Talk:The Satanic Temple

Page suggestions

Tokyogirl79, I'm sure your words will reach your old blocked friend. I know him. He wasn't blocked for content but rather because his username was inappropriate in some way that was rather subjective. Thank you ever so much for filling his wish to make this page. Not everyone has time to do these things. I have suggested edits though (anyone can do):

• Add in the stuff about the Los Angeles Chapter and the Demonizing of St. Junipero Serra. We could use a better citation/source but it happened. Once we have that, then we can edit in on said saints page in a legitimate neutral way.
• Add in the protest on Fred Phelps. Afterwards, it can be added into his page
• In general anything the TST has done can be added to this page (and should be) to support adding it elsewhere in Wikipedia. I think the Unmothering that Jex is doing could be a good add in along with all the Missouri abortion rights, Oaklahoma Challenge and so on. You made a good start.
• recent events related to defense of Islam/Muslims

HAILXSATANX666 (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• @HAILXSATANX666: I did put a little in about the demonizing - I had some trouble finding sources, which was slightly surprising. If we can find more then I could justify making it into a subsection. I could probably make some more subsections, but I'm afraid of making it a little long so I might make a paragraph at the beginning. I'm basing the subsections mostly on the amount of coverage and if multiple things could fall into one category, like the PP protests. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• I'm not finding a huge amount about the LA chapter other than the demonization. If we can find more coverage then we could probably add a subsection, though. I did search for additional coverage about Phelps, but mostly just found coverage about the Pink Mass and Greaves commenting that he wanted to do a similar one for Phelps. That's already covered in the article, although if we can find some critical reaction then we could potentially flesh it out that way. As far as the demonization goes, I'm running into the same issue with that as I am with the LA chapter - it got only a little coverage, so I can't really flesh it out at the moment. I'll look for sources on the Unmothering project. Since it likely fits in with the PP stuff and can be added there, I don't have to worry about it as much. I may turn that section into one that goes over the women's rights protests as a whole since that'd be a good catch all section. I could probably do a section for the Islam/Muslims, but I need to do a search for sources - I didn't really do a huge search for that since I was running out of time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Is this a religious sect at all?

After reading this article, I don't see anything "religious" about this group. Their tenets are straight out of The Golden Rule, they only superficially have religious customs which are primarily used for theatrical purposes, not worship. They are atheistic, they don't believe in divinity, scriptures or a religious tradition. And their activities seem to mainly about making a social statement, not religious devotion. I don't see how this can be included under the banner of Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion, it is more like a civil religion, there is nothing about them that reflects the Occult or Spirituality. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• They've identified as a Satanist group. I've heard people say that they're more of a social activist group, but I've included them in these WP because they do self-identify as such. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Whether TST is a "real religion" is precisely a subject of debate; some critics say no, TST itself says yes, other sources tend to say yes also. Lucien Greaves describes it as an "authentic religious identity", no less authentic than Christianity or Buddhism. If the organization is not described as a religion, that assertion should explicitly identify itself as a detractor opinion, which the introduction and Reception section already do.  — Demong _talk 02:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

TST doesn't consider themselves a "real religion" they consider themselves a "real religious organization" and the question is if they can claim to be representatives of a religion that predates them by 50 years and whose founding documents they don't agree with. If they are claiming to be a "real religion" then we should change all references to "Satanic Templism" or something. Seanbonner (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Seanbonner TST does consider itself a real religion and they don't need to change their name to appease your definition of "true Satanism," nor is this the place to litigate what that means, as it requires a complete discussion of what "religion" itself means. It would hardly be appropriate for say, a Catholic editor to demand an overhaul of the entry on Mormonism simply because it hurts his feelings that they're called Christian. It's certainly good enough that there are references to critics' complaints. Dominiusol (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be confused, organizations are not religions. This is not a page about a religion it's a page about an organization. In your rampage to delete every addition I've added you may have missed that detail. Seanbonner (talk) 06:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

A difficulty that might be encountered is the fact that this group has no doctrines, theology, or practices outside of the socio-political, nor are their beliefs codified in any actual texts. Their philosophy isn't a religious one; they simply seem to be an amalgamation of atheism, secular humanism, and various modern liberal ideas that merely use the mythological character of Satan as sort of mascot, while utilizing the trappings of traditional religious Satanism to make a political statement. They have the tendency to refer to their political demonstrations and rallies as "ceremonies" or "rituals"; they seemingly use ritual as a sort of parody, the aims of which are always political in nature. --Electricmonkey (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Electricmonkey The problem is that you're wrong and The Satanic Temple does have all of those thingsDominiusol (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I think this just comes down to the official Wikipedian definition of a religion, if there is such a thing. The Satanic Temple is a really weird edge case that's trying to be a rationalist non-theistic non-superstitious religion. In many definitions, at least one of those adjectives is incompatible with "religion", but most definitions that allow Buddhism or Confucianism to count as a religion should also allow Temple Satanism, right? I guess the question is, what separates a religion from a philosophy, and which is Temple Satanism? At the very least, I think that Temple Satanism should be acknowledged as a school of thought or a framework of thought. Because there's a lot more going on in this organization than just activism. It's just that the activism, by design, is the most visible thing about this group. I'd also like to make a small correction and say that most of the publicly-visible ceremonies and rituals by the Satanic Temple are, indeed, just political demonstrations, but there are also private rituals/ceremonies that serve purposes similar to LaVeyan rituals. Minus the supernatural subtext, of course. AhtoTsero (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Is Buddhism a religion, even though it does not acknowledge any deity? What about Scientology? Jainism? Taoism or Confucianism? The Sunday Assembly? How do you define religion in a way that includes these, but not the Satanic Temple? Until you have defined what, exactly, you mean by "religious sect," your question is meaningless. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 06:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

After reading this page (which is heavily cited) it seems like this is more of a political group, the page should probably be edited to reflect that better. Seanbonner (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Seanbonner After your citation of that self-evidently egregiously biased, poorly sourced and bitter "fact sheet" it's quite clear you do not understand what constitutes proper citation. It's very obvious you identify with the Church of Satan and your feelings are hurt that The Satanic Temple claims Satanism as well, but you'll have to put that aside for neutrality. It's like allowing a representative from Burger King to come in and edit the McDonald's page with personal blog claims that they may serve ground glass in their burgers. Perhaps you should concern yourself with topics for which you don't have such an obvious tilted POV?Dominiusol (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Seanbonner: I more or less disagree with this. In your edit summary when removing that line, the justification was "The group's own website is not a valid source", but a look at the other sources we already cite reveals many reliable sources which 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". There may be a better way to frame it, though. Maybe something a little wordier like "The Satanic Temple is 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 \\ 23:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: That's fair, I removed it because the source didn't seem appropriate but if there is another source that is better it's worth discussing, but most of the sources referenced in the article are circular in that they refer to it as a religious group citing their own statement again so it's just once removed. The article I referenced seems to be new and suggests they are more of a yes men style parody and given the requirement for neutrality it seemed better to back off on that claim. Also I think it's probably important to make clear that "The Satanic Temple" is a group and "Satanism" is a religion, and not that "The Satanic Temple is a Religion" which some of the sources seem to mix up. I like your idea for a wordier solution but I want to make sure wikipedia isn't furthering a hoax, so what about "The Satanic Temple is an American political activism organization which uses religion and freedom of religion policies to challenge connections between church and state." I'll add another citation now showing that they don't require their members to be satanists which would add more weight to the political group not religious group position. Seanbonner (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Seanbonner Perhaps you should actually read the article in which the "Yes Men style" claim comes from. If you'd actually reviewed your sources, rather than relied upon the Church of Satan's interpretation, you'd see that the full comment regarding the Yes Men related to tactic, and that it was said even there that the organization is an authentic religion. I can only imagine how you'd object if every claim against the Church of Satan's religious authenticity were included in their wiki entry, or if the fact that they existed were used to re-word the entire article.Dominiusol (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Satanic Temple. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thesatanictemple.com/religious-beliefs-of-the-satanic-temple/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151009014658/http://laist.com/2015/10/06/satanic_temple_vs_junipero_serra.php to http://laist.com/2015/10/06/satanic_temple_vs_junipero_serra.php

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 00:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant material in History section?

Seanbonner added this text a while ago. I removed it yesterday, with the edit note "irrelevant". He reverted the edit today, and described my change as vandalism (!). Rather than continue the edit war started by Seanbonner, I am posting here for comment.

"The Village Voice notes that Malcolm Jarry is an assumed name used by Cevin Soling, owner of Spectacle Films which began casting in 2013 for a mockumentary about the “nicest Satanic Cult in the world” called 'The Satanic Temple.'" (citation "MSNBC's Bashir Falls for Hoax, Reports Satanists to Rally for Rick Scott; Turns Out It's Part of Mockumentary", https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/ken-shepherd/2013/01/18/msnbcs-bashir-falls-hoax-reports-satanists-rally-rick-scott-turns)

I maintain this is irrelevant, and also veiled criticism. This section is supposed to be about the history of TST, not a tangentially-related mockumentary film. Neither Cevin Soling (Malcolm Jarry) nor Spectacle Films is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. The History section is short and could use expansion, but with information relevant to the history of the organization. Furthermore, the citation is to a NewsBusters article, a source with a strong agenda that describes its mission as "exposing and combating liberal media bias".

