Talk:The Satanic Temple

Year Founded / Organized / Conflict

Not sure how to address this: We've stated here that TST was founded in 2013, as that is when their website went online and when they began public activities - several of the activities we mention in the article took place in 2013. For the entirety of 2013 the TST website listed 9 tenets ( https://web.archive.org/web/20131212065107/http://www.thesatanictemple.com/ ) changing to 7 tenets in 2014. Spokesperson & co-founder Lucien Greaves recently stated on Twitter that TST has had 7 tenets since their "actual founding" ( https://twitter.com/LucienGreaves/status/935755530781581314 ) which aligns with his previous statements where he's said that 2013 versions of the website where they claim to believe in Satan and list Neil Blick as the founder were "placeholder" and from before he joined the organization in 2014. The legal filings support this and are dated March 2014. However, there is video showing Lucien Greaves referring to himself as "overload of the Satanic Temple" from January 2013 ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8ZA30BxuOY ).

My feeling is that regardless of their storyline today, they were obviously active in 2013 and just didn't file paperwork until 2014, but that 2013 activities and statements are just as valid as ones made post 2014 but I'd like others thoughts on this, and conversely if we decide that 2013 statements are not valid, then how do we address their 2013 activities we've already included?

Also, if Lucien Greaves is listed as the cofounder but claims he didn't join until 2014, what was the nature of his involvement in 2013? There's some speculation that he was hired to play that role though when asked about it he gets hostile and attacks the person asking the question, but hasn't denied that he was hired for the role. This is relevant in the larger discussion of the history as there are several cited sources stating that TST began as a satirical political prank not as a religious organization with deeply held beliefs, so correctly describing the history seems worthwhile, so acknowledging this timeline conflict seems appropriate to ensure wikipedia isn't being used to fabricate a backstory. Seanbonner (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

It's been more than a month since I asked this, is it safe to assume other editors have no opinion about this? Seanbonner (talk) 05:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic: Avoiding reverting your change to 2012 again and bringing it up here for discussion. I believe it's an error per WP:PRIMARY - The single source of the 2012 reference is a passing setup statement by the author (not even a direct quote) in an article from 2015. Per everything I've mentioned above everything else says 2013, and the organization themselves says 2014. Per policy the contradiction should be noted in the article, but as it's a single source long after the fact and all other sources agree I think including 2012 is incorrect and misleading. Seanbonner (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The presently cited Esquire source states that Mesner "co-founded the Temple in 2012". That appears to be stated quite clearly, as an assertion of fact, by a reliable source. There are no WP:PRIMARY sources being referenced for that information, so I believe you are misunderstanding that guideline. There are numerous sources which convey that TST was created/conceived/formed/founded in 2012. Some, like the Utah Statesman, will explain it twice, in case you missed it the first time. You point to "everything [you've] mentioned above" as further evidence, but your November comment is unpersuasive and even incorrect (like your interpretation of a tweet that actually mentions no dates, and no number of tenets, for example).

Here's my conclusion: The TST was created in 2012 because numerous reliable sources say so. To date, not a single reliable source has been produced conveying that it didn't exist in 2012. That should be enough. The fact that major news sources (ABC News included) were already reporting during the first 2 weeks of January 2013 about an upcoming TST rally at the Florida State Capitol, makes claims that TST didn't yet exist sound ridiculous. (Announcements, "open casting calls" for more people, and Facebook notices from 2012 through the first week of January 2013 notwithstanding.) I understand there are arguments to be made that TST had not made any major public appearances before January 2013, or hadn't yet published a stable website, fully established doctrine & tenets, or filed with the government yet. But lack of those later developments do not mean TST had not been conceived and did not yet exist. I'm aware there are detractors of TST who seek to delegitimize it, and attacking or minimizing their longevity is certainly one way to do so. It's right up there with other delegitimizing tactics like claiming they aren't really a religion; they aren't really Satanists; they must be a hoax or joke or scam; etc. Without naming names, I note all of these tactics have been used on this article. We should be careful not to let Wikipedia be used by people with a specific agenda as a tool to propagandize against other groups. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

*dons grammar Nazi hat* "The TST" is a redundant acronym, like "PIN number" and "ATM machine". :) — Demong _talk 20:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. — Demong _talk 21:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Just noticed the passive aggressive jab here, and I think it's more that worth pointing out that just because criticism may delegitimize something doesn't mean it's not valid as the point of this article and wikipedia isn't to be promotional. All of the claims you are referring to here that I've noted can be cited to Lucien Greaves himself. His has stated repeatedly on Twitter that TST wasn't founded until 2014, conflicting with actual events which is something I've discussed above because they were obviously active in 2013. He has never once claimed that TST is it's own religion, and has stated that if Christian groups weren't doing X there would be no reason for TST to exist, which is a valid criticism towards their claim of deeply held beliefs, he's on record agreeing that they are like a "darker Yes Men" so I'm not just making up things, I'm trying to help write an accurate article based on actual events and not have Wikipedia turn into a hype filled press release. It's also telling that certain editors instantly delete or object to anything that isn't complimentary. Seanbonner (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Revisiting this because this line by Xenophrenic is sticking with me - "I understand there are arguments to be made that TST had not made any major public appearances before January 2013, or hadn't yet published a stable website, fully established doctrine & tenets, or filed with the government yet." That's moving the goal post. The issue isn't that they hadn't had a major public appearance, it's that they didn't have any public appearance. The issue isn't that they didn't have a stable website, it's they they didn't have any website and didn't even register one until 2013. The issue isn't that they hadn't fully established doctrine it's that there is no evidence that they had even begun to write them. There's a lot of people assuming they must have had the idea in 2012, but when people had an idea for something and when something was actually established are two different things. And again, TST themselves claim that they weren't founded until 2014 and that all of 2013 was "placeholder" while they figured out what they wanted to do - this is their defense against the fact that in 2013 their website said they believed in a literal Satan, among other things. I think accusations that this discussion is to delegitimize them is ridiculous. If there was one single thing that TST did in 2012 then there would be no question, but a casting call from a film company for a mockumentary they were making isn't evidence that TST existed, if anything that's a mark against their legitimacy. If when they had the idea is when they were founded them why not just list 2008 when Malcom Jarry is quoted saying he originally thought of it? There's no logic to this. Seanbonner (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The issue isn't... --Seanbonner

