Talk:The Satanic Temple/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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 [[1]] 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)

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. [2] - 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 [3] 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)

Changed "irrational fears and misperceptions" to "fears and perceptions". — Demong _talk 23:08, 25 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 [4] 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 [5] 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 that primary source. — Demong _talk 00:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Better source: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/missouri/articles/2017-10-09/missouri-abortion-lawsuit-heading-to-state-supreme-court

The lawsuit was originally filed in 2015, lost, and appealed. A higher court will consider the case, but hasn't yet. Here are other sources about the earlier stuff, but one article is written by Lucien Greaves (published by a RS, though), and I forget if Patheos is a good source: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/08/07/judge-tosses-out-satanic-temples-2015-abortion-lawsuit-because-plaintiff-is-no-longer-pregnant/ -- https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2015/05/08/the-satanic-temple-just-filed-a-lawsuit-against-abortion-restrictions

Will write and insert a short summary soon (though of course anyone is welcome to). — Demong _talk 22:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Partially incorrect, the case is being heard now: http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article196166159.html

Good source with many details about the case. — Demong _talk 22:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Membership: "renewal, revocation"

I removed this sentence from the end of the Membership section: "Membership is subject to renewal, revocation, or termination 'for a member’s failure to conduct him or herself in a manner consistent with the spirit of The Satanic Temple and its tenets'". Seanbonner has repeatedly reverted/restored it, without discussion. It's up to an editor who adds or restores material, not to an editor who removes it, to justify the change.

I think it's unencyclopedic (specifically: really weird) to say that. Presumably they kick you out if you are found guilty of rape or murder, too, but mentioning that would be obviously unnecessary. I am almost certain articles about other organizations don't tend to mention (I think) trivial details like whether membership is subject to renewal. For example, Church_of_Satan#Membership doesn't say anything about termination. If there are counter-examples, please link. — Demong _talk 01:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The article is not for presumption, nor for what you personally feel is important. It's a section on membership, some membership is annual, some membership is for life, some membership is irrevocable, etc.. so in discussing membership a direct quote from the source about their policy is appropriate and legitimate. You deleted it before saying it wasn't sourced, now it's sourced the best it could possibly be - a direct quote, and your new argument it that you presume it doesn't matter. People are not always kicked out religions because of their actions, so given that there is a clear policy here that's worth noting. Again, stop deleting sourced facts in this article. Seanbonner (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles about other organizations don't tend to mention trivial details like whether membership is subject to renewal. For example, Church_of_Satan#Membership doesn't say anything about termination. If there are counter-examples, please link.

PS: This is the fourth time for my edits alone that this user has reverted without discussion and left it for the other person to bring it up on Talk. That's not how it works. The removal stands until after discussion. (Leaving it alone for now to avoid violating WP:3RR, which I believe Seanbonner is counting on.) — Demong _talk \\ 06:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The Church of Satan is not a religion, any comparisons to them are invalid and showing some bias on your end. If you have a problem with that article go edit it, this is for discussion of the TST article. This is also at least the 4th time you have deleted cited and sourced details in this article without discussing them, which I maintain is low level vandalism - vandalism isn't discussed, it's reverted. Again I will ask nicely if you have a problem with something that is cited and sourced in the article please rewrite it or propose an edit, do not just delete it. Especially because you know it's going to be an issue, unless that's exactly the game you are playing. Seanbonner (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

"Cited and sourced" is not a complete or bullet-proof defense of whether something should be included, and deleting cited content is not necessarily vandalism. You are insulting me and not addressing the complaint. If you don't think the CoS article is a valid analogy (I definitely do, by the way), then please link to a different counter-example. — Demong _talk \\ 07:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Material from the 2016 Oxford Handbook

I made a request at WP:RX for material from the 2016 edition of Lewis' Oxford Handbook to NRMs, which seems to be the only real encyclopedia reference sources on the topic since The Satanic Temple started. I received an email containing the relevant material from that work, some of which I quote below. Please keep in mind that this information itself is a few years old.

