Talk:Satanic panic/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Inviting assistance on new SRA/Pizzagate-related article The Finders (movement)

(1980s "cult" frequently cited by conspiracy theorists as evidence of government-backed child abuse)

This is one of those "how is there not a Wikipedia article on this already???" topics for me, because over the last few years as I've perused conspiracy-related content on social media, I very commonly see believers urge each other "go read up on The Finders." So in the past when I heard about it I just did some cursory googling, it seemed to be a Satanic Panic incident in the 1980s that didn't amount to too much, but the fact that people are still talking about it 30+ years later, and that it's been covered in a few RS's, lead me to conclude there should be a Wikipedia article on the topic.

Long story short, in 1987 two guys got arrested in Florida with six scruffy kids in their van, got accused of child abuse, turned out they were part of some weird absurdist commune, issue got resolved with no criminal charges, but some concerned citizen somehow got Congress and the DOJ involved, word got out that somehow the CIA had commented on the issue to DC Police, and so for decades now a portion of people are convinced these folks were a child-abusing cult protected by the government

In any case, I think it's a topic of relevance to anyone interested in Pizzagate and related issues, as part of the longer backstory, so I invite your participation to improve the brief article I've begun. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 1 August 2021

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: Moved to Satanic panic. (Satanic ritual abuse → Satanic panic, Satanic panic → Satanic panic (disambiguation). Per discussion consensus and WP:PTOPIC.

This has been a bit of a weird one, and it's come full circle. At first glance, this discussion appears to approach "no consensus," but then a closer examination of many of the "oppose" votes actually shows those editors support a move to "Satanic panic" per WP:COMMONNAME, and that is an outcome also deemed acceptable by the "support" votes, as a name which describes the "panic" and not the aforementioned abuse, which probably did not actually occur in most cases.

So, one must then look to the scope of the article. It appears the scope, as many editors have described, is actually very much in line with the title "Satanic panic." And it's inarguably the WP:PTOPIC for the disambiguation. So I will execute the move in line with that consensus. Perhaps this time we can get some stability here. Here's hoping.(closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Satanic ritual abuse → Satanic ritual abuse panic – It is a moral panic and it is confusing that the title doesn't reflect that. I add a comment from the previous discussion that wasn't responded to:

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) 22:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Jack Frost (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose and procedural speedy close per results of Talk:Satanic ritual abuse/Archive 9#Requested move 30 December 2020 (also opened by Vpab15). Nothing new is being offered and the recent discussion should stand. -- Netoholic @ 01:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

On what basis? Avril Lavigne replacement is at Avril Lavigne replacement conspiracy theory. @Netoholic: Why can't we have Avril Lavigne replacement? It's shorter. @Slatersteven: also In ictu oculi (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

There's no reason for a procedural close. The last RM was closed as "no consensus to move" and per WP:THREEOUTCOMES: it is not considered bad form to re-raise a request that found "no consensus" to move. Surachit (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Not sure we need the word panic.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• To add, is this a moral panic, a conspiracy theory, fraud, myth, mistake? It is all of them. Thus I am unsure calling it anyone of them is correct.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is a moral panic as the article's intro clearly indicates. I guess you could also call it a myth or conspiracy theory, even a mistake, but those terms are very rarely used for this particular case. Panic is the most common term in the sources and therefore the best choice. Vpab15 (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    • We say conspiracy theory in the lede, and indeed that is the whole basis of the Qaunoin version if this. It is in fact the conspiracy theories , not the moral panics that keep this alive.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Most moral panics are partly conspiracy theories, but only a few conspiracy theories cause moral panics. In any case, the article focuses on the moral panic part more than on the conspiracy theory one. Vpab15 (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support quite clearly this does not exist as a thing, so is only a theory, conspiracy, hoax or panic. The current title is misleading. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support: The proposed title doesn't seem perfect, but it's an improvement by making it clear that the article is about a perception of a phenomenon rather than a real phenomenon. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment What's wrong with 'Satanic panic' it's more concise and commonly used. 'Satanic ritual abuse panic' just seems like the two terms actually used were mashed together—blindlynx (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • That seems ambiguous or different in scope. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

