Talk:Carl Raschke

Peripheral passage

Is there a need for this exposition, which, apart from the first sentence, doesn't have much to do with the bio? 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Rashke's role in the Satanic ritual abuse moral panic of the 1980s and 1990s in the United States has been the subject of criticism from scholars. The term "moral panic" has been used by many scholars to presume that a response to a given social issue is disproportionate, in effect taking sides on whether a given issue is a "legitimate" social problem or a moral panic and therefore treating the disproportionality of a given social issue as "settled science" when in reality, science (and this includes social science) is never settled but must always be open to new data. [5]. This was never intended by originators of moral panic studies such as Stanley Cohen. Many social issues,such as slavery (called at the time the slave power conspiracy see [6] have later been found to be substantiated (see [7] . Similarly, satanic ritual abuse is in the process of being exhaustively reexamined by some social scientists, including some of the iconic 1980s cases that established ritual abuse as a moral panic. [8].

I agree and suggest all but the first sentence is removed, but perhaps more explanation of his role is required? Theroadislong (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• The explanation may already be supplied by the subsequent passages of criticism. If not, they go a long way to supplying context. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry yes you are of course correct. Theroadislong (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• If objective sources can be found, it would be beneficial to add some of the biographical content that was lifted from his website....so long as it doesn't become a resume or credential-cruft. Probably the University of Denver faculty bio can be used, but even that has to be used discerningly, considering the promotional tone. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This paragraph is a personal rant, which is unacceptable. I've removed it. There was previously a comment where I explain that much of the criticism of Raschke's 1990s work regarding "Satanic ritual abuse" comes from his Painted Black. It was removed—I'll restore it. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Bloodofox seems to have removed materiel for insufficient reasons. I put it back. Bloodofox needs to explane why International Cult Association is "not reliable source" and why explanation of "mmoral panic" is a "rant". Need opinions of other editors before Bloodofox is allowed to remove this stuff. LH Chicago (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)LH_Chicago

Note that we have a new user responding to this here. There's the chance of WP:SOCK going on. This "anti-cult" group quote speaking in glowing terms regarding Rashke's now-infamous work is obviously not a reliable source—find something peer-reviewed or otherwise produced in academia. Finally, the aside about moral panics and slavery (!) falls under WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and has nothing to do with Rashke. If you want to somehow get that on Wikipedia, go try to carve it out on moral panic. Expect to be similarly reverted there. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Bloodofox keeps reverting edits in violation of and is clearly biased and only allows negative things to be said. He even asks other editors to add negative things, further violation ofWP:NPOV. To his invitation to add academic sources i added one by theologian Ted Peters who is linked on Wikipedia. ICSA is as "reliable" as any source he allows. Its board of directors shows it is academic and professionally credible. ICSA just has a different take on cults which is well known. Bloodofox just keeps deleting anything that contrdicts the "anti-anti-Satanism" approach as Peters calls it (which he is pushing hard).

LH Chicago (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)LH_Chicago

The ICSA isn't going to fly. Don't bother—you need to read WP:RS. What we have quotes from here are recent works by academics working in the field, these are reliable sources. They're negative because Satanic ritual abuse claims and its proponents are widely rejected in academia today, as demonstrated. When the overwhelming reaction is rejection in academia, that's what we report. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry too. I have read WP:RS and I can't see any reason to excluse ICSA. You don't have any right to trash it., because it has a lot of very reputable experts. It is a reputable organization like any professional bunch of scholars. You haven't shown why it's "unreliable" You just don't agree with its positions (in fact you hate them) and like I said you are violating WP:NPOV. You allow only quotes from the scholars who say negative things with but even there you quote of context (which is what you accuse the professor of) but you remove even the quote from Peters who is a very respectable academic in Rashke's field, even though you said you welcomed academic quotes. I think you said it wasn't "recent" but you quote from one book published in 1995 about the same time. I want to be polite, but it is so obvious that you are on a mission to destroy the reputation of a great scholar and to use mafialike tactics to stamp out all dissent. I can understand that since you are a "neopagan" as your user page proudly shows, you buy all this BS. btw I'm a wiccan and I know who you are. Raschke has been a friend of neopagans who are different than satanists, and you havent shown how or where he said anything against wiccans. If you look in Painted Black its not even in the index. LH Chicago (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)LH_Chicago

First, you have no idea what my religious inclinations may (this would be because I've never stated them anywhere on Wikipedia). Drop it.

Despite what you say here, these are your first edits out of the blue, which implies strongly that you're a WP:SOCK or given the edit history here that you are in some way involved with Raschke.

Obviously, ICSA isn't a reliable source, nor are the comments you're citing anything but WP:FRINGE (sources claiming 'Satanic ritual abuse was a real thing' are about as useful and scientific as ufology).

