Talk:Satanic panic/Archive 13

This has been a bit of a weird one, and it's come full circle. At first glance, this discussion appears to approach "no consensus," but then a closer examination of many of the "oppose" votes actually shows those editors support a move to "Satanic panic" per

So, one must then look to the scope of the article. It appears the scope, as many editors have described, is actually very much in line with the title "Satanic panic." And it's inarguably the

• Oppose and procedural speedy close per results of
  Talk:Satanic ritual abuse/Archive 9#Requested move 30 December 2020 (also opened by Vpab15). Nothing new is being offered and the recent discussion should stand. -- Netoholic @
  01:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

On what basis?

Avril Lavigne replacement? It's shorter. @Slatersteven: also In ictu oculi (talk

) 13:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

There's no reason for a procedural close. The last RM was closed as "no consensus to move" and per

WP:THREEOUTCOMES: it is not considered bad form to re-raise a request that found "no consensus" to move. Surachit (talk

) 08:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Not sure we need the word panic.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• To add, is this a moral panic, a conspiracy theory, fraud, myth, mistake? It is all of them. Thus I am unsure calling it anyone of them is correct.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is a moral panic as the article's intro clearly indicates. I guess you could also call it a myth or conspiracy theory, even a mistake, but those terms are very rarely used for this particular case. Panic is the most common term in the sources and therefore the best choice. Vpab15 (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    • We say conspiracy theory in the lede, and indeed that is the whole basis of the Qaunoin version if this. It is in fact the conspiracy theories , not the moral panics that keep this alive.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Most moral panics are partly conspiracy theories, but only a few conspiracy theories cause moral panics. In any case, the article focuses on the moral panic part more than on the conspiracy theory one. Vpab15 (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support quite clearly this does not exist as a thing, so is only a theory, conspiracy, hoax or panic. The current title is misleading. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support: The proposed title doesn't seem perfect, but it's an improvement by making it clear that the article is about a perception of a phenomenon rather than a real phenomenon. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment What's wrong with 'Satanic panic' it's more concise and commonly used. 'Satanic ritual abuse panic' just seems like the two terms actually used were mashed together—blindlynx (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • That seems ambiguous or different in scope. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

How so? It's commonly used to refer to what this article is about. Just to elaborate the term 'satanic panic' is commonly used to refer to the moral panic ([1]; [2]; [3]; [4]). The only article i count find that uses the term "satanic ritual abuse panic" is [5]—blindlynx (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• • Satanic panic is currently a dab page, but it could be argued that this article is the primary topic for it. I prefer the proposed name, but I don't oppose this alternative. blindlynx, do you have a preference between the current name and the proposed one? Vpab15 (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

of those two i have a weak preference for the current one, just on the basis that it's a term actually used to refer to the topic of the article and the proposed feels

