Open main menu

Contents

Article move.Edit

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,

Peace and Passion   ("I'm listening....") 02:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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."

I merely asked for one cite from a referred social science journalEdit

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)

So? That doesn't necessarily make them unreliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Regardless, Wikipedia's policy is to use the most commonly used term for an article title. If you read the history of this talk page, through much consensus building, "Sex abuse hysteria" was the decided as appropriate. This is why you see, for example, some chemicals which have a more proper scientific name going by a "colloquial" name. Whenever considering (or actually doing) moving an article, when that will obviously (or even may) produce contention, it would be good to discuss it on the talk page first.
Peace and Passion   ("I'm listening....") 00:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


You don't get to chose that WP:COMMONNAME will be defined by only your choice of sources. There are about 50 examples on the talk page (most of them now in the archives). But if you need one, I'll play along; this is another article has the term used in it (this one "social science reffd"):
bam! can you deal with that?
PS I'm assuming something (read:true Scotsman) about that ref is going to be unacceptable to you.
Peace and Passion   ("I'm listening....") 03:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The opening comment suggests a stunning ignorance of why these people were accused in the first place. It also looks like an attempt to poison the well. Sturunner, there was certainly an attempt to put people in prison without trail based on accusations from manipulated children by social workers and do-gooders. Fortunately that didn't happen. There are a large number of books that deal precisely with this issue - I suggest starting with this one and this one to get a better sense of what was actually happening. There's a reason no-one went to trial during McMartin, and a bunch of other cases had the results overturned. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Move protectionEdit

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)

Discussion regarding this protection and the version of the title that happened to be up at the time of protection is ongoing on my talk page at User talk:Hersfold#Locked a page on the non-consensus state :(. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move restoreEdit

{{movereq|Day care sex abuse hysteria}}

Day care sex abuse allegationsDay 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)

Support: Per previously established consensuses (multiple times) and unacceptable behaviour (defying consensus and moving with no comment) by moving editor. See the list above of 12 uses of the term. See even higher up the page examples of thorough consideration of the article's title, including many tests on Google, Google Scholar, and Google Books to see what is the most commonly accepted term. I do so love having to beat dead horses... (especially when they suddenly come back to life, and, before you have time to react, are made invincible by "higher celestial powers").
Peace and Passion   ("I'm listening....") 06:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Always use the "double tap" to kill a zombie. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 10:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Richard Arthur Norton, as you seem to have been previously and at length involved in this issue, would you give a clearcut vote here so we can at least attempt to establish some sort of strawish "consensus?" Peace and Passion   ("I'm listening....") 19:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Support: Sure, fine with me. De Young supports to a certain extent [1] but after reading a massive number of books on this and the related satanic ritual abuse hysteria, it's pretty clear that "hysteria" is the most appropriate name. Moral panic might work too, but it's a much more specific term. It's certainly more than a set of allegations, nor is it the page on false allegation of child sexual abuse, it's a coherent phenomenon in which people thought day care centres were being used as recruiting grounds and production centres for child pornography due to bogus questioning techniques by poorly trained social workers. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Support: as the creator of the article on December 22, 2005. Please move back to original name, this isn't an article on "allegations" but on the hysteria of the 1980s. We have been through this before, and Google scholar, Googe Books, and Google news support "hysteria" as the correct and most frequently used title. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Support moving back. "allegations" is far too inclusive. -- Avenue (talk) 02:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Support move back to consensus and correct title. Verbal chat 14:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I've been asked to take a look at this again, and agree that there is now a consensus to move the page back. I'll do so in just a moment, and remove the move protection while I do so. Thanks to everyone for your patience and understanding with this. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there even one cite in any referred professional journal of the existence of this issue?Edit

Sturunner (talk) 09:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant, and proved false above. But, is there a "refereed professional journal" which states that the topic doesn't exist, or gives it a different name than "hysteria". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
PLEASE read WP:COMMONNAME. If the article child sexual abuse was named "day care sex abuse hysteria," then we'd definitely have a problem, which is what you seem to be equivocating here. This is not the article for child sexual abuse. This is the article for a series of events in the 1980s and early 1990s that are colloquially (and in the media and a whole bunch of publications) known as "day care abuse hysteria" due to the particular speed and furor (and weak legality of some) of the accusations, convictions, as well as the borderline absurd nature and number (i.e., quality and quantity) of some of the accusations. Could this be any clearer?
Peace and Passion   ("I'm listening....") 19:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to quote Richard A. Norton from above:

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.

