Talk:Satanic ritual abuse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Many of these questions have been raised in the scientific and popular literature, and are summarized here for ease of reference.

The main points of this FAQ can be summarized as:

  • Satanic ritual abuse is considered a moral panic by most scholars in psychology and sociology
  • Only a tiny minority of scholars, publishing in low-impact journals or vanity press support the idea that there was any reality to the SRA moral panic.
  • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that minority views not be given undue emphasis.
  • This is the result of long-standing consensus, with many, many discussions covering the same topics and arguments repeatedly without any new information being added or progress being made.
  • The extensive, repeated abuse editing privileges of sockpuppets by an editor banned for POV-pushing means there is little tolerance for new editors bringing up these same points.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Crime  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Alternative Views (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


I removed the paragraph which was added about Colin Batley. Only one article refers to him being "Satanic" and that rests entirely on connecting him to books of Aleister Crowley, who was not a satanist (see Crowley's article and all of its references). Rather than justify a real basis for the moral panic, it seems to provide additional evidence to the contrary, being another criminal labeled as "satanist" without actually being one -- or, I should say, without there being evidence of being one. But maybe I'm missing something? --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. The case is adequately covered at List of satanic ritual abuse allegations#Kidwelly. The media's description of it as a "satanic sex cult" does not make it so and as far as I know it was not described as Satanic or SRA in any official sense so we cannot call it "genuine satanic ritual abuse". HelenOnline 15:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

-- I disagree. "Satanic sex cult" was a direct quote from judge and also verifiable via, etc. Not all evidence was reported: judge clearly states it is SRA based on evidence of whole case not a single book. Convictions are distinct to allegations. Amousey (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

None of those sources appear to say what you're saying they say. Please stop edit warring over this until consensus can be reached here. A search for "satan" returns hits in only the Walesonline link you posted, and it destroys its own credibility by citing "arch-satanist Aleister Crowley". --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Which source quotes the judge as saying "Satanic sex cult" (or SRA)? HelenOnline 16:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Amousey I'm happy to have a discussion here, but it's unlikely you'll be able to participate if you add that material for a fourth time (Wikipedia has a bright-line rule called WP:3RR to deal with edit warring). You may ultimately be right and it may ultimately be included, but edit warring is not the way. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Amousey you can't keep re-adding content which is not adequately supported by the sources you have cited when two other editors have agreed to remove it. If you add it again without addressing the issues raised here, I or someone else will remove it again. You may also end up blocked for edit warring. HelenOnline 16:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

User:HelenOnline On what basis is it not adequately supported? The references to satanism and abuse are both very clear and sources are independent. In the last edit I used a direct quote as well as added corroborating sources.

User:Rhododendrites The sources are independent, verifiable and were cited directly. Sources cannot be removed on this basis. The correct approach is to reword the sources in a way which is appropriate for the consensus, as accurately as possible, or to cite opposing sources should the sources have potential bias. I did not cite the word Satan, but satanic (because Satan was not the one committing the crime). "Satanic sex cult" is the correct wording, one source also states "satanic rites". This is not an attack on the religion per se. Removing sources is not appropriate based on your argument. The consensus needed is how to reword appropriately.