• "(Since the death of LaVey) Philosophically the Church of Satan has continued practically unchanged and is the largest Satanic group. ... The satanic milieu itself, however, has been drastically transformed. Since the advent of the internet there has been an observable resurgence of religious Satanism online, .... obtaining reliable data in terms of membership numbers is a challenge. ... The drastic differences in quoted numbers reflect that scholars do not possess enough data to make realistic appraisals of self-identified Satanists. ... Few Satanists openly identify their religious inclination ... (Diane Vera's website and it's list of Satanic groups ...) Vera disparages the Church of Satan's dominance of Satanic discourse.... Again, we see another play on the theory of opposition: Satanists opposing each other over the question of legitimacy and the definition of Satanism. The contested authority over the "true" definition of Satanism is the prime internal conflict within the satanic milieu." It goes on to have a fairly long section on TST.

The full message is one I will forward on request, but I thought the material I mention above at least was maybe important enough to indicate here. John Carter (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

From what I can tell Lewis has always taken a very neutral approach and presented balanced observations of everyone who has anything to say about a subject, though for the same reason I'd caution putting too much weight on any of those comments individually as they are presented as a complete observation, and out of context do not tell the same story. Vera for example has run theisticsatanism.com since the early 2000's and has a vested interest in Satanism not having associations to atheistic thought, and is of the main people pushing for the "traditional Satanism" label though as countless researchers have noted she's been unable to show any evidence of a longer tradition. Faxneld notes this in his piece about "How Old Is Satanism" in the academic text "Contemporary Esotericism" from 2012. While Lewis covers a lot of ground in his book he doesn't have the chance to go too deep in any direction but that shouldn't be an assumption that nothing else has been written. Here's a partial and growing list of in depth scholarly work on Religious Satanism mostly from the last 10 years: [6] Seanbonner (talk) 01:20, 28 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)

Just noticed the passive aggressive jab here, and I think it's more that worth pointing out that just because criticism may delegitimize something doesn't mean it's not valid as the point of this article and wikipedia isn't to be promotional. All of the claims you are referring to here that I've noted can be cited to Lucien Greaves himself. His has stated repeatedly on Twitter that TST wasn't founded until 2014, conflicting with actual events which is something I've discussed above because they were obviously active in 2013. He has never once claimed that TST is it's own religion, and has stated that if Christian groups weren't doing X there would be no reason for TST to exist, which is a valid criticism towards their claim of deeply held beliefs, he's on record agreeing that they are like a "darker Yes Men" so I'm not just making up things, I'm trying to help write an accurate article based on actual events and not have Wikipedia turn into a hype filled press release. It's also telling that certain editors instantly delete or object to anything that isn't complimentary. Seanbonner (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Revisiting this because this line by Xenophrenic is sticking with me - "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." That's moving the goal post. The issue isn't that they hadn't had a major public appearance, it's that they didn't have any public appearance. The issue isn't that they didn't have a stable website, it's they they didn't have any website and didn't even register one until 2013. The issue isn't that they hadn't fully established doctrine it's that there is no evidence that they had even begun to write them. There's a lot of people assuming they must have had the idea in 2012, but when people had an idea for something and when something was actually established are two different things. And again, TST themselves claim that they weren't founded until 2014 and that all of 2013 was "placeholder" while they figured out what they wanted to do - this is their defense against the fact that in 2013 their website said they believed in a literal Satan, among other things. I think accusations that this discussion is to delegitimize them is ridiculous. If there was one single thing that TST did in 2012 then there would be no question, but a casting call from a film company for a mockumentary they were making isn't evidence that TST existed, if anything that's a mark against their legitimacy. If when they had the idea is when they were founded them why not just list 2008 when Malcom Jarry is quoted saying he originally thought of it? There's no logic to this. Seanbonner (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The issue isn't... --Seanbonner

The issue is the origin date for TST, and I don't have much else to say about that issue that I haven't already said above: Multiple reliable sources give 2012 as the date. Zero reliable sources say they did not exist in 2012. (And no, TST did not say they weren't founded until 2014.) I've already addressed each of your other assertions. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

