Talk:Christina Krüsi/Archive 1

Archive 1

Request to combine and shorten Book/Doc paragraphs into one

SolaryVeritas NYWest (and any other interested editors) After reading the discussion on Courtesy, I have been thinking. After reviewing 'Courtesy' discussion and the rest of the Talk notations on this page, I am requesting that the two paragraphs (one on book/other on documentary) be combined into a short version. I would like to see a short, concise and fair summary of both. Fair in the sense to Wycliffe/SIL (since I believe Krusi has stated the book was not about blaming them, etc.), and to Krusi herself. I would like SolaryVeritas to do a draft paragraph on this Talk Page? Would you mind doing it Solary? We could put a new section "Further Reading" with links itemized. That way the viewers of the page can dig further and make up their own minds and leave the rest to Krusi and Wycliffe/SIL. I am hoping this offer will work for all concerned.Kennsington UK (talk) 06:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting offer. But not I think this page is about being "fair." Except it is real story. Really, I like both paragraphs and they are different parts of story and do not go together. You might try, but I don't agree. I seems like you want not to have so much information. If it is missing, then it won't agree. SolaryVeritas (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. It is nothing about having too much information though and yes a book that must be portrayed in respect to its subjects which the paragraphs seem to do. Thanks for feedback Solary! (I get an idea and go with it sometimes!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennsington UK (talk • contribs) 16:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Basic Courtesy

Kennsington UK; This last edit was a bit of a test. You haven't responded to the "Talk" page in 2 weeks, and yet when I finally made some changes to the page, you immediately made revisions that changed the intent of my edits. Thank you for adding comments on the Talk page, but you have given no time for response before making page changes. Neither do you make substantial answers to about 7 questions directed at your previous changes. You need to do your homework.SolaryVeritas (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

SolaryVeritas, as a basic courtesy please do not say that Krusi "claims" anything to do with repressed memories. In English, which is the language of this page, it means to take ownership of. The word should be 'states' or 'talks about', etc. (as in an 'interview') - two different meanings. Also, on the paragraph in question, the first reference is incorrect. The author of the article introduced the work with the word repression in it but Krusi does not state it nor 'claim'. Therefore the words 'claim' and the first reference have been changed. I moved the reference to the end of the page. NYWest (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

SolaryVeritas, since the page debut you have made significant changes without any discussions and assume that Kennsington_UK is the only one monitoring this page. There are many people who wish to make changes and they are welcome to it. You are one editor and have added some very valuable references and balance, and improved the page, however, you are difficult to discuss things with since it is evident you are searching to discredit the living person on this page. Your edits are continually about finding 'repression' which you did after 4 months - what over 20+ interviews you dug up one. Great for you. I ask you for the same respect for the material provided by others.NYWest (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Ahhh, NYWest. Long time, no see...or hear... Okay 2nd thing 1st. I think the order of the references has become different. Allow me to reorder. I believe you deleted my reference to "journalists" several months ago even though it was accurate and well documented, so we may have lost the proper sequence. However, MigrosMag, which was one of first articles about CK after release of SRF film, does quote her "stating/saying" that she repressed. And about the definition of word "claim." Yes, it means "take ownership," however it has other meaning, that of making a disputable statement of fact. This is perfectly good English usage and speaks to facts that CK's parents nor other adults (teacher) knew of abuse at the time, and also SIL man's skeptical response to movie. I hope you don't mind if I reinstate original word "claim."

One questions, since you are very aware of CK's thinking, do you know if English or other language translation will soon be published? This would help my not so good German...? SolaryVeritas (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Kennsington UK edits, one at a time

SolaryVeritas: Some changes to correct facts in a manner fair and verifiable. Your recent edits are acceptable and assume you are also open to discussion on other problems. I also would appreciate that you stick to the facts on the page and not past edits? Sincerely NYWest (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I am hoping it is possible to establish facts here. Ok. Let us see... I will work the way through points below, but won't do all immediately. SolaryVeritas (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Not having much clarification from recent edits by Kennsington UK. So to just begin with one issue:

1. Top of page, 2nd p, says "Between 2001, Krusi was approached by Wycliffe/SIL..." Up until Kennsington UK posted this revision, the date is always 2003 when Krusi was in contact/w SIL (and not Wycliffe). And it was Krusi and friends who approached SIL, not other way. I would like to know citation/reference for this date and attribution. Who and where is the initial 2001 contact date of 2001? Note also that the sentence is incomplete: "Between 2001 [and what?]"?

SolaryVeritas: Krusi received a letter from SIL/Wycliffe in 2001 to attend Santa Barbara meeting. No correspondence with victims before that nor idea other victims had approached Wycliffe/SIL.Kennsington UK (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Kennsington UK - This is quite interesting. CK, in book, tells of 'break-down' in 2002, in summer, I think. This date of 2001 and the SB meeting (where is SB?) is not in the book is it? Were other victims at this meeting? I'm unsure of reliability, but am open to hearing evidence here or more explanation. SolaryVeritas (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, NYWest has agreeable idea to place most recent edits at top of Talk page. Kennsington UK apparently has not read through the text. So I have moved the most recent string below this post. We should do this way to make inefficiencies. SolaryVeritas (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

SolaryVertias Great, top or bottom, fine.Kennsington UK (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

