Talk:Patricia Pulling

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pulling Report[edit]

The article references Michael Stackpole's The Pulling Report and makes the following statement:

In fact, The Pulling Report used BADD's own data to demonstrate that suicide actually occurs at lower rates among those who play role-playing games.

I found The Pulling Report fasicnating reading, but nowhere does Stackpole use BADD's data to demonstrate that suicide occurs at lower rates among those who play role-playing games. Is there someone who does actually demonstrate this?

I have deleted the above sentence from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above sentence was wrongly referenced. Its actual reference should have been Stackpole's 1989 Game Hysteria and the Truth article which was quoted in Hicks, Robert D. (1991) In pursuit of Satan: the police and the occult on Page 291. I have restored this sentence with its proper reference.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mathmatical Notes[edit]

The note is not clear enough. 4% of adults + 4% of non-adults (as in everyone else, teens + childs + infants + whatever) = 4% of total population. If it's 4% of adults + 4% of teens then the sum is clearly less then 4% of total population. --NYC 22:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

That's because it's what she said, but apparently she didn't know her math or something. Neospawn 18:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But if you breakdown the population by religion, you don't include infants, since they don't meaningfully have a religion. 4% of adults and 4% of teens as Satanists is effectively 4% of the population as Satanists.--Prosfilaes 19:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All of these suits lost in court[edit]

Pulling also obtained a private investigator's licence, became a consultant to law enforcement, and was an expert witness in several gaming-related lawsuits. All of these suits lost in court[1]

I don't think the reference actually support this claim. Also I think the references "The Pulling Report" reads like an opinion piece and should be substantiated with another source. -- 02:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I agree the reference in this case was inappropriate "The Pulling Report" is a well researched paper and NOT "an opinion piece". In fact others like Carlson in his 1989 Satanism In America: How the Devil Got Much More Than His Due and Hicks in his 1991 In Pursuit of Satan: The Police and the Occult shows that Pulling was part of the whole Satanism under every rock nonsense that was so common in the 1980's. The fact that BADD did not survive her death shows just how off in right wingnut land she really was. If there had really been anything there BADD would have survived her.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"just how off in right wingnut land she really was". Do you honestly think you're able to maintain a neutral point of view when editing this article? -- œ 08:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What other terms could be used to describe a person that believed the Necronomicon real or that the D&D spells were real and actually used by Satanists despite the fact that the magic system was based on Jack Vance's Dying Earth novels? The Satanism Pulling believed in sounds like something between McCarthyism and someone who worries about the government sending black helicopters filled with Greys lead by Elvis from Area 51 after them.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BADD redirect[edit]

BADD used to redirect here, but I don't think that the acronym should redirect to a one person, now-defunct, organization when there's an existing 20-year-old organization that uses it.--Prosfilaes 19:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutrality dispute?[edit]

On what grounds is the neutrality of the article disputed? --BRPierce (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given that there doesn't seem to be any actual dispute, I am removing the NPOV tag from the article. --BRPierce (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've now tagged the specific paragraph that I believe is not neutral, undue weight, and I believe should be removed on WP:BLP grounds oops sorry, no longer a BLP, but still should be removed on grounds that it's not neutral and it's only purpose it seems is to disparage the subject. -- œ 10:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with BRPierce on the neutrality issue. Besides I don't see how the subject can be "disparage" the subject as the Pulling Report showed the "evidence" to be misleading, distorted, and more importantly inaccurate. For these reasons I am removing the tag.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Including the specific "four percent/eight percent" example is undue weight and does indeed disparage the subject because it's intended to make her seem unintelligent. The article can simply state that she was incorrect or inaccurate in some of her statements without describing the specific instance. -- œ 12:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No it is NOT undue weight but a clear example of the "general imbecility" that Michael A. Stackpole showed with Pulling's questionnaire. The over all ignorance demonstrated in that questionnaire showed a clear lack of understanding of even the basic mechanics of D&D or the fact that the game had at least two (if not three) different versions. The quote shows as does Stackpole's paper not so much unintelligence but a lack of concern regarding the quality of the information Pulling put out. In fact, Stackpole points out that Pulling's use of newspaper accounts that she edited to promote her views without their permission was illegal. I should mention that eHow's Newspapers & Copyright Laws support this idea as "Doug also noted that the News-Sun had not been contacted for nor given consent for the piece to be reprinted with Pat's material."--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whatever, just be mindful of WP:NPOV. I still disagree that a clear example of "general imbecility" really needs to be included in this biography, and if this was a BLP it would surely be removed. The event itself may be deserve a mention, but the detailed example does not need seem like it fits towards the overall bio, and that's what I meant by it being Undue weight. Especially when phrased in such a gossipy, did-you-know, tabloid style way such as "For example, she once did" this or that.. and then she once did this, and this one time she did that, and.. "omg she's sooo stupid!" .. I mean c'mon, its unnecessary. I'm not here to dispute Stackpole's paper or because I want to defend Pulling, I could care less about D&D or Pulling's views. But I read lots of articles on Wikipedia and feel I've got a pretty good sense about it when reading something that doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. -- œ 07:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moreover this content is better suited for an article like Dungeons & Dragons controversies where it is already mentioned, not a person's biography where it takes up the bulk of the biography as if this event was the only significant thing in this person's life. -- œ 08:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It may not have been the only significant thing in her life, but the only noteworthy part of her life was her son's suicide and her subsequent actions based on that. It would almost be a 1E if she hadn't been so active with promoting BADD. (talk) 12:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply] is right. If not for the death of her son and formation of BADD no one would even know who Patricia Pulling was and that means pointing out the errors in her claims as is done in the Chick Publications article. Nevermind, it shows just how bad Pulling's statistics were as well the lengths she would go to support her claims in the face of actual facts.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm thinking at this point this article should probably just redirect to Dungeons & Dragons controversies#Patricia Pulling. Consider it a merge. -- œ 18:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mental illness[edit]

