Jump to content

Talk:Church of Satan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

LaVeyan Satanism reference removal

Removed link to LaVeyan Satanism. This term is used only by people who are not members of the Church of Satan, and as such, is intended to be specifically derogatory. However, as I have no interest in arguing with those who feel it is necessary to use this term, I simply deleted the reference here, which seems fair, given that it is a description of the organization itself. The Church of Satan doesas strictly defined by The Satanic Bible-- this is fact, and not (I think) subject to controversy. A simple visit to the Church of Satan's web site (www.churchofsatan.com) will prove this to be true, if one knows the content of The Satanic Bible.

Also added a statement about membership numbers. Generally, especially with religions/organizations, these kinds of documents tend to include a statement such as, "there are currently an estimated 14,000 practicing [insert religion here], most reside in North America." I thought the lack of such a statement should be addressed--the answer, in this case, being "unknown," as it is strict Church of Satan policy to refuse to provide membership statistics--though spokespersons will often provide vague estimates like "thousands of members" when pressed by journalists. --Sam1023 02:27, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Someone added links to Michael Aquino and the Temple of Set without explanation, and I erased them. The Church of Satan is completely unrelated to the Temple of Set. Michael Aquino publishes articles about the Church of Satan on the ToS web site, but this is no more a legitimate connection than linking an entry on Paris Hilton to The National Enquirer or Star. These organizations exist independently of one another, and have for decades. The fact that one claims to have inside information about the other does not legitimize a link between the two. --Sam1023 18:18, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cult?

Seeing as how this "religion"'s "scriptures" have only been around for under half a century, I think this should go in the cult category (besides other obvious reasons). --66.229.183.101 06:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Because it's a relatively new religion, it's a cult? What are these "other obvious reasons?" What traits characteristic of a cult does the CoS exhibit? --� WhyBeNormal ? 00:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The Church of Satan, does not exhibit cult traits. It is a decentralized religion, where no central meeting point or physical place to congregate. Membership does not require any meeting or contact with other Satanists and for the most part this type of group behavior is discouraged. Their emphasis on individuality is inconsistent with cult techniques. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkpalace (talk • contribs) 23:25, 17 February 2006(UTC).
I propose New Religious Movement as more neutral description. From my own accounts, it has been very rare for LaVeyan Satanists (sic) to refer to Satanism as a "religion," moreso a philosophy.12.96.46.209
I find quite the opposite, that Church of Satan members generally find it derisive when outsiders insist that Satanism does not qualify as a religion but only a philosophy. Anton LaVey himself said very plainly that he intends Satanism to be a religion, and that it qualifies as such by possessing both ritual and dogma. "Dabblers" who likewise attempt to downplay Satanism as a religion are often frowned upon by members of the Church. Given that this article in particular concerns the Church of Satan, I feel it is only appropriate to use the language that they choose for themselves. --Lvthn13 13:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I removed a vandal's commentary from this page. Hope no one misses the poorly written rhetoric. :) User:Heithinn 23 April, 2005

I removed some vandalism a few minutes ago, some vandalism that the last editor for the page missed. The vandalism I removed was up for a whole day! Didn't check to see how long the vandalism the other guy removed was there for. But if it's being vandalized that frequently maybe this page ought to be protected. Bluecollarchessplayer 02:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I removed someone's destruction of parts of the article from April 6, may have removed some small aditions to article in process.Jimhoward72 19:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Removed vandilism about President of USA in a few locations. M00nh34d 11 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by M00nh34d (talk • contribs) 06:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sammy Davis Jr

I couldn't find any objective proof that Sammy David Junior has any affiliation with the church of satan so I deleted this statement, it seems heresay to me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.132.176 (talk • contribs)

I couldn't find any proof either and it's still on there (or perhaps back on there). I'll delete it again. --Vaughnstull 00:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Look at a Google Search for Sammy Davis Jr Satanist And you will see countless references to his membership in the Church. There is some discussion that he was only a member as a joke, however it's clear he had an association with early Church members and was a member at one point. Sean Bonner 16:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
This is not clear at all. Just because it returns Google results doesn't make it a fact: it is more likely an urban legend. Something very mundane (like Davis going to a party hosted by Lavey) probably started the rumor. Algabal 06:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I just removed the source for Sammy Davis' membership, an article on thesleaze.co.uk. Which is obviously completely made up - like all articles on this site. How could anybody take this serious and consider it a credible source? Just look at the main headline of the page "The Sleaze: Incredible Lies Today - Still Bollocks Tommorow!"

Note: There is a photograph that shows Anton Lavey and Sammy Davis Jr. together that shows that they at least knew of each other and had met at least once that I have seen. The two are embracing and posing, in almost the same way that Marilyn Manson and Levay have been photographed together, as if they knew each other in a more familiar sense, and not just a photo of two people who just happened to be at the same place together.