The issue is the origin date for TST, and I don't have much else to say about that issue that I haven't already said above: Multiple reliable sources give 2012 as the date. Zero reliable sources say they did not exist in 2012. (And no, TST did not say they weren't founded until 2014.) I've already addressed each of your other assertions. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

You do not prove a negative, zero reliable sources say "they weren't founded in 2012" because that's a stupid comment to make. As linked, above here is Lucien Greaves - co-founder and spokesperson for TST saying they weren't "actually" founded until 2014 - [1] and there are not "multiple reliable sources" that claim 2012, there are 2, one from 2015 and one from 2017 and it's mentioned in passing in both so [WP:CONTEXTMATTERS] is appropriate considering there is nothing citable showing them existing in 2012, everything showing them beginning existing in 2013 and all other press about them that that talks about when they were founded says 2013. You are cherry picking two articles that in all likelihood were not accurately fact checked and acting as if they are law, and continually misrepresenting the situation as I pointed out in your previous comment. Either way conflicting sources dictates that both should be listed. Regardless of all that Lucien Greaves has stated he didn't join TST as co-founder until 2014, so arguing for 2012 makes him an employee for 2 years rather than 1 which is also not a favorable position for them, but if that's what you want to argue then we can adjust that as well. Seanbonner (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

re: "...the passive aggressive jab ... moving the goal post ... You are cherry picking ... continually misrepresenting the situation ... " WTF is your problem? Please figure it out and kindly remedy it. Thanks in advance. Moving on...

(1) You're link to Twitter doesn't say what you claim it does. In fact, "2014" appears nowhere in the message, and Greaves gives no founding date in it. (2) If you feel the cited reliable sources sources "in all likelihood were not accurately fact checked", then I recommend that you raise your concern at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and see if you can get the community to agree with you. (3) You've tried to claim TST wasn't founded until January 2013, yet you've openly acknowledged TST was already staging events by January 2013 in Florida (see Rick Scott). In fact, reliable news sources were already reporting about The Satanic Temple, and their website, and interviewing their spokespeople, since at least the first week of 2013. Countless contemporaneous sources confirm (Observer: "group, which was founded last year"), (Herald: "the group was formed last year and seeks to raise awareness"), (Daily News "Satanic Temple, officially founded in 2012"), etc. (4) TheSatanicTemple.com was registered in March 2012. (5) Your unvetted essay on conflicting sources also says, when two (or more) reliable sources conflict, one (or more) of those sources can be demonstrated to be unreliable. Easily done, since you are contending that a nonexistent TST, within hours after the 2013 New Year began, suddenly popped into existence and immediately secured city protest permits, airline flights to Florida, recruited activists, developed a full website & tenets, published press releases, all before interviewing with news sources during those same first days of January. "That's a stupid comment to make", if I may borrow your phrase, and it also doesn't account for the 2012 recruitment Facebook posts, the 2012 establishment of the website domain, the NYT interview timeline, etc.

It bears repeating: Multiple reliable sources give 2012 as the origin date. Zero reliable sources say they did not exist in 2012. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, founding is not when people first started to think about things. They didn't do anything publicly in anyway until 2013 and legally till 2014, and very few sources say 2012 and it's in passing. The vast majority of coverage correctly states 2013, and WP:AGE MATTERS is relevant as all recent reliable sourced coverage says 2013. I'm not claiming any of the things you suggest (Personal attack removed). Seanbonner (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your personal definition of "founded", and your opinion on when people think; our cited sources say founded, so that is what our article says. As for not doing anything publicly until 2013, our article already says that, too. The vast majority of coverage says founded in 2012, as does the organization itself (Founded in 2012, the Temple has ...), as do the most recent sources (11 days ago). Xenophrenic (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not my definition, going by the actual definition [2] it should be when it was legally set up in 2014, that's obviously incorrect for these purposes of this article as they were clearly active in 2013. They were not clearly active in 2012, despite your assumptions. The only thing we know for sure is that a film company was organizing a mock rally for a project they were working on that happened in January 2013 and that Lucien Greaves, the "co-founder and spokesperson" for the org repeatedly says that things that happened in 2013 were "before he joined the organization" even though he's on video representing the organization in January 2013. I'm genuinely confused why you are taking such a hardline on this one given that there are multiple sources saying different things, and a 2012 founding isn't somehow better, as that now changes the story to suggest that they held theistic beliefs for 2 years not one, and that they changed all their mission statements 2 years in, not one - both of which negatively reflect on their claims of deeply held religious beliefs. Unless you are a member trying to paint a certain picture of the org I don't understand why everytime there's a blatantly obvious contradiction you try to downplay it. Wikipedia policy here is that the conflicting sources should be noted, you are purposely trying to hide that fact. Seanbonner (talk) 04:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Sean, I think the source of a lot of problems and frustration is the original research you are conducting. You are taking bits and pieces of information from all over the place, then combining them in novel ways. You are citing a tweet from Greaves as proof that TST wasn't founded until 2014 - yet it says nothing of the sort. You cite Dictionary.com as defining "founded" as "legally set up" - yet it says nothing of the sort. You found one arguably reliable source that says TST was founded in 2013, while I have provided more than a half-dozen saying 2012. As for other matters regarding when Greaves did or didn't join, or whether they were theistic or atheistic, I'm not addressing any of that here. If you'd like to discuss that stuff, that's fine, but please open a separate header. This discussion is about a founding date for TST, and the preponderance of reliable sources say 2012. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

