I became insane after reading it because I wanted to develop such powers; studied parapsychology and published in the journal of the Society for Psychical Research. When years later I learnt that ESP and PK probably don't exist I wrote to Clarke and he answered my letters.

The "CE stage" in my life is described almost at the end of my autob. It's impossible to convey a long, agonizing spiritual odyssey in the wiki. Only a novel, or even better a faithful autobiography, can do it. I can only hope I'll find a translator for my work before I die (I simply can't translate slang Spanish into slang English)...

Cesar Tort 01:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've never taken ESP or PK to seriously, but I think it may be just because I'm not sure what the words mean. Obviously we do not understand all natural law, so the possibility of phenomena outside of what we know is interesting, but surely not sensational. So, are ESP & PK supposed to be "outside of natural law"? Or what? You may be the the perfect person to clarify the concept, since I can no longer hope to get ACC drunk and have him explain it to me. I am pretty sure I can not define what the word "miracle" means, beyond just the folk meaning, of something wonderful and beyond ordinary understanding. What would it mean for something to be "outside of natural law"? I have no idea. Do academics working in the field agree about this? I'm fairly comfortable with the idea that our folk notions of time, and probably causality (therefore), cannot be "physically meaningful", but that just makes it a problem of human psychology and our lack of understanding, which I accept, at least in principle. I have an old college friend who might be a good translator for you. He is a journalist who has worked in Latin America a lot, currently living in Spain. Certainly knows his slang in English, and I bet in Spanish too. See [3], knock three times, and tell him Bill sent you. :) Bill Wwheaton (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's first try to find a publisher in Spain for the manuscript in Spanish and then think about a translation :)

As you know, thoroughgoing psi (i.e., ESP & PK) development by children was mankind's apotheosis in CE. The philosophical rationale for "psi" or "outside natural law" was developed by a few parapsychologists. For the moment only the late John Beloff's writings (my former editor for my psi stuff when I was a believer) come to my mind, though I haven't read parapsychology literature for about 15 years.

It's better not to get too philosophical here. Parapsychology is like speculating how to paint a house without even a solid wall in the property!

Cesar Tort 03:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Gullible skeptics

Retrieved from Skeptical Inquirer talk page:

Please tell me which Skeptical Inquirer issue has dealt with Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) since I don't remember anyone. In fact, I have discussed ADHD with the Skeptical Inquirer editor quite a few times thru email and he does not seem to be interested in the subject (though he did publish my short article about the Bélmez Faces). —Cesar Tort 05:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

May/June 2006 issue, see the photo of the cover in the main article. Bubba73 (talk), 02:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I am truly shocked that Kendrick Frazier published the article you called my attention to: a pro-psychiatry piece for the immoral drugging of healthy American children with Ritalin.

Back in 1992 Prometheus Books rejected John Modrow’s How to become a schizophrenic even though Peter Breggin wrote a warm endorsement for the manuscript. Modrow had no choice but to self-publish it with his earnings as a blue collar hard worker at Seattle bay. I am afraid that I have no choice but to quote a paragraph of a 1998 letter he sent me:

Now in regard to the people at CSICOP and the Skeptical Inquirer, I pretty much dismiss them as a bunch of intellectual cowards who spend their time beating up fringe beliefs and marginal crackpots. Perhaps I’m a bit too harsh. After all, there is nothing wrong with what they are doing. In fact, I approve of what they are doing —except that they never go after the really big fish: an establishment pseudoscience like psychiatry. In fact, I recall reading one article in the Skeptical Inquirer in which Thomas Szasz and other critics of psychiatry were put in the same category as "creation scientists" and other purveyors of superstition and anti-science.

My bold type above. —Cesar Tort 04:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Belated Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Cesar Tort, on behalf of the Wiki community, you are hereby awarded The Original Barnstar Award for your outstanding contributions to psychiatry related articles, and in particular for bringing sanity to the Biopsychiatry article, for creating the Trauma model of mental disorders article, your many insights into mental health, and for setting a sterling example of how to remain cool under withering conditions. Show it with pride! Ombudsman 04:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: The "sanity" Ombudsman talked about was, of course, the creation of the "pov fork" article Biopsychiatry controversy.

Hail, Cesar!

For the long-overdue rewrite of Human sacrifice in Aztec culture, I hereby award you the WikiMedal for Janitorial Services.

Thank you for the much needed rewrite of Human sacrifice in Aztec culture, which was, prior to your work, often a source of contention, very uneven, and poorly documented. Good job! Madman 12:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Images

Hi, see here and here to see the image. The image that was on your page was Image:MinesweeperMine.png. It's alright, your not in trouble! It's just easier to avoid using copyrighted images. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 15:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Mother Teresa

Why shouldn't I change the sentence I changed if it has a {{fact}} tag? Gazpacho 17:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The tag is recent. There was a kind of editorial war on that page. An overzealous editor posted many “fact” tags. You can revert it again but, since there is almost a war, another editor will surely revert your entry. Sorry. Please read the Talk Archives. —Cesar Tort 18:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: your edit (Scientology and psychiatry Talk Page)

At [4], which you read what I had wrote and attempted to modify the page to fulfil what I stated should have been done by the previous editor to whom I was replying. Your edit then did what the editor I replied to should have done. The problem with your having done that, modifying a discussion page by inserting a subheading without contributing to the discussion below the subheading is that the action is not "agreed to by many editors" and is actualy counter to the Wikipedia Guidelines regarding the format of Discussion page disccusions. That wasn't you know, big error, that wasn't, you know, tremendous sin or anything, I'm just pointing out how subsequent reading of an discussion page which, forever after, will include your modification, could confuse and disperse the reader from understanding what is being said on a discussion page and why it is being said. :) Terryeo 23:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Tidying talk pages

Hi Cesar. I noticed that you have been erasing your talk page. I just thought i would let you know (before an angry Admin does) that Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines suggests one should not remove text that was added to your talk page without good reason. If you don't want certain correspondance on your page, then by all means archive it, but removing comments made in good faith completely is probably not a good idea. Contrary to popular belief, editor's talk pages are no more "theirs" than any other page on Wikipedia and, as such, the same rules apply about removing the valid contribution of others without their permission. However, should you wish to delete this message after reading it, you have my permission! ;) Rockpocket 20:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I was unaware of that policy. By the way, how did you know what I just did in my user talk page? Is there a way to click on something and automatically revert any previous deletion? I copied and pasted my deletions but wonder if there is a faster way. —Cesar Tort 20:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if you click on the history tab for your talk page you will see a list of all previous versions. It appears the last version that contained all of the correspondance was on 15:51, 5 April 2006. If you click on that date you can view the old version of your talk page. You then simply have to click on the "edit this page" tab. You will notice there is a warning that "You are editing a prior version of this page. If you save it, any changes made since this version will be removed.". Simply "save page" without making any changes and this version will now become the latest version. There are even easier ways of doing this using various Wikipedia:Tools, but you need to install the code first. By the way, the reason i knew you had deleted was because i clicked on the (last) link in the edit history - that shows the difference in the last edit made. Hope that helps. Rockpocket 21:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cesar, you can also keep track of what's happening on all the WP pages by going to the page for Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol — to help prevent vandalism. This is the place to go if you are interested in keeping spam out of the Wikipedia or in maintaining a professional level of writing in the articles. You probably have used the "My Watchlist" link at the top of your page. Every time you make a change to any page, it automatically gets placed on your watchlist. You can edit that list to eliminate articles that you do not have a continuing interest in monitoring. I only recently regiseterd as a user on the WP. Prior to that I made small edits to remove spam and correct grammar. But I thought that it would be best to have a Log-in name once I decided I wanted to make more substantive contributions. Ande B 20:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You may want to add an article to this project

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Leifern/Wikiproject_health_controversies

Look for the list of articles that I produced as a page, I forget the name but it is linked from there. Midgley 21:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Alice Miller

Please don't modify your comments after they have been replied to. Maikel 19:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Cabbages, Kings and Child Abuse

Hi Cesar Tort, I thought I'd drop by for a little personal chat.

I know one hell of a lot about child abuse myself, and hold a lot of opinions, which is why you won't often find me editing articles on that topic, my opinions, however thoroughly reinforced by experience, don't belong here.

Wikipedia can be hard to get used to at first, because most of the internet seems to be about somebody standing on a soapbox and promoting something, whether a product, an opinion or an idea, without regulation or accountability. Sometimes what they promote is good, sometimes it's downright dangerous, and most times it is every shade in between.

Wikipedia is different, it is just about objectivity, and what lawyers sometimes call "strict proof of evidence" in the form of reputable and verifiable sources. Personally I find that very relaxing because it means leaving all moral dilema outside the door for once, and knowing that, as long as I adhere strictly to policy in my edits, I can count on total strangers to stand over them for me.

It doesn't mean that you cannot do any good. There are plenty of nasty - dangerous agenda that won't stand up to the strict application of Wikipedia Policy any more than they do to your own personal standards, you just have to find them, and when you do the rush of support and validation from the strangest people is a great feeling. --Zeraeph 15:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

What can I add? You already put wiki in a nutshell. Personally I find myself at home with moralist writers like Solzhenitsyn or Orwell. I like the strongest emotions and even fury on paper. Even though I am an atheist I enjoy Jeremiah’s fires... —Cesar Tort 15:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite fond of Solzhenitzyn and Orwell myself. ;o) I reckon you are going to have a GREAT time around here as you settle into the rhythm of things. --Zeraeph 16:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Trauma articles

Hi Kim. Can you take a look at the strong criticism another editor is doing to the article I just created?, Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma. You are a naturalist. If I understand natural selection correctly, the phrase “young mammals must attach” is not a fringe one. —Cesar Tort 01:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I, as a naturalist, would not dare to make such a sweeping statement. It is much more complex than just that simple statement. Some mammals easily attach to artificial things, as long as it give it what it needs, milk and such depending on the needs of young of that species. Chicks are perfectly happy with a robot as a mother. That is attachment at the level of primary needs, or maybe better called dependence. The statement you try to make is at the attachment at the emotional level, which actually is more difficult to determine in animals, but some evidence suggest that in apes and monkeys at least this MIGHT be true (I would need to digb into the literature to see what the current status on this is within the behavioural studies). Beyond that, I think nobody really knows.

This is I think a perfect example of what I tried to tell above. This is a statement that needs a verifiable and reliable source. And within wikipedia, this is the burden that comes with the person who wants to insert the information, not with the person who says it is wrong. I will have a look at the article when I am done editing Natural selection. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI: The rather unpleasant Pit of Despair. Note that "that some recover and some do not." While such trauma is obviously very damaging, even such an extreme, controlled example questions the absolute necessity for attachment in primate models. It also makes one wonder what the basis for the difference is... *cough* genetic variation *cough* Rockpocket (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup, the Pit of Despair. Even for monkeys, the results are not explainable unambigiously, and for other mamels, it is even more difficult. The major problem with these kind of experiments is that they very quickley become antropogenic, in whcih we start to project human emotions on the behaviour of the animals. However, it is xtreme difficult to do such a thing, and has led to very wrong cinclusions in the past. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Really impressive stuff the Pit of Despair! I’ll use it for my next book! It’s pure Alice Miller and Psychogenic mode in monkeys. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. —Cesar Tort 02:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought you might like that one. My favorite part is the PhD student who, apparently, claims his experiment demonstrates that even the "happiest" of animals gets depressed. Talk about anthropomorphism. I would have failed him. ;) Rockpocket (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

5HTT Allele and trauma recovery

Hi Cesar, I've been following some of your discusions on the RfArb pages with Rockpocket and I wanted to ask both of you a question. I'm posting my question here rather than on the already lengthy Arb pages because I don't want to derail your discussions there.

I posed the same question to Rockpocket so I'll just repeat it here: I just wondered whether you have any insights or comments about the 5HTT allele and it's apparent involvement with many "emotional" or "social" reactions to various stressors in the environment. The New York Times carried a long article on the topic recently as it related to the resilience of PTS victims and other trauma survivors.

I'm not taking a position on this, I'm really just curious. Also, don't feel obligated to respond in great detail or with any great rush. I just thought you might have an interest in this. Ande B 22:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ande. I haven’t read the New York Times article. However I will offer a comment about the genetic studies in psychiatry. It’s wise to do it here since, as you must now have surmised, I don’t want anymore to discuss in RFArb pages. I’m very busy in real world and I’m fed up of pointless discussions.

I agree with Harry Weiner, director of a mayor NY pharmaceutical company, that the blame-the-patients ideology in today’s dominant orthodoxy in psychiatry is based in what he calls “the genetics of preposterous conditions”. As with my example of shooting the President in the RFArb page you just read, is it not preposterous to suggest that these unpredictable events might be subject to the rules of genetic predestination? Biopsych is based in preposterous genetics.

I know little about PTSD. But let’s take as an example schizophrenia. According to biopsychiatrists schizophrenia is inherited. In their field this is an understandable assumption because, by definition, a geneticist is biased to find genetic solutions to clinical problems. However, in practice psychiatrists found this assumption to be false, and it had to be modified into: “The predisposition to schizophrenia is inherited”. But after decades of research the results are clear: nothing has come of it to date except utter confusion. From my perspective, the perspective of the proponents of the trauma model, enough rope has been given to the geneticists and the assumption that schizophrenia is inherited, or merely “triggered” by environmental stressors, is simply untrue. Clinical evidence for environmental, particularly familial, impact on the etiology of schizophrenia seems to point to the trauma hypothesis. Are you familiar with Theodore Lidz’s criticism of the genetic studies of schizophrenia? You might also find interesting to take a look at Jay Joseph’s 2006 work on genetics and psychiatry [5]. —Cesar Tort 22:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for such a quick reply, Cesar. As I said, I'm mostly just curious. You seem to understand the supporting data of your own preferred approach quite well. One thing I must agree with is your comments that this RfArb has been taking a ridiculous amount of time that we could all better spend elsewhere. I'm so overwhelmed with catching up on work that has accumulated during my recent illness that it's not funny. The most unfortunate consequence of any bureaucratic proceeding that insists people defend and accuse is that tempers can flare rather quickly and out of proportion with the underlying issues. And often, I've noticed, people begin defending or strongly arguing for positions that are foisted upon them during the process, positions which they may be much more flexible on in other circumstances. It happens with me even though I try to be alert to the phenomenon. Take care. Ande B 23:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry

Cesar,

Thanks for your comment on my talk pages. I left a brief comment on the BioPsych web pages regarding Solo999's tagging just to bring it to everyone's attention; I know it wasn't you who did this and that we are both waiting to see what the arbitrators decide. You and I seem to be able to talk just fine with one another despite some strong areas of disagreement about editing or POV in a single article. I hope that means we can continue to be productive together and edit articles in such a way as to avoid claims of POV or original research in any article either of us contribute to.

Ande B 23:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Cesar. I agree with Ande. I see no reason to dignify Solo's assertions with a response at ArbCom. I echoed Ande's comments at Biopsych, questioning motivation and the process of the tagging. But I see no reason any of us should address the psychiatric rationale behind his reasoning, as i think it brings nothing new to the table and just prolong the (already extended) process. When ArbCom makes it decision, we should have a framework on which to move the article forward, then we can address his points. Until then, i agree that such edits to Biopsych are unwise.

I note that you encouraged Solo to use your subpage to formulate specific additions to the page. That is just fine, as far as i am concerned. However, it appears that he ignored your advice also and decided to simply tag without explaining how to make it better. Therefore i acknowledge that this has nothing to do with you and see no reason why it should interefore with our collaboration elsewhere. Rockpocket 03:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

google search

[6] [http://jhp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/43/2/34 http://psychiatrictimes.com/Depressive-Disorders/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=175802524] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32][33][34] [35][36] [37]

Links to reputable sources

I agree with Prometheuspan's remarks above about the monster that Wikipedia has become. The ultimate "John Doe" production on the web is Wikipedia. Any passing stranger can edit a page without having to register. Many types of article can be subject to systematic bias, both from outside and within. Especially politics, religion and controversial areas of science (e.g. climate change/global warming and evolutionary psychology, which Wikipedia categorizes as a Protoscience).

I was reluctant to become involved in this dispute because of all the scathing remarks and unsupported assertions from both sides. However, now I have come to the conclusion that it's better to take a stand even if I'm hounded out of the system as a consequence. I was shocked to discover that an external article about Christian Abuse of Wikipedia is on the spam blacklist, so the only way I can direct you to it is to present the URL like this (remove the ***): www.double***blue.info

User:Bhadani is an administrator who has written about the Sabotage of Wikipedia on one of his talk pages. I also saw your recent comment on Prometheuspan's talk page about the media system in which magazine cover stories accept biopsych spin as gospel. I have provided a relevant link concerning this kind of bias below. If the Criticism of biopsychiatry article is given approval, I may be able to do the same with critiques of MRI imaging techniques. I've seen the articles, but I don't have the URLs at my fingertips.

The James S. McDonnell Foundation awards grants for research into Brain, Mind and Behavior through the 21st Century Science Initative. It provides funding to the Autism Research Centre at Cambridge University in England. One of the highlights on the Foundation's website front page is the Bad Neuro-Journalism archive.

--Bookish 14:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I’m very glad to see you aboard. My collection is basically on paper.

I became interested in the field for personal reasons. Among other things, my Catholic mother tried to use psychiatry to impede my sister’s decision to divorce. It’s really mind boggling to see how psychiatrists side the parents during conflicts with their children (obviously, the parents have the means). In a “science” without biomarkers you can do this to anyone if you just have the money to hire a couple of shrinks. Psychiatry is the only (pseudo) medical specialty without lab proof for any of its conditions; so anyone can get labeled, even sane people.

Like you I’m concerned that Christian zealots can freely edit Wikipedia. I’ve printed and read the extensive archives of the Mother Teresa article for example. It’s ignominious to see that through the years the zealots have intended to remove all criticism about that woman. The problem persists this very day.

I’ll start soon in User:Cesar Tort/discussion, which you can freely comment and criticize in its talk page. But even if we have consensus in that talk page I feel it’s prudent to hold posting the article until this process is over.

The good news is that disagreement seems ironed out already. Prometheuspan is right: a lot of pain on both sides could have been avoided... —Cesar Tort 15:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

As this is a major controversy in psychiatry I think it's very important to restrict supporting references and citations to bona fide medical journals and high-profile campaigners who are medically qualified. I have more links to such sources than would be reasonable to include in a Wikipedia article. Because of the slurs that have been directed against survivor groups I don't think it's particularly helpful to link to articles on the websites of marginalized campaigning organizations. Likewise media reports. Mainstream medical literature will provide more than enough.