wp:synthy even if it's fairly clear—blindlynx (talk

) 15:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

to clarify i don't oppose this move, I just noticed i !voted as oppose fixed now—blindlynx (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I think 'Satanic ritual abuse conspiracy theory' is better because it also takes into account that now its not a moral panic, it is now a pure conspiracy theory (which it always was anyway).Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the title needs to point out the unreality of it somehow, and "conspiracy theory", as overloaded as that term is, seems to work pretty well. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Every six months, someone wants to rename the article, and frankly I'm tired of it. The article has been renamed a few times, and it's getting further and further from the Satanic Panic
  WP:COMMONNAME. The article itself makes it clear that this is a nonsense conspiracy theory, we don't need it to be renamed Satanic Panic ritual abuse conspiracy theory nonsense. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite
  19:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support: Proposed title better describes the article's actual topic. The article is not about ritual abuse by Satanists but rather about a moral panic alleging it. Rublov (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• I'm dubious of the claim that the current title is a
  WP:POVTITLE. Just because we don't include "moral panic" or "conspiracy theory" in the name does not mean that we're taking the view that it's real. Compare e.g. Flat Earth, Hollow Moon, or Water-fuelled car. Overall I'm sort of neutral on the move. I do think it might be slightly more recognizable, but it's also less concise, and could be argued to not fully encompass the current scope of the article. "Satanic ritual abuse allegations" might be worth considering as an alternative, though I'm not convinced it's an improvement. Colin M (talk
  ) 01:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per comments on previous RM. Nominator, if you must reopen RMs, you should at least be up-front about the previous failed RM in your nomination rather than trying to hide it. We don't have Super Bowl LV football game or NASA governnment organization either, to C&P from my old comment. SnowFire (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Per previous oppose !votes. It is simply not a meaningful improvement, neither are any of the other suggested title proposed in this discussion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment this is pretty much the same argument we keep having over at Kosher tax conspiracy theory. Yes, "ritual abuse" is a real thing, and "satanic ritual abuse" has occurred (though I'd guess far less frequently than, say, Christian ritual abuse, just because there are far fewer Satanists than Christians), but this article is specifically about the moral panic that has evolved into a conspiracy theory. It's hardly about the actual behavior described by the title at all, which makes sense, since the actual behavior described by the title is so rare. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• RELIST PLEASE. there are so many saying "as previous RM" as a reason for objecting that it suggests that this would benefit from some fresh eyes. No one has yet justified the current title as non-misleading. We still have the issue that
  Avril Lavigne replacement is at Avril Lavigne replacement conspiracy theory, which means either that the April Lavigne article needs an RM to mislead readers to this article needs non-misleading titling. In ictu oculi (talk
  ) 18:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
  • This article and the Lavigne article shouldn't necessarily share the same titling, they're distinct cases. This article is on a (deplorable) cultural belief, while just "Avril Lavigne replacement" sounds like a specific incident / event, while adding "conspiracy theory" clarifies that the article isn't really about an actual replacement but rather about a belief. "Satanic ritual abuse" doesn't have that issue. The fact that it's nonsense is adequately explained in the lede. For a more relevant comparison to the Lavinge example, if somehow there was a spinoff from McMartin preschool trial about the alleged incident, I would agree that something like Ritual abuse of children at the McMartin preschool would be an inappropriate title, as that would seem to be an article about a specific incident, yet that incident never happened. SnowFire (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Adding "conspiracy theory" clarifies that the article isn't really about an actual replacement but rather about a belief. You could say exactly the same thing about Satanic ritual abuse. Someone new to the topic or who vaguely remembers the widespread reports of Satanic ritual abuse in the 80s and 90s will assume the article is about actual ritual abuse. Yes, it is explained in the lede that it was all a moral panic, but it would be better to reflect that in the title too. I think avoiding that confusion is worth adding one more word to the title and making it a little less concise. Vpab15 (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
    • If somehow the reports of Satanic abuse, such as those in Michelle Remembers hadn't been debunked, we would probably have an article with the same name in Wikipedia covering those abuses as factual. Now imagine the debunking happened after the Wikipedia article was created. Surely then we would change the title, right? Vpab15 (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm saying that there's a difference between a specific incident and an umbrella, abstract term. Specific incidents that never happened have a stronger case to require explicit disambiguation in the title for simple reasons of clarity. But no, I don't agree we need to change the title? What you described actually happened - there were reports of Satanic ritual abuse that were taken seriously at first, and then they turned out to be bunk. That doesn't imply the title would change had Wikipedia existed in 1985, just the article content. Let me flip the question: suppose it turns out from surprising new evidence or a new case that there was at least one, genuine case of Satanic ritual abuse. Does this one misguided incident now mean that the article should not have "panic" in the title (if we suppose for a moment that it currently should)? Clearly not, IMO, just as we have titles like Red Scare even despite the fact that bone fide communist spies really did exist. Titling is a separate question.
      • For some similar examples, examine
        Piltdown Man hoax, although that's a redirect just like the "panic" version of this title). And that's fine, conciseness means it's just an extra word a lot of the time. SnowFire (talk
        ) 21:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
        • Yes, conciseness is important, but not more than the other criteria in
          WP:AT. The title would be more recognizable and descriptive with the word panic. As In ictu oculi and I have shown, in other articles it was decided to have a more recognizable and descriptive title, even if it is less concise. One more example is White genocide conspiracy theory. So we should go with the less concise title if it is more recognizable. Or else explain how it can be equally recognizable and descriptive without the word panic. Vpab15 (talk
          ) 21:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
          • So we should go with the less concise title if it is more recognizable.
          • No evidence has been provided that "Satanic ritual abuse panic" is more recognizable as a title, though. In face, the most recognizable
            WP:COMMONNAME is simply "Satanic Panic." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite
            17:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Support Actually agree with
  Satanic Panic would be a better title for this article (and that this article is the main topic of that DAB), but the proposed title is also acceptable. BSMRD (talk
  ) 03:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

