![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 |
Although the two are related, I see no need to merge them. They are two distinct entities, but share some common criminal cases. The Satanistic accusations have a much longer history than the short duration of the "day care" cases in the 1980s. The cases in "day care" dont involve charges of satanism, but both have wild accusations and those that defend those charged may end up being accused themselves. Both may be a type of "witch hunt" where people are wrongfully accused, but the day care cases don't involve witches or satanism. Does anyone agree? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
If nobody objects I will remove the merge statement in another week. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Still hasn't been removed from the other article, and much more than a week has passed since it was removed from here. So I'm being bold and going ahead and removing it myself. Mathmo 00:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The term hysteria in the title, plus the entirely one-sided tone of the article would seem to suggest that it's hysteria to suggest that children are never exploited within day-care settings - possibly the single most obvious target for a pedophile. It's my suspicion that this article is written with the intent to mislead. It's certainly not a balanced presentation of the issue. I'm not experienced enough to edit the title and set up the proper redirects, so I'll leave that to others. Meanwhile, in my copious free time, I'll start looking for some foundation for a balance. -- Firewheel 19:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Please write here what you think what balance is needed. Maybe you should write an article Day care sex abuse that would cover actual documented abuse so people can refer and contrast it.
I'm not sure the term 'hysteria' is appropriate since it isn't really a term used in any reputable science anymore. Maybe panic would be better since at least it doesn't sound scientific. Thomas.neumark 01:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I take your point. However, the naming convention states that we should "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." And of course that must be right. I'm just not 100% sure what hysteria is the name for. What do people think it means? Thomas.neumark 21:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, a much more accurate and unbiased term to use for a title would be "Day Care Sex Abuse Allegations." If the article cannot be written in a more balanced manner, then I also agree it should be deleted. Abuse truth 00:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I think there should be a note/disclaimer in this wiki article mentioning that the purpose of the wiki article is not to argue that no day care worker has ever abused a child. A google search on "day care" and murder quickly finds some cases where day care providers have killed children. That being the case, it doesn't seem inconceivable that actual sexual abuse in day care has occured on some instance. User:Unregistered
I will move the article to Day care sexual abuse hysteria if noone objects. -- Eliyak T· C 14:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Moved, per discussion below. - GTBacchus( talk) 19:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Day care sex abuse hysteria → Day care sexual abuse hysteria – simple grammar. The title surely means abuse by sex, not abuse of sex. The target page has always been a redirect, with a few minor edits. Similarly, there is a Wikipedia page sexual abuse, not sex abuse. Eliyak T· C 02:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Add any additional comments.
The name may be grammatically correct, but is not the term used. A search of Google News archive for "Day care sexual abuse hysteria" provides no hits but finds the correct term "Day care sex abuse hysteria". We shouldn't change grammar from what the press uses its deceptive. We should be using the "term of art" used in the media, not changing it into a new term that is grammatically correct. Google web search can't be used, its been contaminated by this article. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
"Behind the Playground Walls - Sexual Abuse in Preschools by Jill Waterman, Robert J. Kelly, Mary Kay Oliveri and Jane McCord - The Guilford Press - New York, London 1993 (Source: Los Angeles Times, January 19, 1990, pp. A1 and A22)" I would rather see the LA Times article than a reference to a book quoting a newsarticle. Why not just find the news article? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
An alternate form of the day-care scares is a terror of formerly-acceptable images of nude children, including family snaps and art images, many of which have been prosecuted as child pornography. [1]
The title is obviously POV. A more appropriate title for a encyclopedia would be "Day Care Sex Abuse Allegations" with both sides equally represented on the page. The "Causes" section is POV also. Abuse truth 03:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The title exhibits tremendous bias and should be changed to "Day Care Sex Abuse Allegations." Abuse truth 03:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is, in it's entirety, a profoundly biased POV peice which deploys every rhetorical strategy in the False Memory Syndrome Foundation arsenal. Articles like this bring the entire Wiki approach into disrepute. I've deleted the unsourced claim in the McMartin section that the allegations there created new "false memories" elsewhere around the world. The authors should be ashamed. -- Biaothanatoi 04:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Why are there successful prosecutions for organised child sexual abuse - like the Christchurch case - being listed here as "hysteria"?
WP:NPA and WP:BLP violation redacted -- Biaothanatoi 04:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This section may contain information not
important or relevant to the article's subject. |
![]() |
Child sexual abuse occurs frequently in Western society. Prevalence figures range between ten to sixty-two percent for females and sixteen percent for males. Denial by others of child sexual abuse is common and its reality is not easily accepted. Questioning the validity of allegations made by children is the most common form of denial. Child sexual abuse has a difficult burden of proof in criminal courts. It is possible that false allegations may be over-represented, because many true victims of child sexual abuse never tell anyone at all about what happened. The frequency of false allegations was found to be six percent by emergency room staff. False retractions are also common. Other studies have shown false allegation rates to be as low as two percent. Some studies break down the level of false allegations by the age of the child. Among pre-school children, the rate was found to be between 1.7 to 2.7 percent. Among adolescents, the rate was found to be between 8 to 12 percent. The average rate was found to be 5 to 8 percent. Higher rates of false allegations are found in custody disputes. Children appear to rarely make up false allegations of their own accord. The denial of offenses is strong among men that commit sexual offenses. Many continue to deny their offenses even after conviction. It is suggested that parents have consistently underestimated the seriousness of their child’s distress when compared to accounts of their own children. Adults that were abused as children may be reluctant to disclose their abuse if they are attached to their offender. [2] verification needed
"Children do not necessarily make good witnesses, as they are often very suggestible and open to fantasy and vulnerable to false memories that might be implanted by repeating information in a forceful or even threatening manner." citation needed
"Some stories from the case have spread around the world and been incorporated into similar instances involving false memories". citation needed
This section is biased and details only one side of the issue. It needs to be balanced with data from the other side. Abuse truth 03:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It is an extremely ambitious to detail the causes of any social phenomena and it is impossible to prove. It is also in my opinion as one trained in psychology, I have a masters degree, and having been licensed as an expert in Adult Psychiatry by the American Nurses Association, that the origins of any hysteria and especially sexual hysteria have multiple causes. I agree in principle that one might be guilt of mothers and fathers at having placed their children in day care centers. However, I would suggest that there are more powerful conscious and unconscious forces at work in the dynamics of this hysteria. In particular the taboo around sex and sexual behavior particular to the American society, a society which places great value on the ability of its members to control events, a taboo surrounding admitting sexual urges in the American society. Note that sexual urges does not equal sexual activities. Even if one is sexually excited by photographs of children, resisting these sexual feeling ie NOT acting on them is admirable. Another aspect of causality could simply be fear. A high enough fear level may cause one to strike out blindly. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list. Lastly, as illustrated in the Wenatchee, WA scandal, the blind ambition of one detective to be The One to break the ring of sexual abuse led him to use extremely threatening methods to get children to change their story such as taking his hand gun out and placing it on the table in an interview room. Additionally, politics can be a force in hysteria. In the case of Wenatchee, WA the Washington State Department of Health and Social Services was not independent of the Wenatchee police department, but they both depended on each other. In this case they both suppressed evidence when it became obvious that they had made mistakes. People were fired for stating the truth. They wanted to avoid looking bad. So people went to jail. Finally, the shear incompetence of those who interviewed the children, they used incorrect techniques in questioning the children in Wenatchee, WA, led to incorrect evidence.
I would not object to a section of “Causes “if that section explained that any “cause” was necessarily speculative and impossible to prove. But rather several complicated causes could be speculated as having an influence. Any other assertion contrary is simply not supported by any thing I have ever read or any thing I have ever heard from a reliable source. I support a major revision of this section “Causes” or else its complete omission.
FYI - I have a MA in psychology, a degree in nursing, and have been certified as an expert in adult mental health by the American Nurses Association, and have worked 15 years in a mental health facility at Washington State University Medical Center, and in private practice for 7 years. I would be happy to discuss this issue further with any one who would like to give an accurate account of hysteria, its origins, its dynamics, and especially related to "Day care sex abuse hysteria" which I do believe did occur in the basic form outlined in this article. -- TDurden1937 20:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)TDurden1937
The word "hysteria" is inherently calling something crazy and unreasonable. This is POV. McCarthyism and the First Red Scare are not called the "Communism Scare" or something like that.-- A 03:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The section is removed because it is on child abuse and we already link to that article. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I am repeating this section, since the argument is coming up again. "Day care sex abuse hysteria" is the term used by the media. We don't call the My Lai Massacre, the "My Lai unpleasantness" or "My Lai allegations" or "My Lai naughtiness" just to be politically correct, we use the term of art used by the media.