PS: The CoS website, cited above, is not a reliable source of information about TST. The web site belongs to a separate group that generally dislikes and often slanders TST. That "fact sheet" is meant as an attack. It cites various reliable sources, but the citations are used to support strongly biased language (which is not reflected in the source material); the CoS site itself is not a reliable source.  — Demong _talk 06:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The COS website is not the source, the COS website is a single page with a list of sources, rather than post 20 links I thought posting one was easier. Happy to change that to 20 links if you feel that is more efficient. Every item on that page has several sources, so your argument that one of the sources is biased is a bit weak. Pick one of the other sources if you prefer. The fact of the matter is that TST was started as a mockumentary by a film maker and later turned into a political group, and that's relevant info to include in a history section. Just because the history isn't flattering doesn't make it "thinly veiled criticism." Rewrite the text if you feel the tone is wrong, but the details are relevant and should be included. Seanbonner (talk) 07:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The film was made (though I can't verify it was made at all, only planned) at least a year (more?) after the creation of the organization. It is not how the organization started. Here is a "real" article about it: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/14/satanists-rally-for-rick-scott_n_2471328.html  — Demong _talk 07:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

You will need to provide some evidence on that because that's not what TST or the timeline says. TST Spokes Person Lucien Greaves has said repeatedly that the film was never made, and the first thing TST ever did in public was the event in Florida which they casted people for claiming it was for the movie. This event can be seen in this video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8ZA30BxuOY&feature=youtu.be) which includes obvious actors. They changed the story about TST after this event, but that was the public launch of TST. Legal filings show TST was not registered until more than a year after this event in March of 2014 ( https://www.bizapedia.com/trademarks/the-satanic-temple-86221887.html ) I know that you have completely disregarded the COS link, but it's worth reading as it's heavily cited and sourced. Additionally, Lucien Greaves recently confirmed on twitter that the organization was founded later ( https://twitter.com/LucienGreaves/status/924160457451147264 ) Seanbonner (talk) 07:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Lucien Greaves has also repeatedly spoken of his affinity for Satanism beginning with the Satanic Panic and has made clear that his attachment to Satanism has never changed and that the film project itself was meant to advance rights for Satanists. The goal of advancing rights for Satanists grew into an active Satanic organization that has always maintained its authenticity. @Seanbonner has a very selective reading of the relevant material and I think it's time that a moderator mediate his continued vandalism of both the TST and Lucien Greaves pages. Again, Seanbonner cites the CoS "fact sheet" gushing at how well-cited it is, but he's obviously never looked at how the citations fail to support the claims.Dominiusol (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I haven't cited the CoS fact sheet in any edits, I've mentioned it on talk pages for discussion with other editors and we've come to agreements on edits that you are deleting wholesale and then attacking editors on talk pages, something it seems your account was created exclusively to do. Seanbonner (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I am aware that this particular claim does not cite CoS. My "cited above" comment refers to your post in the "Is this a religious sect at all?" section on this page, the disputed content is obviously inspired by the CoS "fact sheet". CoS has a strong anti-TST agenda. Repeating it as fact, no matter how the "sources" or phrasing are massaged, is not an encyclopedic course of action. It should be removed, not reworded.  — Demong _talk 07:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

That's preposterous. Factual information shouldn't be included because you don't like the organization that brought it to light? I don't see how you can say a direct quote from an interview is not a "fact" - it's as legit as you can get, which is why it should be included. Furthermore claiming COS has an anti-TST agenda suggests you have a bias here, as COS themselves say their mission is to protect the definition of Satanism and their website shows evidence of doing just that with various groups of which TST is just the most recent. Seanbonner (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

TST is not a religion, it is an organization. A person does not become a follower of a religion by joining an organization. The way it works with other religions is they follow a religion and then join a related organization. The interview makes clear that people do not need to follow the religion to join TST. You are reading something else into what is a very clear statement. Seanbonner (talk) 07:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

"TST is not a religion..." is a hotly-debated topic. TST itself claims it is, as do many independent sources that cover them. Criticism along those lines is discussed elsewhere in the article, and identifies itself as an opinion. Insinuating that sentiment as fact elsewhere in the article is not appropriate. Also asserting that "religion" and "organization" are mutually exclusive is inaccurate, unless you mean "it's a religious organization, not a religion" in which case I think that's unnecessarily hair-splitty.  — Demong _talk 08:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

No it doesn't. You seem ill informed on this and might want to read up more on it before making these statements. TST does not claim to be a religion, TST claims to be a religious organization. They argument isn't if TST members are Satanic Templeers, it's if they are Satanists - practitioners of Satanism a religion that predates TST by 5 decades, not practitioners of Satanic Templeism. All available evidence suggests that TST is a political group who uses religion to make a point, not a religious group of people with deeply held beliefs. Seanbonner (talk) 08:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, please stop insulting me. They definitely claim to be a religious group of people with deeply held beliefs. TST is an "authentic religious identity". — Demong _talk 08:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

You've lost me. That's the point I'm making, TST isn't a religion, it's a group. They claim to be religious but the evidence suggests they are political. It's hard to believe they have "deeply held beliefs" when 4 years ago they were claiming to be devil worshipers who were part of a 1000 year old cult. No court has yet recognized TST as a legitimate religious group and they can't perform marriages or other legal religious services. All of their efforts are on a political level and Lucien has said several times if these issues they object to didn't exist there would be no point in TST existing either and Malcom stated he thought up TST in reaction to Bush political moves. You seem to be jumping from one argument to the next, but the point here is that what they claim to be today and what they obviously are after 4 years of activities are not the same thing, and as an unbiased encyclopedia including those clear conflicts on wikipedia is valid.

"They claim to be religious but the evidence suggests they are political" is a subjective and disputed interpretation of the evidence. And anyway, why not both?  — Demong _talk 08:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

You claimed TST considers themselves a religion, they don't. They consider themselves a religious group. Saying you are ill informed isn't an insult, it's an observation on your incorrect statement which followed your earlier one about when TST was formed and the film they didn't finish making. Seanbonner (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Another dispute

I removed something, and it was re-added without discussion. (What's up with re-reverting and telling the other person to bring it to Talk?!)

The removed text is "Members do not necessarily identify as Satanists, rather may consider themselves strong allies who believes in the organization's political and secular actions", citation http://brokeassstuart.com/blog/2016/11/22/103831/?repeat=w3tc

The relevant source text which allegedly supports this claim is a quote from an interview with Lucien Greaves (TST spokesperson) Draco Ignis: "You don’t even have to be a Satanist, you can just be a strong ally..." The interviewer's question was "How do you join?" Many new applicants do not identify themselves as Satanists before joining. Most or all active members do. The statement in the article is inaccurate. (Also, it's more veiled criticism, here that TST is not a "real religion"; this criticism is discussed elsewhere in the article, it is dishonest to "sneak in" the opinion and present it as fact.) I think it should be deleted again. Comments?  — Demong _talk 06:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

That's incorrect, and it seems you are deleting things that you think are unflattering without checking them out. The interview is not with Lucien Greaves, it is with Draco Ignis and Hofman A Turing who the author cites as "two delightful and articulate young men who represent the NYC Chapter of TST", and the answer to the question asked is ″If there’s a local chapter where you are, to join you do have to be accepted, but there’s no initiation or anything. You don’t even have to be a Satanist, you can just be a strong ally who believes in the political and secular actions without being super stoked about all the aesthetic aspects." which is the exact language I used, not allegedly, word for word. This is a relevant detail as there is noted ongoing discussion about where on the scale between religious group and political group TST sits, so reps saying people don't have to be Satanists to be members is important. Seanbonner (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Oops, I thought the interview was with Lucien. Still, Draco's answer is taken out of context with the question to justify an incorrect statement, a claim he clearly wasn't making. People who want to join TST often do not identify as Satanists. After joining, most or all people do.  — Demong _talk 07:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

That's your assumption. I could just as easily make the claim that most or all people who join TST don't consider themselves satanists and it would be equally baseless. Especially as "joining" the TST involves signing up for a mailing list. I personally doubt that someone does that and then calls themselves a satanist immediately after but I don't have a source for that. I do have a source for the info I included. The comment isn't out of context, it's directly related to the context. Again, this is a cited fact that doesn't seem to fit your narrative but that doesn't mean it's somehow false. Seanbonner (talk) 07:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of what you or I would claim or assume, the cited source does not say what the article does. "How do you join?" "You don't even have to be a Satanist..." The quote from the interview is about prospective applicants. The disputed content falsely generalizes it into being about current members.  — Demong _talk 07:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Also please please stop accusing me of having an agenda, making decisions based on what organizations I personally like or dislike, or trying to push a particular narrative. — Demong _talk 07:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is very clear, your interpretation of it is misplaced. You went through and deleted all my additions, disregarded my sources and and are referencing TST talking points that facts conflict with. That you have an agenda here seems quite obvious, however I'd be more than happy to admit I'm wrong and apologize for that incorrect assumption. I didn't have time to spend going through the entire COS page and updating this article, so if you aren't biased I'm sure you can grab any one of the facts listed there and add it to this article, there are many outstanding that should be included. Pick whatever one you want. Seanbonner (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

When considering whether a source is a reliable one, it is pertinent to point out that it is biased. CoS has a well-documented bias against TST, e.g. "satanists from the Church of Satan say the Satanic Temple is full of 'lame, fake satanists' who are 'making Satanism look ... ridiculous.'" (source http://www.therooster.com/blog/drama-between-two-satanic-churches-really-giving-satan-bad-name)

No, I don't want to "grab any one of the facts listed there". That's like using a Sunni web site to inform an opinion about Shiites.  — Demong _talk 08:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I'm going to have to push back on this again. The article you linked was written by an author who the COS had just called out for not doing his research. ( http://www.churchofsatan.com/sucker-born-every-millisecond.php ) and he's clearly angry about it. The COS page is a list of sources, like the trademark office and interviews and legal filings. That you would write those off as "libelous conclusions" makes my point that you have an agenda here very clear. A trademark filing isn't a libelous conclusion. An IRS tax exempt filing isn't a libelous conclusion. But they do conflict with the story that TST is trying to paint today. Seanbonner (talk) 08:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Please consider the possibility that it's CoS who has the narrative agenda and is trying to paint a particular story. — Demong _talk 08:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

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 (talk) 08:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

It is possible to use facts to justify an opinion. The opinion expressed by the disputed content mirrors the opinions expressed by CoS. — Demong _talk 08:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

If facts mirror an opinion then perhaps the opinion isn't libelous but rather based on facts. Regardless, we're not talking about alternative facts here. A fact is a fact, and it should be included no matter whose opinion it aligns with. Seanbonner (talk) 08:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I said the opinion mirrors, not the fact mirrors. — Demong _talk 08:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