— Relisting and advertising to relevant wikiprojects. This is heading fast towards another "no consensus." It would benefit the project to have an actual answer this time that would serve as a precedent making repeat discussions less likely.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support. The article doesn't seem to be about actual Satanic abuse but about the fear of it and associated social phenomena, and the proposed article makes that clearer. ╠╣uw [talk] 15:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. We have
  No such user (talk
  ) 10:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
  • P.S. I would also support moving this to
    No such user (talk
    ) 08:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support(ish). To me, this title does have neutrality issues. It has a unique cultural context when compared to most other modern conspiracy theories/pseudoscience. Firstly, it is now reasonably widely accepted as being a specifically moral panic - hence it now frequently being referred to as the satanic panic - even by many people that used to very strongly believe in it. Secondly, it was very widely believed only a few decades ago and supported by a lot of apparent experts, including some with actual relevant expertise. People will come expecting an article referring to a panic, and instead find one referring to SRA with no qualifications (I've actually done this before, and thought I was in the wrong place). It's not really enough to say that the lede will fix it,
  because the first concept a person is presented with is the stickiest one. And that concern is intensified given the previously widespread nature of these beliefs, making reinforcing them a reasonable possibility. Whether or not this change strictly supported by policies, ethical obligations as humans still apply, and this conspiracy theory is unique. Finally, like others that have commented, I do actually prefer the far simpler and more common name of Satanic Panic - perhaps we should consider instead discussing whether to move to that. And now, for some loose thoughts - I didn't know where to put this part in my broader comment so it's going here. In my experience, as an Australian born in the late nineties, I didn't know the term satanic ritual abuse until I started reading up on it, I'd only ever heard satanic panic and satanic moral panic. I've found that people my age and younger outside of North America don't recognise the term SRA - it's simply not standing the test of time. For all I know, it is widely referred to as SRA in North America, but even then calling it that would just be favouring American and older readers. Let's chuck in the word panic or theory or something, or ideally change to satanic panic (P.S. if you reply to my comment, please ping me, I'm really bad at remembering to check back in on discussions.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xurizuri (talk • contribs
  ) 03:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
  • • Comment "don't recognise the term SRA" Considering that SRA is a disambiguation page with multiple other uses, hardly surprising. 14:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)
      • lol yep that'll do it. I did mean "satanic ritual abuse" there, but the obscurity does quickly increase when it's an acronym. --Xurizuri (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose but would not object to yet another relisting. We need to get this right. Perhaps the article is badly scoped at present? Andrewa (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Current article title sounds like an instruction manual. "Panic" much preferred over "conspiracy theory". This article refers to a historical episode of finite duration (1980s-90s), which spread quickly and widely but then receded and disappeared. Conspiracy theories suggest the phenomenon continues to persist. And conspiracy theories are not necessarily infectious - they may have only ever been sustained by a small sect, and never grow beyond that. But the term "Panic" - like moral panics and financial panics - is a worry that spreads rapidly, but then eventually goes away. Fits the content of this article best. Walrasiad (talk) 11:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Article scope

According to the current lead, this article deals with the consequences of the book