Jayne Mansfield

Jayne Mansfield had a meeting strickly for the purpose of publicity with the CoS founder, she wasn't affialted either, these glaring factual inconsistencies and sensationalist claims make me question the validity of the entire article, I believe it needs to be flagged- 67.169.170.140 04:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

There are many articles and photos showing that Mansfield and LaVey had a more of a relationship than you suggest. While it's debatable that they were every involved romanticaly she definitely had an involvement with the church. Sean Bonner 23:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, while I have been recently questioning all the claims made by Anton, I don't completely fault him or Blanche Barton for promoting his 'legacy' either, it goes with the philosophy of the religion, i.e. no pompous and righteous hypocracy if they were embellishing aspects of his life. But, is there someone out there, who is objective and has the resources that can straighten things out? I tend to dismiss Jayne Mansfield fans protestations as those who are horrified of the idea it might be true, or that it would tarnish their idealized 'Pink' image of her - or to others who aren't so concerned with Jayne as discrediting LaVey. I'm not trying to insinuate this is what was behind the previous comments; could be just an honorable quest for truth, but that is what I initially interpreted them as. Because, on the other hand, I don't take everything Anton LaVey, Barton Wolfe, Peter Gilmore, and Blanche Barton say as gospel either - though I do proudly own (not counting CD's) The Satanic Bible, Satanic Rituals, Satanic Witch, Devil's Notebook, Satan Speaks!, and The Secret Life of a Satanist. Especially in the last one, there are many claims in the chapter: The Devil and St. Jayne, including copies of notes which are asserted to be in her handwriting, and in the center of the book are photographs of Anton with Jayne and her family taken by Walter Fischer. While not impossible, before photoshop it would have been more trouble doctoring them than it was probably worth - if anyone knows someone knowledgeable on the subject of photo analysis, Id like their opinion. Anton too claims that she had the initial meeting strictly for publicity - he never had any delusions about why people were interested intitially. His claims of affiliation happen after that. Don't simply claim there are factual inconsistencies, give proof to debunk the photos and claims of LaVey. Given the topic, were she affiliated, do you honestly think her management wouldn't deny it?! Perhaps a weasel argument, but it casts reasonable doubt for me that those in charge of her memory would have just as likely gotten rid of all evidence especially had she truly been affiliated. Khiradtalk 11:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Charles Manson?

It seems that there was at least some connection between Charles Manson and the CoS, but I haven't found anything conclusive enough to make an edit. Ataru - July 31, 2005

Charles Mansons used the phrase "Hail Satan" in his "Family", this greeting is also used by the CoS. This is the only link that I know of. -Unknown
The link would be Susan Atkins, whom danced in LaVey's Topless Witches' Revue prior to joining Manson. As to her person and the Manson Haight-Ashbury burnout types, LaVey had nothing but contempt for them in his writings. People who go to Ozzfest also give the sign of the horns (which should be done with the Left hand!). That doesn't make them Satanists any more than singing along to Mr. Crowley. Khiradtalk 11:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe Manson had no connection apart from that stated above, and living in Haight-Ashbury where the Black House was located. Tenuous links were similarly drawn by Bugliosi (and others since) between Manson and The Process Church of The Final Judgment. Again, it was a matter of proximity, Manson living in the same street as the Process HQ. He and other family members have denied any involvement with ProcesseansBenvenuto (talk) 08:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What do they believe?

I came to this article hoping to find out about the belief system of members of the Church of Satan. Instead I got an article which is mostly concerned with the structure and administration of the Church. Can anybody say more about the Church's beliefs than "Every individual can be his or her own god and is responsible for his or her own destiny"? Adambisset 08:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The Church of Satan's tenets are found under the article for LaVeyan Satanism. They are separate because membership in the Church of Satan is not necessary to be a Satanist. Your comment, however, suggests that perhaps I should edit the article in the future to make this more clear. - Lvthn13
Thanks! :-) Adambisset 11:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest! It is for interested readers that I put in the effort to maintain these articles and ensure their quality. --Lvthn13 00:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I think this could still be made much more clear. I echo the original poster's comments 2 years later 66.30.139.105 (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

Further efforts to clean up the article; new section added on Church of Satan specific policies and practices, certain sections moved (especially former end paragraph of the history section), others clarified and additional information added. Ongoing effort that may see further revision as time permits. ==Lvthn13 14:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson

Is he really a Reverend in this church? His article says so.--Chili14 01:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson was awarded the title of Reverend by Anton LaVey prior to his death. That title has never been revoked nor has it been surrendered by Mr. Manson. --Lvthn13 03:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Probably worth noting that the title is simply honorary, Manson plays no real part in the organization.Gray915 22:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtLgSFc_Rq4&feature=related for a Statement of Marilyn Manson. -MDR 87.123.118.196 (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Lifetime Registration

Just in case I haven't been keeping up, the $200 registration fee makes you a lifetime registered member, yes? I'm thinking to add this to the article. Also, to mention how the fee was upgraded a couple years ago from $100. Tyciol 07:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Autotheism/Suitheism

Would Satanism be considered a form of Autotheism or Suitheism??