You reference to Raschke as a "great scholar" says a lot about your agenda for this page. I suggest you either move on and let the page develop into something that actually resembles Raschke's influence and legacy or find better sources. Find some reliable, academic sources and you're welcome to collaborate. Otherwise, as this is a page about a living person, any such nonsense will be reverted with extreme prejudice. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You still avoid the question of why you delted Ted Peters. Why is he not a reliable scholar? Are you seriously calling him "fringe." If hes fringe why does he have his own Wikipedia entry that doesnt even imply that. He doesn't say anything about whether satanic ritual abuse exists. He just says what I am saying that they are criticizing Raschke for something he doesnt say. So are you. You arent making an argument. You are just being a dictator. By the way there is nothing in Wikipedia that says that coming on new makes me a WP:SOCK. I used to have an account but it isnt working anymore. That doesnt make me associated with him either. That is just paranoid thinking on your part. You are trying to create the impression that he is some crackpot. If he was he wouldnt have the kind of resume he does most of which if you look at it closely comes after one of your guys says he was discredited. Saying as you are on this talk page that he is an outcast in academia is a really huge statement. Maybe there are some scholars who think that but that doesnt make it true. LH Chicago (talk)LH_Chicago

Raschke's Role in "Satanic" Court Cases and Missing Material

Right now this article is missing some major material regarding Raschke's role in court cases purportedly involving Satanism. Raschke appears to have been called in to these cases, most likely by a prosecutor, as an expert witness in at least a few cases. For example, some of the references in the article currently seem to refer to Raschke's role as a supposed 'occult expert' (in a notably extremely negative manner). Raschke was apparently also featured on US talk shows in a similar light. This is probably the single most influential aspect of Raschke's legacy, yet it is currently not outlined here at all. We certainly need coverage of this material—anyone willing to contribute is welcome. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Raschke and Wicca

Recently LH Chicago (talk · contribs) made the following edit: [1]. This edit includes statements and phrases such as "Raschke has written favorably about wicca and witchcraft" and "witchcraft (which wicca is a descendent of)". This edit cites a 2006 book ([2]) which contains a contribution by Raschke. Ignoring the incorrect statement regarding Wicca's links to witchcraft, Raschke's contribution is hardly favorable to witchcraft or Wicca. Raschke, for example, refers to neopaganism in general in a negative manner ("neopaganism today is but a logic of excess..." (p. 58). Let's keep all citations accurate please. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so I took out the word "favorable" and just put in the quote. I also put in the page number. Course when I read the quote I didn't see it as unfavorable, only some kind of academic "excess". He does mention Nietzsche in the sentence before and his criticism of Christian moralism, so I don't see why that's unfavorable to wicca. "Logic of excess" is not a criticism of wicca, and also Crockett speaks highly of the article. As I said, I'm a wiccan and we believe in excess. You don't consider sky clad excess? I also moved the sentence to the end so it stands by itself for your pleasure, sir. Now, think hard, sir, for why you can delete this quote. My question is this, why can't you just correct rather than deleting the whole thing. Do you have an agenda, sir? Huh? LH Chicago (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)LH_Chicago

Raschke says nothing positive at all about Wicca in the text you're citing and the quote you're putting in place also says nothing about wicca. Wicca isn't synonymous with witchcraft, especially historically.

I am not concerned about what you do or do not think is "excess" in a particular religion, nor am I concerned about what religious affiliation you claim to have on Wikipedia.

Raschke is mildly apologetic about the witchcraft trials in the actual article that follows and certainly isn't positive about any form of neopaganism in the article that the introduction refers to. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You need to quote from the article to show where Raschke is "apologetic about the witchcraft trials." I don't find anything that would support what you say. You have a habit of assrting things and not giving any evidence then accusing me of not presenting evidence, Mr. Bloodosucks, and I took the same quote you deleted and put it under reception wo any reference to Wicca, only to "witchcraft trials." The quote is about "reception," so you can't any reason not to include it, but I'm sure you will find some way to do that and rely on the fact that no one else seems to care about your own vandalism. LH Chicago (talk)LH_Chicago

Note that the above unsigned edit was left by LH Chicago (talk · contribs). "Bloodosucks"? Not to mention the other personal attacks above in edits to this talk page that the user has subsequently deleted (it's all in the talk page edit history).

That little grade school insult is where this conversation ends: I'm here to edit articles, not to respond to immature personal attacks.

Watching users, note that this user appeared out of the blue around the time a user employing Raschke's name disappeared. Follow their comments thereafter.