You have reverted 3 edits of mine today, hence edit warring yourself. I find your response that I must not edit again a threat rather than informative. This is about representing a legal case correctly. We need to work together for accurate consensus reflecting how these sources should be represented. How do you feel the convictions should be described? Amousey (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, the case is adequately covered at List of satanic ritual abuse allegations#Kidwelly. It does not belong in this article, which is about the moral panic in general and does not list all SRA allegations. You have not cited any sources quoting the judge or another similar official describing the offences as "Satanic" or "SRA", genuine or otherwise. Please don't keep repeating that claim without a link to a reliable source that explicitly corroborates your claim. HelenOnline 17:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • On what basis is it not adequately supported -- you're asking for a negative to be proven. The burden is on whoever wants to include it to provide sufficient sources, and here you're adding something to the article while providing sources that don't back it up.
  • The sources are independent, verifiable and were cited directly. Sources cannot be removed on this basis. -- these are requirements for reliable sources, but just because a source is independent doesn't mean it's required to remain in the article per common sense. A source isn't what needs to be verifiable; the content is what's verifiable via the source, and the sources you added do not verify the content and therefore are not reliable for our purposes.
  • I did not cite the word Satan, but satanic (because Satan was not the one committing the crime). "Satanic sex cult" is the correct wording, one source also states "satanic rites". -- by searching the page for "satan" that includes "satanic" and so on, of course. You said the sources say it's verifiably a satanic cult. The sources do not do that. The only use of Satanic is in the Wales Online source, as I've already said, and in the context of linking the cult with Crowley, who is not a satanist. Even that one, as far as I can see, fails to support your claim that the judge defined the cult that way. (And I'd add that even if the judge used those words, context matters, but it would be helpful if you could point us to where specifically it quotes the judge).
  • I find your response that I must not edit again a threat rather than informative. -- please look around the policy pages of Wikipedia, including those already linked like WP:3RR. It's not a threat, it's the way Wikipedia works to ensure someone can't insert whatever they want and keep re-adding indefinitely. If you change it back, and I then revert again I will also be in violation of 3RR and subject to being blocked. We're in the same position in that regard.
  • We need to work together for accurate consensus reflecting how these sources should be represented. - consensus is not the same as compromise. It's kind of a technical term on Wikipedia described here: WP:CONSENSUS.
  • How do you feel the convictions should be described? -- if anything, it's further proof of people calling things satanism when they're actually not, so certainly not to support anything validating the moral panic as you've added it, and likely not included at all given the scope of the article and the scant sources that exist supporting its relevance. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the WP:BLPREMOVE edit warring exemption probably applies here, even if Batley is an "evil" criminal according to the judge. It is advisable to mention it in your edit summaries. HelenOnline 18:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Not suggesting you revert again, I can do that if necessary. HelenOnline 18:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
User:HelenOnline WP:BLPREMOVE does not apply. Material is not "unsourced or poorly sourced", meets WP:VERIFY, there is no conjecture because the sources were cited in the words used in the original articles to avoid interpretation or conjecture. He is in jail, that is a fact and not conjecture. Multiple sources reliable use the same wording. This argument does not allow the sources used to be removed.

User:Rhododendrites - a line at the top of the page linking to "moral panic" does not circumvent WP:NPOV. A moral panic does not mean no cases existed, only that an OTT reaction occurred, on the moral panic page it clearly gives McCarthyism as an example: it does not mean no communists were accused, only that the public response was disproprotionate. This page is title Satanic Ritual Abuse. Convictions regarding Satanic Ritual Abuse are clearly relevant.

  • On what basis is it not adequately supported
I have shown it is supported, if you state it is not supported you need to provide evidence of that and state it alongside.

I did not cite the word Satan... etc

Several sources uses the exact words "satanic sex cult". Those words were the ones I cited. You need to read ALL the sources I cited in addition to Wales online, which as a local, print newspaper cannot automatically be assumed to have bias.

The BBC website were also cited, the BBC charter states it must have a neutral point of view. The Guardian articles [] and [30] are sources for the direct quote "occult rituals" and one uses "paedophile satanic cult" in the URL with the article the heading "Paedophile cult leader convicted for 'satanic' rape campaign", subheading "Colin Batley was self-styled high priest of group that handed children around for sex in Kidwelly, west Wales". The "satanic" part is correctly cited. A further BBC article [31] states

'As residents went about their daily life, they could not have imagined that Colin Batley, described as an "evil paedophile", was running a satanic sex cult from his home.'

again WP:VERIFY is met for the term "satanic sex cult", see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#News_organizations for reference to BBC reliability, plus the Guardian is a national newspaper which is not a "red top" but a broadsheet Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source again meeting WP:VERIFY.

Another source is [32] which has the heading "Woman Tells of Years of Sexual Abuse in Welsh Satanic Cult". One of the victims has written her biography, again using "Satanic Sex Cult" in title. This is also citable when worded as her own personal experience.

  • How do you feel the convictions should be described?
reliable source - both the Guardian and BBC meet reliable source. Your attempt to exclude minority evidence conflicts with WP:NPOV.
  • Convictions for satanic ritual abuse belong on the satanic ritual abuse page
These belong under both [{WP:NPOV]]. and WP:UNDUE (for the view that no convictions exist). The page about a moral panic is separate, the point that SRA is a moral panic is not disputed by the existence of the convictions. The panic was about a world-wide, large-scale conspiracy. See Moral_panic especially Cohen for definition of moral panic, which is covered elsewhere.