I appended a sub-section for collecting external links and will add to it bit by bit. Eventually, you will need to cherry pick the best quality links for the actual article, because there will be too many of them otherwise. -- Bookish 19:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I wholly agree with you about reliable sources. From now on could you post your suggestions in User talk:Cesar Tort/discussion please? —Cesar Tort 19:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep the collection of links in one place. I don't want to have search through lots of text to discover where you've used them. Please copy whichever ones you want to use to the appropriate section of your discussion. -- Bookish 21:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I already started a proposed section in User:Cesar Tort/discussion (see its talk page also). You are most welcome to introduce another section in User:Cesar Tort/discussion if you wish. I used to read the ICSPP journal you mention in your references, but in 2003 got mad with the new editor because of a trauma issue and discontinued my subscription. —Cesar Tort 22:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I want the links to stay in one place where I can find them easily. If you want the list moved to the discussion page, keep it right at the bottom of the page and don't remove anything. -- Bookish 22:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Biopsych links

Against Biologic Psychiatry - an article by David Kaiser, M.D., in Psychiatric Times (1996, Vol. XIII, Issue 12).
Bad Neuro-Journalism archive - The James S. McDonnell Foundation maintains an archive of the worst examples of journalism about the brain from the popular press.
Debunking the science behind ADHD as a "brain disorder" - a position paper from the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology (ICSPP).
Challenging the Therapeutic State - special issue of The Journal of Mind and Behavior (1990, Vol.11:3).
Biomedical bias of the American Psychiatric Association - an article by Duncan Double, MRCPsych, Consultant Psychiatrist and founder of the Critical Psychiatry Network.
The limits of psychiatry - an article by Duncan Double, MRCPsych, Consultant Psychiatrist, British Medical Journal, 2002;324:900-904.
Only 6% of drug advertising material is supported by evidence - an article by Annette Tuffs, British Medical Journal, 2004;328:485.
On the Limits of Localization of Cognitive Processes in the Brain - an essay by William R. Uttal, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Michigan, based on his book "The New Phrenology" (MIT Press, 2001).
Neuroimaging and psychological theories of human memory - introductory text for a symposium to be held in August 2006 at the Cognitive Psychophysiology Lab, Philipps-University Marburg, Germany (the text is in English).
Antipsychotics, Economics, And the Press - an article by Steven Sharfstein, M.D., 2004 President of the American Psychiatric Association, which appeared in the APA newspaper "Psychiatric News" (2005, Vol.40:23).
Letter of Resignation from the American Psychiatric Association - from Loren R. Mosher, M.D., former Chief of Schizophrenia Studies at the National Institute of Mental Health.
Stop the disease mongering - New Scientist Magazine Editorial, 15 April 2006.
One-Trick Training - a critique of the American Psychiatric Association's advocacy of bio-psychiatry which appeared in the APA newspaper "Psychiatric News" (2004, Vol.39:15).
The emperor's new drugs - abstract from an analysis of antidepressant medication data submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, published in the journal "Prevention & Treatment" (2002, Vol.5:1).
Eli Lilly, Zyprexa, & the Bush Family - an article by psychologist Bruce E. Levine, Ph.D.
DSM: The Bible of the psychiatric professon - President's Column, American Association of Community Psychiatrists, on the website of the Pittsburgh School of Medicine Department of Psychiatry.
Schizophrenia: Medical Students are Taught it's All in the Genes but are they Hearing the Whole Story? - see Selected Publications by Jonathan Leo, PhD, Associate Professor of Anatomy, Western University of Health Sciences.

Jay Joseph, The Gene Illusion

Cesar: There's an article stub on Wikipedia about Jay Joseph's first book, The Gene Illusion. It has a couple of references which might be useful to you. -- Bookish 11:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Goldhagen

Well,

I would like to contribute to it but currently I'm busy doing a few other things.--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 16:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I’ll try to fix the Daniel Goldhagen article but I’m still enmeshed in an Rfar case and will not be very active in other subjects until the process is over. BTW, I liked a lot Goldhagen’s Hitler’s willing executioners: one of my favorite books. —Cesar Tort 17:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note (“autism mess”)

I might not have time to look at it until after the 4th of July. Sandy 21:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

A favour, por favor

Greetings, Cesar. I wonder if you would mind have a look at the following articles overlapping with your area of experitise and opine whether you could consider them notable enough for their own articles?

Thanks! Rockpocket 02:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look. —Cesar Tort 02:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, also the San Francisco Bay Psychotherapy Center. Rockpocket 02:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The late McCready looks serious to me. His views and clinics were similar to Loren Mosher’s, headperson of schizophrenia studies in NIMH.

On the other hand I cannot make my mind about Olsen. A lot of antipsychiatry alternatives are plagued of New Age beliefs. It’s like exchanging an iatrogenic pseudoscience (biopsych) for a benign pseudoscience. —Cesar Tort 03:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks, i will not tag the McCready article, and leave the others to fend for themselves. Rockpocket 07:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

regarding Eschatology

Hi, sorry it's taken so long to reply. I'm not sure how helpful my experience can be, but I'll give it my best shot.

Sourcing is key. A lot of the cult articles weren't started with very good sourcing, but the standards have been changing; as the mechanisms for indicating sourcing have gotten stronger, so have the expectations. Unfortunately, without good sources, it's hard to build an article that can stand up to some of the POV-pushing we sometimes see.

I've found that newspapers are among the best sources to look for -- they are written for a mass audience and thus speak in very plain style; they examine both sides, but will frequently point out when someone's story doesn't add up. Failing that, books and scholarly journals may reward the time spent with them, but they have to be used with caution, as sometimes a term will be used that has one meaning in the discipline and a different one outside academia.

If those don't turn up anything... well, it may be time to reconsider whether the time is right to do an article on the group. If you still feel you should go ahead, then the group's own publications can be used -- with caution, of course, as they are a primary source. Frequently it's possible to present the things that should make a reader's warning bells go off, just by finding it in the group's own materials; for instance, the home page for the Eschatology Foundation contains the claim that William Walter cured his own terminal illness, and also makes the quite sweeping claim that "Each is the arbiter of his own fate… unconditionally. ... Right thinking produces right results and wrong thinking produces wrong results." Just the "unconditionally" throws up red flags for me, right away. Your own experience with the group may help you identify the things that people should know this group is teaching, right away.

I hope this is of some help to you. One last piece of advice is that when you search for sources, try different variations: Eschatology Foundation, William Wilfred Walter, William W. Walter -- oftentimes you might get something you can't use as a source, but it will in turn point you to something that you can. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I have already created the article Eschatology (cult). Any criticism from you is welcomed. —Cesar Tort 08:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Cesar, a new editor (Jose L Martinez Damian) went to town on the Eschatology article from a clearly pro POV. There may be some good edits in there, but the majority were not (for example, he or she changed every reference of "death" to "transition"). I largely reverted the edits, leaving just one or two that i thought were a slight grammatical improvement. However, you obviously know more about this than most, so perhaps you could read over them to see if there are any in there that are factual and appropriate and if so, add them back. Thank you. Rockpocket 05:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting since most of them aren’t accurate. Though I promised to work on Wikipedia only on Sunday, I consider this an exceptional case.

The article has been a real hit: a wiki link to it still appeared as #1 in an “Eschatology” Google search the last time I did the search, though the Spanish version of the article (Escatologia) recently dropped to the third place.

This time only POV modifications and minor improvements were performed. But the article was vandalized on July 2 by an American (as can be gathered from the IP number). On the other hand, since Jose Martinez is familiar with the work of Juan del Rio, I guess he is Mexican.

They don’t believe in the existence of death but are indoctrinated to use the word “transition” —or “conscious transition” to refer to the very enlightened “eschatologists” like Enoch, Jesus and Walter. They claim that these three men went to the next “level of existence” without experiencing death. In their official biography of Walter the year of his birth is indicated but not the year of his death at seventy two. Students of Eschatology are advised not to use the word “death” since they believe that “thinking is causative”, and they don’t want to get sick or die.

I’ll only keep a few of Martinez’s true improvements (like the name of the current director for example) but not unproven statements like Walter’s paranormal healing work as a practitioner. Also, Martinez removed the sentence that Eddy didn’t reject theism as radically as Walter did. Unlike most students of Eschatology who only read Walter’s books, I have read some of Eddy’s books as well and it’s clear that she didn’t reject theism despite Walter’s claims to the contrary.

I wonder if it is wise to copy and paste this exchange to that article talk page? —Cesar Tort 06:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That was my interpretation also, but not being familiar with the cult, i wasn't sure. I attempted to engage the editor here. but to no avail (so far). I'll keep an eye on the article, in your absence, during the week to ensure it remains NPOV. Feel free to copy this exchange to the talk page. Rockpocket 18:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

e-mail problems

Hi Cesar, I noticed you have placed your email on your user page. This is generally frowned upon on WP and, if an admin sees it, they will probably remove it themselves. I'm not 100% sure of all the reasons it is discouraged, but at the very least it will would save you from a lot of spam. Also, there is no need for your to publicize your address as there is a link on the left hand control panel that allows your to email the user whose page you are reading. You could also simply have an email link like thus. I just thought i would let you know before your inbox gets bombarded with Viagra offers. Rockpocket 07:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Do you mean I can just paste this Special:Emailuser/Cesar_Tort to my user page? —Cesar Tort 07:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i think so. Any user that is logged in will be able to send you an email via that link. By the way, you may wish to take a look here. I'm busy composing a reply, trying to explain the basics of WP:NPOV and WP:V, but you might wish to comment, especially on the issue of it being a cult. Rockpocket 08:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

more about Eschatology

Hi Rockpocket:

Though my knowledge of the cult is enormous, true believers often dislike apostates. If Martinez is reluctant to interact with me (I still don’t know) it’d be better to make here, not in his talk page, a few suggestions.

I wouldn’t recommend changing the “cult” title unless Wikipedia policy decides that no organization ought to be labeled as a “cult”. According to the Wikipedia definition of cult—:

"In religion and sociology, a cult is a cohesive group of people (often a relatively small and recently founded religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream."

Eschatology is a classic cult. I only quoted the first paragraph of the cult article but it gives you the basics.

Of course, no single cultist likes to see his system of beliefs labeled as “cult”. This has happened before in the Spanish Wikipedia. A student of Eschatology tried to start a thoroughly pro-POV es:Escatología article and there was a kind of edit war some time ago, before I appeared with a new article, es:Escatología (secta). Of course, the secular editors won the case. If you see the energy that Antaeus Feldspar has spent in explaining to other cultists why their system of beliefs is what it is, and not a true science, you will see how difficult it is trying to interact with true believers.

The fact that every single “great understander” of Eschatology has died, including Walter, Genevieve Rader and Robert Durling, do not cause any cognitive dissonance to a true believer whatsoever. For instance, Juan del Rio was my Eschatology teacher. Well, even after his four-year agony with cancer his wife still sticks to the dogma that cancer can be healed through “right thinking” (though an advanced teacher like Juan was not supposed to die so horribly). Psychological experiments have been performed that show that doomsday religionists do not give up their rapture belief even after the prophesied date of the second coming of Jesus fails to happen in the prophesied date.

The subject is enormous. I believe that for the moment Martinez should become acquainted with a policy, that Wikipedia is not a vehicle of propaganda: the policy that made the Spanish secular wikipedians win their case vs. the pro-POV student of Eschatology.

I have to get some sleep. I’ll catch tomorrow. —Cesar Tort 09:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I’m back. Re Martinez’s proposal you linked above as to rewording the definition of Eschatology—:

“I'm an Eschatology Graduated Teacher. I've studied and practiced for the last 20 years this common sense system with all kind of results...”

—I get now into the specifics in the article’s talk page. Cesar Tort 17:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cesar. It appears, to me at least, that Eschatology clearly falls within the definition of a cult. Moreover, the word is regularly associated with the doctrine (though i struggle to find an authoratitive source to back that up, which could be a problem). Nevertheless, i think precedent shows that the use of the term "cult" is valid.

Its hardly surprising that cult members would rather think they are not cultists. While he is clearly pro-POV on this matter, he could be a helpful editor. I'm thinking particularly regarding his input on their beliefs, such as the "transition". Lets just hope he can work within policy. Rockpocket 18:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes: Martinez or any eschatologist can be helpful editors if they respect the policy.

“Moreover, the word is regularly associated with the doctrine (though i struggle to find an authoratitive source)” . Did you mean associated with the Christian doctrine? Perhaps not. But if you meant that, there are Wikipedia articles on the subject of Christian, non Walterian Eschatology.

On the other hand, if you meant that Walter’s cult is so unknown that very few, if any, cult scholars, writers or newspapers have bothered to write about it, you are absolutely right. Due to the scarcity of critical published material about Walter’s cult I wonder if a reliable source, as Feldspar suggested above, is the cult’s own writings (I have lots of them)? —Cesar Tort 20:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think my google searches were mainly picking up references to Christian Eschatology, thanks for pointing that out. Self published material is suitable as a source for an article about the subject, though there are caveats to that, see here. Personally i think the article is suitble as it stands - you have done a good job in striking a NPOV - and perhaps could only be improved in small biographical details, the sort that a practising member could bring. It seems we are both on the same wavelength regarding this article (now there is a surprise!), so between us we should be able keep its integrity (though, i should add, i see no evidence that our colleague, Martinez, is contributing in anything other than good faith). Rockpocket 21:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

reply

"Hi. Just curious what exactly do you mean with wikify Trauma Model of Mental Disorders? Cesar Tort 02:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)"

Well, the text is one big section of text, it's gotta be possible to divide it into sections. (Making it more readable.) Addicted2Sanity 01:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I just made changes in article! —Cesar Tort 05:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks great! I would have done it myself but I figured it best if someone who was familiar with the topic did it. :) 83.223.19.13 06:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Goldhagen

Hi. You have said that you’ll be back to the States (where you have your personal library) in November.

I wonder if the next month you could take care of the article and rewrite those POV passages in a NPOV fashion?

We may discuss then our possible differences in the talk page. Cesar Tort 21:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC). [Retrieved from User_talk:John_Kenney]

I own a book about Goldhagen and the Goldhagen controversy (edited by Geoff Eley) somewhere at home, but it's probably in storage at the moment, and it'll have to wait until I find a new apartment and so forth, which is probably not until January. Most of the other books I'd want to look at are in the library at Penn, and, as noted, I'm probably not really going to be in Philadelphia so much until then. So it's like I won't be able to do much until the New Year. But do keep bothering me about it, as otherwise I'm likely to forget about it. It's possible, also, that I'll be able to find the Eley book before January, and use it to at least do some editing of the article. john k 22:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I can wait. —Cesar Tort 23:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

IP vandal

Thanks for the heads up. I'll keep an eye on it. If you see he's vandalized again, leave the test messages. I can block him again if need be. Thanks for being a vandal watcher! --Fang Aili ^talk 18:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Low-importance?

That was just my assessment. You can feel free to change it if you want; it won't bother me. I'm just trying to place assessments on all the psychology articles, and most people either don't pay attention to or don't care how most articles are assessed. I know that some of my assessments will be challenged, and that's fine. Just start a discussion about it on the article's talk page, or if you're feeling bold, just change the assessment and see if anyone else challenges it. I will point out two things. First, this assessment is only for WikiProject Psychology, not for Wikipedia as a whole. It is possible for an article to be rated high importance in one WikiProject and low importance in another. Second, the assessment is relative to other articles in the WikiProject. There are many topics that may be important but are not necessarily crucial to gaining an understanding of the field of psychology. You can see the assessment scale at Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Assessment. —Cswrye 18:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You can find a better explanation of importance at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Importance of topic. Some WikiProjects use the term "priority" rather than "importance", but in practical terms, they mean the same thing. I do want to make the point that a "Low" assessment doesn't mean that the article isn't important, only that it's not a topic that one would expect to find in a psychology encyclopedia. —Cswrye 21:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing....

Hello Cesar... would appreciate any ongoing help at Shroud of Turin. When it was elevated to FA it was very finely balanced, close to a perfect article, I'd say. Now we have someone who just wants to slash through it at will. Well-timed reverts from us both should either resolve the situation or lead to badly needed arbitration against Codex. JDG 19:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that I’m not alone trying to revert pov religious propaganda in WP. What do you suggest to do next? ―Cesar Tort 20:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I hate to do it, but some folks force one into it: a revert tag-team. When you see Codex reverting me, revert him. That way he'll hit 3 reverts before either of us do... My problem is not with including the religious POV. All major PsOV should get a mention. But the intro paragraph was very finely tuned before his incursions, and the particular statement he's making there is simply untrue. Thx. JDG 08:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your support, JDG. But… I have a problem.

I arrived to Wikipedia on March. The next month I was unexpectedly dragged to a long and nasty WP:RFAR process precisely because an issue of edit warring regarding pov tags.

I was unaware at that moment of the WP rules and was caught in the middle of the fire. I cannot afford another edit war… I’m still trying to understand WP's labyrinth and its rules. Wouldn’t it be wiser to ask for mediation for this page? Since we are right I guess it will be relatively easy to get rid of that tag without going to war! ―Cesar Tort 08:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Cesar-- I don't mean we should go to war regarding pov tags. I just mean when one of us sees Codex reverting the other (say I see him reverting you), we jump in with our own revert of Codex (in this scenario, I would jump in and revert him). I used the phrase "tag-team", since this is sort of like playing "revert tag"-- nothing to do with code tags (he can keep his npov tag for all I care)... You're right, mediation would be better. But it's difficult getting everybody lined up for it, and Codex is so plainly in the wrong. It would almost be doing him a favor to revert without any hostile comments until he gets tired of pushing his pet Shroud idea into the intro. It's a chance for him to back off gracefully.. I've been active on Wikipedia since 2002 and have been banned only once-- by an out-of-control Administrator who was himself banned when the truth came to light. So I think you can feel safe about this. If Codex really proves unable to grasp why he's in the wrong, then yes, I would advocate RfC. Thx. JDG 10:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I’m afraid I’m missing something. Isn’t coordinating a series of reverts a kind of editorial war? I have no experience whatsoever with mediation. Do you mean that we have to convince an admin to intervene and that they are reluctant to do so? Where is the WP page to present such request? Couldn’t we both just request that? If the pov tag doesn’t bother you, what would be the point of mediation? With regard to arguments per se, isn’t it enough that a notable critic, Nickell, considers the shroud a quasi-negative, not a “photographic negative”? ―Cesar Tort 16:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The ADHD scandal

Let me add my voice to Bookish. I put up a gallant fight to improve the ADHD article but in the end they simply wore me down. It was taking up too much of my time. Here is my article on ADHD [38] which will be coming out next year in a book "Rethinking ADHD". I think you will enjoy it.

As a separate topic, how did you know Dr. Kurtz. As an undergraduate he felt I was his best ever and tried to encourage me to go into philosophy. This was before he moved on to Buffalo. Is he still alive?

Any way it is simply impossible to reason with the people controlling the ADHD page. They even removed much of my material from the controversy page. It is amazing that Ned Scott is still there, still using the same arguments, and totally unreachable by anything resembling logic or evidence. --Ss06470 05:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.

Yes: I read everything you wrote in the ADHD talk page and I liked it. You gave a good fight. Have you read the letter I wrote to Jimbo (see above)?

I met Kurtz in November 1989 during a conference in Mexico City. Then I read much skeptical literature and met him again at the CSICOP 1994 annual meeting in Seattle. We exchanged some letters but I became upset when his chosen editor, Kendrick Frazier, published an ADHD article this year (again see above). Kurtz still lives.

Have you read my paper [39]? I wish I could find an editor for it (as you found one in Jonathan Leo’s forthcoming book). ―Cesar Tort 05:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Poesía

How was it possible that the article was locked with an inappropriate tag? An admin should remove it, please!

SqeakBox: The article is NPOV. You have made edits in another article defending another dictator, Fidel Castro. When you write “With the West encouraging racial divisions” this strikes me as paranoia. You say you have a level 5 in Spanish. If that is true you could understand poetry. Here are the words of Octavio Paz, the main debunker in Latin America of stupid anti-West sentiments:

“

Las ideas se comieron a los dioses

los dioses se volvieron ideas

grandes vejigas de bilis

las vejigas reventaron

los ídolos estallaron

pudrición de dioses

brotaron ideas armadas

idearios ideodioses

silogismos afilados

caníbales endiosados

perras enamoradas de su vómito

Hemos desenterrado la ira

La biblioteca es una madriguera de ratas feroces

La universidad es el charco de las ranas

Los doctores discuten en la ladronera

Los dialécticos exaltan la sutileza de la soga

Amamantan la violencia con leche dogmática

El ideólogo cubiletero

afilador de sofismas

en su casa de citas truncadas

trama edenes para eunucos aplicados

”

Translation:

“

Ideas ate the deities

the deities became ideas

great bladders full of bile

the bladders burst

the idols exploded

putrefaction of deities

armed ideas sprouted

ideolized ideodeities

sharpened syllogisms

cannibal deities

dogs in love with their own vomit

We have dug up Rage

The library is a nest of killer rats

The university is a muck full of frogs

The doctors dispute in a den of thieves

The dialecticians exalt the subtlety of the rope

nursing violence with dogmatic milk

The juggling ideologist

sharpener of sophisms

in his house of truncated quotations and assignations

plots Edens for industrious eunuchs

”

―Cesar Tort 20:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

(Retrieved from Talk:Saddam Hussein)

Cheers for the poem. I put it on my talk page. I dont like dictators any more than the next person and am well aware of what a nasty person Saddam was. But he's not the only one.

