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.
 

Satanic panic in South Africa[edit]

I am considering starting a new article Satanic panic in South Africa, as unfortunately it is still very much alive here (somewhat revived recently – I can post many more links to demonstrate its notability if necessary). The SRA article is written in the past tense, the emphasis in South Africa is not as much on child sex abuse as it is in the SRA article, and it is not generally referred to as SRA in South Africa. There would be some overlap but I suspect it should be a separate article? Comments? Helen (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if you should have a more inclusive title. That article (I have no idea how RS it is) uses the word satanism, so there is obviously things going on in SA that some refer to as satanism. But the article also mentions "possession", "witchcraft", "harmful religious practices" and "pagans generally, many of whom are practising occultists". I think it will be hard to tell if what´s going on is Theistic Satanism or some variant of whatever religion or mix of religions is floating around in SA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Of course, if "Satanic panic" is what it´s called in RS´s, that´s that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting, I will give it some thought. The phenomenon has been referred to as a moral panic historically in local academic sources, but those propagating the panic (including some representatives of religious bodies, the police service and now also the education authorities, currently being challenged on constitutional grounds – I personally do not consider them RS!) call it "occult-related crimes" or "harmful religious practices". Helen (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
P.S. One of the academic sources is subtitled Satanism and moral panic in South Africa, so that may be a good alternative? Or even Satanism, occultism and moral panic in South Africa? Helen (talk)
Religious moral panic in South Africa? Is that to broad? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I think it is too broad. I am leaning back towards Satanic panic in South Africa to keep it focussed.Helen (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
As for what religion it actually is about, sometimes it is nothing to do with Satanism (e.g. a gruesome murder) and sometimes it is legend tripping (dabbling in Satanism). There may be the odd case of actual Satanism of some sort, but I have not researched the subject thoroughly enough yet to provide any details. Helen (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
"Legend tripping" was new to me, thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Satanic Panic (South Africa) is now live. It has already been vandalized in my sandbox so I would appreciate editors with experience in this subject keeping an eye on it. Helen (talk) 11:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent edit[edit]

This edit should not stand, it removes sourced information and uses an unreliable source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. The source is not unreliable. You are simply making excuses for your attempts to control this article. Your edits reflect a bias against conservative Christians. KrystalMan (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The edit linked contains two separate changes. KrystalMan removed text under the Religious roots and secularization section and added text to the United States section. The former removal of text doesn't seem productive in that the paragraph goes on to say "Protestantism was instrumental in starting, spreading and maintaining rumours..." If you take issue with the first sentence, why wouldn't you rewrite everything, KrystalMan? I have to agree with WLU that it doesn't improve the article to remove the sourced sentence when all it does is remove context. As for the Janet Reno addition, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be included that she was a prosecutor. Her future job description isn't relevant for this article, but a link to Janet Reno would seem to be appropriate. To support it, however, I think you should find a better source. The one you posted is a self-published article on an advocacy website covered in ads. The problem (for me at least) is not the perspective of its content (after all, it seems to only be used to say Janet Reno was on the case) -- just that it fails RS. --Rhododendrites (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
If you look at KrystalMan's contributions, about 50% of them involve reverting my edits or baiting me on talk pages. He is not editing in good faith. When I have time, and if this continues, I'll bring it up at ANI but I don't think explaining things will make a difference.
I knew Reno was involved, I just never saw a reason to include a specific mention. While Reno's page might mention her involvement in one SRA case, she was never a figure at a national level regards the moral panic and it's a rather trivial fact to include here, particularly in an article that is already quite lengthy.
Religioustolerance is on the margins of reliability and has been debated on the WP:RSN several times, but given the number of scholarly citations found in the article, and what it's being used for, I don't think it should be included as a reference or EL. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I am adding a new source. Surely this brief edit providing undisputed facts about perhaps the most famous child-abuse case are a welcome addition to a highly biased article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjilin (talkcontribs) 03:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