First, please stop claiming I'm arguing that TST was founded in 2014, I'm not. I'm pointing out that Greaves has claimed that. I disagree with his statements. Reading a statement and understanding the context of it is not OR, it's reading comprehension. In this tweet [3] Greaves says "Our tenets have been the same since our actual founding" and we know the tenets were changed in 2014, so he's obviously saying the "actual founding" was in 2014, which is corroborated by the legal documents that all show incorporation and "founding" in 2014. In this tweet [4] he's addressing an earlier comment of his where he said that material on the website in 2013 was "before he joined the organization" and when someone asked him how something could have happened before he joined if he's a cofounder he replied "Not if it was formally founded afterward." which again in the context of the discussion is obviously a claim that the "founding" was later. As I've said before, there is no question they were active in 2013 so even if legally they didn't set anything up until 2014 they obviously existed in 2013. Doing a google search for "The Satanic Temple 2013" brings up countless articles from reliable sources stating they began in 2013, here's NBC News from January 2018 [5] saying as much. Again, there are many sources saying 2013 as well as sources saying 2012, so wikipedia policy dictates that we note the conflict, not pick the one you like best. And since they didn't do anything until 2013 and the January 2013 event was produced by a film company not by an organization called TST, your continued assumption that TST must have been active planning it is baseless. The word "founding" actually means something specific, and it's not when someone had an idea. Seanbonner (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

stop claiming I'm arguing that TST was founded in 2014, I'm not. --Seanbonner

I never did. Let me copy exactly what I typed to refresh your memory: You are citing a tweet from Greaves as proof that TST wasn't founded until 2014 - yet it says nothing of the sort. Now here are your statements I'm addressing:

...the organization themselves says 2014. --Seanbonner

His has stated repeatedly on Twitter that TST wasn't founded until 2014... --Seanbonner

...[founded] it should be when it was legally set up in 2014... --Seanbonner

...he's obviously saying the "actual founding" was in 2014... --Seanbonner

I've read his tweets, and I know what they say. The problem arises when you take what Greaves actually said, and then process that through your own personal perceptions to arrive at your own novel conclusion that "he's obviously saying the "actual founding" was in 2014". No. You can't do that. And that is not what he is obviously saying. Is that clearer now?

BTW, could I trouble you for the reliable source you are using that states there was a "legal" filing for TST in 2014? Or were you referring to 'Reason Alliance'? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

No, Reason Alliance is a non-profit owned by Douglas Misicko (aka Lucien Greaves) As can be seen in this public record [6] and Reason Alliance pays bills for some TST related projects as documented here [7], but that has nothing to do with the founding of TST. Rather, The United Federation of Churches LLC which is also owned by Douglas Misicko and registered to the same address, again plublic records here [8] which was legally founded on Feb 4, 2014. The United Federation of Churches owns the trademark to The Satanic Temple which they registered on March 14, 2014 which is documented in this public record [9]. The trademark filing which is a legal document says the first use was 2013. UFC is the parent company to TST, there is no stand alone TST company. So when Douglas/Lucien says - and this a quote - "Not if it was formally founded afterward" that is what he's referring to. The organization was formally founded in 2014. He's tried to distance himself from events that TST participated in during 2013, which is the wordplay going on here, and why I continually say that regardless of the legal founding date (2014) they were unquestionably active in 2013. Seanbonner (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

So when Douglas/Lucien says - and this a quote - "Not if it was formally founded afterward" that is what he's referring to. --Seanbonner

While that is indeed a partial quote, he does not indicate what he is referring to, so that would be a synthesized conclusion of yours.

The organization was formally founded in 2014. --Seanbonner

No; it was founded in 2012. Their website was created in March 2012. Even the name trademark application you just linked has images with the TST name uploaded in 2012. And reliable sources state it was founded in 2012. Your 2014 date only applies to applying for trademarks or LLC status.

I was curious as to why you have been struggling mightily to portray TST as not existing until 2013, or even 2014, despite the preponderance of reliable sources saying 2012. I've also noted your comments regarding whether TST members are actual satanists, and whether they are practicing a religion or just social activism, or both. In every instance, you appear to be parroting either tweets or website posts from Church of Satan, as detailed here, right down to the exact same links and arguments. I see that a while back, you said:

Of course COS has an agenda, which is why I'm not citing them as a source anywhere. But they tracked down facts and cited them clearly, so again regardless of who brought the information to light, it's relevant and should be included. Again, a trademark filing isn't somehow less valid because the COS website links to it. --Seanbonner

The primary sources may or may not be factual, but they do not automatically carry relevancy. If the information is significantly covered by good quality, secondary reliable sources, then we can consider if it is of proper weight for inclusion, and if it improves the article. Please remember, While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. It would also be helpful to keep in mind that when it comes to matters of religious belief, and matters involving identified living individuals (this article qualifies as both), we are to approach the writing of the article conservatively and with extra care. (I mention this only because sources I've recently reviewed mention "doxing", libel, and various levels of threats, etc.) So, which good quality reliable sources do you suggest we examine to support the development of the 'History' section of the article? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

In one of my very first edits on this talk page I mentioned The Satanic Temple Fact Sheet published by The Church of Satan and the claims it referenced. That's not "parroting" them anymore than discussing a newspaper article you read with a friend is parroting that newspaper. While I've not referenced it or them in this article because I personally don't think it would be appropriate because of their obvious bias, it's worth noting that countless other articles both here on Wikipedia and published in academic journals and books do in fact reference them. They are an academically citable and reliable source going back decades, the same can not be said for the personal blog of the spokesman for this organization which you pointed to here even though that is the very definition of an unreliable source, and that article specifically which claims to debunk the "fact sheet" doesn't in fact debunk anything, doesn't even address everything. As you seem interested in reviewing personal blogs you may find this interesting as someone else decided to spend the time dissecting each of those PR statements. Regarding your comments, you continue to confuse me, so I'll address them.

While that is indeed a partial quote, he does not indicate what he is referring to, so that would be a synthesized conclusion of yours. --Xenophrenic

If I asked you what you had for lunch today and you replied "a Sandwich" it would not be a synthesized conclusion that you had a sandwich for lunch even though you didn't specifically state the words "I had a sandwich for lunch" because you are replying to a question and your statement of "a Sandwich" can easily be understood by anyone following the conversation. However if that math is too hard for you here's another example, as I've noted this statement has been made repeatedly. The direct quote here is "Our tenets have been the same since our actual founding & after it advanced past a place-holder website" and we can see that in December 2013 they had 9 tenets and in January 2014 they had 7 tenents and as they have 7 tenets today this is yet another statement from the spokesperson of the organization indicating that they consider their "actual founding" to be 2014.