You do not prove a negative, zero reliable sources say "they weren't founded in 2012" because that's a stupid comment to make. As linked, above here is Lucien Greaves - co-founder and spokesperson for TST saying they weren't "actually" founded until 2014 - [7] and there are not "multiple reliable sources" that claim 2012, there are 2, one from 2015 and one from 2017 and it's mentioned in passing in both so [WP:CONTEXTMATTERS] is appropriate considering there is nothing citable showing them existing in 2012, everything showing them beginning existing in 2013 and all other press about them that that talks about when they were founded says 2013. You are cherry picking two articles that in all likelihood were not accurately fact checked and acting as if they are law, and continually misrepresenting the situation as I pointed out in your previous comment. Either way conflicting sources dictates that both should be listed. Regardless of all that Lucien Greaves has stated he didn't join TST as co-founder until 2014, so arguing for 2012 makes him an employee for 2 years rather than 1 which is also not a favorable position for them, but if that's what you want to argue then we can adjust that as well. Seanbonner (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

re: "...the passive aggressive jab ... moving the goal post ... You are cherry picking ... continually misrepresenting the situation ... " WTF is your problem? Please figure it out and kindly remedy it. Thanks in advance. Moving on...

(1) You're link to Twitter doesn't say what you claim it does. In fact, "2014" appears nowhere in the message, and Greaves gives no founding date in it. (2) If you feel the cited reliable sources sources "in all likelihood were not accurately fact checked", then I recommend that you raise your concern at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and see if you can get the community to agree with you. (3) You've tried to claim TST wasn't founded until January 2013, yet you've openly acknowledged TST was already staging events by January 2013 in Florida (see Rick Scott). In fact, reliable news sources were already reporting about The Satanic Temple, and their website, and interviewing their spokespeople, since at least the first week of 2013. Countless contemporaneous sources confirm (Observer: "group, which was founded last year"), (Herald: "the group was formed last year and seeks to raise awareness"), (Daily News "Satanic Temple, officially founded in 2012"), etc. (4) TheSatanicTemple.com was registered in March 2012. (5) Your unvetted essay on conflicting sources also says, when two (or more) reliable sources conflict, one (or more) of those sources can be demonstrated to be unreliable. Easily done, since you are contending that a nonexistent TST, within hours after the 2013 New Year began, suddenly popped into existence and immediately secured city protest permits, airline flights to Florida, recruited activists, developed a full website & tenets, published press releases, all before interviewing with news sources during those same first days of January. "That's a stupid comment to make", if I may borrow your phrase, and it also doesn't account for the 2012 recruitment Facebook posts, the 2012 establishment of the website domain, the NYT interview timeline, etc.

It bears repeating: Multiple reliable sources give 2012 as the origin date. Zero reliable sources say they did not exist in 2012. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, founding is not when people first started to think about things. They didn't do anything publicly in anyway until 2013 and legally till 2014, and very few sources say 2012 and it's in passing. The vast majority of coverage correctly states 2013, and WP:AGE MATTERS is relevant as all recent reliable sourced coverage says 2013. I'm not claiming any of the things you suggest (Personal attack removed). Seanbonner (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your personal definition of "founded", and your opinion on when people think; our cited sources say founded, so that is what our article says. As for not doing anything publicly until 2013, our article already says that, too. The vast majority of coverage says founded in 2012, as does the organization itself (Founded in 2012, the Temple has ...), as do the most recent sources (11 days ago). Xenophrenic (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not my definition, going by the actual definition [8] it should be when it was legally set up in 2014, that's obviously incorrect for these purposes of this article as they were clearly active in 2013. They were not clearly active in 2012, despite your assumptions. The only thing we know for sure is that a film company was organizing a mock rally for a project they were working on that happened in January 2013 and that Lucien Greaves, the "co-founder and spokesperson" for the org repeatedly says that things that happened in 2013 were "before he joined the organization" even though he's on video representing the organization in January 2013. I'm genuinely confused why you are taking such a hardline on this one given that there are multiple sources saying different things, and a 2012 founding isn't somehow better, as that now changes the story to suggest that they held theistic beliefs for 2 years not one, and that they changed all their mission statements 2 years in, not one - both of which negatively reflect on their claims of deeply held religious beliefs. Unless you are a member trying to paint a certain picture of the org I don't understand why everytime there's a blatantly obvious contradiction you try to downplay it. Wikipedia policy here is that the conflicting sources should be noted, you are purposely trying to hide that fact. Seanbonner (talk) 04:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Sean, I think the source of a lot of problems and frustration is the original research you are conducting. You are taking bits and pieces of information from all over the place, then combining them in novel ways. You are citing a tweet from Greaves as proof that TST wasn't founded until 2014 - yet it says nothing of the sort. You cite Dictionary.com as defining "founded" as "legally set up" - yet it says nothing of the sort. You found one arguably reliable source that says TST was founded in 2013, while I have provided more than a half-dozen saying 2012. As for other matters regarding when Greaves did or didn't join, or whether they were theistic or atheistic, I'm not addressing any of that here. If you'd like to discuss that stuff, that's fine, but please open a separate header. This discussion is about a founding date for TST, and the preponderance of reliable sources say 2012. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