2. "SIL conducted an investigation [with] Wycliffe [offering] an apology..." This is an interesting edit, but it confuses the time-line. Can Kennsington UK or someone else can point us to the document where Wycliffe (America or Switzerland) apologized in 2005? Wycliffe Switzerland's apology on their website only appears after publication of Krusi's book. There is no public expression of apology from the SIL. So who made apologies and when did they make them? It is unclear. That is why I think it is best to mention the apologies in the chronology that they appear publicly, meaning along/w book publication and expose film and not in the same paragraph as the investigation. SolaryVeritas (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

SolaryVeritas

I will re-word sentence, the website notes apology and is legally binding on there partand source is verified. No question. You have had trouble accepting this for a while it appears so please lets move on.Kennsington UK (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

K-UK, Wikipedia is an dictionary, is not a blog. Getting details accurately does not "move on" until accomplished. What is insist on is accurate timeline of events. Wycliffe Switzerland does not issue public statement until release of CK book in 2013. If you read carefully, the "Opinion" by director Wiessmann is not actually apology. Indication of apology only appeared on website after SRF movie in April 2014. I do not doubt that apologies were made to individual at time of investigating, but not they were made public until April 2014. SolaryVeritas (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

3. Diary. Kennsington UK edits CK page to say the mother of Krusi's remembers talks with daughter about diary at age 16. But the #12 footnote links to a article authors by Krusi's parents and published by Wycliffe Switzerland, in that the parents are quite clear their knowledge of nothing of Krusi's story of abuse until 2003 when the SIL investigation began it. My feeling about the diary that it is self-serving and existing is not verifiable. Krusi mentions diary in book, but all reference to it in Wikipedia page should be careful to note it is Krusi's uncorroborated story. On the other side, what is corroborated and publicly available are personal words of her parents and other adults, in various documents and interviews, that they were unaware of the abuse until 2005. SolaryVeritas (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

SolaryVeritas

The diary is always mentioned as unverifiable but will remain if stated as such and it played a large role to ensure memories were not repressed as you appear to be continually obsess over. Kennsington UK (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

K-UK, CK's book does not claim diary as unverifiable, but ok, if mentioned in book. Your second sentence, however, is unsupportable, since this is not a rationale that appears in book, and it's function of "ensuring memories not repressed" cannot be verified. Discovring that is "original research" which is not permitted in Wikipedia. Maybe if CK one day posts diary on her professional website, or take in journal interview. There would be some proof. Until then, there is contradictory statements of parents that they knew nothing. And Wikipedia is good place to make both views visible. SolaryVeritas (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

4. Letters from mum (maybe father, but who knows...) Addition by Kennsington UK: "Krusi contends...she received several letters of support from her parents (letter...not made public)." One must ask a question. First where/when did Krusi make these comments? This should be verifiable and with citation. As stated by K UK, one could draw conclusion that this is personal communication/w Krusi. I will ask if this is true, and if not, to please provide reference to statement by CK. Also, letters are not public, therefore technically unverifiable and thus without 3rd party corroboration of statement, would not be allowed in Wiki page.Kennsington UK (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

SolaryVeritas

Letters are a fact. Your "mum/father" reference is rather unprofessional but it shows how personally you are attached to the subject. No formal reference is available which I already mentioned. Move on? (ps. also you continue to make the parents non supportive BEFORE publication, this is absolutely not true).Kennsington UK (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Kennsington UK (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

5. Krusi acknowledges repressed memories: In same place as 4 (Letters...) above, Kennsington UK deletes previous content stating Krusi "acknowledges...repressed memories." The removed statement is well documented in four following footnotes and there is no need to remove. There is comment by K UK in Edit note about exaggerated reference of 2.5 hr therapy. I would ask K UK to read more carefully as there is never this reference in CK Wiki page. K UK appears to have misunderstood English grammar construction and reference and thus is confused. If I miss this, please correct, but with citations please. Krusi, in book says 2 therapist were visited which do not accept care. CK's interacts/w friend Gudrun is commonly called "self-therapy" in professional literature. There is no exaggeration of amount of time CK and GR spend in this activity. By own statements, is a lengthy process. SolaryVeritas (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

SolaryVeritas

I will be checking ALL your references to this because this is unsubstantiated and Krusi absolutely denies having said or intended to say 'repressed' - this was confirmed by a number of outside sources. Therefore,by your focus on this in the past,from what I can gather,is in direct conflict to a 'living person' reputation.Kennsington UK (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

K-UK; Actually Krusi use the word "repressed" (in German) same as many reporters, so indeed, it is substantiated. While interest is in your comments about Krusi's denial or lack of intention, this indicate 'original research' which is not permitted. There is no conflict with anything if, in fact, Krusi experience was represented by her and others, in publications, as "repression." SolaryVeritas (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

SolaryVeritas: thank you for additional work, I think it reads better, however, you made the statement "Krusi's claims of repressed memories", however, after reading the articles it is not so. Krusi is speaking of "suppressed" memories, not "repressed." Since it has been noted since the beginning of this page, from what I can tell, she denies using the word 'repressed' so one has to question it somewhat and error on the side of caution for a Living Person, as I am sure logic dictates. Overall, I think the page is a fair portrayal and allows the viewers to read the article references for further investigation. Thank you.Kennsington UK (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Kennsington UK, Actually, "repression", (more accurately "verdrängt" in German) is Krusi's words. From MigrosMag "The Way Back from Hell," here are words from Krusi: "Ich habe es jahrelang verdrängt und geschwiegen." (fn 17 in CK page) That seems a clear statement. You seem insistent that this word be changed. I'm not sure why. Krusi's clarification that she meant the "suppression" is "original research on your part (and others like Coco) and is not admissible in Wikipedia.SolaryVeritas (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