How so? It's commonly used to refer to what this article is about. Just to elaborate the term 'satanic panic' is commonly used to refer to the moral panic ([1]; [2]; [3]; [4]). The only article i count find that uses the term "satanic ritual abuse panic" is [5]—blindlynx (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• • Satanic panic is currently a dab page, but it could be argued that this article is the primary topic for it. I prefer the proposed name, but I don't oppose this alternative. blindlynx, do you have a preference between the current name and the proposed one? Vpab15 (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

of those two i have a weak preference for the current one, just on the basis that it's a term actually used to refer to the topic of the article and the proposed feels wp:synthy even if it's fairly clear—blindlynx (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

to clarify i don't oppose this move, I just noticed i !voted as oppose fixed now—blindlynx (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I think 'Satanic ritual abuse conspiracy theory' is better because it also takes into account that now its not a moral panic, it is now a pure conspiracy theory (which it always was anyway).Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the title needs to point out the unreality of it somehow, and "conspiracy theory", as overloaded as that term is, seems to work pretty well. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Every six months, someone wants to rename the article, and frankly I'm tired of it. The article has been renamed a few times, and it's getting further and further from the Satanic Panic WP:COMMONNAME. The article itself makes it clear that this is a nonsense conspiracy theory, we don't need it to be renamed Satanic Panic ritual abuse conspiracy theory nonsense. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support: Proposed title better describes the article's actual topic. The article is not about ritual abuse by Satanists but rather about a moral panic alleging it. Rublov (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• I'm dubious of the claim that the current title is a WP:POVTITLE. Just because we don't include "moral panic" or "conspiracy theory" in the name does not mean that we're taking the view that it's real. Compare e.g. Flat Earth, Hollow Moon, or Water-fuelled car. Overall I'm sort of neutral on the move. I do think it might be slightly more recognizable, but it's also less concise, and could be argued to not fully encompass the current scope of the article. "Satanic ritual abuse allegations" might be worth considering as an alternative, though I'm not convinced it's an improvement. Colin M (talk) 01:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per comments on previous RM. Nominator, if you must reopen RMs, you should at least be up-front about the previous failed RM in your nomination rather than trying to hide it. We don't have Super Bowl LV football game or NASA governnment organization either, to C&P from my old comment. SnowFire (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Per previous oppose !votes. It is simply not a meaningful improvement, neither are any of the other suggested title proposed in this discussion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment this is pretty much the same argument we keep having over at Kosher tax conspiracy theory. Yes, "ritual abuse" is a real thing, and "satanic ritual abuse" has occurred (though I'd guess far less frequently than, say, Christian ritual abuse, just because there are far fewer Satanists than Christians), but this article is specifically about the moral panic that has evolved into a conspiracy theory. It's hardly about the actual behavior described by the title at all, which makes sense, since the actual behavior described by the title is so rare. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• RELIST PLEASE. there are so many saying "as previous RM" as a reason for objecting that it suggests that this would benefit from some fresh eyes. No one has yet justified the current title as non-misleading. We still have the issue that Avril Lavigne replacement is at Avril Lavigne replacement conspiracy theory, which means either that the April Lavigne article needs an RM to mislead readers to this article needs non-misleading titling. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
  • This article and the Lavigne article shouldn't necessarily share the same titling, they're distinct cases. This article is on a (deplorable) cultural belief, while just "Avril Lavigne replacement" sounds like a specific incident / event, while adding "conspiracy theory" clarifies that the article isn't really about an actual replacement but rather about a belief. "Satanic ritual abuse" doesn't have that issue. The fact that it's nonsense is adequately explained in the lede. For a more relevant comparison to the Lavinge example, if somehow there was a spinoff from McMartin preschool trial about the alleged incident, I would agree that something like Ritual abuse of children at the McMartin preschool would be an inappropriate title, as that would seem to be an article about a specific incident, yet that incident never happened. SnowFire (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Adding "conspiracy theory" clarifies that the article isn't really about an actual replacement but rather about a belief. You could say exactly the same thing about Satanic ritual abuse. Someone new to the topic or who vaguely remembers the widespread reports of Satanic ritual abuse in the 80s and 90s will assume the article is about actual ritual abuse. Yes, it is explained in the lede that it was all a moral panic, but it would be better to reflect that in the title too. I think avoiding that confusion is worth adding one more word to the title and making it a little less concise. Vpab15 (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
    • If somehow the reports of Satanic abuse, such as those in Michelle Remembers hadn't been debunked, we would probably have an article with the same name in Wikipedia covering those abuses as factual. Now imagine the debunking happened after the Wikipedia article was created. Surely then we would change the title, right? Vpab15 (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm saying that there's a difference between a specific incident and an umbrella, abstract term. Specific incidents that never happened have a stronger case to require explicit disambiguation in the title for simple reasons of clarity. But no, I don't agree we need to change the title? What you described actually happened - there were reports of Satanic ritual abuse that were taken seriously at first, and then they turned out to be bunk. That doesn't imply the title would change had Wikipedia existed in 1985, just the article content. Let me flip the question: suppose it turns out from surprising new evidence or a new case that there was at least one, genuine case of Satanic ritual abuse. Does this one misguided incident now mean that the article should not have "panic" in the title (if we suppose for a moment that it currently should)? Clearly not, IMO, just as we have titles like Red Scare even despite the fact that bone fide communist spies really did exist. Titling is a separate question.
      • For some similar examples, examine Category:Hoaxes. Not every article in has "hoax" in the title, just the ones for whom it'd be ambiguous or for whom "hoax" is part of the common name (e.g. Piltdown Man, not Piltdown Man hoax, although that's a redirect just like the "panic" version of this title). And that's fine, conciseness means it's just an extra word a lot of the time. SnowFire (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
        • Yes, conciseness is important, but not more than the other criteria in WP:AT. The title would be more recognizable and descriptive with the word panic. As In ictu oculi and I have shown, in other articles it was decided to have a more recognizable and descriptive title, even if it is less concise. One more example is White genocide conspiracy theory. So we should go with the less concise title if it is more recognizable. Or else explain how it can be equally recognizable and descriptive without the word panic. Vpab15 (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
          • So we should go with the less concise title if it is more recognizable.
          • No evidence has been provided that "Satanic ritual abuse panic" is more recognizable as a title, though. In face, the most recognizable WP:COMMONNAME is simply "Satanic Panic." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Support Actually agree with User:blindlynx that Satanic Panic would be a better title for this article (and that this article is the main topic of that DAB), but the proposed title is also acceptable. BSMRD (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

