Talk:Satanic panic/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Satanic panic in South Africa

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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

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

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?

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?

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

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)

Batley

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 independent.ie, news.bbc.co.uk 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 [www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/mar/11/sex-cult-leader-colin-batley-sentenced] and [1] 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 [2] 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 [3] 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)

@Amousey:

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)

@Rhododendrites:

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. 95.147.206.69 (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 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-12677043 2 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1365331/Ruler-sick-kingdom-Sex-cult-leader-Colin-Batley-jailed-released.html 3 http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/mar/09/paedophile-satanic-cult-batley-kidwelly 4 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-12690580

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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

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." 107.167.99.183 (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)

Protestantism

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)

Protestantism might have been instrumental ....

Sorry. I recently reread Hawk, and couldn't resist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Ritual abuse

The article does a good job explaining that its topic is a moral panic and redirecting readers looking for religious abuse elsewhere. However, it says nothing about the concept of "ritual abuse", while "ritual abuse" redirects to SRA. The problem is that ritual abuse is a wholly independent concept from SRA or even religious abuse, because it is accepted by mental health professionals to signify a specifc type of abuse (along child sexual abuse, of which it can be a subcategory), characterized by being especially severe and repetitive, and performed by members of a cult ("In the sociological classifications of religious movements, a cult is a religious or social group with socially deviant or novel beliefs and practices."). This means that RA can be religious, but it is often not linked to a religious system and even more rarely - to a satanic church. While the existence of any particular cult can be put in doubt, the existence of ritual abuse, as, simply put, a form of physical and mental abuse cannot. That's why the redirect from "ritual abuse" to SRA (detailing a specific occurrence of moral panic) seems irrelevant.

Any proposals? Ignostic199 (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, actually, the article does speak about the concept of "ritual abuse", in the "definitions" section. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I apologize. Haven't read this carefuly enough. The problem is that this is very misleading. Ritual abuse is a more general concept than satanic ritual abuse. The article talks about SRA as a moral panic, only to discard all possible evidence of its existence. However, by doing so, it also degrades the testimonials and evidence of ritual abuse, which isn't considered a conspiracy theory or a moral panic, but rather a type of repetitive and organized abuse committed by groups (very simply put). The page portrays RA only as a notion that derives from generalization of SRA cases. I am not against presenting the evidence against SRA, I am against putting all the RA-related info on the same page as SRA and rejecting both notions. Ignostic199 (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

May I write an article on ritual abuse myself? I'd do that without asking, but Talk:Ritual abuse says this page can't be recreated without achieving consensus here first. Ignostic199 (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I would recommend creating one in your sandbox and then come back here to discuss it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I see problems already. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I am a new editor to Wikipedia and it's also a difficult topic. But I'd be really glad if you could help by pointing out at least some of its flaws! Ignostic199 (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I see little which is potentially sourcable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I haven't sourced much yet (actually I don't think I have sourced anything at all, in the proper sense of the word), but I think a lot of it is sourcable. The info on MKUltra is sourced in WP's page on it. The aspects needing to be highlighted are RA aspects that have been described by most of the researchers in the area. There's also a bit about how empirical truth and therapeutic truth are not to be confused, but this comes directly from an interview with a researcher conducted by the BBC Radio 4 and I'll make sure it's presented as his opinion. Still, I'd be really grateful if you could leave more suggestions, here or on the article's talkpage, and maybe even help by proposing what you think needs adding! Any help would be really appreciated. Ignostic199 (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Problem #1 is a lot of the "researchers in the area" were either insane or just scammers trying to sell books. If you're only trying to write an article summarizing a discredited pop culture phenomenon, that's probably not going to hurt your efforts, but if you're trying to write a serious article on the topic then I fear you're not going to find any serious sources. Also, please check out WP:SYNTH. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you're specifically referring to "child sexual abuse specifically involving or masquerading as rituals", why can't that just go in a Child sexual abuse article, if there is one, say as a subsection? My suspicion of the topic "ritual abuse" stems from how the term only seems to be used to refer to the discredited leftover of the SRA lunacy of the 80s. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

"Ritual abuse" could (depending on the definition) range from the old "priests molesting altar-boys" cliché, to polygamous child marriage by fundamentalist Mormons, right up to Jamestown-style suicide cults - and that's looking only at the "religious" end of the spectrum. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

And thus it would be WP:SYNTH. But in fact its definition doesn't range, they're talking about one very specific thing that they want to keep separate from the SRA of fundamentalist Christianity while not letting it get subsumed back into social work. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

"performed by members of a cult". Are you suggesting using written sources from the anti-cult movement? If so, there could be several claims which can not be corroborated and with no way to know how accepted they are by current academia. The very definition of a cult seems to be disputed and the more neutral new religious movement has gained in popularity among scholars. Dimadick (talk) 05:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Dimadick: I am not suggesting anything, because ritual abuse is mostly often linked to some cult, in its traditional definition - a group of people linked by a set of social and/or religious beliefs, that can engage in socially deviant behaviour. This is all the definition given by the Wikipedia article on cults. It is just a way of classifying that group of people without attaching any sort of judgement to it.

AllGloryToTheHypnotoad: are there are any sources justifying your arguments? Especially "in fact its [the RA's] definition doesn't range, they're talking about one very specific thing that they want to keep separate from the SRA of fundamentalist Christianity while not letting it get subsumed back into social work". I don't want to engage into a debate on SRA, as even though the two terms are indisputably related, I do not wish portrary any cultural phenomenon but a type of abuse. I'd follow your advise about the Childhood Abuse article, but the problem is RA doesn't always imply children. In its broadest definition, RA is just an especially severe and extreme kind of abuse (both moral and physical). The word "ritual" doesn't necessarily imply religion, it's a way of indicating that the abuse was repetitive and pre-arranged/organized. I am not sure about leftover. There is clear evidence of there being groups of individuals engaging in ritual abuse, whether it be sex cults (like Colin Batley's) or other types of organizations. There is also an undoubtful presence of ritual abuse in popular culture, such as in Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom.

