Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Wikipedia:NPOVN -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

It appears that RE is misinterpreting the debate, again, as well as forum shopping. One of the editors said that he looked at all relevant encyclopaedia and books in his university library, and found one which was not skeptical. There's still no 21st century book being proposed as neutral or non-skeptical; the best RE and others have found are a few journal articles in child-protection journals, which one would expect to be credulous. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And I have a vague memory of RE, under a previous incarnation, stating he had queried this board. Unforunately, I don't remember the time frame involved, so I can't check. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please remember to comment on content and not the contributor. Eight sources have been provided post 2000, including peer reviewed journal ones. Two books also have been provided. So the statements in the edit above are incorrect. And I have never queried this board in the past.ResearchEditor (talk) 06:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

←This is a valid request to the NPOV noticeboard. I have no idea why Arthur Rubin chose to make it personal about the poster of the request, but whatever his reasons, that is off-topic. I'm an occasional editor of the article in question, though I don't have much of a stance about the content either way - my interest is in fair and proper editing, and fair treatment of all editors according to policy; so I welcome input from this noticeboard without prejudice to any personal issues that may exist between the various editors who have been working on that page. Also, I see no forum-shopping issue: ResearchEditor posted a bona-fide NPOV question on the NPOV noticeboard, and that good-faith request deserves the same quality of response as any other good-faith request posted here. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a valid request, but clearly misinterpreting the weight of the sources. An approximately correct view of WP:NPOV is the views should appear approximately as often as they do in the real world. The question of the relative number of references of individual authors seems to be a "red herring".

But, granting that, one of the editors, whom I have no reason to believe is lying, went through all the relevant books in his university library, and found significantly more sources reporting the skeptical viewpoint than the believer viewpoint. And, sure enough, the 38% fall into the "skeptical" category, and the viewpoints which RE has been trying to add are in the "believer" category. WP:UNDUE could possibly support the addition of neutral/undecided sources and viewpoints, but a good arguement has been presented that the "believer" viewpoint is already over-represented in the article.

There is also the question of whether the weight of viewpoints should be measured by recent (21st century) sources, or 20th century sources, or even earlier sources. It's undoubtably the case that earlier sources would be strongly "believer" that children could be abused by witches, even if there was no abuse nor physical evidence. But this would be wrongly weighted in a current Wikipedia article. The question of whether we should determine the weight from 21st century sources, or from sources dating back to 1990, or even 1980, might effect the weight. It seems obvious to me that, if there is any current discussion of the issue, that we should restrict ourselves to 21st century sources to determine the relevant weighting, even if some earlier sources may be required to explain the history of the viewpoints.

And, after careful study of my notes, my recollection was that WP:UNDUE was claimed on a different article, so the forum shopping question should be disregarded. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As for the count, many more than 8 sources have been provided; the 8 which RE has mentioned seem to have been carefully selected. So far, no 21st century source has been provided which is clearly "believer", although one does quote favorably a "believer" source of questionable reliability by our standards. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as I show in the following section after this one, there are many sources pre and post 2000 that back the existence of SRA. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There's the further question of whether the sources are discussion "satanic ritual abuse", "organized ritual abuse", or just plain "ritual abuse". The article should be about the former, and most of the "believer" viewpoints are about the latter. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Slight correction--My library trip is not directly related to the above, so I need to be specific about it. Another editor claimed that SRA is so mainstream that it has made it into the general literature on child abuse and family abuse/domestic violence--he then provided a cherry picked encyclopedia source to "prove" his point. I went to the library of a large research university of the U.S. and surveyed the literature published after 2000 in both the reference section and main sections of the library. What I found was one book, out of many, which mentioned SRA in a non-skeptical way, two which mentioned it in a skeptical way and the rest simply had no mention at all. The point of the exercise was test the hypothesis that it was a mainstream phenomena, which it clearly is not. This doesn't directly address the issue of the prevalence of skeptical vs. non-skeptical positions, but it does address the notion that SRA is clearly not mainstreamed into the literature on child abuse. Other exercises have addressed the former question. Until recently only 3 sources could be found post 2000 in peer reviewed journals and/or from academic publishing houses containing the non-skeptical position. Many, many more post 2000 sources have been produced from the "skeptical" position. On top of this, many recent skeptical sources also describe the phenomena as a moral panic in the late 80s to mid 90s which died down and is no longer the subject of any academic debate. No recent source has been produced to state otherwise. That is no current source makes the claim that this is a mainstream phenomenon or that there is a legitimate academic debate, while a slew of them make the opposite claim. Such sources have been asked of RE several times but he has not produced a single one.PelleSmith (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• "* I don't remember the time frame involved, so I can't check"