— Relisting and advertising to relevant wikiprojects. This is heading fast towards another "no consensus." It would benefit the project to have an actual answer this time that would serve as a precedent making repeat discussions less likely.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support. The article doesn't seem to be about actual Satanic abuse but about the fear of it and associated social phenomena, and the proposed article makes that clearer. ╠╣uw [talk] 15:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. We have WP:CRITERIA for a reason, and COMMONNAME, PRECISION and CONCISE among them. And WP:POVNAME to boot: In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name[...], generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. No, WP:CRITERIA do NOT require us to slap "hoax", "conspiracy theory", "meme" or "claim" to the very article titles lest someone gets confused if this may be a real thing. And I maintain that Avril Lavigne replacement conspiracy theory nad Kosher tax conspiracy theory are crap titles that were created out of Wikipedian moral panic (pun intended) and survive due to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and inertia. To extend the slippery slope, I propose that we rename United States to Wikipedia article about the United States so that we be crystal clear and nobody possibly thinks they might be entering the U.S. territory and need a passport. No such user (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
  • P.S. I would also support moving this to Satanic panic, because it is actually commonly called that. It's clearly the primary topic, and the origin, of the other dab page entries. No such user (talk) 08:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support(ish). To me, this title does have neutrality issues. It has a unique cultural context when compared to most other modern conspiracy theories/pseudoscience. Firstly, it is now reasonably widely accepted as being a specifically moral panic - hence it now frequently being referred to as the satanic panic - even by many people that used to very strongly believe in it. Secondly, it was very widely believed only a few decades ago and supported by a lot of apparent experts, including some with actual relevant expertise. People will come expecting an article referring to a panic, and instead find one referring to SRA with no qualifications (I've actually done this before, and thought I was in the wrong place). It's not really enough to say that the lede will fix it, because the first concept a person is presented with is the stickiest one. And that concern is intensified given the previously widespread nature of these beliefs, making reinforcing them a reasonable possibility. Whether or not this change strictly supported by policies, ethical obligations as humans still apply, and this conspiracy theory is unique. Finally, like others that have commented, I do actually prefer the far simpler and more common name of Satanic Panic - perhaps we should consider instead discussing whether to move to that. And now, for some loose thoughts - I didn't know where to put this part in my broader comment so it's going here. In my experience, as an Australian born in the late nineties, I didn't know the term satanic ritual abuse until I started reading up on it, I'd only ever heard satanic panic and satanic moral panic. I've found that people my age and younger outside of North America don't recognise the term SRA - it's simply not standing the test of time. For all I know, it is widely referred to as SRA in North America, but even then calling it that would just be favouring American and older readers. Let's chuck in the word panic or theory or something, or ideally change to satanic panic (P.S. if you reply to my comment, please ping me, I'm really bad at remembering to check back in on discussions.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xurizuri (talk • contribs) 03:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
  • • Comment "don't recognise the term SRA" Considering that SRA is a disambiguation page with multiple other uses, hardly surprising. 14:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)
      • lol yep that'll do it. I did mean "satanic ritual abuse" there, but the obscurity does quickly increase when it's an acronym. --Xurizuri (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose but would not object to yet another relisting. We need to get this right. Perhaps the article is badly scoped at present? Andrewa (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Current article title sounds like an instruction manual. "Panic" much preferred over "conspiracy theory". This article refers to a historical episode of finite duration (1980s-90s), which spread quickly and widely but then receded and disappeared. Conspiracy theories suggest the phenomenon continues to persist. And conspiracy theories are not necessarily infectious - they may have only ever been sustained by a small sect, and never grow beyond that. But the term "Panic" - like moral panics and financial panics - is a worry that spreads rapidly, but then eventually goes away. Fits the content of this article best. Walrasiad (talk) 11:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Article scope