6. Documentary vs Exposé: Kennsington UK changed wording from "exposé" to "documentary." This is previously resolved discussion and I'm not sure why K UK has brought it up again. To make clear:

Definition of "Exposé" is "(Journalism & Publishing) an article, book, or statement that discloses a scandal, crime, etc." (From TheFreeDictionary.com)

Definition of "Documentary" is "(Broadcasting) a factual film or television programme about an event, person, etc, presenting the facts with little or no fiction." (From TheFreeDictionary.com)

THere are elements of documentary in the SRF film but term "exposé" fits the production most precisely. It is a narrowly focused film attempting to expose a crime. It provides very little in the way of documentation or alternative views and uses Krusi almost exclusively as its primary source. SolaryVeritas (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

SolaryVeritas:

When SF1(well respective network) calls it a "documentary" , it remains so for all further references.Kennsington UK (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

K-UK

I think SF1 can call what they want, but "documentary" is a bit self-serving, don't you think? To observe that SF1 isn't disinterested party. They make profit on business deal here. I don't think that is wrong, just important to keep in mind.SolaryVeritas (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

7. Film, not book: In sentence following "documenatry/expose" issue above, Kennsington UK changes the reference of sentence from the SRF film to Krusi's book. The new edit reads, "Along with detailing her experiences in Bolivia, Krusi also claims in her book..." The subject of the previous version was the SRF film, and reads, "In the film, Krusi narrates the claim made in her book..." In this, K UK completely changes focus of sentence and entire paragraph. The first was about film, and the edit is now about book. This importance is clear because SRF film makes Krusi's claim of ritual child sacrifice (in the book) the central scene in the film. It is this claim, highlights by SRF, that seems to prompted Wycliffe in Switzerland to make bigger apologies and more, but also begin to undermine Krusi's story with small hints of doubt (ref to SIL guy in film who does not hold Krusi entirely credible).

So, conclusion, after way-to-long analysis, is K UK edit is poor reading of intent of paragraph as whole. SolaryVeritas (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

SolaryVeritas The amount of edits you have done over the space of this page appear that its hard to 'keep up' with your edits when your facts are not always 100% correct. I apologize if grammar or wording isn't up to your standards however it is not your page so not your reputation? Again, lets move on to ensure the page has the facts at least. Kennsington UK (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

8. Same edits once again: The previous 7 comments were in response to Kennsington UK edits with date and time-stamp 03:41, 19 January 2015. Those were preceded by a edit with time-stamp/date of "03:06, 19 January 2015." The issues in this edit are similar to those above: 1) inaccurate date (2001) for initial contact btwn Krusi and SIL, 2) SIL approaches Krusi instead of Krusi approaches SIL, and 3) "documentary vs "expose." I have shown above how K UK gets these mistaken in each case. This awareness is worth saying. These are only two contributions K UK has made on this page and on the entire Wikipedia. I think K UK is "not there."

It would still be good to have feed back, but these edits and several by NYWest will revert (undo) in the next days without discusion. SolaryVeritas (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

SolaryVeritas

This 'expose' above is a little over the top for a living person biography but at least reflects how attached you are to the book/documentary topic. I am glad you expressed them but it appears you have no intention of changing your views and so why pretend to be 'open' to suggestions? I have read your past discussions and other editors appear correct in balancing your edits. Not sure about the extent of these 8 paragraphs. Wow. Kennsington UK (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Kennsington UK (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

As well, I will refuse to respond in any length to defend my edits to the extent you would like. I apologize if that does not meet your requirements.Kennsington UK (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion Krusi edits

SolaryVeritas

Thank you for request for discussion. As to grammar, you have made some edits that duplicated and conflicted with information provided in the previous paragraph. I am also to blame along with other editors for not correcting the full page at the same time. I have had discussions about this page and wiki edits to date done by you and believe the majority are fair to Krusi. You have also helped with new references that are certainly appreciated. One concern, however, lies with Wycliffe website links as verifiable. A lawyer has informed me that any information put on a corporate website is liable under law, and as such, any discussion about Krusi mentioned and discussed by Wycliffe is valid (http://de.wycliffe.ch/wycliffe-schweiz/aktuell/stellungnahme-zum-buch-christina-kruesi/antworten-auf-ihre-fragen/ and http://de.wycliffe.ch/wycliffe-schweiz/aktuell/stellungnahme-zum-buch-christina-kruesi/). As well, Wycliffe notes the SIL report was initiated by themselves and 'findings' led to apologies to Krusi and other victims which verify the abuse (regardless that no details were provided), as well, led to further measures commenced as early as 2003. The website also provides opportunity to contact Hannes Wiesmann directly to verify and discuss information. Moreover, wiki pages are often sourced by links to websites, to articles hopefully written by reputable authors whose sources are not disclosed. Importantly I feel confident you will agree that Krusi's wiki profile page must be a "fair" portrayal, which includes her book and documentary. At the same time, edits to new text should be balanced. I, and other interested editors have to try and find a balance as well for this page so as not to create conflict. I for one, will make a better attempt at working with your concerns so we can reach a fair and reasonable outcome. Thank you for your contributions to date. NYWest (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

NYWest and SolaryVeritas: Please note I have corrected a number of entries that were mistakes (incorrect facts) I and the other editors will reviewing references this week to smooth out minor errors. Kennsington UK (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

––Responding to Kennnsington UK: Frankly, this makes very little sense. Whether what Wycliffe says is valid or legal or whatever isn't to the point. The requirement for verifiability is that the documentation can be accessed. There are no copies of reports or apologies, only Wycliffe's statements on their website. So that is all that can be said. The SIL has made no public statements nor have they provided any documents. Krusi's only document is her book. That and interviews, journalist articles and t.v. show is what there is to work with. They are "valid" because they exist and can be shared, not because someone or some organization said they did.