(unindent) I am not saying this is a reliable source or using it to actually rebut any specific argument, but just to point out the "facts" and conclusions of that page are disputed: https://luciengreaves.com/correcting-the-church-of-satan-fact-sheet/  — Demong _talk 22:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source as it's the person saying "did not" - every one of the rebuttals on that page is either an ad hom on the source or a deflection, there are no actual corrections. This is written with the hope that people will not go look at the sources, because looking at them and reading them makes it clear that the COS sheet is accurate and this "rebuttal" is propaganda. We're supposed to be about un biased facts here. Posting it and saying it's not a source and you aren't using it to rebut anything makes no sense - Significant claims were made against someone and they made a blog post saying "did not" and you are posting that to show it's disputed? Again, the COS sheet links to interviews and legal documents, the Greaves blog post doesn't address any of those facts. Seanbonner (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The opposite is clear to me: the CoS sheet is propaganda and the rebuttal is accurate. The cited sources don't support the claims made on the sheet. Wikipedia should describe a conflict, not engage in it. — Demong _talk 02:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It's a false premise to suggest it's a conflict, there are very clear facts from various sources that perfectly detail the situation. Pretending that it's two equal groups arguing about an opinion is just silly and the only way you can say the rebuttal is accurate and the CoS sheet is propaganda is if you didn't actually read any of the sources, and don't care that the rebuttal almost never addresses the actual point being made. Let's look at an example - #1 claim is that TST launched as a mockumentary and there are 4 sources cited for this, rebuttal spends a paragraph arguing why, then only in the end argues about the wording of "fake religion" but never disputes the core issue. #2 claim is original TST website says they believe in a literal Satan and links to web archive of page that says just that, rebuttal says "false!" then goes on to explain how they think about it now but never addresses the actual wording on the site at the time which is what the CoS sheet is talking about, so that's just deflection being passed off as debunking. #3 Claim that TST co-founder told NY Time in an interview that he thought up TST to combat Bush era religious freedom laws with link to NYT interview, rebuttal says "so what?" which isn't much of a debunking, etc.. it goes on and on like this with the rebuttal making an elaborate explanation or insult packed reply while completely skipping or glossing over the actual claim in the sheet. But again, there's no need for the CoS sheet at all because it makes no original claims, everything on it is sourced elsewhere so the claim that all those sites including web archives and legal filings are propaganda and Lucien's blog is the only reliable source is questionable to say the least. Seanbonner (talk) 04:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Seanbonner It's absolutely incredible to me that you read those corrections and felt that they merely said "did not"! It is plainly visible to anybody who compares the fact sheet against the rebuttal that the CoS engaged in grossly misrepresenting their sources, from claiming that Greaves referred to TST as "purely satire" when the citation shows precisely the opposite to claiming Greaves has been played by multiple actors with no evidence for the claim except a personal blog in which somebody claims he was asked to play the role once but didn't! Also, if you'd read the corrections -- and really anything at all about TST which you hadn't gotten from the CoS webpage -- you'd see that TST was founded based on the interest generated from the film project and that they've been consistent in their beliefs from the moment of their founding. Greaves does not need to dispute that which preceded the actual founding of TST even if the name migrated from one idea into a completely different entity. Your focus on the film is entirely misrepresentative of what TST has been for its entire actual existence. Even the CoS "fact sheet" acknowledges Greaves' own attachment to religious Satanism which long pre-dates TST. It's very apparent that you are unable to exercise any neutrality on this topic.Dominiusol (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't care what CoS thinks or your apparent vendetta. The edits I've made have been properly sourced and discussed with other editors, while you have a brand new account that clearly exists only to delete my edits and attack me on talk pages. Seanbonner (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dominiusol: This WaPo article which states: Lucien Greaves is co-founder of and spokesperson for the Satanic Temple, an international nontheistic religious organization advocating for secularism and scientific rationalism. was used as a source to the statement The Satanic Temple is a religious Satanic organization This does not support that statement. Jim1138 (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

How does it not support that statement and what kind of citation possibly would if that does not?Dominiusol (talk) 07:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The subject of the article is not a valid source about itself. The co-founder of the organization making a claim about the organization in his own byline on an editorial he wrote is not a neutral. Seanbonner (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dominiusol: Format your talk per help:talk pages For one, a source that doesn't contradict itself. If it's "nontheistic" they are not worshiping any deities, including Satan. If they don't worship Satan, they are not a "Satanic religion". Read their "Tenets" https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/tenets Any mention of Satan? Nope. Jim1138 (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Buddhists don't worship Buddha. — Demong _talk 03:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Trying to define religion (especially suggesting all religions must include supernatural beliefs) in a way that excludes TST is exactly disputing the point they are trying to make, and engaging in the argument instead of describing it. — Demong _talk 03:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is that sentence still part of this article? The WP page says something different than what the cited (not reliable anyway) source says; the citation does not support the statement. A case for its removal seems open-and-shut to me. Would others please comment? — Demong _talk 08:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The source cited is an interview with a representative, it's reliable. The interview says exactly what is mentioned in the article, the only reason to remove it is to try and play down the fact that all "members" of this political group do not engage in the "religious" banner they use. The inclusion is very straight forward as has been discussed for months now. Seanbonner (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

No, the response is taken out of the context with the question, it doesn't mean what the citation implies that it means. Also the request for "others" to comment meant, like, people who haven't been involved in this discussion. — Demong _talk 09:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It has been a week since I asked for other comments (and two months since this topic started). I am going to go ahead and make this edit (i.e. remove that sentence) again. The burden of proof is on the person that claims something is true, not the person that claims it's false. I think that sentence makes a false statement, which the citation does not support; reasoning described in detail above. If you disagree, please explain (beyond asserting that it is true). — Demong _talk 05:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, no. A statement by a representative is valid, it's silly to suggest it isn't. It's not out of context, rather the edit is word for word. You are the one implying that there's some other interpretation that you've failed to validate. Just because the statement doesn't fit with your other arguments on content in this article doesn't mean it's not valid. Seanbonner (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

My objection is not related to the validity of the answer, it's about the question. Draco says, to join, you don't even have to consider yourself a Satanist. That sentence says the statement is about members after joining. — Demong _talk 20:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Sean reverted this edit with the note "This edit has been debated in depth, it's a statement by a representative that reflects significantly on the organization, the fact that it doesn't fit with the organizations public relations isn't a valid reason to remove it.)" I removed the sentence again, but my edit note was cut short, it was supposed to read "The objection has nothing to do with public relations, it's about the question, and the fact that the answer is taken out of its context. Please address that on the Talk page, and stop unilaterally adding this. ("This edit has been debated in depth" is misleading, only one person [you] objects, and the arguments do not address my objection, they merely respond "is so" to the allegation that it's not appropriate.)"

I don't have to prove the sentence doesn't belong, you have to prove it does. — Demong _talk 20:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Sean reverted the edit again, unilaterally and without discussion. — Demong _talk 00:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic: Sean also re-reverted another change I made, removing an (I think) unnecessary note that Jex Blackmore is a pseudonym. When I began interacting with him, I assumed good faith, but there is ample evidence on this page that he is "guarding" the article, preventing others from making improvements to it. — Demong _talk 00:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The edit summaries and Talk page comments used to justify (unilaterally) reverting this change variously contend that the removal is due to personal disagreement with the statement, because it constitutes facts the organization finds embarassing, because it doesn't fit with the group's public relations, etc. Those reasons were never given or implied, and the supposed justifications are irrelevant and do not carry any weight. Counter-arguments should address the points that were actually made by the arguments. Furthermore, suggesting that an edit has an unstated motivation beyond simply improving the article is extremely bad manners. See also: Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing.

It is unlikely that a moderator will descend and declare a winner and loser. Various guideline and policy pages describe what constitutes correct behavior and procedure. This statement is alleged to be false, and only one editor has protested that it is true. The proper course of action is that it be removed for now. If anyone thinks it should be restored, please explain why. — Demong _talk 19:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yet again, reverted without discussion. — Demong _talk 22:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The line is a direct quote from a spokesperson in the organization, in an interview about the organization, being asked directly about joining the organization. It's cited and sourced. That you "allege it to be false" is unfounded, as the proof is right in the citation. Again, if you think the text is misleading then rewrite it, but it is a cited fact that is relevant to the overall discussion that you just keep deleting. Seanbonner (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

For the fourth or fifth time, the question was about joining. The sentence falsely generalizes the answer into being about members after joining, a claim (I think) he obviously wasn't making. Please address that instead of a strawman about how the quote is direct from a spokesperson, which was never disputed. — Demong _talk 07:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

And for the fourth or fifth time you are making assumptions that are not supported by the comment. There is no discussion about people "becoming Satanist" rather is directly says you do not have to be a Satanist to join. There is no suggestion anywhere that the act of joining TST makes you a Satanist, and in fact 50 years worth of literature about Satanism that says people either are or aren't, and Satanism isn't something people become or are converted to. Similarly in other religions the act of joining a church doesn't change someones religion. Someone is not an atheist until they join a christian church, rather christians join christian churches. And if you are arguing that the act of joining TST turns you into a Satanist, then how would you explain the other potential members that he's referring to? By saying "you don't even have to be a satanist to join" would imply that some existing Satanists join, where did they come from? Rather what is very clearly being stated is that anyone can join TST regardless of if that person considers themselves a Satanist or not, what is important is that you support their political actions. That's not being taken out of context, you just don't seem to want to accept what is being said. Seanbonner (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

BAS: "How do you join The Satanic Temple? Are there tithes?"

TST: "No. There’re two types of membership. Anybody can go to the national site at https://thesatanictemple.com/ with a simple email address you scan sign up for the newsletter and become a member. And then there’re Chapter members, and that requires some responsibilities to be involved on some level. Every Chapter does that a little differently. No has to pay anything unless you want a card and a certificate. That costs $25, but by no means do you have to do that. If there’s a local chapter where you are, to join you do have to be accepted, but there’s no initiation or anything. You don’t even have to be a Satanist, you can just be a strong ally who believes in the political and secular actions without being super stoked about all the aesthetic aspects." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanbonner (talk • contribs) 15:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I tried to compromise, rewording the sentence instead of removing it (which was requested by Seanbonner in a previous edit summary), changing "Some of their members..." to "Before joining, some people..." He reverted it again, edit summary "New wording was not supported by source." — Demong _talk 17:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Since no one besides Seanbonner has commented about the dispute, I guess I will drop it. For the record, I am annoyed that he "won" by underhanded means, unilaterally reverting all my edits, generally without discussion. Stubbornness and refusal to follow consensus-established etiquette are not supposed to be how changes to a Wikipedia article are contested. At least Xenophrenic moved the sentence out of the introduction. — Demong _talk 20:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Obvious Bias

(Disclaimer: Hi, new to wikipedia and this is my first entry on a talk page, so I may be completely wrong here and welcome any guidance. Also I am a member of The Satanic Temple)

I was wondering why the page for The Satanic Temple has essentially been hijacked by someone with obvious bias. The only new information added to this page have been some actions of the Los Angeles Chapter and items pulled from a "Fact Sheet" distributed by the Church of Satan. There has been no updating of information of any kind in regards to Chapters, expansion, rituals, honestly aside from the attack items it doesn't seem as if the page has been updated since the unveiling of the Baphomet monument in 2015.

There is tons of new information from podcasts, news articles, television reports, etc and yet it seems as though any time something changes on this page it is immediately disregarded as biased unless it is written by someone whose only intent is disparagement.

I'm not asking for favorable coverage, just basic coverage of facts. Is it possible to ask for an editor with obvious bias to be removed from a page they seem intent on damaging? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WHWonka (talk • contribs) 14:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. I'll note that you have a brand new account which made almost identical edits as other recent brand new accounts which would seem to suggest WP:MEAT may be taking place and should be discouraged. Regarding this article, if you look at the article history and the discussions on this talk page you'll see that editor consensus was that the page was too promotional WP:PROMOTION and needed to be edited to be more inline with wikipedia style. The recent changes have been as part of that decision. The purpose of this article is not to promote this group or document everything they do or press they receive, nor for members of the group to promote themselves, rather it's to give an accurate description of the group and issues related to them. Adding cited references, even when not flattering, helps keep the article balanced. A cited source is not less valid because you don't like it, and adding cited sources improves the article, it doesn't damage it as you claim. Additionally, as a member of this group you have a WP:COI it's not appropriate for you to edit the page, if you have factual changes you'd like to see you can add them on the talk page for discussion and potential inclusion. Seanbonner (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

First of all thank you to everyone that has helped and pointed me in the right directions. I attempted to make edits before really knowing anything about the pillars of wikipedia and any of that information. When I did some research that is why I ended up here and announced that I was a member specifically to avoid a conflict of interest. I don't know the other new editor you speak of but it's not me and I accept that I can't edit the article.

