|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Satanic panic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Frequently asked questions Many of these questions have been raised in the scientific and popular literature, and are summarized here for ease of reference. The main points of this FAQ can be summarized as:
Q1: Why doesn't this article discuss the reality of the SRA allegations?
A1: Wikipedia is an
encyclopedia that attempts to represent topics in a serious, scholarly manner as illustrated by the use of
reliable sources to place
due weight on the mainstream scholarly opinion. There are many sources that demonstrate the current opinion of most scholars within the field is that SRA is a prime example of a historical moral panic. Sources explicitly supporting this point include
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4],
[5],
[6],
[7],
[8],
[9],
[10],
[11],
[12],
[13],
[14],
[15],
[16],
[17],
[18],
[19],
[20],
[21],
[22],
[23],
[24],
[25],
[26],
[27],
[28],
[29]. Q2: What about the many sources that claim the SRA represented credible evidence of actual child abuse?
A2: Most of the sources that claimed SRA was real were published during the lead-up to, and peak of the moral panic. Even at the peak, the publications were generally in low-impact journals and other fringe publications. As the moral panic peaked, the opinions of the sources began to turn negative. The most recent, most reliable sources are explicit in labelling and discussing this phenomenon a historical example of a moral panic. Recent sources that discuss SRA as a "real" phenomenon are published in low-quality, low-impact publications, often from self-published or pay-to-publish sources, which carry
very little weight and are considered an example and demonstration of the low notability of this opinion. Q3: Doesn't the seriousness of the allegations merit a serious discussion?
A3: Wikipedia is not a
soapbox to advocate for a particular
point of view. All editors believe that child abuse is a serious crime that deserves serious attention; however many editors and scholars believe that the combination of the bizarreness of the accusations and complete lack of forensic proof means there was never any merit to the satanic and bizarre aspects of the accusations. The willingness to take testimonials of adults and children at face value is seriously believed to have resulted in numerous wrongful convictions. Past discussions For further information, see the numerous past discussions on these topics in the archives of Talk:Satanic ritual abuse and related pages:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
On 1 August 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved to Satanic ritual abuse panic. The result of the discussion was Moved to Satanic panic. |
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)
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)
The information released in 2019 by the FBI about "the finders" group [30] clearly shows evidence of ritual abuse, CIA involvement or not.
Even the List of satanic ritual abuse allegations page says "Many but not all of those imprisoned have been released," implying that some are still in prison because they're actually guilty of the crimes.
Also, how this article is written seems to imply that not only was there not sufficient evidence of this type of abuse in the 1980's, but that it has never happened, cannot happen and that any possible allegation of this type of abuse is automatically false and logically part of the 80s' "moral panic" or the result of "false memories." JH2903 ( talk) 19:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
" implying that some are still in prison because they're actually guilty of the crimes." How does the topic of unfairly jailed people imply that they have committed any crimes? They were convenient scapegoats. Dimadick ( talk) 15:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Remember we are all bound by wp:npa, no matter how dodgy a claim is. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
This article might be useful for a few more cites. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 16:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Satanic panic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Frequently asked questions Many of these questions have been raised in the scientific and popular literature, and are summarized here for ease of reference. The main points of this FAQ can be summarized as:
Q1: Why doesn't this article discuss the reality of the SRA allegations?
A1: Wikipedia is an
encyclopedia that attempts to represent topics in a serious, scholarly manner as illustrated by the use of
reliable sources to place
due weight on the mainstream scholarly opinion. There are many sources that demonstrate the current opinion of most scholars within the field is that SRA is a prime example of a historical moral panic. Sources explicitly supporting this point include
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4],
[5],
[6],
[7],
[8],
[9],
[10],
[11],
[12],
[13],
[14],
[15],
[16],
[17],
[18],
[19],
[20],
[21],
[22],
[23],
[24],
[25],
[26],
[27],
[28],
[29]. Q2: What about the many sources that claim the SRA represented credible evidence of actual child abuse?
A2: Most of the sources that claimed SRA was real were published during the lead-up to, and peak of the moral panic. Even at the peak, the publications were generally in low-impact journals and other fringe publications. As the moral panic peaked, the opinions of the sources began to turn negative. The most recent, most reliable sources are explicit in labelling and discussing this phenomenon a historical example of a moral panic. Recent sources that discuss SRA as a "real" phenomenon are published in low-quality, low-impact publications, often from self-published or pay-to-publish sources, which carry
very little weight and are considered an example and demonstration of the low notability of this opinion. Q3: Doesn't the seriousness of the allegations merit a serious discussion?
A3: Wikipedia is not a
soapbox to advocate for a particular
point of view. All editors believe that child abuse is a serious crime that deserves serious attention; however many editors and scholars believe that the combination of the bizarreness of the accusations and complete lack of forensic proof means there was never any merit to the satanic and bizarre aspects of the accusations. The willingness to take testimonials of adults and children at face value is seriously believed to have resulted in numerous wrongful convictions. Past discussions For further information, see the numerous past discussions on these topics in the archives of Talk:Satanic ritual abuse and related pages:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
On 1 August 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved to Satanic ritual abuse panic. The result of the discussion was Moved to Satanic panic. |
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)
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)
The information released in 2019 by the FBI about "the finders" group [30] clearly shows evidence of ritual abuse, CIA involvement or not.
Even the List of satanic ritual abuse allegations page says "Many but not all of those imprisoned have been released," implying that some are still in prison because they're actually guilty of the crimes.
Also, how this article is written seems to imply that not only was there not sufficient evidence of this type of abuse in the 1980's, but that it has never happened, cannot happen and that any possible allegation of this type of abuse is automatically false and logically part of the 80s' "moral panic" or the result of "false memories." JH2903 ( talk) 19:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
" implying that some are still in prison because they're actually guilty of the crimes." How does the topic of unfairly jailed people imply that they have committed any crimes? They were convenient scapegoats. Dimadick ( talk) 15:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Remember we are all bound by wp:npa, no matter how dodgy a claim is. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
This article might be useful for a few more cites. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 16:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)