No; it was founded in 2012. Their website was created in March 2012. --Xenophrenic

No, it wasn't. The domain name was purchased in 2012, the website wasn't created until January 2013 as the previous Archive.org link will show. We already know that in 2012 Spectacle Films was planning to make a movie called "The Satanic Temple" so that they would have purchased a domain name for that movie is not indication of an organization being founded. Indeed the January 2013 event which was the first publicly documented evidence of The Satanic Temple existing was actors hired by the film company which we know from the videos and articles about the casting call ads which ran in 2012 that you previously referenced. But a film company planning to make a movie isn't the same as a religion being founded.

Even the name trademark application you just linked has images with the TST name uploaded in 2012. --Xenophrenic

No. You seem to be confused, the only reference to 2012 on that page is the copyright for the site in the footer which is on every page on the site, the documents clearly say "First Use Anywhere Date: January 1, 2013"

And reliable sources state it was founded in 2012. --Xenophrenic

And reliable sources state it was founded in 2013, and wikipedia policy states that when there is a conflict between reliable sources that be noted. I feel like a broken record saying that.

Your 2014 date only applies to applying for trademarks or LLC status. --Xenophrenic

Right, that's what "founding" means. Founding is not when you had an idea for something.

I was curious as to why you have been struggling mightily to portray TST as not existing until 2013, or even 2014 --Xenophrenic

Genuine question: Do you have some problem which prevents you from maintaining a consistent train of thought? I ask because I've lost count how many times on this page I've directly told you TST obviously existed in 2013, and every single time I've pointed to TST statements suggesting they were "founded" in 2014 I've noted that position seems revisionist. And yet here you are suggesting that I've ever implied they didn't exist until 2014, something I've never said and directly argued against. I really don't know what your intention is here, but I'm trying to write an accurate and reliable article. You seem hell bent on including things that you personally feel are beneficial to TST and similarly determined to keep out things that you personally think are critical. But your assumptions don't hold water because how long TST has been around only seems to matter to you. The reason they keep referring to their "actual founding" is because much of what they did and said in 2013 is embarrassing to them and goes against their current public positions. I invite you to click through the first few snapshots of their website in 2013 and see their claims of theism and devil worship. These were all removed by 2014 when they took up the atheist banner but if your position is that they existed since 2012 then we now have the first 2 years of a 6 year old organization where they claimed to believe in a literal devil. It seems to me that saying they began in 2013 is a much better position for TST, but at the end of the day I don't really care what is better or worse for them, I just want this article to be accurate and within wikipedia policy.

So, which good quality reliable sources do you suggest we examine --Xenophrenic

The truth is very few people care about this and the organization has engaged in heavy haded publicity to the point that writers publicly complain about it and results in many publications paraphrasing their press releases and likely the exact reason that Wikipedia policy states that just because a source is "reliable" for one topic they might not be "reliable" for another, and editors should cross check conflicting secondary sources against primary sources. A primary source that is a person talking about themselves may or may not be factual, a primary source that is a publicly filed legal document is unquestionably reliable. If only small local publications covered a PR stunt that TST pulled in 2013 then that local publication is more of a reliable source on this topic than it might be on national politics. But again this requires that editors are interested in accuracy over puff piece promotion. Regardless if they were founded in 2012, 2013 or 2014 TST hasn't existed long enough for most academics who cover this topic to notice or include them in their work, however I just picked up Per Faxneld's newest peer reviewed academic book "Satanic Feminism" and they are referenced. Faxneld is one of the top academics studying and writing about Satanism today and he notes in this that many consider TST to be prank and that while some TST members seem very sincere it's apparent that their activism is their primary focus and the association with Satanism is most useful for the attention it brings them. Once I get through the book I'll be sure to add these details as well.Seanbonner (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

A quick response after briefly skimming your recent comment: (1) A post by a CoS member is no more an "academically citable and reliable source" than a post by a TST member. I think you misunderstand Wikipedia's take on what constitutes a reliable source, and what academic sources (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP, for example) are. And I've already read the 3rd blog post you mentioned, down to the single interesting comment at the end. (2) Again, you've taken tweets that say one thing, and links to old pages that say another, and then conducted synthesis (against Wikipedia policy) to reach a conclusion that is stated in neither. And your "here's another example" tweet is the very same one linked above. (3) re: the TST website, the domain and the site have existed since 2012 (see the upload dates for the images I previously mentioned). You say "the only reference to 2012 on that page...", but that is incorrect. Look again at the half-dozen images at the top of that application. (And the archive.org link doesn't show the "creation date", it only reflects the capture images by their web crawler, the first of which could have been hours, days or months after the site was created.) (4) "We already know that in 2012 Spectacle Films was planning to make a movie called "The Satanic Temple"..." So we are in agreement that TST existed in 2012. Progress. But you are saying it existed as a film project rather than a religion, correct? We should examine the reliable sources on that, as well as whatever sources you are drawing from. (5) As for you feeling like a broken record stating that an "essay" on sources is the same as Wikipedia "policy", I'd recommend reviewing what policy actually says about errors in otherwise reliable sources. (6) Regarding your personal definition that a religious group doesn't exist until it files in the U.S. for a trademark-protected name and a specific tax-status, I disagree. (7) "You seem hell bent on including things that you personally feel are beneficial to TST and similarly determined to keep out things that you personally think are critical." Now you've gone off the rails. Substantiate that crap with supporting diffs, please, or strike it. (8) I'm going to skip past your personal opinions on what is "embarrassing to them", and "very few people care", and that "writers publicly complain", etc., and head straight to the new source you mentioned: Faxneld. Could I get some page numbers from you where he discusses TST? Xenophrenic (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

It's strange that this is a major dispute. I feel like there must be some lines I'm not reading between. Since we don't go by Tweets, we don't use original research, and since the infobox field in question appears to be "origin" rather than a legal term, I don't see any problem with using 2012 as the origin/beginning/founding, being clear that activities didn't start until 2013. Are there sources as good or better than Esquire that say otherwise that I'm missing? (admittedly, I'm skimming this section, so I apologize if I'm daftly overlooking something). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC: How should The Satanic Temple be labeled by the lead sentence of its article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

How should The Satanic Temple be labeled by the lead sentence?

A) "The Satanic Temple is a political activist group..."

B) "The Satanic Temple is a political activist and religious group..."

C) "The Satanic Temple is a political activist and self-described religious group..."