Do some Googling and see what other names come up in the press version of the story.
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
"None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." IMO, the title violates wikipedia NPOV policy. And yes, since the title is part of the article, it is part of the content. Abuse truth 22:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Consider the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition of 'hysteria':
Moreover, consider the Wikipedia page on 'Hysteria': Hysteria, or somatization disorder, is a diagnostic label applied to a state of mind, one of unmanageable fear or emotional excesses. The fear is often centered on a body part, most often on an imagined problem with that body part (disease is a common complaint). People who are "hysterical" often lose self-control due to the overwhelming fear.
Clearly, the title should not be 'Day Care Abuse Psychoneurosis' or 'Day Care Abuse Somatization Disorder' (unless, of course, there's sufficient, unbiased evidence).
Day care sexual abuse 'hysteria' would imply that a statistically significant number/percentage of day care patrons exhibited 'hysterical' behavior. Citations are not provided showing that even one percent of parents (whether or not alleging their children were victims) exhibited fears, emotions and/or behavior that were unmanageable or overwhelming.
Neither does 'mass hysteria' apply. Orson Wells' "War of the Worlds" broadcast is an example of mass hysteria (per Wikipedia) effecting a significant percentage of the population. The 10 cases described occurred over more than a decade in at least 3 different countries. Misleading to describe this as hysteria.
Certainly, the media coverage elevated many parents' concerns, but hysterical behavior of even a small percentage of parents has not been proven. If some alleged child victims' parents exhibited some hysterical behavior, citations are needed of somatization disorders, or similar.
Furthermore, to justify the term 'hysteria', a numerical comparison is needed with the number of allegations that did not result in any somatization disorders. If the vast majority of parents managed their concerns and were not overwhelmed, then hysteria would be an exaggeration.
A Google search for terms 'day' 'care' 'sexual' 'abuse' 'hysteria' produced about 370,000 hits. Substituting 'controversy' for 'hysteria' yields about 1,190,000 hits -- over 3 times more prevalent. The title should have the same substitution to become: "Day Care Sexual Abuse Allegation Controversies".
This title is more in line with Wikipedia's "False allegation of child sexual abuse" topic that references this topic. That topic is also disputed. Because the term 'false' can only be balanced by the term 'true', the title should probably be something like "False and true allegations of child sexual abuse". Erolin 02:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Actual quote from news article: "Nine of the 11 jurors who agreed to be interviewed said they believed that some children were abused, but that the prosecution, for the most part, had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Buckeys were responsible." "Tapes of Children Decided the Case for Most Jurors". Los Angeles Times. Friday, January 19, 1990. pp. A1 and A2. {{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Abuse truth (
talk)
03:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Adding this to the end of the article is deceptive. It gives the appearance that this is the summary or conclusion of the case, but its is just testimony from a prosecution witness during the trial. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 06:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Dr. Deborah Harper testified in the trial "One girl showed definite medical signs of sexual abuse and it could not be ruled out for two others." [3]
“ | large deletions of data should be discussed on the talk page, not simply deleted due to their POV | ” |
— User:Abuse truth |
Perhaps he should follow his own advice. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
”All nine children testified in a broadly consistent way...The children testified to numerous instances of sexual abuse...The children testified that the defendant threatened them and told them that their families would be harmed if they told anyone about the abuse” COMMONWEALTH vs. GERALD AMIRAULT. Middlesex. October 9, 1996. - March 24, 1997.
This was on the web at SocialLaw but has now been deleted or moved. I am presently working on tracking down the new page. I would hope that the quote could be returned to the page pending finding the new url. Abuse truth 23:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk • contribs)
wee care's section here is already 99% of the separate article. Why not merge it in? Is there a good reason? Travellingcari ( talk) 01:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I have added a reference to the Glendale Montessori section. I question whether the EL on this case - "HELP FREE JAMES TOWARD!" - www.freetoward.org should be an EL, since it appears to be an advocacy cite. ResearchEditor ( talk) 19:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC) (formerly AT)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk • contribs)
I have fixed the spelling of an author's name and deleted a few unnecessary quotation marks. ResearchEditor ( talk) 03:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I have deleted a dead courtesy url and fixed the date. The article is available in their pay archives. ResearchEditor ( talk) 21:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The Cleveland case did not involve a daycare centre. Let me repeat, because I keep deleting it from this page, and it keeps being reposted. The Cleveland case did not involve a daycare centre. So it is being deleted from this page, because it is completely irrelevant to this page. -- Biaothanatoi ( talk) 04:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This was under anxiety, but has nothing to do with anxiety. It belongs elsewhere, perhaps in the next section. There was also the problems of using leading questions, that can create false memories in young children.
John Myers, a Professor of Law at McGeorge Law School states:
"At the time McMartin and Michaels began, there was very little awareness of the special issues that arise in questioning children about abuse....When it comes to credibility, children are no different than adults. There are credible children and credible adults. By the same token, there are incredible adults and incredible children. It is clear from the literature on child development that by the time most children are four years old, they possess the moral, cognitive, and linguistic capacity to be credible witnesses in court." [6]
I just removed it again. It is a non-sequitor. I had to read it three times to try and figure out why it was there. It is about morality, and has nothing to do with false testimony:
While it was not fully understood at the time of these cases, subsequent research has shed light on the inherent difficulty associated with child testimony. John Myers, a Professor of Law at McGeorge Law School states:
"At the time McMartin and Michaels began, there was very little awareness of the special issues that arise in questioning children about abuse. ... When it comes to credibility, children are no different than adults. There are credible children and credible adults. By the same token, there are incredible adults and incredible children. It is clear from the literature on child development that by the time most children are four years old, they possess the moral, cognitive, and linguistic capacity to be credible witnesses in court." [7]
The final paragraph of the section dealing with the Glendale case ends with a heavily POV passage: "As of 2008, Tesson has not been held accountable for his involvement in the Glendale Montessori case, and Toward is still being held in Civil Commitment under the Jimmy Ryce Act. Ralicki thinks she will be called to testify at an upcoming Jimmy Ryce hearing. She stated that she does not doubt that Toward still poses a threat to children. She can never forget what he did to the 20 or so children she treated." In case anyone missed the rather clumsy editorializing, look for phrases such as "been held accountable", that someone "thinks that she will be called", that "she does not doubt", and that "she can never forget". We have no way of knowing what a person thinks, nor is what they think relevant in this matter. I have no idea what the facts are behind these allegations, but allegations they remain and have no place in WP. This section needs to be heavily re-written or stricken. Bricology ( talk) 07:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
To the contributor who moved the article and asked for one source which used this terminology. I did a quick hunt for a few. If you'd like, I could find more. All these use the terminology in the same context. This is the commonly accepted "terminology." It would be nice if you could put things back together like they're supposed to be, thanks,
You could just do a Google search to see how this is the commonly accepted name too, and thus in line with Wikipeida's naming policies...: "Sex abuse hysteria"
Title Sex abuse hysteria Author Richard A. Gardner Edition 2, illustrated Publisher Creative Therapeutics, 1991 (also film of the same name, Cited by 66 sources according to Google Scholar)
Title Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act for Dealing with Sex Abuse Hysteria Journal Issues in Child Abuse Accusations Author RA Gardner Year IPT Forensics, 1993
Mass Hysteria in Oude Pekela. Benjamin Rossen, Vol 1, No 1, 1989
The Phenomenon of Child Sexual Abuse Hysteria as a Social Syndrome: A New Kind of Expert Testimony. Lawrence D. Spiegel, Vol 2, No 1, 1990
News Media Coverage and National Hysteria, Volume 7, 1995
Hysteria spreads, Volume 7, 1995
A Canadian Perspective on Child Sexual Abuse Accusations in the Gender War, Brian Hindmarch, Vol 3, 1991 "This phenomenon must be understood when examining the present child sexual abuse hysteria."
Chapter Sex Abuse Hysteria (9) Title Everyday irrationality: how pseudo-scientists, lunatics, and the rest of us systematically fail to think rationally Author Robyn M. Dawes Edition Illustrated Publisher Westview Press, 2002
Title Making monsters: false memories, psychotherapy, and sexual hysteria Authors Richard Ofshe, Ethan Watters Publisher Charles Scribner's, 1994 Original from the University of Michigan
Title: Witch Hunt: A True Story of Social Hysteria and Abused Justice Positive Review Positive Review Author: Kathryn Lyon Publisher: Avon Books, 1998
Title: Threatened Children: Rhetoric and Concern About Child Victims Positive Review Positive Review Positive Review Author: Joel Best Publisher: University of Chicago Press © 1990 Quote: Dr. Best blames much of America's hysteria on the media, particularly the "ten second sound bites."