And by-the-way, someone removed a "valid" source that I included, which was a document from Krusi's parents in which they state that they did not know of the abuse until Krusi reported it in 2003.

Also, I can find no source that says SIL sent letters in 2001. If Kensington can provide that source, it would be helpful, otherwise his/her credibility in making "corrections" is somewhat attenuated. Also Kennnsington, collaboration is not viewed favorably by WIKIPEDIA. I'm questioning what you mean by your statement that you and other editors are "reviewing references?" Really? SolaryVeritas (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

SolarisVeritas: It appears,from your previous edits and discussions, that you have approached this page with rather a subjective view, with a tendency to 'undermine' Krusi's book and documentary. This appears to be worked through and the references are an asset to the page. Your previous edits will be treated with the same respect that other editors have/will make. Please remember this is a talk page and as such threats about Wiki boundaries are not appropriate. The majority of authors have a wiki page (and in this case concerns to Krusi's Foundation and Artist achievements)which offers a brief view of their life, with out damaging their reputation by sticking to the facts,this should be the goal for all editors for this page. If you wish to remove the letters sent to Krusi (since they cannot be linked/verified) then the relationship with her and parents will be expanded through other facts. Also, please do not question time periods between edits as disrespect for your questions, that is not the case.Kennsington UK (talk) 06:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Kennsington, please elaborate on your meaning "rather subjective." It helps if you would provide actual instances of subjectivity so that we all evaluate what you are talking about. For your part, the word "undermine" is a rather subjective reference with the attached implication that the purpose of this page is to promote Krusi's book. Despite the grammatical problems, your sentence above which reads, "The majority of author have a wiki page...," seems to indicate that you think Wikipedia is free advertising for publishers. Can you point me to the Wiki policies that encourage this behavior?

I am curious about your rhetoric. You talk as if you have personally taken charge of this page and are now the designated editor of all future contributions. Is that true? Please forgive me for not realizing this. I didn't get to vote.

It is also hard to understand what you mean about "removing the letters sent to Krusi." Can you please rephrase? SolaryVeritas (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

NYWest edits - Edit Quality, Rationale and Verifyability

Refering to 6 edits by NYWest on 24 Dec 2014: Most of these edit use poor English syntax and lower the quality of readability. They do not improve article that I can see. There is no discussion of about rationale for changes besides edit summary. Will revert unless good explanation is provided.

Several sentence about Wycliffe reports are moved. The reason these sentence were not at beginning of paragraph is that the statements/w the information was not issued until CK's biography (2013) and they were made by Wycliffe Switzerland leader who states that he was not involved in the investigation. To place these statements at first in paragraph suggests to reader this information was available at the conclusion of the 2005 investigation. It is more appropriate in terms of chronology of events to keep sentence where they were. In opinion of mine, current edit creates confusion more than clarity.

KYWest does delete statement that CK claims "remain unverifiable and are contested." This is a point of fact. If NYWest can provide verifiable statement, that would solve issue, but unless that is done, the statement should remain. Examples of "contested" are included with sources. As above, this statement will revert unless good rationale is given. SolaryVeritas (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I have made the edits as noted above. Please discuss before hitting "undo." SolaryVeritas (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

References to be corrected

I have noted two problems with references, if I could get some assistance? 1. "Dec 2014" inserted on some references that were taken out and then put back by another user. Could we have the references edited back. Also, the reference #21:"http://www.blick.ch/people-tv/tv/vergewaltigungsopfer-kehrt-fuer-srf-dok-zum-ort-des-grauens-zurueck-warum-tun-sie-sich-das-an-frau-kruesi-id2815762.html" is untranslatable using a translate link and appears to be redundant of the previous "Blick.ch" interview from Reference#7: "http://www.blick.ch/people-tv/schweiz/missionars-tochter-kruesi-als-kind-missbraucht-in-der-sonntagsschule-vergewaltigten-sie-mich-id2358025.html". Since the Wiki page is in English, readers should be able to access readable text. JonathonWings (talk) 07:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Need a better reference than "Dec 2014." You ought to find whole reference.

Regarding being able to access readable text, you call into question the whole project. Krusi's book is only in German (and Polish) and not accessible to English readers of Wiki. In fact, it wonders why this whole page is on the Wiki and does not show up on the German language Wiki. No. I think providing reference is enough. Wiki does not promise to teach people to read German. That is up to them. SolaryVeritas (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Wiki cannot be a disclaimer of author works

SolaryVeritas insertion of paragraph taken out by NYWest/"et al" appear justified. Wiki is not a place for users to place to justify books/documentaries or disclaim their works, but instead to offer a short review of them and balance the page, esp. for living persons. Also, your references to "satanic rituals" from sources indicating that the majority of SR claims are false is a judgement statement that I believe should be left to investigation by Wycliffe/SIL (which I believe is being undertaken at the moment). The remainder of the paragraph is also unnecessary and does appear to purposely undermine Krusi's reputation. I apologize for your efforts in vain however I must go along with the new edits. The page also reads better and focus placed on other topics. JonathonWings (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Tag