WP:COI seems to be the issue at hand. My issue is that the page prior to recent edits was only out of date and slightly skewed. There are innumerable sources for information from and about The Satanic Temple that are just plainly factual and non-biased. Even the CoS fact sheet that was used as a prompt for editing was refuted item by item and yet that is not included.

Seanbonner seems to be the problem as he is the one who clearly is biased against The Satanic Temple and Lucien Greaves. He is a LaVeyan Satanist and has been involved in numerous disputes and editwarring that are both Pro-CoS and Anti-TST. His involvement with the Church of Satan should disqualify him as well. WHWonka (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It's silly to suggest that having an interest and knowledge of Satanism would disqualify me from editing an article relating to that subject on Wikipedia - again as noted this article is not a press release and to imply that only people who are supporters of the organization in question should edit it shows a misunderstanding of the purpose. However none of that matters, As can be seen from the talk page before I ever edited it Wikipedians felt that the earlier article was too promotional and it's been and will continued to be edited to be more neutral. The additions to the article are cited and sourced, if there are any that are factually incorrect then they are worth discussing and correcting, but as has been discussed already the spokesperson for the organization making a blog post attacking the sources or saying "so what" is not refuting or disproving anything. The CoS fact sheet you keep mentioning is never cited in the article, it's discussed on the talk page which is were non-article worthy discussions happen. Legal filings, web archives and interviews that are mentioned in the CoS fact sheet are not suddenly less valid sources because CoS mentioned them and it's improper to suggest that. Again, if there are any factual problems with edits they can be discussed and corrected, but PR statements from organization being discussed are valid sources. This article, and all articles for that matter, should remain neutral and contain cited and sourced information to help tell an accurate story. Seanbonner (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not that you have interest and knowledge of Satanism, I am interested in and knowledgeable about Satanism but being that I am openly a member of TST I accept that my edits could be viewed as biased and thus I won't be editing. It's that you are obviously biased against The Satanic Temple and Lucien Greaves and it is evident in your history. Numerous edit wars and problems that are CONSISTENTLY Pro-CoS and Anti-TST. Not to mention your Instagram, Tumblr, Twitter, etc are all full of Pro-CoS items which hardly makes you neutral. I'm not asking for a press release, I'm asking for an unbiased factual up-to-date article. There are plenty of other editors that don't seem to have any of the problems you have had on this or other Satanic pages.

"This article, and all articles for that matter, should remain neutral and contain cited and sourced information to help tell an accurate story." Absolutely. That is why I am asking either you to refrain from editing the page anymore or searching out a way to have you removed from being able to edit it. AGAIN, I am not asking that I be able to edit the page, I'm not asking that blog posts be taken as canon, I'm not suggesting that the page should be promotional at all. Simply Unbiased, Factual, and Current. I don't see that as a problem, you do. WHWonka (talk) 10:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@WHWonka: Why don't you list what the problems are, what edits should be made and give wp:reliable sources supporting your suggestions? Jim1138 (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@WHWonka: Your criticism continues to be directed at me and not at the article and I would direct you to wp:pa. If you have specific problems with the article please list them and they can be discussed, but I'll politely ask you to keep whatever personal issues you seem to have with me out of it. My interest continues to be for Wikipedia to have accurate articles, with reliable sources to support them and will respectfully disagree with you by stating that my properly sourced and cited edits have made the article better, not worse. Seanbonner (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Seanbonner and have no issues with their editing this article. Jim1138 (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

How do I go about this? Links to every dispute @Seanbonner: has had on CoS, TST, and Lucien Greaves pages? Link to the fact that he's been involved in editwars and has been blocked from editing pages in the past? Do I have to link to his twitter, tumblr, instagram, etc to show his bias? I don't understand how one editor has a problem with 4 other editors consistently and 1 editor backing him up and that's fine? Not to mention the tone he takes when even mentioning Lucien in talk pages. Issues with @Demong: @Rhododendrites: @Mvaldemar: @Dominiusol: and the fact that he's cited blogs as sources when it's convenient as with Shane Bugbee or dismissed blogs when they aren't convenient as with Lucien and Patheos. Sean only became involved in editing these pages after the publication of the CoS "Fact Sheet" that he has referenced in talk pages and the "reliable sources" cited by the fact sheet also espouse Mind Control and Satanic Ritual Abuse and Government coverups. Other sources are misquoted and misrepresented. The Vice piece used to discredit many aspects if read completely reinforces many things that are being discussed. I feel like I'm beating my head against a wall because the bias is so obvious it's laughable and I honestly don't understand how others don't see it WHWonka (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I will ask you again to please avoid wp:pa. If you are unable to make a list of edits you feel are incorrect citing wp:reliable sources to justify proposed changes then I don't why you keep posting - is your purpose here to attack me or to improve the article? Jim1138 and I have both asked you to make a list so they can be discussed. Seanbonner (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Editing articles about an organization you're involved with is discouraged but not forbidden. Just be careful to color inside other lines. You have as much right to edit the article as anyone else does. If you can add (and preferably source) information from podcasts, news articles, television reports, etc., great, please do so.

See also: Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations#The_article_on_me/my_organization_is_an_attack._What_can_I_do? — Demong _talk 22:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

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)

A Neutral Stance on Religiousness

I'm frankly sick of the edit wars around whether to call TST a religion, an activist group, etc. Can we try and reach a neutral compromise on this? Would it be acceptable to come to call them a "self-described religious group" instead of going back and forth between activists and religion? Is there a more neutral way to state this? The group calling itself a religion is a fact than can be cited. Whether it qualifies as a religion is obviously up for debate, and depends on subtle details of the definition one uses. Smileman66 (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I too am sick of it and would prefer a resolution. The issue with your proposal is that no one would consider describing [The Yes Men] as "Self Described Political Spokesmen" rather they are accurately described as activist who use several tactics including mascarading as political spokesmen to accomplish their goals - even though they start press conferences claiming to be said spokesmen. With TST there seems to be enough citations that they have primarily political aims so saying they are a self described religious group and leaving it at that leads to the assumption that they are a religious group and then Wikipedia becomes part of the misinformation campaign. Perhaps better would be "activist who refer to themselves as a religious group to accomplish their political goals" - I'm uncomfortable with simply "self-described religious group" when the founders are on record saying they started the group for political reasons. Seanbonner (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is any reason why "activist group" and "religious group" should be mutually exclusive, which seems to be the crux of the argument. The neutral compromise is to use both labels. — Demong _talk 10:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Out of context they are not mutually exclusive, in the context of the accusation that a political group is pretending to be a religious group in order to move a political agenda, saying the group is both a political activist group and a religious group is not a compromise, it's endorsing one side of that argument. The fair and neutral thing is to not take a position, note that it's disputed and present the cited facts around the dispute. There's no situation where repeating this groups claims at face value fits into WP policy. Seanbonner (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should never make accusations. There are plenty of sources that say their religious beliefs are sincere, besides themselves. That is disputed by some sources, and the dispute is already described elsewhere in the article. — Demong _talk 11:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I've not seen a source that claims their religious beliefs are sincere that isn't using them as a source for that claim, and that should be heavily suspect as the founders are on record in several cited situations saying they are not sincere. I don't understand how this is even still being debated. Regardless, you are right that Wikipedia shouldn't make accusations and since the debate is described in the article the head shouldn't take a different position, but rather should accurately note that it's debated. It's irresponsible to have a section about the debate, and then in the head print the debated claim at face value. Seanbonner (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

"Self-described" has negative connotations, it insinuates doubt, which is taking a position between their own claim (and sources that believe it), and sources that doubt the claim. Describing multiple points of view is appropriate, but should also be proportional; that dispute doesn't belong in the article's first sentence. — Demong _talk 11:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that a disputed detail shouldn't be in the first sentence, which is why I've repeatedly removed that reference entirely and continue to argue that is the only neutral way to handle it. Seanbonner (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't tell whether the repeated misrepresentation of my position is intentional or not. I said the dispute doesn't belong there, not that the detail doesn't. — Demong _talk 21:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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)

I mentioned this page at NPOVN

The WP:SPAs (and indications of WP:MEAT/WP:CANVASS) in the RfC above, combined with some research I did into the background between the Church of Satan and the Satanic Temple led me to start a thread at NPOVN to get some additional participation from neutral third parties. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yet another... on pseudonyms in particular, but NPOV in general

This article is not neutral point of view, there is vaguely negative language used throughout. For example, there are repeated parenthetical notes about pen names, i.e. "The group was co-founded by Lucien Greaves [...] and Malcolm Jarry (both of which are pseudonyms)", "Malcolm Jarry is an assumed name...", and "Jex Blackmore (pseudonym)..." I removed the Jex one, summary "This is unnecessary and vaguely negative. Many creators and performers use a pen- or stage-name; the article about them can list their given name, it is not mentioned whenever the name is, on other articles." Seanbonner reverted my edit, summary "It's not negative, it's factual. This isn't about a artist or a creator. That the most cited people involved with the organization all use pseudonyms is significant." I re-reverted (unwise?), summary "Please point to any other article that includes such a parenthetical note. I predict no such example exists." Seanbonner re-re-reverted without discussion or summary.

"Significant" according to whom? "Factual?" and "encyclopedic?" are two different questions, the fact is not disputed. I think the notes should be deleted, and would like to read others' comments about that.

The article should also have a "neutrality questioned" banner, adding. — Demong _talk 02:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Do whatever you feel like you need to, but there's been months of discussion and it's very curious that factual statements keep being removed by the same editors claiming negativity, rather than rewriting them. Several details in this article continue to just be removed, which goes back to the original issue with it months ago that it written up like a press release. Neutral articles cover subjects accurately, good and bad. Repeated deletions of anything that the organization considers embarrassing is problematic. Seanbonner (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

"This isn't about a artist..." So you are saying that you have an authoritative definition of not only "religious" but also "art"?!

Just because something is factual doesn't mean it should be included in a Wikipedia article, and something having been discussed does not shield it from being discussed again. The standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Please address the actual objection. I think unimportant details make articles worse; if there is a source that says it's important that people involved with TST use pseudonyms, please link to it. — Demong _talk 10:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, is it about art now? Should we look forward to you arguing that the lede should say they are a political activist and religious and artists group? Why stop there? If something that is factual doesn't belong in a wikipedia article, why is there a wikipedia to begin with? This article exists for facts about the subject, not promotion of the groups talking points. Seanbonner (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Not every fact about the subject. — Demong _talk 10:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It is unlikely that a moderator will descend and declare a winner and loser. Various guideline and policy pages describe what constitutes correct behavior and procedure. The relevance and importance of these notes is disputed, and only one editor has commented in their defense. The proper course of action is that they be removed for now. If anyone thinks they should be restored, please explain, providing the requested supporting evidence, or a guideline- or policy-related argument to that effect.