We are working for the moral upliftment of all humanity , Lincoln Thompson. SqueakBox 21:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked it. Many Mexican leftists hate Paz. Are you familiar with Álvaro Vargas Llosa's Manual del perfecto idiota lationamericano? —Cesar Tort 22:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Karellen

For any redirect, you can click the name you typed or clicked on again where it says 'redirected from whatever'. It'll take you to the page where you can look at the history to find old versions of the article. Karellen's history is here[40]. Sorry about the confusion and happy editing! Lebroyl 02:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I see. But maybe the Karellen article should have stayed, albeit in its original, short from? --Cesar Tort 02:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Breggin POV template

Hi Cesar, when adding a POV template, don't forget to explain your reasons on the talk page of the disputed article. There is already an ongoing discussion on the subject and simply slapping on templates without engaging is not constructive. Thanks. Rockpocket 04:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

WP Break & Turin shroud article

Thanks for writing Cesar. I hope you enjoy(ed) your break, and I also hope you find time to write the article - to provide better balance, those points you make need to be out there. Talk to you soon, best wishes. Matthew.hartington 06:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

bienvenido

Hello, it is good to have another point of view in the aztec and mesoamerican articles. And another reader of "Arqueologia Mexicana" :) Nanahuatzin 09:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Nanahuatzin. I hope I may be of some help. I am writing a book on childrearing and will include a chapter on Tenochtitlan, "the most beautiful city of the world" 500 years ago. The contrast of its absolute beauty (I love Ignacio Marquina's color illustration of the city) with some of its custumes shocked me. That's why I'm doing a little research. —Cesar Tort 09:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I was a culture full of contrasts. Read some of the Huehuetlatolli regarding the education of the children, and compared with the hard education they gave to their children and you will hardly believe it was the same civilization. Then remember they were from a continent completelly isolated from Europe, asia and africa from the start of their civilizations they developed along completelly different paths. We can not judge them frrm our XX (XXI) century s eurocentric standards, just we can leanr and undestand part of the human nature. Even the treatment of the children in the europe of that time was harsh compared with our own century. Recently i has reading some of the books of "Narnia", and where C S Lewis mock of modern schools, because they have no longer physical punishment to the children...

finally, as an skpetics, we must be carefull of those who denied all, and those who see evil. Nanahuatzin 09:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes: I have the luxurious edition that León-Portilla commented of the Huehuetlatolli. I must read it soon for my little research. —Cesar Tort

Now i am becoming envious.. seems you have a great library. Excelent. you can help us to trace some references. Nanahuatzin 22:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

“We can not judge them from our XX (XXI) century’s Eurocentric standards.”

I am afraid I disagree on this one. Remember that Quetzalcoatl disapproved human sacrifices (alas, Tezcatlipoca defeated him). And I believe that cultural relativism is an abomination. To understand this take a look at the flaming debate in Talk:Early infanticidal childrearing/Archive. —Cesar Tort

And yet children were sacrifice in his name, and in Teotihuacan, the bigest human sacrifice known was for Quetzalcoatl. I am begeining to suspect the benevolent view we have of Quetzalcoatl cult is a myth... But that is not the point... What i want to say is that I want to understand before making any judgement. At least, when writting for the wikipedia we must try to put the facts, withouht judgment. Something i don´t always manage to do, but that is the good of having so many difrerents points of view, always there will be people who ask tought questions. Like you.. Nanahuatzin 22:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

“Even the treatment of the children in the Europe of that time was harsh compared with our own century.”

Yes: absolutely agree! Have you taken a look at these tables I helped to edit?

—Cesar Tort 09:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

For the long-overdue rewrite of Human sacrifice in Aztec culture, I hereby award you the WikiMedal for Janitorial Services.

Hail, Cesar!

Thank you for the much needed rewrite of Human sacrifice in Aztec culture, which was, prior to your work, often a source of contention, very uneven, and poorly documented. Good job! Madman 12:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the compliment, Madman! I have spent the last few weeks researching the fascinating subject and yesterday I just went bold. In fact, I spent the whole day re-writing it. I’m so glad you liked it… Cesar Tort 12:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

to display the characters

See Help:Multilingual support (East Asian) so ??? doesn't show up. Blueshirts 17:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

But that article, Human sacrifice, is not specific about the Chinese. Therefore, the characters that in most computers appear as ??? ought to be removed. —Cesar Tort 18:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:USER

Hello Cesar. I have been watching with interest the recent additions to your userpage. I'm a little concerned that it is becoming a bit of a polemic, and thus in violation of WP:USER. Note also that, according to Jimbo, "libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea." So at the very least I would recommend you refrain for commenting on Ark's "flaming" discussion or pondering the limitations or "stupid[ity]" of other editors. Nice work on the human sacrifice article, btw, ots very impressive. Rockpocket 20:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello.

What are your thoughts on North and South American tribal societies? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.81.227.133 (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC). --User:Xvall 03:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Early infanticidal childrearing. —Cesar Tort 04:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Cesar

I am not sure if this is the right place to post this but I can't work out how to get to your talk page. I want to thank you for your message of support which meant a lot to me and strengthened my resolve to stand my ground on the ECT article. As you suggested I put in a request for mediation. We shall see what happens.

RegardsStaug73 17:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes: this is the right place to post your posts! Please feel free to write again whenever you want.

Cheers! —Cesar Tort 17:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

some cults beleive in the trauma model

I was wondering if you were aware that the Church of Scientology practically invented the trauma model (even Freud was infatuated with it, but finally rejected it, tho, and others felt he was too hasty in so doing). DMSMH might blow your mind it is radically dedicated (by almost any standard) to that model/ was probably the 1st book to give the proposiion so much credence (perhaps not the last, however...Arthur Janov's Primal therapy was pretty adamant/insistant on excluding all other models). I am not trying to sell you on scientology, or cos, btw. Thaddeus Slamp 02:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

1) No scientologist I know believes in the trauma model: on the contrary, they have very strongly criticized me when I try to tell them that parents cause mental disorders. —Cesar Tort 02:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I misa-stated. DMSMH (if I understand what is meant by the trauma model, correctly) was may have been to propose a truly radical global trauma theory of mental illness/human abberation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaddeus Slamp (talk • contribs)

2) Janov is not an ethical man. He’s rather a kind of guru, as I discussed somewhere in this forum.[41] —Cesar Tort 02:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but the web adreess you sent looks dreadful to me. Also the link is to nothing in this furum. I'll look into your earlier work. Thaddeus Slamp 06:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Overpopulation category

Retrieved from User talk:Ryulong:

What happened with that important category you just removed from my user page????

—Cesar Tort 01:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it. There were only three individuals in it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

How many individuals should be for a category to exist? —Cesar Tort 01:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no set number. The category is simply one that does not have anything to do with Wikipedia and one does not need a category (or a userbox) to express ones ideas.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If there's no official set number do I have the right to re-insert it? —Cesar Tort 01:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, as it's deleted. You can say "I am worried about overpopulation" without stating it in a useless category.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

But why did you take this unilateral decision without consulting us? In fact, to me that was the most important category of all. —Cesar Tort 01:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories with low populations (ironic, isn't it?) are deleted on a regular basis. The category for Wikipedians concerned about overpopulation was one of them.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Too bad. Please let me know if you receive more complaints from that policy or if there is a chance in the future to reinsert it. —Cesar Tort 01:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, "Wikipedians concerned with" anything categories are generally frowned upon, as categories are supposed to facilitate collaboration on articles. Stating one is "concerned" with overpopulation does not convey a collaborative intention. Feel free to create a "Wikipedians interested in overpopulation issues" category though. VegaDark (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Stating one is "concerned" with overpopulation does not convey a collaborative intention.

This sounds extremely bizarre to me. It's like saying that there's no problem in Calcutta or here, in Mexico City with more than 20 million, many of which are very poor. "Wikipedians interested in overpopulation issues" sounds to me as Newspeak's blackwhite speech: it conveys exactly the opposite idea of what I am concerned about. —Cesar Tort 01:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying you're concerned about overpopulation does not help the encyclopedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

But it could help the poor people here (and elsewhere). —Cesar Tort 01:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No. It wouldn't—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to write you are concerned about overpopulation on your user page, though. User categories, however, should have an encyclopedic benefit. VegaDark (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean that it wouldn’t help? Any new user that sees this category could use it in his or her user page as a moral statement representing what historian Kenneth Clark, the author of the acclaimed TV series Civilisation, called the new barbarians: the people who breed like rabbits condemning millions to poverty. —Cesar Tort 02:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It does not help Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia to have a category for users who are concerned about the overpopulation of the Earth. It may help in a social context, but not on an online encyclopedia. Please stop pursuing this—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears you forgot this bit.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't forget it. It's just unresponsive to the issue I raised. Please stop now. —Cesar Tort 04:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Article deletions

Hi Cesar, Noticed your query to Ombudsman. Just a suggestion: if you have a talent for getting into someones head and seeing the proposers point of view, then you may be able (without recourse to analytical terminology which would be both offensive and a professional faux pas) turn it into a cathartic experience for everyone. I sometimes find that one needs to work-out which little bit of information the other person needs to make the connection to the bigger picture -and the article's place within it. This is providing everyone has a reasonably well developed skill of 'critical reasoning'; therefore, don't think it would work in the current ECT issue. Just get suck in and give you views.--Aspro 10:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe my last pm to Ombi was about another article, not about ECT. —Cesar Tort 18:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Spanish wiki

Hi Madman 2001,

A Latin American wikipedian is looking for trouble when he pov tagged the Spanish article of es:Sacrificios humanos en la América prehispánica. He is jealous since the article was nominated "good article" yesterday and he is saying that we have to listen to those who deny the historicity of the sacrifices.

I am only asking you to tell me the source of this sentence which I believe you placed:

Some researchers have also associated infant sacrifice with Olmec ritual art showing limp "were-jaguar" babies, most famously in La Venta's Altar 5 (to the right) or Las Limas figure. Definitive answers will need to await further findings.

The said editor placed a citation needed tag and I would like tu supply it. Thanks!

—Cesar Tort 06:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's one:

"Larger-than-life humans emerging from interior spaces occur on large retangular thrones . . . at La Venta, San Lorenzo, Laguna de los Cerros, and elsewhere. According to Beatriz de la Fuente they depict the widespread Mesoamerican origin myth that marks humankind's emergence from the cave of the earth at the beginning of life. Seated persons holding a baby occur on small, portable greenstone objects, monumental thrones, and freestanding sculptures. The baby frequently lies in an inert, death-like pose, suggesting the offering of a sacrificed infant, reminiscent of the remains of sacrificed infants uncovered at El Manati." Richard A Diehl, The Olmecs: America's First Civilization, p 109-110.

I can look for others, too. Madman 12:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Madman2001. It'll be useful. —Cesar Tort 18:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Cesar -- From JuneTune

Hey, Cesar. I see that we see eye to eye on a lot of these issues. Thanks for your input on the psychiatry-related articles. I know it's an uphill battle. JuneTune 04:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to you, June. People like you are badly needed in Wikiland. Have you seen my article [42]? —Cesar Tort 04:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Cesar. I just read your article "Psychiatry as Pseudoscience ...." and am really impressed. What's your background? The article's a great blend of scientific critique and philosophy. Would you consider it submitting to EHPP? Their most recent issue included a call for papers. BTW, I'm a big fan of MindFreedom International, PsychRights and ICSPP. I presented a paper to ICSPP at their 2005 conference (but I wish I had had you as an editor :)). JuneTune 03:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I sent my MS to EHPP in 2003. Laurence Simon accepted publication if I withdrew the paragraphs about the trauma model. I rejected that. Simon insisted. I pointed to Simon books like Colin Ross’s 2004 Schizophrenia and Read et al. Models of Madness. Simon insisted that I should remove all reference to the trauma model. I got really upset and wrote to Breggin and Cohen. They behaved like cowards.[43] I got extremely upset and wrote about them in my third book (in Spanish). Anyway, I am still opened to re-submit the paper to them. But maybe they’re upset too because of my Amazon Book review. —Cesar Tort 03:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

I actually haven't read Diaz's book, but looking at all the interesting reviews, I might have to sometime! MRB15 22:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

retrieved from my subpage talk page

(regarding your summary on the deletion of my comment) Then it has no relevance whatsoever to Wikipedia. Since user space is not for soapboxing but instead to discuss how to improve the project what others say on other forums are completely beside the point, non-notable and you should not be debating them here. Rockpocket 06:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Parado.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Parado.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. BigDT 05:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please delete it. —Cesar Tort 05:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga

Thanks, Cesar, for your comments. I have changed the tags on the page so that they better reflect my objections. First, the article is written in an unencyclopedic style -- it sounds more like a fan site than a neutral article. Second, there are no references at all. The article states things like, "He was brought up in the spirit of the Cristero movement, in the spirit of St. Miguel Pro and other Catholic martyrs...". Now, that may or may not be true, but it is not an appropriate line for an encyclopedia article. -- Juxtatype 17:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, Cesar. It does seem much better. I am at a bit of a disadvantage since I know very little about Fr. Sáenz, but I think your changes are definitely an improvement. — Juxtatype 06:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Cesar

I would like to direct your attention to the wikipedia policies on WP:MEATPUPPET#Meatpuppets - This thread at primalforum lead me to believe that you are unacquainted with thaat particular policy. •Maunus• •ƛ• 08:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you are wrong there, since I have no sockpuppet that violates WP standards, and my friends are not voting in the category articles: they only expressed their views in the talk page of the child sacrifice article, and very politely. —Cesar Tort 08:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

ECT article

Am I on the right page? I always get lost around here. I have been really busy, but will try to find some time to look at article this coming week. Last time I looked at the introduction it seemed to have some US-specific stuff without saying it was US - for example involuntary ECT (very different situation in UK). And sine-wave, majority of hospitals in Spain for example use sine-wave. So tag was good idea.Staug73 13:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes: WP is a labyrinth.

Above I called your attention to this one: [44]. —Cesar Tort 16:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Chess rating

Retrieved from User talk:Eleland:

Hi Eleland,

You were right: I archived some threads in the SRA page prematurely.

I see in your user page that you play chess. I'm just curious: do you have FIDE rating? Mine is 2109.

Please continue doing the good work.

—Cesar Tort 17:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never played an "officially" rated game; I did play rated games on Free Internet Chess Server but the ratings aren't exactly comparable. My FICS standard time control rating peaked at something like 1800, my blitz rating at 1400. Currently I have no standard rating and my blitz rating is only around 1200. I throw away a lot of strong positions on inexplicable blunders (I mean, so does everyone, but me even more than average) and I've no patience defending lost positions (I'll resign when down a piece for nothing, which is really inexcusable at my level of skill.) Ah well :) Eleland 18:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

dissociative disorders

Hi.

I've noted you added links to Dissociative disorders in some articles. I was curious if the article did not exist already; I mean, in your copyedits it turned out red in the articles you edited because the second word ("disorders") should be small. Otherwise it appears red: Dissociative Disorders.

You may answer here or in my talk page if you wish :)

Welcome again to Wikipedia.

—Cesar Tort 14:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Cesar Tort, thank you for the observation, now I understand what you mean, and will address the issue, when I have time (I wasn't so aware of Wikipedia being so case-sensitive, until recently!). The article 'Dissociative identity disorder' seemed quite wordy, so I changed 'Dissociative Identity Disorder', 'Dissociative Disorder', 'Borderline Personality Disorder', 'Post-traumatic stress disorder', to acronyms 'DID', 'DD', 'BPD', 'PTSD', for an easier read. However, not sure whether readers less familiar with the acronyms, could find the acronyms (and article) more difficult to comprehend? I'd be interested in your opinion, and may post the question on the discussion page. --Standardname 22:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Ross

Retrieved from FT2 talk page:

Thanks for your copyedits in Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma. I wonder if you may want to take a look at Biopsychiatry controversy? —Cesar Tort 14:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment - it's not perfect but I'm glad you liked the edits made. I just took a look at the article you suggested -- what a mess! As it stands, it reminds me a bit of edit-war fallout zones in other articles. I can try to draft a balanced set of edits to it, and hope these find favor, but it's a messy one for sure! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the problem is that I am going on a long trip this Friday and don't like much to wikiedit in internet cafes. I may be available today and Thursday but then I will take a wikibreak. —Cesar Tort 01:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Satanic ritual abuse and mediation

Would you care to post at Talk:Satanic ritual abuse#Propose formal mediation, where I have asked if involved editors might agree in principle to formal mediation? <eleland/talkedits> 17:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not mentioned on the satanic ritual abuse talk page that I am prepared to mediate, because at least some people would immediately start another hate campaign against me. Therefore I have told Eleland that he can count on me, if Wikipedia wants me to mediate. I contacted Eleland, because he mentioned me as a candidate mediator on the sra talk page (15.1).

However, when you compare my mediation proposal on Elelands talkpage with his reaction on my talkpage, you can see that he misinterpreted everything I have said. The reason why I proposed to give him addresses and telephone numbers from the people I mention in my article about satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands, is not that I want to recruit friendly allies as Eleland alleges, but that I want to give him and other editors the opportunity to talk or correspond with people from the Netherlands who are well informed about the discussion there. Those people are critics, mpd therapists and some with a more neutral stance toward the phenomenon.

My offer to mediate still stands. It is up to them if they want to do something with it. I will not participate on the sra talkpage, because I do not have the time for it and I do not want to discuss any longer with people who do not strive at consensus, but are only interesting in pushing their own biased point of view.

If you like that, we could correspond through email.

Criminologist1963 (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Criminologist1963. I'd much appreciate mediation. If I understand policy correctly, if people reject it the next step is arbitration? Cesar Tort 21:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration is indeed the next step in the real world. However, I have no idea if arbitration is possible within Wikipedia. If arbitration is considered, I would appreciate it very much when the arbiter also looks into the way people contribute to the discussion on the talk page. The tone of their contributions is sometimes not only hostile, but also damaging for me, for other critical and neutral editors and for acknowledged experts on satanic ritual abuse in the real world.

One of the most controversial editors is an Australian postgraduate student who calls himself Biaothanatoi. When you take a look on his talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Biaothanatoi, you will see that I am not the only one who is not amused about his contributions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Satanic_ritual_abuse/Archive_4#The_Netherlands_section ánd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Satanic_ritual_abuse/Archive_4#Criminologist1963.2C_Tjalling_Beetstra.2C_and_self-promotion are examples of his continuous personal attacks and unfounded accusations.

I think the discussion about satanic ritual abuse would be much more civil and effective, and consensus would be much quicker reached, when editors like Biaothanatoi were not allowed to edit articles on Wikipedia anymore. I sincerely hope that a future arbiter will look into this matter.

Criminologist1963 (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cesar,

Arbitration is possible on Wikipedia but it only relates to personal conduct, not to the content of articles. So going to the arbitration committee would not necessarily solve the problems on Satanic ritual abuse. However, frankly, I think some editors have been so disruptive (misrepresenting their sources, etc) that ArbCom might be willing to look at it anyway. <eleland/talkedits> 14:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Satanic ritual abuse" scandal

[As I have expressed neither interest in, nor disagreement over, this scandal, and as I can see no relevance for the issue (Biopsychiatry controversy‎) on which I do disagree with Cesar Tort, I am moving this to his own homepage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)]

Hi Hrafn.

Since you seem to have concerns about NPOV issues, it occurred to me to point out to you what has happened in another article.