Viewmont Viking thank you for tag on Krusi page. SolaryVeritas has now proved without a doubt that his efforts have been to ruin Krusi's reputation. I see NYWest has removed it. I have saved copies of the paragraph. I have also saved all copies of all text sabotage efforts by SolaryVeritas before the Dec. 15th and will now pursue user will be blocked. As well I have copies of this user calling the child murder "Fantastic" (as in 'unbelievalbe')showing subjectivity and copies of text on other user edit talk pages indicating his intent to ensure Krusi's page will negatively affect her reputation, as well, become a forum to decipher each page of the book and documentary as though the page is a "literary critic forum" for his views on her book and the SRF1 documentary. He also has informed me the child murder must be listed as a 'Satanic Ritual' and has also categorized the the page as memory/memory disorders to further diminish Krusi's reputation.KHBibby (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"Alleged" vs. verified abuses

SolaryVeritas: I took out one of your 'alleged' abuses since Krusi's page is largely about her experiences of abuse, which forms the basis of her book and documentary, and sourced by both SIL and Wycliffe Switzerland quotes you helped with on the page. I also inserted a text that 'Krusi states she is one of the victims.' By saying her abuses are 'alleged' is, in turn, also saying her book, interviews and documentary are also 'alleged' - this is not in keeping with Wiki's biographies of living persons (e.g."Given their [the page's] potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times"). Krusi has stated that your insertions of 'alleged' abuse are offensive. Please advise. Your other edits are fine though. Thank you! Coco353 (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Coco353, I reinserted the term "alleged" because all claims, including SIL and Wycliffe Switzerland have some difficulty meeting Wikipedia guidelines on verifiability and notability. We can verify that Krusi and Wycliffe made the statements, but cannot come to any conclusion about the abuse. BTW. SIL does not appear to have made any public remarks except Mr Robinson in SRF1 film and in those he discredits Krusi to some extent. Another criteria for BLP is that it shouldn't focus on a single event. I think you demonstrate that the Krusi article is problem with this regard: "Krusi's page is largely about her experiences of abuse..." I let that pass for now, but it puts the question of verifiability into focus. Krusi no doubt is sincere. But on her side, she makes very offensive statements about SIL, Wycliffe, missionaries, the church, and those unnamed people she says abused her. Thus, the status of the truth of Krusi's claims is the most important aspect of this article. SolaryVeritas (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

SolaryVeritas: I will be checking on this but thank you (I would like the text/etc on abuse to be shortened as well so will look into it). Coco353 (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Deleted reference to recovered memories

Noted rational for deleting reference to recovered memories: Krusi kept diary since 13. Is this diary published and publicly available? Suggest if not, the diary is not a legitamate source and then need to restore deleted reference. SolaryVeritas (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing - Diary

KHBibby, I've restored concern about sourcing of Krusi's diary. Krusi says she wrote in her diary at 13. She claims she wrote about abuse. But the diary is not available. There are many documents related to this story that are relevant, but they are not published or are unavailable and therefore cannot be cited as sources. Krusi's diary is quite similar. Also, existence of diary is not an argument against recovered memories. Krusi's book describes year-plus effort to get memories. This is also done/w friends. I think reference to RM is objectively defensible and important contribution to entry.SolaryVeritas (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this article self-serving?

Wondering if this article is self-serving? Are there other viewers who have thoughts? Except for ref to Krusi's book and comments by Wycliffe, other citations all link to Krusi's book. Wycliffe states Krusi was abused but will not accept Krusi version. Additional verification is only Krusi's word. Indication of recovered memory and ritual abuse narrative are too obvious not to raise questions, yet KHBibby seems determined to delete any connection to RM and SRA SolaryVeritas (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Ivory Coast and Marriage One

What organization did Krusi work with in the Ivory Coast? Was this with Wycliffe too?

Also, this article implies Krusi's number one marriage ended in 2002 before Krusi started addressing recovered memories? Or did marriage end as result of Krusi's work to uncover abuse? If the second view, then the way article is written could be interpreted as self-serving. It is important to have dates here. SolaryVeritas (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Coco393 deleting Article Talk discussion questions.

Coco393 - Really not in spirit of Wiki to muzzle discussion of article content. I not this is done/w KHBibby and unnamed contributor. Hope this is not joint effort? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SolaryVeritas (talk • contribs) 03:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability

There are a number of deficiencies with Krusi's allegations of abuse in this page, most having to do with WB:Verifiability.

1. Krusi makes extravagant claims about watching a child sacrifice and being forced to drink human blood. This cannot be verified. The missionary organization Wycliffe specifically does not endorse Krusi's account. It says these are Krusi's memories of what happened and refuses to comment.
2. Mission organization "confirms" that abuse happened, but offers no description of what happened. In any case, they offer no evidence that lets confirmation happen.

Several reasons exist to question Krusi's claims:

1. Krusi repressed the memory for about 30 years and describes a process of memory recovery with friends. Memory recovery is generally not allowed as evidence since it easily contaminates forensic process.
2. Krusi's memory of child sacrifice are standard type of Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA) accusation, which none have been verified. These kinds of accusations have history of going back to Europe in 15th through 18th C and the denomination wars after the Reformation. They extended to America (Salem witch trials).