WP:PROVEIT: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material..."

WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful."

WP:IMPARTIAL: "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized."  — Demong _talk 19:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• "WP:PROVEIT": It is well documented. How else does it need to be "proved"?
• "WP:NOTEVERYTHING": Two other editors appear to disagree with you. See WP:consensus and wp:edit warring
• "WP:IMPARTIAL":
  • How is it an opinion? Their pseudonyms are well documented.

• Inappropriate tone? Why is mentioning that they are pseudonyms an "inappropriate tone"? Greaves doesn't even hide it.

Jim1138 (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

1) Yes it is well-documented. The dispute is not that it's false, it's that mentioning it is unencyclopedic. Seanbonner claims the fact is "significant" but that appears to be according to him only. My request is for the significance to be proved, for example by supplying a link to a reliable source that says so.

2) I count one. Do you also disagree? If so, please comment/explain.

3) It is inappropriate because it's unnecessarily critical in that context, and such a note does not appear on other articles. I think unnecessary details weaken articles. — Demong _talk 21:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion re: "focus of controversy" --> change to "Defining 'religion', and discussion of some language in article"

The following change was made (by User:Xenophrenic) recently: "[TST] has been the focus of controversy due to several religious challenges, causing some critics to question whether or not The Satanic Temple is a prank, satire, or a genuine Satanic organization." (three citations) changed to "The Satanic Temple has utilized satire, theatrical ploys and humor in their public activities to generate attention and prompt people to reevaluate their irrational fears and misperceptions." (same citations)

I think this is not neutral, it's too "positive" and erases mention of their controversial status (which is reported by many reliable sources). That the group's claim to be religious has been the subject of controversy is both important and true; I think the questioning by detractors deserves to be mentioned in the article lead. If the contention is that the cited sources do not support the statement, perhaps the citations should be changed instead. Thoughts? — Demong _talk 20:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I've no problem at all with adding factual information to the lead, in compliance with Wikipedia's policies, and would appreciate help toward that end. Just keep in mind that information in our article must be accompanied with reliable source citations which say the same thing. Regarding whether or not TST is a religion:

• Reliable sources describe it as a religion (see list of sources provided by another editor above, for starters).
• High-quality, peer reviewed reliable sources, such as this Oxford publication have described TST as both a form of satanism and a new religious movement.
• TST has been recognized as a religion by United States high courts, which is considering a plaintiff's complaint that her religious rights are being violated.
• And, as you already noted, TST themselves also say they are a religion.

Given the above, describing TST as a "religion/religious-something" is policy-compliant, and not really an issue. That brings us to your concern that "the questioning by detractors deserves to be mentioned in the article lead". Fine, if warranted, but the place to start is with reliable sources. I'm aware of the war of words between CoS and TST (and you'll find more about that on pages 449-450 in the Oxford source I just linked), but that doesn't negate the properly sourced description of TST as a "religion". Can you point me to any reliable sources (qualified to make assertions of fact, not just opinion) which contradict the "religion" descriptor? All I've seen thus far are mere opinions and points of view being expressed by CoS' Gilmore (and related fans-turned-editors above). Xenophrenic (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

"Controversial status" is very non-specific, and completely uninformative. There has certainly been notable response regarding various TST activities: the push-back to allowing a "black mass" on the Harvard campus, the "fine, just get rid of all religious monuments" response to the TST proposal to erect a Baphomet monument, etc. Provoking responses appears to be, according to the sources I've reviewed so far, expected rather than controversial -- but perhaps I am misunderstanding your concern. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect. The Kansas court has accepted that the plaintiff is a Satanist which they recognize as a religion. TST doesn't claim to be a religion, they claim to be a religious organization and this court says nothing about that and they are not plaintiffs in the case. Seanbonner (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

They do not, they claim to be a religious organization. If they claimed to be a new religion rather than one that has existed for over 50 years already most of these conflicts wouldn't even be issues. Seanbonner (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with anything taking place at the "Kansas court" to which you refer. My reference was to a Missouri filing by a member of The Satanic Temple, and neither the reliable source being cited, nor the judge's verdict, say anything about accepting "Satanist" as a religion. The courts determined the plaintiff had a valid complaint under the Religion Clauses. As for TST, The Satanic Temple says it’s also a religion: a non-theistic religion. If you would like to advance a serious disagreement, it would be very helpful if you would please accompany it with actual reliable sources. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Your article was to Kansas paper and I mistyped, regardless you are mistaken. TST does not claim to be a religion, it claims to be a religious organization, your links are all pointing to efforts from this organization taking actions based on it's members religion, which they claim is Satanism. Again, this is the entire crux of the issues here as the religion Satanism already exists and has for over 50 years and is well defined, and TST has attempted to redefine it to match their political goals which their founders stated was the point of creating the organization in the first place. Their FAQ even makes it clear they are just one of many organizations representing Satanism, but with their own take on it. [1] - If they were claiming to be a religion there would be none of these arguments going on. Please catch up on the various other discussions happening here and understand the difference between a religion and an organization representing that religion as they are two different things. Seanbonner (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the "Kansas" mix-up, but you haven't explained how I am "mistaken". The member of The Satanic Temple is citing violation of her religious beliefs (the TST Tenets - see page 4 of the Judge's ruling, especially the footnotes), and the judge agreed there was grounds for a case there. You haven't provided sources to the contrary, so I guess we'll move on to your next assertion. You say "TST does not claim to be a religion, it claims to be a religious organization". Incorrect; they claim both — they say they are a nontheistic religion and they say they are a religious organization. You have been provided with numerous reliable sources supporting this. You have provided zero reliable sources contradicting these descriptors. Even the link to the FAQ you just provided does not invalidate these descriptors, it supports them. I'll keep waiting patiently for your reliable sources that affirmatively convey, as an assertion of fact, that the TST is not a religion. (And no, there is no such source anywhere in the previous discussions above.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Please don't ask me to prove a negative. TST is claiming to be a religious organization representing religious members, the religion being Satanism. They do not claim their religion is "Satanic Templeism" anywhere, ever where as they claim to be Satanists everywhere. It's obnoxious that you would suggest otherwise simply because you misunderstood the context. Seanbonner (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I would never dream of asking you to prove a negative. It's Wikipedia doing the asking: WP:PROVEIT. TST, and independent reliable sources, both say they are a "nontheistic religion"; they say they are a "religious organization"; they say they are a "religious group"; "an authentic religious movement", "A fully organized, atheistic religion". Ample reliable sources exist for all of these, both as self-descriptions as well as third-party descriptions. You responded above in the negative, "They do not," and Wikipedia requires that you provide the reliable sources to prove your claim. As for your claim I am misunderstanding something, let's review it: please provide a link, name, or pointer to the source text(s) (not written by you) that you say I have misunderstood. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The reference to the "fully organized, atheistic religion" is to the fully organized, atheistic religion called Satanism. If you do not believe that to be case then by all means, please go ahead and change every reference in the article from "Satanism" to "The Satanic Temple" or whatever you believe their religion is called. Seanbonner (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess we agree. The reference, which states, "A fully organized, atheistic religion, The Satanic Temple actively participates in..." is indeed to a form of Satanism (which can be atheistic or theistic, as I'm sure you are aware). So, we're done here? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

You know what, on second thought let's go ahead and run with that - what is the name of the religion they claim to be and we can find and replace all references to Satanism with that and then forget every argument on here as they won't be relevant anymore. That's the best suggestion yet. Seanbonner (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what article improvement you are suggesting. If you could point me to the reliable sources behind your suggestion, I'd like to review them first, before I add my input. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no reliable source to cite for me conceding to your suggestion. As can be seen on wikipedia Satanism is an established religion dating back to 1966, and The Satanic Temple was not founded until 2013, so if TST a religion as you claim and not an organization representing people who are a separate religion, then unless they are time travelers there's no need to argue about their connection to Satanism, so please, tell us what the name of their religion is and then we can put this to rest. Or, alternatively, join the rest of the editors in the understanding that TST is an organization and we can continue the discussion about what their connection to religion is or isn't. Seanbonner (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

"...if TST a religion as you claim... --Seanbonner

Ah, there is the source of your confusion. I have not made the claim. Reliable sources have (including some peer-reviewed, academic ones also cited in our Satanism article). TST, themselves, have. I'm still patiently waiting for you to produce reliable sources which refute that claim. I'm about to conclude that they do not exist. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

And again, do not ask me to prove a negative. You continue to post links to sources where TST people are talking about Satanism and acting like they are talking about TST as it's own religion different from Satanism, the fact that they are included in the Satanism article is evidence that they are under that heading and not something independent. You seem to be confusing things and might benefit from taking some time to read more and understand the difference between a religion and an organization representing a religion, as well as lineage of religions to see how one connects to another. Seanbonner (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I would never dream of asking you to prove a negative. It's Wikipedia doing the asking: WP:PROVEIT. TST, and independent reliable sources, both say they are a "nontheistic religion"; they say they are a "religious organization"; they say they are a "religious group"; "an authentic religious movement", "A fully organized, atheistic religion". Ample reliable sources exist for all of these, both as self-descriptions as well as third-party descriptions. As for your claim I am misunderstanding something, let's review what it is you say I misunderstand: please provide a reliable source text(s) (not written by you) that you say I have misunderstood. Still waiting. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

...join the rest of the editors in the understanding that TST is an organization... --Seanbonner

TST is indeed also a religious organization, of course. Reliable sources, and TST themselves, have said so. In fact, I've added that information to the article myself -- is it possible you are confusing me with another editor? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

You don't have to prove a negative, you have to show evidence that supports your argument. (Note that you can't prove a negative statement is true, but you can prove a positive statement is false. In this case the positive statement is that "reliable sources describe TST as a religious group".) Arguments about personal editor opinions are not convincing. — Demong _talk 20:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Demong You seem to be jumping topics here, the argument at the moment is if TST is a religion, not if they are a religious group. It's very well established that they claim to be a religious group and that's what most of the discussions on this talk page revolve around. As I just told Xenophrenic if you believe TST is a religion then the vast majority of the arguments on this page are irrelevant, so let's simply replace all mentions of "Satanism" with whatever the name of the TST-ism religion is and we can be done with all of this. If however that isn't the case, and TST is simply claiming to be/to represent people who are religious, then we get past this red herring and back to trying to write a comprehensive and useful article about TST. So Demong, for the record, will you please tell me if you think TST (the organization that this article is about) is claiming to be Satanists or if they are claiming to be a religion? Seanbonner (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