First, please stop claiming I'm arguing that TST was founded in 2014, I'm not. I'm pointing out that Greaves has claimed that. I disagree with his statements. Reading a statement and understanding the context of it is not OR, it's reading comprehension. In this tweet [9] Greaves says "Our tenets have been the same since our actual founding" and we know the tenets were changed in 2014, so he's obviously saying the "actual founding" was in 2014, which is corroborated by the legal documents that all show incorporation and "founding" in 2014. In this tweet [10] he's addressing an earlier comment of his where he said that material on the website in 2013 was "before he joined the organization" and when someone asked him how something could have happened before he joined if he's a cofounder he replied "Not if it was formally founded afterward." which again in the context of the discussion is obviously a claim that the "founding" was later. As I've said before, there is no question they were active in 2013 so even if legally they didn't set anything up until 2014 they obviously existed in 2013. Doing a google search for "The Satanic Temple 2013" brings up countless articles from reliable sources stating they began in 2013, here's NBC News from January 2018 [11] saying as much. Again, there are many sources saying 2013 as well as sources saying 2012, so wikipedia policy dictates that we note the conflict, not pick the one you like best. And since they didn't do anything until 2013 and the January 2013 event was produced by a film company not by an organization called TST, your continued assumption that TST must have been active planning it is baseless. The word "founding" actually means something specific, and it's not when someone had an idea. Seanbonner (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

stop claiming I'm arguing that TST was founded in 2014, I'm not. --Seanbonner

I never did. Let me copy exactly what I typed to refresh your memory: You are citing a tweet from Greaves as proof that TST wasn't founded until 2014 - yet it says nothing of the sort. Now here are your statements I'm addressing:

...the organization themselves says 2014. --Seanbonner

His has stated repeatedly on Twitter that TST wasn't founded until 2014... --Seanbonner

...[founded] it should be when it was legally set up in 2014... --Seanbonner

...he's obviously saying the "actual founding" was in 2014... --Seanbonner

I've read his tweets, and I know what they say. The problem arises when you take what Greaves actually said, and then process that through your own personal perceptions to arrive at your own novel conclusion that "he's obviously saying the "actual founding" was in 2014". No. You can't do that. And that is not what he is obviously saying. Is that clearer now?

BTW, could I trouble you for the reliable source you are using that states there was a "legal" filing for TST in 2014? Or were you referring to 'Reason Alliance'? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

No, Reason Alliance is a non-profit owned by Douglas Misicko (aka Lucien Greaves) As can be seen in this public record [12] and Reason Alliance pays bills for some TST related projects as documented here [13], but that has nothing to do with the founding of TST. Rather, The United Federation of Churches LLC which is also owned by Douglas Misicko and registered to the same address, again plublic records here [14] which was legally founded on Feb 4, 2014. The United Federation of Churches owns the trademark to The Satanic Temple which they registered on March 14, 2014 which is documented in this public record [15]. The trademark filing which is a legal document says the first use was 2013. UFC is the parent company to TST, there is no stand alone TST company. So when Douglas/Lucien says - and this a quote - "Not if it was formally founded afterward" that is what he's referring to. The organization was formally founded in 2014. He's tried to distance himself from events that TST participated in during 2013, which is the wordplay going on here, and why I continually say that regardless of the legal founding date (2014) they were unquestionably active in 2013. Seanbonner (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

So when Douglas/Lucien says - and this a quote - "Not if it was formally founded afterward" that is what he's referring to. --Seanbonner

While that is indeed a partial quote, he does not indicate what he is referring to, so that would be a synthesized conclusion of yours.

The organization was formally founded in 2014. --Seanbonner

No; it was founded in 2012. Their website was created in March 2012. Even the name trademark application you just linked has images with the TST name uploaded in 2012. And reliable sources state it was founded in 2012. Your 2014 date only applies to applying for trademarks or LLC status.