Finally, since the page is now protected, WP:CONSENSUS needs to reached for WP:DR

User:Jimjilin made the original edits for Batley/Kidwelly, which I added to and verified. User:HelenOnline and User:Rhododendrites oppose the inclusion of both the sources and the wording, so there is no consensus or majority.

  • Suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns

My suggestion is to keep the sources and see what both of you suggest for the wording, although it's clear to me that "satanic sex cult" needs to remain, having met 2 WP:RS and WP:VERIFY sources. User:HelenOnline - is there a rewording based on the sources stated above that would be agreed by you? User:Rhododendrites has rejected this - what is your suggested solution or compromise to allow WP:CONSENSUS to be reached?

Amousey (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents.
This is not a biography page, Colin Batley was not the only one convicted and is referred to as the "leader" of the cult in articles. I'm unclear what you are objecting to here, if this is not dealt with by sources then please cite the words you object to. Additionally, User:HelenOnline has used the same term "Satanic sex cult" on List_of_satanic_ritual_abuse_allegations and also cited BBC news.

Amousey (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


  1. Wikipedia's BLP policy does not only apply to biography pages: "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." Do you really think lawyers care which page we put defamatory material on? We need to be even more careful when we are talking about crime in the context of living people. You are making a contentious statement about living people that is not adequately supported by the sources you have cited. As far as I can tell, only the media has used the "satanic" word regarding this case (some clearly do not know what they are talking about and the more careful ones use quotation marks indicating it is an allegation to cover their backs), not the judge and not Batley himself. It therefore remains an allegation, and belongs with all the other SRA allegations in the List of satanic ritual abuse allegations article. List of satanic ritual abuse allegations#Kidwelly says: The group led by Colin Batley was described by the media as a "satanic sex cult", a "quasi-religious sex cult" and a "paedophile cult". It does not say the group's crimes are genuine SRA, or genuine SRA leading to convictions, as you have done. In a subject such as this it is very important that we do not mislead people about what the sources actually say. We know that the media among others was complicit in the moral panic, and apparently hasn't reformed altogether. We therefore need to be extra careful when interpreting sources on this topic.
  2. Even if the case was described as "satanic" in an official sense, we would have to consider whether or not it is undue to mention the case in this article which is about the 1980s–1990s moral panic in general.
  3. I have already stated twice this time around that I do not believe the content belongs in this article (in any form). It is adequately covered in the appropriate place, i.e. List of satanic ritual abuse allegations#Kidwelly. Please don't ask me again. Your failure to hear others because you don't like their answers is disruptive. HelenOnline 08:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


You have not stated what exactly is contentious about Colin Batley. This is a brief mention and cannot be considered a "biography". Neutrality is covered by avoiding the mention of "evil paedophile"[sic] as User:HelenOnline pointed out. I saw Batley was quoted as saying that "no cult existed" - would that be an appropriate addition to add to neutrality? Clearly the jury verdict was guilty and the quotes make it clear that he was the leader, and it was a "Satanic sex cult". I am also entitled to cite appropriately from a survivor biography (just released) if I make it clear it is her opinion only, nor have I listed the 35 charges they were collectively found guilty of, or named the man found innocent, or the rest of those convicted within the cult, although it would be allowed to do so since this is factual WP:VERIFY. At this point I have not done so and this gives increased neutrality. I have also used the most neutral sources available, as discussed above, including the BBC which has a specific mention as a neutral source on WP. I did not use the terms "genuine SRA" as you are well aware, and neither did the original person who cited this case @Jimjilin:. It is inappropriate for an editor to state something is or is not "genuine SRA" if this cannot be cited so I am ignoring your personal view that it was not "genuine SRA" and not using the term in edits.

If you do not agree with this additional attempt at WP:NPOV then explain your precise objection (cite the words you have an issue with) and suggest alternative wording. Whether it goes on the SRA or List of SRA allegations both page names include SRA in the title so your point is irrelevant on this. It is a conviction, not an "allegation" and as such does clearly belong under the Evidence heading.