Title The abuse of innocence: the McMartin Preschool trial Notable trials library Authors Paul Eberle, Shirley Eberle Edition illustrated, braille Publisher Prometheus Books, 1993 Original from the University of Michigan Quote: "The result was mass hysteria unlike anything experienced in America in decades."
As you may know, some of the cites you have provided are from people who have been accused by their own children of child sexual abuse. Sturunner ( talk) 05:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I've just move protected this page after seeing it pop up on the IRC channel multiple times. Come to a consensus though WP:RM or similar process before moving this page again. Thank you. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 02:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
{{
movereq|Day care sex abuse hysteria}}
Day care sex abuse allegations → Day care sex abuse hysteria — Reverting clearly inappropriate move, against a clear consensus, and locked here by an admin. WP:BRD suggests it should be moved back while the discussion is occuring. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Sturunner ( talk) 09:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I am repeating this section, since the argument is coming up again. "Day care sex abuse hysteria" is the term used by the media. We don't call the My Lai Massacre, the "My Lai unpleasantness" or "My Lai allegations" or "My Lai naughtiness" just to be politically correct, we use the term of art used by the media.
Undent. We don't have the luxury of titling the page the same way news stories and books do (i.e. " The wave of sexual abuse allegations that occurred in the mid-1980s to 1990s" or " The allegations made against day care workers, such as the McMartin preschool case", or " Rampant accusations of child abuse in day care"). I'd happily stick with hysteria, but I'm also happy with moral panic, the term Mary De Young chose for her wonderful book on the subject. We have to choose a title that's short, descriptive, easy to find and sensible. This isn't a page simply listing a set of allegations, it's trying to get at a phenomenon that occurred for a very short period of time in a very limited part of the world, that has now subsided. We don't use the "Salem Witch Allegations" because it's more than just a list of people killed or trials that occurred. The same thing works here. Part of the problem that existed previously was a single-purpose account kept bitching about the name because he thought every single accusation of child sexual abuse was true, even during the satanic panic that the scholarly majority now agree was bogus. Well, AbuseTruth is now permanently blocked and the question hasn't reoccurred since. "Hysteria" and "moral panic" both give a sense of the, well, unreasonable panic that existed over these cases and the beliefs behind them. It's short, sensible, nicely summarizes the phenomenon and tailors with past moral panics such as blood libel, the salem witch trials, millenialism, stranger-danger, etc. This wasn't a nice time, it's now over, it was very embarrassing and it's silly to treat it as an unrelated set of individual incidents with no connection to the overall gestalt of the time. Moral panic and hysteria both capture this much better than the deliberately neutral term 'allegations'. I invoke WP:UCS and suggest that these are the best choices for the page title even if an exact verbatim quote can't be found. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 12:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Why does this non sequitor appear in the article: "Some studies have shown that only a small percentage of child sexual abuse reports are fictitious.[52][53][54][55] Some studies have shown that children understate occurrences of abuse.[56][57][58]" It is verifiable, but what does it have to do with the causes of hysteria? It is stuck in the middle of information on anxiety and the unreliability of testimony of children. Why does it appear there, it belongs in an article on sex abuse, not hysteria. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 04:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
It can be a footnote, but it is just stuck in the middle of the explanation of the phenomenon. Lets get some more comment on it. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 04:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the see also links removed here and here. The DCSAH, the whole point of it, was that it was a moral panic. No child abuse ever happened. Child abuse is linked in the lead, making it inappropriate to include per WP:ALSO since it is a duplicate link of one in the body text. The exceptions are when there is a substantial overlap or relationship - and there isn't since no child abuse was actually proven to occur. The catholic sex abuse cases is actual child sexual abuse, and though it may be a moral panic as well (a substantial over-reaction to the actual scale of the problem) this isn't the moral panic page. The remaining links directly relate - they were false allegations, are believed to have produced false memories, it was a moral panic, allegations were made regarding repressed memories, the salem witch trials are believed to be a moral panic filled with false persecution, as was the SRA moral panic. Duplication of these links is appropriate, but inclusion and duplication of child abuse and the catholic cases is not. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 13:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Come on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.126.111.131 ( talk) 13:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't "False allegations when interviewing children" belong in False allegation of child sexual abuse with a "see also" link from here back to to there? At present it's the other way around. It would make sense to move this section to the false allegations article. 199.127.252.195 ( talk) 09:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, hysteria is one of the most misogynist words in the English language, and given that many of the people bring these allegations forward are women, describing it as "hysteria" is in bad taste. Surely "panic" would suffice just as well as "hysteria" for the title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.4.157.164 ( talk) 18:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
It should be called panic not hysteria is my vote -- Youngdrake ( talk) 12:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
What you are really alleging is a conspiracy theory about therapists and prosecutors getting together with "hysterical" families and fabricating elaborate hoaxes of mass molestation and abuse to create a "witch hunt". Thinking that this was the case practically defies reality.
In each of these cases, dozens to hundreds of childrens' testimonies contained striking similarities. There is NO substantiation to the claim that they were all "false memories" or fabrications being induced by the interviewers.
Just because some witnesses reported fantastical events does NOT mean everything was made up. We are talking about very young children. This is a disgusting cheap shot at discrediting their testimonies.
Just because a witness claimed to have purposely fabricated something, does NOT automatically discount the THOUSANDS of other witnesses who did NOT retract their claims.
A lack of indictments does NOT mean this stuff is made up. In numerous cases, such as the McMartin Preschool case, a majority of the jurors were convinced that the children WERE molested and abused, but there was not enough evidence connecting to the defendant.
In numerous cases these children had PHYSICAL signs of sexual abuse. Again, a lack of convictions is unrelated to the fact that there was evidence that molestation/abuse had indeed occurred.
LACK OF EVIDENCE FOR CONVICTION DOES NOT EQUAL A LACK OF EVIDENCE OF MOLESTATION Editors of this article are pretending one equals the other and hiding behind legal rulings.
There is nothing far-fetched about the organized molestation claims Since the 1980's there have been numerous expositions of high-level, well-organized pedophile/child-abuse networks all over the world, usually connected in some way to public institutions. It is common. There is nothing "hysterical" or incredible about this subject.
It is completely biased and irresponsible to baldly assert that thousands of children were having "false memories" implanted, or propping up whatever prosecution conspiracy theory to attempt to convey the idea that nothing happened.
Whoever is controlling these types of articles is helping to perpetuate a situation where the probable victims of these incidents are afraid to come forward now that they are grown up, and can confirm what happened.
At the very least, the word "hysteria" needs to be dropped. You should replace it with "allegations", but I know that the editors controlling this article will not allow that to happen. 64.222.209.188 ( talk) 12:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay you have a serious personal connection to this topic. Please keep it neutral and civil. I do support the dropping of the term hysteria in favor of panic. Also you do not need 2 sections for your rants. One will suffice. -- Youngdrake ( talk) 13:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Your opinion about me is irrelevant. Look at the Country Walk section. The official record is that this day-care sex abuse really happened and you guys are portraying it as part of a fabricated mass hysteria. This article is ridiculous, it's not even pretending to be objective or factual. 64.222.209.188 ( talk) 19:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not saying its entirely fabricated. While some of it is fabricated it is more about the hysteria being a massive over reaction by mothers scared for the children. While certainly some were harmed it was far from as wide spread as was believed. Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic-- Youngdrake ( talk) 15:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
This is surreal. In this case Fuster was FOUND GUILTY on 14 counts of child abuse related to his babysitting service. Yet you have a single reference to an author alleging it was part of a "moral panic". Really? So even when the courts rule that the "day care sex hysteria" is actually TRUE, you are still spinning it as some kind of fantasy? How does the one cited author's opinions outweigh COURT RULINGS?
This should be a major red flag that an extremely biased viewpoint is dominating this article. 64.222.209.188 ( talk) 13:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
One ruling is a far cry from a nationwide epidemic of sexual assault. We have 300+ million people one case causing a panic is notable. For instance the zimmerman case caused a panic yet only one person was killed in self defense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngdrake ( talk • contribs) 13:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, McFly.... Why is a CONFIRMED court ruled day-care sex abuse incident listed under an article which categorizes such incidents as fabricated "hysteria" ? C'mon, let's hear your excuse. "Well the courts ruled that it really happened but we're gonna call it hysteria just cuz." Really?