As discussion with this user simply entails accusatory responses and personal attacks, policy violations will simply be reverted on sight per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep, you did find a way to delete my last edit, this time simply by saying nasty things about me, not my edit. Keep it up. Y'all only be happy if you can have total control of this page. I see now you're bringing in as your own "star witnesses" those who seem to sympathize with the new nazis. Good job. How are things these days in Tulsa? Sorry if I can't play the pompous and rightous game like you do in your comments. I tried playing by the rules but you wont let me, and no one seems to care which says a lot about Wikipedia itself. I do invite others to read the "view history" section and look at everything youve deleted, not just for me, cause it will show that even the most legit edits that follow every one of WPs rules you are also taking out. Oh yea, and your constant insinuations that Im just a shill for Carl Raschke are just dead wrong, so cool it. You obviously have your own circle of volks you ask to come in and write what you want like this guy who made the last edit "Yggy" and so forth. You can tell hes related to you by his name and your published interests. LH Chicago (talk)LH_Chicago

On January 12 bloodofox added as follows: "Along with Raschke's comments on Wicca, Raschke's comments regarding Germanic Neopaganism have been the subject of criticism. In a 1998 interview with the SPLC, Raschke claimed that "a recent biological terrorism threat in New York City may have come from Asatrúers [sic]"." This addition is then tweaked by a new contributr Ynuadottir who apparently has been solicited by bloodofox in his campagne to violate everything about "living biographies" on this page. There is no evidence Raschke ever said that. The reference is to one sentence in 1998 interview with the Southern Poverty Law Center that includes comments from Raschke on white supremacy in general. Article claims that Raschke claimed "Asatrúers" were behind "biological threat" but doesnt include a quote. WP policy says contentious material has to be properly sourced. This is not. Find actual quote before inclusing. LH Chicago (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)LH_Chicago

I took out lead which says Raschke's statements about wicca have been "highly criticized in academia". There isnt any evidence that anything Raschke said about "wicca" has been "highly criticized in academia. All the examples in the article below are about the book Painted Black and Satanism. Wicca is not Satanism, or even remotely related to it, something which bloodofox doesnt seem to understand and even implies that it is similar, because he is always tying it in with wicca. LH Chicago (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)LH_Chicago

I removed "highly" as excessive in the lede, but the criticism is certainly adequately supported, and I reinserted "new religious movements". Raschke apparently used the term "Asatru" rather than "heathenry", but the references make necessary a mention of his criticism of neo-paganism in broad terms. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

This is what the interview with SPCS, which I have read until now (17 years later) actually quotes me as saying: "'Asatrú is an effort to make religion more post-Modern, hip and appealing to a generation raised on rock music,' says Carl Raschke, a religion professor at the University of Denver who has studied white supremacist groups. 'It is romantic, a kind of Teutonic mythology that gives them a cultural and religious identity.'" I doubt anyone would have criticized that comment, unless they want to claim that it is truly Old Norse religion, which it is not. I would point out that what I remember of the SPCS interview is that they called me out of the blue and started with the premise that Asatru was being used in prisons to recruit white supremacists. I had also been called about the same time, as I recall, by a sheriff in Weld County, Colorado to ask if Asatru was a real religion, because some inmates had demanded accomodation for their beliefs. I said it was a "new religion" and gave him basically the same information as is contained in the aforementioned quotation. I have never had any knowledge on my own connecting Asatru to white supremacist movements, other than what these sources claimed (authoritatively), and I have never written or made any public statement about Asatru to the effect that this entry in Wikipedia, which is so blatantly as one of my academic colleagues have noted a "smear campaign" launched by one Wikipedia editor bloodofox, implies.

As for the claim I tied Asatru to a bioterrorism threat, that is just plainly, ridiculously, and outright false. I never ever said thatbloodofox. The claim is based on one sentence buried in the article where the author even misspells my name, and it is not even quoted, even in part. It is possible the interviewer in writing the article got his notes mixed up, and my name there is even misspelled. Otherwise, he would have offered a quote for such a provocative statement. I have never had any knowledge of Asatru tied to such a threat,and this claim is totally new to me. Arthur Verslius uses this false attribution to excoriate me, and since it is the first time I've ever seen the quote, I intend to contact the publisher of his book. So Wikipedia editors should remove any statements that take this as fact, because it is false and therefore libelous. Wikipedia editor Theroadislong asked me a week ago to make any comments to this effect on the Tal Page, and thus I would expect someone in responsibility, particularly the author of this entry who put in, to take it out immediately. If someone can show I actually said that, it is one thing, but I didn't. Carlraschke (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)carlraschke

The SPLC interview link is included in the reference used on the article. The interview says "Raschke, the religion professor, says a recent biological terrorism threat in New York City may have come from Asatrúers" [3]. We report from reliable sources—if you are indeed Raschke and you have a problem with the SPLC's quote, which they still present on their website, then you need to work that out. You also appear to be thinking of Gardell and not Verslius.

