Talk:Satanism

See also: Talk:List of Satanists

Temple of Set

The Temple of Set does not consider themselves to be Satanists, rather Setians. Since they formed from ex-members of the Church of Satan there's a value to including them but listing them as a Satanic group is misleading and confusing, perhaps there's a more accurate way to mention them? Seanbonner (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Satanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712000522/http://www.xeper.org/maquino/nm/COS.pdf to http://www.xeper.org/maquino/nm/COS.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

1948 Devil worshiper Ernie Yost

Mainstream media newspapers from 1948 have articles about devil worshiper, Ernie Lee Russell Yost. I have tried to add information about him from the articles on the Satanism Wiki page, but the addition was erased by someone claiming that only Academic Sources can be used. However, according to Wikipedia guidelines, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources ) articles in reliable newspapers can be used. These references are reliable; they were the main newspapers of West Virginia at the time: The West Virginian and The Fairmont Times. Could others please clarify on this subject. I think the Satanism page should be complete. I am unsure why anyone would want information to be suppressed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HumanRogers (talk • contribs) 16:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

When it comes to highly controversial issues such as Satanism, press accounts are often sensationalistic and ill-informed — think of all the nonsense that was published in the press during the Satanic ritual abuse hysteria of the 1980s and 1990s, or the way in which the press have appended the terms "Satanist" or "devil-worship" to practitioners of Wicca, Haitian Voodoo, and Santeria over the years. While press articles can be used as reliable sources at Wikipedia, we should be very careful about how and when we use them. This is an example of an article where we have more than enough academic sources available to us, so there should really be no need to resort to poorer-quality press material, particularly material published in the 1940s. In addition, I find it concerning that one of the sources that you used in citing your addition explicitly describes itself as a novel, albeit one based on true events. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

HumanRogers Why don't you first try to create a well-referenced article about the Yost story, or the new book Devil in the Basement, and eventually, if/when more information and references turn up, you can try to link your information into the current article somehow.Jimhoward72 (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Satanic rhetoric

@FreeKnowledgeCreator and Seanbonner: Instead of persistently reverting eachother, please discuss here. I was about to request temporary full protection but that may not yet be necessary and would prevent useful editing. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 16:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Seanbonner is trying to make a change to the article for which there is no consensus, and which is opposed by Midnightblueowl, as well as by me. That is enough reason for the user to stop trying to make that change at least for the moment. Seanbonner is free to try to establish consensus for his change, of course. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

It's an unsourced and factually inaccurate claim, we don't need consensus as wikipedia policy already applies, it should be removed until a source to support it is provided. The article is about Satanism, this a section about a person who was not a Satanist, who died years before the bulk of the events described in the article, he was an occultist and used occult and religious imagery, calling it Satanic is an incorrect descriptor. Even if some of the image was later used by Satanists, it wasn't being used by Satanists when he used it and so calling any of it "Satanic" is misleading and inaccurate. This is like arguing that Darth Vader used First Order iconography, the timeline is backwards. You could factually argue that Satanists use imagery that was used by occultists previously, but claiming occultists used Satanic imagery makes no sense. Seanbonner (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree considering the various definitions of satanism. There were for instance the Catholic-parodying ones, the legendary ones of literature, the alleged satanists of the various moral panics, then today's mostly atheist "satanic" movements, none of which have to do with eachother. "Satanic imagery" was also borrowed from older tradition including Baphomet's inspiration from older horned/animal gods, etc. The Christian concept of Satan also gets lost in the Tanakh where there were mostly references to older Babylonian or Caanite deities which were later confused with the devil... So what does "satanic" really mean? It would be useful to attribute it to a notable author using a source, instead of stating it in Wikipedia's voice. —PaleoNeonate – 07:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