Or perhaps we are talking about (1) this, (2) or this (3) or maybe this one? (Note that ResearchEditor was previously known as "AbuseTruth"). —Cesar Tort 10:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(Interpolated) I did recall some of those incidents. They seem to be different problems (sourcing problems, rather than NPOV claims), and AT claims to have reformed along with his name. I suppose the last would tend to indicate I'm not uninvolved; but I knew that, already. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that the problem with this article, like many others on similar topics, is that ResearchEditor / User:Abuse truth clearly either fails to understand clear policies or is purposely ignoring them to try to push his very clear agenda. HE showed up on Wikipedia with the stated goal of providing "truth" on topics and ever since has twisted small, nonnotable publications by those with extremist views as if they were big, professional, well-respected journals that not only stand toe to toe with well-respected expert research but even overshadows them. I really think the first step toward sanity on all the articles in question is to get his old ban on pushing his POV reinstated, as the only thing he learned from his last blocks was how to game the system. DreamGuy (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the edits above do not comment on content but the contributor. The above is also false. My edits have been on both sides of the debates of the pages I have worked on. DG's edits sometimes delete accurate information from reliable sources like the DSM from pages, possibly because they do not fit an extreme skeptical POV. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The most important thing I would like to see is a comment from an uninvolved experienced editor on whether SRA is now considered a fringe topic of only historical interest. The most important information in this regard for me is the three sources which currently state the topic is dead (four if you include de Young, 2004, which I have yet to read cover to cover but have on hand). This can be settled by sources I believe, and there are multiple sources asserting the issue is dead and interest has faded. To date, four have been presented for "fringe, dead", none for "the mainstream is still interested". The sources are explicit:

In the social work profession, a debate commenced which has crystallised into two poles: 'believer' in the existence of satanic abuse of children and 'skeptic'. Presently this part of hte discussion is at an impasse and coverage has subsided. (from Gary Clapton (1993). Satanic Abuse Controversy: Social Workers and the Social Work Press (Essential Issues in the 1990s S). University of North London P, 1. ISBN 1-85377-154-6.)

When this book was originally published, there was a great deal of interest in and concern about ritual abuse, most child welfare professionals believed in its existence, and the federal government funded research into its characteristics and effects (Bybee & Mowbray, 1993; Goodman, Bottoms, Qin & Shaver, 1994; Valliere, Bybee & Mowbray, 1988; Waterman, Kelly, Oliverie & McCord, 1993). But responses to allegations of ritual abuse have undergone a transformation in the last 10 years, so that any case involving ritual elements elicits great skepticism. In fact, it is no longer au courant to believe in the existence of ritual abuse (Chaffin & Stern, 2001; Myers, 1998) (The most damning for me; from Faller, KC (2003). Understanding and assessing child sexual maltreatment. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 29-33. ISBN 0-7619-1996-1.)

Satanism and Ritual Abuse-The Panic Collapses, 1992-1995. While the Satanic Panic can be taken as beginning with the publicity over the McMartin charges, no single comparable event marks its end. A convenient turning point is marked by the child abuse case that got underway in 1994 in the town of Wenatchee, Washington, a case that initially threatened to become a witch-hunt as grotesque as any of the previous decade. Yet it did not, since on this occasion media expectations were utterly different. (from Jenkins, Philip (2004). in James R. Lewis: The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements. Oxford University Press, 221-242. ISBN 0195149866.)

It'd be nice if we could get ResearchEditor to shut up about it and stop inserting "skeptics who believe SRA has been discredited think..." into the lead and half the paragraphs. Jack, much as there needs to be balance in the article, and much as the minority position needs to be portrayed, ResearchEditor is a problem, not a contributor. What is needed in the lead is not "skeptics consider SRA to have been discredited"; what is needed is "SRA has been discredited in the mainstrea, though interest still lingers from a minority." This needs to be reflected in a realistic appraisal of what exists in contemporary reliable sources, which should be a minority on the page. What is not needed are weasel words that give the impression that only dedicated sketpics believe SRA has been discredited, when it is the opposite; only dedicated believers think that there's still a problem.