I'd believe so, yes. 70.19.180.162 01:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
It would frequently be autotheism but I'm not sure if it has to be. Much like the magic, I think the 'I am god' is more of an affirmation of importance and worship and isn't example the same as the traditional meaning of god via 'theism' which implies supernatural abilties or degrees of omniscience or omnipotence, which I don't think most satanists believe they have, even among those who believe that magic affects the world. Tyciol (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Witch/Warlock

Unless someone can show a respectable source, i'd like that part of the ranking to be changed as i know that witch/warlock is a Wiccan term, and in my opinion, this only supports the idea that Wiccans are Satan worshippers despite the fact that Wiccans don't beleive in Satan 74.114.224.156 06:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And i'd like to add that as someone who is friends with many Wiccans, and as someone who is somewhat Wiccan theirself, it's a bit irritating to hear "demon worshipper" or "satan worshipper" where ever i, or my friends go.
It's also kind of ignorant to think that "witch" soley belongs to Wicca, as it is a term used in many different forms of Paganism in general (which is not to be confused that I think Satanism is a form of Paganism, which it is not). JanderVK (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Preposterous request... It is an official title within the CoS hierarchy... it should remain as is. Satanists don't expect Wiccans to stop using the term, and it annoys them just as much. 66.56.237.64 10:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LaVeyKnife.jpg

Image:LaVeyKnife.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Satanic bible cover.JPG

Image:Satanic bible cover.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Nine=Ten?

"Satan hates Jessica and looks down upon those who dont" Is that really part of the Church of Satan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.56.242 (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

501(c)(3)?

So is this church tax-exempt? 74.68.123.162 (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's accepted as a Religion, and so if the Church of Scientology are, then I presume the Church of Satan is also. ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The church has activly shunned tax-exempt status as part of it's Pentagonal Revisionism philosophy. It is viable, however, so it is a personal choice as opposed to something forced upon them Devilmaycare (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Yup, DMC has provided a great example of where one should not assume things about it. That said... while official CoS things may not be exempt, I've not encountered anything prohibiting a member from getting one of those free ULC ministry things so as to apply it to exempt their individual worship or grotto activities. Tyciol (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No listing of Holidays!

The list of observance days seems to be missing - on this Walpurgisnacht, I think that they should be added. Objections? I'll cite this. Shamanchill (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

We should definatly list Walpurgisnacht as the aniversary of its founding and as a day of celebration, however we shouldn't realy have a big list of holidays, as they refer to the religion as seen on the Satanism page, whereas this page is about the organisation and its work, rather than its beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilmaycare (talk • contribs) 23:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggest merge of Pentagonal Revisionism

Pentagonal revisionism doesn't seem to be mentioned in the CoS article much, when other numbered tenets such as the eleven rules etc are. Pentagonal revisionism has no notability independent of the Church of Satan, and has not been discussed in many independent WP:RS - no mentions in mainstream papers as would be indicated in google news. [1] the only hit is for an album with the same name, by what I think is a little-known band. I think if the Pentagonal Revisionism info was here instead, this article would be more encyclopedic, as an important doctrine (perhaps) that isn't mentioned at the mo would be included. Merkin's mum 21:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Diabolos Rex

There should be an article on Diabolos Rex. I have seen him on television, namely the Montel Williams Show back in 1992; Diabolos was the most charismatic of the guests and I have linked his name, so someone will create on article on him. I don't have much information on him so I really cannot do it myself.jeanne (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Teresa Hidy, Aaron Joehlin, Matthew McRaith?

Who exactly is are these people? References, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GDA9 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Titles in the Church

I am trying to understand the titles and/or levels of authority that can be obtained as a member of this church. The article mentions five degrees for active members such as Reverend, or Doctor, and later mentions they include the titles of Priest/Priestess, Magister/magistra, etc... Which titles are equal in authority, and which are of higher authority? Would someone please list a hierarchy of titles in the CoS? Thanks in advance 76.123.165.106 (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The titles are Satanist, Warlock, Reverend, Magister, High Priest - I think. I know somewhere on the CoS website is verification of this. I know for sure that Warlock, Reverend, Magister is right as CoS members (see satanismtoday.net and devilsmischief.com) have statet in their shows that they got promoted from Warlock to Reverend and from Reverend to Magister respectively. -MDR 17:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.123.118.196 (talk)

CoS priesthood in the media?

