Kommunal.az

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Satanic panic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: 3 months

view · edit 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: Satanic ritual abuse is considered a moral panic by most scholars in psychology and sociology Only a tiny minority of scholars, publishing in low-impact journals or vanity press support the idea that there was any reality to the SRA moral panic. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that minority views not be given undue emphasis. This is the result of long-standing consensus, with many, many discussions covering the same topics and arguments repeatedly without any new information being added or progress being made. The extensive, repeated abuse editing privileges of sockpuppets by an editor banned for POV-pushing means there is little tolerance for new editors bringing up these same points. 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: Discussion of old sources February, 2010 ResearchEditor's topic ban, Arbitration review and repeated, lengthy discussions August, 2008; September, 2008

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of crime and criminal biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Occult Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion: Left Hand Path / New religious movements Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Left Hand Path work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Low-importance). United States: History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Low-importance). Christianity: History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Christian history (assessed as Low-importance).

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

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.

One does not understand exactly what the article is about. About the fear of some people when they hear about satanic rituals or about satanic rituals? The fact that this title is used, satanic panic, gives the impression that people have an irrational and unjustified fear of some things that do not exist and have not happened or can never happen. And precisely fear, irrational fear shows that the facts have no existed and does not exist. The title of the article "satanic panic" is as strange and appropriate for this article as the title "fear of rape" in an article about rape victims. The fact that there are people who are more or less afraid of a certain thing does not prove that the thing does not exist. Moreover, the fact that there is only one person who commits an act, which looks like a satanic ritual does not mean that satanism does not exist, on the contrary. Otherwise, I don't know what your motivation is with this article other than to convince people that these things don't exist when in fact victims existed and still exist. 86.126.133.250 (talk) 11:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NO its not, as rape is a real crime, the Satanic panics were not. In fact, they may have actually undermined real child abuse investigations. Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Moral panic. It's a common term for when a group of people get whipped into a frenzy about something that isn't actually a threat. In this case, the moral panic was fear over Satanic cults somehow being widespread in society and harming children. Such a conspiracy did not exist, and was proven to be a hoax. There were no victims, the children were coerced into telling the investigators what they thought the adults wanted to hear.

Also see WP:COMMONNAME. Articles are titled by what they're best known as, even if said title is not as accurate as we'd like. This entire situation is known as the Satanic Panic in literature and reporting, so that's what we go by. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"people get whipped into a frenzy about something that isn't actually a threat" Not by themselves. Per the main article, a key agent in moral panics is that mass media produce exagerrated reports of "deviance and the deviants" to scare or anger the public. You can't have the people scared of the bogeyman of the day when they haven't even heard of him/her. Dimadick (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need mass media to have a moral panic, ie Salem. But this is off-topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2025 and 1 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lavender.Asteroids (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Lavender.Asteroids (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure at all if this is the right place to write my question/problem. I hope it is, and if it is not, I'd like to know where I can write.

I have a big problem for the number of 12,000 given by the New York Times. It seems totally made-up. Now, the article does not give a precise reference to the survey that should have computed that number, but Mary de Young did, and here is the report: https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/154415NCJRS.pdf. Mary de Young actually wrote that there were 12,264 putative satanic ritual abuse cases here: https://www.aaets.org/traumatic-stress-library/sociological-views-on-the-controversial-issue-of-satanic-ritual-abuse-three-faces-of-the-devil. Now, feel free to check yourself, but there is no mention at all of that number in the actual report. Given that the report speaks for itself, I think it should trump second-hand sources that talk about it, and hence that the 2 mentions of 12,000 cases in the intro should be removed. Rerotempis (talk) 12:54, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We do not do [wp:or]]. Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What? We are talking about a published report from the government which is literally used on the page. Rerotempis (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No we are talking about you asking us to evaluate what it says. Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, you are joking.

Here's the conversation we are having: "Report say X." "No, the report does not say X, see the report: *link to the report*." "You are asking us to use material for which no reliable, published source exists."

I am pretty confident that using a published report R to refer to what the report R is saying is using published material which is reliable. Rerotempis (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

IS 12,264, not over 12,000? Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that is irrelevant to my initial point which is that the report does not talk about 12,000 or more alleged case of ritual abuse. Rerotempis (talk) 15:14, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is also not a survey "In a survey of more than 11,000 psychiatric and police workers throughout the country". Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What? Rerotempis (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know its the saem survey? Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Because other credible source according to the page itself, Mary de Young, says it. Because every other point about the survey excepting the number of putative ritual abuse is exactly in the survey. Rerotempis (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Quote for where they say this is the source used by the NTY for this ? Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I already gave all the evidence needed. The burden of proof is on you at this point. Rerotempis (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have offered an opinion, not proof, this is what we mean by wp:or, and the fact you refuse to provide one quote where she identifies this as the NTY sources means there is no such quote. So untill you provide a quote I am out of here with a no change. Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. I did not offer an opinion, but gave evidence-based fact from a reliable source. Hence, it is not at all an original search, not sure how this confusion could emerge in your mind. What rather happened is that you stubbornly refused to read the evidence given, and accusing me of not providing it to you. Given the manifest confusion you showed, I do think it is best, at least for me, to not pursue our conversation further. Rerotempis (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a good idea. Between Slatersteven and I, we have 40 years of Wikipedia experience, and we know Wikipedia policy regarding original research quite well. If you wish to challenge our no original research policy, this is not the place to do it. We have an excellent reliable source backing the "more than 12,000"; you have your own analysis of a primary source. There's no particular reason to continue this discussion if your intent is to go counter to WP policy. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:54, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my own analysis, but an objecting plain reading of the primary source.

