|LaVeyan Satanism is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.|
|WikiProject Religion / Left Hand Path / New religious movements||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Occult||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 Poorly written?
- 2 Nietzsche
- 3 Article under re-work Comment
- 4 Re-editing and re-writing
- 5 What does this mean?
- 6 "LaVeyan", "Atheistic", "Modern", etc...
- 7 Citation Overkill
- 8 Queries regarding certain citations
- 9 Who is this Lafontain guy
- 10 Satanic Assertions
- 11 Drury: Biased Source? Quote-mined?
My friend and I were linked to this article, and we noticed how there are a bunch of errors that don't seem to be in line with Wikipedia's standards. I've pasted the list of complaints that he wrote down. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laveyan_satanism#The_Eleven_Satanic_Rules_of_the_Earth section contains unnecessary potholes, people should not need to be linked to the words "opinions" or "advice" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laveyan_satanism#The_Nine_Satanic_Sins entire section is poorly written. mixes first person and second person, and addresses / commands the viewer directly, therefore lacking significant neutrality also, the nine satanic sins section contains several contractions, which i'm p sure are informal" I would rewrite the portions in question, but I don't have enough information on the subject, and I'm terrible myself at staying neutral.
- Okay, the purpose of these sections is to state the rules and restrictions of Satanism. The Rules do not use first person anywhere, it is purely third person. They are the equivalent of the Ten Commandments from christianity. The nine satanic sins may appear contradictory, however to someone who is capable of understanding the concept of Satanism, they are not. They are the equivalent of the Seven deadly sins from christianity. These do not need to be rewritten as anything other than what they already are would be an innaccuracy. He's Gone Mental 09:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The introductory section lists "individualism, self-control and "eye for an eye" morality" as being influenced by Nietzsche but this has nothing to do with Nietzsche's philosiphy and the citation given makes no mention of him. It only mentions Ayn-Rand. Can we remove him?
Actually this has everything to do with Nietzsche. Read thus spake Zarathustra. Satanism is a lot like existentialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Article under re-work Comment
This article has had severe quality problems for a long time. Its content seems to be taken directly from the LeVayan marketing materials and other self promotional material. Other parts of it are lifted directly from the LeVayan "Scriptures"
Please do not revert these large changes. They are the beginning of an effort to rewrite the article so that it's actually a Wikipedia article.
Your edits are blatantly POV and factually incorrect. You're doing nothing for this article so far. The article IS being reworked, little by little, by people who know their shit. You've dumbed down the article by replacing to the point/well versed/and thorough sentences with vague and overly simplistic ones.
Just because you THINK Satanists should call themselves "LaVeyans" doesn't change that fact that they are NOT. Satanism, as a religion, was established in 1966, the philosophy (and the term "Satanism"/"Satanist" with it) were codified in 1969. There is no such thing as "LaVeyanism". If you have a grievance with this particular philosophy being called "Satanism", and its adherence calling themselves "Satanists", then I suggest you take it up with the Church of Satan (you can contact them via their website).
Re-editing and re-writing
I've been re-editing and re-writing this article in efforts to make its content more comprehensive, thorough and above all, sourced; things this article has never had the dignity of being due to bloated, amateurish, POV writing. I'm working to trim away any and all needlessly overwritten and redundant information and replace it with less lengthy, more direct and poignant information while attempting to maintain an 'encyclopedic tone' to the best of my abilities. At this time, I'm using the Church of Satan's official website as the primary reference source. In due time, I hope to find other non-Church of Satan sources to further reference the information presented here. --St.HocusPocus (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
What does this mean?
"When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him."
- The term "destroy" is used to be rabblerousing, though its meaning is made clear in The Satanic Bible. When pondering this statement, keep "lex talionis" in mind: "the law of retaliation is the principle that a person who has injured another person is penalized to a similar degree". If someone is bothering you in public, return the favor. --St.hocuspocus (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
"LaVeyan", "Atheistic", "Modern", etc...
The term "LaVeyan" is not a term that has ever been used by Anton LaVey or the Church of Satan, nor does the term appear in ANY of the religion's literature. Until 1966, no traceable or verifiable organized religion has ever adopted the term "Satanism". Anton LaVey/Church of Satan are the first in history to formally adopt the term and synthesize it's definition within a written canon.