Further, he goes on to give many examples of how this is the term used. This is also done in many other sections; Sturunner asked for one, was given 12—in addition to all the ones in the history—and moved again anyway. Then he does a bit of a true Scotsman and redefines asking for a very specific type of reference, and further implies some of the references are no good because they were written by pedophiles (while completely ignoring the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME; as I said above, this doesn't defy WP:NPOV—if child sexual abuse was named "hysteria" it would be egregiously POV).
Peace and Passion   ("I'm listening....") 23:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Non sequitor in the articleEdit

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)

Ask Jack-A-Roe. WLU removed it, and Jack restored it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:22, 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)

I didn't write that text, and I agree the wording is awkward. I restored it though, because it's needed in the current context of that section, which gives undue weight to the idea that testimony of children is generally unreliable. While that may or may not be true in general, regarding reports of abuse (that is part of this topic), there is no wide consensus that children's reports are not reliable.
Maybe there were incorrect accusations by children in the day care sex abuse cases, but that's not discussed in that section as it's currently written. That section doesn't discuss the day care moral panic situation at all, it's a meandering sequence of statements about whether or not children can be believed. The whole section should be removed as original research, or rewritten from scratch using references that specifically discuss what happened when children were questioned in regards to the day care sexual abuse cases, and the associated publicity that resulted. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear that the scholarly consensus is the day care sex abuse hysteria (or moral panic, has a nice ring, doesn't it?) of the 80s and 90s was in large part due to incorrect preconceptions on the basis of investigators, combined with poor interviewing techniques. Ceci and Bruck actually do address not only many of these specific cases, but also what leads to the production of false and bizarre allegations (as well as being a very readable book). I could certainly see integrating some information from the sentence and sources, but I'd see it as more "there are some studies supporting the idea that only a small number of reports are fictitious", but I'd really like to see a comparison between the studies that found this out, and the interviewing techniques that were used. Overall, I see these sentences as quite valuable for false allegation of child sexual abuse, less so for here. I certainly think the second sentence "Some studies have shown that children understate occurrences of abuse" is totally inappropriate, and that the use of eight references is excessive and presents an undue weight issue. That many references on that short a set of sentences makes it far more prominent than it would be if nuanced summaries were scattered through a paragraph. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree, it should be in the "false allegations" article or the "child abuse" article. The appearance in this article make it a coatrack. Its trying to push a point of view that is tangential to the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind if those sources and statements are removed as part of focusing that section more on what happened with regards to the moral panic of the time, and the inappropriate questioning methods that were used. The only reason I added them back in was that the whole section is too general, going beyond the day care moral panic issues and into the general reliability of children's accusations of abuse - if that is the approach then both sides of the wider debate have to be included. But I think we agree that the article topic is more narrow, and therefore the information in that section should be narrowed to a tighter focus; if that is done, I would not oppose the removal of those statements because they won't be needed any more. I don't have enough knowledge of this topic to do the rewrite now, I would need time to do some more reading first. If WLU or others want to rewrite the section, I'm not going to randomly insist that those statements stay in, as long as the text itself is in accord with NPOV and does not diverge to a discussion of children's accusations of abuse in general rather than specifically regarding the historical day care moral panic events. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of coatracks, does anyone have an opinion on Alma Heights Christian Academy, I respect the editor, but he is using a coatrack to push a POV there. He starts off the article about the college by mentioning that the woman that started it was a member of the Klan. The article on the William J. Clinton Presidential Center and Park doesn't start off "...was created by Bill Clinton, who had sex in the Oval Office with Monica Lewinsky and stuck a cigar inside her ...", even though that fact is verifiable and notable. Does anyone have an opinion? If you do please contribute there. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