There are three levels of priesthood (priest/magister/magus, also called priestess/magistra/maga for women), I am wondering, of known members (such as those who interact with the media or who have an obvious presence on the internet, at what rank are the members of CoS considered notable enough to mention? Obviously it can't be too low or there'd be too many people. For this reason, I think basic priesthood would not be notable enough, but I am not sure in regards to Magister/Magus since I'm not sure how numerous the total numbers in these two are.

One interesting Magister who might be worth mentioning is Nemo because he has published a book with a foreward by Peter Gilmore (who is already mentioned in the article). Nemo has been on the Coast to Coast AM radio show in 2003 which reran in 2005. It seems to be for something besides the CoS though, but rather for the 'Vampire Temple' linked to in his profile. From what research I have done on that, it is newer than CoS (regd in 1989 versus 1966 I think...) and probably has a smaller membership due to this and keeping a more obscure profile. This sort of dual membership is an example of how CoS does allow membership in other organizations as long as they do not claim 'satanic'. VT seems to be similar in that they do not allow membership in other organizations that claim to be 'vampire'. In either case, both seem to be looking to own the rights to the use of those words in a religious organization's context. Tyciol (talk) 08:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Liberace

What? Please, I'll pay good money to know how Liberace was involved with satanism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.49.216 (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism and controversies

Where is the section of the article that discusses these? I am sure there's a lot of them and yet there are none in the article. Fix it. (me) 22:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Surprisingly, there hasn't been as much as you might think (barely anything notable, to my knowledge) - if you can find anything verifiable and notable, feel free to add it. ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
"Criticisms and controversy" have fallen in disfavor on Wikipedia. The reasons are clear: human nature draws people to conflict, and "Controversies" and criticism sections are problems. First, absent guiding criteria, people unwittingly imbibe decisions with their own Point of View. Criticism sections are no longer welcome; instead, embed the criticism topically and throughout, creating a better flow for the reader with clarity of reference. The policy is at WP:STRUCTURE, though it's clearly more of a guideline since how to determine what falls under the policy's purview is the fulcrum of the policy. But to give you the gist: disperse criticism, don't hide it or compartmentalize it. --David Shankbone 08:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

What are "Psychic Vampires"?

Under 'main text', one of the bullets in the list is:

  1. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires.

What are psychic vampires? Neither of the words are used anywhere else on the page, and the meaning is completely unclear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoubleFelix (talk • contribs) 20:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It's explained within the Satanic Bible itself. A "Psychic Vampire" is generally a person who leeches off another person's existence. The Bible mentions that they make others feel responsible and indebted to them without cause - they'll practice the art of manipulation to make the other person feel that they owe the vampire some sort of charity. Richard BB 21:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
You may wish to check the definition at Psychic vampire.—Ash (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Books by Anton LaVey

There are a lot of things wrong with this section. Not only is LaVey written "LA Vey", he is also mentioned twice as author for "The Devil's Notebook" and "Satan Speaks!". Burton H. Wolfe, Peggy Nadramia and Marilyn Manson have each only written the introduction or afterword for the respective books; they are not co-authors. I am for deleting those names as somebody reading this article is confused about who actually wrote those books. The same goes for "Books by Peter H. Gilmore". Other people contributed articles, but it is till Peter H. Gilmore's book. -MDR 87.123.118.196 (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Beliefs

Echoing comments from years ago, this article nowhere addresses belief (either for or against) the supernatural. The Church of "Satan" article, amazingly, never addresses Satan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.51.254 (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That's because LaVeyan Satanism is atheistic. Satan is a word meaning "the accuser" or "the challenger"; it doesn't necessarily denote the devil. The devil was the challenger of God, so he is called Satan, but Satan is not always the devil. Anyway, the Church of Satan article is about the structure of the church; the LaVeyan Satanism article addresses its beliefs.

Satanic Bible mention

Satanism and Church of Satan but neither one makes more than a passing mention of The Satanic Bible - which seems like a pretty big oversight. Should this be a separate entry, or go under one of the other two? I'd like to write something for it, but I'm not sure where to put it. RL Barrett 23:25 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

This is from meta wikipedia:

The Church of Satan is in no way connected with the Christian/Islam/Jewish Satan. The Church of Satan is a religion that believes in self freedom. They do not hurt children, animals, lie, cheat, or steal. They have rules against this. The Church of Satan believes that all children are sacred and shouldn't be harmed in anyway. Animals should only be killed in protection or for food. You cannot kill people unless it is in self defense. Yet again I stress, 'Satan' is not the Christian Satan. Just because a word means something in your religion doesn't mean it means the same thing in another. For real information on true Satanism, see http://www.satanism101.com and various links from http://www.churchofsatan.com.