The woman thoroughly believed that demonology, conjuration, voodoo, witchcraft, divination, devil summoning, necromantics and magic are real. She also thoroughly believed playing board games could lead murder, rape, insanity, sexual perversion, homosexuality, sadism, ritual killings and suicide. Its quite apparent from the woman's own testimony that she was dealing with an acute case of schizophrenia if not more serious mental illness. Sane people do not believe in magical devils or witchcraft.

Schizophrenics routinely believe that they can communicate with devils, demons, witches and spirits. Its quite obvious Mrs. Pulling was affected by some sort of mental illness.FreddyPickle (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A reliable source is needed to back up that kind of a claim; right now it is original research. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For all we know, she may have been insane - rather than just a grieving mother willing to find anything to blame for her son's suicide other than his own mental issues. But we can't just make assumptions and decide for ourselves what the truth is; that doesn't work for any bio article (whether the person is living or dead), or for that matter any article on Wikipedia. If she was schizophrenic, or had some other sort of mental disorder, then what we need is to verify that with a reliable source stating that a doctor had diagnosed her with something. Continuing to add unverified information to an article can be viewed as vandalism. BOZ (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Besides one does not be schizophrenic or have mental illness to believe in the things Pulling did--just look at the ranting of Jack Chick some time.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Has any psychiatrist ever examined this or the real reasons of her son's suicide? Could the latter have been his family background in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unless he saw a pscyhiatrist while he was still alive, I don't think it would be anything other than speculation. (talk) 04:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well it's 30 years later and I remember the dampening effect this woman had on this type of game-play. Mass media saturated the public awareness that playing D & D would make you worship Satan and kill yourself. I remember I was there. This was also an example of Mass Media using these extreme situations to undermine people's trust in religious institutions. She was extreme fringe being presented as mainstream by MSM, along with Jim Jones and Tipper Gore. IMO, if there was a history of mental illness in the mother, the son, the family, etc... and/or some other form of "trauma" that may have caused the son to commit suicide, that fact most certainly should be included in this article. (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can the following section of this article please be re-written? "The book not only treats the Necronomicon as a real publication, but refers to it as if it is widely available for reading". Of course Lovecraft's original intention was for this to be purely fictional, but Pulling was referring to the Simon Necronomicon which is definitely a real book, and has been "widely available for reading" since 1977. Can this part of the article be re-worded for greater clarification of the subject? Thanks. Greg Holden 08 (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've clarified.--Auric talk 17:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How can we be sure that is what she meant? Isn't that speculation? (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can't. We can only assume that she was sincere in what she wrote. Since there are two versions that have roughly the same name, we state the facts. Any speculation is in the mind of the reader. --Auric talk 17:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, that makes more sense. (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible Role in Popularizing "D & D"[edit]

I remember hearing about D & D and this woman's organization at about the same time. I just finished reading the wikipedia article on Gary Gygax, "founder" of D & D, and not that his exponential growth and popularity happened at about the same time as Pulling's organization. If there is a reliable source for such a connection that indicates that Pulling may have actually increased the public awareness and acceptance (or "use", "playing" it, etc...) that would lend an interesting angle to this article. (talk) 06:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Patricia Pulling. 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.

Ground name incorrect "Against" not "About"[edit]

I've found photographic evidence that the group name was "Bothered Against Dungeons and Dragons" not "Bothered About Dungeons and Dragons."

Check out Jennifer Jordan's Twitter photographs from 1989-> . On the fourth photograph you can see it was called "Bothered Against Dungeons and Dragons." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackal242 (talkcontribs) 06:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 08:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The article says "after the report was published in 1990, Pulling left B.A.D.D." but also "B.A.D.D. effectively ceased to exist when Pulling died of lung cancer[15] in 1997." This might need clarification.--Óli Gneisti (talk) 09:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right, like did she leave right after the report, or was there some time between those two events meaning they were not necessarily connected? (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find it understandable. Pulling left B.A.D.D but continued to support it until her death in 1997 at which point it imploded.-- (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]