The SPLC article is replete with errors regarding Heathenry, which is common from sources like the SPLC during the period, but such an out-there statement is not much different from the sort of thing Raschke has said or published previously in the area, as the numerous modern academic citations on the article makes very clear. Raschke has been a lightning rod for criticism from fellow scholars due to exactly this sort of thing, reaching prominence with Painted Black (and the influence Raschke had on the false accusations and false imprisonments around the Satanic ritual abuse moral panic).

The citations used in this article from scholars publishing through some of the most prestigious academic publishing houses in the world. Biographies must be verifiable—but they aren't puff pieces. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see. "Reliable sources". I don't think that meets Wikipedia's standards of verification, does it? I would call that pure rumor. Better, a rumor you have tried to make more substantive in order to bolster your smear campaign, which doesn't convince anyone. Even a credible journalist would say something like "sources in the intelligence community", or something like that. Since you don't consider the SPLC article credible, why do you then take an unquoted attribution as fact? I see in the Talk page you ask anyone for information on how I served as an expert witness for the prosecution of "satanist" cases. Quite the contrary. Every courtroom in which I appeared for satanism (I believe there were three instances) was for the defense, two of which were prior to the publication of Painted Black, and I never testified in a satanic ritual abuse case (Even Painted Black doesn't argue that satanic ritual abuse was real). The focus of contemporary cases (many of which appeared in the court record, police reports, news accounts, etc., which are the "evidence" in the book, evidence that is routinely used by journalists, let alone academics). My role was only to explain why people who had already confessed to their crimes for the reason "satan made me do it" might have said that. You can find that in the court testimony. I'm not sure what your agenda is here. I haven't said, written, or testified anything publicly about satanism for almost two decades, and even Painted Black was done at a request of an editor for Harper in search of someone with academic credentials to explain a complex phenomenon, including its historical context.

If you want to discredit me, packing a Wikipedia entry (started as a stub three years ago by some guy from Iran) with quotes from a certain little clique of scholars who all have the same blinkered mindset with anxiety about their own status in academia (and according to an article in Lingua Franca well over a decade ago were in the hire of the same people they were fanatically defending (http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/9812/allen.html)is not the way to do it. You say, yea, yea, you're making that up. No, as a director for the leading professional society in the study of religion back in the late 1980s and early 1990s I even got regular offers myself, which I turned down. J.Z. Smith quipped "religion is not nice," but I never would have realized it was not nice to reject those kind of offers, and that you would be later villified for doing so. Do you think any right-minded academic who knows my work (which is substantial and doesn't at all focus on your topic) these days is going to care about a controversy that is a quarter-century old, unless you are paranoid that I am somehow going to testify in a case which scares the ongoing claque of "cult apologists" out there. Don't worry. I got out of that business some time ago. Trying to deal with this topic in any serious scholarly manner is like trying to eat a hamburger in a hungry lion's den. You get attacked from all sides, from certain fundamentalist Christian crazies who believe satanists are under every rock to ideologues with wounded sensibiltiies like yourself (I take it from reading what little I can find out in your scrupulous effort to maintain anonymity, which in itself tells me something, you are some kind of amateur folklorist who loves all the romantic Nordic crap, who would probably would have been a member of the Vril Society and are about as "objective" as a Valkyrie. Why don't you just reveal who you are? If you're someone who feels that I've personally wronged you, which doesn't seem likely, then let's talk about it.)

I see you are a photographer who travels around the world and takes pictures of various "mystic" and "Aryan" sites. Does that not speak of who you might be? Want to give me a hint, or do you want to hide behind the mask of a neutral "editor" for Wikipedia when you are in fact a Teutonico-romantic propogandist? FYI I didn't "fan the flames" of "Satanic panic", despite what Jeffrey what's-his-arse thinks? Or the others who have fed off that particular "hysterical" screed. The fear about satanism had already crested as a result of media exposure by the time the book came out, including the Matamoros case, and most of the publicity appearances were set up the publisher, not me. Your effort to tar me with a broad-brush as some kind of fanatic just doesn't wash. I even gave Anton LaVey a signed copy of Painted Black through his daughter Carla, who told me, after I shook hands at the end of the Ron Reagan show, he "appreciated" it. Now if I was some beatle-browed, squinty-eyed, persecution-driven, anti-countercultural (of which I was a proud member) crusader, why would I do something like that?

If you think I'm wrong about things I wrote 25 years ago, then let's have a debate. Let's see where the evidence leads. Claiming "no evidence" when in fact there is evidence, as the cult apologists do, while ranting under the pretense of objectivity, is not an argument. And that is what you are doing too. I challenge you to reveal who you are, so we can get a better context for your campaign. I have. And I assure you if you continue with this behavior you will convince no one, especially my colleagues you think you might be actually convincing. Carlraschke (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Carlraschke