We could make a case that no abuse stories by Krusi are verifiable and thus, according to Wikipedia standards should not be allowed. What can be verified is that Krusi wrote a book and filmed documentary that makes these claims. Otherwise this page serves primarily as endorsement of Krusi and her book. To demonstrate this point, it is only necessary to point out that skeptical evidence and dis confirming evidence is being consistently deleted from this page. SolaryVeritas (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Coco353, You removed much of previous work on this site. We have gone from 23 references to 9. Was that intended? You mentioned the page was "sabotaged" but I'm not sure to what you refer? It wasn't me that removed all the text. SolaryVeritas (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Major cleanup

Edit summary under way to clean page up and focus page on notable achievements, make it more readable, simpler and well referenced. I have the permission of C. Krusi to do this. Thank you! Coco353 (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

If you're editing with the "permission" of the subject, proceed carefully: an editor working at the direction of the subject usually has a conflict of interest with the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Same as above. There is very serious content controversy behind Krusi's account. Much is not public due to the confidential nature of the topic.SolaryVeritas (talk) 04:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Questioning Major Edits - Not sure what the purpose was...

This note is to log contested issues: New revised page created by Coco353 on 05-12-2014. Result seems to be editing out most of submissions made by this editor. Coco353 has already deleted a well sourced and cited addition (repressed memory/Migros Mag) without adequate rationale. SolaryVeritas (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Querying Krusi

I assume the new and improved CK article is compete. As with the first version, it makes Krusi sound like Mother-Teresa. That is generally a signal that only one side of the story is told. I think there is bigger story. More controversy. Please allow for some questions:

1. Where is the information? All information comes from Krusi. Wycliffe claims to have have confirmed abuse, but offers no information. They decline to confirm Krusi's version. Maybe they hide something? Krusi's parents voice skeptical. Hugo Stamm suggest they doubt parts of story. There are 17 or 18 other victims. Where are they? Why do they not provide any statement? Does husband no. 1 have something to say?
2. Does the claim of "ritual child murder" (Name is semantic game. In research literature is called Satanic Ritual Abuse or SRA) not raise eyebrows? This question was raised before, but worth doing again in V-2. All Satanic Ritual Abuse narratives are result of repressed/recovered memories and none (zero) have ever found evidence. So what is implication?
3. A related question is about therapy. "Not repressed memory because of diary," says Krusi (In private conversation to Coco353.) But diary is not public, and also in "secret language." But in Migros Magazin.ch quotes Krusi saying, I repressed it. So Krusi says it, but she says she didn't say it. What??? I question if source has reached threshold of WP:Verifiability. I think the diary argument be removed. Does not conform to Wiki standards.
4. Related explanation why is not repressed memory is story that Krusi told mother at 16. Hmmm. Wycliffe Switzerland Journal Ubersetzen (March 2013) has statement by mother in article called "Dennoch." Mother says she never knew. The argument in Wiki article is un-sourced and incorrect or at least contested.
5. One last question: I am still waiting to hear about what organization Krusi worked/w in Cote d'Ivoire... Maybe Coco353 can call Krusi.

I expect all these questions to be fixed in Wiki article, but will give time for others to demonstrate good research and balance. SolaryVeritas (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

COI Tag

With this edit from Coco353, "Edit summary under way to clean page up and focus page on notable achievements, make it more readable, simpler and well referenced. I have the permission of C. Krusi to do this." This is a clear indication that the Conflict of Interest tag is needed. VViking_TalkEdits 07:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

SolarisVeritas continually undermined efforts by KHBibby user. SolarisVeritas has continually made edits towards defamation of Krusi. KHBibby started the page independently of Krusi, and then requested by SolarisVeritas to contact her about a date dispute and later the same thing for Coco353. In turn, through email contact with her website, it was requested that Krui review the material for liability concerns caused by SolarisVeritas. As well, KHBibby has evidence that SolarisVeritas is a not an objective user. Coco353 (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

COI and Disruptive editing

Note recent deletion of sourced and legitimate content sub-titled "Status of Abuse Claims" by NYWest as well as negative comments by Coco 353 and KHBibby. Coco353, I believe you have stated openly your relationship/w Krusi. Please read WP:COI. If this applies to you, please take necessary measures. NYWest, it was quite disappointing that your first edits on this article consist of deleting a contribution I made. You have also deleted significant content that is relevant and sourced. I will restore those deletions. In the future, please discuss major deletions prior to taking action. I dispute your contentions stated in the Summary line of your edit submission. SolaryVeritas (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Reputation of Living Persons and Disruptive editing

SolaryVeritas: Your disappointment (re above) is irrelevant. This is Krusi's life story, not a board to discuss SRA or updates to focus the page towards with an unbalanced text. The page is now more balanced in a fair manner to both Krusi and Wycliffe/SIL, and more focused on her other accomplishments. A balance must remain of objective edits. I have reviewed all your edits since the page debut and discussed with other users your edits over the past 2 weeks. Please refrain from personal attacks on other users trying to be respectful to a living persons.NYWest (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Edits for contested claims and verifyability issues

Have reworked Book/Documentary section to include concerns about verifyability of Krusi's claims including repressed memories, existence of diary, conversation/w mother. There were some citations that are redundant - removed two. May be more. SolaryVeritas (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

"Repressed" - English translation of German word "verdrängt."