Such an illogical inclusion is only betraying the extremely biased viewpoints and the intentional distortion of reality from whatever parties are controlling this article. 64.222.209.188 ( talk) 19:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
You are clearly pushing some POV and attempt to derail and discredit facts which don't fit into your world view. Why don't you just read what is in the text: "Testimony from children in the case was extracted by Laurie and Joseph Braga, a husband-and-wife team who resorted to coercive questioning of the alleged victims when the desired answers were not forthcoming.[12] Fuster's wife recanted her court testimony in an interview with Frontline, saying that she was kept naked in solitary confinement and subjected to other forms of physical and psychological duress until she agreed to testify against her husband".
This is what this page is about: overreactions, fabrication of "evidence" by coercive questioning, a mass-psychological dynamics within the group of parents, social workers, administrative authorities and legal prosecutors. To repeat it: this page is not about child abuse, this page is about a moral hysteria in the 80ies and early 90ies
188.174.191.113 (
talk)
00:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Can everyone agree to call this a panic instead of a hysteria? If I can get a couple yes's without a no I will change it. -- Youngdrake ( talk) 15:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
If you carefully read Ross Cheits book "The witchunt narrative" http://www.amazon.com/The-Witch-Hunt-Narrative-Politics-Psychology/dp/0199931224 you may come to the conclusion that "panic" is not a good term , either. "Cases" would be better, and, besides, the whole article ought to be rewritten....— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.234.6.85 ( talk • contribs)
have any of the many police, prosecutors and judges who partcipated been sent to jail or even indicted ? here in MA, the state AG in the fells acre case, Scott Harshbarger, was made president of common cause, and currently has a cushy law firm job and is head of the lobby group to repeal the new state law allowing casinos is there any justice at all ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.49.238 ( talk) 22:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Day-care sex-abuse hysteria. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I have added a cleanup template to the "Suggestions and false allegations when interviewing children" section. Although this section is interesting, many of the citations do not appear to be discussing the day-care panic, so applying the ideas in the cited papers and studies to this topic seems like improper synthesis. 73.170.41.47 ( talk) 07:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Day-care sex-abuse hysteria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4793550a6009.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
There is a serious POV issue with this article. The article is laced with the implication that most or all of the allegations were false and the result of mass hysteria/panic. This is suggested no only by the user of the word "hysteria" in the title and lead section but also by the "Causes" section. The problem with this implication is that roughly half of the listed cases actually led to convictions that have not been overturned. In other words, this wave of "hysteria" was at least partially justified. This is not acknowledged anywhere in the article. Then we have three cases (Kern, Baran, and Bronx Five) where convictions were overturned but there's no explanation of why, implying without supporting content that the defendants were actually innocent when, who knows from our content, maybe the defendants did actually commit their crimes but they weren't given a fair trial. A lot of work is needed to fix these problems. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
"No explanation" for why convictions were overturned? Did you even look at the links? In most of the cases, it goes something like this: The children recanted. The "confessions" were obtained through coercion. No physical evidence was offered by the prosecution. It's documented in court records. There's nothing implying guilt. There's nothing supporting your claim that the hysteria -- and that's the most accurate term, as well as the one reached by consensus -- was justified. Furthermore, the fact that a conviction hasn't yet been overturned is no indication that the defendant is guilty. Again, did you bother to look at the references? Coercive techniques were used on both the children and Fuster's wife in the Country Walk case. The PRACA/Ramos case should have another citation to fully explain why the allegation was bogus and the case overturned. Oak Hill is ludicrous on its face. Do you need me to go through every single one, or can you go back and read for comprehension this time? Frankly, I'm 99% convinced you have an agenda here. What that might be disturbs me greatly. @ Arthur Rubin: Can you assist? I am not bold. Telcia ( talk) 06:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
We can start fixing the problem by recognizing that this article isn't really about hysteria or panic but is actually just a list of daycare sexual abuse cases. Then changes can be made to the title and lead section to to reflect that. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 06:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I feel compelled to take immediate action--not sure what yet--because the more I think about this, the more I believe that the article is structurally flawed from a BLP perspective. The overall, very clear implication of the article is that all of the alleged victims of abuse listed here were not in fact subjected to abuse and were instead suffering from "hysteria." This implication is unverifiable and severely non-neutral. Yes, some of these cases were overturned, for various reasons, and some were not. But regardless, if we are going to include these cases as examples of hysteria, then the reliable sources must say that they are examples of hysteria. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
As a data point, my parent's daycare center was swept up in this "hysteria". The police shut the center down and investigated for months. The children's stories used as evidence were exactly as described in this article, with leading questions over multiple sessions while the children played with anatomically correct dolls. During the investigation the police tried repeatedly to get my Mother to testify falsely against one of her employees. The case was later dismissed with an apology from the Judge who called the case ridiculous. That's not NPOV, by any means, but I do hope you'll consider it. Seeing it publicly acknowledged here is cathartic. ElizabethGreene ( talk) 14:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Day-care sex-abuse hysteria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
-- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Not sure why this falls under BLP? Its a listing article. L3X1 (distant write) 13:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
All cases in which techniques were used that are prone to lead to false accusations - recovered memory therapy, pressure on children, and so on - clearly fall under the lemma heading. Those people never "believed the children" - until the children finally gave in and started to agree with them.
The article does not actually say, and neither does it imply, as DrFleischman claims, that "the accused were all innocent" or "the victims were hysterical". The hysteria lies clearly not primarily in the children, but in the therapists, activists, and as a consequence, parents, and that would hold true even if the accused were guilty in some isolated cases. As long as the article does not make a general innocence claim, restricting itself to pointing out the self-reinforcing circle of general climate of suspicion and the dubiousness of the techniques used to arrive at the verdict of "guilty", there is no problem. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I've been perusing this (horrible) article/list thingy, and came away with a few thoughts. The article is not about Day-care sex-abuse hysteria. It is a list of day care sex abuse cases. The article should be trimmed and moved to that name, and a separate article be written about the hysteria (which in and of itself doesn't appear to pass inclusion). Also, this list may not even pass inclusion, only 220 views/day avg. (Yes, I know that's an ATA, buts its not verboten). Does someone want to deliver it unto the debaters, before more work is put into it? Has anyone asked the page creator his thoughts on the subject of RfC? L3X1 (distant write) 19:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
withdrawn, will re-propose something as a subsection of the rfc above
|
---|
I propose that this article should be moved, imo the best choice would be 1980s day care abuse panic or maybe day care ritual abuse panic - something that makes it clear that we're talking about a specific, historical phenomenon which is distinct from ordinary child abuse cases (and which there is a distinct body of literature on). I have re-written the lede and added some sources that should demonstrate that this is a much better title that the current one (sources just don't support "hysteria"). Please take a look and let me know what you think. Fyddlestix ( talk) 17:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
|
What, exactly, is "lascivious exhibition of the genitals"? Is it always a result of a child being posed by or for pedophiles? Or could a harmless family snapshot of a toddler in the tub also qualify? Police and prosecutors often swear they can tell the difference. But by the late 1980s, so many mom and pop shutterbugs were getting arrested that in a case known as Dost, a judge in a state district court in California came up with a test that poses six questions to determine if a picture is kiddie porn. The list includes queries such as: Is the focal point of the image the child's genitals? Is the setting a place generally associated with sex? Is the child nude? Posed or dressed inappropriately? Displaying "sexual coyness"?
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
citation}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help) in Sinason, Valerie (1994). Treating Survivors of Satanist Abuse. New York: Routledge.
ISBN
0-415-10542-0.
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
Conducted and promoted coercive interviews that traumatized hundreds of children and promoted the nationwide day care sex abuse hysteria.
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
For the record, I am not in the "believe the children" camp that grew up around the day-care sex-abuse hysteria of the 1980s, and that holds the words of ...
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
During the first six decades of the 20th Century, the level of doubt and skepticism about allegations of CSA were at unrealistic and destructively high levels. During the late 1970s and 1980s, however, society was much more accepting of the fact that CSA is a serious social problem. Beginning in the early 1990s, a backlash of sorts emerged against the child protection system. Although this backlash has not substantially undermined efforts by the child protection and legal systems to investigate and prosecute CSA, it [is] my belief that the level of doubt about children's credibility and about the prevalence of CSA is once again on the rise, and could return to levels that are sufficiently high to undermine efforts to protect children.
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
During the first six decades of the 20th Century, the level of doubt and skepticism about allegations of CSA were at unrealistic and destructively high levels. During the late 1970s and 1980s, however, society was much more accepting of the fact that CSA is a serious social problem. Beginning in the early 1990s, a backlash of sorts emerged against the child protection system. Although this backlash has not substantially undermined efforts by the child protection and legal systems to investigate and prosecute CSA, it [is] my belief that the level of doubt about children's credibility and about the prevalence of CSA is once again on the rise, and could return to levels that are sufficiently high to undermine efforts to protect children.