These prefixes should not be recognized on this page due to the fact that they are factually inaccurate and don't exist anywhere but on the internet. Unfortunately, misinformation spreads like a disease on the internet and the term "theistic Satanism" has caught on within the past decade or so; so until the "Theistic Satanism" page be accurately renamed "Devil worship", a prefix for actual Satanism will, unfortunately, still have to be used for means of differentiation.
I request that "LaVeyan Satanism" be moved to "Modern Satanism".
- I suppose the problem is that there are one or two other systems which would claim the name "Modern Satanism".-MacRùsgail (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Alright, this is what I'm gathering from your reversion of my edits. I'm not a 'decorated' editor here (not meant as sarcasm), so, if you're willing to explain further, I'm willing to listen. Essentially, because the title of the article is "LaVeyan Satanism", the lead sentence must also contain the term "LaVeyan Satanism". Must every reference to the religion also be written "LaVeyan Satanism"? Is it not enough to use distinguishing phrases to refer to Satanism such as "Satanism...as codified in The Satanic Bible"?
This has been an issue of dispute from day one, wholly due to the title of the page "Theistic Satanism". None of this would be an issue if the "Theistic Satanism" page be renamed to a factual and encyclopedic (based on its lack of reliable sources and references) phrase such as "the religious (or spiritual or theistic) worship of the devil (or Satan)". I don't see why the "LaVeyan Satanism" page should receive the short, inaccurate, end of the stick due to the lack of proper quality and content control on the "Theistic Satanism" page. --St.HocusPocus (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Unless there's a very good reason not to have it there, the article title appears in the first sentence of the article. In this case, it's important as it clarifies things for readers with respect to Satanism. Having:
- Satanism, as codified in The Satanic Bible, is a religious philosophy founded in 1966 by Anton LaVey.
- Satanism is a broad term referring to a group of social movements comprising diverse ideological and philosophical beliefs.
- is unnecessarily contradictory and confusing. If you want article titles changed, you need to open formal move requests. --NeilN talk to me 15:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Academic? Upon only a quick scan of these references you've provided I've found factual inaccuracies. The most blatant of which is that the author claims that the Church of Satan makes the claim that "only CoS members are real Satanists". This is false; this claim has never been made by LaVey or Gilmore, nor does appear in any of the Church's literature. --St.HocusPocus (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that so long as a statement is made by a source thought to be academic, even if the statement is completely false, it is treated as 'true', regardless? If that's the way it works here, then there's not much I can do about it. The claim that "one need not be a member to be a Satanist" is made in "The Satanic Scriptures" by Peter H. Gilmore for starters, though I suppose official Church of Satan texts aren't considered reputable sources for information on the Church of Satan. --St.HocusPocus (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Neil, we don't need "academic" sources for everything, just reliable sources. Also it's okay to use primary sources in certain situations. Now, the article title should be whichever term it is that most of the reliable sources call it. If it's "LaVeyan Satanism" then that's what the article title is. (I don't know what majority of the sources say, I haven't done that kind of research.) A possible alternative would be to call it Satanism and add a disambiguating word in parenthesis, like Satanism (LaVey).
- When academic sources say something, dissenting opinions should come from equally strong sources. Primary sources can be used with a grain of salt as they have an agenda to promote. I'm not sure why you're bringing up Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. That stopped being used as a catchphrase in 2012. --NeilN talk to me 13:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes but we're talking about what this branch of Satanism is called. If a source calls it anything other than "LaVeyan Satanism" then it's not necessarily a "dissenting opinion". Actually I'm gonna butt out of this discussion because I really don't have any further thoughts on this. This article is so heavily based on primary and unreliable sources that it really needs a good pruning.
- That link was to User:St.HocusPocus in response to their question "so long as a statement is made by a source thought to be academic, even if the statement is completely false, it is treated as 'true', regardless?"