The term SRA

The "Cult-based abuse" heading states this is the most severe form of SRA on the page, this is clearly "cult abuse" and Batley himself used the term "cult" in his denial. The page also states "only a small number of verified crimes have even remote similarities to tales of SRA" - clearly this is an acknowledgement that a small number of crimes have similarities, although this reference should be cited and is not. Additional secondary source ISBN 0415689775 (2013) by Michael Salter, named "organised sexual abuse" states on page 38 that - "In clinical and research literature, abusive groups are generally referred to as 'cults', and 'cult abuse' is a term that has been used interchangeably with 'ritual abuse'."

Your assertion that the media in 2011 was complicit with the "moral panic" is unfounded since the page states the moral panic died down in the 1990s, ie. over a dozen years prior to the convictions, again as described more than once on the page. If you wish to make this claim as regards 2011 then you will need an additional, neutral source to back this up. Avoiding all non-conforming evidence gives a clearly biased article, which breaks WP:NPOV and is also less persuasive since the bias is blatant. As I stated - a tiny number of proven cases does not change the fact the page's majority view will remain that SRA is a moral panic.

Refusing all other evidence - not opinions but legal rulings - is not meeting neutrality and is WP:UNDUE. At this point you are not aiding in the reaching of a WP:CONSENSUS. I would appreciate it if you read the page in detail prior to responding in order to clarify the details. Please be helpful by giving a suggestion of the wording you would like and cite which source(s) this comes from for WP:VERIFY. (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC) Amousey (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC) User:Amousey - forgot to sign yesterday

You're not making a lot of sense. Did you mean to address me or Rhododendrites (as you have done)? If you are Amousey then please log in so we can identify your contributions. If you are Amousey then you definitely called it "genuine satanic ritual abuse", as did Jimjilin. That is what is contentious about the addition.
WP:BLP applies regardless of how brief the mention is. Repeatedly saying it doesn't when it clearly does is disruptive.
If you are going to say I said something then please include a diff. I don't know what you are referring to by Neutrality is covered by avoiding the mention of "evil paedophile"[sic] as User:HelenOnline pointed out. Whose personal view is it that it is not genuine SRA? I don't see where you are getting that from either. Assuming you are addressing me, where did I say the media in 2011 was complicit in the moral panic? (Note that WP:NOR does not apply to talk pages so I wouldn't need to cite any sources for such a statement anyway.)
Nobody is disputing the fact that Batley was convicted of crimes and this is already covered in List of satanic ritual abuse allegations#Kidwelly. The allegation relates to the SRA angle not the crimes per se. Are you being purposely obtuse? Assuming you are Amousey and assuming you are addressing me, I will also assume you didn't really ask me again to tell you what I think we should say about the case on Wikipedia after I asked you not to ask me again. HelenOnline 06:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad Amousey is trying to improve this awful, biased Wikipedia article. We should of course mention instances of genuine SRA in the article. Moreover, blame should not be unfairly focused on the dreaded "Christian conservative". These Christian conservatives seem to function as witches/demons/Satan for some of the more gullible or fanatic liberals. lolJimjilin (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Jimjilin thanks for your input and the original edit of course. User:Rhododendrites I did forget to sign yesterday and added my name under that section just now. I now understand where 'genuine satanic ritual abuse' came from - those words are from User@Jimjilin since it was in his original edit description. It was not even on the page itself. I asked several times for an explanation, which you have only just given, hence not disruptive on my part.

If you read the actual content of the page you will see the moral panic is being defined for SPECIFIC DATES which ended in the 1990s. So clearly this evidence does not actually contradict the page's assertion that a moral panic took place in the 1980s and 1990s, which I think should reassure you. You are again failing to state what wording you would like for these sources. Here is roughly what my proposed edit will be:

Addition to page: under Evidence heading In 2011, four members of a "satanic sex cult" based in Kidwelly, Wales (UK), were convicted of a total of over 40 sexual offences against children and young adults.[1] The cult's leader, Colin Batley, subjected victims to 'organised and systematic' abuse [2], using "occult writings and practices" to "brainwash" them.[4] Colin Batley was convicted of "more than two dozen acts of sexual perversion linked to his activities in the cult", including rapes, causing prostitution for personal gain, and possession of child pornography.[3] One victim said that when she became pregnant after being raped Batley prevented her from having an abortion, telling her the unborn baby was a "child of the occult", and threatening to kill her if she spoke out.[2]

Description - Addition to Evidence section Sources 1 2 3 4

Is there a WP:CONSENSUS on this? If not suggest the rewording which would lead to a consensus.