Dodger67: I agree: this is a very broad thing. Some even argue different forms of military training are ritual abuse, too. The need to have a unified article on this broad phenomenon is explained by the fact that "ritual abuse" is still a common term in psychotherapy, reuniting important patterns in psychology (of both the perpetrators and the victims). It is an academically accepted way of talking about and reuniting things such as identity destruction or mind programming. Ignostic199 (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, well I still don't know what "ritual abuse" you're talking about. Your response doesn't seem to identify a particular definable concrete topic. BTW, because of this confusion I looked up "ritual abuse" on Google Scholar, and aside from SRA references and SRA scaremongering books all I saw was a few articles from Child Abuse & Neglect ca. 1991, which lost its status as a respected academic journal by being suckered by the SRA scare. So, unless you can at least define "ritual abuse" as a thing, there's really no way to further this discussion. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I checked Google Scholar as per your suggestion and came up with some sources. Please check User talk:Ignostic199/sandbox, where I've listed and summarized all of the ones I've investigated. What is clear is that there is no single definition of "ritual abuse", but it is a more accepted term than satanic abuse, if you want to talk about crime and not a moral panic. Some researchers assimilate "ritual" and "satanic", while some see it as "abuse inflicted upon a victim in a repetitive, systematic, stylized, and methodical fashion" (not necessarily linked to religion). However, I don't think it's a major issue, seeing no definition can be so clear as to prevent any debate on the object it's describing. I still feel it necessary to have a separate article on the topic, which the sources justify (as no matter what definition or what vision of organized child abuse researchers in my list relate to, they still use the term "ritual abuse" to speak about it). Therefore, to be as objective and neutral as possible in my opinion, this article should not present a single precise definition of the phenomenon (as I initially wanted it to be), but rather a structured overview of various definitions, issues and debates around the topic which your comments have now incited me to do. Ignostic199 (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking at your sandbox, the sources are all discussing satanic ritual abuse, what this page does. Based on what you have presented, I don't think there are enough reliable sources to split the page, and I think you are attempting to synthesize a case based on original research by using interpretations of the sources say things that the original authors did not intend (having read Lafontaine and Lanning at least, certainly these two shouldn't be used in the way you intend). It looks like you are trying to create a topic where there is currently not one; that's fine in the scholarly world, but not for wikipedia. Also, the sole mention of MKULTRA is in reference to Cathy O'Brian's book, and it is not sourced wikipedia, it is sourced to Knight, 2003. Citation is at the end of the sentence. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi WLU! I've re-read these sources and it was certainly very unprofessional of me to summarize them the way I did. Thanks for pointing this out and I hope my changes make these summaries more accurate. I still notice that even in Lafontaine's source "satanic" does nor equate "ritual". And many researchers talk about "ritual abuse" without ever referring to any form of alleged satanism. So I don't think I am creating this topic. Ignostic199 (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

This Article Reeks of a Personal Agenda

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)

The criticisms of the article here seems quite reasonable to me. There have been problems in the field that the article more than clearly points out, but there's no counter argument, or balancing section that clarifies some of the reality of this subject that has been exposed in court cases and the testimony and statements of victims. SRA, or now just "RA", remains a controversial subject and such controversy can lead to problematic articles on Wikipedia. I think WP often reflects the prevailing attitude (obviously, with the edit button there) but that does not mean that editors cannot endeavour to improve articles. The page on the Face on Mars comes to mind (yes, I can hear the groans now!) which had a history of rejecting pro-face evidence, and even said "there has been no scientific research done into the face". I had a book and a few papers which were serious research into this and discussed this with one of the prominent page editors. We agreed the reference to the research could be included (even though he, of course, vehemently disagreed that any such "face" had any validity). The reference is, at least last time I checked, still there. My point is that if this article is to be improved such as the above comment suggests then it has to be done in a dispassionate way with respect between editors. 95.144.145.96 (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

too many decades

"These methods began in the 1980s and continued for several decades until a series of court cases and medical malpractice lawsuits resulted in hospitals failing to support the approach." This sentence appears toward the end of the article. "Several" = 3 or more; 3 decades from the 80s would be right now. But these lawsuits started in the 90s, (eg http://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/06/us/memory-therapy-leads-to-a-lawsuit-and-big-settlement.html) a good two decades ago. Perhaps "several years" or "about a decade" would be accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.218.159 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 11 January 2016‎

Good point. I changed decades → years. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Should not this be part of the Religion Portal?

The only people who believe in this shit are religious people. Shit like this and ISIS is what makes secularists wary about religion. Even if you are not religious, you may still want to understand the other side. Hence it should be part of the religion portal.

As told in the lede and detailed in the body, The movement gradually secularized, dropping or deprecating the "satanic" aspects of the allegations in favor of names that were less overtly religious such as "sadistic" or simply "ritual abuse" and becoming more associated with dissociative identity disorder and anti-government conspiracy theories. The perpetrators were alleged to believe in Satan, rather than the accusers. But since the article conclude there were no actual Satanists, it becomes difficult to consider it a religion. (Are religions of non-existent people real religions?) Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on what reliable sources state. Absent strong bona fides of an editor stating what he or she believes to be the "truth", Wikipedia does not care about your personal opinions. In short: Hell No! Collect (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Carl Raschke

Editors involved with this page might want to take a look at the Carl Raschke page. Raschke is currently only mentioned in the "see also" section here, but he appears to have been an important figure in that he was an academic enthusiastically fanning the flames of the Satanic panic. I'm sure there's plenty more out there that can be added to his article (and here) about the situation. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Carry on, bloodofox, carry on.

Gateofhorn (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Gateofhorn

Note that User:Gateofhorn has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources of "Satanic ritual abuse" moral panic

The article which user :bloodofox: seems to want to defend says "the appearance of the social work or child protection field, and a group of professionals dedicated to the protection of children" is one of the causes of the SRA moral panic. Now am I smoking something, or does anyone want to blame SRA on the existence of the field of social work or child protective services, which governments and universities have had around for a long, long time for SRA. I'm new to this entry, so someone please help me out. Why does this :bloodofox: call that "apologetics"? Anybody know this guy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gateofhorn (talk • contribs) 05:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to your refactoring of the explanatory material next to the Carl Raschke "see also" entry. As for the "social work or child protection services"... I'm assuming that the text could be better phrased. Might want to check the reference—I didn't write it. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It's been well established in the scholarly literature that the two most important groups of moral entrepreneurs in the SRA panic were (1) fundamentalist Christians spreading a "spiritual warfare" narrative and (2) child protection workers campaigning against child physical sexual abuse. E.g., Diana Napolis was a big name in the American SRA panic, and she was a social worker. Another example, an important part of the institutional side of the SRA panic was CPWs' assertion that small children's testimony could be valid in court, and CPWs' invention of techniques of interrogating children to manufacture SRA claims for court cases. Hell, there could have been no legal claims of SRA like the McMartin preschool trial had it not been for the work of CPWs.

So, Gateofhorn, if you're looking for someone who seriously blames SRA on the existence of the field of social work or child protective services, I'm your guy, and yup I have read the literature.