D) Other, please specify. (23:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC))

B; "religious" is hard to define. I think if they say they are, they are. Other arguments above. — Demong _talk 23:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

A or C - Detailed arguments above, but the key points being that the founders have given interviews stating the group was founded to enact political change by using religious freedom laws against the people that wrote them, and that representatives have stated in interviews that members do not necessarily consider themselves Satanists but rather support the groups political actions would suggest that no part of this involves "deeply held beliefs" indicative of a religious group and rather underline that the religious part is simply a means for political action which should not be endorsed by wikipedia. Wikipedia should remain neutral and describe them as they are, not act as an amplifier for their agenda. Seanbonner (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Those points are: The group is not religious because its goal is political activism; and the group is not religious because members do not necessarily consider themselves Satanists.

The first point seems like not a point at all. Just because a group was founded to enact political change does not mean it isn't also a religious group. A group can have more than one goal. The truth of second point is contested above; the article claims that, but I allege that the citation given does not actually support it, in the interview Draco did not say that about members. — Demong _talk 00:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The first point is not happening in a vacuum as you keep acting as if it is - it's not a group working towards fixing roads in their neighborhood who happen to share the same religion, it's a group whose founders explicitly have said they were unhappy with some political situations and realized if they created a religious group they could use laws against the people who wrote them - they religion part is a tactic of the politics, it's not in addition to. You've made your disagreement with the second people very clear, however what you "allege" the spokesperson said or what you think he might have meant or what you think must have been implied are not legitimate here, what is legitimate is a question was asked and a spokesperson answered it honestly, and it's in print and we can all read it. Seanbonner (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

You just called them a religious group. — Demong _talk 21:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

No I didn't, I said the founders have publicly said they could enact political change by creating a religious group. Which is the crux of this entire thing. Seanbonner (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• B first choice , C second choice, for the same reasons I gave previously on this page. To reiterate: many reliable sources refer to it as a religion. That the label of "religion" is often qualified and/or itself the subject of discussion is part of the point. It doesn't seem ideal to simply say "political activist group". It would probably be best to go with religious up front and then qualify it later. I would also still explore other options along the lines of "an American political and religious activism organization which uses freedom of religion policies in ways which challenge connections between church and state" (that could most definitely be improved, though). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• A. Clearly it is a political activist group, so the question becomes whether or not it is a religious group. The groups main priority is to enact political change. The group lacks many key features that religious groups have. While there is no accepted definition of a religion, I think that religions tend to relate humanity to some kind of supernatural or spiritual power. The Satanic Temple does not do that, and therefore I would not consider them a religious group. They have a set of beliefs and values as a religious group would, but they are based on natural law philosophy, not a belief in some kind of higher power or force that is typically associated with religion. Flipster14191 (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Flipster14191: Sorry to single you out, since this applies to several people's arguments, but as Wikipedia has a policy of no original research, for something like this the question isn't whether it's a religion according to editors' own opinions about what a religion is. As with anything else, it's a question of how it's described in reliable sources -- especially sources independent of the subject. Any determination of how it's labelled would need to be based on the extent to which the body of sources on the subject label it one way vs. another. There's a lot of gray area and subjectivity in the evaluation of those sources, though, but this !vote seems explicitly based on what we would probably call original research. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Rhododendrites: I think you're right, I let personal opinion get too much in the way in this one. Nonetheless, I can not find any description of them as a religious group by a third party. The Washington Post refers to them as a "group" or "organization" but never mentions religious. So I still stand by A. Flipster14191 (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is the Washington Post calling TST a religious organization:  — Demong _talk 20:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

References

What "key features that religious groups have" do they lack? Formal code of doctrine: check. Members who profess sincerity and deeply held beliefs: check. Regular congregations and services: check. A regular meeting place: check. Sacred symbols: check. Buddhism is another non-theistic religion, it recognizes no supernatural beings at all. TST is a religious group according to the IRS: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/churches-religious-organizations/churches-defined. — Demong _talk 01:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry almost none of that is true. TST does not have a formal code or doctrine, it's members do not profess sincerity and deeply held (it's spokespeople do in the course of their political actions, and those claims do not hold up upon scrutiny), congregation's is debatable as some hold meetups, and TST is not a religious group according to the IRS, Reason Alliance LLC is a religious group according to the IRS, TST publicly claims that they don't support tax exempt status for religious groups even though they use Reason Alliance for just that purpose. TST is a separate company. Seanbonner (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is claiming that religions can't be non-theistic. But they do have to fit some kind of a definition that would exclude groups like the Boy Scouts or Freemasons for example, who like religions have a written ethics code, regularly congregate, use symbols and oaths, etc. but still aren't religions. The vague "tenets" of TST were not only written up after-the-fact, but contradict what they explicitly professed to believe in the beginning when their website launched. WillieBlues (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Doctrine: the seven tenets. Its members do profess sincerity, as many reliable sources report. Regular congregations is easily verifiable, individual chapters hold regular meetings, as does the TST headquarters in Salem. TST publicly claims that they don't support tax exempt status for religious groups, which does not mean they don't qualify as a religious group according to the IRS definition. The status of Reason Alliance is irrelevant.

"I don't think anybody is claiming that religions can't be non-theistic." Yes, that is explicitly claimed several times above, including being used as support for the claim that TST is not a religious group. — Demong _talk 20:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The Seven Tenets are general statements that anyone could agree with and have been changed and rewritten since their public launch and are in contrast with existing Satanic religious literature, no way can that be considered doctrine, TST originally claimed to be theists because they wanted to seem reprehensible to their political opponents and then changed to atheists because they thought it would play better in the press - that's not indicative of a "sincerely held belief", similarly there's no consensus among members what a Satanist even is. People getting together is not congregational by default, a bingo game at a church isn't the same as a mass, so that members of TST are in the same place at the same time isn't evidence, and you can't argue that TST gets IRS approval when they haven't applied for it or been approved for it. Again, they have a fully separate company that they did get that approval for, that wasn't accidental, and was likely by design as it allows TST to engage in the political activities it's founders said it was created for that would be impossible if they were approved by the IRS as a religious org. Seanbonner (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

