Talk:Carl Raschke

Untitled

I think the content in the second paragraph is important, but it seems to belong down below under the section dealing with this topic. Maybe take 2 sentences, and include them in the first paragraph, noting his controversial involvement in these issues, then move on? It seems to be a fallacy of composition to focus too much on this matter, and Raeschke's work (after looking over his publications included on the wiki page) overwhelmingly is based in the field of "continental philosophy of religion". But I can see the importance of including the Satanic ritual stuff, as it did get some important media coverage. Worth keeping. Philosophiachristi (talk) 11:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Philosophiachristi

Peripheral passage

Is there a need for this exposition, which, apart from the first sentence, doesn't have much to do with the bio? 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Rashke's role in the Satanic ritual abuse moral panic of the 1980s and 1990s in the United States has been the subject of criticism from scholars. The term "moral panic" has been used by many scholars to presume that a response to a given social issue is disproportionate, in effect taking sides on whether a given issue is a "legitimate" social problem or a moral panic and therefore treating the disproportionality of a given social issue as "settled science" when in reality, science (and this includes social science) is never settled but must always be open to new data. [5]. This was never intended by originators of moral panic studies such as Stanley Cohen. Many social issues,such as slavery (called at the time the slave power conspiracy see [6] have later been found to be substantiated (see [7] . Similarly, satanic ritual abuse is in the process of being exhaustively reexamined by some social scientists, including some of the iconic 1980s cases that established ritual abuse as a moral panic. [8].

I agree and suggest all but the first sentence is removed, but perhaps more explanation of his role is required? Theroadislong (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• The explanation may already be supplied by the subsequent passages of criticism. If not, they go a long way to supplying context. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry yes you are of course correct. Theroadislong (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• If objective sources can be found, it would be beneficial to add some of the biographical content that was lifted from his website....so long as it doesn't become a resume or credential-cruft. Probably the University of Denver faculty bio can be used, but even that has to be used discerningly, considering the promotional tone. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This paragraph is a personal rant, which is unacceptable. I've removed it. There was previously a comment where I explain that much of the criticism of Raschke's 1990s work regarding "Satanic ritual abuse" comes from his Painted Black. It was removed—I'll restore it. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Numerous Sock Puppets Identified and Blocked, Possibly Connected to Article Subject

Up until a CheckUser was done on Carlraschke (talk · contribs) a few days ago (results are here), this talk page was flooded with sock puppets claiming to be different individuals, all the while lobbing insults and threats. The sock puppet master, Carlraschke (talk · contribs), as the account name implies, claimed to be the subject of this article, Carl Raschke. The account's sock puppets meanwhile claimed to be other, apparently fictional individuals (such as someone Raschke purportedly worked on a case with and a friend of that supposed individual).

However, as suspected, Carlraschke (talk · contribs) was in fact employing no less than eight sock puppets. At least one of these sock puppets went on to edit connected articles in a manner flattering to Raschke's work and comments, such as Satanic ritual abuse ([1]) and Heathenry (new religious movement) ([2]). They have all been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia.

Carl Raschke's early to mid- January Twitter feed implies that Raschke was at the very least linked to this situation ([3]).

Out of all of the users in the CheckUser, only one was apparently not a sock puppet (or employing one): Duikelmaan (talk · contribs). Like the other accounts, this user showed a pattern of harassment (for example [4], [5], etc.), including posting a final threat before being indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia (the threat can be seen here).

In short, the goal of these sock puppets and the above blocked user was to delete material they perceived to present Raschek in a negative light. When failing to do so, these users (and their sock puppets) attempted other tactics to get the material removed or altered in a manner they perceived as more flattering, whether by way of threats of outing users involved in the page (whom appear to have no connection to the article subject) or tactics such as arguing that the subject had in fact never made a comment which he was quoted as making in a linked interview.

After the blocks, this talk page was mostly deleted but may be viewed in its earlier state here.

Both the article space and this talk page are currently protected from non-autoconfirmed users. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, 'Only one of these users...' means only one of the users now listed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Carlraschke/Archive, not one of the editors to this talk page, correct? The latter reading would include me, for example... Stuartyeates (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I've adjusted the text to make things more clear to the reader. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)