I don't want to boorishly reverse your edits, but I'll give fair warning now that I will be reverting this article to 2 Feb unless recognition of the role of the CPWs in the SRA panic is maintained in the article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I support the Hypnotoad here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I reframed the sentence about child protection workers. Looks better now. Also reverted the Cheit section til this article's regular editors (incl. me) have time to look into it. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Just FYI the user who opened this thread has been blocked as a sock. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

and as for Cheit

And as for Ross Cheit's book, if it is a moderate and nuanced investigation into actual cases of CSA that got reframed into a Satanic narrative, I'd be happy to see it included as a source. I'm not going to read it right now cos I have midterms to study for; but the two abstracts I've seen from Cheit makes me doubt his professionalism (you don't say "so-called False Memory Syndrome Foundation" in a scholarly article, that's just unprofessional; and JCAN is no longer a scholarly journal, it was actually this pro-SRA nonsense in the 80s and 90s that destroyed their reputation). I'm also wondering why a polisci prof is wading into a topic that's been done to death in sociology. But the misspelling of his name in this section, as well as the outright bullshit ("praised in academia and in the mainstream media", with selective quoting from an even-handed and skeptical NYT article as support), make me think this section was written by a pro-SRA/anti-FMSF campaigner. It's WP:UNDUE and WP:CHERRYPICK at a minimum, and if I'm wrong about Cheit and he's a scholarly fellow then it's also WP:COAT. The section is deleted. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

PS note that I'm not asserting "no SRA cases involved real CSA" - nobody asserts this and some cases certainly did. E.g. read Kevin Marron's book on the Hamilton SRA family court case, which involved real children who were likely really sexually abused for years by family members - just not by a Satanic cult who made snuff movies at CHCH TV, led by a dude called "The Blob". Put simply, the existence of actual CSA does not "debunk" SRA. There were outlandish allegations of a world-spanning Satanic cult that were really made, and that is the essence of the SRA moral panic topic. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You seriously doubt that Cheit, a full professor in a highly regarded field (political science) at an Ivy League university, can be considered "scholarly"? Maybe you should read the book. What Cheit argues flat out through detailed case analysis in the book is that the narrative of a "Satanic ritual abuse moral panic," which dominates this entry, doesn't stand up to the actual evidence. He shows how the claims of numerous people people wrongfully jailed is, well, to use your own "scholarly" term, "bullshit" (That's not a quote from him, of course). I would think that WP:NPOV would insist that you at least include a reference to the book. As for calling me a "pro-SRA/anti-FMSF campaigner", please refrain from that, because you have no evidence as such. I'm a media studies professor who is very concerned about how things are reported and represented. I don't campaign, but I am a feminist, and proud of it. Of course, that doesn't necessarily discredit me any more than being a "social worker." Gateofhorn (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Gateofhorn

Note that this is user has been apologizing for academic Carl Raschke's role in the Satanic panic since he popped up (with about a dozen total other new users) after Raschke's article started seeing a lot of edits from me. Looks like Cheit's book deserves an article of its own though. Seems highly controversial to say the least ([4]). :bloodofox: (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC) 16:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

A media studies professor who socks on Wikipedia? God, why am I not surprised? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Note that I added Cheit's book as a citation with a brief summary. It's a very reasonable inclusion - but it shouldn't unbalance the article or imply that SRA is real (which as far as I can tell it does not). It really comes down to "the hysteria may have obscured some actual abuse", which hardly seems unquestionable. It's attributed to him, and it's a single sentence. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Why is there so much hysteria about denying the existence of SRA?

It's a crime, and it's been confirmed. Why the controversy on documenting it? Why has so much effort been dedicated to discrediting its existence? This calls into mind the Franklin sex scandal, and cover-up, which as an aside, should be mentioned in this article. I've never seen such nit-picky statements attacking every common sense presentation of evidence and facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allen frey (talk • contribs) 04:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

When you say "it's been confirmed" you probably mean "one person claimed it has happened, and some other people agree". It does not follow that it's a real phenomenon. The people who believe in SRA believe in it because they first believed that recovering lost memories is possible. But they are wrong, and their conclusion (SRA is real) is also wrong. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the people who first believed in SRA believed in it because they read fictionalized accounts in books like Michelle Remembers, and it fit with their Fundamentalist sci-fi fantasy of spiritual warfare. The multiple personality and memory recovery fantasies came along a while later. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

More denial? History is full of monstrous events in the name of religion, anti-religion, sex, racism, nationality, and anything/everything else. Marquis de Sade filled books with quasi-fantasy on the subject. The ancient Hebrews accused the Phoenicians. Medieval Christians accused the Jews. John Gacy and a dozen others practiced it. Sure, some are false accusations, but some are true. Why the wholesale denial? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you're saying here. But the issue is that SRA simply didn't exist—it's as simple as that. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I was responding to the comment directly above. Culture and history is replete with examples, factual and fictional, including the Vanger Nazis in the first book of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and all the other examples named above, possibly including Jack the Ripper. It is a continuous vein of rumor -- and possibly practice -- in Voodoo, which is heavily ritualistic and abusive at times, too. SRA is only tangentially related to "Fundamentalism". It may have been concretized by Michelle -- but only for people who are culturally deprived. Michelle did not invent the idea. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

"People wrote novels about stuff and other people accused foreigners of stuff" is not an argument that can establish the factual existence of a secret world-spanning satanic cult who molested and murdered children in the 1980s. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hm. We went from denying that ritual abuse is a "real phenomenon" to denying it is "world-spanning cult". Such is the folly of absolutes. There are certainly cases, documented and proved, of ritual abuse extending through rape to murder and massacre. Do you deny that Aztecs carved the hearts from living victims and threw their bodies down wells? Does that fail on the "ritual" prong, or is it not "abuse"? Jack the Ripper ritualistically carved up his victims. Here is the case of a Nigerian who ritually massacred his newborn daughter for witchcraft.[5] Florida.[6] Liberia/[7] Malawi/[8] Singapore.[9] Etc. Denial has all the foolishness of whistling past the graveyard. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

You've rather conveniently left off the word "satanic" which is rather the entire point of the argument. There has never been a single proven instance of the specific involvement of Satanism in any of the many known cases of ritual abuse. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The article states in the top line, "sometimes known as ritual abuse, ritualistic abuse, organised abuse, sadistic ritual abuse and other variants." "Satanic" is a descriptive, not a trade mark. The ordinary meaning of the word "satanic" (not the trade mark) is "extremely evil or wicked." If you object that no incident is found where perpetrators the words "We love you, Satan!" scrawled across the wall in blood, you might be right -- but that is as pointless as arguing there are no "Marxists" in Russia or China because they don't use the Roman alphabet. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Lumping all of those news articles together as "witchcraft" implies a strong ignorance, just to start. And then this stuff about "Satanic" as simply meaning "extremely vile and wicked"? This conversation isn't worth continuing—it has moved off topic into the realm of inevitable introductory book recommendations. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I have used the word "witchcraft" in one context only, not all as you pretend here. To those who believe in the Jewish-christian bible, all evil is "Satanic." The existence of extremely wicked and evil incidents is not contingent on "Satan"'s actual and provable existence. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course not, and none of that has anything to do with the subject of this article, which is specifically the "Satanic Ritual Abuse" hysteria, not the existence of wicked and evil incidents. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Your denial is still puzzling, almost ritualistic. The article clearly refers to actual and more generic events, as I have shown here:

The term "satanic ritual abuse" is used to describe different behaviors, actions and allegations that lie between extremes of definitions.[72] In 1988, a nationwide study of sexual abuse in U.S. day care agencies, led by David Finkelhor, put forth a threefold typology to describe "ritual abuse" — cult-based ritualism in which the abuse had a spiritual or social goal for the perpetrators, pseudo-ritualism in which the goal was sexual gratification and the rituals were used to frighten or intimidate victims, and psychopathological ritualism in which the rituals were due to mental disorders.[73] Subsequent investigators have expanded on these definitions and also pointed to a fourth alleged type of Satanic ritual abuse, in which petty crimes with ambiguous meaning (such as graffiti or vandalism) generally committed by teenagers were attributed to the actions of Satanic cults.[74][75][76] These definitions later appeared in an episode of the police procedural drama Criminal Minds,[77] one of several in the series that referenced the satanic ritual abuse moral panic.

