Talk:Satanic panic

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)

No mention of "the finders" and automatic dismissal of claims

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)

The Order of the Nine Angles has performed Satanic child abuse, but they are a marginal fringe group among Satanists. Most Satanists don't believe it is wise to break the law. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

right, but this article says that it doesn't happen at all. that's the problem. JH2903 (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Mutatis mutandis, see rule 34. Most Satanists don't think that their purpose in life is to harm other people. But there are disturbed individuals who do think that. The Church of Satan does not teach them to harm other people, nor to break the law. But the problem with that church is that it is a money-making machine (for its leaders). tgeorgescu (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

None of that has anything to do with what you're replying to.

"Most Satanists don't think that their purpose in life is to harm other people." Yep, they leave such sadistic beliefs to the Christians. Dimadick (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

It happens. This article insists it doesn't. JH2903 (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

No it argues that all the major and most public cases were. It is about the moral panic. Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

if that was the case then all phrasings of "ritual abuse" wouldn't redirect to this page JH2903 (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Then you need to make the case there, not here. Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 9 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)

Here we go again.

Look, no one is denying that child abuse happens. Sometimes, child abuse happens by members of a religion or a cult. But that's not what this article is about.

This article is about a phenomenon in the 80s-00s where people were making up wild accusations of ritualistic child abuse by nebulous "Satanists," not associated with any organized religion or cult. It was a moral panic, originated by false claims and perpetuated by improper coaching of children by the investigators so that they lied, believing that's what the adults wanted them to say. The entire point of the moral panic was that Satanists are everywhere, hiding in plain sight, in every town across the globe, abusing your children to gain magical powers. Which is patently bonkers.

We keep getting people wandering in here about cases where some group of teens killed another kid and everyone screamed "Satanism!" then demanding we call "Satanic ritual abuse" real. Or, in this case, an actual cult abusing its members (O9A), then conflating that with this broad conspiracy theory.

But the two points people keep missing are thus:

1. This conspiracy theory revolves around the idea that there is a global Satanic conspiracy that is dedicated to abusing children.

2. That the abuse is ritualistic, meaning the abuse serves a function of the religious beliefs by the perpetrators. (See also: Blood libel.)

Even 09A fails the meet the second criteria. Those kids were just plain abused, not for ritual purposes, not to "glorify Satan," or anything else the Satanic Panic claimed. O9A just thinks rape is a good way to undermine society and assert their dominance. It's not ritualistic, it's just cruel for cruelty's sake.

And now, most of the Blood Libel inspired conspiracy theories promoted by the Satanic Panic have morphed into Pizzagate and QAnon. It's the same moral panic, right down to the "global Satanist conspiracy to sexually abuse your children for ritualistic purposes." Just updated for modern politics.

So no, we don't need to alter the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

if this was just about a phenomenon in the 80s-00s and not general accusations of ritual abuse then phrasings of ritual abuse, satanic abuse etc wouldn't redirect here implying that any accusation is part of this specific moral panic.

as for your comments about the order of the nine angels, it says very clearly in that page that they're a satanist group so i don't know why you brought it up along with so called "blood libel" and didn't mention the main point i made about the finders. JH2903 (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

That first point is just not going to fly. Having redirects to help people find the article does not imply every possible accusation is valid.

If you can't follow why I brought up blood libel, then you need to reread that article and then this one. The entire Satanic Panic is a rehash of blood libel in a new form. O9A is a "Satanist" group, and they abuse children. But it's not ritual abuse in a religious context, it's just child abuse, same as what Catholic priests have been found guilty of for decades. The children abused by Catholic priests aren't doing it for the glorification of God, they're just predators using their position of authority to target kids. There's no religious or ritual component to it. That is the key to the Satanic Panic: the idea that these children are abused as part of religious rituals for magical effects. And that's just classic blood libel, the same anti-Semitic accusation that Jews were abducting kids to drink their blood & gain magical powers through their ritual execution/abuse.

As to the Finders, I didn't engage with that topic because our article already handles it. They weren't even prosecuted because there's no actual evidence that would hold up in court. The kids may have been neglected, and the adults were weird, but there was no direct evidence of child abuse, much less ritual child abuse (aka a focal point of this article). The FBI just dumped everything they had on the group in 2019, and people did what they do, finding imagined patterns that fit their preconceived notions.

The problem here is you are conflating "a child was abused in this group" with "evidence the group as a whole abuses kids for religious/ritual effect." The two things are not equivalent. O9A is the closest you can get, and even that doesn't fit what the Satanic Panic claimed was happening. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

the implication that the rate of sexual abuse by catholic priests is particularly high compared to any other position isn't true

you wouldn't recognise SRA if you saw it in a room covered with inverted pentagrams and people drinking blood JH2903 (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

So, yeah, you're just here to POV-push. Take your white knighting elsewhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

"people drinking blood" Why are you changing the topic to the vampire lifestyle and the subculture's habitual hematophagy?Dimadick (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Because he's literally repeating anti-Semitic blood libel claims. Never fails with these conspiracists, they always fall back on the classics. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:30, 17 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)

Bennett Braun has died.

This article might be useful for a few more cites. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

See the article Bennett Braun. — The Anome (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)