Ness of <blackmilk.thekult.net> (12.246.119.xxx) 20:54, 22 Jun 2002 . . 12.246.119.xxx (moving essay from the main site)

Subjective judgement references removed

There were some value judgements in this article, such as "many people hate the bastard", and "this cult should be banned", that I removed. I am not a member of any organized religion, but promote the freedom to pursue any such religion. Such crude and obnoxious editorial does not belong in a factual Wikipedia article. Shawn 15:12 EST 22 March 2005.

Oprah

Um, if you happen to see Oprah in history, sorry, that Wikipedia spoof thingy sent me here and I didn't notice the Wikipedia logo. -Unknown

Probanly Encyclopedia Dramatica or Uncyclopedia. They need some content distinction for real articles to stand out as Real. -Unknown

Sources

I removed the tag for "unsourced" because it is entirely unclear what sources the person who placed this wishes to see cited. Virtually all of the information on this page is derived directly from either the Church of Satan webpage, Blanche Barton's books "The Secret Life of a Satanist" and "The Church of Satan" or Anton LaVey's own books, all of which are noted in this article. One could theoretically annotate every fact presented with one of these source citations, but this would be relatively wasteful as 95% of it is immediately verifiable by the CoS webpage. - Lvthn13

Criticisms and Opinions

Do the criticisms listed in this article make sense to anyone? I'm quite familiar with Satanism and the Church of Satan, but that paragraph seems to make no real sense. -Unknown

"No heaven of glory bright nor Hell were sinners roast." Grow up man. -Unsigned

Automatic archiving settings inappropriate

Discussion on this page is quite limited. There are only 33 threads in the newly created archive. Still, the bot settings are for threads to get archived after 65 days of inactivity. I think that should be 365. I would even propose that we disable automatic archiving altogether. __meco (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The bot is actually set to leave the most recent four threads on the page - the only reason we're down to two is that someone manually cleaned up a lot of old posts which were lacking proper timestamps. Two months seems a fair enough measure of a stale thread, if we get back above four threads again. --McGeddon (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Boyd Rice declares himself High Priest

Seems to be all change on the COS front, as Boyd Rice has declared himself Top Dog, having been invested with that honor 13 years previously, by LaVey himself. 86.164.225.229 (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Do we have any CoS sources that say Rice is the new head? If they're not saying he's in charge, he kinda isn't. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The official CoS website does not recognize Rice as the current high priest. Unless their website crew was the first part of the organization desolved, it appears he's about as much the HP as I am the Dalai Lama. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Roger that, thanks. :) GreenStork (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

A REMINDER

ATTENTION "SAHTAHN":

  • WE DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL IDEAS ABOUT OSIRIS, THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, KABBALAH, OR YOUR DELUSION THAT YOU ARE AN ANGEL. YOU CANNOT WRITE WHAT YOU WANT BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT WRITING ANYTHING ON-TOPIC.

(For those that are curious, check the history, a crazy IP editor has been using this page as a forum for his off-topic insanity. I normally would not use this sort of stuff, but this nutjob just won't quit even though noone is supporting him.) Ian.thomson (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I've protected the page as a last resort since I think the ordinary first resort, blocking, isn't going to be effective over such a large and variable range. Though I hate to have to do this because even though there aren't many edits to this page, an important thread above, the one about Boyd Rice, was started by an IP. —Soap— 18:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Derleth

Just to explain my deleting the reference to August Derleth's being an associate of LaVey's - the only evidence for this seems to be a claim by LaVey himself that Derleth attended a meeting in the sixties at LaVey's house. I was in constant correspondence with Derleth from 1961 until his death, and he never mentioned this - indeed, he hardly ever travelled further from Sauk City than Madison. Ramsey Campbell (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Church of Satan/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs reference citations and sources. Badbilltucker 23:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 23:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 14:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism/POV

Article currently starts w/ "The Church of Satan is a bunch of idiots who worship Satan." Clear case of vandalism and non-neutral POV. Alberrosidus (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The References need work

Many, if not most, of the references in the article body come either from the Church of Satan's website itself or from primary sources such as Rev. Gilmore's book. Holzman-Tweed (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Church of Satan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Belief in Satan

An IP editor has disputed the statement that "The Church of Satan does not "worship" or believe in Satan, nor does it believe in gods.", observing "Anton Lavey believed in the Devil as is exhibited in the "Satanis" video documentary and "The Satanic Bible". The longer this misinformation exists on this page the more people that will be deceived. By including this simple statement here "Wikipedia" keeps deleting it. I thought this page could be edited by anyone?" - this "simple statement" of theirs was deleted merely because discussion goes on talk pages, not in the middle of paragraphs. I've flagged the sentence with a disputed tag and moved it here for discussion. --McGeddon (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

After padding out the somewhat vague "the church rejects other groups, calling them various names" to match the source's details that the Church of Satan rejects theistic Satanism for believing in a literal Satan, it struck me that the article didn't actually state what the Church of Satan believed. Which seemed surprising - the Gilmore interview makes it very clear that the group does not literally worship Satan, but the Wikipedia article makes no mention either way, suggesting to an uninformed reader that the group probably does just worship Satan.