By the early 1990s, the phrase "Satanic ritual abuse" was featured in media coverage of ritualistic abuse but its use decreased among professionals in favour of more nuanced terms such as multi-dimensional child sex rings,[46] ritual/ritualistic abuse,[78] organised abuse[79] or sadistic abuse,[44] some of which acknowledged the complexity of abuse cases with multiple perpetrators and victims without projecting a religious framework onto perpetrators. The latter in particular failed to substantively improve on or replace "Satanic" abuse as it was never used to describe any rituals except the Satanic ones that were the core of SRA allegations. Abuse within the context of Christianity, Islam or any other religions failed to enter the SRA discourse.[80]

Conclusions on the origins of allegations of cult-based abuse can include actual abuse by organized groups, pseudosatanism, distortions and false memories, mental illness resulting in false reporting, deliberate lying or hoaxes and in the cases of child testimonies, allegations may be artifacts of the questioning techniques used, and TV special broadcasts.[81][82][83]

Note that "Satanism" per se is not an absolute requirement. And you still assert it was ALL a total fiction, never happened, not a real phenomenon, etc.?

If you're suggesting that Aztec ritual sacrifices, Jack the Ripper, some Nigerian dude, and John Wayne Gacy are all instances of satanic ritual abuse, then you're trying to change the definition of what this Wikipedia article is about. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry you are having difficulty following this conversation. The initial statement was a flat denial that anything like SRA had ever happened anywhere, and a categorical assertion that anyone who believed SRA ever happened had (1) read the book and (2) attended a Christian Fundamentalist Church. I was showing that those are erroneous presumptions, and you have been misconstruing my statements and arguing with me. That denial is just as foolish as the original panic that SRA was happening all over the place. (The text I quoted in italics is taken from the existing page -- contrary to your horrors, I did not change it and I am not trying to change it.) Would you like to read the whole thread from the beginning so you understand the context? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want to understand why this article is like that, that is, one of the most prejudiced I have seen in Wikipedia, failing to "simply report" the various view-points without this excessive value-judgement that will disgust even those who have absolutely no dog in the race - if you want to understand why this article is like that, follow the edits and comments of AllGloryToTheHypnotoad . Only an omniscient being can ascertain the "absence" of a phenomenon, but here we find a Wikipedia editor, along with others to be sure, who have taken upon themselves the task of denying, ridiculing, and stereotyping a phenomenon (SRA) which, however much occasionally exaggerated, certainly and factually exists, with profoundly diminished and suffering victims who still live with us today. 182.64.102.3 (talk) 05:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I feel like wasting some time today, anon IP. How's about you provide us some evidence (links, books, whatever) that you feel will demonstrate to us that Satanic Ritual Abuse "certainly and factually exists, with profoundly diminished and suffering victims who still live with us today"? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

And around in a circle we go. Please see my comments above ca. 19:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC). You might argue that it could not be "satanic" because Satan does not exist. Equally, then, you must agree there are no Christian churches because Christ does not exist. If we accept all the terms and synonyms in the lede, do you still assert it has never happened? Would you then address my arguments from two months ago in this same section? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 18:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

He might argue that, but didn't. I guess you felt great when you totally rebutted the reasoning he did not use, defeating no actual person but a hypothetical being which could have used the spurious, easily refuted nonsense you easily refuted. Maybe you should not go all around in circles and instead answer the question he actually asked? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Ad hominem sauce, anyone? If "Satanic" is not your objection, then let's move onto "ritual abuse". Many sociopathic murders, mutilations, and other criminal acts are ritualistic, now and in the past, in America and elsewhere. The KKK was totally ritualistic. I provided more examples above, totally answering AllGloryToTheHypnotoad. The question is answered. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 15:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

What's ad hominem about me refuting your silly straw man fallacy? "If "Satanic" is not your objection" totally misses the point. His objection was A, and you refuted B. Strawman. That is all I said. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

You are just confused. You seem to think that unfalsifiability of an idea is a boon, when in reality it dooms the idea from the start as utterly useless. Also, quality of evidence counts for more than its mere existence. And there are people who can tell good reasons from bad ones, rendering some controversies uncontroversial among those people. Read some philosophy of science, IP. Or some science, to see how it is done. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Just for example http://www.inquisitr.com/1590101/north-carolina-satanist-and-cannibal-arrested-for-murder-bodies-found-in-shallow-graves-in-backyard/ 182.64.74.114 (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

And again: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tennessee-satanist-gregory-scott-hale-arrested-murder-cannibalism-1452200 / there is much more but, being a lowly anon user, WP police wouldn't let me post links. Enjoy the horror, you over analytic deluded sufferers !! 182.64.74.114 (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

By the way all this is from Google search!! It's not years of research or something like that!! And you talk about science to see how it is done?!?! http://abc13.com/news/prosecutor-teen-confessed-three-times-to-killing-friend/1195993/ 182.64.74.114 (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The article explicitly says "This article is about the moral panic". It is not about the tiny minority of Satanists among murderers or among serial killers (who are themselves a tiny minority), it is about the crazy delusions of a bunch of people who use invalid methods to incriminate everyone and their dog of secretly being part of a Satanic cabal.

Maybe the article should be renamed to get rid of the people trying to make it about something else? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

THANK YOU!! We have thus succeeded in our task , first is the admitting that SRA exists as a real phenomenon (it being rare is something that we agree on and that is quite irrelevant to our debate here, for moral panic involving SRA can be argued to be rare also!), and second (and consequently) it is improper to confuse SRA with a moral panic about SRA. Hence the title of this article should explicitly state its subject. I have done my task! The rest is in your hands, or shall I say, those of the devil!! ;-) I shall say no more. 117.222.197.4 (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

http://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/arezQY7_700b.jpg AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Veracity of the claim SRA is a myth

Hi,

Because of the controversy and the knee-jerk response these days to say that "its been proven a myth", I thought I would write here first rather than edit the page because of the sensitive nature of the topic.

While there was a "moral panic" and some people were wrongly convicted, it does not mean that there should be reason for concern. There are people wrongfully convicted of crimes and the Justice System is at fault for that in what it allowed and prosecutors not acting properly. They should have never even charged some of these people. Prosecutors are in IMHO too aggressive looking for a high number on the win list instead of looking for the truth. That said.

The article seems to imply SRA is nonexistent a complete myth fanned by uptight Christian fundamentalists. I can say it does exist. I came from a freemason family and were fully aware of some of these rituals that go on. Here is a video of and FBI raid and the people found there did go to jail. It is quite graphic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wg00xoWptw

This article seems to take a complete skeptical side and says no evidence exists or has ever existed regarding SRA in the US and Europe and cites books. Well the FBI raid above is evidence is it not?