I was curious as to why you have been struggling mightily to portray TST as not existing until 2013, or even 2014, despite the preponderance of reliable sources saying 2012. I've also noted your comments regarding whether TST members are actual satanists, and whether they are practicing a religion or just social activism, or both. In every instance, you appear to be parroting either tweets or website posts from Church of Satan, as detailed here, right down to the exact same links and arguments. I see that a while back, you said:

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

The primary sources may or may not be factual, but they do not automatically carry relevancy. If the information is significantly covered by good quality, secondary reliable sources, then we can consider if it is of proper weight for inclusion, and if it improves the article. Please remember, While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. It would also be helpful to keep in mind that when it comes to matters of religious belief, and matters involving identified living individuals (this article qualifies as both), we are to approach the writing of the article conservatively and with extra care. (I mention this only because sources I've recently reviewed mention "doxing", libel, and various levels of threats, etc.) So, which good quality reliable sources do you suggest we examine to support the development of the 'History' section of the article? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

In one of my very first edits on this talk page I mentioned The Satanic Temple Fact Sheet published by The Church of Satan and the claims it referenced. That's not "parroting" them anymore than discussing a newspaper article you read with a friend is parroting that newspaper. While I've not referenced it or them in this article because I personally don't think it would be appropriate because of their obvious bias, it's worth noting that countless other articles both here on Wikipedia and published in academic journals and books do in fact reference them. They are an academically citable and reliable source going back decades, the same can not be said for the personal blog of the spokesman for this organization which you pointed to here even though that is the very definition of an unreliable source, and that article specifically which claims to debunk the "fact sheet" doesn't in fact debunk anything, doesn't even address everything. As you seem interested in reviewing personal blogs you may find this interesting as someone else decided to spend the time dissecting each of those PR statements. Regarding your comments, you continue to confuse me, so I'll address them.

While that is indeed a partial quote, he does not indicate what he is referring to, so that would be a synthesized conclusion of yours. --Xenophrenic

If I asked you what you had for lunch today and you replied "a Sandwich" it would not be a synthesized conclusion that you had a sandwich for lunch even though you didn't specifically state the words "I had a sandwich for lunch" because you are replying to a question and your statement of "a Sandwich" can easily be understood by anyone following the conversation. However if that math is too hard for you here's another example, as I've noted this statement has been made repeatedly. The direct quote here is "Our tenets have been the same since our actual founding & after it advanced past a place-holder website" and we can see that in December 2013 they had 9 tenets and in January 2014 they had 7 tenents and as they have 7 tenets today this is yet another statement from the spokesperson of the organization indicating that they consider their "actual founding" to be 2014.

No; it was founded in 2012. Their website was created in March 2012. --Xenophrenic

No, it wasn't. The domain name was purchased in 2012, the website wasn't created until January 2013 as the previous Archive.org link will show. We already know that in 2012 Spectacle Films was planning to make a movie called "The Satanic Temple" so that they would have purchased a domain name for that movie is not indication of an organization being founded. Indeed the January 2013 event which was the first publicly documented evidence of The Satanic Temple existing was actors hired by the film company which we know from the videos and articles about the casting call ads which ran in 2012 that you previously referenced. But a film company planning to make a movie isn't the same as a religion being founded.

Even the name trademark application you just linked has images with the TST name uploaded in 2012. --Xenophrenic

No. You seem to be confused, the only reference to 2012 on that page is the copyright for the site in the footer which is on every page on the site, the documents clearly say "First Use Anywhere Date: January 1, 2013"

And reliable sources state it was founded in 2012. --Xenophrenic

And reliable sources state it was founded in 2013, and wikipedia policy states that when there is a conflict between reliable sources that be noted. I feel like a broken record saying that.

Your 2014 date only applies to applying for trademarks or LLC status. --Xenophrenic

Right, that's what "founding" means. Founding is not when you had an idea for something.