I now realise that the explanatory "Beliefs" section was deleted wholesale with no explanation by User:St.HocusPocus last July. I've restored it. --McGeddon (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

User:St.HocusPocus blanked some of this again a few weeks ago, cutting some details of the beliefs and replacing "do not literally worship Satan" with "rejects rival organizations" again in the lede, with the unclear explanation that it was "redundant content". The fact that the Church of Satan does not actually worship Satan seems worth clarifying in the lede. --McGeddon (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you're on about, McGeddon. Its evident that there is absolutely no need to repeat the same claim more than once. "The Church of Satan does not literally believe in Satan". Great! That's in the "Beliefs" section, there is no need to have it in the opening paragraphs as well if it is just going to be repeating in the next section. That's called being "redundant". If for whatever reason you feel as if that bit of information should be included in the opening paragraph instead, fine, then it need not be included in another section. The Nine Satanic Sins, The Eleven Satanic Rules of Earth, and the Nine Satanic Statement (copyrighted material, mind you) are printed in their entirety in the "LaVeyan Satanism" article, which is why they are linked in the Church of Satan article, so those who are interested can merely click the links and be directed to the page which contains the Church of Satan's belief's, without repeating them once again in the Church of Satan article, because that is redundant. The Church of Satan article is about just that: The Church of Satan. What do we call the Church of Satan's belief's? We call it "LaVeyan Satanism". There is an article for what the Church of Satan believes; that article is called "LaVeyan Satanism". The article "LaVeyan Satanism" is linked to in the Church of Satan article. Therefore, repeating the same exact content found in the "LaVeyan Satanism" article is redundant. --St.HocusPocus (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the Sins and Rules cuts. But per WP:LEAD, the lead section is meant to summarise the rest of the article and "stand alone as a concise overview" - naturally this will involve some repetition. --McGeddon (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I just want to make an apology to you McGeddon for my pissy and pretentious attitude. Reading back on my paragraph above, most of my contentions with your editing were a product of blatant ignorance on my part. --St.HocusPocus (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Which Lewis?

I'm seeing a lot of citations to "Lewis 2002," but at no point is it elaborated what work that is. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Membership Fee

In the membership section the article states membership costs $200, but the official site (https://thesatanictemple.com/join-us/) says membership is free, and membership cards/certificates are $25 but not required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.8.182.210 (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

You are confusing the Church of Satan, discussed here, which has a membership fee of $200 (http://www.churchofsatan.com/join-the-cos.php) and the Satanic Temple, which is an different organisation. 95.91.241.183 (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Church of Satan. 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:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Membership Numbers

Removed the statement that membership is 300-1000 as that isn't what the cited source states. The quote in the cited source is "with conservative sources estimating running as little as three hundred (Boulware 1998) to one thousand (Introvigne 1997), which disappointingly small are much more manageable than the ranges of seven thousand (Lyons 1970) to ten to twenty thousand (Kahaner 1998)" and the Boulware source is ( https://archives.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/has-the-church-of-satan-gone-to-hell/Content?oid=2135375 ) where he's discussing the attendance at an event, not the organization membership. The Church of Satan itself does not give out membership numbers but as memberships are lifetime and the organization is now over 50 years old so the higher estimates are probably closer to the truth. Seanbonner (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mvaldemar: Please stop deleting cited sources, that constitutes vandalism. You edit was not supported by the source you cited, so using your source I added the additional information so that it's correct per the source, then I added supporting information to justify and further expand it. As mentioned about the 300 is incorrect as the author was citing an event, not membership. My edits are cited and accurate, please do not delete them. Seanbonner (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Neither Kahaner 1988 or Lyons 1970 is an academic source. Of the four sources, only Introvigne is reliable. Mvaldemar (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't require academic source, just credible sources. Journalists and published books are just as valid as an academic, especially since Introvigne is a hostile source on this topic so his reliability is in question and his guess is contradicted by several other sources, again, please stop deleting cited information. Seanbonner (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Please read the rules of Wikipedia on reliable sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Definition_of_a_source. Introvigne is the only peer-reviewed source of the four. Mvaldemar (talk) 11:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring. Kahaner 1988 "Cults that Kill" and Lyons 1970 "The Second Coming: Satanism in America" are definitely NOT reliable sources, but sensationalist pieces of hack journalism. Introvigne is a world-renowned scholar on the topic of new religious movements.Mvaldemar (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
You aren't citing Introvigne, you are citing Davies and Davies cites Introvigne, Kahaner and Lyons in the same paragraph. The sources were valid enough to be cited by Davies who you are citing, so they are valid enough for this. You can't say the estimate is 1000 and then cite a work that says no one knows what the number is but estimates range from 1000 to 20,000. You edit is incorrect per your own source. Seanbonner (talk) 11:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
You clearly haven't read the original article. Davies says the "estimates" by Kahaner and Lyons are unrealistic. Davies doesn't use them as sources, but just lists them as examples of membership figures given in literature. Only Introvigne's estimate has any validity and is the only peer-reviewed one. Mvaldemar (talk) 11:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I have the book and the article here in front of me right now and that's not what it says. It says Introvigne's estimate is disappointing small but more manageable than other estimates mentioned. Davies article and the book Contemporary Religious Satanism are both reliable sources, you can't cherry pick the one detail you want and then ignore the rest. I added additional information to clarify your biased edit, with supporting citations. Please stop undoing it. Seanbonner (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Please explain how I am misquoting the source. Mvaldemar (talk) 12:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
You are mis quoting the source because the source directly references several different counts in the context of stating no one knows what the number is, and you keep pointing to the lowest possible number (that I already noted above was an event, not total membership) as the actual count. Seanbonner (talk) 09:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Church of Satan