A few months ago Satanic ritual abuse (SRA) was a pretty decent article. Then some POV-pushers arrived and turned it 180° around. What drove me out of my wiki-break was the feeling of outrage that such a thing could have happened in Wikipedia. Unlike our present discussion in Biopsychiatry controversy, it’s a controversy between the lunatic fringe and what the overwhelming majority of criminologists and sociologists maintain: that the SRA craze that happened in America, the United Kingdom, Australia and other Western countries in the 1980s and 1990s was a phenomenon of moral panic, analogous in some sense to the witch trials of the 17 century Salem.

The McMartin preschool trial is the paradigm of such with hunt in the 20 century. Just to give you an idea about the level of preposterous claims we are dealing with let me state that claims at the McMartin trial involved "witches flying in a hot-air balloon" and "orgies at car washes and airports, and of children being flushed down toilets to secret rooms where they would be abused, then cleaned up and presented back to their unsuspecting parents". Due to leading questions by misguided therapists, the kids also "recalled" being taken into an underground cavern beneath the school, flying through the air and seeing giraffes and lions!

As you can see, unlike the academic controversies about psychiatry-related issues, this is quite different. Though a neutral admin is trying to discuss with them calmly, I gave up arguing with the three POV-pushers in Talk:Satanic ritual abuse. I am no wiki-lawyer anyway. But I am dismayed that a previously NPOV incarnation of the SRA article has been hijacked by these people; and that the present article promotes their fringe view.

Mediation seems to have been rejected by some parties. What can be done with such article?

Respectfully,

—Cesar Tort 19:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit neutrally with reference to sources - I was pretty extensively involved with this page and thought it was trickling along towards being decent and even a RFC on the whole page. It has since splintered into a partisan free-for-all, with no real reason. Editors were agreeing to disagree, and calmly and slowly the page was coming together. I never saw a need for mediation and I'm not surprised it failed. WLU (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

However, if you compare the present article with a version of, say, August or September, it is fairly clear that the minority view now reigns in the article. The POV-pushers are simply ignoring the fact that the majority view, that of the crimonologists, is that no forensic evidence at all has been found for these bizarre claims. If the article is not fully reverted to a more saner version, this can only mean that the fringe editors have won the day. Curiously, the SRA subject picks my interest more than the ongoing discussion in the psychiatry-related articles... Cesar Tort 20:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously people disagree about the neutrality of page and the cultural phenomena that it discusses, the page was locked. The important thing is the use of sources; if the 'POV-pushers' have sources that possess some reliability, then the page should reflect this. Assuming that it doesn't exist and ignoring sources that say it does is not NPOV. SRA is an absurd and ridiculous claim requiring an improbably successful conspiracy and criminology journals discussing the phenomena are probably the most reliable sources available, but the minority position still has substantial amounts of information published. Not all of it is crank publications and self-published crap. It's far from the tiny minority position that is barred from inclusion per WP:UNDUE and it's easy to verify the opinions of believers. It may not be true, but it's definitely verifiable. The polarization that's occurring on the talk page is preventing the 'POV-pushers' on both sides from accepting any version of the page. Pulling up a couple pages from July, August and September, I see far fewer references, huge swaths of text that are unreferenced and unsourced claims. Compare to now - large numbers of inline citations (104), the specific claims have newspaper articles attributing them. It needs trimming, but I'd say it's an improvement. Because it's not 100% skeptical doesn't make it better. Verifiability, not truth. And now I'm going to stop hijacking Hrafn's talk page. WLU (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

But that is precisely the point. I will give you an argument I already advanced a few months ago in the SRA talk page.

I happen to know the large libreries, such as the American Society for Psychical Research, that have thousands upon thousands of books and peer-reviewed journals (by parapsychologists of course) that promote the belief in the paranormal: extra-sensory perception and psychokinesis. Fortunately, in the past I have seen that the skeptical view regarding the purported psi ability pervails in WP's articles. It pervails despite those thousands of pro-psi publications, some of them written by academics and scholars.

On the other hand, the tragedy I see in the SRA page is that there are no very knowable editors about the SRA subject editing in that page. I for one have only read a freelance writer's stupendous, albeit rather long article debunking the McMartin "tunnels" [45]. I've also read a book by a professor of religious studies, Dave Frankfurter's, which demoinstrates that the 1980s and 1990s witch-hunt in America was pretty similar to the witch-hunting of previous centuries. In other words, I am not a scholar on the subject.

The situation we have in the SRA article is similar to the following scenario. Imagine that three professional parapsychologists hijacked an article, say, ESP, and that the WP skeptics are not professional skeptics on the subject of parapsychology. So they don't have the pertinent literature at hand. In fact, one of the skeptics who tried to stop the believers' take-over of the article stated in talk page that he didn't have the money to buy some skepticsl books about SRA to rebut the believers' view, though he knows by google-search that the skeptical view is overwhelming among criminologists. The same with me. To boot, we don't have that sort of motivation to spend so many hours of our precious time to gate-keep the article from the minority viewers' hijack.

In fact, one of the pov-pushers who believes in the above-mentioned lunacies states in his user page that his objective is to edit the SRA article from his own pov. Like the other two, he is willing to spend the enormous amounts of time that we simply don't have.

I urge those editors concerned with the "due-weight" policy to read the above-linked article, The Dark Truth About the "Dark Tunnels of McMartin" by John Earl. It's all too obvious that what we are dealing in WP is something as preposterous as UFO abductions and so-called "past-memory" therapies. All of them, including the SRA claims, have one thing in common: the false memories were implanted on patients (in the SRA case on toddlers) by self-appointed therapists who happen to be True Believers in the reality of the phenomenon.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. This means that, in this case, the sources must be restricted to recognized academic journals (unlike the Journal of Psychohistory that these guys mention); to the universities' press, and to publications by FBI memebers.

So I stand to what I said in the SRA talk page: the present incarnation of that article can do a great harm to Wikipedia. I iterate that, in trying to deal with these people, keep in mind that the vast majority of criminologists and sociologists maintain that SRA was a phenomenon of mass hysteria or moral panic.

Cesar Tort 23:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Satanic ritual abuse.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 02:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

How to win the Satanic ritual abuse debate

I will try again after the holidays, Biao hasn't edited since the 20th. Also I responded to your comments at my talk page, Cesar. <eleland/talkedits> 17:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from Eleland's talk page:

An idea has occurred to me.

Recently an editor, in my opinion misinterpreting NPOV’s due weight policy, removed lots of well-sourced sentences in Biopsychiatry controversy arguing that the authors, even though they are scholars with academic posts, represented the minority view within academia.

If an editor can remove sentences from well-recognized academics (an erroneous interpretation of NPOV as I said above), why can’t we just remove the paragraphs from the books and texts by the lunatic fringe who are the sources of those now editing the SRA article??

We may simply appeal to the WP policy “extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources”. The 1980s and 90’s SRA were indeed extraordinary claims: a kind of 17 century Salem witch-hunt. As I have iterated elsewhere, the SRA article must convey the view of mainstraim academics, criminologists and sociologists (not of pop psychologists and credulous therapists). We can use all the force of NPOV’s due weight and the extraordinary sources policies to win this battle.

There’s no question about it.

—Cesar Tort 06:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Minority views belong in Wikipedia, unless they're the views of a tiny fringe. While guys like Finkelhor, Noblitt, etc. are plainly nuts, they do have qualifications and academic standing, and they've published. Their claims can and should be included in the SRA article. The problem comes when we write an entire article to the Roland Summit position and systematically exclude or marginalize mainstream views. Biao in particular has been playing a shell game, coming up with a dozen different reasons to exclude analysis of SRA as a social phenomenon, and only allowing a "skepticism" section which rushes through the entire corpus of SRA moral panic literature, slowing down only to dote on those views that Biao can use as a strawman, such as a highly obscure paper connecting "temporal lobe epilepsy" to SRA allegations.

Two weeks ago I thought this would be hammered out in mediation. Now I'm less sure; I'll try again on an RfM after the new year, in case editors are on holiday. After that, I now believe ArbCom would take this. There's a line where POV-pushing and tendentiousness moves from a humble content dispute into outright abuse of Wikipedia, and I believe some editors have crossed that line. In fact, I'll go and informally ask some arbitrators where they think that line is drawn now, so I have a better idea of how to proceed. Stay tuned. <eleland/talkedits> 16:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Roland Summit is such a crank that he stated that several US government agencies were involved in SRA conspiracies. Please read the John Earl long article about the “dark tunnels” of McMartin. It pretty much demonstrates the level of lunacy of Summmit and other conspiracy theorists.

I had planned to take another wiki-break but this is a serious subject. As you know, I write about child abuse. Summit et al are a major embarrassment for our child-protection movement.

If they do indeed take this case, let me know if I have to say something to ArbCom.

—Cesar Tort 01:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sahagun citation

Hi there. There's some confusion over where exactly an episode currently written about in the Human sacrifice in Aztec culture article is referred to in Sahagun's works- see this discussion on same at the article's talkpg. You recently added in the citation, so would appreciate it if you could clarify the source/edition/passage etc over at the talkpg. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I don’t remember where the “new weds” claim came from when I massively copyedited and cleaned it. But the number of the page is the correct one. I already modified the article accordingly. Cheers and happy new year :) —Cesar Tort 06:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

[The below discussion comes from another user's talk page:]

Go to ufowatchdog.com, click on "Hall of Shame 1, scroll to the 7th listing there. That is the one about Philip Klass AND CSICOP. Ignore the bathroom joke, and click on the underlined matter there. 65.173.105.225 (talk) 06:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really interested that much in the subject; it was just an excuse to remove an improper tag in a talk page. —Cesar Tort 06:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

THAT info on there is part of the new dispute regarding a source used as evidence to criticise "believers", paranormal investigators, yet, evidence found on the same site cannot be used AS evidence to indicate that the SAME site also criticises Skeptics as well. Why is that ? Someone even had the nerve to ask if Philip Klass was CIA for crying out loud, because of the claim made by the Robertson Panel to "REDUCE" intrest in UFOs and the like. UFO Watchdog does in fact criticise BOTH SIDES. 65.173.105.225 (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Biopsychiatry controversy

I rewrote the lead per WP:BRAVE. Could you do your thing with it and/or do you have any sources that can be augmented? --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Bélmez faces

Apparently there are two towns known as Bélmez in Andalusia: Bélmez in Córdoba and Bélmez de la Moraleda in Jaén. The article for the former said it was the location of the famous haunted house, but the article on the Belmez Faces seems to imply it was in the latter Bélmez. Since you were there, which Bélmez was it, the one in Córdoba or the one in Jaén? Thank you. 24.149.185.189 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right: it's the "La Moraleda" Bélmez. Thanks for editing the article. —Cesar Tort 02:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Psychohistory

Concerning your comment on my talk page - you were responding to joshuaZ, and he will not see your question unless you post it on his talk page. As for me, right now i just have some questions and am trying to get a broader group of Wikipedia editors to look at the article and comment. But if you want to respond to any one of their comments (like JushuaZ) you have to do it on their own talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. —Cesar Tort 23:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies! He replied to you on my talk page! Slrubenstein | Talk 00:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

requests for comment ....

... are supposed to be unsigned. Please see our policy on requests for comment. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know. —Cesar Tort 23:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

'tsalright. Wikipedia has a lot of policies! I don't think a healthy person should know all of them! Slrubenstein | Talk 00:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD

See AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychohistory. Wryspy (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

positions

I've read your user page, please read mine. we ought to understand each other. DGG (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we already understand each other :) How would you evaluate Psychohistorical views on infanticide. Is it really OR as one editor tagged it? —Cesar Tort 15:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Psychohistorical views on infanticide

The article looks a lot better now I think and I only see maybe two minor issues: (1) Some of the language is a little 'clunky' which is an eay fix that I can try to work on and (2) It is generally recommended that criticism be interspersed throughout articles rather than have its own section, this is somewhat minor though. Anyway, good work DM! --Woland (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Woland. I appreciate your comments (what means "DM" by the way). Since I am an obvious advocate for such views, and I think in Spanish, not in English, perhaps it would be better if another editor does the proper changes. Yes: why not be bold and do it yourself? :) Cesar Tort 16:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I will try at some point, this semster is currently kicking my ass and I only have a few minutes on any given day and I prefer at the moment to work on anthropology related articles.

As for 'DM,' see here.--Woland (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Fountain House

Hey, I am going to start merging these pages as a project. Does it sound interesting to you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminbruheim (talk • contribs) 07:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have technical problems with the merging, leave me a note. —Cesar Tort 15:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrad reverting his talk page again

Just a heads up, he keeps reverting and not listening to policy. *sigh* Zidel333 (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Added his comments back into the Golden Plates talk page with strike through. Hopefully he won't take them out again. Zidel333 (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

helpme

{{helpme}}

I started my wikicareer almost two years ago and, for the first time, the look of all en:wiki pages (computing "interphase" is called in our Spanish-speaking countries) is almost plain. I have checked up the es:wiki, where I also have been an user, and everything looks perfectly OK.

Is there a problem in the English Wikipedia right now, or could this be my PC problem?

—Cesar Tort 20:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's a preferences problem. Try going to this page, and see if it works. Good luck! Soxred93 | talk count bot 21:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It "works" but —:

Personal tools

   * Cesar Tort
   * My talk
   * My preferences
   * My watchlist
   * My contributions
   * Log out

—are curiously placed at the bottom of the page (for two years they appeared at the top and looked far more elegantly. I have made a point-by-point comparison with my es:wiki "Preferencias" (Preferences) and unless I missed something it seems that all the boxes are marked just the same. es:wiki looks as I have been looking it for two years. And I also checked the French wiki and it looks good too.

Thanks for your prompt reply anyway,

—Cesar Tort 22:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That's weird. I don't see any javascript tools that can be affecting that... Soxred93 | talk count bot 22:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your prompt reply. I will go now to an "internet café" to check and see how en:wiki looks like there... —Cesar Tort 22:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am in the café right now and everything looks fine from here. At home I couldn't even see the "Quetzalcóatl" image that appears at the very top of my User Page. I will now return home and see if the "interphase" has been fixed by now. —Cesar Tort 23:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(Back to home) Oh! It fixed itself! Shall I remove now the "help me" template above or leave it as it is? Thanks a lot for everything, SoxBot. —Cesar Tort 23:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Stuff

Retrieved from Woland's talk page:

Hi Woland. Re the copyedit "Its occurrence is well documented" in Ritualized child abuse I agree with your removal. Originally I was tempted to state something like "Unlike the 1980s and '90s SRA claims, its occurrence is well documented". But I thought that would be provocative :) Cesar Tort 00:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Good. What is important in articles is to simply take information from the references and not to add extraneous information that may well be true but is unneeded. Now if there were some controversy about whether it occurred then you could add something like, "In such-and-such source person x argues that it is well documented."--Woland (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict in Satanic ritual abuse

Sorry CT, I hit an edit conflict replying to the same person and wiped your reply out. Would you mind terribly replacing it for me? I know it's my fault, but I'm trying to keep on top of my watchlist and SRA is starting to make my eye twitch. WLU (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Next time you can re-add the removed post yourself. It's always in the memory of the history of the page. :) Cesar Tort 20:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I'm having a stressful day otherwise I would have replaced it. It's hard to keep my cool when we keep getting hit with the same crap. Personal experience is irrelevant to wikipedia, no matter how much it matters to you. Now repeat and type that out a couple dozen times. Grr.... WLU (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. You just copy it from the talk page's history and paste ~~accidentally removed post~~ your previous reply to another editor who had made a similar point before. :) Cesar Tort 20:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Almost 19 000 edits - I lose track what I said to who, when. Dotage comes to some of us early... WLU (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from Woland's talk page:

I just wanted to mention that the reason why the above article was created is explained here. —Cesar Tort 15:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Reading that was what actually led me to the talk page that I commented on so my concern still stands. I agree that we'll have to wait to see how that page evolves, but I just wanted to express my feelings as an editor about it.--Woland (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ritualized child abuse

CT, the article is clearly a POV fork from SRA. You've explicitly stated your intention to shift content from SRA to this new article in order to bypass your failure to gain consensus for your views at SRA. I've listed the article for deletion:

An article that you have been involved in editing, Ritualized child abuse, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ritualized child abuse. Thank you.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Biaothanatoi (talk • contribs)

A thought

A thought about ritualized child abuse - the cases like Waco, Texas, Jim Jones and the Zion case discussed here are cases of ritualized child abuse, in which individuals believed that their sexual abuse of children was justified or necessary via their status as religious prophets. Being careful of OR, this might be a further direction to go with the page. Were I to write it, I would place much emphasis on contemporary allegations and incidents, with the Incan sacrifices becoming a historical footnote briefly summarized (in part because I don't think the JPH is a great source - doesn't mean I'm right, just that I wouldn't use it). Doesn't mean you have to, just my opinion. WLU (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea: you focus on the present cases in the West and I on the ancient —or tribal cases in more recent times. (BTW, the Robert Godwin quotation I placed in talk:ritualized child abuse about abuse by the ancient Incas was not published in JPH or in any other publisher related to psychohistory.) —Cesar Tort 14:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. The only reason why I'm really commenting is because I'm a micro-manager at heart, not because I really care or can see myself contributing. Sorry about that, I'm just not interested. Regards wiki policy and the WP:5P, I think the above comments are the direction to take this page in to make it the most encyclopedic it can be. WLU (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Good call, there's no reason you can't add it in the future when you've got better verification. WLU (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Some tools

I'm not sure if you're aware of them or not, but I noticed on your SRA edit adding the Frankenfurter book that your template was a bit off. Here are my humble suggestions for what I consider to be the most useful citation tools. I've diberry and the google search tool for months and they are excellent, the ISBN database is a bit quicker and more thorough than amazon, which I used to use to find ISBNs.

Citation templates
Google scholar autocitation, a google-style search engine and reference generator. Useful when the article doesn't have a pubmed number (old, social sciences or humanities) but the citation template isn't as neat and it does not fill in ISBN or pubmed numbers
ISBN searchable database, used in conjunction with Diberry to find, and generate citation templates
pubmed/isbn Diberry's template generator, incredibly useful, uses the pubmed number or isbn to automatically generate a citation template for you; the most useful if you have a pubemd or ISBN

Thought you'd find them handy. WLU (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sub page for ye

User:Cesar Tort/Personal sandbox

Knowing how to create sub pages would probably be helpful CT. They're very handy and it's ridiculously easy to do. If you are drafting a page, want to work on a deleted page or otherwise need a little pocket for your wikithoughts, they're invaluable. WLU (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes: in fact I have another subpage for psychiatry-related issues. I moved the page you just started here. —Cesar Tort 20:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Anti-psychiatry

You wrote in your edit summary, in part: "this article is about *secular* antipsychiatry.". [46]

I agree with your reversion, because the conspiracy theory about psychiatrists is a fringe part of what is already fairly fringe. But I don't (think I) agree that the article is exclusively about secular antipsychiatry. I think it's about it wherever it happens, including in religions if they're sufficiently influential.

I also don't want to misinterpret you, since there's only so much room in the edit summary. Are we basically in agreement, or is there something we should hash out here?

CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, CRGreathouse, you see there are no less than three Scientology anti-psychiatric articles in WP and only one secular antipsychiatry article (the Biopsychiatry controversy article was recently butchered). We must follow a WP policy to avoid "content fork". The only way to follow it properly is to avoid unnecessary overlap among both kind of articles. The info that User:Wikiiinfo wants to push is taken from CCHR's DVD. In fact, he mentioned it in talk page some days ago. There is a whole section in article about the big differences between the two camps: secular and religious. If the line is broken in the lead, as Wikiiinfo is doing, future editors will use Scientology as a straw-man argument to attack a secular movement which started since the times of Daniel Defoe: long, long before Hubbard was born. —Cesar Tort 20:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I don't want to parrot the CCHR. (My personal bias here is that I distrust the 'church' of Scientology.) And as I said, the point that was added should have been removed -- I would have removed it myself. But the article already discusses the religious side as you mention, so I'm not sure what line you're trying to draw exactly. Do you want to remove the section and the many mentions in the article outside the section? Do you want to leave mentions in, but not discuss more than a minimum, leaving that to {{main}} links?

CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, you mention three articles. That seems excessive. What are they? Is there any talk of merging two or three of them? CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No: I don't want to remove the Scientology section in the Antipsychiatry article. I contributed a lot to correct it! But I didn't start the Scientology & psychiatry articles and I am not editing them anymore. —Cesar Tort 20:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Wikiiinfo seems to be editing in good faith. However, I dislike his most recent (minor) edit. The phrase you edited some time ago ("Secular critics do not share these views") is much better. —Cesar Tort 23:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-psych edit conflict

This may be the first time I've ever had an edit conflict where the two versions were exactly the same. My edit summary was going to be

differentiate scientologists from secular: the point of this paragraph is to point out where they are different, not that they are the same!

CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeap! I'm afraid that my own edit summary was a bit more aggresive. —Cesar Tort 06:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Psychohistory

THe problem was with a broken (unterminated) ref. Rich Farmbrough 18:20 12 March 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for fixing it. —Cesar Tort 19:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Psychohistory [permission]

I need your permission to use sections of the Psychohistory page for a report. If you could grant me this use I would greatly appreciate it. I tried changing parts of they Psychohistory page so that my proffessor would accept it, but it keeps getting changed back. If I could have your permission to use it, I would be very grateful. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cotir2005 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The material of the article is not copyrighted. Neither I nor any other editor owns it. If you want to publish it in another source it's ok. If, however, you want to do major changes, you have to give your reasons in talk:Psychohistory. —Cesar Tort 17:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Infanticide article

Hi Cesar. I've seen the great work you're doing on the article, good job. I'm going to take this one off my watchlist as it's getting too fully for the time I have. Can I trust you'll be watching it yourself? I have had bad experiences not watching an article for a while only to find out some months later that a 12 year old has peed all over it and nobody has noticed. Of course, there may well be others maintaining it as well, but I've no way of knowing without asking people directly. Richard001 (talk) 05:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment! Yes: it's frustrating that any silly person can mess with an article that has taken lots of work from us. I am writing the final chapter of a book on psychohistory and that's why I am researching infanticide. I may finish the infanticide chapter of my book (in Spanish BTW) in about three months, and I'll be editing the WP article as well. Yes, sure: go ahead and unwatch it. I'll keep an eye these months until I finish it :) —Cesar Tort 06:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no strict limit on article size, but we try to keep them reasonable. The infanticide article could and as it grows should be split up. But the section on animals is a must have. It needs improvement, as it's currently just a copy of the lead at the main article (hence there is nothing to merge there). It needs to draw closer connections between human and animal infanticide, as human infanticide is, after all, just a subset of the former. Richard001 (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"No strict limit". Hmm. And what about "content fork"? I mean why not just reduce the paragraph to an absolute minimum? —Cesar Tort 23:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Belmez Faces

Out of curiosity, what do you believe to be the cause of the Belmez faces? How did you debunk the paranormal claims? -24.149.193.49 (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

When I published in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research I believed they were genuine. A year after that I changed my mind: most faces are product of an acid, a fake. I still have to add the reference to my article published in Skeptical Inquirer. —Cesar Tort 05:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Whom do you believe was behind the hoax and why? -24.149.193.49 (talk) 09:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Difficult question. Someone in the family. The mayor of the city, a believer in the phenomenon BTW, told me "Son gente mala" (they're bad people), if I remember correctly, referring to the owner, María. —Cesar Tort 15:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Torture

Hi Cesar, someone mentioned a lack of world-wide focus on torture and for some reason I thought of you : ) I've got a go-to guy for medicine, creationism, and now apparently torture. Congratulations, you've become my official personal subject-matter expert.

Slightly more seriously, there's a discussion over at Talk:Torture#History about the lack of non-European info regards torture. Any chance that in your manifold research on all things psychohistorical you've found something that could be used to expand the section? WLU (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to put my two cents in, by writing a paragraph in that part of the Talk page. —Cesar Tort 17:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The scene of battle

Hail Cesar :) Though its tents are somewhat tattered and its fires greatly dimmed, the camp of anti-psychiatry remains IMHO worthy of sturdy protection. For, of all the new priesthoods, it's difficult to think of one where the disparity between the respect generally accorded it, particularly among the unsuspecting throng, and the perilous nature of its underlying precepts and consequences is as demonstrably chasmic as psychiatry. Your contributions on these topics I find most edifying; thanks for drawing them to my attention, & many thanks also for your kind words of welcome. For the reasons just stated I reckon it's worth continuing to tweak. Kind regards, Wingspeed (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And this year I abandoned a battle here... —Cesar Tort 16:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Bibby

Hi CT,

I've started reading through the index and mentions of SRA in Bibby (Bibby, Peter A. (1996). Organised Abuse: The Current Debate. Aldershot, England: Arena. ISBN 1-85742-284-8.). I highly, highly recommend it. It's treatment is very readable, very neutral and even handed, covers both sides of the SRA debates when it comes up, and features lots of discussion of ritual abuse. I might use it to expand the page you created in the future - there's a huge amount of discussion of the modern debate of ritual abuse, sequelae, evidence, I'm very impressed. It would greatly inform the page I think, and I'm very pleased to have it as a resource for SRA. It mentions Lanning BTW, twice. Awesome.

And thanks for the barnstar! Socratic. Excellent. Socrates would eat me for breakfast...

WLU (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome! Alas, $140 in Amazon books is beyond me for the moment (and in fucking Mexico those kind of books are unavailable from libraries). Hope I'll be moving out of this fucking country soon... Cesar Tort 16:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

unsigned

When I make a comment and then quote something long, I sign after my comment, not after the quote, so that it's clear where my comment ends. It's intentional. Stop putting "unsigned" after the quotes. Thanks, -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Review the talk guidelines. Signatures cannot go at the middle of a post. —Cesar Tort 00:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

They're not in the middle of a post, and I'll sign where I think it is most appropriate for readability and clarity viz long quotes. Get over it.-PetraSchelm (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Very insteresting concept: not signing posts where experienced wikipedians sign. It will get pretty confusing I guess... Cesar Tort 00:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

SRA

I agree about the believers. I've been away, though. Is there any specific section that could do with my input now? forestPIG 14:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

WLU has been doing it so well that he may only need a little help in the talk page (he feels he loses much time in talk and prefers serious work in namespace itself). I am reluctant to do so because in the previous year I posted quite a few rants against the pov-pushers. On the other hand you are comparatively new to this page. If User:ResearchEditor (formerly known in the wiki as "AbuseTruth") posts huge complaints in talk, a good response may be in order. —Cesar Tort 15:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I know about AT, and the unfortunate number of believers. I'll try to work with them, though. Some others - eleland, Haiduc, AnotherSolipsist, ScienceApologist - have all been active in keeping these editors in check throughout the child abuse articles. The problem is consensus, and we're not getting it all too often. I would encourage all of us to add these articles to our watchlist, so that the CA articles will suffer less from advocacy. If you want to sort this out, please get back on my talk page. forestPIG 15:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not child advocacy. As you can see in my user page, it's my main interest. The problem are people who cannot distingush between real abuse and unreal abuse (SRA, sexual abuse during UFO abductions, etc.). Some advocacy of children's rights is counter-productive since false memories and bizarre claims abound in the field. My educated guess is that many survivors are displacing the abuse they suffered in childhood and become pov pushers in the wiki. Unfortunately I'm really busy for the moment and am only reading the exchanges between the pov-pushers and his critics in several talk pages. —Cesar Tort 17:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. By CA, I do not mean advocacy, but abuse. Some editors (as well as promoting unreal abuse - e.g. SRA with flying horses and devil clowns) are also overstepping the mark on other abuse, or abuse-related articles. For example, Pedophile. forestPIG 17:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Petra, who also edits in SRA, eliminated recently a phrase in the Pedophile article claiming it was OR (actually, it was a clarifying phrase). I didn't revert because our little affair in SRA, where she said I was harassing her (I wasn't). I would never dare to edit that article. It's perhaps one of the most trolling places in Wikiland. —Cesar Tort 20:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hola Cesar

Thanks for your note on my page. The problem, as I see it, is not just that people do not distinguish between harmful and positive relationships, but that people are easily stampeded. What is most strange, of course, is the authoritarian bent of some individuals who are fixated on pedophile topics. I am tempted to believe that pedophiles come in two basic flavors, libertarians, who may or may not act out their desires but at least are integrated individuals, and authoritarians, who manifest as obsessive anti-pedophiles and are fundamentally conflicted. These, by the way, are the ones I would especially keep my own children away from - I am sure you have heard about all the cases of CSA advocates molesting their charges.

Regarding your comments, I do not know that we can say that most modern pederastic relationships are abusive. The problem, I think, is that all of the pederastic relationships we read about in the news are indeed abusive or are presented as such. When was the last time you read an article about a wonderful, legal pederastic relationship?! They would have to stop the presses and pull the edition! As for most wiki editors, I have been contributing here for several years and most of my exchanges with them have been instructive and constructive. Every now and then you get a "true believer" but usually they quickly learn manners and good thinking habits, or the wiki organism expels the intruder. It is unfortunate that now pederasty is being conflated with pedophilia in the wiki. As you can imagine, it is agenda-driven. Haiduc (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously they are different things. How stupid it would be to call, say, Chaplin's (who was much older than me) marriage with an 18-year old beautiful nymphet "pedophilic". But that is the spirit of our strange age. My "stampade" has to do with the fact that I abhor to discuss with these psycho Puritans. I don't want the lest exchange with someone who puts into the same category Chaplin with the Catholic priest who molests dozens of little kids. Psycho ideology. How nauseating it is to me…

In my most private VIP forum there are only two posters (including me). If you are interested I can show you the link.

P.S. I don't understand the phrase "cases of CSA advocates molesting their charges".

—Cesar Tort 14:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Cesar, my comment on Haiduc's talk page was a reply to him, not to you (hence the fact that I referred to you in the third person). Its location on the page, inset under yours, was understandably misleading. As far as I'm aware you haven't over-egged any puddings. Paul B (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Keep doing the good work :) —Cesar Tort 17:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

apology

CT, my apologies, I agree with you on proper editorial focus, so I removed the section at SRA talk. ResearchEditor (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. But I think I may re-add it per wiki policy. Thanks for being so candid :) Cesar Tort 02:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Cesar, I've redacted a comment for you on talk:SRA. A reminder to comment on contributions, not contributors - it may not be an attack but it's good advice in any case. If you really feel the redacted comment contains something crucial to the page, please consider a phrasing that does not single out a contributor but rather addresses the argument. Thanks, WLU (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, everyone needs this reminder once in a while, so please remember this and have your revenge when I one day call another editor a douchebag. Oh, it'll happen. Just wait for it. WLU (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. In that talk page you also wrote: "Take it up on your talk pages or e-mail people, not here," so I'm pasting my collapsed text here: [text in User_talk:Cesar_Tort/SRA_list#RFC_.E2.80.93_Ad_hominems] —Cesar Tort 17:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

John Stanley edit

I had the impression the Spider was usually wrong when he said Mr. Moppet was guilty but turns out you are correct. Well, I tried to take care in working up the profile but knew there would be tweaks etc. as things went along. Thanks for the help. Dgabbard (talk) 01:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Little Lulu (which as a boy I read in Spanish) is my favorite comic and I still love it. Do you know if there's a color reprint of at least some of the series? —Cesar Tort 14:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Horse color special printed in 2006. Dgabbard (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get it. —Cesar Tort 23:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"Anyone remotely associated with FMSF is a pedo"

I've moved this section User_talk:Cesar_Tort/SRA_list#RFC_.E2.80.93_Ad_hominems. —Cesar Tort 17:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

McMartin edits

You reverted every single one of my edits, even my deletion of a see also that was included as a reference in the article. Please explain on the talk page there. In fairness to all, we should revert the entire article to before your added section and then discuss a compromise (consensus version). ResearchEditor (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Better discuss there, not here. —Cesar Tort 04:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

John Stanley edit

I had the impression the Spider was usually wrong when he said Mr. Moppet was guilty but turns out you are correct. Well, I tried to take care in working up the profile but knew there would be tweaks etc. as things went along. Thanks for the help. Dgabbard (talk) 01:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Little Lulu (which as a boy I read in Spanish) is my favorite comic and I still love it. Do you know if there's a color reprint of at least some of the series? —Cesar Tort 14:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Horse color special printed in 2006. Dgabbard (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get it. —Cesar Tort 23:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"Anyone remotely associated with FMSF is a pedo"

I've moved this section User_talk:Cesar_Tort/SRA_list#RFC_.E2.80.93_Ad_hominems. —Cesar Tort 17:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

McMartin edits

You reverted every single one of my edits, even my deletion of a see also that was included as a reference in the article. Please explain on the talk page there. In fairness to all, we should revert the entire article to before your added section and then discuss a compromise (consensus version). ResearchEditor (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Better discuss there, not here. —Cesar Tort 04:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No wholesale reverts

Cesar, I agree with you entirely about Research Editor's behavior, but I do not agree with your remedy. I am pretty much against wholesale reverts, always. It is impossible to explain all the various different reasons why each edit is being reverted when one wholesale reverts. Slapping vague edit summaries on such reverts like ("revert POV edits") is also unhelpful and inevitably leads to justified reactions by the POV editor that his/her various edits are not taken seriously on their own. I caution against this approach, even though taking the other tact is much more time consuming. Specific reverts with adequate explanations are necessary if we want to edit in the spirit of the Wiki and prevent the POV pushing side from having ammunition against us. That's my opinion.PelleSmith (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I see... I posted that because our patience is running thin :) Cesar Tort 16:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah my patience is definitely running thin also and I appreciate those sentiments, but we need to make sure to edit responsibly despite our frustrations. :) PelleSmith (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

P vs PP.

Hey CT,

You know the difference between "Bob, 2006, p. 22" and "Bob, 2006, pp. 22"? I usually use the first but see the second a lot and have no idea what's proper. WLU (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If I understand it correctly, p. means a single page; pp., several pages. —Cesar Tort 17:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool, noted. WLU (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Anytime... —Cesar Tort 20:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ritualized child abuse

From my reading, allegations of SRA faded and allegations of ritualized child abuse grew, as RCA was 'discovered' in much the same way intrafamilial and organized child abuse was discovered. Strip away the satanic nutter crap and the contemporary sources discussing pathological and religious child abuse, possibly pseudosatanism, could be used to expand the page for the western world. I imagine a sentence - "As fears of SRA faded, attention focused on the small but significant proportion of child abuse cases that involved severe, ritual abuse and for which there was ample proof." Have to be careful of definitions still, avoiding the stigma of SRA, but I think there's a page there starting in the netherworlds of prehistory and becoming more apparent post-mid-90s. A thought. Going to bed, see you tomorrow. Watch for RE's one revert of the day. WLU (talk) 01:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

By "watch" do you mean that my 4:00AM "heroic" leaving the bed to revert the bunch of pov-pushing is ok with policy? —Cesar Tort 01:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands

Dear Cesar,

As you know, the page I have created about satanic ritual abuse has been vandalized again. This time it was not Biaothanatoi (see for comments on his far from neutral view: pov pushing), but WLU who found it necessary to destroy the neutral page I have carefully created. WLU redirected the page to the English site on satanic ritual abuse and wrote his own opinion in chapter 6 of: sra list.

Every time I undid his alterations, WLU redirected the page again to his own chapter. Apparently not happy about the fact that I discovered his vandalations every time within an hour, he sent me a Three revert warning. Because WLU is doing the vandalizing and not me, I replied to this obvious threat by putting a Three revert warning on his talk page. He removed it soon, as I did with his Three revert warning.

Since WLU is not familiar with the situation in the Netherlands, the chapter on the Netherlands he wrote is not a correct report of what happened there. This means that everyone who reads his chapter is wrongly informed. This is very serious, because people were able to read what really happened in the Netherlands on the page I have created before WLU started vandalizing this page.

I have no idea why people like Biaothanatoi and WLU, who obviously have not got the slightest idea of what really happened in the Netherlands with regard to satanic ritual abuse and who base there opinion mainly on dubious researches, such as those by Fred Jonker and Ietje Jonker-Bakker, keep destroying the material I present on 'my' page and which is based on more than a decade research into satanic ritual abuse.

In Wikipedia I am confronted with Three revert warnings and threats to block me when I try to repair the damage these vandals have caused. For this reason I am not able to undo the vandalations and the vandals seems to win. The matter is extra complicated, because on Wikipedia every layman can act as if he is the expert in the field and can harass and insult (as Biaothanatoi did) or threat sincere people who have opinions which differ from their own. They think no one can touch them, because they use an alias.

I am aware that people have very different opinions on an issue such as satanic ritual abuse. Nothing wrong with that. However, it is wrong to destroy pages with opinions you do not like. Especially when such a page is neutral. If people have a different view on the situation they can put that opinion on the page, but they cannot destroy the page! Since I will not discuss all this with WLU c.s., I would like to ask you to tell them that. As soon as I have your answer, I will undo again the redirections of WLU. As I have said before, if he or someone else wants to add comments on (the talk page of) the page, please do, but let them not mess around with my text which is a correct and neutral report of the discussion about satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands.

Yours sincerely,

Criminologist1963 (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that the info about the Netherlands merits inclusion in the wiki. However, this must be done within the wiki policies. I would recommend not blankening the page but instead discuss in the talk page. WLU is not like Biao. Take a look at the current duscussion in talk:SRA. I can mediate in a polite discussion between the two of you if you wish. —Cesar Tort 12:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The changes to the various pages were not vandalism. Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to harm wikipedia. Criminologist1963 does not own the page, has created content forks which repeats information already present on the page, and has never, to my knowledge, even looked into the information on the list of SRA accusations. The page did not read as neutral to me, and the version reverted to contained numerous problems in formatting and citations that were not preserved by his revert. Several users have redirected the page to either SRA proper or to the list of SRA allegations. My rewording of text seemed to be in keeping with the information that was on the page before I began editing. Criminologist1963 has not made any comments or engaged on any talk pages with the specific reason why my edits were in error, has not made any arguments or provided any sources that indicate a change has warranted, nor any reason why several content forks are necessary. WLU (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Tee Hee

Hiya Cesar. I'm a huge hypocrite to suggest it, as usual, but we might be better off just leaving RE's comments alone unless there's urgent need (i.e. the AN discussion re-starts and any mis-conceptions require addressing). I don't want to run into WP:HARASS and you probably don't either. Accordingly, I will SHUN with all my might and resist the edit button as best I can. Though I'm notoriously weak, as you know.