Amousey (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)Good plan! Jimjilin (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Amousey: there are several issues with some of the comments and representations of what I've said above, but the gist of my position comes down to this: Convictions regarding Satanic Ritual Abuse are clearly relevant. For every SRA case there exist sources calling them satanist whether or not they actually are. As HelenOnline pointed out, we have a whole article for List of satanic ritual abuse allegations. The key here is that you and Jimjilin have been trying to add this as an example of "genuine" satanic ritual abuse, when in fact there's no more to say this one is "genuine" than for any of the others. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
@Amousey: The explanation was not "only just given". My very first comment above dated 4 October says The case is adequately covered at List of satanic ritual abuse allegations#Kidwelly. The media's description of it as a "satanic sex cult" does not make it so and as far as I know it was not described as Satanic or SRA in any official sense so we cannot call it "genuine satanic ritual abuse". If you want to expand the Kidwelly section of the List of satanic ritual abuse allegations article citing reliable sources and without calling it genuine SRA (for which we do not have reliable sources as far as I know), I have no objection to that. It is not appropriate to decide on a consensus for the exact wording here however, as this is the talk page for a different article and you may have other editors to contend with there. The content does not belong in this article. I am not going to repeat myself again. HelenOnline 06:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree with HelenOnlines and Rhododendrites last comments here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Batley should be restricted to the "list of" page. This page focusses on what could be called 'strong' SRA, the grand conspiracy theory launching the moral panic that led to McMartin and related spurious accusations. This page is about a broad social phenomena, not about a single example. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Page name request[edit]

What are views here on the page name changing to Ritual Abuse alone? Potentially with SRA on its own, shorter page? It feels unfair on satanism to be singled out this way. This form is abuse is actually best documented with political purposes e.g. MKUltra, and has been documented in other religions and belief systems most notably witchcraft.

Has this has been a previous discussion? Amousey (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

As stated in the hatnote at the very top of the article: "This article is about the moral panic. For abuse administered under the guise of religion, see Religious abuse." HelenOnline 17:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
This is part of why the content you added is hard to work in, even if the sources supported it -- it has limited relevance to the moral panic, which is specifically about satanism. The catch-all ritual abuse (which I guess is the same as religious abuse, given "ritual" is otherwise not descriptive?), is much, much broader indeed. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I saw the religious abuse page - it is not appropriate because religious abuse is distinct to ritual abuse. Ritual abuse may or may not be linked to a religion, it be be political or linked to non-religious beliefs. This is currently the only place for it. Looking back at the history of the article the "moral panic" heading only appeared a few years ago and belong on Moral_panic. All abuse pages need to be about abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amousey (talkcontribs) 18:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

This is an established article about a very specific topic and you may not usurp it without a very good reason. Check potential existing candidates listed in the Abuse article. I doubt what you are looking for is not already covered elsewhere on Wikipedia. HelenOnline 18:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

User:HelenOnline be polite in future. I have asked for input and do not expect to be attacked for it. There is a redirect from "ritual abuse" to "Satanic ritual abuse". References to physical and sexual abuse and torture are not the same as "religious abuse" and ritual abuse is not defined as involving religion per se, only a belief system'. Religion is not always involved. I will take a closer look at the Abuse categories although that's a very long page. Amousey (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Amousey I have been very polite with you. If you have a problem with my behaviour please ask an administrator for assistance, otherwise refrain from such accusations. HelenOnline 06:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