#originalresearch — Demong _talk 14:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a talk page in a request for comment section where editors are asked for their opinions and explaining them, I'm referring to things that are already cited on this page that either you keep ignoring or are purposefully trying to downplay. You mentioned the IRS, I just corrected your false claim. Seanbonner (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• A seems the most accurate when it comes to external sources. Seemingly every external article about them is regarding a political protest. Other articles tend to be blog posts written by their own members, which would fall into "original research". Granted they use symbols and show up where religious people are to imitate them (statues, nativity scenes, etc.) but I don't see how they're any more of a "religious group" than parody religions like Church of the SubGenius, Pastafarianism or Cult of Kek. WillieBlues (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• A. I agree it should be Option A. You never see articles about their "religious practices" - because there aren't any. Just protests. They repeatedly change their philosophy to suit their current protest agenda. One day they're atheist, the next they believe in an actual Satan. That's the key here. Political activism is great, but their actions show they are all performance art and no religion. They are trying to walk both sides of the street, but factual accuracy clearly puts them in option A. Brevity is the soul of wit. (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Ruth666 — Rwaytz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

FOR THE RECORD< I started editing Wikipedia in Feb 2012, and although I haven't been prolific, I am a real person with real opinions on this issue. Please don't dismiss my input. Brevity is the soul of wit. (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)rwaytz

Religious practice example: https://medium.com/@allthebigtrees/how-to-perform-a-satanic-destruction-ritual-4c76baf0ea30 Also, they consider protest their form of worship. — Demong _talk 21:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The Satanic Destruction Ritual was published in 1966 in The Satanic Bible, which TST doesn't officially recognize, so someone from TST paraphrasing it on Medium without proper attribution actually supports the accusation that they are not sincere in their claims. Seanbonner (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

That was only intended as a counter-example to the claim "You never see articles about their "religious practices" - because there aren't any." Several other examples could have been used instead, such as TST's "unbaptism ceremony", their ""black mass", or the "pink mass" described by this article. The claim is false. — Demong _talk 21:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can possibly argue that they and other sources don't call TST a religious group. Arguing instead the personal opinion that they shouldn't be called a religious group is taking sides in the debate, which is already described in the introduction. — Demong _talk 20:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• A, maybe C Most everything I've read points to their activism. Jim1138 (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources:

• Washington Post: "Lucien Greaves is co-founder of and spokesperson for the Satanic Temple, an international nontheistic religious organization advocating for secularism and scientific rationalism."
• New York Times: "With only a website, some legal savvy and a clever way with satire, the two Bostonians’ new, mostly virtual religion has become a sharp thorn in the brow of conservative Christianity." /
• Vox: "Take religion. Remove God. Add #resistance. Meet The Satanic Temple. The Satanic Temple might be the religion for 2017." / "And that house is the national headquarters of The Satanic Temple, a national organization that’s equal parts performance art group, leftist activist organization, and anti-religion religious movement."
• Esquire: "The Satanic Temple is an openly atheistic religion that Mesner says does not advocate for any supernatural belief."
• Broadly (Vice): "Members of the Satanic Temple, a nontheistic religion and activist group, believe the state's restrictive laws on abortion—some of the harshest in the country—violate their followers' First Amendment right to religious freedom."
• Kansas City Star: "On Tuesday, Slate staff writer Christina Cauterucci connected the rise of abortion services in Missouri to recent court challenges to the state’s abortion laws by the Satanic Temple, a political activist organization and religion based in Massachusetts."

That they are a religious organization is central to their coverage. All of the above discussion evaluating it for the ingredients in a definition of religion is WP:OR. All that matters is how sources talk about it. Obviously they don't just talk about it as a religious organization (not that this was included in the A/B/C above), but it's also not just an activist organization. So it's obviously not A. B/C are more debatable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

That's correct, it's central to their press coverage that people consider them a religious organization in order for their political activism to be justified - as the founders have said - which is exactly why Wikipedia should not just echo their press releases, but rather accurately note that the "religious" part is a tool for the activism, not independent of it. Seanbonner (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Seanbonner: I agree that we should not echo their press releases in the sense of relying on press releases to compose the article. But this is not what we're talking about. The only relevant question is how reliable sources independent of the subject talk about the subject (not how it talks about itself). We rely on the editorial judgment of those other sources (it's part of what makes them reliable) to determine what to include, how to describe things, etc. and then we summarize what they say, taking into account the whole range of reliable sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The reason I prefer B to C: as the WP Manual of Style (weasel words section) describes, "Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate [...] So-called can mean commonly named, falsely named, or contentiously named, and it can be difficult to tell these apart." I think self-described clearly fits into these examples, it is an expression of doubt. Also, no reliable sources make such a qualification. — Demong _talk 23:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• B They call themselves a religious organization, and lots of reliable sources have called them a religious organization, so that's what we should call them. The extent to which they are religious can be explored in more detail and criticisms of that claim should be included, but we definitely need to state that they are a religion in the lead. We can't just decide ourselves what is a religion and what isn't, especially since there doesn't seem to be any universally recognized definition. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• A or D - "The Satanic Temple is a political activist group and, what has been termed, a nontheistic religious group..." - Clearly not a classical religous group, so we probably shouldn't describe it as such. If we want to include "religious" we should just follow the sources that User: Rhododendrites so generously provided. Seems like we have good sourcing to call it a "nontheistic religious" group (whatever the heck that actually means). Calling it a "self-described" religous group misses the mark, b/c that seems to incorrectly imply that this is a classical cult, which it doesn't appear to be. NickCT (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• @NickCT: Clarifying that it's a nontheistic religion up front sounds like a fine idea to me, although it doesn't need "what has been termed," which makes it sound like it was coined just for them, or otherwise a new idea.Theism and religion are certainly not always connected, and we even have an article on the topic. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Rhododendrites: - Fair point. I guess the term "nontheistic religion" is just a bit jargon-y and slightly counter-intuitive. It might not be immediately obvious to a common, naive reader what it means. I thought to include "what has been termed" simply as a device to highlight a potentially tricky term. Does that make sense? NickCT (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The adjective "non-theistic" can and should link to the Nontheistic religion article, which in my opinion would address the "a bit jargon-y" statement (although I disagree that it's counter-intuitive to begin with). I, for one, think that's fine, too. — Demong _talk 20:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@NickCT: ?? It's not jargony if it's the most accurate way to describe it. There is a concept called nontheistic religion that is well documented and we even have an article about it. It's also what many reliable sources call this. Even more talk about it being a religion and/or religious organization without that descriptor (though they do tend to talk about it being nontheistic, too, which means that term or some version thereof would be in the lead regardless). Personally, I don't have strong feelings about whether it's called "nontheistic religion", "religious organization", etc. What I can't abide by is the efforts by ideological opponents to simply remove the concept of religion in the face of what the sources say. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: - Something can be both jargon and accurate, right? I don't think those two things are exclusive. I sure "nontheistic religion" is well document. I'm also sure it wouldn't be immediately obvious to 90% of WP's readers what the term meant. B/c it's jargon. NickCT (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Not that anyone is ever obligated to change their mind, but I think it's telling that no one has changed their position, even when presented with objective evidence that contradicts its stated basis.