By the by, my favourite bit of situation-specific irony can be found at the bottom of WP:TINC - "Also, consider that if many people disagree with you, it may be just because you are wrong and/or in violation of the site policies (such as WP:UNDUE)." Check the history, it wasn't me. Honest. Fthagn! WLU (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You won't believe it but my intention was to help AT/RE. Not by tolerating his ways, of course, but by trying to communicate with him (even in his talk page if necessary). In my latest few posts in his user talk page you can see I was very polite. My last posts in AN and in MangoJuice talk were also polite. I was trying to make him see what all of us can see (even Biao!). But maybe all of this is just wasting my time... Cesar Tort 17:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Meh, consider it work for posterity, or charity for a good cause. By the by:

		The Minor Barnstar
		For carefully proofreading and patiently untangling my frequent mistakes, both in mainspace and talk pages, here is a minor barnstar for one, Cesar Tort. Be ye named for the legal term or the tasty dessert, I'm pleased to collaborate with you. WLU (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Bowlby

Thanks. Its an interesting area. Have you seen this one? The surface has scarcely been scratched of the implications of attachment theory for therapy (although some rather extreme therapies claim to be based on it). The attachment theory "bible" called the Handbook of Attachment (eds Cassidy and Shaver) is coming out in a new edition any minute now and I'm hoping from that to be able to beef up the practical and therapeutic uses of attachment theory in the article. The last edition was 1999. There is research going on related to this about brain development but its probably too soon to draw many firm conclusions for Wiki purposes. Fainites ^barley 16:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

Cesar, this is the page Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser. However, I'm not entirely sure there is enough "evidence" for them to justify doing one, but you can always try. I have my suspicions but I'm not 100% sure its RE. Certainly seems like a seasoned editor.PelleSmith (talk) 00:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what I needed to know. Maybe it's a little premature to request the check. Let's see how this unfold. AT/RE's writing style, BTW, is basically identical to that of the new guy. —Cesar Tort 02:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hiya CT, this is in an old section because, what the hell. Just a note, I don't know if the bevy of new editors are actually RE pulling a sock puppet act - I would guess an alternative option would be they are meatpuppets, or individuals who post on a message board about SRA/RAT where the terrible injustices of wikipedia have been highlighted. I'd scale back the RCU and sock accusations, particularly since none of the new editors are in any way going to influence main pages with the sources and arguments they've posted to date. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 12:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeap, that's exactly what I suspected: that RE, Diana Napolis and others are chatting about the "great injustices" in an off-wiki forum. But I still think that ExtraBreeze's edit summaries, mainspace edits and posts resemble ResearchEditor's prose. (Is the other guy Biao or a meatpuppet BTW?) —Cesar Tort 16:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

New Thought

I understand your decision to "unwatch" the article. For me it is a low priority project that involves excessive amounts of effort and time. There are an alarming number to articles that require a long fight top achieve even small gains. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What is sad is that believers of fringe theories usually have more time and energy to edit in WP than skeptics. Thanks for leaving this note anyway. Sooner or later the article will be fixed. —Cesar Tort 17:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

re: please

The watch list on the EN Wikipedia is Special:Watchlist. The EN Wikipedia does not have a Especial: namespace. The Especial:Watchlist page on the EN Wikipedia was deleted for that reason. Please note, that this is only a page on the EN Wikipedia and is not part of the ES Wikipedia. There apparently is a bug at the moment (see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Apparent server problem), but that is coincidental (it affects multiple Wikipedias & is a cache issue). -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever happened it badly affected the Spanish, ES Wikipedia. At any event, it's OK right now. —Cesar Tort 17:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

redirect comment?

Good afternoon. You dropped me a note that my name had come up in a discussion User_talk:Jennavecia#blanked_-_why.3F. I'm not finding it, though. Is it, perhaps, some other discussion that you'd like to me look at? Rossami (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I doesn't appear now because the page has been fixed. I wish I had copied it so that I may past it here in my talk page. Along with Jennavecia the other guys which appear in the several User:talks' New Sections that I started (see my contibutions under heading "Please"), the list of people who in that Especial Page said deleted it also included you. (BTW, Jennavecia's entire talk page has been vandalized today and weirdly redirected.) —Cesar Tort 18:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The above redirect is weird. The right one is this. —Cesar Tort 18:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Eschatology (retrieved from Madman's talk page)

Hello Madman!: I see you are editing the New Thought article. Many ideas of New Thought were copied and pasted by Mary Baker Eddy into Christian Science. And lo and behold: in the past, before I turned into a skeptic, I was deeply involved in a sect that copied & pasted much of the Eddy stuff, as you can see in this article which I started. Oh, yes: have you seen this? —Cesar Tort 06:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting, Cesar. As much as the content, I was struck by your writing style. It's quite excellent, particularly since English is probably not your first language.

To be honest, I'm not all that interested in New Thought, but ended up there trying to protect NT articles from Hrafn's tag-and-burn editing. Since he's left, of course, the hubbub has died down and it's boring really, but in a good way.

Thanks, Madman (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

SRA as Moral Panic/False Memory

Occam razor's epigraph:

"Never attribute to Devil-worshipping conspiracies what opportunism, emotional instability, and religious bigotry are sufficient to explain." —Shawn Carlson, Ph.D.

Books

Academic

Critcher, Chas. (2003) Moral Panics and the Media. Open University Press.
de Young, Mary. (2004) The Day Care Ritual Abuse Moral Panic. McFarland & Company.
Ellis, Bill. (2000). Raising the Devil: Satanism, New Religions, and the Media. University Press of Kentucky.
Frankfurter, David. (2006) Evil Incarnate: Rumors of Demonic Conspiracy and Satanic Abuse in History. Princeton.
Goode, Erich and Ben-Yahuda, Nachman. (1994) Moral Panics: The Social Construction of Deviance. Wiley-Blackwell.
Haaken, Janice. (1998). Pillar of Salt: Gender, Memory, and the Perils of Looking Back. Rutgers University Press.
LaFontaine, Jean. (1998) Speak of the Devil: Tales of Satanic Abuse in Contemporary England . Cambridge.
Loftus, Elizabeth. (1996) The Myth of Repressed Memory: False Memories and Allegations of Sexual Abuse. St. Martin's Griffin.
Jenkins, Philip. (1992). Intimate Enemies: Moral Panics in Contemporary Great Britain. Aldine de Gruyter.
Jenkins, Philip. (2004) Moral Panic: Changing Concepts of the Child Molester in Modern America. Yale.
McCloud, Sean. (2003). Making the American Religious Fringe: Exotics, Subversives, and Journalists, 1955-1993. UNC Press.
Ofshe, Richard and Watters, Ethan. (1996) Making Monsters: False Memories, Psychotherapy, And Sexual Hysteria. University of California Press.
Richardson, James T. (1991) The Satanism Scare: An Anthropological View. Aldine Transaction.
Showalter, Elaine (1997). Hystories: Hysterical Epidemics and Modern Media. New York: Columbia University Press.
Thomson, Kennet. (1998) Moral Panics (Key Ideas). Routledge.
Victor, Jeffery. (1993) Satanic Panic: The Creation of a Contemporary Legend. Open Court.
Gary Clapton (1993). Satanic Abuse Controversy: Social Workers and the Social Work Press (Essential Issues in the 1990s S). University of North London P. ISBN 1-85377-154-6.

Non-Academic

Hertenstein, Mike and Trott Jon. (1993). Selling Satan: The Evangelical Media and the Mike Warnke Scandal. Cornerstone Press Chicago.
Hicks, Robert D. (1991). In Pursuit of Satan. Prometheus Books.
McGrath, Malcom and Baker, Robert A. (2001). Demons of the Modern World. Prometheus Books.
Pendergrast, Mark. (1996) Victims of Memory: Sex Abuse Accusations and Shattered Lives. Upper Access.
Snedeker, Michael R. and Nathan, Debbie (1995). Satan's Silence: Ritual Abuse and the Making of a Modern American Witch Hunt. New York: Basic Books.
Wright, Lawrence. (1995). Remembering Satan: A Tragic Case of Recovered Memory. Knopf.

Peer Reviewed Journals

Bottoms, BL and Davis SL. (1997). "The Creations of Satanic Ritual Abuse." Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 16(2):112-132.
Bromley, David G. (1991). "The Satanic Cult Scare." Society 28(4):55-66.
Cavaglion, Gabriel. (2005). "The Cultural Construction of Contemporary Satanic Legends in Israel." Folklore 116(3):255-271.
Coons, Phillip and Grier, Finlay. (1990). "Factitious Disorder (Munchausen Type) Involving Allegations of Satanic Ritual Abuse: A Case Report." Dissociation 3(4)177-178.
Coons, Phillip. (1994). "Reports of Satanic Ritual Abuse: Further Implications about Pseudomemories." Perceptual and Motor Skills 78:1376-1378.
de Young, Mary. (1994). "One Face of the Devil: The Satanic Ritual Abuse Moral Crusade and the Law." Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 12(4):389.
de Young, Mary. (1996a). "A Painted Devil: Constructing the Satanic Ritual Abuse of Children Problem". Aggression and Violent Behavior 1(3):235–248.
de Young, Mary. (1996b). "Breeders for Satan: Toward a Sociology of Sexual Trauma Tales." Journal of American Culture 19(2):111-117.
de Young, Mary. (1996c). "Speak of the Devil: Rhetoric in Claims-making About the Satanic Ritual Abuse Problem." Sociology and Social Welfare 23(2):55.
de Young, Mary. (1997). "The Devil Goes to Day Care: McMartin and the making of a Moral Panic". Journal of American Culture 20(1):19-25.
de Young, Mary. (1998). "Another Look at Moral Panics: The Case of Satanic Day Care Centers." Deviant Behavior. 19(3):257-278.
de Young, Mary. (2007). "Two Decades After McMartin: A Follow-up of 22 Convicted Day Care Employees." Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 34(4):9-33.
Ellis, Bill. (1992). "Satanic Ritual Abuse and Legend Ostension." Journal of Psychology & Theology 20(3):274-277.
Ellis, Bill. (1995) "Kurt E. Koch and the 'Civitas Diaboli:' Germanic Folk Healing as Satanic Ritual Abuse of Children." Western Folklore 54(2):77-94.
Frankfurter, David. (1994). "Religious Studies and Claims of Satanic Ritual Abuse: A Rejoinder to Stephen Kent." Religion. 24:353-360.
Frankfurter, David. (2001). "Ritual as Accusation and Atrocity: Satanic Ritual Abuse, Gnostic Libertinism, and Primal Murders". History of Religions 40 (4):352–380.
Frankfurter, David. (2003). "The Satanic Ritual Abuse Panic as Religious Studies Data." Numen 50(1):108-117.
Ganaway, George K. (1989). "Historical vs. Narrative Truth: Clarifying the Role of Exogenous Trauma in the Etiology of MPD and its Variants." Dissociation. 2(4):205-220.
Ganaway, George K. (1992). "Some Additional Questions: A Response to Shaffer and Cozolino, to Gould and Cozolino, and to Friesen." Journal of Psychology and Theology 20(3):201-205
Holgerson, Astrid. (1995). "Professionals as Evaluators or Indoctrinators in Sex Abuse Cases." Issues in Child Abuse Accusations. 7(4).
Jenkins, Carol A. (1990). "Sociological argument applied to a historical example of deviance: A response to Professor Victor." Journal of Psychology and Theology 20(3):254-6
Jenkins, Philip. (1992). "Satanism: Myth and reality in a contemporary moral panic". Crime, Law and Social Change 17(1): 53–75.
Jenkins, Philip. (1995). "The Devil Rides In: Charismatic Christians and the Depiction of a Satanic Menace in Contemporary Great Britain." Religiologiques 11:169-192.
LaFontaine, Jean. (1992). "Concepts of Evil, Witchcraft, and the Sexual Abuse of Children in Modern England." Etnofoor 5:6-20.
LaFontaine, Jean. (1994). "Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Satanic rituals". Religion 24:181-4.
Loftus, Elizabeth F. (1993). "The reality of Repressed Memories." American Psychologist. 48:518-37.
Loftus, Elizabeth F. and Davis, Deborah. (2006). "Recovered Memories." Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. 2:469-498
Mulhern, Sherrill A. (1991). "Patients Reporting Ritual Abuse in Childhood: A clinical Response." Child Abuse and Neglect 15(4):609-11
Mulhern, Sherrill A. (1992). "Ritual Abuse: Defining a Syndrome Versus Defending a Belief." Special Issue: Satanic ritual abuse: The current state of knowledge. Journal of Psychology and Theology 20(3):230-215.
Mulhern, Sherrill A. (1994). "Satanism, Ritual Abuse, and Multiple Personality Disorder: A Sociohistorical Perspective." International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 42(4):265-88
Ofshe, R. J. (1992). "Inadvertent Hypnosis During Interrogation: False Memory Confession Due to Dissociative State; Mis-identified Multiple Personality and the Satanic Cult Hypothesis." International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 40(3):125-56
Ondvovik, Joan and Hamilton, David. (1992). "Is Therapy Science or Religion, Logic of Faith? A Response to Shaffer and Cozolino, Gould and Cozolino, and Friesen." Journal of Psychology and Theology 20(3):210-212
Passantino, Robert and Passantino, Gretchen. (1992a) "Satanic Ritual Abuse in Popular Christian Literature: Why Christians Fall for a Lie Searching for the Truth." Journal of Psychology & Theology 20(3):299-305.
Passantino, Robert and Passantino, Gretchen. (1992b) "Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA)." Christian Research Institute Journal (Winter)233-234.
Putnam, Frank W. (1993). "The Satanic Ritual Abuse Controversy." Child Abuse and Neglect 15(3):175-179.
Rossen, Benjamin. (1992). "Response to the Aude Pekala Incident and the Accusations of Drs F. Jonker and I. Jonker-Bakker." Journal of Psychology and Theology 20(3):201-205
Sjöberg, RL. (1997). "False allegations of satanic abuse: case studies from the witch panic in Rättvik 1670-71". European Child Adolescent Psychiatry 6(4):219–26.
Sjöberg, Rickard L. (2002) "False Claims of Victimization: A Historical Illustration of a Contemporary Problem." Nordic Journal of Psychiatry 56(2):132-136.
Spanos, Nicholas P., Evelyn Menary, Natalie J. Gabora, Susan C. DuBreuil, and Bridget Dewhirst. (1991) "Secondary Identity Enactments During Hypnotic Past-Life Regression: A Sociocognitive Perspective." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 61(2):308-320.
Spanos, Nicholas P., Burgess, Cheryl A. and Burgess, Melissa Faith. (1994). "Past-Life Identities, UFO Abductions, and Satanic Ritual Abuse: The Social Construction of Memories." International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 42:433-46.

Stevens, Phillip Jr. (1989). "Satanism: Where are the Folklorists." New York Folklore 15(1-2):1-22.
Stevens, Phillip Jr. (1992). "Universal Cultural Elements in the Satanic Demonology." Journal of Psychology and Theology 20(3):240-243
Swatos, William H. Jr. (1992). "Adolescent Satanism: A Research Note on Exploratory Survey Data." Review of Religious Research 34(2):161-9
Victor, Jeffrey. (1989). "A Rumor-Panic About a Dangerous Satanic Cult in Western New York." New York Folklore 15(1-2):23-49.
Victor, Jeffery. (1990). "Satanic Cult Rumors as Contemporary Legend." Western Folklore 49:51-81
Victor, Jeffery. (1992). "Ritual Abuse and the Moral Crusade Against Satanism." Journal of Psychology & Theology 20(3)248-253.
Victor, Jeffery. (1998). "Moral Panics and the Social Construction of Deviant Behavior: A Theory and Application to the Case of Ritual Child Abuse." Sociological Perspectives 41(3):541-65.

Dissertations

Stroup, Karen Leigh. (1996). The Rediscovery of Evil: An Analysis of the Satanic Ritual Abuse Phenomenon (Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University)

Book Sections

Best, Joel. (2002). "Victimization and the Victim Industry." In The Study of Social Problems: Seven Perspectives. Edited by, Earl Rubington and Martin S. Weinberg. Oxford.
Bromley, David G. (1994). "The Social Construction of Subversion: A Comparison of Anti-Religious and Anti-Satanic Cult Narratives." In Anti-Cult Movements in Cross-Cultural Perspective. Edited by Anson Shupe and David G. Bromley. New York: Garland.
Coons, Philip M. (1997). "Satanic Ritual Abuse: First Research and Therapeutic Implications." In The Dilemma of Ritual Abuse: Cautions and Guides for Therapists. Edited by George A. Fraser. American Psychiatric Press.
Green, Thomas. (1991). "Accusations of Satanism and Racial Tensions in Matamoros Cult Murders." In The Satanism Scare. Edited by James T. Richardson. Aldine Transaction.
Hicks, Robert. (1989). "Satanic Cults: A Skeptical View of the Law-Enforcement Approach." Satanism in America: How the Devil Got Much More Than His Due. Edited by Shawn Carlson. El Cerrito, CA: Gaia Press.
Jenkins, Phillip and Maier-Katkin, Daniel. (1991) "Occult Survivors: The Making of a Myth." In The Satanism Scare. Edited by James T. Richardson. Aldine Transaction.
Mulhern, Sherrill. (1991). "Satanism and Psychotherapy: A Rumor in Search of an Inquisition." In The Satanism Scare. Edited by James T. Richardson. Aldine Transaction.
Nathan, Debbie. (1991). "Satanism and Child Molestation: Constructing the Ritual Abuse Scare." In The Satanism Scare. Edited by James T. Richardson. Aldine Transaction.
Richardson, James T. (2003). "Satanism and Witchcraft: Social Construction of a Melded but Mistaken Identity." In New Religious Movements and Religious Liberty in America. Edited by Derek H. Davis and Barry Hankins Baylor Univeristy Press.
Victor, Jeffrey S. (1991). "The Dynamics of Rumor-Panics About Satanic Cults." In The Satanism Scare. Edited by James T. Richardson. Aldine Transaction.
Victor, Jeffrey S. (1998). "Social Construction of Satanic Ritual Abuse and the Creation of False Memories." In Believed-In Imaginings: The Narrative Construction of Reality. Edited by Joseph de Rivera and Theodore R. Sarbin. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Book Reviews

Bennett, Gillian. (1992). "Book Review: In Pursuit of Satan." Journal of American Folklore 108(418):508-510.
Best, Joel. (1996). "Book Review: Cult and Ritual Abuse: Its History, Anthropology, and Recent Discovery in Contemporary America". Criminal Justice Review 21:103-5.
Robbins, Thomas. (1994). "Satanic Panic: The Creation of a Contemporary Legend- book reviews". Sociology of Religion.
Wallis, John. (2007) "Recent Studies on Religion and Violence: A Review Essay." Nova Religio 11(1):97-104.

