User talk:Neil Brick/Sandbox/Hell Minus One: Difference between revisions
imported>Neil Brick (create talk page) |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (→Serious neutrality problem: new section) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
== Serious neutrality problem == | |||
Until there is some community-agreed neutral article about the existence of [[satanic ritual abuse]], I have a serious problem with articles talking about how individuals recounted it, reported it to uncontrolled surveys, etc. The existence of the phenomenon is certainly not generally accepted. | |||
This took place in the United States. While a police detective may say he confirmed it, the U.S. legal system operates on the assumption of "innocent until proved guilty in a court of law." None of the citations refer to a court determination, only police statements and reports from news organizations. | |||
The statement "Kimberly Perkins: “The lack of prosecution of such reports does not mean that the reports are fictitious.”[4]" is, in the legal system, does not mean anything. | |||
There are statements that there is physical evidence, but no details from a neutral physician. | |||
Presumably living people are the subject of these allegations. I'm really concerned about CZ's position here, both as a home for non-neutral statements, and, in the case of living people, liability. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 21:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:10, 8 February 2009
The {{subpages}} template is designed to be used within article clusters and their related pages.
It will not function on User talk pages.
Serious neutrality problem
Until there is some community-agreed neutral article about the existence of satanic ritual abuse, I have a serious problem with articles talking about how individuals recounted it, reported it to uncontrolled surveys, etc. The existence of the phenomenon is certainly not generally accepted.
This took place in the United States. While a police detective may say he confirmed it, the U.S. legal system operates on the assumption of "innocent until proved guilty in a court of law." None of the citations refer to a court determination, only police statements and reports from news organizations.
The statement "Kimberly Perkins: “The lack of prosecution of such reports does not mean that the reports are fictitious.”[4]" is, in the legal system, does not mean anything.
There are statements that there is physical evidence, but no details from a neutral physician.
Presumably living people are the subject of these allegations. I'm really concerned about CZ's position here, both as a home for non-neutral statements, and, in the case of living people, liability. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)