Let's not start an edit war again. Please explain what was wrong with my edit. Mvaldemar (talk) 09:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mvaldemar: Easy - You are deleted cited info because you don't like it or don't like the sources which several editors have now asked you not to do, and replacing it with misquoted details. See talk page on the article where it's been explained in detail how you are misquoting it. Stop deleting things and stop misstating things and you won't have a problem. Seanbonner (talk) 09:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Let's take it piece by piece
1) I added this to the Membership section: According to scholar of religion J. Gordon Melton, Church of Satan "always counted its active membership in the hundreds".[12]
Why did you delete this?
2) I changed the phrase "Academics disagree on estimates of church membership, which range widely from one source saying one thousand in 1997 to another saying twenty thousand in 1998" to "Estimates of church membership range widely from one source saying one thousand in 1997 to another saying twenty thousand in 1988"
What is your problem with this edit? Here is the original wording on the source: ""Ultimately the body of affiliated Church of Satan "Satanists" is a small one, with conservative estimates running as little as three hundred (Boulware 1998: 6) to one thousand (Introvigne 1997: 80), which although disappointingly small, are much more manageable than ranges of seven thousand (Lyons 1970: 174) to ten to twenty thousand (Kahaner 1988: 68).""
Clearly, the sentence you added is wrong, because the Kahaner source is from 1988, not 1998. Furthermore, according to the source, estimates range from 300 to 20 000. You are accusing me of misquoting, while the wording is currently misquoting the source.
3) I removed the information about social media, as it didn't have any source. Any unsourced information on wikipedia can be challenged and removed.
4) Your argument that Melton is biased because he is a Christian doesn't seem to make sense, as you added a source written by a Military chaplain.
5) Social media: We need a source for the claim "which would support a claim of tens of thousands".
Please address all of these points, and not just accuse me of misquoting.
Mvaldemar (talk) 09:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
1. Having a speculative and disparaging comment from a Christian minister in the lede is not unbiased, I moved it to Membership section and added context.
2. That's not the edit you made as the history shows. Obviously 1998 v 1988 is a typo and should be corrected.
3. Then ask for a source or challenge it, don't just delete it. I readded it with the source.
4. My argument is against Melton is that he is a Minister who writes a lot about his own religion and has a history of superstitious criticism of this organization so his guess work for his own publication is not unbiased. Lewis on the other hand, also a minister, who in the course of his military duty had to be as unbiased as possible for his research is a more reliable source. Seanbonner (talk) 09:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
1. Please provide a source that states Melton's comment is "speculative and disparaging", or is this just your own opinion?
2. You are mistaken, that was my edit.
3. We need a source that states that social media activity of the Church of Satan is an indicator of the membership numbers of the organization
4. Please provide a source that states Melton has "a history of superstitious criticism of this organization", or is this just your own opinion?
5. Please provide a source for this information you added: "Memberships are for a lifetime so membership numbers would grow not fluctuate year after year"
Mvaldemar (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
1. This is a talk page, I'm allowed to give my opinion. The organization doesn't disclose it's membership numbers, so any comment on these numbers is speculative, and with several other cited sources are in the thens of thousands a guess of a few hundred is disparaging.
2. Perhaps your history page shows something different from mine.
3. This seems obvious to me, if it doesn't to you then that's fair and it's out until a source on that can be found.
4. This is a talk page, I'm allowed to give my opinion. His wikipedia page is linked and discusses criticisms of his writings about NRMs, of which Satanism and Church of Satan is included.
5: CoS website says memberships are for life ( http://www.churchofsatan.com/faq-membership.php ), basic math would suggest that as people join membership would increase, which is different than a subscription or renewal based membership which would change year over year. I don't think we need a source to explain how addition works. Seanbonner (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
1. Wikipedia articles have no place for the opinions of individual editors.
2. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Church_of_Satan&diff=811066106&oldid=810760276
3. OK
4. Wikipedia articles have no place for the opinions of individual editors.
5. We need a proper source for this claim. Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research. The article further states that membership can be terminated, so the claim that membership doesn't fluctuate doesn't make sense.
6. Why did you remove the membership estimates from the intro? If the figures are published further down in the article, I see no reason why they can't be displayed at the beginning.
Mvaldemar (talk) 10:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
1. Perhaps you don't understand the difference between an article and a talk page? Here, let me explain - the article shouldn't have opinions, the talk page should have opinions. This is a talk page, hence my inclusion of my opinions.