Coco353 - I hate to be picky, but the German word "verdrängt" is translated into English, "repressed." I believe this was Freud's preferred term (verdrängt) for the concept he dreamed up. For back-up, I will refer to Google Translate, which uses Corpus Text algorithums as primary means of of translation. That means the selection of the word is based on millions of instances of the use of "verdrängt" in context of German usage. Thank you for other edits which improve readability. SolaryVeritas (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Mistake

SolaryVeritas: I apologize, I believe I must have done edits to "your edits" using the first version of your page where you had revised 700+character changes. I did this to see what changes had been made - it didn't work and I forgot to clear out of the page before putting in mine. Perhaps in the future all editors should try to save their edits more often so that others can review more quickly. Just a thought.Kennsington UK (talk) 06:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

SolaryVeritas and Kennsington_UK: That is fine with me. NYWest (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Repressed Memories and request for discussion with other editors

Hi SolaryVeritas and NYWest: I believe that Solary has made good points in bringing the articles to light, however, NYWest has adequate reasons to be concerned that the use of "Krusi claims" does not properly reflect the sources used. SO...it is obvious that the phrases pertaining to 'repressed' memories is controversial, and therefore lets begin a discussion (perhaps Solary can refrain from using the word 'claims' until after the discussion?). Here are some direct Wiki Guidelines pertaining to the above:

• Especially with controversial issues, it is imperative important or controversial statements - preferably both sides in the sense of balance - to impose an indication of source;
• Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view;
• Please remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced immediately;
• Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups;
• Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people;
• Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy.

Both SolaryV/NYWest,and other editors such as myself, must therefore be able to word the manner in which the controversial phase is presented. SolaryVeritas could you add your throughts and then NYWest/other editors can respond? I am positive we can get this solved soon! Thank-U.Kennsington UK (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Kennsington UK, This reads very well if we agree that there is a problem. I don't agree. If you can demonstrate why controversy exists with issue of "claims" and "repression" I will listen. This must reference written, 3rd party accounts. Otherwise here I give thoughts:

I do not agree that NYWest has an adequate reason to be concerned about the of use of "Krusi claims." It is evident that CK does "claim" the things I have highlighted. "Claim" is good English usage and is not controversial to say. The topic "repression" might be controversial, but is not controversial that CK used this word to reporters, nor that reporters write this word in articles. I have provided sufficient sources to adequately make verification. The quotes are very direct with no nuance they are making controversy when they use word.

Controversial is that CK disagrees with use of "repression." Where does she do this? NYWest says this, but since this information is "original research" it cannot be cited or used in a Wikipedia article. If you have written sources that oppose use of word "repression" please do give them. You must demonstrate that there is, in fact, controversy. It would seem from this comment that you more worry about CK publicity than accurate article. Controversy is manufactured only by you and other editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SolaryVeritas (talk • contribs) 20:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Kennsington UK and SolaryVeritas - I am on holidays in Upstate and using WIFI, so will address these issues when I return on Monday. Please refrain from the word 'publicity' SolaryV - and why would I know about a book publication - it is not relevant to making sure your usage is accurate. Regardless, I will respond soon and we can come to an agreement so this doesn't continue. Regards, NY NYWest (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

What's the deal with repression?

Kennsington UK, let me just ask why you are opposing to the word "repression?" Krusi uses it. Same as many reporters. Is this something to hide? This seems to be a problem of the text. I think it is quite important to indicate the origin of CK's memories. Many will be interested. (By the way, the edits of yours are not grammatical and need to be corrected.

SolaryVeritas - see below - many will also be interested that you are attempting to control this page to your own agenda in many respects - you appear to making this page your own personal 'hobbie' and not considerate of Krusi as Living Person - all Wiki pages of Living Persons require protocols to be followed. Your facts will stand on their own, so leave it at that. Respectfully, Kennsington UK (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, I have discovered that CK and first husband worked in Cote de Ivoire with the same mission - the SIL. This is quite interesting. Why would CK volunteer to work with same mission that caused to much trauma? SolaryVeritas (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

SolaryVeritas: Investigating the life of Krusi outside of research on your off-time? What gives? You want to discuss the problem with your text then lets remain objective. For now, NYNYWest (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

SolaryVeritas: You consistantly talk about grammar, however, it is evident that you are mistaken about the English translation of words. For example, "Claim" - also, as noted above, some words are missing in your sentances. I do not critize your edits, as they stand, for grammar, but in the past, I have noticed you have made quick edits or something and misused words. Regardless, you have revealed a biased that was not evident up until now. Why in the world would you write something like who she married, SIL or not - are you saying ALL SIL members are abusers? What she did at 18 or whenever she got married has nothing to do with an adults choice to publicly disclose what OTHERS did to her. I am very dissappointed that you are losing your objectivity. Also, I have remained respectful of your edits in the past, please do the same with other editors. I also cannot do my wiki editiing in the timeline you wish. Moreover, you are now acusing Krusi of a 'cover-up' and yet she has never contacted me or requested an edit on this page nor told me, or any other editor for that I know of, to change anything. Please re-consider your discussions on this Talk Page in order to help keep everyone on track and respect a Living Person. Kennsington UK (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not clearly understood in everything written here, Kennsington UK, but I try. With apologies, but my English is not mistaken. I do not take time with "Talk" comments, but text in Wiki article is carefully checked. Re Krusi marriage(s), it is not important who or or when. This means nothing to me. I have asked about work in Cote d'Ivoire, however, because the oddity is that organization linkage is not mentioned. In any case, no published statement is found yet, so cannot make point in article. Other points you make, I do not answer. Thank you for clarification of Krusi contact. I still ask for your reason why repression is considered something to defame living person, Krusi? This has not been explained to me. SolaryVeritas (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kennsington UK on a number of points above, and SolaryVeritas has provided grounds for being blocked - regardless from the statements provided above - but regardless I have no problem with the resurfacing of repressed memories in three of the articles. The blog is out because Krusi was never interviewed by the blogger, nor does he state his source (the date was the release of the documentary I believe and a number of other interviews appear to have been conducted around that same month - I am assuming he borrowed the text from one of them). Regardless, it is an invalid source. I also expanded on the fact that Krusi states repeatedly that abuse went on for six years and she witnessed other men/women abuse as well. I don't have any details of Cote d'Ivoire and nor does it seem relevant unless you are SolaryVeritas. Krusi's past, from her perspective, are detailed in her book and documentary, and this page is to cover the basics of what they contain. NYWest (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Correction of References to Repressed memories