There is hidden camera footage taken of some like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbRmRkZxYk0 was compiled into a film with English subtitles. A simple search on you tube can get you links some of which involve a person who was present telling the story. Most skeptics will simply dismiss them though. The page seems to imply that people just make it all up. Maybe for those you documented yes. However, the ritual practice does go on and is kept under wraps. There is a code of silence that is enforced.

It does not take much to find real evidence: Like the mutilated backwoods remains of a cult victim’s body in Massachusetts. The bloody pentagram carved into a cult victim’s corpse in San Francisco. (see below)

The most shocking report I find is the widely cited Law Enforcement Perspective report out of the FBI’s Behavioral Science Center in Quantico, Virginia as written by supervisory special agent Kenneth Lanning. It is been cited consistently throughout the media and I believe here as well. An HTML version that is divided into smaller sections is here. The report is quite large. http://www.religioustolerance.org/ra_rep03.htm

The report states, in regards to "organized" Satanic ritual abuse homicide (that is, two or more Satanic cult members conspiring to commit murder): "The law enforcement perspective can’t ignore the lack of physical evidence (no bodies, or even hairs, fibers, or fluids left by violent murders."

Really? No bodies? What were those in FBI sting operation in the link above? Fiction? Howabout the following short list of admittedly satanic murders.

From March 13, 1981, UPI article:

"Fitchburg, Mass. -- The alleged leader of a devil worship cult was found guilty of first-degree murder Friday in the ritual killing of a young Fall River, Mass. prostitute last year. Carl Drew, 26, stood pale and expressionless as the verdict was announced. He was immediately sentenced to life imprisonment by superior court judge Francis W. Keating...Miss Marsden was allegedly killed, mutilated and beheaded by Drew and two others in a blood-soaked night time ritual in a wooded area because she wanted to leave the cult."

In 1993, House Bill 1689 was introduced in the Massachusetts Legislature. It is a bill prohibiting "Certain Ritualistic Acts." Some of these acts include: ritual mutilation, dismemberment, torture, the sacrifice of animals, humans. A similar bill was passed in Idaho in 1990 too.

In the 1993 Avon Books release: "Raising Hell", author/investigative reporter Michael Newton writes: "While some cult apologists may be forgiven their ignorance of current events, (FBI) Agent Lanning -- with access to nationwide police files -- should know better. As this volume amply demonstrates, cult related killers stand convicted of murder in 23 states and at least nine foreign countries. Numerous other occultists are now serving time for practicing their "faith" through acts of arson, rape, assault, cruelty to animals, and similar crimes." Amazon.com has it here https://www.amazon.com/Raising-Hell-Encyclopedia-Worship-Satanic/dp/0380768372 and Google books has it as well.

Here is a book https://www.amazon.com/Aldrete-Serial-Killers-Devils-Ranch-ebook/dp/B0172KFIQ6/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1470683647&sr=8-3&keywords=Satanic+crime#nav-subnav called "Sara Aldrete and the Serial Killers of Devil's Ranch"

and it is described " Sara Aldrete, a seemingly normal college student, and cult leader Adolfo de Jesús Constanzo were the Godfather and Godmother of the most sadistic serial killing cult in modern history. They formed a religious group/drug gang which terrorized a Mexican border town with ritual torture and human sacrifice. These sacrifices were undertaken in order to "bless" their illegal drug dealings in Matamoros, Mexico. The disappearance and death of Mark J. Kilroy during Spring break of 1989, however, would finally put an end to their reign of sadism and terror "

Here is more footage. It is not satanic per-se it was taken inside a freemason lodge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks_D2drIs6E It shows a stripper doing what she was paid to do no doubt. Nothing new about men hiring and watching strippers, but it does go to the point that nefarious things do happen in some lodges.

To be part of the rituals, people are vetted thoroughly. A code of silence is enforced as I will cite a case below.

A book "The Medusa files" has documentation of a case in Florida of human trafficking for instance related to rituals.

Satanic cults are somewhat similar to Mafia crime families.

There is, for instance, extreme secrecy through a code of silence. This is usually initiated with the signing of a "blood" contract. Wendell Amstutz, author of "Satanism in America", said these contracts are generally signed in the initiate’s own blood. The contract, according to Amstutz, usually demands life-long obedience. And breaking it means death.

As an example, four California Satanic cult defectors one night in 1990. They were tracked down to an apartment on Elm Street in the town of Salida.

They were beaten and stabbed. Then, they were decapitated.

What was left behind rivaled the carnage of the Tate-LaBianca crime scene.

The trail led back to five Satanic cult members, You can look this up.

The five who were indicted were part of a 55-member Satanic cult that was operating out of a compound in Salida. Cult members stretched across a three-county are, with a number of them living in a Salida compound (homes and trailers). What went on in the Salida compound, for the most part, was gruesome and left lots of evidence.

Randy Cerny, Director of the Northern Chapter of California’s Ritual Crime Investigator’s Association followed the cult closely. And after they were indicted, he interviewed several of the cult members and reviewed extensive diaries they’d kept.

the case is detailed here at findlaw: "Supreme Court of California The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Richard John VIEIRA, Defendant and Appellant. No. S026040. Decided: March 7, 2005": http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1445606.html

He said the cult worshiped Satan, following renowned Satanist Aleister Crowley. They engaged in sexual abuse, ritual torture including electric shock, child abuse, murder.

In other words, they reported and participated in many of the things Satanic ritual abuse survivors have consistently reported.

Cerny also said: it was reported cult members were from all walks of life. This even included a dentist, a minister, and a woman enrolled in a law enforcement class at a local community college. (Satanic cult members aren’t, by any means, tattooed teen bikers. Often, Satanic ritual abuse survivors report their cult perpetrators are respected members of the community: doctors, law enforcement officials, upstanding members of the community at large...This all, apparently, is part of the facade.)

One of the Matomoros cult members responsible for some of the 13 grisly murder/sacrifices in Mexico a few years back, was majoring in law enforcement at Texas Southmost College at the time she was arrested.

"The California cult was a very secretive, close-knit, sophisticated group," said Cerny. A documentry is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2wRFYl2YJQ I am not sure if the original air date.

The Satanic cult was run under the iron fist of high priest, Gerald Cruz. Cruz used sleep deprivation, brainwashing, torture...to keep members in line. At the trial in Oakland in December, 1992, cult expert and psychologist, Daniel Goldstine, would characterize Cruz as "evil and sadistic."

The jury thought so too. Cruz and two other cult members were sentenced to death for the murders. Two other cult members got life. "Now let’s project this 20 to 25 years down the road," Cerny continued. "Say someone walks into a police department or therapist’s office and says, ‘I’m starting to have memories that my dad was a leader of this Satanic cult in California. And they would brainwash people, torture them with electric shock, sexually abuse me, sacrifice animals, kill people...’ "

Cerny wondered if that would all be passed off as a "false memory." So do I given artles like this one.