I believe the above sources clearly and unambiguously indicate that the SRA phenomenon is dead and of historical interest only, and the mainstream position is skeptical. Accordingly, it is undue weight, and POV-pushing, to continue to insist that there is any real interest in the matter. It is undue weight and POV-pushing to insert qualifications of skepticism into the lead and throughout the body. ResearchEditor is engaging in a slow edit war, very carefully reverting only once per day but doing so every day, with no reason aside from his/her assertion that we are placing undue weight on skepticism. The sources provided to assert that the controversy is ongoing are self-published books and low-quality news articles, or journal articles where interest in SRA is peripheral (or discusses ritual abuse, something quite different). Accordingly, skepticism should be portrayed as the norm and the credulous position as the minority. To date, ResearchEditor has not provided any new information or sources for the discussion that support his position, yet reverts anyways. Suggestions have been offered for moving forward and s/he has not taken them, but insists on repeating the same arguments as if it would convince other editors through simple repetition. It has not, but it is interfering with the page being edited. WLU (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The sources I list on this page clearly show that pro-SRA sources are large in number and not the minority. Any extreme statements about SRA being a panic need to be qualified. It is undue and edit warring to continue to insist that skeptical views are large majority ones. It is POV pushing to make the SRA page a skeptical soapbox ignoring 50 to 60 pro sources. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

So far, there has been no comment from noticeboard editors; this request is becoming a continuation of the arguments on the talk page, with comments by editors directly involved in a content dispute with ResearchEditor, who opened this request on the NPOV noticeboard to request outside opinions. I am not defending the content of what RE has written on the page in question, but I do defend the right of an editor to seek outside opinion, and that is the purpose of the post on this noticeboard. And there is another editor who has been quite vocal on the talk page and with a view not so dissimiar to RE's view, so as far as I can tell, RE's views are not completely solitary. (I am not including myself on either side of this debate, because I don't take an either-or position on the topic.)

I suggest that the personal comments about RE be left out of this discussion, as they arise from a content dispute, and let the content dispute speak for itself. That's what the NPOV noticeboard is for. While several editors have complained about RE, yet here we see RE following proper procedure by requesting outside input from uninvolved editors. That's a good idea. The parts of the posts above that discuss sources and content are appropriate. Let's focus on those parts, so the noticeboard process can work and so the uninvolved editors can review the situation and present their opinions. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should comment on content only. It would be good to find a neutral editor to look at the data objectively. Unfortunately, this has not occurred yet. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

SRA as a Real Form of Abuse

post 2000

1. Joan C. Golston, "Ritual Abuse", in Schulz, W. (eds) The phenomenon of torture : readings and commentary, Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Press, c2007

1. Sarson, J. and L. McDonald "Ritual Abuse-Torture in Families", in Jackson, N. (ed) Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence, Routledge, 2007

1. Noblitt, James Randall, and Perskin Pamela Sue. (2000). Cult and Ritual Abuse: Its History, Anthropology, and Recent Discovery in Contemporary America. New York: Praeger

1. 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 - but may be RS

Non-Academic

1. Griffis, Ph.D., Dale (2001). Secret Weapons. Far Hills, NJ: New Horizon Press. ISBN 0-88282-196-2. 
2. Karriker, Wanda (2003). Morning, Come Quickly. Catawba, NC: Sandime, LTD. ISBN 0-9717171-0-9. 
3. Lacter, E.; Lehman, K. (2008). "Guidelines to Diagnosis of Ritual Abuse/Mind Control Traumatic Stress". 
4. Oksana, Chrystine (2001). Safe Passage to Healing - A Guide for Survivors of Ritual Abuse. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse.com. ISBN 0-595-201000-8.  - self-published, out. [8] The 1994 version of the book was published by HarperPerennial.

peer reviewed

1. Pepinsky, Hal. "A struggle to inquire without becoming an un-critical non-criminologist." Critical Criminology 11(1) 2002 pp. 61-73
2. Pepinsky, Hal. "Sharing and responding to memories." American Behavioral Scientist Vol 48(10), Jun 2005. pp. 1360-1374.
3. McLeod, K. and Goddard, C. R. (2005) ‘The ritual abuse of children – A critical perspective’ Children Australia, 30 (1):27-34
4. Pepinsky, H. (2005). "A criminologist's quest for peace". Critical Justice 1 (1). 
5. Valente, S. (2000). "Controversies and challenges of ritual abuse.". J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv 38 (11): 8-17.