User:HelenOnline it was this comment that I objected to: "you may not usurp it without a very good reason" You do not "own" this article, as per WP:OWN, and neither does any editor have the right to claim ownership or control of the page. Amousey (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not claimed ownership or control of the page. I was merely referring to WP:USURPTITLE. Please stop misrepresenting me, it is unhelpful. If it is unintentional, please take more care interpreting others' comments. HelenOnline 13:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
User:HelenOnline I followed the guidance on that {WP:UNSURP]] and other pages, including - "If in doubt, holding a discussion before such a move following the instructions on the requested moves page is recommended." - you accused me of attempting to usurp the page when I absolutely did not. I'm simply asking you not to make such comments. Lets move on from this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amousey (talkcontribs) 20:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I did not accuse you of any such thing. Stop misrepresenting me. HelenOnline 20:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Everybody calm down. The term Satanic Ritual Abuse originates from a tremendous amount of research that was done throughout the 90s and 00s on a very specific (American) cultural phenomenon of the 80s and 90s. The "Satanic" part of the term is important, because the abuse allegations always included assertions of satanic cults and were used by opportunists at that time to advance a theory of a vast satanic conspiracy. Basically, this term Satanic Ritual Abuse refers to a very specific thing, centered within a very specific cultural milieu. The research into the specific phenomenon was scholarly and rather exhaustive, and nothing in this article needs to go through WP:SYNTH. User:Amousey, the article name stands as is: the term is not a moving target, therefore neither should the article be. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with AGTTH. As used generally, SRA and synonyms refers to a broad social movement, an exemplar moral panic. It never really existed, and MKULTRA is not an apt comparison. No name change necessary or warranted. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Per the last two editors, there is no legitimate reason for a change; SRA has been so called for decades, and is understood by professionals and the public alike by that name. Finis. --Seduisant (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

No citations in summary section[edit]

I was surprised that the topic is summarized (the section before the TOC) without any citations. I am not interested in challenging the veracity of the article, but I feel it is crucial to cite sources in every section, not just after the summary.

as it says right above this box: " Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC) davidetoy

Hello! On WP, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article, and everything said there should be expanded on and cited in the body. So it can be quite ok not to have any cites in the lead, but we also have a guideline that tell us we should judge this on a case by case basis, WP:LEADCITE. If you feel there are cites lacking in the lead, you can add them. If someone disagrees with you, you can discuss it then. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


Quote: Protestantism was instrumental in starting, spreading and maintaining rumours through sermons about the dangers of SRA, lectures by purported experts and prayer sessions, including showings of the 1987 Geraldo Rivera television special.

This statement could hardly be more vague. Maikel (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

This Article Reeks of a Personal Agenda[edit]

I just read this article and the talk page for the first time and it comes across as "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" (a quotation from the 1602 play Hamlet by William Shakespeare. It has been used as a figure of speech, in various phrasings, to indicate that a person's overly frequent or vehement attempts to convince others of something have ironically helped to convince others that the opposite is true, by making the person look insincere and defensive.)

There clearly were cases where SRA did occur and to discount them all all false mass hysteria or moral panic does not do justice to the actual victims. To say there is no church of Satan, that they don't perform rituals, and that their performance of rituals never came under the legal or common definition of abuse is simply unbelievable. That a group of anti-satanists woke up to the existence of SRA and then capitalized upon it unfairly ad nauseum is also very likely. So what this article needs to achieve editorially is to achieve the following objectives to state that:

1) SRA is real and defined as _ _ _ _ 2) The scope of SRA was over-reported in many cases 3) The academic community considers the period of 1980-1990 the peak of a moral panic fueled by Christians 4) There are cases where SRA was confirmed and there are people serving prison sentences for it 5) This is how it was perpetrated 6) This is why it was perpetrated 7) These are the perpetrators who have been accused and/or convicted 8) These are the laws against it 9) These are the organizations that deal with it

It this article could be edited to meet these 9 objectives then I would say it achieved a NPOV. RIght now it looks like there are two groups (Christians and Satanists) warring over the edits to achieve their agendas (expose SRA and get the panic going again, and deny deny deny SRA even exists). That there was a moral panic doesn't mean it wasn't real and didn't exist. It means it was blown out of proportion. ItsUpandItsGood (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Except for the fact that it indeed was a moral panic, and it wasn't real, and didn't exist. Not a shred of evidence. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
There may be satanists (small s) who have been abusive, but the Church of Satan is quite innocuous. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The article doesn't deny there's a church of Satan, or that they have rituals. But the article (hopefully) makes clear that academics who have studied SRA for decades have demonstrated that there is no connection between any "church of Satan" and SRA accusations, other than that which was entirely manufactured by fundamentalist Christians - and which, by the way, usually included pagans, new-age, hippies and such as "Satanists". Read the cited works in the "references" section, please: especially Victor, deYoung, Lafontaine and Bromley. Reality truly is on the side of the academics. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)