Nationally syndicated columnist Molly Ivins might well have passed it off as just that. In a May, 1994, column, Ms. Ivins wrote: "...social workers who deal with child abuse have nightmares about the people who come up with patently false recovered memories of Satanic ritual abuse."

Monika Beerle seemed to be nobody’s "false recovered memory." The following is a February 18, 1992, Newsday article excerpt:

" New York -- Members of a cult here killed ballerina Monika Beerle in August, 1989, and then dismembered her and fed her flesh to the homeless as part of a Satanic ritual, law enforcement sources said yesterday after arresting a cult member in connection with the slaying. "The public isn’t generating enough momentum to get police mobilized around this (Satanic ritual abuse) issue at this point," explained Akron, Ohio Police Captain Jerry Foys. And John Hunt, Sherman, Texas ritual crime investigator says that "because of the FBI report, the stigma around Satanism and other factors have made it hard to get internal police department support in following up on the ritual aspects of a crime."

Hunt and Foys both said "they believe the Satanic ritual abuse is quite widespread -- and extremely dangerous". These are Law Enforcement officers saying this. People who have seen the bodies.

Another case in point: Alcoholic drifter known only as John Doe No. 60, his body was found in San Francisco. According to a May 6, 1988, San Francisco Chronicle article:

"The victim had a pentagram carved into his chest, lash marks across his buttocks, a stab wound to his neck, wax in his right eye and hair, and a sliced lip. The naked body was virtually drained of blood."

Clifford St. Joseph, 46, was convicted and sentenced to 34 years to life for the killing. This again was real ritualistic murder and real people convicted of the crime.

In the book, Raising Hell, Michael Newton writes:

"when police came to St. Joseph’s apartment nine days after the body was found, they found St. Joseph dressed in a black robe, companion Michael Bork, 26, stripped to the waist, his face daubed with cosmetics, and another man, Edward Spela, 26, passed out from drugs. In the middle of the room was a 19-year old man, who was laying on the floor, handcuffed and surrounded by candles."

According to the San Francisco Chronicle:

"Investigators said that St. Joseph appeared to be part of a Satanic cult that involved men of means in San Francisco’s gay community."

Again, John Doe No. 60’s mutilated body was real. It was nobody’s false memory.

A term popular culture has latched onto, is the very clinical sounding, "false memory syndrome". This is a term coined by the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-based False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF). ( It is an advocacy group for people whose children have accused them of sexual abuse and/or Satanic ritual abuse).

You have used this term in the article failing to tell about the source and who coined it.

Despite the scientific sounding title, there is actually no such thing as a clinically acknowledged category for "false memory syndrome," This is according to Judith Herman, an associate clinical professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, who authored the book, "Trauma and Recovery". "The very name FMSF is prejudicial and misleading," said Dr. Herman. "There is no such syndrome, and we have no evidence reported memories are false. We only know they are disputed."

This issue of SRA I think is not a "moral panic", but has real concerns and very real evidence, including the dead bodies and convicted felons. It seems the media had more of a panic. The old adage of "If it bleeds it leads" is still true.

This article makes has many citations to support what it said, However, the bodies say otherwise as do the convictions and court records. The cases above are a tiny few of the total.

Again it seems as though SRA is something the church has made up over the ages and that there is no evidence either in the US or Europe. There are books and court cases related to the subject and forensic evidence that counters this claim and certainly the FBI report must have been ignorant of these facts and the FBI's own cases.

Here is some more on the side of the Bizzare: A Fall 1989 Cleveland Plain Dealer article excerpt reads:

"Three Norwalk area residents charged with opening two graves, beheading the corpses and stealing the skulls, were part of a cult that had recently gotten instructions on how to sacrifice babies to Satan, Norwalk police said yesterday. "We’re taking this very seriously," he [Police Chief Gary Dewalt] said." "

and: May 5, 1993 -- Three eight year old boys were riding their bikes down a country road in West Memphis, Arkansas. Suddenly they were forced off the road and horribly killed. One of the suspects accused in the murders, Jessie Lloyd Miskelly, Jr., 17 according to wire service reports, told police that the murders were tied to a teen Satanic cult sacrifice. "Miskelly said the children were lured into a wooded area of West Memphis known as Robin Hood Park, choked until they were unconscious, then brutalized in various ways -- including rape..." from http://search.commercialappeal.com/jmg.aspx?k=West+Memphis+3 articles.

The west Memphis Three are detailed on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Memphis_Three

According to a March 8, 1994 article on the trial appearing in the West Memphis The Commercial Appeal: "A witness last week told him Baldwin (one of the accused) told him he sucked the blood from one victim after he mutilated him."

Diaries indicated the Satanic cult in Salida, California, followed the teachings of renowned Satanist Aleister Crowley. In his book, Magick in Theory and Practice, Crowley wrote, "The blood is the life...any living thing is the storehouse of energy...at the death of the animal this energy is liberated suddenly. The animal should therefore be killed within the Circle, or Triangle, so that it’s energy cannot escape...For the highest spiritual working one must accordingly choose that victim which the greatest and purest force. A male child of perfect innocence is the most satisfactory and suitable victim."

Maybe we should take it more seriously too. By that, I do not mean panic, but to take a serious look at the satanic cults in America and Europe and deal with it realistically not exaggerating or denying the truth. I feel the article as well should have a section on the very real murders and crimes that did happen and were satanically motivated (via the cult worship). Whether you are Christian, Atheist or whatever, these crimes should be considered and not written off as myths. Certainly, there is a pile of evidence that the FBI is apparently unaware of. That should be noted here as well

You can look these and other cases up along with court records. After all it did not take much to google and get fully vetted cases. Sglazier456 (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

If your text had been one-tenth of its length, it would have been too long to read. There are two possibilities:

• You want to propose changes to the article. In that case, just propose them, without talking such a lot. Be sure to add reliable sources.
  • If you do not have any reliable sources, forget it.
• You don't. In that case, you are at the wrong place. Go to a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, before editing Wikipedia articles like this one, please read WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia is not a place for original research, and Wikipedia does not allow fringe sources to trump serious academic investigation. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Many Dead Links

Just a note to suggest that any regular eds for this page check the links. I found many redundant links, though alternatives are often available through search engines. (I've no idea why these links appear at the bottom of this page either). Ty LandOfTheBlind (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

If you find dead links around, you can tag them with {{dead link}} so that someone can go through and fix them, or alternatively you could fix them yourself by updating the URL to a more recent one (provided it points to a reliable, non-plagiarized page) or adding an archive link to the citation (see Template:Citation#URL).  Adrian^[232] 11:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Pizzagate

Should we not have a link to this (very similar) case?Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

"Very similar" in what way? General Ization ^Talk 17:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/08/the-satanic-roots-of-pizzagate-how-a-30-year-old-sex-panic-explains-today/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/12/the_comet_ping_pong_pizzagate_scandal_is_a_child_sex_ring_myth_for_the_age.html

Hell even the people promoting this (pizzagate) have made the link, using material from the earlier moral panic http://www.snopes.com/the-pizzagate-survivor/