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 |
Although the two are related, I see no need to merge them. They are two distinct entities, but share some common criminal cases. The Satanistic accusations have a much longer history than the short duration of the "day care" cases in the 1980s. The cases in "day care" dont involve charges of satanism, but both have wild accusations and those that defend those charged may end up being accused themselves. Both may be a type of "witch hunt" where people are wrongfully accused, but the day care cases don't involve witches or satanism. Does anyone agree? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
If nobody objects I will remove the merge statement in another week. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Still hasn't been removed from the other article, and much more than a week has passed since it was removed from here. So I'm being bold and going ahead and removing it myself. Mathmo 00:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The term hysteria in the title, plus the entirely one-sided tone of the article would seem to suggest that it's hysteria to suggest that children are never exploited within day-care settings - possibly the single most obvious target for a pedophile. It's my suspicion that this article is written with the intent to mislead. It's certainly not a balanced presentation of the issue. I'm not experienced enough to edit the title and set up the proper redirects, so I'll leave that to others. Meanwhile, in my copious free time, I'll start looking for some foundation for a balance. -- Firewheel 19:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Please write here what you think what balance is needed. Maybe you should write an article Day care sex abuse that would cover actual documented abuse so people can refer and contrast it.
I'm not sure the term 'hysteria' is appropriate since it isn't really a term used in any reputable science anymore. Maybe panic would be better since at least it doesn't sound scientific. Thomas.neumark 01:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I take your point. However, the naming convention states that we should "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." And of course that must be right. I'm just not 100% sure what hysteria is the name for. What do people think it means? Thomas.neumark 21:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, a much more accurate and unbiased term to use for a title would be "Day Care Sex Abuse Allegations." If the article cannot be written in a more balanced manner, then I also agree it should be deleted. Abuse truth 00:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I think there should be a note/disclaimer in this wiki article mentioning that the purpose of the wiki article is not to argue that no day care worker has ever abused a child. A google search on "day care" and murder quickly finds some cases where day care providers have killed children. That being the case, it doesn't seem inconceivable that actual sexual abuse in day care has occured on some instance. User:Unregistered
I will move the article to Day care sexual abuse hysteria if noone objects. -- Eliyak T· C 14:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Moved, per discussion below. - GTBacchus( talk) 19:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Day care sex abuse hysteria → Day care sexual abuse hysteria – simple grammar. The title surely means abuse by sex, not abuse of sex. The target page has always been a redirect, with a few minor edits. Similarly, there is a Wikipedia page sexual abuse, not sex abuse. Eliyak T· C 02:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Add any additional comments.
The name may be grammatically correct, but is not the term used. A search of Google News archive for "Day care sexual abuse hysteria" provides no hits but finds the correct term "Day care sex abuse hysteria". We shouldn't change grammar from what the press uses its deceptive. We should be using the "term of art" used in the media, not changing it into a new term that is grammatically correct. Google web search can't be used, its been contaminated by this article. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
"Behind the Playground Walls - Sexual Abuse in Preschools by Jill Waterman, Robert J. Kelly, Mary Kay Oliveri and Jane McCord - The Guilford Press - New York, London 1993 (Source: Los Angeles Times, January 19, 1990, pp. A1 and A22)" I would rather see the LA Times article than a reference to a book quoting a newsarticle. Why not just find the news article? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
An alternate form of the day-care scares is a terror of formerly-acceptable images of nude children, including family snaps and art images, many of which have been prosecuted as child pornography. [1]
The title is obviously POV. A more appropriate title for a encyclopedia would be "Day Care Sex Abuse Allegations" with both sides equally represented on the page. The "Causes" section is POV also. Abuse truth 03:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The title exhibits tremendous bias and should be changed to "Day Care Sex Abuse Allegations." Abuse truth 03:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is, in it's entirety, a profoundly biased POV peice which deploys every rhetorical strategy in the False Memory Syndrome Foundation arsenal. Articles like this bring the entire Wiki approach into disrepute. I've deleted the unsourced claim in the McMartin section that the allegations there created new "false memories" elsewhere around the world. The authors should be ashamed. -- Biaothanatoi 04:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Why are there successful prosecutions for organised child sexual abuse - like the Christchurch case - being listed here as "hysteria"?
WP:NPA and WP:BLP violation redacted -- Biaothanatoi 04:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This section may contain information not
important or relevant to the article's subject. |
![]() |
Child sexual abuse occurs frequently in Western society. Prevalence figures range between ten to sixty-two percent for females and sixteen percent for males. Denial by others of child sexual abuse is common and its reality is not easily accepted. Questioning the validity of allegations made by children is the most common form of denial. Child sexual abuse has a difficult burden of proof in criminal courts. It is possible that false allegations may be over-represented, because many true victims of child sexual abuse never tell anyone at all about what happened. The frequency of false allegations was found to be six percent by emergency room staff. False retractions are also common. Other studies have shown false allegation rates to be as low as two percent. Some studies break down the level of false allegations by the age of the child. Among pre-school children, the rate was found to be between 1.7 to 2.7 percent. Among adolescents, the rate was found to be between 8 to 12 percent. The average rate was found to be 5 to 8 percent. Higher rates of false allegations are found in custody disputes. Children appear to rarely make up false allegations of their own accord. The denial of offenses is strong among men that commit sexual offenses. Many continue to deny their offenses even after conviction. It is suggested that parents have consistently underestimated the seriousness of their child’s distress when compared to accounts of their own children. Adults that were abused as children may be reluctant to disclose their abuse if they are attached to their offender. [2] verification needed
"Children do not necessarily make good witnesses, as they are often very suggestible and open to fantasy and vulnerable to false memories that might be implanted by repeating information in a forceful or even threatening manner." citation needed
"Some stories from the case have spread around the world and been incorporated into similar instances involving false memories". citation needed
This section is biased and details only one side of the issue. It needs to be balanced with data from the other side. Abuse truth 03:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It is an extremely ambitious to detail the causes of any social phenomena and it is impossible to prove. It is also in my opinion as one trained in psychology, I have a masters degree, and having been licensed as an expert in Adult Psychiatry by the American Nurses Association, that the origins of any hysteria and especially sexual hysteria have multiple causes. I agree in principle that one might be guilt of mothers and fathers at having placed their children in day care centers. However, I would suggest that there are more powerful conscious and unconscious forces at work in the dynamics of this hysteria. In particular the taboo around sex and sexual behavior particular to the American society, a society which places great value on the ability of its members to control events, a taboo surrounding admitting sexual urges in the American society. Note that sexual urges does not equal sexual activities. Even if one is sexually excited by photographs of children, resisting these sexual feeling ie NOT acting on them is admirable. Another aspect of causality could simply be fear. A high enough fear level may cause one to strike out blindly. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list. Lastly, as illustrated in the Wenatchee, WA scandal, the blind ambition of one detective to be The One to break the ring of sexual abuse led him to use extremely threatening methods to get children to change their story such as taking his hand gun out and placing it on the table in an interview room. Additionally, politics can be a force in hysteria. In the case of Wenatchee, WA the Washington State Department of Health and Social Services was not independent of the Wenatchee police department, but they both depended on each other. In this case they both suppressed evidence when it became obvious that they had made mistakes. People were fired for stating the truth. They wanted to avoid looking bad. So people went to jail. Finally, the shear incompetence of those who interviewed the children, they used incorrect techniques in questioning the children in Wenatchee, WA, led to incorrect evidence.
I would not object to a section of “Causes “if that section explained that any “cause” was necessarily speculative and impossible to prove. But rather several complicated causes could be speculated as having an influence. Any other assertion contrary is simply not supported by any thing I have ever read or any thing I have ever heard from a reliable source. I support a major revision of this section “Causes” or else its complete omission.
FYI - I have a MA in psychology, a degree in nursing, and have been certified as an expert in adult mental health by the American Nurses Association, and have worked 15 years in a mental health facility at Washington State University Medical Center, and in private practice for 7 years. I would be happy to discuss this issue further with any one who would like to give an accurate account of hysteria, its origins, its dynamics, and especially related to "Day care sex abuse hysteria" which I do believe did occur in the basic form outlined in this article. -- TDurden1937 20:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)TDurden1937
The word "hysteria" is inherently calling something crazy and unreasonable. This is POV. McCarthyism and the First Red Scare are not called the "Communism Scare" or something like that.-- A 03:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The section is removed because it is on child abuse and we already link to that article. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I am repeating this section, since the argument is coming up again. "Day care sex abuse hysteria" is the term used by the media. We don't call the My Lai Massacre, the "My Lai unpleasantness" or "My Lai allegations" or "My Lai naughtiness" just to be politically correct, we use the term of art used by the media.