That is a lot of text, yet again, and yet again no supporting evidence. The hair-splitting between "religion" and "religious group" seems to me like a diversionary tactic. You (and CoS in general) are trying to "own" the Satanic "brand". Yes they are Satanists. The Washington Post, the New York Times, Vox, Esquire, Vice, and the Kansas City Star (probably more reliable sources, just going by the ones Rhododendrites linked above) call them a religious group, a religion, Satanists, and/or Satanic. — Demong _talk 22:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not hair splitting, it's trying to stay on topic. "Is TST a Religion" is a different question then "Is TST a Religious Organization" which is a different question than "Is TST A Satanic Religious Organization" and lumping them all together I would argue is a diversionary tactic of your own. Looking at this page shows that clearly. Since I would hope we can all agree that Satanism pre-existed TST which was only founded in 2013 this shouldn't be that difficult to address. Is TST a stand along religion or are they are religious group representing an existing religion? Unless they have some kind of timemachine it can't be both. Once we can agree on that out then we can decide how to address it. Seanbonner (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Many reliable sources call TST Satanic, and its members Satanists. That's all that matters. — Demong _talk 00:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

So you are changing the subject and dodging the question then? Seanbonner (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Not at all, it was intended to be a response to exactly what you were talking about: distinguishing "Satanism is a religion" and "The Satanic Temple is a religion", for some reason. A few sources that also call TST a religion (again copied from Rhod):

• 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."
• 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." — Demong _talk 01:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Fantastic, now we're getting somewhere! I'd argue that those are simply confusing texts written by authors unfamiliar with the topic, but if you want to say that is proof that TST it it's own religion then sure, I don't object to that. As TST obviously didn't create a religion that is well documented to predate them by decades then we can stop arguing about if TST is accurately representing Satanism or not. If they are a religion then it's something new, so let's change all the references to "Satanism" to "The Satanic Temple" and then you call them as religious as you want, because I have no argument if they are or are not some new religion that they created. Do you want to make that edit to the article or should I? We should make clear however that the religion "The Satanic Temple" is different from the religion "Satanism" and should figure out how to split the article from discussion about the legal organization and the religion. Open to thoughts on that as well. Seanbonner (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Please read the Wikipedia:No_original_research article. Really, please read it, it's not that long. — Demong _talk 02:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep, informative! Thanks. Now, back to the topic at hand. Do you want to make the edit to support your position that TST is a religion or should I? Seanbonner (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Please don't. I disagree: I think that is a distinction without a difference; and there is no consensus for such an edit. Also, my last comment was about the topic at hand. — Demong _talk 03:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I really don't understand your position here Demong, you've been arguing on this page going back months [2] that TST is a religion, even though TST themselves have never once made that claim, and the only places it's appeared are publications where the authors are obviously unfamiliar with the topic and are confusing things. I've at least been trying to accurately represent the position TST is taken publicly which is that they are Satanists, while that's clearly a topic of debate as noted since their positions do not align with recognized Satanism for the last half a century, it's at least a claim they've made themselves. Even on the internet archive version of the earlier TST website were they claim to be "multi generational theistic Satanists" before they changed their position to be atheistic Satanist they never claimed to be a religion, both you and Xenophrenic keep arguing for it. I'm so sick of all these fights about pointless details that I'm willing to give up on this one and thus removing the need for all the other arguments, and then you change you mind again? Is your interest here to write a accurate article about a actual organization or are you just trying to nitpick to death without making any actual improvements? Seanbonner (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

...that TST is a religion, even though TST themselves have never once made that claim... they never claimed to be a religion --Seanbonner

"... I genuinely feel this is every bit a religion -- this cultural identity, this narrative that contextualizes your life, your works, your goals. And you have these deeply held beliefs, that if they are violated, it compromises your very self."
— Lucien Greaves, New York Times

"Religion doesn't belong to supernaturalists."
— Lucien Greaves, Detroit Metro Times

"What defines religion? Is the fact that we don't believe in supernaturalism something that would undercut the fact that we are a true religion? ... We have all the defining features of a religion, minus a supernatural belief ... And so that's the thing people often try to undercut. They say 'Your religion doesn't look like my religion so therefore it's not legitimate.'"
— Jex Blackmore, Michigan Live News

"If, by some circumstance, we find our religious legitimacy denied by a public agency for the fact that we've never sought IRS-recognized religious exemption, I have little doubt that the courts would rule in our favor ... We feel that it's our sense of cultural identity, narrative and shared ethics that make us a religion.
— Lucien Greaves, FOX News

“I really do want people to understand that this is an authentic religious movement. For those of us who identify with it, that identification is not something you can take away from us and it’s certainly not something that’s arbitrary. Calling ourselves Satanists isn’t just something we do to shock the Christians. It’s something that’s very much a part of us.”
— Lucien Grieves, Patheos

...I'm willing to give up on this one... --Seanbonner

Please. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

In context, every single one of the quotes you just posted proves my point. They are talking about Satanism in each of those discussions, they are not ever making the case that The Satanic Temple is a religion. And again, if your argument is that TST is a religion then we shouldn't be discussion if they are Satanism or not and you should propose how to change the article to reflect your uncitable and unsourcable opinion on that. Seanbonner (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

You said TST "never claimed to be a religion", which is false. So I provided a few direct quotes (out of a great many available) where they say it is "fact that we are a true religion", as proof. That is "in context", and the only point being made. The fact that they "call themselves" a religion is settled. Now it appears you now wish to move on to whether or not they have "made the case" to support their claim to being a religion. We can certainly do that, but your starting point will need to be the presentation of reliable sources supporting your assertions. As for your suggestion that we should change the article to reflect "uncitable and unsourcable opinion [sic]" - No. We don't do that in Wikipedia articles. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I've never once asked that they "make the case to support their claim to being a religion" because I maintain the position that TST has never once called themselves a religion, and that in all of the quotes you have provided (as well as all others that exist) TST is talking about the existing religion Satanism, not something new. And again, if they were claiming to be a new religion that would make things easier as there wouldn't be any of the arguments about how they do or do not fit with an existing religion. The point I've made repeatedly is that the founders are on record saying they had the idea to create a religious group that would fit into Bush-era religious freedom policy to enact political change, so calling them "a religious group" without clarifying that they are first and foremost a political activist group is not completely accurate and is in fact furthering their PR stance instead which is not the point of wikipedia. Seanbonner (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

"I really don't understand your position..." My position is that TST is a Satanic religion, it is a type of Satanism, and its members are Satanists. Your reasoning—and what they claim themselves (except to the extent that their claims are repeated by reliable sources)—is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what reliable sources call them. (And questioning the sources' understanding, or saying an editor understands better than they do, is not appropriate.) — Demong _talk 20:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Note that the article about Mormonism does not call them Christian (without qualification). Even though they claim to be, reliable sources do not. It is not up to us, the editors, to define "religion" or decide what type of religion a group adheres to. The article also does not distinguish between the Mormon Church (LDS) and the Mormon religion, which I think would be splitting hairs. — Demong _talk 20:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Demong I'm still confused, are you arguing that TST is like Mormon Church now? Or that TST article shouldn't call them Satanists even though they call themselves Satanists because the article on Mormonism doesn't call them Christians? I'm really confused what point you are trying to make. The Mormon Church created Mormonism, TST did not create Satanism - it's a preexisting religion whose adherent's prior to the founding of TST disagree that TST represents Satanism in anyway, and TST's own materials contradict existing published text on Satanism. So either TST is Satanism or TST is it's own religion, but I don't how logic can allow both - you have to pick one. If your argument is that TST is a new religion that is a subset of Satanism you will need to provide some source on that because again they do not make that claim, nor do they claim lineage with existing Satanism nor do they recognize existing Satanic canon. And the statement that questioning a sources understanding is not appropriate is preposterous, editors regularly discuss a sources understanding of a topic in the course of determining what is reliable or not. And especially given a topic like this that is very often misunderstood, would you be open to including citations to Christian publications calling TST devil worshipers or would you note that this conflicts directly with TST claims to be atheistic and this was likely a misunderstanding on the publications part due to their bias and unfamiliarity with the topic? Your position is vague and muddy, please clarify exactly the point you are trying to make and propose text that would clarify that in the article. Seanbonner (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make is that reliable sources say TST is a Satanic religion, it is a type of Satanism, and its members are Satanists. (And no, how the article about the Mormon Church is unlike this one.) — Demong _talk 00:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

That sounds incredibly confusing, if TST is it's own religion which is somehow different from plain old Satanism, how can it's members be called Satanists, especially when TST itself is on record saying not all of it's members consider themselves Satanists? Using your example, even if Mormons consider themselves Christians they refer to themselves as Mormons to differentiate. Same with Baptists and Lutherans, etc. If your position is that TST is it's own religion then it's members should be called something that reflects membership in TST, not something that would confuse them with the existing religion of Satanism which TST only a type of? Seanbonner (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, my position seems simple and clear to me: Why not call it both "Satanism" and "a religious group"? I don't think it matters. Reliable sources say they say are both. Similar articles do not make a similar distinction. It seems like you are saying the Satanism founded earlier is the One True Religion. — Demong _talk 10:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not interested in playing musical topics with you again. The discussion right now is about how to address your position that TST is a religion (akin to Mormon/Christians argument that you made). Feel free to reply in the context of that discussion if you would like to explain your position, or don't if changed your mind but please don't try to reply to a question about them being a religion with an answer about them being a religious group - those are not the same things and you know it. Seanbonner (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

If you think what I am saying doesn't make sense, there are several other possible explanations besides "he is dodging the question, changing the subject". The Satanic Temple is a religion, it is a Satanic religion, it is a type of Satanism, it is a religious organization, it is a religious group, whatever. There is no need to make the article harder for a reader to understand, in order to draw an unimportant distinction, which neither reliable sources nor other Wikipedia articles tend to draw. — Demong _talk 11:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The vast majority of the arguments on this page are about that distinction, I don't think after the amount of text you've contributed to that you can claim it's unimportant. Clarifications make articles easier to understand, not harder. Other Wikipedia articles clearly make those distinctions, as you noted with Moronism, and can similarly be found in Lutheranism, Baptists, Protestantism etc which are both their own religion as well as a type of another religion that predates them. That would be the established standard as that is clear and easy for a reader to understand. Satanism predates TST by half a century at least, if TST is it's own religion and at the same time a type of Satanism, that should be differentiated for the same reasons that practitioners of Mormonism, Lutherism, Protestantism or Baptists are not all just called Christians. Seanbonner (talk) 12:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many arguments there are about editors' definition of religion. They are invalid arguments about a Wikipedia article, because they are exactly original research. — Demong _talk 21:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

OK Demong so you are making the argument that your thousands of words here are OR and don't matter. Great. Anyway, again it seems you've ignored the discussion that you started with the example that you introduced when it doesn't support your position and have tried to change the subject. I'll take that as a concession unless you have something to add about why this article about a religion should be treated differently than other articles about religions? Seanbonner (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not my argument, it's Wikipedia policy (which is not subject to dispute). — Demong _talk 22:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

(sarcasm!) Instead of redefining TST, I think Wikipedia should rename the '60s religion Orthodox Satanism, even though no reliable sources call it that. *steps away from the mic* — Demong _talk 22:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the first sentence of the article should call TST a religious organization, and I didn't mean to give the impression that I don't.