- Also it doesn't matter at all if you think linking to that article is ~*like so twenty minutes ago*~, because Wikipedia's principles and values do not get old, also there can always be newbies around who haven't read every policy and essay on this site. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Very true. Equally problematic is that all of the references used in this lede are non-reliable, primary sources, most of them from the writings of Gilmore. I've been focusing my attention on improving the main body of the article using academic sources but I will try to get around to improving the lede and dealing with these problems in the near future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Queries regarding certain citations
Hello there. I've noticed that a few of the citations which have been added to the article don't link to entries in the Referencing, and I've been trying to sort this out, but I'm having difficulty pinning down some of these citations. For instance, there are several references to "Dyrendal, Lewis & Petersen 2010" but a Google search isn't revealing much. Now, there is a 2015 book by these three authors, The Invention of Satanism (which I have yet to read), so it might be that this is an error in the year of the citation, but just thought that I would check. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm just going to go ahead and remove these problematic citations. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Looking at this article as it exists at present, there are two sections in particular which jump out at me as being particularly problematic. The first is The Satanic Bible section, which has been copy-and-pasted wholesale from The Satanic Bible article. That means that citations have been carried through from one article to another without any of the fuller bibliographic references being transferred from one article to another (I am, however, willing to go through and make those transfers myself). However, given that we already have a (GA-rated) article on The Satanic Bible, I must query whether we really need a whole section on this subject here, and even if it is to stay then it surely can be cut-back somewhat. The second section which concerns me at present is the lede. As was specified in the above section, the lede is experiencing "citation overkill", with many of these citations being problematic for they don't stack up against any of the references in the Bibliography. The lede can easily be cleaned up to better reflect the instructions found in WP:Lede, which will entail the removal of many of these dodgy citations. Hopefully once these problems have been dealt with, then the article can be considered for GA nomination, which would allow it to gain Good Article status alongside other Satanism-themed articles like the Order of Nine Angles. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Who is this Lafontain guy
The article refer to an https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_de_La_Fontaine and I dont know if this guy is the oldes man on earth. But something is wrong. Does the man exist?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs)
- The link is to the wrong individual. We do not have an article on the anthropologist Jean La Fontaine, so I have removed the link. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
In the book "The Satanic Scriptures", Peter H. Gilmore compiled as list of philosophical assertions that are meant to serve as an encapsulation of an individual's "journey from observing reality to declaring themselves a Satanist".
- Nature encompasses all the exists. There is nothing supernatural in nature.
- The spiritual is an illusion. I am utterly carnal.
- Reason is my tool for cognition making faith anathema. I question all things. I am a skeptic.
- I do not accept false dichotomies, finding instead the "third side" which brings me closest to understanding the mysteries of existence.
- The universe is neither benevolent nor malevolent; it is indifferent.
- There are not Gods. I am an atheist.
- There is no intrinsic purpose to life beyond biological imperatives. I thus determine my own life's meaning.
- I decide what is of value. I am my own highest value therefore I am my own God.
- I am an I-theist.
- Good is that which benefits me and promotes that which I hold in esteem. Evil is that which harms me and hinders that which I cherish.
- I live to maximize the good the Good for myself and those I value. At all times I remain in control of my pursuit of pleasure. I am an Epicurean.
- Merit determines my criteria for the judgement of myself and others. I judge and am prepared to be judged.
- I seek a just outcome in my exchanges with those around me. I thus will do unto others as I would prefer they do unto me. However, if they treat me poorly, I shall return that behavior in like degree.
- I grasp the human need for symbols as a means for distillation of complex thought structures.
- The symbol that best exemplifies my nature as an aware beast is Satan, the avatar of carnality, justice and self-determination.
- I see myself reflected in the philosophy created by Anton Szandor LaVey.
- I am proud to call myself a Satanist.
I feel like this list contains some pertinent information that would feature well within the "Basic tenets" section of the article, though I cannot find any third party reference to this list. If anyone anybody is aware of one, please share. I'll continue to search for a reference. --St.HocusPocus (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Drury: Biased Source? Quote-mined?
There are a number of quotations sourced to Nevill Drury. He wrote the book and the 1985 film version of "The Occult Experience", which I hear went directly to the Temple of Set and interviews only Michael Aquino and his wife for Satanism. I wonder if the lines here about the Church of Satan being sourced to him are really just from Aquino or maybe in directly quote-mined from quoting him, in which case it would be an embarrassingly biased source. Can anybody confirm this? I'll try to locate the book myself in the meantime. WillieBlues (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)