For the record, after the above comment jimjilin again removed text at the beginning and added the same source that he and KrystalMan have been taking turns adding. Some very strange editing behavior going on. --Rhododendrites (talk) 03:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I added the extra source. You have said you have no problem with the Janet Reno addition. What's the matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjilin (talkcontribs) 04:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed the future job description of Janet Reno. I am not expressing an opinion as to whether her connection is adequately sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Her name is not mentioned in McMartin preschool trial. Should it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Nor is McMartin preschool trial mentioned in her article. Was she involved just a little? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think Reno was involved in McMartin. It was the Country Walk, Florida, case in which she obtained convictions contrary to the evidence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I see now I read the sentence wrong. Small edit to clarify. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Is there any reason to discuss her specific involvement? Why her and not the prosecutors of, say, McMartin? No matter what, Religioustolerance is a subpar source and shouldn't be included. None of the books I read on the subject noted anything about Reno beyond her future role, and none registered this as a significant fact. We don't even have a separate article on it. Even the article on religioustolerance mentions Reno exactly once and her involvement is afforded no further significance.
And this is not "less biased", it removes a significant fact about the motivation and demographics of one of the groups driving the satanic panic. This is a relevant observation, unlike the bit of trivia regards Janet Reno. On what grounds is it being removed? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Reno was head prosecutor and deeply involved in the case! I've added yet another source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjilin (talkcontribs) 17:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

If you'd like to add info additional info about the McMartin case, that would be fine. Why is Religious Tolerance a subpar source? Do you acknowledge that Reno was deeply involved in the case? Religious Tolerance states: "Janet Reno, then head prosecutor, took a personal role in prosecuting the case." This is corroborated by my other sources. Jimjilin (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Jimjilin, you're glossing over WLU's key point: that she was lead prosecutor may be factually correct , but that it's true doesn't mean it should be included. Lots of things are true, but the question is its relevance to the subject of the article. WLU's point is that the only reason Janet Reno is mentioned is because of her later job title (otherwise every case would be accompanied by the name of the lead prosecutor), and that it's mentioned only as a trivial fact and does not add anything but trivia to the article (which, per WP standards, means it doesn't belong).
The reliability of Religious Tolerance is a separate concern. I tend to think it's not RS but for the purposes for which it's used, I'm sure there are plenty of other sources out there to corroborate that she was, in fact, involved. To me, arguing that it's not RS is more a long-term point to clarify regardless of this particular question (because, again, the more important question is of relevance). --Rhododendrites (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
That indeed glosses over my key point - that the fact is of little importance. We don't mention Reno just like we don't mention Robert Philibosian was the district attorney during the McMartin trial, or that David Shaw covered the trial. We do not include every trivial fact. That sort of note would best go in Reno's own page, not here. Please focus on the key issue, not reliability; establishing her as the prosecutor is trivial, in both senses of the word. I can't think of any reason to mention her involvement, and it simply looks like the information is being added because I removed it. Pique is not a reason to edit a page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Rhododendrites you wrote earlier: "As for the Janet Reno addition, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be included that she was a prosecutor. Her future job description isn't relevant for this article, but a link to Janet Reno would seem to be appropriate." I can only agree. Jimjilin (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. My more recent comment in an attempt to redirect your response to WLU's actual point was not because I am as passionate about the matter as either you or WLU (WLU's point about its trivial nature has merit, but ultimately I'm more or less indifferent as to whether or not the name "Janet Reno" does or does not appear in the article). The reason for my comment was rather because the edits, edit summaries, and argumentation strategies by KrystalMan and yourself, while possibly entirely in good faith, nonetheless appear to be in quite bad faith. In an effort to WP:AGF, I would urge you to stop adding text that has already been removed, even if you think it's justified, and seek consensus on the talk page first (even if it requires dispute resolution, as WLU suggests it may come to). The more times you add it, the more evidence there will be that you have not been seeking consensus. --Rhododendrites (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

WLU are you really claiming that the names of the prosecutors of these extremely important cases are trivial?! What could be less trivial? This is much more important than vague claims made elsewhere in the article about the political climate. It's a great idea to include the names of Ira Reiner and Robert Philibosian.Jimjilin (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