SolaryVeritas: I have changed the references from 'three interviews' to 'two interviews' since Krusi was never interviewed about for Blog and as I have noted previously the referrals to Krusi's supposed statements must of come from the SF references. Until the Blog can be verified to the contrary it is not a valid reference. I think you will have to agree with this since you are aware of the criteria for references. I would also note both the other two references come from one publication, SF, which further isolates them as coming, in a sense, from one publisher (I will not edit them, however, and they stand). Thank you in advance for objectivity in this, NYWest (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Hugo Stamm interviews CK in 2013/July (Martyrdom in the jungle) and talks about repression. "Jahrzehntelang hat sie ihre Geschichte verdrängt aus Angst, niemand würde ihr glauben." I have not explored all interviews, but there are many. It is guessed that many refer to repression/verdrangt. But this makes the number back to three. But I must admit that you are correct and that blogs are not approved source in Wiki. Good work. SolaryVeritas (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back KHBibby

Have no heard KHBibby since December. Wish there was discussion before making new edits. Like, was not it 18 victim? Dear me, and this was finished, I think, many months ago. SolaryVeritas (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

SolaryVeritas - No big thing and I changed it to 18 victims and the descriptions about abuse, inserting 'claims' into it as well. My minor edits balance slightly slanted text but very little was needed actually. So that is good. I have followed the talk discussions for Krusi over the past months - that is that thing about Wiki, others can review behind the scenes, including the police, so no editing trail. Krusi's page actually looks fine overall, however, and your references sound. Great job!!! KHBibby (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

KHBibby - Thank you, but am not sure it is compliment. I be sure to watching for the police... In any case, little is to edit. You added more details of account of abuse, I note. If this is direction to go, it is maybe most important to put in specific story of what CK's calls most difficult story, that of ritual child sacrifice. This should stand out, included being sacramental drinking of child blood and fake missionaries who are really Satanic priests. What are you thinking? SolaryVeritas (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

SolaryVeritas: - It was a compliment, and to NYWest as well. The abuse detail was to make up for the 'generalizations' about abuse - it deserves at least one paraphrase since two chapters are devoted to it. I am not sure about the fake missionary part, etc. since that would be an opinion/'non'reference and it is still under investigation. Otherwise, yes, I changed very little. Thank-you for feedback, KHBibby (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Ritual Abuse

Ok, let me know, how is that a sexual abuse committed by Christian missionaries is "Satanic" ritual abuse? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Dereck - Hmmmmm. Is critical thinking going to happen? Let us see. Young girl turned to sex slave by neighbors posing as missionaries and forced to watch sadistic ritual sacrifice of baby by religious peoples in darkest jungle. Then, horror, must drink blood of baby, along w others. In 1980's many of these stories in USA and Britian (see We Believe the Children by Beck), but also going back to Inquisition. Same for Salem witch trial. Of course, I not say if or if not true, but story is same as 10,000 other narratives - scholars call this "Satanic Ritual Abuse." No evidence ever produced in 500 years, but many witches burned at stake (read Kenneth Lanning - FBI special rpt)SolaryVeritas (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok but Wikipedia is not base in speculation, you can't put a category just because maybe, kind off, might be, is possible, that is "satanic ritual abuse", by the way something that is probably an urban legend and most serious scholars are skeptic that ever happen. So I'm sorry but if she was abuse by Christian missionaries in a missionary camp the category is not only wrong, is ludacris. So, should I call for a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution or can I reverse your editing? because I insist, the category is wrong. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 09:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Dereck, You confuse ontological certitude and classification. What is your meaning, "the category is wrong"? I do not say SRA happened. With you, my personal agreement is SRA is "urban legend" and "skeptic that ever happened". Did abuse happen by missionaries? Don't know. This is speculation too. No evidence. But is a certainty that Krusi describes activities with common label "SRA" (or "ritual abuse/RA" - both are same); ritual child sacrifice, blood sacrament. Also, movie and journalists that write Krusi story use these terms: "satanic", and "ritual abuse". For this reason I use category "SRA". Do you think this is not true? Oh, also please post discussion here in Christina Krusi Talk page. It is useful for everyone. Appreciate SolaryVeritas (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if happened or not, I'm incline to believe her, but if we don't know if happened, then the category is wrong because we don't know if apply, and if happened, the category is wrong because there is nothing "satanic" about it, if any will be "Christian ritual abuse" for that matter. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Dereck, This does not matter if it happened. You miss the point. Category "SRA" is about words used by Krusi and journalists/producers to describe story/narrative. On this I don't think we dispute anything. But curiosity grows in me. You say "I'm inclined to believe her." What do you you believe? That Krusi watched child murder and drank baby blood? SolaryVeritas (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe she was sexually abused by Christian missionaries, anywhere in the article says nothing about baby blood drinking. And then, according to whom her story is similar to what "journalists/producers" call SRA? according to you?--Dereck Camacho (talk) 07:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh Dereck, maybe I see the problem. Do you read any 32 sources that are basis for wiki page? That is where you find "ritual child murder", etc. Do you speak German? You might use Google Translate, but won't help/w SRF movie. Sorry. SolaryVeritas (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)