According to the current lead, this article deals with the consequences of the book Michelle Remembers. But surely it is undue weight to have a separate article on that topic? I think that is part of the problem.

The article does contain other subject matter. But is this the place for it?

If so we need to clarify the scope. I'm not convinced that Satanic ritual abuse panic is an encyclopedic topic, despite the ghits it gets. Compared to the Wall Street panic of 1929 it's a non-event, and we don't even call that a panic, or not in an article title. So using the term here is perhaps again undue weight... sensationalism that the writers and reviewers of such books all thrive upon of course. Andrewa (talk) 08:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd say it was sensationalism that created the concept of "Satanic ritual abuse" in the first place. Those three words together create quite a strong response by themselves without the word panic. The purpose of adding the word "panic" is to be make clear the ritual abuse didn't really exist. Vpab15 (talk) 09:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

MAybe

Reliable sources call it a panic. Reliable sources are stronger than you. You lose. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree that reliable sources are the yardstick for article titles. But that's not the question in this section. Logic is stronger than you, but by all means award yourself an iron cross if it makes you feel good. Andrewa (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The short version is that Michelle Remembers was the spark that lit a forest fire. This article covers the forest fire, while Michelle Remembers covers that spark.

Arguing that it shouldn't be called a panic because some other event wasn't called a panic doesn't fly. "Satanic Panic" was the term applied to this overall event by the media, just like Dot-com bubble was a term applied to the events which led to the Early 2000s recession. We call things by their popular names. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that does address the question regarding scope.

But still skeptical that panic is the best term here to describe this scope. The question is, when reliable sources use this term, does it match the scope of our article? Andrewa (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the concept of a moral panic? Because that's where "Satanic panic" name originated. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Andrewa:, this article's scope matches what I've seen in my own journeys through researching the satanic panic/SRA, if that helps :) Oh, except it could use a little more on backmasking. --Xurizuri (talk) 08:55, 26 August 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.

Early Norwegian black metal scene

Asbjørn Dyrendal writes in his article ”Satanism in Norway” (Western Esotericism in Scandinavia, pp. 481–488, Brill 2016) that the ”satanism” practiced by the early Norwegian black metal scene was modeled after horror films and evangelical Christian anti-satanist literature. He also notes that the publicity attained by the likes of Øystein Aarseth and Varg Vikernes was possible because the SRA allegations had already set the stage for them. Although Dyrendal doesn’t explicitly say so, one could therefore argue that the Satanic panic was a self-fulfilling prophecy. Perhaps this could be mentioned in the article? --Miihkali (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Only if RS say it was.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Dyrendal writes: ”The central figure, Øystein Aarseth (aka ‘Euronymous’), wanted Satan to have the place in Black Metal that Jesus had in gospel music (Soderlind & Dyrendal 2009). His ideas about Satan were, however, derived less from Anton LaVey than from demonology-inspired horror. [...] Their brand of Satanism was apocalyptic, directed towards ‘evil’ and destruction, and thus had more in common with the Evangelical anti-Satanist literature’s portrayal of Satanism than it did with any existing organised Satanism. [...] When Black Metallers hit the front pages, Crowley and Thelema were implicated by the press. [...] Sale of Crowley’s books was discountinued in several bookstores. [...] [One of the reasons was that] the scene was set for serious concern about Satanism with the import of the Satanic Ritual Abuse mythology.” The conspiratorial view of Satanism was later dropped by the Norwegian press because there was no evidence such a conspiracy existed, and ”only the real phenomenon of church arson ever created local panics, but they nevertheless served to create a lasting image of what Satanism ‘really was’ to the Norwegian public. It was all the more effective since there was no other public Satanism to contrast the public myth with. [...] The only ‘organised’ Satanism to come out of the 1990s [in Norway] was the idiosyncratic Satanism of a few notable Black Metallers.” My gut feeling is that this may be worthy of a mention in this article. --Miihkali (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

