Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ritual Violence


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article in its current form is a WP:POVFORK of the Satanic ritual abuse article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Ritual Violence

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article appears to be a POV-fork of Satanic ritual abuse, and the sources are mostly pushing a fringe viewpoint centered on discredited theories about repressed memories. I've found some passing mentions of the term "ritual violence" in anthropology, but I can't find enough material to assemble a decent stub. If that exists then that would be the logical basis for an article under this title. Nblund talk 02:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.  Nblund talk 02:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  Nblund talk 02:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  Nblund talk 02:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep There does appear to be a strong similarity, but not all rituals are satanic.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you find good sources for other forms? It's possible that Satanic ritual abuse may need to be extended to cover other alleged forms of ritualized abuse, but claims of widespread ritual child abuse — Satanic or otherwise — are generally not considered credible. So what we have here is a standalone article discussing a minor variant on an urban myth. Nblund talk 18:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that the credibility argument convinces me. We are not talking about facts, but what people believe. Also We are not only talking about children, as the Report of the Ritual Abuse Task Force Los Angeles County Commission for Women source makes clear.Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean "ritual abuse and mind control", which was produced by a group whose members later claimed to have been poisoned by Satanists? I don't think that should be cited, especially since the host url appears to be on the spam blacklist. The claims in that report are not substantially distinct from what we've already covered at the other article. We need credible sources that discuss this as a discrete claim.
 * Speaking of pov-forks, it looks like the main reason this page is titled Ritual Violence rather than Ritual abuse is that that redirect was indefinitely EC-protected to prevent...POV forks just like this one. Nblund talk 18:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Try this [] or this [], now it may well be cult rather than Satanic. But that then means we need to rename the other article before adding any material not about satanism.Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you presenting these as reliable sources? The SRA article already explains this: some advocates tried rebrand the idea using alternative terms like "sadistic ritual abuse", "ritual abuse" etc. but (as Mary de Young explains here) they were all essentially the same claims from the same groups under reworked titles. I don't see what more there is to say if you can't find sources that discuss this as a distinct phenomenon. Nblund talk 19:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No I am saying I am seeing enough to tell me this may in fact be a separate subject, that not all ritual, abuse is satanic.Slatersteven (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What you're proposing sounds like an argument for renaming Satanic ritual abuse to something broader. If we want to have a separate article on non-Satanic ritual violence, we need to provide reliable sources that discuss it as a distinct phenomenon. If those don't exist, then how are we supposed to have an article? Nblund talk 19:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I said explicilty that any merge must bbe based on the premise that the page is renamed.Slatersteven (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Looks like in the past week an enormous amount of blatant nonsense has been removed from the article.
 * Right now a lot of the article is sourced to ra-info.org, which seems a little dubious to me, but they have a bibliography that might be helpful. ApLundell (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. While the latest changes are a definite improvement, it is still a POV Fork. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Ritual Violence is a topic of scholarly interest (se, e.g.,    ) but that's not what this article is about.  The anthropological/sociological/psychological meaning of the term is completely absent, instead this is purely about a WP:FRINGE re-definition used to push the viewpoints of a very minority advocacy community.  TD;DR version:  and  are right and this is a pure WP:POVFORK with no redeeming text to survive on its own.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a WP:POV Fork. jps (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete this, per WP:POVFORK and WP:TNT (it reads as a personal reflection on the subject). Guy (help!) 18:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.