Do some Googling and see what other names come up in the press version of the story.
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
"None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." IMO, the title violates wikipedia NPOV policy. And yes, since the title is part of the article, it is part of the content. Abuse truth 22:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Consider the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition of 'hysteria':
Moreover, consider the Wikipedia page on 'Hysteria': Hysteria, or somatization disorder, is a diagnostic label applied to a state of mind, one of unmanageable fear or emotional excesses. The fear is often centered on a body part, most often on an imagined problem with that body part (disease is a common complaint). People who are "hysterical" often lose self-control due to the overwhelming fear.
Clearly, the title should not be 'Day Care Abuse Psychoneurosis' or 'Day Care Abuse Somatization Disorder' (unless, of course, there's sufficient, unbiased evidence).
Day care sexual abuse 'hysteria' would imply that a statistically significant number/percentage of day care patrons exhibited 'hysterical' behavior. Citations are not provided showing that even one percent of parents (whether or not alleging their children were victims) exhibited fears, emotions and/or behavior that were unmanageable or overwhelming.
Neither does 'mass hysteria' apply. Orson Wells' "War of the Worlds" broadcast is an example of mass hysteria (per Wikipedia) effecting a significant percentage of the population. The 10 cases described occurred over more than a decade in at least 3 different countries. Misleading to describe this as hysteria.
Certainly, the media coverage elevated many parents' concerns, but hysterical behavior of even a small percentage of parents has not been proven. If some alleged child victims' parents exhibited some hysterical behavior, citations are needed of somatization disorders, or similar.
Furthermore, to justify the term 'hysteria', a numerical comparison is needed with the number of allegations that did not result in any somatization disorders. If the vast majority of parents managed their concerns and were not overwhelmed, then hysteria would be an exaggeration.
A Google search for terms 'day' 'care' 'sexual' 'abuse' 'hysteria' produced about 370,000 hits. Substituting 'controversy' for 'hysteria' yields about 1,190,000 hits -- over 3 times more prevalent. The title should have the same substitution to become: "Day Care Sexual Abuse Allegation Controversies".
This title is more in line with Wikipedia's "False allegation of child sexual abuse" topic that references this topic. That topic is also disputed. Because the term 'false' can only be balanced by the term 'true', the title should probably be something like "False and true allegations of child sexual abuse". Erolin 02:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Actual quote from news article: "Nine of the 11 jurors who agreed to be interviewed said they believed that some children were abused, but that the prosecution, for the most part, had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Buckeys were responsible." "Tapes of Children Decided the Case for Most Jurors". Los Angeles Times. Friday, January 19, 1990. pp. A1 and A2. {{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Abuse truth (
talk)
03:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Adding this to the end of the article is deceptive. It gives the appearance that this is the summary or conclusion of the case, but its is just testimony from a prosecution witness during the trial. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 06:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Dr. Deborah Harper testified in the trial "One girl showed definite medical signs of sexual abuse and it could not be ruled out for two others." [3]
“ | large deletions of data should be discussed on the talk page, not simply deleted due to their POV | ” |
— User:Abuse truth |
Perhaps he should follow his own advice. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
”All nine children testified in a broadly consistent way...The children testified to numerous instances of sexual abuse...The children testified that the defendant threatened them and told them that their families would be harmed if they told anyone about the abuse” COMMONWEALTH vs. GERALD AMIRAULT. Middlesex. October 9, 1996. - March 24, 1997.
This was on the web at SocialLaw but has now been deleted or moved. I am presently working on tracking down the new page. I would hope that the quote could be returned to the page pending finding the new url. Abuse truth 23:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk • contribs)
wee care's section here is already 99% of the separate article. Why not merge it in? Is there a good reason? Travellingcari ( talk) 01:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I have added a reference to the Glendale Montessori section. I question whether the EL on this case - "HELP FREE JAMES TOWARD!" - www.freetoward.org should be an EL, since it appears to be an advocacy cite. ResearchEditor ( talk) 19:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC) (formerly AT)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk • contribs)
I have fixed the spelling of an author's name and deleted a few unnecessary quotation marks. ResearchEditor ( talk) 03:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I have deleted a dead courtesy url and fixed the date. The article is available in their pay archives. ResearchEditor ( talk) 21:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The Cleveland case did not involve a daycare centre. Let me repeat, because I keep deleting it from this page, and it keeps being reposted. The Cleveland case did not involve a daycare centre. So it is being deleted from this page, because it is completely irrelevant to this page. -- Biaothanatoi ( talk) 04:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This was under anxiety, but has nothing to do with anxiety. It belongs elsewhere, perhaps in the next section. There was also the problems of using leading questions, that can create false memories in young children.
John Myers, a Professor of Law at McGeorge Law School states:
"At the time McMartin and Michaels began, there was very little awareness of the special issues that arise in questioning children about abuse....When it comes to credibility, children are no different than adults. There are credible children and credible adults. By the same token, there are incredible adults and incredible children. It is clear from the literature on child development that by the time most children are four years old, they possess the moral, cognitive, and linguistic capacity to be credible witnesses in court." [6]
I just removed it again. It is a non-sequitor. I had to read it three times to try and figure out why it was there. It is about morality, and has nothing to do with false testimony:
While it was not fully understood at the time of these cases, subsequent research has shed light on the inherent difficulty associated with child testimony. John Myers, a Professor of Law at McGeorge Law School states:
"At the time McMartin and Michaels began, there was very little awareness of the special issues that arise in questioning children about abuse. ... When it comes to credibility, children are no different than adults. There are credible children and credible adults. By the same token, there are incredible adults and incredible children. It is clear from the literature on child development that by the time most children are four years old, they possess the moral, cognitive, and linguistic capacity to be credible witnesses in court." [7]
The final paragraph of the section dealing with the Glendale case ends with a heavily POV passage: "As of 2008, Tesson has not been held accountable for his involvement in the Glendale Montessori case, and Toward is still being held in Civil Commitment under the Jimmy Ryce Act. Ralicki thinks she will be called to testify at an upcoming Jimmy Ryce hearing. She stated that she does not doubt that Toward still poses a threat to children. She can never forget what he did to the 20 or so children she treated." In case anyone missed the rather clumsy editorializing, look for phrases such as "been held accountable", that someone "thinks that she will be called", that "she does not doubt", and that "she can never forget". We have no way of knowing what a person thinks, nor is what they think relevant in this matter. I have no idea what the facts are behind these allegations, but allegations they remain and have no place in WP. This section needs to be heavily re-written or stricken. Bricology ( talk) 07:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
To the contributor who moved the article and asked for one source which used this terminology. I did a quick hunt for a few. If you'd like, I could find more. All these use the terminology in the same context. This is the commonly accepted "terminology." It would be nice if you could put things back together like they're supposed to be, thanks,
You could just do a Google search to see how this is the commonly accepted name too, and thus in line with Wikipeida's naming policies...: "Sex abuse hysteria"
Title Sex abuse hysteria Author Richard A. Gardner Edition 2, illustrated Publisher Creative Therapeutics, 1991 (also film of the same name, Cited by 66 sources according to Google Scholar)
Title Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act for Dealing with Sex Abuse Hysteria Journal Issues in Child Abuse Accusations Author RA Gardner Year IPT Forensics, 1993
Mass Hysteria in Oude Pekela. Benjamin Rossen, Vol 1, No 1, 1989
The Phenomenon of Child Sexual Abuse Hysteria as a Social Syndrome: A New Kind of Expert Testimony. Lawrence D. Spiegel, Vol 2, No 1, 1990
News Media Coverage and National Hysteria, Volume 7, 1995
Hysteria spreads, Volume 7, 1995
A Canadian Perspective on Child Sexual Abuse Accusations in the Gender War, Brian Hindmarch, Vol 3, 1991 "This phenomenon must be understood when examining the present child sexual abuse hysteria."
Chapter Sex Abuse Hysteria (9) Title Everyday irrationality: how pseudo-scientists, lunatics, and the rest of us systematically fail to think rationally Author Robyn M. Dawes Edition Illustrated Publisher Westview Press, 2002
Title Making monsters: false memories, psychotherapy, and sexual hysteria Authors Richard Ofshe, Ethan Watters Publisher Charles Scribner's, 1994 Original from the University of Michigan
Title: Witch Hunt: A True Story of Social Hysteria and Abused Justice Positive Review Positive Review Author: Kathryn Lyon Publisher: Avon Books, 1998
Title: Threatened Children: Rhetoric and Concern About Child Victims Positive Review Positive Review Positive Review Author: Joel Best Publisher: University of Chicago Press © 1990 Quote: Dr. Best blames much of America's hysteria on the media, particularly the "ten second sound bites."