Articles

Balch, Robert W. (1989). "The Social Construction of Satanism: A Case Study of the Rumor Process." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, Salt Lake City.
Earl, John. (1995). The Dark Truth About The "Dark Tunnels of McMartin" - a 33-part comprehensive article about the McMartin preschool trial
Goleman, Daniel. (Oct 31, 1994). "Proof Lacking for Ritual Abuse by Satanists." The New York Times.
Hicks, Robert D. (1990). "Police pursuit of Satanic Claim" Skeptical Inquirer, Vol 14, No. 3 / Spring 1990, pp. 276-286. The author is a law enforcement specialist / criminal justice analyst.
Nathan, Debbie. (June 12, 1990). "The Ritual Abuse Hoax." Village Voice, p. 36-44.
Passantino, Gretchen and Bob, with Jon Trott. (1990). "Satan's Sideshow." Cornerstone 18(90):24-28.
Perrin, Robin D. and Parrott, Les. (1993). "Memories of Satanic Ritual Abuse: The Truth Behind the Panic." Christianity Today 37(7):18
Trott, Jon. "About the Devil's Business." Cornerstone. 19(93):8-10
Trott, Jon. "Satanic Panic: The Ingram Family and Other Victims of Hysteria in America," Cornerstone. 20(95):9-12.
Victor, Jeffrey. (1990). "The spread of satanic-cult rumors" Skeptical Inquirer, Vol 14, No. 3 / Spring 1990, pp. 287-291.
Victor, Jeffery. (1991). "Satanic Cult 'Survivors' Stories." Skeptical Inquirer. 15:274-279.
Victor, Jeffery. (1995). "The Dangers of Moral Panics: What Skeptics (and Everyone Else) Need to Know." Skeptic 3:44-51.
Watters, E. (1991). "The Devil in Mr. Ingram." Mother Jones. 16(14):30-33, 65-66, 68.

contested sources

SRA as a Real Form of Abuse

Books

Academic

Noblitt, James Randall, and Perskin Pamela Sue. (2000). Cult and Ritual Abuse: Its History, Anthropology, and Recent Discovery in Contemporary America. New York: Praeger. - scholarly, allowed. WLU (talk)
Sinason, V (1994). Treating Survivors of Satanist Abuse. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-10543-9.
Waterman, Jill (1993). Behind the Playground Walls -Sexual Abuse in Preschools. New York, London: The Guilford Press. pp. 284–8. ISBN 0-89862-523-8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Non-Academic

Hersha, Cheryl; Hersha, Lynn; Schwartz, Ted; Griffis, Ph.D., Dale (2001). Secret Weapons. Far Hills, NJ: New Horizon Press. ISBN 0-88282-196-2.
Hudson, Pamela S. (1991). Ritual Child Abuse: Discovery, Diagnosis, and Treatment. Saratoga, Calif: R&E Publishers. ISBN 0882478672.
Johnston, Jerry (1989). The Edge of Evil - The Rise of Satanism in North America. Dallas: Word Publishing. ISBN 0-8499-0668-7.
Karriker, Wanda (2003). Morning, Come Quickly. Catawba, NC: Sandime, LTD. ISBN 0-9717171-0-9.
Lacter, E. (2008). "Guidelines to Diagnosis of Ritual Abuse/Mind Control Traumatic Stress" (PDF). {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) - [47], no university affiliations, it publishes poems, I'm guessing it's not pubmed indexed and I'm pretty much willing to discard it. If this is the best place that SRA gets attention, the subject is indeed dead. WLU (talk) Disagree. This book has important data on the topic and is written by people in the field. The subject is still very controversial. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Lockwood, C. (1993) Other altars: Roots and Realities of Cultic and Satanic Ritual Abuse and Multiple Personality Disorder. Minneapolis, MN: Compcare.
Noblitt, James Randall and Perskin, Pamela Sue (eds). (2008) Ritual Abuse in the Twenty-first Century: Psychological, Forensic, Social and Political Considerations Robert Reed Publishers - popular and self published. Out. WLU (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC) It is out ~~and not self published.~~ ResearchEditor (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Oksana, Chrystine (2001). Safe Passage to Healing - A Guide for Survivors of Ritual Abuse. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse.com. ISBN 0-595-201000-8. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help) - self-published, out. [48] WLU (talk) The 1994 version of the book was published by HarperPerennial. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Raschke, Carl A. (1990). Painted Black. New York: HarperCollins. ISBN 0-06-104080-0.
Rutz, Carol (2001). A Nation Betrayed. Grass Lake, MI: Fidelity Publishing. ISBN 0-9710102-0-X.
Ryder, Daniel. (1992). Breaking the Circle of Satanic Ritual Abuse: Recognizing and Recovering - publisher? WLU (talk) CompCare Pub. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Smith, Margaret. (1993). Ritual Abuse: What it Is, why it Happens, and how to Help by Margaret - publisher? WLU (talk) HarperCollins ResearchEditor (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Woodsum, Gayle M. (1998). The Ultimate Challenge. Laramie, WY: ARI Books. ISBN 0-9665974-0-0.

Peer Reviewed Journals

Coleman, J. (1994). Presenting features in adult victims of Satanist ritual abuse. Child Abuse Review, 3: 83-92.
Cozolino, L.J. (1989). "The ritual abuse of children: Implications for clinical practice and research." Journal of Sex Research 26(1), 131-138.
Cozolino, L.J. (1990). "Ritual child abuse, psychopathology, and evil". Journal of Psychology and Theology, 18(3):218-227
Edwards, Louise M."Differentiating between ritual assault and sexual abuse," J Child and Youth Care 6(4) 1991 pp. 169-88.
Fraser, G. A. (1990). "Satanic ritual abuse: A cause of multiple personality disorder". Special issue: In the shadow of Satan: The ritual abuse of children. Journal of Child and Youth Care, 55-60
Gould, Catherine. (1992) "Ritual abuse, multiplicity, and mind-control." Special Issue: Satanic ritual abuse: The current state of knowledge. Journal of Psychology and Theology 20(3):194-6
Hudson, P.S. (1990). "Ritual child abuse: A survey of symptoms and allegations." Special issue: In the shadow of Satan: The ritual abuse of children. Journal of Child and Youth Care, 27-54.
Jonker, F and Jonker-Bakker, I. (1997). "Effects of Ritual Abuse: The results of three surveys in the Netherlands." Child Abuse & Neglect 21(6):541-556
Jonker, F. (1991). "Experiences with ritualist child sexual abuse: a case study from the Netherlands". Child Abuse and Neglect. 15: 191–196. doi:10.1016/0145-2134(91)90064-K. PMID 2043971. Retrieved 2007-10-20. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Kelley, Susan J. (1988). "Ritualistic Abuse: Dynamics and Impact." Cultic Studies Journal, 5(2) pp. 228-36
Kelley, Susan J. (1989). "Stress responses of children to sexual abuse and ritualistic abuse in day care centers." Journal of Interpersonal Violence 4(4):502-513.
Kelley, Susan J. (1990). "Parental stress response to sexual abuse and ritualistic abuse of children in day-care centers." Nursing Research 39(1):25-9
Kent, Stephen. (1993). "Deviant Scripturalism and Ritual Satanic Abuse Part One: Possible Judeo-Christian Influences". Religion 23(23):229–241.
Kent, Stephen. (1993). "Deviant Scripturalism and Ritual Satanic Abuse. II: Possible Masonic, Mormon, Magick, and Pagan influences". Religion 23(4):355–367
Kent, Stephen. (1994). "Diabolic Debates: A Reply to David Frankfurter and J. S. La Fontaine," Religion 24: 135-188.
King, G. F.; Yorker, B. (1996). "Case studies of children presenting with a history of ritualistic abuse". Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 9(2):18-26
McCulley, Dale. "Satanic ritual abuse: A question of memory," Psychology and Theology . 22(3) 1994, pp. 167-72
Noblitt, J.R. (1995). "Psychometric measures of trauma among psychiatric patients reporting ritual abuse". Psychological Reports 77(3):743-747.
Pepinsky, Hal. (2002) "A struggle to inquire without becoming an un-critical non-criminologist." Critical Criminology 11(1):61-73
Pepinsky, H. (2005). "Sharing and Responding to Memories". American Behavioral Scientist. 48 (10): 1360. doi:10.1177/0002764205277013.
Sachs, R.G. (1990). "The role of sex and pregnancy in Satanic cults". Journal of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Health, 5(2):105-114
Schmuttermaier, J (1999). "Counselors' beliefs about ritual abuse: An Australian Study". Journal of Child Sexual Abuse. 8 (3): 45–63. doi:10.1300/J070v08n03_03. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Schumacher, R.B. (1999). "Variables and risk factors associated with child abuse in daycare settings". Child Abuse & Neglect. 23 (9). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Inc.: 891–8. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(99)00057-5. ISSN 0145-2134. PMID 10505902. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Snow B. & Sorensen (1990). "Ritualistic child abuse in a neighborhood setting." Journal of Interpersonal Violence 5(4):474-487.
Valente SM. (1992) The challenge of ritualistic child abuse. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Mental Health Nursing, 5(2):37-46.
Valente, S. (2000). "Controversies and challenges of ritual abuse". J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv. 38 (11): 8–17.
Van Benschoten, Susan C. (1990). “Multiple Personality Disorder and Satanic Ritual Abuse: the Issue Of Credibility” Dissociation Vol. III, No. 1
Wong, B., & McKeen, J. (1990). "A case of multiple life-threatening illnesses related to early ritual abuse." Special Issue: In the shadow of Satan: The ritual abuse of children. Journal of Child and Youth Care 1-26.
Young, W. C. (1993). "Sadistic ritual abuse. An overview in detection and management". Primary Care, 20(2), 447-58.

Book section

Boat, B.W. (1991). Caregivers as surrogate therapists in treatment of a ritualistically abused child. In W.N. Friedrich (Ed.) , Casebook of sexual abuse treatment., (pp. 1-26). New York: Norton.
Gallagher, B (1996), The nature and extent of known cases of organised child sexual abuse in England and Wales {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) in Bibby, P. (ed.). Organised Abuse: The Current Debate. Arena. ISBN 1857422848. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help)
Gould, C. (1992) Diagnosis and treatment of ritually abused children in Sakheim, D.K. (1992). Out of Darkness: Exploring Satanism and Ritual Abuse. Lexington Books. ISBN 0-669-26962-X.
Mangen, R. (1992). Psychological testing and ritual abuse. In D.K. Sakheim & S.E. Devine (Eds.), Out of darkness: Exploring Satanism and ritual abuse (pp. 147-173). New York: Lexington.
Sachs, R. (1987). "Issues in treating MPD patients with satanic cult involvement". Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Multiple Personality/ Dissociative States. Fourth International Conference on Multiple Personality/ Dissociative States. Chicago: Rush-Presbyterian-St.Luke's Medical Center. pp. 383–87. {{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (|book-title= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) as cited in Sakheim, D.K. (1992). Out of Darkness: Exploring Satanism and Ritual Abuse. Lexington Books. ISBN 0-669-26962-X.
Sakheim, D.K. (1996). Clinical aspects of sadistic ritual abuse. In L.K. Michelson & W.J. Ray (Eds), Handbook of dissociation: Theoretical, empirical, and clinical perspectives, (pp. 569-594). New York: Plenum Press.
Uherek, A.M. (1991). Treatment of a ritually abused preschooler. In W.N. Friedrich (Ed.) Casebook of sexual abuse treatment. (pp. 70-92). New York: Norton.
Young, W.C. & Young, L.J. (1997). Recognition and special treatment issues in patients reporting childhood sadistic ritual abuse. In G.A. Fraser (Ed.), The dilemma of ritual abuse: Cautions and guides for therapists (pp. 65-103). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

Book reviews

American Journal of Psychotherapy" (Summer 1996; 50(3) p383) for Noblitt, JR; Perskin PS (2000). Cult and ritual abuse: its history, anthropology, and recent discovery in contemporary America. New York: Praeger.
Psychiatr Serv 52:978-979, July 2001 © 2001 American Psychiatric Association [49] for Noblitt, JR; Perskin PS (2000). Cult and ritual abuse: its history, anthropology, and recent discovery in contemporary America. New York: Praeger.

Articles

Believe the children (1997). "Conviction List: Ritual Child Abuse".
Cook, C. (1991). Understanding ritual abuse: A study of thirty-three ritual abuse survivors. Treating Abuse Today, 1(4), 14-19.
"Why Cults Terrorize and Kill Children" Lloyd deMause, The Journal of Psychohistory 21 (4) 1994 [50]
Lacter, E (2008). "Brief Synopsis of the Literature on the Existence of Ritualistic Abuse".
An Empirical Look at the Ritual Abuse Controversy - Randy Noblitt, PhD - [51]
Driscoll, L. N. & Wright, C. (1991). Survivors of childhood ritual abuse: Multi-generational Satanic cult involvement. Treating Abuse Today, 1(4), 5--13.
Golston, J. (1993). Ritual abuse: Raising hell in psychotherapy: Creation of cruelty: The political military and multigenerational training of torturers: Violent initiation and the role of traumatic dissociation. Treating Abuse Today, 3(6), 12-19.
Gould, C. & Graham-Costain, V. (1994). "Play therapy with ritually abused children." Treating Abuse Today, 4(2), 4-1; 4(3), 14-19.
Gould, C. & Neswald, D. (1992). "Basic treatment and program neutralization strategies for adult MPD survivors of satanic ritual abuse." Treating Abuse Today, 2(3), 5--10.
Gould, C. (1995). Denying ritual abuse of children. Journal of Psychohistory, 22(3), 329-339.
Ireland, S.J. & Ireland, M..J. (1994). A case history of family and cult abuse. The Journal of Psychohistory, 21(4), 417-428.
Karriker, Wanda (November, 2007). Helpful healing methods: As rated by approximately 900 respondents to the “International Survey for Adult Survivors of Extreme Abuse (EAS)." (PDF). Philadelphia, PA. {{cite conference}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Macfarland, R.B.,& Lockerbie, G. (1994). Difficulties in treating ritually abused children. Journal of Psychohistory, 21(4), 429-434.
Neswald, D., Gould, C., & Graham-Costain, V. (1991). "Common programs observed in survivors of Satanic ritual abuse." The California Therapist, 3 (5), 47 50.
Rockwell, R.B. (1994). One psychiatrists view of Satanic ritual abuse. The Journal of Psychohistory, 21(4), 443-460.
“The Satanism and Ritual Abuse Archive”, by Diana Napolis, is published on the world-wide web at: [This archive contains 92 cases as of February 12, 2008.]
"Report of Utah State Task Force on Ritual Abuse" (PDF). Utah Governor's Commission for Women and Families. 1992-05-01. Retrieved 2007-11-26.

Summit, R.C. (1994). [[52] "The dark tunnels of McMartin"]. Journal of Psychohistory. 21 (4): 397–416. {{cite journal}}: Check |url= value (help)

"Middle Ground" or No stance

Books

Brown, DP, Scheflin, AW & Hammond, DC (1998). Memory, trauma treatment, and the law. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0393702545.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Sakheim, D.K. (1992). Out of Darkness: Exploring Satanism and Ritual Abuse. Lexington Books. ISBN 0-669-26962-X.
The Dilemma of Ritual Abuse: Cautions and Guides for Therapists by George A. Fraser - Psychology - 1997
True and False Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse: Assessment and Case Management by Tara Ney - 1995 (has section on ritual abuse)
Ross, Colin A. (1996). Satanic Ritual Abuse: Principles of Treatment. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0802073573. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Scott, S. (2001). The politics and experience of ritual abuse: beyond disbelief. Open University Press. ISBN 0335204198.

Peer Review Journals

Bader, Christopher D. (2003) "Supernatural support groups: Who are the UFO abductees and ritual-abuse survivors?" Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 42(4):669-678.
Bernet W, Chang DK. (1997). "The differential diagnosis of ritual abuse allegations." Journal of Forensic Science 42(1), 32-38.
Bottoms, B.L. (1996). "An analysis of ritualistic and religion-related child abuse allegations" (PDF). Law and Human Behavior. 20 (1): 1–34. doi:10.1007/BF01499130. Retrieved 2007-10-22. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Bottoms, Bette L., Diviak, K. R. and Davis, S. L. (1997) "Jurors' reactions to satanic ritual abuse allegations." Child Abuse and Neglect 21(9):845-59.
Lawrence, K.J. (1995). "Psychological sequelae in adult females reporting childhood ritualistic abuse". Child Abuse & Neglect. 19 (8): 975–984. doi:10.1016/0145-2134(95)00059-H. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Leavitt, F. (1994). "Clinical Correlates of Alleged Satanic Abuse and Less Controversial Sexual Molestation". Child Abuse and Neglect: The International Journal. 18 (4): 387–92. doi:10.1016/0145-2134(94)90041-8. Retrieved 2008-06-15.
Leavitt F, & Labott, S. M.(1998). Revision of the Word Association Test for assessing associations of patients reporting Satanic ritual abuse in childhood. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54(7), 933-943.
Paley, K. (1992). "Dream wars: a case study of a woman with multiple personality disorder" (PDF). Dissociation. 5 (2): 111–116. Retrieved 2008-06-09. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Tamarkin, C. (1994a). Investigative Issues in Ritual Abuse Cases, Part I. Treating Abuse Today, 4 (4): 14-23.
Tamarkin, C. (1994b). Investigative Issues in Ritual Abuse Cases, Part II. Treating Abuse Today, 4 (5): 5-9.
Jones, D.P.H. (1991). Ritualism and child sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 15, 163-170.
Lloyd, D. W. (1992). Ritual child abuse: Definitions and assumptions. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 1(3), 1-14.
Perlman, S. D. (1995). One analyst's journey into darkness: Countertransference resistance to recognizing sexual abuse, ritual abuse, and multiple personality disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 23(1), 137-51.
Rogers, Martha L. "The Oude Pekela incident: A case study of alleged SRA from the Netherlands." Psychology and Theology, 20(3) 1992 pp. 257-59
Young, Walter C., Sachs, Roberta G., Braun, Bennett G., and Watkins, R. T. (1993) "Patients reporting ritual abuse in childhood: A clinical syndrome. Report of 37 cases." Child Abuse and Neglect 15(3):181-9

Book sections

Kinscherff, R. & Barnum, R (1992). Child forensic evaluation and claims of ritual abuse or Satanic cult activity: A critical analysis. In D.K. & S.E. Devine (Eds.), Out of Darkness: Exploring Satanism and ritual abuse. 73-107. New York, NY: Lexington Books.
Young, W.C. (1992). "Recognition and treatment of survivors reporting ritual abuse". In Out of darkness: Exploring Satanism and Ritual Abuse, Edited by D.K. Sakheim & S.E. Devine (pp. 249-278). New York: Lexington.

Book reviews

Articles

Calof, D. L. "From the editor's desk: Regarding the credibility of ritual abuse reports." Treating Abuse Today 1(4) 1991 p. 4
Goodman, G.S., Qin, J., Bottoms, B.L., & Shaver (1994). Characteristics and sources of allegations of ritualistic child abuse: Final report to the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect
"FBI agent K. Lanning's Investigator's Guide to Allegations of Ritual Child Abuse" (PDF). (408 KB) Comment: Lanning was skeptical; however he used moderate language and even the term "middle ground" in his long paper —Cesar Tort 17:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Comment Lanning was skeptical of certain forms of ritual abuse but not all. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Michael R. King and Matt Jacobson (1995) Ritual Crime in the State of Utah: Investigation, Analysis & A Look Forward

paste from old version of SRA

“

Questioning children

The key problem in cases of SRA relying on children's testimony is the methodology by which such testimony is obtained. Children are very suggestible and will generally try to please the adult who interacts with them. On the other hand, social workers and therapists working with children believed that children would not openly talk about the abuse they suffered because of shame, or that they might even have repressed the memories of the abuse and that these memories would have to be recovered. In general, investigators worked under the assumption that the abuse had happened and needed to be discovered through aggressive questioning over a prolonged period of time. Investigators also sometimes relied on "diaries" where children were supposed to relate their experiences, or on the interpretation of drawings and of doll play. All these techniques are now regarded as highly problematic as they rely strongly on the interpretation of the investigator and encourage the child to mix fantasy and reality.

The questions asked were typically yes/no questions: "Did person X touch you there?" Even if the child answered no, the next question might be something like "When he touched you, did you like it?" No matter what the child answered to the second question, it was taken as evidence that the abuse had happened. Negative answers, on the other hand, were interpreted as "denial" (in the Freudian sense of a defense mechanism) and had to be penetrated. As such, the children's testimony was in reality very much based on the adults' world view. This type of questioning is based on the Reid technique.

Some perpetrators of the SRA panic were themselves mentally ill. Diana Napolis, an outspoken online advocate of the idea of the existence of SRA (under the pseudonym "Curio"), and personally involved in several SRA investigations as a social worker, was committed to a mental institution in 2003 after harassing and threatening Steven Spielberg and Jennifer Love Hewitt and claiming that she was controlled through "psychotronic weaponry."

Hypnosis and false memories Beyond the Satanic ritual abuse scares which were directly based on questioning children, a large number of adults came forward in the 1980s and 1990s and claimed to have recovered memories of severe, often Satanic ritual abuse in their childhood. Later investigators diagnosed many of these adults as mentally ill. While criminal charges were rarely pressed because of the long time that had passed since the alleged abuse, media coverage of these adult testimonies nevertheless contributed to the belief that Satanic abuse was, in fact, a widespread phenomenon.

Many of the women who reported such memories had previously seen therapists specializing in child sexual abuse, or read books like The Courage to Heal by Ellen Bass and Laura Davis, which encouraged them to recover their allegedly existing memories of severe abuse in their childhood. At the time, some child abuse therapists used a technique known as recovered memory therapy (RMT), which worked from the presumption that the patients were so severely abused that their memories of it were repressed in childhood and could only be recovered by a specialist. This approach has involved hypnosis and drugs to stimulate the recovery of memories of abuse.