I guess it's the "irrational fears and misperceptions" language that seems too taking-sides. How do you feel about "assumptions about religious freedom" instead? ("Religious freedom" is a key phrase related to this subject, and it is not otherwise mentioned in the introduction; also the phrase is used by one of the sources.) — Demong _talk 10:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The wording I added was to convey in summary form, as accurately as possible, the content and sources in the body of the article. In part, that includes that their activities were designed to "prompt people to reevaluate their irrational fears and misperceptions." I see no problem with adding "religious freedom", as it is certainly discussed in sources as one intent/goal. But I see as an addition to, rather than a replacement of, "irrational fears and misperceptions". Of possible interest to us here in devising better wording:

• "...theatrical ploys to draw attention to a progressive agenda, we play upon people's irrational fears in a way that hopefully causes them to reevaluate what they think they know, redefine arbitrary labels, and judge people for their concrete actions." -- VICE article, July 30, 2013
• "... their pranks are explicitly meant to show off inconsistency and religious hypocrisy. This recalls the public stunts Anton LaVey did in the late 1960s to put the young Church of Satan in the public eye. At the same time, though, Greaves is not merely campaigning on religious freedom for and from religion, he is actively arguing for a common ground for Satanists across their differences, a community with progressive values to fight for..." The Invention of Satanism By Asbjørn Dyrendal, James R. Lewis, Jesper Aa Petersen
• "... the group has used social media, its “eye-catching name” and imagery such as Baphomet, the “sabbatic goat,” to attract widespread media attention to its lawsuits." The Kansas City Star article, October 8, 2017

Let me know what you think. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps quotation marks, then. ("Irrational fears" are strong words, I don't think it should look like WP might be saying that. Also "misperceptions" is negative and vague, I suggest "perceptions about religion" instead.) — Demong _talk 22:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion: "The Satanic Temple has used satire, theatrical ploys, humor, and legal action, to generate attention, prompt people to reevaluate their "irrational fears" and perceptions about religion, and challenge laws regarding religious freedom and the separation of church and state." Several of those phrases should probably be cited, also. — Demong _talk 22:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Quotuations shouldn't be used that way, according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations.

Nevermind, it's okay. If the quote has a citation, that doesn't apply: "the reader must be able to determine the source of any quotation, at the very least via a footnote". — Demong _talk 05:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic: I would like to make that edit, probably after taking another pass at the clarity and punctuation of the sentence, but I'd like it if you (or anyone) would comment first, about the words in it. — Demong _talk 21:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

(edited to add: my previous suggestion was made more recently than this comment) Another idea, which involves re-writing the second half of the sentence a little: "The Satanic Temple has utilized satire, theatrical ploys and humor in their public activities, to generate attention and challenge laws regarding religious freedom." — Demong _talk 22:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit war about "Broke Ass Stuart" blog interview, and membership

Seanbonner added a new section, The_Satanic_Temple#Membership. The two cited sources are satanictemple.com and a blog post about an interview with some NYC Chapter heads. It was the subject of an edit war, remove: "Addition obviously says signing up with the national organization is primary / more important than other methods, such as whatever individual chapters require. Source does not say that", restore: "Again, please do not delete cited and sourced facts. Reword if you think it's needed, don't delete", remove: "Argh, you re-revert so often. Ironically, I am doing the same thing. This section is not necessary, that information is chapter-specific and mentioned elsewhere in the article, it adds bloat. In many cases, removal is preferable to rewording", restore: "Memberships and Chapters are different things as is clear in interview and website, new section clarifies that confusion."

This is a continuation of a similar matter discussed above, but now it's cancerous, and has spread to a different part of the article. Again the veiled implication is that TST is not a "real" religion, because anyone can just sign up, but they also (immediately!) say that isn't necessary, and that membership in a local chapter is more important. As of now, that section is still part of the article. I strongly recommend that it be removed again. — Demong _talk 11:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The above comment is somewhat confusing in that it doesn't clearly indicate which quoted comment relates to which action taken. Also the reason for removing the content in question could be clarified. My particular questions are about the claim that TST is a real religion. The article as is seems to indicate it is primarily a social or political organization, not a religion. Also, if it is a religion, what are it's specific unique beliefs, if any? Also, the Oxford Handbook of NRMs is a good indicator that it is an NRM but not all NRMs are necessarily separate religions. Are there any sources specifically describing it as one? John Carter (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@John Carter: The question of how to describe TST with regard to religion is more or less the thrust of the entire wall of text above, along with the many edit wars the article has seen. The Church of Satan has a well-publicized problem with TST calling itself a religion (or calling it Satanism or its adherents Satanists). Likewise, some religious and right-leaning publications have challenged it being a religion (as well as some mainstream sources). The problem is, if you look at the reliable sources (removing, for these purposes, op-eds, biased sources, etc.), there is a lot of coverage which calls it (a) religion, (b) [qualifier, like "nontheistic"] religion, (c) a religious organization. That it engages in political activism is not a question. Its central activity and purpose is the assertion of its members religious rights. It, and the reliable sources writing about it, point out that religion is not limited to the few dominant organized religion, is not necessarily theistic, etc. The folly in many of the threads above is getting into Wikipedians' analyses of whether it is a religion as compared to various definitions. That's irrelevant. What matters is that reliable sources characterize it as such. In one of the threads above I link to many good sources which do just that. It is my view that it would be contrary to policy to ignore the way reliable sources write about the subject simply because of editors' own subjective analysis/understanding of what religion is or is not. I think the far more productive question is how to describe it in terms of religion, not whether. I don't agree with the opinion that it should be called a religion, unqualified; I don't agree with the opinion that all mention of religion should be removed from the first sentence when that is so central to coverage of the subject. It seems like "religious organization" or something along those lines is the best way forward. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: that is partially why I suggested new religious movement or NRM which is a bit less problematic than "religion" which is much less well defined.John Carter (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@John Carter: But that's not what the sources call it, so how is it not WP:OR. Also, "religion" is an old concept but it's not actually well defined. In the United States, it's largely defined by a tax designation -- one which Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption, for example, attained (in that case, it's easy to describe it as a "parody religion"; in this case, the closest we have is "nontheistic religion" or just e.g. "political and religious organization" until we have an established concept like "politically and legally motivated religious organization". Again, as per WP:V/WP:NPOV, all that matters is how reliable sources talk about it. Anything else is WP:OR. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Please look at the second current footnote, to the Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements, which I think is probably sufficient basis for describing it as a new religious movement. Possibly a nontheistic one, but there are a few of those. John Carter (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The Oxford reference to which you refer is Chapter 33, titled Modern Religious Satanism, which in its first page establishes:

... Satanism as an organized, codified, and distinct religion was popularized by American Anton Szandor LaVey when he founded the Church of Satan in 1966, a religion that has dovetailed into a "satanic milieu," with multiple satanic individuals and groups self-identifying as practicing religious Satanists. This milieu contains a small amount of stable satanic groups combined with a high turnover of loosely identified Satanists, all vying for their definition of "true" Satanism, yet the satanic environment itself remains consistently growing and present as a religious movement. Contemporary Satanists represent a spectrum of ideas ranging from firm atheistic worldviews (viewing Satan solely as a metaphor) to theistic ... to esoteric ... to polytheistic ...

So our source defines Satanism as both a religion and religious movement, and then goes on to identify the various stable practitioners, including The Satanic Temple, vying to represent the "true" definition and character of the present day satanic religion. If we were to construct our lead sentence based only on this source, we could describe TST as practitioners of an atheistic/nontheistic Satanism, a satanic religion, and part of the satanic religious movement. While TST may aspire to one day be a "new religious movement" in and of themselves, our source appears to be speaking of them as part of the broader satanic movement, and as one flavor/denomination of the Satanism religion. This 2-minute definition and the first 6 minutes of this explanation by a chief spokesman for the TST do not appear to conflict with the Oxford source. The semantic and grammatical hurdle appears to be whether to state "they are a nontheistic satanic religion" or "they practice a nontheistic religion of Satanism". Xenophrenic (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Alternately, also this is somewhat OR in the same sense as "grass is green" is OR, we might maybe describe it as a denomination of the recent Satanic movement. I think it having a particular name qualifies it as being a denomination. John Carter (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

"Grass is green" is not OR, that would definitely be supported by reliable sources. (Not being glib, don't understand the sentiment.) — Demong _talk 09:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

In response to the subject of this section, @Demong: could you clarify whether your objection to this content is because other sources contradict it, or simply because of WP:UNDUE given the basis in primary sources? I'm trying to assume good faith despite knowing that there is an underlying agenda. Ultimately, people with a POV can sometimes propose good edits. I'm not necessarily saying this is one of them, but it seems pretty inoffensive and not irrelevant to the subject. If other sources contradict it, however, please link to them here. Certainly representatives from the organization itself, rather than a chapter, would be the more reliable, and something other than "broke ass stuart" is likely also going to be more reliable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Sorry my complaints were unclear. I think the added section is not NPOV (it is a sneaky way of implying that TST is not a "real religion"); it misrepresents the source's content (because it says, close to explicitly, that the free "national" signup and membership card/certificate is more important than membership in an individual chapter... and the answer/interviewee says the opposite, in the same breath, only a sentence or two later); the information is chapter-specific and redundant to other contents of the article; it gives undue weight to an informal and fairly vague description of the joining process; and the sources themselves are extremely poor. I think the whole section should be removed.

I am also personally annoyed that Seanbonner "won" the argument about similar material by being stubborn and edit warring, and has now even expanded it... give them an inch, and they take a mile. I realize this does not constitute a good argument, but I wanted to express my subjective feelings also.

I am not sure I can find a reliable source that contradicts it, I will look. However, because the given sources are not reliable, as far as I know, no reliable sources make the claim anyway.

Thank you for commenting. (There must also be lurkers, please participate even if it's out of your comfort zone, you will be enhancing the wiki regardless of your specific comment.) — Demong _talk 22:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Demong: I think I understand. In effect, it says "anyone can join" and then it says "you have to be accepted". In that case, obviously an organizational policy trumps what local chapter people say about a local chapter. It sounds like you also take issue with with the "you don't have to be Satanist" part, but I don't see where the source contradicts that. If we had other sources contradicting it there would be a better case to omit, I think. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Those are all separate objections: not NPOV, not true, redundant, undue weight, and bad sources. I can elaborate about the first thing (and second?) np, as you asked, but is that the only part you're questioning? — Demong _talk 07:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes please elaborate because your objections do not seem supported by the sources. Your comment that one kind of membership is more important than the other is not supported by any source. Both sources - the interview and the official website clearly state that there are two kinds of membership, in the national org and in local chapters, and neither state that these are mutually exclusive. There's nothing to support your statement that chapter membership is more important, rather it could be argued by referencing interviews where they cite "thousands" of members and contrast that with statements of chapters being 10-20 members that the free national membership is more important, but I don't see the value in making one more important than the other. There are simply two kinds of membership, the national which is free (for anyone) and the local chapters which each have their own policies. Additionally I don't understand the argument that this is NPOV as it's exactly what is stated by the source, nor do I understand how it's thinly veiled criticism as countless organizations have tiered membership levels, some of which are open to anyone and others of which are more exclusive. Even CoS who you are frequently making comparisons too has a "anyone can join" level and a "you have to apply" level... so? Seanbonner (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Ugh I really don't want to argue anymore, your position is clear: anything you write that is reverted by someone else must be restored, and any revert you do must stand. The question was for Rhododendrites. Your 72hr edit block just expired, immediately editing the article and starting fights with other editors seems unwise. The brief window of civil conversation was nice. (I don't feel obligated to continue assuming good faith.)