So given that it's uncited and inaccurate, can we please per wikipedia policy remove it? WP:PROVEIT and WP:SOFIXIT are pretty clear that this shouldn't remain in the article. I'm confused why there is any objection. Seanbonner (talk) 09:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Seanbonner, I disagree with this edit. I do not think that you have a secure consensus for it, and you should seek Midnightblueowl's comments here before repeating it. You altered a caption of an image of Aleister Crowley to read, "Aleister Crowley was not a Satanist"; such a caption is singularly unhelpful and I do not consider it appropriate. You also altered a sentence that began, "He nevertheless used Satanic imagery, for instance by describing himself as "the Beast 666" and referring to the Whore of Babylon in his work" by removing the "He nevertheless used Satanic imagery" part. The removal of that portion of the sentence makes the rest of it irrelevant to the article, making it simply strange that it would be included at all. I appreciate that you are trying to improve the article, however, you need to reconsider your approach. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I looked up the cited source, Ronald Hutton's book The Triumph of the Moon. It states that "it is well known, and true, that Crowley identified himself with the Beast 666 of the Book of Revelation and the satanic idol, Baphomet, allegedly worshipped by the medieval Knights Templar". The statement that Crowley used satanic imagery is supported by the source cited. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Academic sources discussing Satanism tend to stress that although Crowley was not a Satanist in the modern religious sense of the word, he drew upon a great deal of older imagery which in Western society has been regarded as unambiguously satanic for a long time (Whore of Babylon, "the Beast 666" etc). The article should reflect this and, I believe, has done so until the recent alterations were made without any attempt to gain Talk Page consensus first. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is not to gain consensus before any edit, rather "when in doubt, delete" as I did. It was brought to the Talk page after that as others disagreed, however per policy the deletion should remain until a consensus is found, not that it should be reverted. The source does not support the claim, this is an editor making an assumption. Someone who repeatedly claimed not to be a Satanist, who was using imagery that was not associated with Satanism at the time, should not be accused of using "Satanic imagery" simply because decades later that that imagery was also used by Satanists. The Knights Templar also didn't consider themselves Satanists so claiming that Crowley was using their imagery so it's OK to say it was Satanic is not correct and is OR. Unless you can find a source that directly says Crowley used Satanic imagery that claim should not be on a wikipedia page. Seanbonner (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

You understanding of Wikipedia policy is not correct. There is nothing in our policies that says that a "deletion should remain until a consensus is found". I am not surprised that you do not refer to or quote an actual policy. Having examined the source, which states that Crowley identified himself with a "satanic" idol, for myself, it is clear to me that it does support the statement that Crowley used satanic imagery. Your comments above about this issue are simply confused. Your comment, "The Knights Templar also didn't consider themselves Satanists so claiming that Crowley was using their imagery so it's OK to say it was Satanic is not correct and is OR", is ungrammatical and I do not understand what it is intended to mean. I am not seeing a coherent argument anywhere in your comment. You begin by saying that Crowley repeatedly claimed not to be a Satanist; that's true but also irrelevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

It's actually a quite clear argument. The article is about Satanism, this section is about Crowley who wasn't a Satanist. The imagery that Crowley used was not also used by Satanists at the time he used it, thus it was not Satanic imagery. If after Crowley's death Satanists began using the imagery that doesn't retroactively make it Satanic when Crowley used it. Saying that he both "claimed not to be a Satanist" but also "used Satanic imagery" is confusing to the reader and suggests that maybe he was a Satanist. You are the one who brought in the Knights Templar and my point is that your mentioning them is irrelevant as they were not Satanists either, unless you are trying to argue that Crowley used Templarian imagery, in which case you could make that argument and that claim would be valid, but again it would be pointless to include on an article about Satanism. Seanbonner (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

"The imagery that Crowley used was not also used by Satanists at the time he used it, thus it was not Satanic imagery." I find this argument problematic. As far as scholars of Satanism see it, Satanism did not appear only with the first self-described Satanists. It began with the Satanic imagery that emerged within Christendom in the early years of the Common Era. It was only centuries later that we find examples of people calling themselves "Satanists", but they post-date Satanism itself by quite a large margin. The argument that you are using is akin to that of Anton LaVey's Church of Satan; the claim that they are the "true" Satanists and have the right to define what is and what is not Satanic, calling things other than themselves "devil worship". They are of course free to believe such a thing, but scholars do not follow their example and neither should this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Luckily for everyone this article doesn't need to conform to what you personally consider problematic or not. The fact is that this imagery wasn't associated with Satanism, no matter how you want to define that, at the time Crowley used it. The article and all supporting citations supports that argument, and the previous version of the article was misleading. The current compromise version introduced by Paleo resolves the issue. Seanbonner (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

"The fact is that this imagery wasn't associated with Satanism, no matter how you want to define that, at the time Crowley used it." This simply isn't true, Sean. "666", the "Great Beast", the "Whore of Babylon", and the idea of inverting Christianity are all long established tropes associated with Satanism going back decades and in some cases centuries prior to Crowley's birth. You are of course fully entitled of your own, personal understanding of "Satanism" (which I suspect derives at least in part from LaVeyan uses of the term), but that is not how most scholars of the subject see it and it is not how this article should present it. Crowley was most certainly not a religious Satanist, but he did play with Satanic imagery. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You are mistaken, as those are examples of Christian imagery. Seanbonner (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Where do you think that Satan and Satanism come from if not Christianity? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you might want to read the article we're discussing, specifically [[1]]. As this article details, Satanism as a pejorative (and a label applied to others) is a creation of Christianity, Satanism as a religion (and a self applied label) is based on the pre-Christian definition of the word satan. Someone referencing elements from the Bible is referencing Christian elements, referring to that as Satanic when they themselves didn't consider it Satanic is pejorative not descriptive.Seanbonner (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)