Claims of satanic sex abuse, http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/14/505577985/webpages-linked-to-pizzeria-shooting-go-dark-even-as-prosecution-moves-forward

Secret "undergrounds" and codes, https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/blogger-co-op/mcmartin-child-welfares-prelude-pizzagate/23388

The only difference is that here the accusers are not the victims, they are just making the same kinds of accusations.Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

So where in the article would you mention Pizzagate, and how would you introduce it without violating WP:OR (i.e., not merely reflecting your opinion that they are similar phenomena) or WP:SYNTH? General Ization ^Talk 17:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

As I said as a link, and not more.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

And how would this contribute to the reader's understanding of Satanic ritual abuse, which is the subject of this article? The rationale for including another article in See also (which is what I assume you mean by "as a link") should be clear to the reader once they review the linked article without needing to explain it (since See also does not include explanations). General Ization ^Talk 18:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Unless you can articulate how the inclusion would contribute to the reader's understanding of this article's subject, the similarity is trivia and the link should not be included. General Ization ^Talk 18:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) article already exists. A "see also" at the bottom of this article would be very appropriate. Beyond that, those of us who've been here for year know that a big problem with this article (and the Moral panic article) is limiting length. Maybe the ideal would be to add a "development of SRA after the 90s" section, where you could add Pizzagate etc.; it is an unkillable meme and will always be with us. But then the problem is, again, that section will make a heck of a lot of work for this article's curators: we'd need to avoid WP:OR, we'd need to constantly check sources, etc. I guess that's not a valid argument against doing it, but it's still an argument we'd all make. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I as asking if we should, not saying we should. It just struck me that many sources are drawing a link. What they seem to be saying (and maybe this is a reason why) is that this represents a repeat of a pattern (and (i do not know if I have linked to it) some sources are going back as far as the catholic paranoia of the 19thC). That this represents a kind of cycle of moral panic over secret sexual (and ritualistic) abuse, as well as its use (and at least another source has linked it to anti-Semitic blood canards as well) to demonize political and social opponents.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I added a link to the Pizzagate article in the "see also". If that article is notable (and I think it is, and that's the guy who's opinion I care about the most), then this article deserves the link. Hey, maybe we can make that standard policy for all post-90s "ritual abuse" stuff: write your own article if you think it's notable, let its notability get confirmed independently here at WP (i.e. it's exposed to its own prod or AfD without us getting involved), add a link in the "see also" here, and when there's enough stuff we can eventually move those cases to a "since the 90s" list section, throwing out any links that don't make the grade. That sounds simple and elegant, and maintains this article as one on the specific SRA panic of the 80s. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate title

This article is not about "Satanic Ritual Abuse". It is about "Moral Panic". It contains a great deal of information about moral panic but little about the actual topic of SRA. What it is and what it is not. While there are some verifiable facts that dismiss some allegations of SRA, there are also many instances where opinion is stated as fact. It appears to be a very subjective article presenting whatever science and opinions suit the authors objective. There are no contributions by a real victim of SRA. To imply that it does not exist is not only un-provable but morally repugnant. This comment is not aimed at the author of the article but to the deniers of the reality of SRA and its connection to DID. Survivors of SRA are real. Their pain and disability is now increased by the denial of what happened to them. Many past, present and future victims will be perceived as lying or just manipulated and not taken seriously thus increasing the painful affects of these horrible acts. One need not look far to see or understand how malevolent human beings can be. Shall we say murder and rape do not exist or be-headings or torture. Do we really think cannibalism or head hunting do not exist or that human beings are above serving someone or something that requires child sacrifice. We do not have to look far outside our culture to find very objective and verifiable instances of such atrocities. Are we so naïve that we think that it doesn’t happen in North America. The article makes many severely biased and unsubstantiated claims. This alone should be enough to call the entire article into question. If a person cries wolf repeatedly, when there is no wolf, we stop believing that wolves exist. Big Mistake. Deniers of SRA fall into the same category as holocaust deniers. The bottom line is that the author has no evidence to prove that SRA exists or does not exist. It would help if there were more real evidence for the "moral panic" which is also not quantified. What constitutes moral panic? How doe we know when something recieves that term etc. Schoolatbethel (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

"Survivors of SRA are real." Is there any evidence for that claim which is not based on methods that are known to be highly unreliable and misleading, such as recovered-memory therapy? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

"Satanic Ritual Abuse" in the USA was studied intensively by academics, and also investigated thoroughly by the legal system, throughout the 1990s and 2000s. It was proven to be bullshit. This article simply reports the results of that work. You don't get to walk into an article and assert that the crap people hear on Alex Jones overrides thousands of hours of academic and law enforcement work. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Satanic ritual abuse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528205615/https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/dspace/bitstream/1794/1492/1/Diss_3_1_5_OCR.pdf to https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/dspace/bitstream/1794/1492/1/Diss_3_1_5_OCR.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130129081216/http://www.fmsfonline.org/braun.html to http://www.fmsfonline.org/braun.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

reverted 2 on Cheit

Reverted 2 additions on Cheit.

1 - his assertion that "Lanning's distinction between conspiratorial claims and individual cases is overlooked" is nonsense. The Satanic Ritual Abuse panic was specifically a panic about a world-spanning Satanic conspiracy, and it was never a panic about any individual case where some mentally ill individual committed crimes and said "oh PS I love Satan". That is why the distinction is used, and oh by the way this very article does explicitly highlight that distinction.

2 - He agrees "there is no evidence for vast networks of Satanic or ritual abusers", therefore his work does not disagree with this article. This article is limited to the Satanic Ritual Abuse moral panic that occurred in the US in the 80s and 90s (and spread to other parts of the world afterwards): it is *not* an article about murderers or sexual abusers who said "oh PS I love Satan".

3 - If he contends that disbelief in a world-spanning Satanic cult causes people to also disbelieve real cases of child sex abuse, then please provide the links to the methodologically-valid quantitative statistical studies that are the empirical basis for his contention. Hint: I doubt you'll find any. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Should Dungeons and Dragons be mentioned here?

in the 80's many Christians in the USA thought that D&D was "Satanic". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.114.200 (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

You're right. However, we'd need both a reliable source discussing this topic (D&D Christian controversies) as well as one making the link between that particular moral panic event and the belief that there could be a relation between D&D and alleged increased Satanic ritual abuse (this article's topic), to avoid original research. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I was around in the 80s, giving my soul to Satan every time I rolled a d20, and I can tell you there was a lot written on the topic. But it has nothing to to with SRA. At best, it might deserve a "see also" link, if there is already an article on the topic here at WP, which I'm pretty sure there must be. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Right, it was a moral panic around D&D (and heavy metal music), but it wasn't directly tied to the SRA moral panic. I remember having to reassure family members & even a teacher that my role playing games were no different than playing cops 'n robbers with dice. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, you replied to a message from 2017. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

That is not dead which can eternal lie.

