Talk: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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

"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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

" 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)

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

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)

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

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