"No. There’re two types of membership. Anybody can go to the national site at https://thesatanictemple.com/ with a simple email address you scan [sic] sign up for the newsletter and become a member. And then there’re Chapter members, and that requires some responsibilities to be involved on some level. Every Chapter does that a little differently. No has to pay anything unless you want a card and a certificate. That costs $25, but by no means do you have to do that." (emphasis added)

The sources are terrible, and having an entire section of the article based on citations to the subject's web site, and a blog post, gives it undue weight.

PS: "Veiled", not "thinly-veiled", again. Also "cited and sourced facts" is not a knock-down argument. — Demong _talk 06:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I stopped assuming good faith for you a long time ago, so I'm glad we're at least on the same page there. I still don't see your issue. We have 2 sources saying the same thing, memberships are free for anyone, optional membership cards are $25, local chapters have their own policies. Both the interview and the organization's website say that. Our article says that. Yet you are objecting, what are you objecting to? By this point I know that you object to any edit I make, but it would be helpful if you could clarify your objection as I don't see anything objectionable about it. Seanbonner (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

You "stopped"? You never started. Your first communication regarding me was calling my edit "vandalism".

Correct, that's what it's called when someone goes through an article and wholesale deletes cited and sourced details about the subject without any discussion. It was obvious that you had a bias on the topic, and all of your edits since then have been clearly with the goal of crafting a specific narrative by chipping away anything you perceive to be critical in anyway. So yes, you've shown no reason to assume good faith or interest in improving this as a neutral article. Seanbonner (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

You are mistaken. WP:VANDAL: "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose..." and "Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any [...] edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Assume good faith yourself [...] instead of making personal attacks."

Referring to an edit as vandalism without clear evidence of the editor deliberately causing harm to this wiki is a personal attack and not an assumption of good faith. Them's fightin' words. That is also true of assuming an editor has an unstated agenda (the pot complains that all kettles are black). Also, neither is likely to garner goodwill from them or other editors.

You do not deny failure to AGF: "You never started." "Correct..." That is against the rules, so to speak. — Demong _talk 20:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Not against the rules, it's a guideline, not a policy which I quite enjoy [User|Xenophrenic]'s comment about on his talk page [3] see the Complaints department about not assuming good faith. And regarding vandalism, the purpose of wikipedia is to create encyclopedic and neutral articles, so an editor deleting all critical positions from an article impacts NPOV and is Vandalism. So to use [User|Xenophrenic]'s language, when you came and vandalized the article I was presented with evidence suggesting your edits were not in good faith and acted accordingly. Seanbonner (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

*continues to feed troll* His talk page says he doesn't assume good faith, but not bad faith either. You assumed bad faith. (Also your definition of "clear evidence" is... nonstandard.) — Demong _talk 23:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The article has changed, most objections withdrawn. (Sorry several seemed unclear, the alleged negativity was subtle and its description was apparently hard for me to articulate.) Objection maintained: better sources? — Demong _talk 11:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation

If the consensus is that TST is a religion and not a religious organization representing a separate religion, then we need to add WP:D at the top pointing to [[4]] to avoid confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanbonner (talk • contribs) 03:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. Articles about different denominations of Christianity do not make a similar distinction. What confusion? — Demong _talk 06:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Other demoninations of Christianity have different names, no one could confuse an article about "Catholicism" wherein the members are called "Catholic" and the religion is called "Catholic" with an article about "Methodism" wherein the members are called "Methodist" and the religion is called "Methodist" even though both are demininations of Christianity and both articles make that clear. Since the editors here have decided that TST is both a religious organization and a religion that refers to it's members as Satanists and the religion as Satanism, even though there is already a religion called Satanism whose members are called Satanists this is ripe for confusion, thusly there should be disambiguation link so that people don't confuse Satanism with Satanism. This hasn't been needed before because the article was referring to TST as an organization representing a religion but if TST is a religion then it's suddenly more confusing. Seanbonner (talk) 08:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Personally I am not necessarily sure that dab page is required at all, considering we do have a separate stand-alone article on Satanism which could reasonably provide both links to the various links on the dab page and some context as well. John Carter (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not requesting a dab page, one already exists. I'm requesting a link to it which is similar on other pages such as "For other uses, see Satanism (disambiguation)."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he understands and is suggesting that the existing disambig page could be replaced by links from the main Satanism article.

Also, none of the articles on that disambig page have a "For other uses..." disambig link at the top. Link to things when you give examples, please. — Demong _talk 08:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Please see the top of Satanism - there is a link to the dab page, that's what I'm requesting here. None of the other articles on the dab page are for a religion called Satanism. Again, when this article was about an organization there was no need for any kind of dab because anytime Satanism was referenced it was obviously a reference to the existing religion called Satanism, however now that the decision has been made that TST is it's own religion which also happens to be called Satanism that confuses things, and why clear link to the existing dab page at the top makes sense. Upon further research I see this is called a hatnote. Seanbonner (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Anecdotal accounts of personal confusion and speculation about others' confusion are not persuasive. This seems like an obvious attempt—in the face of "losing" an argument about whether the WP article about TST should call it a religion—to at least insert a note that it's not Original (?) Satanism. Such a note has no basis in precedent, nor does it seem encyclopedic for WP to participate in that discussion. — Demong _talk 22:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Not anecdotal, Wikipedia now has two different articles claiming to be about two different religions both called Satanism, which is exactly why disambiguation pages exist - the precedent is clearly there already and your argument about Christian religions not having it is full of holes. You seem overly worried about "winning" and "loosing" here and keep referencing it like some kind of personal vendetta. I'm trying to write a useful and accurate article for people, this is a newly introduced point of confusion that needs to be addressed. Seanbonner (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

"Precedent" means, like, examples in other articles. Which? — Demong _talk 08:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Satanism <-- Right there at the top. Seanbonner (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Someone might indeed type "satanism" and arrive at that article, when they meant to get to one of the other articles. However, that's a false equivalent, it doesn't apply in "the other direction": no one is going to type "laveyan satanism" expecting to be led to the general Satanism article, nor "church of satan", nor "satanic temple", etc. Previously, I missed a word: none of the other articles on that page have a disambig link at the top. The presence of something in a "primary article" is not strong support for its inclusion in a "secondary article". (Also only one of those secondary articles; unless you think a disambig link should be added to all of them?) — Demong _talk 21:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

None of that applies as none of the other examples are claiming to be both a religion and a religious organization. That's the problem here that needs to be clarified. Seanbonner (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems like that is in your opinion only. — Demong _talk 00:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Any other time when two articles are about something that has the same name WP:D is used, requesting a hatnote here doesn't seem controversial at all, in fact is seems to comply perfectly with Wikipedia policy. Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. In this situation there must be a way for the reader to navigate quickly from the page that first appears to any of the other possible desired articles. As we now have two articles about two religions both of which are called Satanism, policy seems to dictate that the Hatnote should be included pointing to the already existing dab page. The only reason not to add it would be to intentionally confuse people which ironically is what other Satanists have been accusing TST of doing for years. Seanbonner (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I understand what you mean but disagree.

Also, my own position (which is supported by RS, I believe, they seem to use the phrases interchangeably, as do similar WP articles such as Church of Satan) is that the distinction between "religion" and "religious group" is not actually that important in most cases. It seems like you are saying it's really 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, as in the disambig guideline you quoted. 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 is, ironically, 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. — Demong _talk 21:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that assumption is wrong in every way, when someone references "Satanism" they think of "Satanism" - Now can you tell me which Satanism I'm referring to in either of those examples? No, and again that seems purposefully confusing and using the existing policy established on wikipedia to deal with these confusions is expected, I really can't understand how you are objecting to this. Seanbonner (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Given that the objection is described in detail, if you don't understand, it doesn't seem like you are trying very hard. Note that understanding is not the same as agreement. In debate it is useful to be able to present an opponent's argument in a way that pleases them.

Also, it's not an assumption, it is how RS (and similar WP articles) use that language. — Demong _talk 00:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Missouri abortion lawsuit

I don't see any mention of the lawsuit a member in Missouri recently filed regarding recent changes in state law regarding abortion. John Carter (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC) John Carter (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I could be wrong but I believe previously there was a decision that the article should only include activities that were on behalf of the organization and not activities that individual members might have been involved in, however now that the decision has been made that TST is not simply an organization representing a religion but in fact a religion itself perhaps that should be expanded to include any noteworthy activities undertaken by members regardless of if the organization sanctioned them or not? I'd have to look it up but I think the Cumrags For Congress protest [5] was removed from the article because even though it was undertaken by TST members using the TST name in the press, the organization itself didn't initiate it. This lawsuit is a similar situation in that it's an individual TST member using the TST name, but not the organization itself. Seanbonner (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

TST (the organization) filed the lawsuit on behalf of one of its members. The situation is not similar.

Poor source, just the first Google result, I'm sure we can find better: https://medium.com/@JexBlackmore/missouri-court-to-hear-landmark-case-on-satanic-temple-abortion-e950fdf48e39

 — Demong _talk 21:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

If you know a source is poor perhaps you should continue down the google search to find a better one rather than citing one you already know is wrong. TST taking credit for something they didn't do is not only invalid but something that they continue to be accused of. Here's the actual court filing which is a better source [6] and as you can see TST isn't involved. The difference is that this is good PR for TST so they want to take credit for it where as the 'cumrags' thing was bad PR they wanted to distance themselves from, but the situation in both is an individual taking action using the TST name. Which again, if TST is a religion and not an organization, doesn't matter. Seanbonner (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Source standards for a WP article are more rigorous than source standards on a Talk page. It doesn't make sense to discount a link merely intended to report facts and support a statement.

Also, court filings are primary sources, which are "often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." The conclusion "TST isn't involved" is original research. According to reliable secondary sources, either TST itself filed the lawsuit (on behalf of the plaintiff), or perhaps only advised the plaintiff, which is not information that could be found in a primary source. — Demong _talk 00:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC regarding Disambiguation

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

• 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 TST with Satanism. -- 01:02, 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. John Carter (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

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 RS, 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 not actually that important in most cases. It seems like Seanbonner is saying it's really 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 is, ironically, 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 requires disambiguation, IMO none of the other listed articles do. — Demong _talk 01:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

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