Talk:Satanic panic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
More information Article milestones, Date ...
|
Close
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 |
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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. |