Also, WP:MEAT says, "Consensus in many debates and discussions should ideally not be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors." There have been zero policy-related points made supporting the idea that TST should not be called a religious group. — Demong _talk 19:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Demong: You can read more about the RfC process at WP:RFC. There are very few venues on Wikipedia which actually operate according to a headcount-style vote. Most of the time we refer to people's expressed positions in these sorts of straw polls as "!votes," meaning "not a vote." The person who closes the RfC after 30 days (standard length for an RfC) will indeed weigh arguments against policies and guidelines. As long as they know what they're doing, they'll notice that several of the !votes come from single-purpose accounts and/or are based on problematic interpretations of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It's not a science, of course, but that's how consensus is supposed to work here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

If there is a formal RfC, I think one option to include might be to describe this body as something like a non-religious or atheistic new religious movement, particularly as at least one source now used can be used to source that description. John Carter (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• B, C, or D in descending order. My personal choice might be to call it something along the lines of a political action and atheistic (or maybe non-theistic) religious group. We have precedent at least in the US for atheistic groups to be counted as religious, so I don't see an inherent conflict between those terms. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC regarding Disambiguation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Until recently this article has been about an organization called The Satanic Temple whose members were Satanists, recently it was been decided through editor consensus that The Satanic Temple is not only an organization but also it's own religion, whose members are also called Satanists. As this is a new stand alone religion this Satanism is different from the pre-existing religion of Satanism. As it so happens there is an existing disambiguation page Satanism_(disambiguation) to clarify uses of the term Satanism & Satanist. On the top of Satanism is a WP:hatnote that says "For other uses, see Satanism (disambiguation)." the question is if a similar link should now be included at the top of this article. Seanbonner (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Survey options

• Support: include the WP:hatnote, which helps the reader understand the difference between Satanism and Satanism.
• Oppose: no need to include the WP:hatnote, unlikely a reader will confuse Satanism with Satanism.

Threaded discussion

Support - See "Disambiguation" section above for details of my position. Seanbonner (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - This position is supported by reliable sources, I believe, as they seem to use the phrases interchangeably (as do similar WP articles such as Church of Satan): the distinction between "religion" and "religious group" is actually not important in most cases. It seems like Seanbonner is saying it's very important, so important that the article needs to change in other fundamental ways. No one is going to confuse TST with general Satanism, or type "satanic temple" into the search box and expect to be led to the general Satanism article. It's not exactly that the addition would be controversial, it's that it's unnecessary. Trying to pre-emptively address confusion that doesn't exist can, ironically, be confusing. Carefully distinguishing between "religious organization", "religion", and "Satanic religion" is splitting hairs, and in my opinion would cause more reader confusion than it would alleviate, and set a bad precedent.

The Satanism article is not a proper analogy, it is the "central article" that may require disambiguation, none of the other listed articles do. — Demong _talk 01:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, none of the other articles are for religions that are being called Satanism. By deciding that TST is a religion and not a religious organization, it's in a way become another "central article" so we have two articles both claiming to be religions called Satanism, hence the need. Seanbonner (talk) 09:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose what seems to me to perhaps be a remarkably obvious (the obvious not always being the accurate, of course) attempt to win an argument already lost and quite possibly grounds for ANI discussion. Personally, I think the better option would be to put the dab up for deletion as being basically redundant.

Agree that the core problem is the extant content of the Satanism article. John Carter (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Then feel free to explore any of those options you feel are needed for other pages, however here there's a conflict I'm trying to resolve. I'm still unsure about this "lost argument" as the discussion was about if TST is a religious organization or a religion and people presented there cases and a consensus was reached. I've stated clearly that while I still don't agree that is the position that TST is taking (though I've repeatedly stated that we shouldn't base our statements here on their positions but on available facts and sources so I'm fine with that), I think it's better for the classification and clarification questions that have been looming. So now that that decision has been made I'm just trying to help clarify the incredibly weird and unusual situation that there are now two different religions called Satanism as a reader may not understand the deep nuance happening at this point. I'm trying to default to Wikipedia standard and basics for clarity. Seanbonner (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia is extremely useful, but when I'm looking for unusual or deep nuance, that's not where I go. — Demong _talk 05:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Exactly my point, a reader shouldn't need deep nuance to understand an article, that's why the clarification is needed. Without it, nuance is needed. Seanbonner (talk) 09:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I am much like someone else has already said finding it extremely difficult to continue to believe that at least one editor in this discussion is not being driven by a personal wish to promote one group over others. I welcome anyone coming to this discussion to look at the currently extant NPOVN discussion at and the discussions it links to and perhaps ask themselves if they believe the time may have come to consider significant sanctions. John Carter (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This issue is that Seanbonner thinks it's an important subject that needs to be clarified, and other people (including reliable sources) think it's not. — Demong _talk 20:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The CoS party line is that TST is not "real" Satanism, they are doing it wrong, it is something different. Seanbonner is, by various means, pushing that POV. Having been forced to concede that reliable sources call it both a religious group and a religion, this is an attempt at a different angle of attack on the same subject. — Demong _talk 22:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't even make sense, as noted if it's it's own "religion" (which I originally objected to but now see the merits of which is not "conceding") then there's no question if it's "real" Satanism or not, because it's it's own religion.... so?? And I've never once tried to argue if TST is "real Satanism" or not, I've only pointed to how their own positions and statements have contradicted each other which in my opinion matches up with statements that the religion part of their platform is secondary to the political part, and I've only tried to ensure that this article is factual and accurate and not repeating PR statements as facts. When I found this article the talk page had several concerns about the NPOV of the article being too favorable, I tried to add in some properly sourced criticism to balance it and in turn have been accused of NPOV even being told that some facts shouldn't be included. Perhaps we should reach out to the earlier editor who was a admitted member of TST and have them rewrite the article from scratch, I have a feeling Demong wouldn't have any objection to that version. Seanbonner (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I have questioned too-positive language on this page, and made edits to the article trying to temper language I think is not neutral (in TST's favor). — Demong _talk 20:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Also "...add in some properly sourced criticism to balance it..." is usually not a good strategy to achieve neutrality. It may be more effective to remove the positive, than balance it with negative. WP articles shouldn't really contain praise or criticism, except in a separate section or clearly attributed quotation. — Demong _talk 22:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