What is Rhododendrites' comment on September 3rd about mentioning Reno?
Country Walk was far less important than McMartin; every discussion of the SRA moral panic discusses McMartin. Nowhere near so many discuss Country Walk, and Reno's involvement is usually noted in (as with RT) a single sentence. Yes, it's trivial, and the page is already very, very long. I see no reason to add to it further.
If you are determined to edit war over such a minor point, may I suggest bringing it up at dispute resolution instead? Perhaps with a request for comment? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
In an article about a specific trial, yes, mentioning the prosecutors would be absolutely appropriate. But, this article isn't specifically about the trials. The trials encompass an important part of this phenomenon, but considering they aren't even the focus of the article, noting the prosecutors strikes me as overkill and trivia. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds says: "The trials encompass an important part of this phenomenon". I agree! Jimjilin (talk) 04:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

WLU says: "Reno's involvement is usually noted in (as with RT) a single sentence." That's all I'm asking for! Jimjilin (talk) 04:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Curiosity: I know why WLU doesn't want the Reno mention (working to restrict trivia). Why are you spending this much effort to make sure she is mentioned? It's not just for completeness or you'd insist on mentioning all of the others involved in all of the various trials. What benefit is there for the encyclopedia article that Reno in particular be mentioned? --Rhododendrites (talk) 05:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Rhododendrites asked: "Why are you spending this much effort to make sure she is mentioned?" My answer: Because I don't like cover ups. Absent consensus you should stop adding your preferred version. This is edit warring and violates Wikipedia rules.
From the source already quoted: "A substantial number of feminist psychotherapists came to believe in the repressed memories of patients who claimed to have been ritually abused as children." Why would someone want to cover up this fact?Jimjilin (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
In such a long article surely there is room for basic facts such as the names of the prosecutors in the key cases! I suggest we mention Reno as well as Ira Reiner and Robert Philibosian.
How is it a cover-up? Reno's involvement in Country Walk is documented on her page which is appropriate.
Also, your understanding of "consensus" seems to be wrong. You seem to think "consensus means I get my way". Wrong. Consensus doesn't mean the page pleases all editors and reflects all opinions. Your edits do not have consensus based on convincing your fellow editors through reference to the policies and guidelines (none of which include "it's a cover-up" as a reason to include trivia). One other editor, KrystalMan, who does not appear to be editing in good faith here or elsewhere, is reverting my edits out of what appears to be pique. In fact, it looks like it's being added merely to pick a fight. Meanwhile, myself, Rhododendrites, EuroCarGT, Onorem and HandThatFeeds, all experienced editors with many-times-over your experience, all disagree and for the same coherent reason - it's trivial trivia of no relevance to the overall page. Reno and the other prosecutors do not appear again on this page, and have no further involvement in the satanic panic past these initial trials. There appears to be a consensus on this point - it just seems to be against you.
The point regards "feminist psychotherapists" is already there, but "feminist" isn't specifically lain out for the same reason - too much unnecessary detail. For Woods et al. alone we would need to include at least two types of therapists (feminist and multiple personality experts), and Woods et al. merely mention these as two examples of a potential list of therapists. Do you wish to include it because you are frustrated at your inability to purge the page of criticisms of conservative Christianity and wish to include a criticism of a particular area of modern discourse you find frustrating? I think the blanket term "therapists" is fine. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I note thatJimjilin is selectively choosing which bits of a reply to emphasize, as if they make his point valid. That, and the comments about "covering up," imply that this isn't really an attempt at improving the article at all, just another PoV push. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Sigh... I guess Janet Reno must have recently been identified as a member of the secret world-spanning Satanic elite. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
WLU all those words don't really justify a cover up. And lists of very experienced editors don't alter basic undisputed facts. By "trivia" and "unnecessary detail" you seem to mean relevant facts you want to hide. Please stop the censorship! Jimjilin (talk) 04:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Jim, you may ascribe all sorts of motivations to me, but I don't care. There is no consensus to support your change, in fact there appears to be active opposition. There is no censorship involved, any more than refusing to include the color of shirt worn by Ray Buckey during the trial is censorship. So we're done, accept it and move on or bring it up at a request for comment, but no matter what, stop wasting everyone's time here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