Whether or not you have 40 years of Wikipedia experience, the fact is that there is a made-up number on this page since nearly two decades. Rerotempis (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the same thing, as your source is not a survey. Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You did not read the report: it is a survey. To be even more precise, it is many surveys.

‘The survey included 6,910 psychiatrists, psychologists and clinical social workers, and 4,655 district attorneys, police departments and social service agencies."

Those exact numbers? They're literally in the report. Rerotempis (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"In a survey of more than 11,000 psychiatric and police workers throughout the country, conducted for the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect," No mention of clinical social workers or DA's. So is it the same survey? Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What? Rerotempis (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the same source as the one used by the NTY, or are they using a different one? Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Rerotempis (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So the de Young paper seems to be extrapolating or calculating from the data that's presented in the Goodman paper, which (at least at that link) doesn't present the raw data to support either its own numbers or de Young's. Something's missing, or, at least, de Young doesn't explain her arithmetic. 12,264 is an oddly precise number. My guess is it comes from the paragraph starting, "A total of 2136 questionnaires". But none of this matters. We prefer secondary sources to primary sources for this very reason. We don't analyze the survey; we present a secondary analysis of the survey. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:42, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That paragraph does mention a number, but which is far below the 12,000-ish one: 387+674=1061 case of child and adult ritual abuse cases.

Wikipedia etiquette may prefer secondary to primary sources, but that's clearly a bad limitation: it means made-up numbers are fair game as long as an academic says it in a well-accepted journal, even if the primary sources that are used do not say that all. I'd hardly say it does not matters. Rerotempis (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then feel free to challenge Wikipedia policy; it's not etiquette, and unless you have a reliable source that says otherwise, it's not made-up numbers. WP:PRIMARY explains this pretty well. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 02:44, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whether policy or etiquette, it is still a bad limitation, though.

And the reliable source is the primary source itself: they are numbers given, which are not remotely close to 12,264. Relative to the questions asked to clinicians, the authors say that there is 387 cases of child ritual abuse and 674 cases of adult ones. Relative to the questions asked to law-related agencies, there was 421 cases of ritual abuses. Now, even assuming all theses were independent, we have a total of 387+674+421=1482. Not even close to 12,264, hence why this last number is made-up. It is not a matter of analysing, evaluating, interpreting or synthesising material found in a primary source: that's just plain reading. Rerotempis (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, you're using your own research to accuse Mary de Young of academic fraud. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I am merely pointing to the primary source which clearly shows that a secondary source made up numbers about its content. You’re the one talking about academic fraud, not me. Rerotempis (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying the number she has in her published work is invented. That's academic fraud. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're the one mentioning academic fraud, not me. Moreover, even if there is some academic fraud as you are saying, it does not mean that she's responsible for it. And lastly, the main point is that I am not using my own research, but pointing to a reliable, public source: the published results themselves. Rerotempis (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Epstein Files ~2026-13418-35 (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, Epstein wasn't a Satanist. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and? Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of "organised ritual abuse" seems to be gaining traction in the UK - see this article in the Guardian and this paper by Elly Hanson for the National Police Chiefs' Council and the National Association for People Abused in Childhood. The Hanson paper takes an extremely hostile stance to what it calls "the disbelief discourse" (i.e. those who think that there was a moral panic), even criticising this article ("Wikipedia clearly demonstrates the power of the disbelief discourse. Editors have only allowed for this narrative on the site, and websites providing knowledge of ritual abuse have been blacklisted (Lacter, 2009)."). It heavily cites Michael Salter and all the rest of the ISSTD crew who have tried to salvage something from the claims of SRA. What are we to make of this? It's the same old stuff we've generally considered unreliable, but it's in respected sources. Eldomtom2 (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Hanson paper includes a lot of citations, but it doesn't seem to be a peer-reviewed academic source. After a quick search, I'm also not finding previous discussions on Wikipedia of whether any of those organizations (National Police Chiefs' Council, National Association for People Abused in Childhood, or Hydrant Programme) are reliable sources. It's interesting that the narrative might be gaining traction again in the UK, though. Cadddr (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, but now psychiatrists know it's paranoid delirium. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

" sometimes inspired by satanism, fascism or esoteric religious beliefs " So it is not just about Satanism. Which fits with what we actually say.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you reread the paper, particularly it's claims about e.g. Browtowe.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK so which case do we say here was false does your new soruce says was true? Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing in favour for using the source.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then what are you arguing for? Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]