That seems to say more that the Satanic panic was a result of black metal, and not that black metal was some kind of self-fulfilling prophecy of it.But I am still not sure this would not be OR.Slatersteven (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, as I said the self-fulfilling prophecy part was my own conjecture, so it should not be mentioned in this article (unless there is a scholarly source that clearly states it was so). As for the Dyrendal quote above, I think he states pretty clearly that black metal popped into the Norwegian public consciousness in a situation where the American SRA claims were already causing concern, and then the crimes related to black metal resulted in outright panics (although the panics were localized). So I don't think that black metal caused the Norwegian Satanic panic or the other way around, but that they both emerged simultaneously and affected each other. --Miihkali (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

This sentence??

“Over time, the accusations became more closely identified with “dissociative identity disorder”  ???  ??? 2603:8000:6A00:1016:4C25:7539:17CF:5C22 (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Meaning: the people who were accusing others to be Satanists were found to be mentally afflicted. The whole Satanic panic was paranoid delirium. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Jay's Journal

Would it be worth mentioning the publication of Jay's Journal in 1979? It was the alleged diary of a Utah teenager who committed suicide following a fall into drugs and the occult. Although it was based on an actual diary, it was heavily embellished, and its discussion of the occult appears to have been fabricated. Still, the book was highly influential and came out shortly before Michelle Remembers.

I'm about to finish Unmask Alice by Rick Emerson, which discusses the role of Jay's Journal - along with Go Ask Alice, which was written/edited by the same person and also appears to be largely fraudulent - in some detail. Cabrochu (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Emerson, R. 2022. Unmask Alice: LSD, Satanic Panic, and the Imposter Behind the World's Most Notorious Diaries. BenBella Books, 384 pp. Cabrochu (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

We do have an article on it, though I am not sure its notability is such that we need it here. Reasonable minds may certainly differ, however! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think we need extensive discussion of it - maybe a clause like, "...though Jay's Journal, published in 1979, may have played a role," with a link to the page on Jay's Journal. Nothing more than that. Cabrochu (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

That'd be WP:SYNTH unless you can find a scholarly source. But I don't recall ever having coming across a mention of the book when I read thru all the SRA literature back in the 00's. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

File:MichelleRemembersBookCover.PNG listed for deletion, discussion

The file File:MichelleRemembersBookCover.PNG, has been listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Epachamo (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Why is QAnon listed twice in the exact same way?

Title. TannersfromTexas (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

No idea, removed the duplicate entry. Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Language in Advertising

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Endless82 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Endless82 (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

QAnon

I first wanted to simply make a case here rather than directly undoing Vintage's most recent edit to the article, which removed the reference to QAnon from the intro. Then I looked over it again and decided to undo the edit (without it being tagged as a revert, since I absolutly assume good faith by Vintage). Let me very briefly explain my reasoning. QAnon is not so much "one form" out of many, but by far the most widespread, most influential, and most pernicious narrative these days -- pernicious being an apt description considering the many cases of intimidation, slander, and outright violence associated with the movement. Given its prominence, mentioning QAnon in the introduction ought not to be seen as shoehorning, and is supported by one of the references in the same section. Trigaranus (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Per article content, there is no reason to have it in the WP:LEAD, reasonably covered by "anti-government conspiracy theories." See also MOS:DATED. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

It's also shoehorning because (if you have third-party scholarly sourcing for it and not just WP:SYNTH) QAnon is not a classic example of a Satanic Panic. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)