WLU has pronounced from Mt. Olympus that the matter is settled. lol Please answer WLU: Tell me what is trivial, the trials or Reno's role in the trials? WLU you are certainly wrong that a consensus has been reached! HandThatFeeds wrote: "The trials encompass an important part of this phenomenon". Rhododendrites wrote: "As for the Janet Reno addition, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be included that she was a prosecutor." I suggest we briefly mention Reno as well as Ira Reiner and Robert Philibosian. I think that's a fair compromise. Jimjilin (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The comment you quote is from August 27th. September 5th, Rhododendrites' opinion was "indifference". His/her initial comment was that she saw no reason to include it, her subsequent reason indicated my reason, triviality, had validity. Why are you selectively quoting Rhododendrites rather than reflecting the actual, and most recent opinion expressed? Nobody has stated they think the whole trial should be removed. Nobody else seems to think the additions are necessary, not Reno, nor the other prosecuting attorneys. You have not convinced anyone else of the merit of your opinion. Please drop it or move on to dispute resolution. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. Please stop citing a message from early in this thread in order to include me in your claims to consensus. More due to your disruptive approach to editing and argumentation than to any one particular point you have -- and also due to the merit of WLU's argument that Janet Reno's mention is trivial (versus the empty and irrelevant claim that "it's a cover up"), I've been inclined to "see a reason" (per the language of my quote).
Judging by the last many posts, it's becoming clear that no new arguments are being presented and this thread has devolved into accusations and sarcasm. For the sake of civility, I propose calling it quits on this one.
Jimjilin, as WLU recommends, you are absolutely entitled to seek recourse via dispute resolution, RFC, etc. If you feel WLU (or myself, or anyone else) is acting in bad faith and against the interests of the encyclopedia, I would urge you in all earnestness to pursue one of those routes, which may result in the changes you seek. For now, I'm not sure what else there is to talk about. --Rhododendrites (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. I will endeavor to not comment further unless new arguments are presented, but silence is not consensus in this instance. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Please answer WLU: Tell me what is trivial, the trials or Reno's role in the trials?Jimjilin (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Since no one is denying that either the trial or Reno's role is trivial I'll add the names of the prosecutors.Jimjilin (talk) 05:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Reverted, along with the undue emphasis placed on the small number of "satanic" crimes and replaced the discussion of the decline of interest and rise of skepticism in the late 90s. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Wait you think a brief mention of actual Satanic ritual abuse in an article about Satanic ritual abuse is inappropriate?! The article as is meanders on and on about the most irrelevant topics. Is the goal to avoid the plain facts? Jimjilin (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because as the first sentence of the article says, this is about the moral panic. The article doesn't "meander", it is lengthy and highly referenced in its discussion of all the notable aspects of it. Actual "satanic crimes", which are really episodes of child abuse and pseudosatanism generally, frankly don't belong here. It might be time to revisit the idea of renaming the article "satanic ritual abuse moral panic" frankly. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