2. Exactly, you made many edits at once, I rolled them back because you were banned for making lots of edits without discussing them first.
3. Lovely.
4. See point #1, hopefully we've cleared that up now.
5. Sure, I'm happy deleting the line about fluctuating as that contested, the facts are it's a 50 year old organization that according to them continues to add members, so removing the fluctuating comment means that membership would only grow. Unless you have a source suggesting more members are being kicked out than are joining, the only confirmation is that they are joining. So then any estimate of members that is smaller than a previous one should be discarded as well, and we've got the US military saying in 1973 it was at least 10 thousand.
6. Have you looked at Wikipedia before? The lede should be top level unquestioned details and the article itself diving into it. The only rock solid fact is that the organization doesn't publish numbers. Since you want to cite every single researcher who has ever made a guess about it, that's more fitting in the section dedicated to that. If we include everything that is in the article in the lede as well then there's no point in an article. Seanbonner (talk) 10:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
1. and 4. I didn't claim otherwise. The article itself doesn't have a place for opinions.
6. Please see, for example, the article on the Temple of Set. Membership estimates are displayed in the intro.
5. I'm not following your logic. If memberships are for life, but people are resigning or being kicked out, how can you deduce from this premise that "numbers grow year after year" It doesn't logically follow.
Overall observation: I perceive a hostile tone in your comments. Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. Mvaldemar (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
1. and 4. In fact you quoted my comment here on the talk page and demanded a source for it.
6. How a different article that you have edited about a different organization discusses membership numbers isn't related to this at all. As there are several different sources making conflicting unverified claims, the place for that discussion is in the section about that, not the lede.
5. Memberships are for life, confirmed. People can be kicked out or resign, your assumption is that they are - in greater numbers than are joining it seems with no source for that. So removing all the speculation the only thing that remains is that people join for life, so numbers grow.
You were banned for edit waring on this page including deleting cited sources, the page was locked to prevent you from continuing after your ban expired. The moment the lock expired you rushed back in and made the same edits, without discussing them. There's no need for anyone to assume anything about your intentions. Seanbonner (talk) 11:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
6. The article on the Temple of Set is analogous to this article. Please explain how it is different in a relevant way.
5. Please give a source that states people are joining in greater numbers than they are resigning, dying or being kicked out. Currently the statement as it stands is a non sequitur.
You were banned as well, but I don't assume bad faith on your part. I didn't make the same edits, but new ones, which I assumed fixed the problems you had with my previous edits. I would appreciate it if you didn't act so aggressively. Mvaldemar (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
6. I see no dispute on that page about membership numbers, nor several cited conflicting sources.
5. I don't need to prove the negative. It's an active organization that is accepting lifetime members, confirmed. If you have information suggesting otherwise then cite it, otherwise we stick with the confirmed data.
Yes, I also received a 24 hour ban for undoing your inappropriate edits too many times. The other editors explained how to report the kind of activity you engaged in rather than try to handle it myself next time. Seanbonner (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
6. I'm not claiming the CoS isn't accepting new members. The question is, is the influx of new members greater than the rate of members lost. We need a source for this claim.Mvaldemar (talk) 12:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
6. In the same way that someone doesn't need to disprove that god exists, rather the BoP is on the person claiming there is a god, the BoP here is on you to prove that members are leaving. We know this is an active organization and with people joining, you are baselessly questioning that by suggesting there is some kind of exodus happening. So again, justify it with a citation or drop it. Seanbonner (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Your analogue doesn't work. You are the one claiming that there are more people joining than leaving without any sources. I'm not making any claims about the membership figures, just questioning your statement which is presented without any evidence. Mvaldemar (talk) 12:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
No, in fact I'm not. I'm claiming people are joining and memberships are for a lifetime, both of which are publicly confirmable details. You are speculating that more people are leaving/being kicked out/dying than are joining. Again, provide evidence or drop it. Seanbonner (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Church of Satan. 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:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Church_of_Satan/Archive_1&oldid=1001047237"