Talk:The Satanic Temple

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


RfC regarding Disambiguation[edit]

Closing this RFC, consensus is to oppose the proposal; a hat note is not required. Fish+Karate 11:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Survey options[edit]

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

Threaded discussion[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then feel free to explore any of those options you feel are needed for other pages, however here there's a conflict I'm trying to resolve. I'm still unsure about this "lost argument" as the discussion was about if TST is a religious organization or a religion and people presented there cases and a consensus was reached. I've stated clearly that while I still don't agree that is the position that TST is taking (though I've repeatedly stated that we shouldn't base our statements here on their positions but on available facts and sources so I'm fine with that), I think it's better for the classification and clarification questions that have been looming. So now that that decision has been made I'm just trying to help clarify the incredibly weird and unusual situation that there are now two different religions called Satanism as a reader may not understand the deep nuance happening at this point. I'm trying to default to Wikipedia standard and basics for clarity. Seanbonner (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia is extremely useful, but when I'm looking for unusual or deep nuance, that's not where I go. — Demong talk 05:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Exactly my point, a reader shouldn't need deep nuance to understand an article, that's why the clarification is needed. Without it, nuance is needed. Seanbonner (talk) 09:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I am much like someone else has already said finding it extremely difficult to continue to believe that at least one editor in this discussion is not being driven by a personal wish to promote one group over others. I welcome anyone coming to this discussion to look at the currently extant NPOVN discussion at and the discussions it links to and perhaps ask themselves if they believe the time may have come to consider significant sanctions. John Carter (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
This issue is that Seanbonner thinks it's an important subject that needs to be clarified, and other people (including reliable sources) think it's not. — Demong talk 20:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

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

That doesn't even make sense, as noted if it's it's own "religion" (which I originally objected to but now see the merits of which is not "conceding") then there's no question if it's "real" Satanism or not, because it's it's own religion.... so?? And I've never once tried to argue if TST is "real Satanism" or not, I've only pointed to how their own positions and statements have contradicted each other which in my opinion matches up with statements that the religion part of their platform is secondary to the political part, and I've only tried to ensure that this article is factual and accurate and not repeating PR statements as facts. When I found this article the talk page had several concerns about the NPOV of the article being too favorable, I tried to add in some properly sourced criticism to balance it and in turn have been accused of NPOV even being told that some facts shouldn't be included. Perhaps we should reach out to the earlier editor who was a admitted member of TST and have them rewrite the article from scratch, I have a feeling Demong wouldn't have any objection to that version. Seanbonner (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I have questioned too-positive language on this page, and made edits to the article trying to temper language I think is not neutral (in TST's favor). — Demong talk 20:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Also "...add in some properly sourced criticism to balance it..." is usually not a good strategy to achieve neutrality. It may be more effective to remove the positive, than balance it with negative. WP articles shouldn't really contain praise or criticism, except in a separate section or clearly attributed quotation. — Demong talk 22:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
WorldCat should list the most recent reference books on NRMs. One could look there for such works and then go to WP:RX to see how they define the term. I see the Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements was last printed and presumably updated in 2016 for instance. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose and Close per WP:SNOW - RfC not neutrally worded (e.g. "unlikely a reader will confuse Satanism with Satanism") and misunderstands standard practice for disambiguation hatnotes. The links can be done in the article. If there are other topics on Wikipedia called "Satanic Temple," then such a hatnote would make sense. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Can we try something?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm game. If everyone else is as well I'll walk away and promise not to edit anything here until Feb 6th, how's that? Caveat of course is if I get flooded with notices that edits I spent time researching were deleted without discussion then I'm jumping back in. But I agree that a few days off would be good for everyone and once again Rhododendrites that you for your level head and attempt to improve things. I like your idea on the root issue, though I'm having a hard time seeing the solution as it is - and please hear me out - it seems to me that some of the other editors without speculation on motives want it to be all the things you mentioned but only want to treat it like one in any given instance. I just want something consistent, if it's a religion let's treat it like a religion, if it's an organization let's treat it like an organization, but not that it's a religion in this section and an organization in that section. And maybe that's the core issue, because those things are inherently different and come with their own issues and realities - especially in relation to how to discuss members/supporters/etc and I think a big issue here is that many of the statements about and by TST can be contradicted by other statements by and about TST, so we're stuck in this insane tug of war trying to sort out. So here's my weird idea to consider over the next week - Split the article. This is a crud example but in the way that Jews and Judaism is a people and a religion which are not the same, nor mutually exclusive, maybe there's is something to consider here and split TST(Organization) and TST(Religion) or maybe it's TST(Organization) and a new section on [Satanism] about TST as a new sect? I don't know, I just want this all to make sense somehow. Seanbonner (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm haven't checked on the info regarding the new Missouri lawsuit, which is odd considering I live there, but the documents of that case may be useful regarding these questions if they directly address any possible religious beliefs of the TST. Also agree that determining exactly what should be in the Satanism article or the Left-hand path page or somewhere else. John Carter (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Baphomet (sculpture)[edit]

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

August 2018 "Civil War"[edit]

According to this article [1] there is somewhat of a "Civil War" (that's what the article is calling it) within TST, with the former head of the largest chapter posting a long resignation letter [2] accusing the management of a long list of things from sexism to working with nazi-supporters. At the same time the entire LA chapter quit and has rebranded as The Satanic Collective [3] and apparently every single international chapter has left starting their own and entirely unrelated organization called "Satanic Temple International" [4] as well as a handful of other individual resignation letters being posted as well. TST responded on their spokesperson's Patreon page and in turn disparaging the people who left. It's not clear if how these new rebranded groups are going to distinguish themselves but a quick look at Satanic Temple International page suggests they are much more interested in rituals than TST may have been. The core complaints seem to be sexist attitudes of the management, lack of attention to issues brought by the chapters to "central ministries", a lawsuit filed by TST against twitter, the lawyer hired by TST for that lawsuit and funds contributed by the chapters and donations being used for things people didn't agree to. As these events likely require significant edits to the page I'd like to ask here how best to proceed with that without sparking an edit/revert war. Thoughts? Seanbonner (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Portland [5] and St Louis [6] have publicly split now as well. This seems like it needs it's own section rather than having most of the "Chapters" section being about Chapters leaving. Seanbonner (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Religious Vs. Religion[edit]

I am aware of the above RfC on debating how TST should be described. Now that that's settled; I think the lead sentence should be slightly edited. It currently reads "The Satanic Temple is a nontheistic religion and political activist group..." but I think it should be changed to "The Satanic Temple is a nontheistic religious and political activist group..." with the redirect still going to nontheistic religion. This is a minor grammar thing, but I believe that The Satanic Temple is a group, which would stipulate using an adjective, (id est religious)) to modify it rather than the noun religion. I guess the religion might be called Satanic Templisim? If no one objects to this minor edit, I will make it in a week, on September 18th. Cheers, Flipster14191 (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)