See also linksEdit

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)

"developmentally delayed"Edit

Come on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.126.111.131 (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

False allegations section in the wrong articleEdit

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)

Do we really have to call this "hysteria"?Edit

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)

Did your eyes just skip over the extensive discussions about this very issue that dominate the talk page? Additionally, I think it's hyperbolic to say hysteria is one of the most misogynistic words in the English language. If the word in modern usage was only used to refer to women, then I would concur with you about it possessing a strong misogynistic connotation, however that is not the case. There are so many words that ARE misogynistic, why not focus your efforts on eradicating words such as the word sometimes used to refer to a cat, but more often used in modern English to mean "weak, ineffectual, and cowardly"? --Ella Plantagenet (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't know whether it's "one of the most misogynist words," but it certainly is a word charged with unpleasant connotations, and something like "panic" might be preferable.
It's unreasonable to expect a (possibly novice) editor to necessarily know that a section called "article move" is gonna relate to the title.
In any case, the "article move" section was about whether the article should stay at a title which did not even imply that the sex abuse allegations were overblown, rather than one which used neutral and accomodative language.
Seriously, what's actually wrong with "Day-care sex-abuse panic?" TiC (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
This is an interesting point about the gendered history of the word hysteria, although i think it has come to be more of a gender-neutral term. I don't think that anyone is implying that the accusations are any less valid because they came from women here. I think that the word "hysteria" has a much stronger connotation than "panic" and would oppose renaming the article. Voyager640 (talk) 08:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It should be called panic not hysteria is my vote --Youngdrake (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Country WalkEdit

An alternative view on Country Walk can be found at http://blogs.brown.edu/pols-1821t-2010fall-s01/files/2010/12/Country_Walk_Myths.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.236.111.98 (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It probably should be mentioned, although I seem to recall that particular journal has been shown to be sufficiently biased as to be probably unreliable. Still, it is an alternative view. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

How can thousands of witness testimony from around the country be simply dismissed as "hysteria" ?Edit

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)

So the CONFIRMED day-care abuse at Country Walk is "hysteria" as well?Edit

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

I haven't read about that case, yet, but one of the other cases mentioned here resulted in a conviction, but without any actual evidence of molestation. It belongs here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:42, 25 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)

New TitleEdit

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)

Support. "Panic" seems more prevalent among the sources than "hysteria". "Scandals", "crisis", "cases", and "prosecutions" are also used.[2][3] Also, "Daycare" seems more prevalent than "Day-care".goethean 16:27, 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 (talkcontribs)

This article is about the hysteria (or panic, if you prefer); consensus is that any comments about actual molestation should be in a different article. If you want to propose repurposing the article, I don't know where you should do it, but this talk page is not the place. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

have any law enforcement people been punishedEdit

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)

External links modifiedEdit

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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Synthesis in discussion of causesEdit

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)

External links modifiedEdit

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

POV tagEdit

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)

Scroll up to the previous section. This has been discussed and decided. Telcia (talk) Telcia (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)‎
When it comes to the title of this article, we should be adhering to the WP:Common name policy unless there is a valid WP:POVTITLE issue. We can look at sources on this topic and see what is the most common term used for it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2017
Scroll up. Consensus on this matter has been reached, more than once. Telcia (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)‎
Telcia, can you please point to the specific discussions in which consensus was reached on any of these issues? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Pinged him for you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I am not a "him," I am a her, and I don't respond to deliberate attempts to provoke me by individuals with clear and odious agendas. Don't do it again. Telcia (talk)

BLP problemEdit

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)

If reliable sources in the article or elsewhere (such as on Google Books or in news sources on regular Google) cite these cases as day-care sex-abuse hysteria cases, then there is no BLP problem in that regard. I would hope that the sources are checked, and that, per WP:Preserve, sources for the content are searched for, before any drastic cutting of the article happens. In the case of unsourced or poorly material, you are obviously right to remove that. We can worry about sourcing it later. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Data PointEdit

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)

GermanyEdit

External links modifiedEdit

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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Overall compliance with BLP and neutrality policiesEdit

  1. Is this article broadly compliant with our BLP and neutrality policies?
  2. If not, what broad steps should be taken to correct the problem(s)?