Title The abuse of innocence: the McMartin Preschool trial Notable trials library Authors Paul Eberle, Shirley Eberle Edition illustrated, braille Publisher Prometheus Books, 1993 Original from the University of Michigan Quote: "The result was mass hysteria unlike anything experienced in America in decades."
As you may know, some of the cites you have provided are from people who have been accused by their own children of child sexual abuse. Sturunner ( talk) 05:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I've just move protected this page after seeing it pop up on the IRC channel multiple times. Come to a consensus though WP:RM or similar process before moving this page again. Thank you. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 02:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
{{
movereq|Day care sex abuse hysteria}}
Day care sex abuse allegations → Day care sex abuse hysteria — Reverting clearly inappropriate move, against a clear consensus, and locked here by an admin. WP:BRD suggests it should be moved back while the discussion is occuring. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Sturunner ( talk) 09:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I am repeating this section, since the argument is coming up again. "Day care sex abuse hysteria" is the term used by the media. We don't call the My Lai Massacre, the "My Lai unpleasantness" or "My Lai allegations" or "My Lai naughtiness" just to be politically correct, we use the term of art used by the media.
Undent. We don't have the luxury of titling the page the same way news stories and books do (i.e. " The wave of sexual abuse allegations that occurred in the mid-1980s to 1990s" or " The allegations made against day care workers, such as the McMartin preschool case", or " Rampant accusations of child abuse in day care"). I'd happily stick with hysteria, but I'm also happy with moral panic, the term Mary De Young chose for her wonderful book on the subject. We have to choose a title that's short, descriptive, easy to find and sensible. This isn't a page simply listing a set of allegations, it's trying to get at a phenomenon that occurred for a very short period of time in a very limited part of the world, that has now subsided. We don't use the "Salem Witch Allegations" because it's more than just a list of people killed or trials that occurred. The same thing works here. Part of the problem that existed previously was a single-purpose account kept bitching about the name because he thought every single accusation of child sexual abuse was true, even during the satanic panic that the scholarly majority now agree was bogus. Well, AbuseTruth is now permanently blocked and the question hasn't reoccurred since. "Hysteria" and "moral panic" both give a sense of the, well, unreasonable panic that existed over these cases and the beliefs behind them. It's short, sensible, nicely summarizes the phenomenon and tailors with past moral panics such as blood libel, the salem witch trials, millenialism, stranger-danger, etc. This wasn't a nice time, it's now over, it was very embarrassing and it's silly to treat it as an unrelated set of individual incidents with no connection to the overall gestalt of the time. Moral panic and hysteria both capture this much better than the deliberately neutral term 'allegations'. I invoke WP:UCS and suggest that these are the best choices for the page title even if an exact verbatim quote can't be found. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 12:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Why does this non sequitor appear in the article: "Some studies have shown that only a small percentage of child sexual abuse reports are fictitious.[52][53][54][55] Some studies have shown that children understate occurrences of abuse.[56][57][58]" It is verifiable, but what does it have to do with the causes of hysteria? It is stuck in the middle of information on anxiety and the unreliability of testimony of children. Why does it appear there, it belongs in an article on sex abuse, not hysteria. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 04:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
It can be a footnote, but it is just stuck in the middle of the explanation of the phenomenon. Lets get some more comment on it. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 04:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the see also links removed here and here. The DCSAH, the whole point of it, was that it was a moral panic. No child abuse ever happened. Child abuse is linked in the lead, making it inappropriate to include per WP:ALSO since it is a duplicate link of one in the body text. The exceptions are when there is a substantial overlap or relationship - and there isn't since no child abuse was actually proven to occur. The catholic sex abuse cases is actual child sexual abuse, and though it may be a moral panic as well (a substantial over-reaction to the actual scale of the problem) this isn't the moral panic page. The remaining links directly relate - they were false allegations, are believed to have produced false memories, it was a moral panic, allegations were made regarding repressed memories, the salem witch trials are believed to be a moral panic filled with false persecution, as was the SRA moral panic. Duplication of these links is appropriate, but inclusion and duplication of child abuse and the catholic cases is not. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 13:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Come on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.126.111.131 ( talk) 13:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't "False allegations when interviewing children" belong in False allegation of child sexual abuse with a "see also" link from here back to to there? At present it's the other way around. It would make sense to move this section to the false allegations article. 199.127.252.195 ( talk) 09:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, hysteria is one of the most misogynist words in the English language, and given that many of the people bring these allegations forward are women, describing it as "hysteria" is in bad taste. Surely "panic" would suffice just as well as "hysteria" for the title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.4.157.164 ( talk) 18:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
It should be called panic not hysteria is my vote -- Youngdrake ( talk) 12:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
What you are really alleging is a conspiracy theory about therapists and prosecutors getting together with "hysterical" families and fabricating elaborate hoaxes of mass molestation and abuse to create a "witch hunt". Thinking that this was the case practically defies reality.
In each of these cases, dozens to hundreds of childrens' testimonies contained striking similarities. There is NO substantiation to the claim that they were all "false memories" or fabrications being induced by the interviewers.
Just because some witnesses reported fantastical events does NOT mean everything was made up. We are talking about very young children. This is a disgusting cheap shot at discrediting their testimonies.
Just because a witness claimed to have purposely fabricated something, does NOT automatically discount the THOUSANDS of other witnesses who did NOT retract their claims.
A lack of indictments does NOT mean this stuff is made up. In numerous cases, such as the McMartin Preschool case, a majority of the jurors were convinced that the children WERE molested and abused, but there was not enough evidence connecting to the defendant.
In numerous cases these children had PHYSICAL signs of sexual abuse. Again, a lack of convictions is unrelated to the fact that there was evidence that molestation/abuse had indeed occurred.
LACK OF EVIDENCE FOR CONVICTION DOES NOT EQUAL A LACK OF EVIDENCE OF MOLESTATION Editors of this article are pretending one equals the other and hiding behind legal rulings.
There is nothing far-fetched about the organized molestation claims Since the 1980's there have been numerous expositions of high-level, well-organized pedophile/child-abuse networks all over the world, usually connected in some way to public institutions. It is common. There is nothing "hysterical" or incredible about this subject.
It is completely biased and irresponsible to baldly assert that thousands of children were having "false memories" implanted, or propping up whatever prosecution conspiracy theory to attempt to convey the idea that nothing happened.
Whoever is controlling these types of articles is helping to perpetuate a situation where the probable victims of these incidents are afraid to come forward now that they are grown up, and can confirm what happened.
At the very least, the word "hysteria" needs to be dropped. You should replace it with "allegations", but I know that the editors controlling this article will not allow that to happen. 64.222.209.188 ( talk) 12:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay you have a serious personal connection to this topic. Please keep it neutral and civil. I do support the dropping of the term hysteria in favor of panic. Also you do not need 2 sections for your rants. One will suffice. -- Youngdrake ( talk) 13:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Your opinion about me is irrelevant. Look at the Country Walk section. The official record is that this day-care sex abuse really happened and you guys are portraying it as part of a fabricated mass hysteria. This article is ridiculous, it's not even pretending to be objective or factual. 64.222.209.188 ( talk) 19:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not saying its entirely fabricated. While some of it is fabricated it is more about the hysteria being a massive over reaction by mothers scared for the children. While certainly some were harmed it was far from as wide spread as was believed. Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic-- Youngdrake ( talk) 15:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
This is surreal. In this case Fuster was FOUND GUILTY on 14 counts of child abuse related to his babysitting service. Yet you have a single reference to an author alleging it was part of a "moral panic". Really? So even when the courts rule that the "day care sex hysteria" is actually TRUE, you are still spinning it as some kind of fantasy? How does the one cited author's opinions outweigh COURT RULINGS?
This should be a major red flag that an extremely biased viewpoint is dominating this article. 64.222.209.188 ( talk) 13:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
One ruling is a far cry from a nationwide epidemic of sexual assault. We have 300+ million people one case causing a panic is notable. For instance the zimmerman case caused a panic yet only one person was killed in self defense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngdrake ( talk • contribs) 13:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, McFly.... Why is a CONFIRMED court ruled day-care sex abuse incident listed under an article which categorizes such incidents as fabricated "hysteria" ? C'mon, let's hear your excuse. "Well the courts ruled that it really happened but we're gonna call it hysteria just cuz." Really?