I was curious as to why you have been struggling mightily to portray TST as not existing until 2013, or even 2014 --Xenophrenic

Genuine question: Do you have some problem which prevents you from maintaining a consistent train of thought? I ask because I've lost count how many times on this page I've directly told you TST obviously existed in 2013, and every single time I've pointed to TST statements suggesting they were "founded" in 2014 I've noted that position seems revisionist. And yet here you are suggesting that I've ever implied they didn't exist until 2014, something I've never said and directly argued against. I really don't know what your intention is here, but I'm trying to write an accurate and reliable article. You seem hell bent on including things that you personally feel are beneficial to TST and similarly determined to keep out things that you personally think are critical. But your assumptions don't hold water because how long TST has been around only seems to matter to you. The reason they keep referring to their "actual founding" is because much of what they did and said in 2013 is embarrassing to them and goes against their current public positions. I invite you to click through the first few snapshots of their website in 2013 and see their claims of theism and devil worship. These were all removed by 2014 when they took up the atheist banner but if your position is that they existed since 2012 then we now have the first 2 years of a 6 year old organization where they claimed to believe in a literal devil. It seems to me that saying they began in 2013 is a much better position for TST, but at the end of the day I don't really care what is better or worse for them, I just want this article to be accurate and within wikipedia policy.

So, which good quality reliable sources do you suggest we examine --Xenophrenic

The truth is very few people care about this and the organization has engaged in heavy haded publicity to the point that writers publicly complain about it and results in many publications paraphrasing their press releases and likely the exact reason that Wikipedia policy states that just because a source is "reliable" for one topic they might not be "reliable" for another, and editors should cross check conflicting secondary sources against primary sources. A primary source that is a person talking about themselves may or may not be factual, a primary source that is a publicly filed legal document is unquestionably reliable. If only small local publications covered a PR stunt that TST pulled in 2013 then that local publication is more of a reliable source on this topic than it might be on national politics. But again this requires that editors are interested in accuracy over puff piece promotion. Regardless if they were founded in 2012, 2013 or 2014 TST hasn't existed long enough for most academics who cover this topic to notice or include them in their work, however I just picked up Per Faxneld's newest peer reviewed academic book "Satanic Feminism" and they are referenced. Faxneld is one of the top academics studying and writing about Satanism today and he notes in this that many consider TST to be prank and that while some TST members seem very sincere it's apparent that their activism is their primary focus and the association with Satanism is most useful for the attention it brings them. Once I get through the book I'll be sure to add these details as well.Seanbonner (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

A quick response after briefly skimming your recent comment: (1) A post by a CoS member is no more an "academically citable and reliable source" than a post by a TST member. I think you misunderstand Wikipedia's take on what constitutes a reliable source, and what academic sources (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP, for example) are. And I've already read the 3rd blog post you mentioned, down to the single interesting comment at the end. (2) Again, you've taken tweets that say one thing, and links to old pages that say another, and then conducted synthesis (against Wikipedia policy) to reach a conclusion that is stated in neither. And your "here's another example" tweet is the very same one linked above. (3) re: the TST website, the domain and the site have existed since 2012 (see the upload dates for the images I previously mentioned). You say "the only reference to 2012 on that page...", but that is incorrect. Look again at the half-dozen images at the top of that application. (And the archive.org link doesn't show the "creation date", it only reflects the capture images by their web crawler, the first of which could have been hours, days or months after the site was created.) (4) "We already know that in 2012 Spectacle Films was planning to make a movie called "The Satanic Temple"..." So we are in agreement that TST existed in 2012. Progress. But you are saying it existed as a film project rather than a religion, correct? We should examine the reliable sources on that, as well as whatever sources you are drawing from. (5) As for you feeling like a broken record stating that an "essay" on sources is the same as Wikipedia "policy", I'd recommend reviewing what policy actually says about errors in otherwise reliable sources. (6) Regarding your personal definition that a religious group doesn't exist until it files in the U.S. for a trademark-protected name and a specific tax-status, I disagree. (7) "You seem hell bent on including things that you personally feel are beneficial to TST and similarly determined to keep out things that you personally think are critical." Now you've gone off the rails. Substantiate that crap with supporting diffs, please, or strike it. (8) I'm going to skip past your personal opinions on what is "embarrassing to them", and "very few people care", and that "writers publicly complain", etc., and head straight to the new source you mentioned: Faxneld. Could I get some page numbers from you where he discusses TST? Xenophrenic (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

It's strange that this is a major dispute. I feel like there must be some lines I'm not reading between. Since we don't go by Tweets, we don't use original research, and since the infobox field in question appears to be "origin" rather than a legal term, I don't see any problem with using 2012 as the origin/beginning/founding, being clear that activities didn't start until 2013. Are there sources as good or better than Esquire that say otherwise that I'm missing? (admittedly, I'm skimming this section, so I apologize if I'm daftly overlooking something). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)