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

SurveyEdit

  • Not compliant. Immediate structural fix required per BLP. I believe 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 any of these cases as examples of hysteria, then all non-fringe reliable sources must say that they are examples of hysteria. I haven't gone through each and every source, but comments in the discussions above make clear that the listed cases were not selected on this basis. Technically speaking, the article should be speedily deleted per WP:G10 but I think that's an overly harsh approach as there's a lot of useful content here. A better approach is to start by recognizing that this article isn't really about hysteria or panic but is actually just a list of daycare sexual abuse cases during a certain time period. Then changes can be made to the title and lead section to reflect that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree that massive changes are necessary It's a list. The merits of each case and criteria for inclusion are vague and almost certainly OR. A list has relaxed criteria but it would need a new title with criteria for inclusion. --DHeyward (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree it's not neutral. A good start would be changing the title to "Day-care sex-abuse allegations." groupuscule (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Like I stated above: It is neutral and WP:BLP-compliant...if reliable sources in the article or elsewhere (such as on Google Books or in news sources on regular Google) cite these cases as day-care sex-abuse hysteria cases. Neutral on Wikipedia does not mean what neutral means in common discourse; it means going by what the vast majority of sources state and that material gets its due weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
For each of the cases on the list, do a majority of sources say that it is a hysteria case? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that, for each of the cases on the list, "a majority of sources [have to] say that it is a hysteria case." It's not like these cases are thoroughly discussed in academia; I've looked on Google Books. But it would be good if at least two sources discuss each of the cases. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Could be made Neutral and WP:BLP-compliant by using court rulings as a primary guide and academics/journalists as well. The court system in the West has developed over hundreds of years and it has methods of determining the facts of cases so a review of how the courts ultimately ruled in cases should be the primary guide of weeding out the non-hysteria cases. Many periods of history have times when the government/courts engage in hysteria. So the courts are not perfect Academics can be helpful in examining the correctness of court cases, but they are not the only sources of helpful commentary. Journalists who work for reliable news organizations can also provide useful commentary.desmay (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
A not guilty verdict, or a court order granting a new trial, does not mean that the case was an example of hysteria. I have reviewed a whole slew of the sources cited in this article and an overwhelming number of them point other problems, such as poor lawyering, improper expert interviews, and a general lack of awareness of the unreliability of testimony by preschoolers. None of those can be fairly described as hysteria. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Definitely needs work - the article is missing a lot of context and may need to be retitled/focused slightly. There are lots of sources about this topic, but the vast majority of them a) frame it as a moral panic rather than as hysteria, and b) frame it as the "satanic ritual abuse" panic rather than as the "day-care sex-abuse" panic. So for a start, I would suggest moving it to Day care satanic ritual abuse panic or Day care abuse panic or something similar. Then, there are all sorts of scholarly sources that be used to provide more context, eg [4][5][6]. I agree with Dr. Fleischman that we should only list/discuss specific cases if they are got substantial coverage in independent RS as an example of this panic, or we risk including stuff synthetically and/or giving undue weight to a specific perspective on cases that may not be clear-cut cases of a "moral panic" as far as RS are concerned. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I see that you used different search words than I did. Other search words might turn up more results on Google Books. I would have used different search words as well...if I was interested in working on this article. But I knew that others could adequately search the matter themselves. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Change the title. The word 'hysteria' seems pov. False claims or something along those lines would be better. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have gone digging for sources and re-written the lede. Please take a look, particularly at the quotations I added from some of the sources (within the ref tags). The day care abuse panic was indeed "a thing," and it has been the subject of a very large body of scholarly & journalistic writing. I am working on cleaning up the rest of the article now (though it may take some time). Fyddlestix (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Fyddlestix, I appreciate your being bold am reverting your changes to the lead because based on others' comments there is clearly no consensus for them. Several editors clearly feel that we should take the article in a different direction, myself included. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
OK. What direction is that, exactly? I see vague support above for having an article about abuse-by-day-care-providers, but no sign of anyone actually digging up sources that treat that as a notable topic, or that would allow us to actually write an article about that (especially, that treat it as distinct from child abuse more generally). My version of the lede, in contrast, sets out a clearly defined topic that is supported by a significant body of very high-quality RS. I encourage commenters to actually look at and read the sources I added before passing judgment. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
My proposed direction is attached to my !vote and more fully fleshed out in response to your move request below. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Please note that I have uncovered yet more sources and have further expanded on an alternative lede for the article here. It is well-referenced, and demonstrates that this is clearly a notable topic (although I'd still support moving the article to a better title, like 1980s daycare abuse panic or something). The problem of which cases to list/profile in the body of the article is easily resolved by simply matching our article to this and similar lists in other RS about the panic. Note the significant overlap with what's currently in the article - specifically the McMartin, Country Walk, Fells Acres, Wee Care, Glenndale Montessori, Little Rascals, and the Austin, TX cases are all listed as examples of the moral panic by an established expert on the subject there. Some of the other cases listed in that article but not in de Young's table are discussed as examples of the moral panic in this book. The article is clearly about a notable topic as-is, and easily made NPOV and BLP compliant with a page move and using the sources I have provided to improve it. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Seems Compliant - the RFC seems a bit too vague for any clear result, but not seeing a problem in generally looking at the text and Google. It seems this phenomena was termed a hysteria so it fits NPOV and WP:COMMONNAME to use that word, and the court results are being stated so it fits WP:BLP guidance for crime. Markbassett (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Needs work Per my comments down below and the ensuing discussion between Flyer22 and Dr. The article appears neutral to me, as long as hysteria is thrown out. There is no hysteria, so the beginning and title need to reflect it. The one case where a lawyer said hysteria doesn't really count as a reason for titling the entire article about it. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 18:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussionEdit

Not sure why this falls under BLP? Its a listing article. L3X1 (distant write) 13:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Because of the BLP issues being raised. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:19, 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)

Hysteria is a loaded and imprecise term. It's especially inappropriate when this is the only article (as far as I can tell) dealing with daycare sexual abuse on a general level. groupuscule (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Maybe there are enough sources to justify naming it something like "Day-care sex-abuse panic"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Hob Gadling, I'm not seeing it. I'm in the process of working through the cited sources, and so far there are a few that refer to hysteria or panic in general, but most of the cases on the list lack sources saying that they are examples of hysteria or panic. The only exception I've found so far is Martensville, in which, according to a the CBC], police conducted a follow-up investigation and concluded that the first investigation was motivated by hysteria. That is the kind of source we need for every case on the list. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:31, 25 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)

I considered going the AfD route, but I think there's a lot of salvageable material in here so it would be a shame if it were all deleted when a move and a relatively small amount of editing would suffice. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Flyer22, it would be a good idea (actually, it's policy) if each and every instance could be verifiably and neutrally described as hysteria before being included in an article about hysteria. At least as currently written, this only appears to be the case for Martensville. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Your interpretation of policy above is incorrect. We do not need "a majority of sources to say that it is a hysteria case" for each case listed. The WP:Neutral policy does not support that interpretation. All we need are one or two reliable sources that call whatever case in question a day-care sex-abuse hysteria case; that is per WP:Verifiability. If the WP:Neutral policy meant that every listing we add to an article needs a majority of sources calling it something, we wouldn't have many of the lists that we have on this site. Nor would we have many other inclusions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry if I miscommunicated. I didn't say that a majority of sources need to say a that it's a hysteria case. But I did say that we need some sources saying that it's a hysteria case. Also, if there is a disagreement among reliable sources whether a case is a hysteria case, then that must be included and given appropriate weight. Like I said, I've gone through a bunhc of these cases now and I've only found one for which a reliable source (as opposed to a defense lawyer, for instance) says that it was a hysteria case. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Above, you stated, "For each of the cases on the list, do a majority of sources say that it is a hysteria case?" That's why I took this to mean that you were stating we need a majority of sources to say that it is a hysteria case for each case listed. As for a defense lawyer stating that it's a day-care sex-abuse hysteria case, I don't see the problem with including the case in this article if a reliable source is supporting that. This is because this article is titled "Day-care sex-abuse hysteria," and a defense lawyer arguing that matter for his or her client passes as something that is relevant to this article. Look at the Gay panic defense article, for example. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Really? You're suggesting we make a list based on stray comments by lawyers? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that we follow the WP:Verifiability rules and not read more into them than what they state. Also see the comment by Desmay above; you likely have already seen it, but it's hardly any different than what I have stated with regard to a defense lawyer stating that it's a day-care sex-abuse hysteria case. I generally don't like lists on Wikipedia; I prefer WP:Prose. But example cases are allowed in articles such as these. That doesn't mean that we need to list every case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
And, really, the current listed cases are in prose format. Being under subheadings does not make them lists in the sense that Wikipedia is talking about. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand the policy basis for the suggestion that we can describe a case as an example of hysteria simply because a defense lawyer argued that it was (or said it was to the media). Maybe I misunderstood your comment about that. In response to Desmay's argument, a not guilty verdict, or a court order granting a new trial, does not mean that the case was an example of hysteria. I have reviewed a whole slew of the sources cited in this article and an overwhelming number of them point other problems, such as poor lawyering, improper expert interviews, and a general lack of awareness of the unreliability of testimony by preschoolers. None of those can be fairly described as hysteria. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Flyer22, on a related note to my previous comment, I acknowledge that there was a significant and notable spate of daycare sex abuse cases in the 1980s that included procedural irregularities. A number of these cases led to guilty verdicts that were later overturned. But the problem is, the sourcing is insufficient to describe this phenomenon neutrally and verifiably as hysteria, or even as one of wrongful convictions. So what do we do about that? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I repeat: We go by what the reliable sources state. If the defense lawyer for whatever case argued that it is a day-care sex-abuse hysteria case, and that aspect is covered in one or more reliable sources, then one cannot validly bar the case from this article as not being a day-care sex-abuse hysteria case. To state more, I'd simply be repeating myself. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
In these cases, we give WP:In-text attribution where needed. We'd state, "The lawyer argued it as an example of day-care sex-abuse hysteria." Something like that. But again, I don't see that we need to list as many cases as the article currently does. We can give a few examples and leave the examples at that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Flyer22, which cases would we include, and which sources would we cite to support the contention that they're examples of hysteria? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe the ones that indicate WP:Notability, or close to WP:Notability; per the WP:No page aspect of WP:Notability, they don't need their own page. And if not going by notability in Wikipedia terms, then maybe we should go by notability in terms of coverage; by this, I mean whichever cases are repeatedly used as examples in reliable sources. But again, for any topic, we usually give a few examples. We usually don't include most or all examples.