And with strange aeons even death may die. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah what he said, and also have a 🖕 for using an emoji at me. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

😥 — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I remember the Watch Tower calling role playing games "demonism" at some point... —PaleoNeonate – 00:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hell, some groups branded The Smurfs as Satanic back in the day, because Papa Smurf brewed magic potions. And I remember one radio show ranting about He-Man because of the "Masters of the Universe" in the title. But those don't have anything to do with SRA itself, just the general moral panic of the time. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Religious debates over the Harry Potter series... The word "Satanic" is used, but that alone doesn't make it SRA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Would this qualify as a reliable source ?

Hi. Here is a document held on the database of the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). The NCJRS is a law enforcement organisation funded by the United States government ( https://www.ncjrs.gov/whatsncjrs.html ). It is titled SATANIC CULT AWARENESS. Please be aware that the document contains explicit descriptions of violent acts and crime scenes. Link: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Photocopy/140554NCJRS.pdf Michael Z Freeman (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Not for statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice, but could possibly be used to support descriptions of some of the claims made by proponents of the panic that, say, AC/DC stands for "AntiChrist/Devil's Children" or that playing RPGs is a sign of occult activity or that Satanists often murder and sexually torture infants in specific ways (unsupported by any evidence, it seems, apart from saying up front that they "compiled information"). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Items like Most survivors report that drugs are introduced through cranial burr holes as well should not be reported in Wikipedia's voice. MPS1992 (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

As the disclaimer stamped on p.2 notes, it is not a publication of DoJ/NIJ and has nothing to do with them - it's only archived by them. With that in mind, it is the infamous early-90s "training document" that a fundie wackjob was spreading about in an attempt to convert police to Jesus' side in the everlasting spiritual warfare against Satan. As Rhod implies above, it's chock full of baseless assertions, and not even intended to be true; so it's as far away as you can get from a "Reliable Source". Most of its contents are already described in the scholarly literature, since it was one of the main ways that the SRA panic spread thru the US, so it can be ignored in favour of properly scholarly work on the topic. We don't need to pad out our endnotes here at Wikipedia. Nice find though. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Would QAnon fit into this topic?

From the article on QAnon, the conspiracy theory is founded on the idea that there is "a worldwide cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles who rule the world." A number of events -- Pizzagate conspiracy theory, and stories such as this one -- illustrated that Satanic ritual abuse is very much a part of their understanding of QAnon beliefs. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 14:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it would seem to deserve a mention, link, and citation. Have at it! DougHill (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

POV

I am nominating this article for discussion of what I perceive as its lack of neutrality in hopes of attaining a balanced viewpoint. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

WikiEditorial101 could you be specific about what the problems are? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

(ec)So discuss. The first thing you tried to insert was a blog entry disagreeing with this article's definition of the term in 2008, which isn't the same definition in the current article. Now it says, "SRA was the subject of a moral panic"; back then, it said, "SRA refers to a moral panic". The reframing is important, and makes the blog entry irrelevant, whether or not at the time it was correct. What other changes do you suggest for improving the article? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 30 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus for this particular move. It is possible that another name, making it more clear than the current title that RS do not accept satanic abuse as something that actually happened, would gain consensus. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Satanic ritual abuse → Satanic ritual abuse panic – This article is about a moral panic, so its title should reflect that. Vpab15 (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Nice of you to not even try discussing this first, before going right to the move template.

We've had this discussion multiple times over the years. Please see the archives. The current title reflects how reliable sources have referred to the event, so we stick with that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of the move request is to start a discussion. I have checked the archive, but it is quite long and only found some very old discussions. I didn't find any recent discussion, but I could be wrong (please share the link if so). I checked the sources and most agree it is a moral panic, it actually says so in the first sentence of the article so it makes sense to rename it per WP:PRECISE. Vpab15 (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

It is a moral panic, but the name of the moral panic is "Satanic ritual abuse." It makes no sense to rename the article away from the common name. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support current title is misleading in that it would lead the reader to expect something that doesn't actually exist. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

... how in the world does it do that? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Well it can see said to say there was in fact Satanic ritual abuse. It the same as why we call Chemtrail conspiracy theory a conspiracy theory , rather then a theory (which is what SRA is, a conspiracy theory).Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support—either that or satanic ritual abuse moral panic. This article is about the moral panic and this needs to be more clear. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Probably support some name change (though it's not universally used, "Satanic panic" seems common enough and is more succinct). I do have mixed feelings, though, because I can see someone who thinks SRA is a Real Scary Thing seeing one of these alternative titles and just assuming this is on a different subject than the "real" satanism. There's something to be said for having a title those people will be looking for and explaining that it's really a moral panic. Kind of like how we have an article rope worms rather than "rope worms (pseudoscience)", which might imply that there's a "real" rope worms. That said, I know I've argued the opposite in other contexts (i.e. that it's important to spell it out in the title), so mixed feelings. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unnecessary, as Hans Adler and Paul B argue in the previous discussion: "We don't have intelligent design creationist pseudoscience, [or] Protocols of the Elders of Zion antisemitic hoax". DougHill (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'll formally !vote here, to make my stance clear. As DougHill points out, we don't need this level of detail. We don't call to rename Pegasus to Pegasus (mythological being), or Mothman to Mothman (folklore). They're names, not declarations of fact. We clearly call out in the article that it's a moral panic & not a real phenomenon. The times we do need descriptors are to disambiguate from actual events or phenomenon, such as Moon landing conspiracy theories or 9/11 conspiracy theories. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment "satanic panic" seems to be the wp:commonname—blindlynx (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support. "Satanic ritual abuse" seems like a description of some kind of ceremony. "Panic" clearly differentiates the 1980s phenomenon from an instruction manual. Walrasiad (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. HandThatFeeds makes a very good argument, stronger than WP:COMMONNAME which should suffice. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose For the reasons already given. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 05:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for the many reasons already stated. Yes, it was a panic, which is already accurately stated in the lede, but we don't need to include what something is in the article title - no need for Super Bowl LV football game or NASA governnment organization or the like. SnowFire (talk) 05:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• Opppose as extraneous and editorializing. -- Netoholic @ 09:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

"Editorializing?" Are you suggesting it wasn't a panic? Because if there's any room for confusion, it should definitely be in the title. Walrasiad (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

We have several articles on various moral panics and mass hysterias and no need to describe them as such in the title. To do so would, as in this case, fail to follow WP:COMMONNAME. If you feel doing so is necessary, then that is editorializing and proof it definitely shouldn't be in the title. -- Netoholic @ 12:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• There are plenty of conspiracy theories articles that have explicitly mention the "conspiracy theory" part in the title (Pizzagate conspiracy theory, Chemtrail conspiracy theory and more) so there is precedent for that. However, I think this case is different because the absence of the word "panic" is extremely misleading in a way that doesn't happen in other article titles. Furthermore, the current title is clearly WP:POVTITLE. The risk of misleading readers to think this article is somehow equivalent to Catholic Church sexual abuse cases is just too big. Would we risk that confusion in an article regarding one of the major religions? Vpab15 (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.