So you are on record celebrating the avoidance of plain facts!?! And you believe actual Satanic ritual abuse should go unmentioned in an article about Satanic ritual abuse?! I can't tell you how much I'm enjoying our discussion. lolJimjilin (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Examples shouldn't be in the lead. If there are actual examples, that might be in the lead if reflected in the body. (And, @WLU:, if there are actual examples, it probably should be in the body. I haven't checked @Jimjilin:'s references.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Any "accurate" examples might be under "Investigations", but would require a specific finding by reliable sources that the "rituals" were representative of a religious (or similar) belief, rather than being invented to scare the victims, as noted by existing reliable sources. If I investigate the sources and find that Jimjilin is misinterpreting them, or that they are not reliable for the statement, I will recommend Jimjilin be blocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
That's why I'm suggesting moving the page to be specifically about the moral panic. I would argue that two cases from the past two years in which the "satanist" was using it as a cover for child sexual abuse have little to do with allegations of widespread child sacrifice from the mid-80s. I think this is both a (reasonable) judgement call and an honest mistake on Jim's part. It's a tricky line to draw.
It's also worth considering whether we should mention them at all - does murder list every single example of murder? We are not the news. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Rubin, you are threatening to recommend to block me because we disagree? That's inappropriate! Jimjilin (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC) WLU, quite a few individual murders are mentioned in the murder article. And I think both the panic and the actual instances of abuse are best discussed together - the perception vs. the reality. Can you say the List of satanic ritual abuse allegations contains only a few actual cases of Satanic ritual abuse? I thought the list was astonishing - I had no idea there were so much evidence for Satanic ritual abuse. Jimjilin (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I said I would recommend blocking you if you are misrepresenting the sources. I don't know yet that you're misrepresenting the sources; all I know is that what you were attempting to add has been disproven by reliable sources. As for the list, there certainly is a long list of Satanic ritual abuse allegations. Whether any has any credible evidence (including those cases which have produced convictions) is not at all clear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Kidwelly cult[edit]

I have removed this sentence as the sources cited do not refer to the abuse as "satanic ritual abuse", "genuine" or otherwise. This article is also not the place for listing specific allegations, the Kidwelly cult is already listed in List of satanic ritual abuse allegations#Kidwelly. HelenOnline 20:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Janet Reno mention[edit]

I have also removed the Janet Reno mention which has been readded without any change in consensus above. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. HelenOnline 09:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I have re-added the note, as the participation of an extremely notable and controversial figure in national politics is definitely worthy of inclusion. Similar mentions are made in the excellent Salem witch trials article, and serve the purpose of framing the panic within historical context. Additionally, as the vast majority of accusations were traced back to 16 "therapists", I believe it is worth including information about them, as well as the media figures responsible for spreading the panic. This is common in articles about witch-hunts when mentioning the political or social authorities who instigated them, as it again adds historical context to what would otherwise be a dry list of absurd and incomprehensible facts. 174.125.115.111 (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Disagreeing with other editors does not give you the right to override consensus. I understand that those who oppose the inclusion do so on the basis that it is undue emphasis for this article, while the motivations behind those who want it included are less obvious. Your enlightening comment re this content at ANI (which is not the place for it) indicates that you are motivated by a desire to add credibility to the SRA accusations. HelenOnline 10:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I have added a link to an article that discusses the Country Walk case in more detail and mentions Reno's involvement in it, for readers who want to know more about that particular case. HelenOnline 10:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I stand by my earlier comments - mentioning Reno is totally unnecessary. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Difficult to verify?[edit]

There is a statement in the article that actual cases of satanic ritual abuse are difficult to verify, yet there have been several reports in South Africa of people being sentenced to prison terms for murder as a result of satanic rituals. One of the more recent was the Kirsty Theologo case.

The article suffers from the major defect that it assumes that ritual abuse does not occur, and that anyone who thinks that it does occur is somehow delusional. This is similar to the belief, propagated in US psychology and sociology textbooks of the 1950s, that anyone who thought their telephone was being tapped buts be out of touch with reality.

There may be many instances in which people imagine that there has been ritual abuse when it has not really taken place, but there are also many cases of ritual abuse that are quite real, and people have been mutilated or have died. And some of the ritual murders, where people have been convicted in the courts, have clearly been satanic, at least in the eyes of the participants.