Such an illogical inclusion is only betraying the extremely biased viewpoints and the intentional distortion of reality from whatever parties are controlling this article. 64.222.209.188 ( talk) 19:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
You are clearly pushing some POV and attempt to derail and discredit facts which don't fit into your world view. Why don't you just read what is in the text: "Testimony from children in the case was extracted by Laurie and Joseph Braga, a husband-and-wife team who resorted to coercive questioning of the alleged victims when the desired answers were not forthcoming.[12] Fuster's wife recanted her court testimony in an interview with Frontline, saying that she was kept naked in solitary confinement and subjected to other forms of physical and psychological duress until she agreed to testify against her husband".
This is what this page is about: overreactions, fabrication of "evidence" by coercive questioning, a mass-psychological dynamics within the group of parents, social workers, administrative authorities and legal prosecutors. To repeat it: this page is not about child abuse, this page is about a moral hysteria in the 80ies and early 90ies
188.174.191.113 (
talk)
00:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Can everyone agree to call this a panic instead of a hysteria? If I can get a couple yes's without a no I will change it. -- Youngdrake ( talk) 15:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
If you carefully read Ross Cheits book "The witchunt narrative" http://www.amazon.com/The-Witch-Hunt-Narrative-Politics-Psychology/dp/0199931224 you may come to the conclusion that "panic" is not a good term , either. "Cases" would be better, and, besides, the whole article ought to be rewritten....— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.234.6.85 ( talk • contribs)
have any of the many police, prosecutors and judges who partcipated been sent to jail or even indicted ? here in MA, the state AG in the fells acre case, Scott Harshbarger, was made president of common cause, and currently has a cushy law firm job and is head of the lobby group to repeal the new state law allowing casinos is there any justice at all ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.49.238 ( talk) 22:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Day-care sex-abuse hysteria. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I have added a cleanup template to the "Suggestions and false allegations when interviewing children" section. Although this section is interesting, many of the citations do not appear to be discussing the day-care panic, so applying the ideas in the cited papers and studies to this topic seems like improper synthesis. 73.170.41.47 ( talk) 07:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Day-care sex-abuse hysteria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4793550a6009.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
There is a serious POV issue with this article. The article is laced with the implication that most or all of the allegations were false and the result of mass hysteria/panic. This is suggested no only by the user of the word "hysteria" in the title and lead section but also by the "Causes" section. The problem with this implication is that roughly half of the listed cases actually led to convictions that have not been overturned. In other words, this wave of "hysteria" was at least partially justified. This is not acknowledged anywhere in the article. Then we have three cases (Kern, Baran, and Bronx Five) where convictions were overturned but there's no explanation of why, implying without supporting content that the defendants were actually innocent when, who knows from our content, maybe the defendants did actually commit their crimes but they weren't given a fair trial. A lot of work is needed to fix these problems. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
"No explanation" for why convictions were overturned? Did you even look at the links? In most of the cases, it goes something like this: The children recanted. The "confessions" were obtained through coercion. No physical evidence was offered by the prosecution. It's documented in court records. There's nothing implying guilt. There's nothing supporting your claim that the hysteria -- and that's the most accurate term, as well as the one reached by consensus -- was justified. Furthermore, the fact that a conviction hasn't yet been overturned is no indication that the defendant is guilty. Again, did you bother to look at the references? Coercive techniques were used on both the children and Fuster's wife in the Country Walk case. The PRACA/Ramos case should have another citation to fully explain why the allegation was bogus and the case overturned. Oak Hill is ludicrous on its face. Do you need me to go through every single one, or can you go back and read for comprehension this time? Frankly, I'm 99% convinced you have an agenda here. What that might be disturbs me greatly. @ Arthur Rubin: Can you assist? I am not bold. Telcia ( talk) 06:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
We can start fixing the problem by recognizing that this article isn't really about hysteria or panic but is actually just a list of daycare sexual abuse cases. Then changes can be made to the title and lead section to to reflect that. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 06:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I feel compelled to take immediate action--not sure what yet--because the more I think about this, the more I believe that the article is structurally flawed from a BLP perspective. The overall, very clear implication of the article is that all of the alleged victims of abuse listed here were not in fact subjected to abuse and were instead suffering from "hysteria." This implication is unverifiable and severely non-neutral. Yes, some of these cases were overturned, for various reasons, and some were not. But regardless, if we are going to include these cases as examples of hysteria, then the reliable sources must say that they are examples of hysteria. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
As a data point, my parent's daycare center was swept up in this "hysteria". The police shut the center down and investigated for months. The children's stories used as evidence were exactly as described in this article, with leading questions over multiple sessions while the children played with anatomically correct dolls. During the investigation the police tried repeatedly to get my Mother to testify falsely against one of her employees. The case was later dismissed with an apology from the Judge who called the case ridiculous. That's not NPOV, by any means, but I do hope you'll consider it. Seeing it publicly acknowledged here is cathartic. ElizabethGreene ( talk) 14:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Day-care sex-abuse hysteria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
-- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Not sure why this falls under BLP? Its a listing article. L3X1 (distant write) 13:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
All cases in which techniques were used that are prone to lead to false accusations - recovered memory therapy, pressure on children, and so on - clearly fall under the lemma heading. Those people never "believed the children" - until the children finally gave in and started to agree with them.
The article does not actually say, and neither does it imply, as DrFleischman claims, that "the accused were all innocent" or "the victims were hysterical". The hysteria lies clearly not primarily in the children, but in the therapists, activists, and as a consequence, parents, and that would hold true even if the accused were guilty in some isolated cases. As long as the article does not make a general innocence claim, restricting itself to pointing out the self-reinforcing circle of general climate of suspicion and the dubiousness of the techniques used to arrive at the verdict of "guilty", there is no problem. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I've been perusing this (horrible) article/list thingy, and came away with a few thoughts. The article is not about Day-care sex-abuse hysteria. It is a list of day care sex abuse cases. The article should be trimmed and moved to that name, and a separate article be written about the hysteria (which in and of itself doesn't appear to pass inclusion). Also, this list may not even pass inclusion, only 220 views/day avg. (Yes, I know that's an ATA, buts its not verboten). Does someone want to deliver it unto the debaters, before more work is put into it? Has anyone asked the page creator his thoughts on the subject of RfC? L3X1 (distant write) 19:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
withdrawn, will re-propose something as a subsection of the rfc above
|
---|
I propose that this article should be moved, imo the best choice would be 1980s day care abuse panic or maybe day care ritual abuse panic - something that makes it clear that we're talking about a specific, historical phenomenon which is distinct from ordinary child abuse cases (and which there is a distinct body of literature on). I have re-written the lede and added some sources that should demonstrate that this is a much better title that the current one (sources just don't support "hysteria"). Please take a look and let me know what you think. Fyddlestix ( talk) 17:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
|
What, exactly, is "lascivious exhibition of the genitals"? Is it always a result of a child being posed by or for pedophiles? Or could a harmless family snapshot of a toddler in the tub also qualify? Police and prosecutors often swear they can tell the difference. But by the late 1980s, so many mom and pop shutterbugs were getting arrested that in a case known as Dost, a judge in a state district court in California came up with a test that poses six questions to determine if a picture is kiddie porn. The list includes queries such as: Is the focal point of the image the child's genitals? Is the setting a place generally associated with sex? Is the child nude? Posed or dressed inappropriately? Displaying "sexual coyness"?
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
citation}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help) in Sinason, Valerie (1994). Treating Survivors of Satanist Abuse. New York: Routledge.
ISBN
0-415-10542-0.
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
Conducted and promoted coercive interviews that traumatized hundreds of children and promoted the nationwide day care sex abuse hysteria.
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
For the record, I am not in the "believe the children" camp that grew up around the day-care sex-abuse hysteria of the 1980s, and that holds the words of ...
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
During the first six decades of the 20th Century, the level of doubt and skepticism about allegations of CSA were at unrealistic and destructively high levels. During the late 1970s and 1980s, however, society was much more accepting of the fact that CSA is a serious social problem. Beginning in the early 1990s, a backlash of sorts emerged against the child protection system. Although this backlash has not substantially undermined efforts by the child protection and legal systems to investigate and prosecute CSA, it [is] my belief that the level of doubt about children's credibility and about the prevalence of CSA is once again on the rise, and could return to levels that are sufficiently high to undermine efforts to protect children.
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
During the first six decades of the 20th Century, the level of doubt and skepticism about allegations of CSA were at unrealistic and destructively high levels. During the late 1970s and 1980s, however, society was much more accepting of the fact that CSA is a serious social problem. Beginning in the early 1990s, a backlash of sorts emerged against the child protection system. Although this backlash has not substantially undermined efforts by the child protection and legal systems to investigate and prosecute CSA, it [is] my belief that the level of doubt about children's credibility and about the prevalence of CSA is once again on the rise, and could return to levels that are sufficiently high to undermine efforts to protect children.
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)