Talk:After School Satan

ASS or TST
I generally disagree with the notion that in an article about a project the organization producing the project can't be discussed. It seems completely relevant and blocking it seems biased as all criticism of the project is framed in the larger context of discussing the actions of the producing organization, so this seems like a way to white wash the article. As Xenophrenic decided to start deleting references without discussing it, it should be noted that only critical references were deleted, anything positive or complimentary was left in which I feel impacted the NPOV of the article so I removed the remaining references so the article is only about the project with a single reference to the organization that pays the bills for it and a single mention of the organization producing it in a direct quote that would be weird to edit out. Again, I think removing these references is the wrong thing to do and negatively impacts the article as we're purposefully avoiding a significant part of the story about the project. Seanbonner (talk) 08:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ...it should be noted that only critical references were deleted --Seanbonner
 * Please identify the source or sources that were critical of the After School Satan program that I deleted. Be specific, please, so that we may discuss them. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Additionally, if you think content not about the subject of this article, but instead about the group producing this After School Satan program, would be beneficial to readers of this article, would you be so kind as to outline that content here for consideration? I've removed no such content to date. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said, because of the high profile of of the organization, criticism of this (or any of their) project is often framed in the context of discussion of the organization. The section you deleted here for example: - Staver runs the organization that produces the Good News Clubs that the After School Satan Clubs are specifically designed to challenge. The quote they used from Staver was a broader criticism of TST, the organization that is challenging his organization by setting up the After School Satan clubs. In that context I think it's perfectly valid, but you deleted saying it wasn't about the project. With the exception of the name the project is fairly mundane and unlikely to draw specific criticism, but the fact that it's produced by THE SATANIC TEMPLE is the controversial part by design - they've stated they are only doing it to counter the Good News clubs. So, by eliminating any comment critical of the organization you are defacto removing comments critical of the project and impacting the neutrality of the article. As we know from the TST article they often embark on projects that have the explicit goal of trolling someone (or something) as a political statement going all the way back to their first mock rally. The paragraph was poorly worded and didn't flow well - A comment claiming TST is a hoax followed by TST defending Satanism followed by reference to Ex-TST members saying TST is a hoax, but in a section about the reception to this project, a quote from the head of the organization this was designed to go after seems to add a crucial part of the story. Removing it because he said TST instead of ASS I think is a mistake. The additional comments add to that by noting this the MO of the organization producing it. When you have an organization that on one hand is producing after school clubs and claiming they are totally serious, and on the other hand producing a "pink mass" where they (obviously in jest) claim to turn someone gay after they died by the founder putting his genitals on their tombstone - there is going to be some question about their motives and tactics, and I think that is all part of the story. I don't think the pink mass or any of their other projects should be discussed in the ASS article, but I think discussion the organization and noting the controversy surrounding them is fair. Seanbonner (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * With the exception of the name the project is fairly mundane and unlikely to draw specific criticism, but the fact that it's produced by THE SATANIC TEMPLE is the controversial part by design ... --Seanbonner
 * I'm not seeing that. Could you cite the references that convey that so I can read them myself?  From the sources I've seen, the controversial part is the fact that schools are allowing (because they must by law) religious proselytizing of Satanism right alongside Christianity, etc.  As you are probably aware, TST would not be campaigning to open clubs in schools if other religions weren't already doing the same (the Good News clubs are just one of the most visible examples, by the way, but they are not the only ones).  If the Salvation Army or YMCA was producing and sponsoring this same After School Satan program, the "controversy" would be the same.
 * We appear to be taking the same position here. Seanbonner (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think the pink mass or any of their other projects should be discussed in the ASS article, but I think discussion the organization and noting the controversy surrounding them is fair. --Seanbonner
 * Discussing, in this article, the organization (TST) as it specifically relates to their After School Satan program shouldn't be a problem. However, it has to be derived from reliable sources, which is why I asked you to indicate those encyclopedic sources (and content) here.  This article is not the correct venue to expound upon various traits of TST that are not specific to the subject of this article.  That would be coatracking.  Sources?  Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, I agree which is why I objected to your deletion of the Staver comment, which was cited and I linked to above. He's commenting on the organization as it specifically related to the the program, especially so as he runs the organization that this program was created to counter. You asked for a specific denying that you deleted it, I'm pointing to a specific showing that you did. Feel free to revert it. Seanbonner (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

After School Satan announced vs actual
There is no evidence any After School Satan clubs have ever met except Tacoma and now Moline, Ill. The Satanic Temple's website is not a reliable source on this, and news articles about plans and preparation for a club are not the same thing as it actually existing. For example, in Springfield, Mo., the former leader of the St. Louis chapter went on to explain why the chapter never actually met. This is incredibly important contextual information for reading the rest of the article which treats it as a widespread program that has existed in numerous cities since 2016.--ADavidJohnson (talk) 04:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC) In Pennsylvania, the after-school club appears to have at least 6 attending members. https://www.inquirer.com/news/satan-after-school-aclu-abortion-school-pennsylvania-federal-20230508.html Measure for Measure (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)