If the article is dealing only with delusional cases, then it should state that clearly at the outset. SteveH (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between "ritual" abuse for the purpose of degrading the victim (probably real), and ritual abuse based on some religious or spiritual conviction (probably not real, and certainly not wide-spread, in spite of some convictions). As to the focus of the article; almost all of what is verifiable is about the "panic"; possibly a separate article on "ritual abuse" might be written showing the reality, but that leans toward a POVFORK. We have enough material for a separate article on the reality (but extreme rarity) of ritual abuse. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I would question the existence of such an article, since we are not a news service. As an example, would we have an article on all car accidents involving a Porsche, or all aspects of sexual abuse of children by priests, or all examples of political scandals, or all examples of floods of the Mississippi? This article really is about the ritual abuse moral panic, there are all sorts of bizarre crimes that happen the world over but we don't necessarily note them all. I can see why there is an impulse to include such crimes on this page, perhaps they could be aggregated in the List of satanic ritual abuse allegations. This page would seem to be more about the overall phenomena throughout the English-speaking world. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
There is already an article for actual religious abuse. Virtually all the reported "Satanic" cases in South Africa fall under pseudo-Satanism and/or a "Satanic" mitigating factor legal defence, as covered in Satanic Panic (South Africa). Please don't content fork in List of satanic ritual abuse allegations as far as South Africa is concerned. You are welcome to edit Satanic Panic (South Africa) subject to normal Wikipedia policies. HelenOnline 07:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally, Satanic Panic (South Africa) does detail all known alleged cases in South Africa and in a sense is a combination of this article and the list article focused on one country. This is necessary in order to debunk the claims as those spreading the panic rely on anecdotal evidence that is not supported by reliable sources. HelenOnline 08:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't content fork the SRA in SA cases, we have {{main}} for a reason, my objection would be to include an extensive discussion in this article (which there isn't). I will note a couple things - it should probably be satanic panic (South Africa) per MOS:CAPS, and I don't think a WP:ALSO link is required on this page as it is already included in the {{satanic ritual abuse}} template. I still don't necessarily think it's appropriate to include a comprehensive list of all cases in a country, we are not a news aggregator; my preference would be to include only discussions included in scholarly volumes (since there are lots of entire books focussed on SRA overall). But these are really points for a different page, and I don't see there being a clear policy forbidding any of these issues in either direction. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't have strong feelings about the caps or the see also link in this article, I won't object if you change them. HelenOnline 15:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Why does the article claim the phenomenon 'started in America' when the book that prompted it was written by a Canadian psychiatrist, in Canada, about a Canadian patient?[edit]

Indeed, Blame Canada. The Satanic panic did not start in the US--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Because the moral panic itself didn't take off in Canada, it caught on in the USA first. The British Invasion happened in the US, despite being bands from the United Kingdom. Origin of the source material does not mean that's where the social frenzy started. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

I have reverted the recent addition by IP 174.125.115.111 as per WP:BRD. 174, you were Bold, then you were Reverted, now it is time to Discuss the change on this talk page. I have no opinion on the appropriateness of the change, I came across it because of the related item on AN/I and I have re-established the existing status quo until the matter can be properly discussed and a consensus reached. I note that his matter has been previously extensively discussed and the addition was removed at that time, so unless you have anything new to add, I think it unlikely that you will gain consensus to re-ad the change. However, whatever the merits of your case, engaging in an edit war over it is definitely not appropriate and continuing down that path may well get you bocked. - Nick Thorne talk 05:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I have already justified my addition here and here, but received no response, despite inviting the people camping this page to enter into a dialogue. This page needs major revisions, but I can see that some users are very emotionally invested in the current version. Unless they're willing to discuss the issue, I'll start making improvements once I have time and proper library access. The Richardson, Best, & Bromley collection deserves much more than one silly throwaway line about McCarthyism. Eggonought (talk) 06:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
You need to familiarize yourself with WP:CONSENSUS; until then, you'll find yourself continually reverted. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
What new sources have been published requiring that the page be substantially revisited?
Also, nothing has changed and the above discussion still stands - singling out Reno is unnecessary, as far as I am aware she had no further involvement with the SRA moral panic, and the sole item of note is that she went on to become famous for unrelated activities. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Richardson, Best & Bromley is a good book on the topic, if I remember. (In fact, didn't they also write a bunch of peer-reviewed articles on the topic as well?) However, I agree that mentioning Janet Reno is little more than inclusion of trivia. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)