Book reviews

1. 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.
2. Psychiatr Serv 52:978-979, July 2001 © 2001 American Psychiatric Association [9] for Noblitt, JR; Perskin PS (2000). Cult and ritual abuse: its history, anthropology, and recent discovery in contemporary America. New York: Praeger.

articles

1. "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.

pre 2000

Books

Academic

1. Sinason, V (1994). Treating Survivors of Satanist Abuse. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-10543-9. 
2. Waterman, Jill; Kelly, Robert J.;Oliveri, M. K.;and McCord, Jane (1993). Behind the Playground Walls -Sexual Abuse in Preschools. New York, London: The Guilford Press, 284-8. ISBN 0-89862-523-8. 

Non-Academic

1. Hudson, Pamela S. (1991). Ritual Child Abuse: Discovery, Diagnosis, and Treatment. Saratoga, Calif: R&E Publishers. 
2. Johnston, Jerry (1989). The Edge of Evil - The Rise of Satanism in North America. Dallas: Word Publishing. ISBN 0-8499-0668-7. 

ResearchEditor (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Lockwood, C. (1993) Other altars: Roots and Realities of Cultic and Satanic Ritual Abuse and Multiple Personality Disorder. Minneapolis, MN: Compcare.
2. Raschke, Carl A. (1990). Painted Black. New York: HarperCollins. ISBN 0-06-104080-0. 
3. Rutz, Carol (2001). A Nation Betrayed. Grass Lake, MI: Fidelity Publishing. ISBN 0-9710102-0-X. 
4. Ryder, Daniel. (1992). Breaking the Circle of Satanic Ritual Abuse: Recognizing and Recovering CompCare Pub.
5. Smith, Margaret. (1993). Ritual Abuse: What it Is, why it Happens, and how to Help by Margaret - HarperCollins ResearchEditor (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
6. Woodsum, Gayle M. (1998). The Ultimate Challenge. Laramie, WY: ARI Books. ISBN 0-9665974-0-0. 