WorldCat should list the most recent reference books on NRMs. One could look there for such works and then go to WP:RX to see how they define the term. I see the Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements was last printed and presumably updated in 2016 for instance. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose and Close per WP:SNOW - RfC not neutrally worded (e.g. "unlikely a reader will confuse Satanism with Satanism") and misunderstands standard practice for disambiguation hatnotes. The links can be done in the article. If there are other topics on Wikipedia called "Satanic Temple," then such a hatnote would make sense. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can we try to tackle the fundamental question first, and put everything else on hold?

Can we try something?

First, everyone agrees to take a week off from editing this article. I didn't even look at it before saying this, but whichever version it is, it'll be ok to stay that way for now. The edit warring just complicates and inflames things, and brings people closer to being blocked and/or topic banned (I say this not as a threat, but as an observation based on past experience).

Arguments are repeating themselves and going around in circles, and tangents keep spinning off new things to argue about. It's a lot, and I don't see a great deal of success yet.

Almost everything on this page is either directly or indirectly about basic set of interrelated questions, so let's stick to those basic questions here. Resist the urge to launch tangential arguments in new sections. If you start to post something that doesn't directly respond to the following, please reconsider and/or save it for later.

The issue at hand is whether we should describe TST as a religion, whether we should describe it as a religious organization, whether it is a form of Satanism, the ways in which its members should be described relative to these terms, and the extent to which use of these terms should be qualified (qualified as in e.g. "nontheistic religion" or "religiously oriented activist organization" or "self-described Satanists"...).

This is kinda sorta addressed in the above RfC (the section labeled RfC, not the active formal RfC), but by presenting two specific choices, it limits discussion. It also was complicated by other factors I don't want to rehash here, but I would also say that if you are not already a Wikipedian experienced with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I would urge you not to jump in for the sake of "voting," as it doesn't actually help and in some cases makes the side you're advocating for look worse.

I'd also urge you to try to limit your posts to this thread to, say, once every 8 hours. If nobody's editing for a week, there's no urgency to respond to every single message, and it will allow other people to perhaps make the same points you were going to make (or add to the argument you were going to respond to).

Obviously nobody is obliged to participate in this, and I have no authority to require anyone to follow my suggestions for doing so, but this just all seems so resolvable (difficult, but resolvable).

Please keep in mind WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR. What are the sources we should consider, what do they say, where are the disagreements/inconsistencies between sources, and how do we resolve them without using original research?

Sorry for the long post here. Seems worth a shot. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm game. If everyone else is as well I'll walk away and promise not to edit anything here until Feb 6th, how's that? Caveat of course is if I get flooded with notices that edits I spent time researching were deleted without discussion then I'm jumping back in. But I agree that a few days off would be good for everyone and once again Rhododendrites that you for your level head and attempt to improve things. I like your idea on the root issue, though I'm having a hard time seeing the solution as it is - and please hear me out - it seems to me that some of the other editors without speculation on motives want it to be all the things you mentioned but only want to treat it like one in any given instance. I just want something consistent, if it's a religion let's treat it like a religion, if it's an organization let's treat it like an organization, but not that it's a religion in this section and an organization in that section. And maybe that's the core issue, because those things are inherently different and come with their own issues and realities - especially in relation to how to discuss members/supporters/etc and I think a big issue here is that many of the statements about and by TST can be contradicted by other statements by and about TST, so we're stuck in this insane tug of war trying to sort out. So here's my weird idea to consider over the next week - Split the article. This is a crud example but in the way that Jews and Judaism is a people and a religion which are not the same, nor mutually exclusive, maybe there's is something to consider here and split TST(Organization) and TST(Religion) or maybe it's TST(Organization) and a new section on [Satanism] about TST as a new sect? I don't know, I just want this all to make sense somehow. Seanbonner (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm haven't checked on the info regarding the new Missouri lawsuit, which is odd considering I live there, but the documents of that case may be useful regarding these questions if they directly address any possible religious beliefs of the TST. Also agree that determining exactly what should be in the Satanism article or the Left-hand path page or somewhere else. John Carter (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Baphomet (sculpture)

I forked content about the Baphomet sculpture out to Baphomet (sculpture), and invite page watchers to help improve the standalone article. Thanks! ----Another Believer _(Talk) 23:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

August 2018 "Civil War"

According to this article [10] there is somewhat of a "Civil War" (that's what the article is calling it) within TST, with the former head of the largest chapter posting a long resignation letter [11] accusing the management of a long list of things from sexism to working with nazi-supporters. At the same time the entire LA chapter quit and has rebranded as The Satanic Collective [12] and apparently every single international chapter has left starting their own and entirely unrelated organization called "Satanic Temple International" [13] as well as a handful of other individual resignation letters being posted as well. TST responded on their spokesperson's Patreon page and in turn disparaging the people who left. It's not clear if how these new rebranded groups are going to distinguish themselves but a quick look at Satanic Temple International page suggests they are much more interested in rituals than TST may have been. The core complaints seem to be sexist attitudes of the management, lack of attention to issues brought by the chapters to "central ministries", a lawsuit filed by TST against twitter, the lawyer hired by TST for that lawsuit and funds contributed by the chapters and donations being used for things people didn't agree to. As these events likely require significant edits to the page I'd like to ask here how best to proceed with that without sparking an edit/revert war. Thoughts? Seanbonner (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)