On a side note: There's no need to ping me to this talk page; the page is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not asking for a general approach. I'm hoping you can point me to specific sources that reliably link specific cases here with hysteria. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
And given the sources in the article and the sources that Fyddlestix pointed to, I'm not sure why you are hoping that. If the cases in the article are not supported by the sources, then remove them. If the article needs to be renamed, then rename it. In its current state, I am not that concerned about this article. There are articles that I am far more concerned about, and I am very busy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I am hesitant to follow your advice because I believe it would mean removing all cases but one. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
No, that's not correct. Have you looked at the sources I found/linked above, and in my proposed revision of the lede? Several of those sources have actual lists of moral panic cases, see de Young's table here for example, which is similar - though not identical - to the list currently in the article. We can easily use those lists to ensure that the cases listed are legit, widely recognized (by experts in the field) examples of the panic. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree that hysteria is unsupported, but sourcing does exist this being a moral panic (see the books I linked above). We just need to re-title/re-phrase and then weed out any cases from the list that independent RS don't specifically frame as part of the panic. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Fyddlestix, I see two problems here. The first is practical: does anyone have the access and time to review those sources to confirm that they list these cases as examples of moral panic? Second, our coverage of these cases would have to be removed or completely re-written. Currently, it focuses almost exclusively on procedural aspects that are not verifiably tied to moral panic. The implication I see would go like this: the accuser was mentally ill...moral panic! Coercive interviewing techniques...moral panic! 240 years in prison...moral panic! Their convictions were overturned...moral panic! Etc. etc. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Put it a different way:
    • Is there such a thing as sexual abuse at daycare facilities? Yes—that such a thing does occur is undisputed.
    • Are there reliable sources describing it? Yes, there many on Google Scholar ([7] [8] [9]) besides hundreds of news articles.
    • Is there a Wikipedia article describing this phenomenon and the various sources which discuss it? Judging from a search for "day care abuse", and the linked articles at "day care", this article we're currently discussing is the only one which touches on the topic at a general level—the only others are focused on individual cases.
Therefore, it seems to me, the first concern should be to construct a reasonable and balanced article about the phenomenon of day care abuse. At best secondarily would it be appropriate to write a whole article dealing with parent/community reaction to this phenomenon (be it hysteria, moral panic, righteous indignation, or whatever). I think this would be encyclopedic approach. groupuscule (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Agree. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
If a Day care abuse article is created, it seems to be that the hysteria/moral panic topic could simply be a subsection of the article; it doesn't need its own article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, our positions are much closer then than I had thought. In fact I daresay we might have consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I would strongly oppose this approach, please see the sources I linked above and my draft for a re-write of the lede here - this is clearly a notable topic on its own. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Needs work Per my comments down below and the ensuing discussion between Flyer22 and Dr. The article appears neutral to me, as long as hysteria is thrown out. There is no hysteria, so the beginning and title need to reflect it. The one case where a lawyer said hysteria doesn't really count as a reason for titling the entire article about it. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 18:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
L3X1, I actually do not agree with the contention that "there is no hysteria," now that Fyddlestix has so helpfully provided reliable sources such as this one. And there are many other reliable sources that show that the hysteria/moral panic was a verifiable phenomenon. That does not mean I agree with Fiddlestyx's proposed solution. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
DrFleischman The source says "moral panic" so I guess that could count as hysteria. I also see that many news outlets have titled articles with Hysteria. Fyddlestix improves the lead, but what about the listings? Should they be changed to reflect on any hysteria that may have been recorded? Also, should I move by !vote from the Discussion to the Survey above, or leave it down here? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 21:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
previous ping failed DrFleischman. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 21:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I do think that if we take Fyddlestix's approach then we'll have to completely redo the cases to focus on hysteria/moral panic and the sources supporting it. I would suggest copying your !vote (not moving it). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed moveEdit

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)

Sigh. I've been reverted, so this is the version of the page that you should peruse when considering my suggestion above. Again, please actually look at and read the sources referenced in the lede, there is clearly a large body of academic literature on this. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for procedural and substantive reasons. It's disruptive to the pending RfC, which encompasses this very issue, and several editors have expressed a preference to move the article in a very different direction. I am in that camp. If the article stays focused on hysteria or panic then we have to remove all the cases that haven't been reliably tied to hysteria/panic, and refocus the rest on hysteria/panic--thereby stripping the article of most of its useful content. On the other hand if we rename the article to something like Day-care sex-abuse cases in the 1980s, then we can include most of the current content. A section can be devoted to hysteria/panic, and other sections can be devoted to other issues such as suggestive or coercive interview techniques. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Return to "Day-care sex-abuse hysteria" page.