Peer Reviewed Journals

1. Cozolino, L.J. (1989). "The ritual abuse of children: Implications for clinical practice and research." Journal of Sex Research 26(1), 131-138.
2. Edwards, Louise M."Differentiating between ritual assault and sexual abuse," J Child and Youth Care 6(4) 1991 pp. 169-88.
3. Gould, Catherine. "Ritual abuse, multiplicity, and mind-control." Special Issue: "Satanic ritual abuse: The current state of knowledge." Journal of Psychology and Theology 20(3) 1992 pp. 194-6
4. Jenkins, Carol A. "Sociological argument applied to a historical example of deviance: A response to Professor Victor." Special Issue: "Satanic ritual abuse: The current state of knowledge, "Psychology and Theology 20(3) 1992 pp. 254-6
5. 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
6. Kelley, Susan J. "Parental stress response to sexual abuse and ritualistic abuse of children in day-care centers." Nursing Research 39(1) 1990 pp. 25-9
7. Kelley, Susan J. (1988). "Ritualistic Abuse: Dynamics and Impact." Cultic Studies Journal, 5(2) pp. 228-36
8. Kelley, S.J. (1989). "Stress responses of children to sexual abuse and ritualistic abuse in day care centers." Journal of Interpersonal Violence 4(4), 502-513.
9. Kent, Stephen. (1993). "Deviant Scripturalism and Ritual Satanic Abuse Part One: Possible Judeo-Christian Influences". Religion 23(23):229–241.
10. Kent, Stephen. (1993). "Deviant Scripturalism and Ritual Satanic Abuse. II: Possible Masonic, Mormon, Magick, and Pagan influences". Religion 23(4):355–367
11. Kent, Stephen. (1994). "Diabolic Debates: A Reply to David Frankfurter and J. S. La Fontaine," Religion 24: 135-188.
12. McCulley, Dale. "Satanic ritual abuse: A question of memory," Psychology and Theology . 22(3) 1994, pp. 167-72
13. 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
14. Schumacher, R.B.; Carlson, R.S. (September 1999). "Variables and risk factors associated with child abuse in daycare settings.". Child Abuse & Neglect 23 (9): 891–8. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Inc.. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(99)00057-5. ISSN 0145-2134. PMID 10505902. 
15. Snow B. & Sorensen (1990). "Ritualistic child abuse in a neighborhood setting." Journal of Interpersonal Violence 5(4):474-487.
16. Young WC, Sachs RG, Braun BG, Watkins RT (1991). "Patients reporting ritual abuse in childhood: a clinical syndrome. Report of 37 cases". Child Abuse Negl 15 (3): 181–9. PMID 2043970. 
17. 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 on 2008-06-15. 
18. Jonker, F.; Jonker-bakker, P. (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 on 2007-10-20. 
19. Schmuttermaier, J; Veno S (1999). "Counselors' beliefs about ritual abuse: An Australian Study". Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 8 (3): 45–63. doi:10.1300/J070v08n03_03. 
20. Gould, C., & Cozolino, L. (1992). Ritual abuse, multiplicity, and mind-control. Journal of Psychology and Theology. 20(3): 194-196.
21. 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.
22. Noblitt, J.R. (1995). Psychometric measures of trauma among psychiatric patients reporting ritual abuse. Psychological Reports, 77(3), 743-747.
23. 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
24. 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.
25. Cozolino, L.J. (1990). Ritual child abuse, psychopathology, and evil. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 18(3), 218-227
26. Fraser, G. A. Satanic ritual abuse: A cause of multiple personality disorder. Journal of Child and Youth Care, Special Edition, pp. 55-60
27. Hudson, P. S. (1991). Ritual child abuse: A survey of symptoms and allegations. Journal of Child and Youth Care, Special Edition, pp. 27-54
28. 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.
29. Coleman, J. (1994). Presenting features in adult victims of Satanist ritual abuse. Child Abuse Review, 3: 83-92.
30. 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), pp.18-26
31. 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.
32. Valente, S. (2000). "Controversies and challenges of ritual abuse.". J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv 38 (11): 8-17. 
33. Valente SM. (1992) The challenge of ritualistic child abuse. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Mental Health Nursing, 5(2):37-46.
34. Young, Walter C., Sachs, Roberta G., Braun, Bennett G., and Watkins, R. T. "Patients reporting ritual abuse in childhood: A clinical syndrome. Report of 37 cases." [see comments] Child Abuse and Neglect 15(3) 1991 pp. 181-9
35. Young, W. C. (1993). Sadistic ritual abuse. An overview in detection and management. Primary Care, 20(2), 447-58.
36. Van Benschoten, Susan C. (1990). "Multiple Personality Disorder and Satanic Ritual Abuse: the Issue Of Credibility" Dissociation Vol. III, No. 1

Book section

1. 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.
2. 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. 
3. 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.
4. Young, W.C. (1992). Recognition and treatment of survivors reporting ritual abuse. In D.K. Sakheim & S.E. Devine (Eds.), Out of darkness: Exploring Satanism and ritual abuse (pp. 249-278). New York: Lexington.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Gallagher, B (1996), The nature and extent of known cases of organised child sexual abuse in England and Wales  in Bibby, P. (ed.). Organised Abuse: The Current Debate. Arena. 
8. Sachs, R.; Braun, B. (1987). "Issues in treating MPD patients with satanic cult involvement" in Fourth International Conference on Multiple Personality/ Dissociative States. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Multiple Personality/ Dissociative States: 383-87, Chicago: Rush-Presbyterian-St.Luke's Medical Center.  as cited in Sakheim, D.K. (1992). Out of Darkness: Exploring Satanism and Ritual Abuse. Lexington Books. ISBN 0-669-26962-X. 

Articles

1. Summit, R.C. (1994). "[10] The dark tunnels of McMartin]". Journal of Psychohistory 21 (4): 397-416. 
2. "Why Cults Terrorize and Kill Children" Lloyd deMause The Journal of Psychohistory 21 (4) 1994 [11]
3. An Empirical Look at the Ritual Abuse Controversy - Randy Noblitt, PhD - [12]
4. Karriker, Wanda (November, 2007). "