Critics of recovered memory therapy, like Richard Ofshe and Ethan Watters (Making Monsters. False Memories, Psychotherapy, And Sexual Hysteria), view this practice as fraudulent and dangerous. They base this assertion on several claims:

Traumatic experiences which obviously have happened, such as war time experiences, are not "repressed"—they are either forgotten or remembered clearly in spite of attempts to suppress them. The "memories" recovered in RMT are highly detailed. According to RMT literature, the human brain stores very vivid memories which can be recalled in detail, like a video tape. This belief contradicts virtually all research on the way memories work. The patient is given very extensive lists of "symptoms" including sleeplessness, headaches, the feeling of being different from others etc. If several of these symptoms are found, the therapist suggests to the patient that they were probably sexually abused. If the patient denies this, they are "in denial" and require more extensive therapy. During the questioning, patients are openly encouraged to ignore their own feelings and memories and to assume that the abuse has happened. They then explore together with this therapist, over a prolonged period of many months or even years, how the abuse happened. The possibility that the abuse has not happened at all is usually not considered. According to these critics, RMT techniques used for "reincarnation therapy" or "alien abduction therapy" are comparable to the techniques used in Satanic ritual abuse therapy. To verify the false memory hypothesis, researchers like Elizabeth Loftus have successfully produced false memories of various childhood incidents in test subjects. This is viewed as further evidence that comprehensive false memories can be produced in therapy.

RMT critics also point to the bizarre nature of Satanic ritual abuse stories and claim that, in many cases, such stories are probably untrue. They believe that all or most SRA memories are produced by the therapists through extensive suggestive questioning. Some of them also believe that multiple personality disorder is primarily or exclusively a product of that therapy or self-suggestion. RMT practitioners generally deny such claims, or hold that they are only true in a minority of cases, and believe that their work is sound when practiced properly. However, critics respond that the failure of mental health professionals to distinguish false memories from real ones abnegates this entire line of therapy

”

question

First of all, WLU, please tell me if you want me to type whole paragraphs of Frankfurter's book. I don't think it's wise to quote him briefly here since his book is very closely argued.

Oh lord no. Princeton University Press is a publisher of RSes, add to the page and I'm unlikely to challenge you. If others are, then you might have to do so. WLU (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've already selected a few pages that I may type about the problems with SRA therapy. Or is there another subject that in your mind has priority, the worldwide conspiracy perhaps?

As I believe I've said before, I'm of the opinion that there is a range of credibility and beliefs about SRA. There is definitely abuse that uses satanic symobols and whatnot, probably a miniscule number of mentally ill people who think raping and killing children pleases some dark master, probably a larger body of people who use the trappings of satanism to scare their victims (unpious frauds perhaps?) and a lot of belief, but no proof (IMO no reality) of a world-wide satanic-panic type conspiracy that slaughters children and summons the devil to the tune of thousands of bodies per year. But all are notable and all are parts of the overall thing which is SRA, and all should be (briefly) discussed. The list of allegations would nicely append to the first, possibly second types.

The User:Cesar Tort/"Satanic ritual abuse" article page I'd rather use for our proposed drafts to be moved into main-space, which is why I moved the content you had pasted here.

As you like, the advantage of subpages is you can do pretty much whatever you like. When drafting pages, I tend to intersperse commentary and discussion with the actual text - it can get confusing, but as a subpage, who cares? There's no real rules besides don't POV-fork or link to mainspace and since we're intending to paste this onto the SRA proper, neither apply. WLU (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is only to "talk" :)

But...you've put text in. This violates your logic. But...but...*pop*

That was my brain exploding. WLU (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

—Cesar Tort 20:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Skeptical books, articles and TV programs:

1. Robert Hicks, In Pursuit of Satan, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, 1991 (studies misguided police investigations; exposes what he calls cult cops - police officers with religious agendas)

I can get it from the library. WLU (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

2. James Richardson et al, The Satanism Scare, Aldine de Gruyter, New York, 1991 (18 chapters written by various social service specialists)

Got an ISBN? WLU (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

3. Jeffrey Victor, Satanic Panic, Open Court, Chicago, 1993 (examination of the satanic cult hysteria; how rumors become publicly accepted fact; documents dozens of Satanic panics)

Library available. WLU (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

4. E. Goldstein & Kevin Farmer, Confabulations, Upton Books, Boca Raton FL, (1995). It describes destruction of families as a result of therapists creating false memories of childhood sexual abuse.

5. Lawrence Wright, Remembering Satan, Knopf, New York, 1994 (Story of one family's disintegration due to false recovered memories)

6. M. Hertenstein & J. Trott, Selling Satan, Cornerstone Press, Chicago, 1993 (Expose of the fraudulent claims of Mike Warnke, the seminar leader most responsible for spreading the Satanic Panic throughout North America)

7. Mark Pendergrast, Victims of Memory, Second Edition, Upper Access, Hinesburg VT, (1996). Order at: 1-800-356-9315. (Discusses the unreliability of recovered memories and deals with some ritual abuse cases)

Library available. WLU (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

8. John Earl, article in Issues in Child Abuse Accusations, issue published 1995-AUG, Institute for Psychological Therapies, 13200 Cannon City Blvd., Northfield, MN 55057, $15 USF; $20 USF (foreign)

I can get it, but only a print version I believe. WLU (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

9. Colin A. Ross, Satanic Ritual Abuse: Principles of Treatment, University of Toronto Press; Toronto, Buffalo, London (1995) ISBN 0-8020-7357-3. It asserts that perhaps only 10% of the recovered memories of Multiple Personality Disorder (Dissociative Identity Disorder) have any basis in reality, and that the latter are distorted recollections of Christian rituals, KKK activities, or rituals by isolated Satanic groups.

Library available. WLU (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: This summary, which I read here differs from Biao's summary of the same book, as he discussed it in both an archived SRA talk page and in his user page. —Cesar Tort 21:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

10. Television program "The Search for Satan" was broadcast by PBS's Frontline program on 1995-OCT-24. It dealt with the extensive use of drugs, physical restraints and suggestive therapy techniques to convince patients that they were involved in multi-generational Satanic groups. Video copies at US$ 78.45 and transcripts at US$12.00 are available from Journal Graphics, 1-800-825-5746, Extension 322 (Rebecca Larson).

11. A.U. Bottoms et al, "An Analysis of Ritualistic and Religion-Related Child-Abuse Allegations", Law and Human Behavior. V. 20, # 1, 1996-Feb., pp. 1-34. Authors conducted a stratified random sample survey of clinical members of the American Psychological Association. They found that only a minority of those who responded had encountered ritual abuse in their clients. Evidence (particularly in cases of child ritual abuse reported by adults) is questionable.

12. J.M Feldman: "Stranger Than Fiction: When Our Minds Betray Us," American Psychiatric Press, Washington DC, (1998).

Note that I can get some, but I don't necessarily want to read the entire books. I've got a lot of stuff on paleontology I want to get through first. WLU (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Frankfurter on therapy and SRA

“

The SRA survivor would also affirm and clarify notions of evil for a fourth type of audience anxious for their demonstration: the psychotherapist who encountered such patients in private sessions. If the actual performance was restricted to only two individuals in the therapy session, the results for each were important for the cultural and professional legitimation of SRA as a social problem. The therapist would discover pure evil through the eyes of her patient, while the alleged survivor would find encouragement and shaping of her role as performer of evil through the therapist's credulous interventions.

Indeed, here especially we must be alert to the interactive nature of the mimetic performance of evil realms. Particularly in the case of psychotherapy, few patients maintain the role of SRA survivor without the context of a sympathetic, even forceful, "SRA therapist," whose assumptions, techniques, and professional indiscretions give shape to the performance of SRA victimhood.[footnote] In chapter 3 I examined the SRA therapist in her own role as an expert in evil, but here I consider her as an audience transformed through the SRA performance, as she beholds evil through her patient's eyes and affective states in a process that clinical psychologists call "countertransference" — that is, the often intense personal reactions that therapist experience toward the patients and their stories. So if the notion of "audience" is here delimited, the performer's effect — on the therapist and indeed on an entire professional world of evil-discernment — could be considerable, as unprepared therapists came to "realize" Satanic evil and then adjust their practices to heal its victims.

Therapists who have written about their experiences with patients who break down, dissociate, and tell horrific stories of Satanic cults describe their own feeling of terror, anxiety for their own safety, even a heightened fear of threats. [Evil Incarnate, pp. 192-193]

”

I could continue to type a couple of pages about Frankfurter on therapy and SRA, but I don't know if it's ok because of copyright, etc.

As I said, most of his work is closely argued. At least we can summarize his views in an attempt to write something properly sourced (in sharp contrast to the quotation above).

In a nutshell, I interpret Frankfurter's point that the dynamics between credulous therapists and SRA patients is a case of folie a deux.

—Cesar Tort 03:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

How many more?

User:Abuse truth is threating to revert even after you wrote "Jesus Christ" in edit summary yesterday. I wonder how more points should AT accumulate to be banned from Wikiland? WP:BAN#Community_ban:

"There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she finds themselves blocked..."

—Cesar Tort 05:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! When I wrote the above I was unaware that this has been discussed at length in the incidents board (where I just posted something) and that AT has been, in fact, blocked! —Cesar Tort 06:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC – Ad hominems

"Victor's subsequent involvement in the False Memory Syndrome Foundation does not add to his credibility, nor does the fact that Satanic Panic contains pages of endorsements by pro-paedophile luminaries such as Ralph Underwager and Richard Gardner." --Biaothanatoi (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Biao: this has been discussed many times last year, even outside this talk page, like this one. Not only an admin replied to you there; I cannot match the eloquence of another editor in a fringe theories noticeboard:

“

Uh oh. You're about to be labeled a pedophile apologist; IPT is associated with Ralph Underwager, who once made comments in a Dutch pedophile magazine which were interpreted as pro-pedophile. According to Biaothanatoi, this makes anyone remotely associated with him, anyone who uses the same terminology as him, or anyone who takes their coffee the same way as him a pedo. Including you and me. <eleland/talkedits> 04:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

”

And a few posts below:

“

Nathan's work over the last two decades has focused primarily on denying the harms of sexual violence against women and children. Best known for labelling ritual abuse a "sex abuse panic", she has since written articles calling child porn enforcement "kiddy porn panic" and concern over sex trafficking "sex-slave panic".

Nathan's book on ritual abuse might be popular, but she's just a journalist, and hardly an expert on sexual violence. I would recommend that we take a cautious approach to treating her as a credible source. --149.171.25.114 (talk) 06:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

”

It turns out that 149.171.25.114 is Biao, as can be seen here [53] —Cesar Tort 06:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Quotation #10:

“

And yet works by various people with no academic credentials and no expertise (and some, like Nathan, the Eberles, Underwager, with ties to the pro-paedophile movements of the 80s and 90s) are consistently defended - as long as they are anti-SRA.

I'm not suggesting that we censor Nathan, only that we do not promote her views as fact when she has no credentials, no expertise, and her general views on the subject of sexual abuse are fringe. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

”

Quotation #11 & my response:

“

Cesar Tort claims not to have been influenced by the FMSF, but rather by CSICOP.

I'm afraid that this distinction is a false one. Throughout the 1990s, the FMSF and CSICOP shared a number of board members, including Paul Kurtz, James Randi and Martin Gardner.

Under Kurtz's stewardship of Prometheus Books, the publishing house employed Vern Bullough, board member of pro-paedophile journal Paidika, and put out such pro-paedopile publications as "Children's sexual encounters with adults".

Cesar, I can't say that claiming an "education" about child abuse under CSICOP is anything to boast about. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

”

My response:

“

Wow! It's the first time in my life that I see relating CSICOP with FMSF and then to pedophilia. Actually, if any relation between CSICOP with FMSF is substantial it's CSICOP's interests in patently false memories induced by therapy, such as UFO abductions and past-life regressions. CSICOP studies paranormal claims, not child abuse (and Prometheus books does not usually publishes books of CA [child abuse]). Both Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov belonged to CSICOP. And Martin Gardner, who happily is still with us, for 15 years had a mathematical column in Scientific American. It's pretty bizarre to relate CSICOP's activities with Paidika. But again, it's not the first time we see this nonsense in this talk page. And yes: I am very proud of having been educated by the writings of these guys. —Cesar Tort 15:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

”

Biao's further response:

“

Cesar, the links between CSICOP and FMSF aren't the stuff of conspiracy. They shared the same board members for many years, and that's public knowledge.

Under Kurtz, who belonged to both CSICOP and FMSF boards, Prometheus Books hired a Paidika editor, and published some very controversial books that normalised sex between children and adults. That fact has also been in the public domain for a long time.

These facts call into question your suggestion that your position on SRA has nothing to do with the FMSF, but instead with CSICOP. The two organisations are very closely aligned, to the point where the boundaries between them are blurred. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

”

The view from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard about Prometheus Books:

“

We are having a discussion as to whether this publisher is a reliable source and an academic publisher here. Input is appreciated. ResearchEditor (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Prometheus (like many publishers) publishes some academic books, and some non-academic books. The academic books are reliable sources, as a rule. The fiction books (e.g., the Pyr imprint) are, well, fiction. Eubulides (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Prometheus has an excellent reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Particularly relevant to this case, they are very well-regarded in the humanities for their publications about social phenomena. Vassyana (talk) 06:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

”

Quotation #12 & WLU's response:

“

Tort, Prometheus employed an editor of Paidika (which is a pro-paedophile organisation) Vern Bullough as an editor of it's Human Sexuality series. Under the stewardship of Bullough, Prometheus published a book called "Children's Sexual Encounters with Adults" in which child sexual assault is referred to a a "sexual encounter".

You can draw you own conclusions about these facts, however, they are facts, and they do call into question the objectivity of Prometheus Books on matters relating to child sexual assault. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

”

WLU's response:

“

An author can not be discredited and discarded by an ad hominem attack; in addition to being a logical fallacy it's completely irrelevant to wikipedia. Publisher determines reliability. Prometheus books is a reliable publisher of academic books, the books published by Prometheus are reliable and can not be discarded because of the author. Published criticisms in equally reliable sources can be used if they criticize the books themselves for specific reasons. Please stop sniping at each other, WP:NPA. If you've a problem with anyone's use of a source, comment on that, not on the editor. WLU (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

”

Quotation #13 & Norton's response:

“

The quote you have provided was published by the "Institute of Psychological Therapies", an organisation founded and run by pro-paedophile advocate Dr Ralph Underwager. Underwager founded IPT in the late 1980s, and the False Memory Syndrome Foundation in 1992, only to step down a year later after giving an interview in which he characterised sex with young boys as intimate and loving, and claimed that paedophilia was a lifestyle choice "blessed by God". [unsigned]

”

Norton's reply:

“

Huh? Again your using slander and libel, without citing sources. You used the same strategy to slander and libel the Eberles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

”

:)

Yes. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 14:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Seen Cathy O'Brien and the rest of the various moral panic articles in my contributions today? A bucket o' fun. Just finished de Young, 2004 - awesome book. Also found another reference to SRA being not just bunk, but a completely discredited, dead scholarly endeavour. Popular psychology by Luis A. Cordon. 2005, and another nail on the coffin. Looking forward to the request for arbitration dying. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 14:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Just after I saved it I realized I better had written in edit summary: «If spelling and grammar on wikipedia are "suit and tie", may I fix your tie up?» I'll now take a look at the above references... Cesar Tort 17:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: article which makes lots of curious claims

Hello. I'm not sure that I can help here - I am not very knowledgeable about the origins of science, even less so when it comes to the cultures that science originates from. I can say that no mention of any of the Islamic people listed on Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Islamic Golden Age/archive1 was made during a whole 4-year undergraduate course in Physics and Astronomy (and I can't recall them being mentioned in my studies since then, either). Whether that represents a systematic western bias or not is something that I do not know. Your best bet is to check the textbooks for the history of science. Mike Peel (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I'll now copy and paste your response to the PR talk on such article. —Cesar Tort 17:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Hi CT,

Image use is pretty easy so long as you can get the person who took the picture to release the rights completely. I don't think that Ross, providing therapy for a bunch of conspiracy-theory mongering memory implants, would be willing to do so. Really, we don't need a picture of actual SRA survivors, we need pictures of people in therapy. I was going to go with Freud's couch but it's too obscure. Unfortunately, as a moral panic there's no really appropriate material to put in since it was never real. But we'll do the best we can. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 12:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Not that easy. Jeffrey Masson has tried to contact Wikipedia and they deleted the image Masson sent me, as you can see in that talk page. I'll email Ross now. —Cesar Tort 15:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

One thing you could ask them to do is sign up for a wikipedia or commons account, upload the image themselves with a fair use rationale, and never edit again. Or edit if they'd like, just not their own pages. There's also the boilerplates, but I think a "I took this photo and release it to the wikimedia commons without reservation" is normally sufficient. Hey, see Diana Napolis, my day's work. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 18:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be great to have a photo of SRA survivors. Perhaps Diana can be useful after all if she herself uploads a few images :) Cesar Tort 19:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is more, how is the image helpful to the information content of the page. Realistically, there's no way to be certain a picture is of a survivor, and really there's nothing to distinguish them anyway. We could use a picture of anybody that's fair use and say "this person is a SRA survivor". Better is a setting that's unambiguous, a 'named party' such as Virginia McMartin (but that section already has a picture), or a satanic altar used for satanic ritual abuse. If it existed, which it didn't. It's a tough page to illustrate because a) it's not real and b) it's old. I don't think there's much value added to add pictures of anonymous alleged survivors since there won't be anything obvious in the picture that the person was a survivor. And as for Napolis, she'd perhaps slot into the conspiracy section, but really she's not actually notable enough to be mentioned in the article. Plus, I don't think I could write a caption without either feeling like I'm lying, or violating BLP :) Any people we put up pictures of, we'll be justifying in the picture caption ("X, SRA therapist/alleged abuser/survivor" just sounds awful to me). WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 19:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What about trying to contact Zirpolo? —Cesar Tort 19:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Islamic Golden Age

Hi!

In your message you'd requested me to go through the above article. But, am extremely sorry to inform that I've been keeping very busy, and so wouldn't be in position to review that. But, in my very superficial analysis, the number and the nature of references seem to keep the article well sourced. Hope you understand. All the best!

Regards.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 18:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Infanticide article

Hail to you, Mr. Cesar Tort.

I concur with your recent work and comments over at the infanticide article. I recognize that we have different value sets and I may not always agree with you in the future but I do agree now.

Thank you for the interaction. I will aim to be more careful.

--Itohacs 18:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itohacs (talk • contribs)

Islamic Golden Age

Sorry, I could not participate in your request for a peer review, because I have been offline for a while. I do not think that the matter is settled, because the user, Jagged85, has demonstrably no deeper understanding of the subject, he just amasses sources and quotes from online source by simple key word searches which he evidently does not really understand, and consistently portrays 'Muslim' science in the best light. So, next time, you are very much invited to drop me an email which I won't fail to notice (hope the Wiki system works). Kind regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying about the peer-review on the Islamic science article.

Alas, I am going for a very, very long wikibreak tomorrow (it's still Monday here in Mexico) and won't be able to contibute in the near future.

At any event, you still can copy what you just told me and paste it in Talk:Islamic Golden Age. I really think that the article needs some balancing, especially about the issue I raised here.

Cheers,

—Cesar Tort 04:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Image face

Hello Cesar!! I added this image in the article Bélmez face...

File:BélmezFaces.jpg

All the best. --Lightwarrior2 (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Calmer Waters 14:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

External links

About this, yeah... no. Please see WP:ELNO, particularly criterion #2. We want a link that includes the manifesto without the third party racist commentary. Thanks. VQuakr (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. Please don't use Wikipedia to promote white supremacy, regardless of your ap=parent personal beliefs. Dyrnych (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I responded there. No need to bring the discussion here. Cesar Tort 04:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Cesar Tort

User:Cesar Tort, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cesar Tort and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Cesar Tort during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Firestar464 (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Cesar Tort/discussion

A tag has been placed on User:Cesar Tort/discussion requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Firestar464 (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)