Talk:Joy of Satan Ministries

Source & Notability
Most of the references and material on this articles is taken from some notable figures such as: Introvigne Massimo (Sociologist of religion), Christopher Hugh Partridge (Author, editor, professor at Lancaster University and founding co-director of the Center for the Study of Religion and Popular Culture), McBride, Jaemes (Journalist and American writer), Egil Asprem (Researcher from the Center for History of Hermetic Philosophy), History

Introvigne's book, Satanism A Social History includes a chapter about the Joy of Satan, Jesper Aagaard Petersen also covers the topic in quite a lot of pages in "Between Darwin and the Devil" so its credibility is beyond a mere trivial mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueGhast (talk • contribs) 03:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

As well various books, and writings taken from University papers. Also includes press articles from The Economist.

Also, most of the references I have personally bought but I'll try to find source location if I can. But many can be verified with google.scholars and google.books to show that the content is indeed referenced. I can provide screenshots for specific references if needed, I'd appreciate input.

Therefore, article should meet notability expectations. Article was also further revised and edited by me and some others according to encyclopedic tone, but article was already reviewed prior to being tagged. Any problems? otherwise criteria has been met for notability and other issues BlueGhast (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Update* Notability dispute tag removed by editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueGhast (talk • contribs) 23:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Article rewrite & other
As suggested by editor and admin, sections will be rewritten. I apologize for all the errors, and appreciate the feedback.

For others interested, the neutrality of this article is a conflict between individuals who may be actual members of the JoS, individuals who personally disagree with group and/or those of Jewish background who may be (rightfully) offended by the content of this article, with Wikipedia's policy of article neutrality. However, it's important that material be relevant to the appropriate article. The events of the NSM should be further described in the NSM article, imo, but it definitely should be mentioned here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueGhast (talk • contribs) 02:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Current status of Maxine Dietrich
It's been claimed by editor that founder of website, Maxine, is "deceased". The only known source for this claim is from the "searchpeoplefree" database. The credibility of the source is vague.

I've noticed there are numerous inconsistencies on the website. While it states the current status of Maxine is "deceased", under section "Common Questions About Andrea M Dietrich", one question asks "Is Andrea M Dietrich still alive or has Andrea M Dietrich died?" and states Yes, Andrea is alive.". It also states Maxine is 58 years old, so the section is indeed up to date. In addition, it also claims that "Andrea is not known to have been married," however, we've believed Andrea to be the wife of Clifford Herrington since there are numerous sources to support this claim. Is this not true? If so, this would change a lot of things. If editor can provide more than one source, or further information, such as death records, that would help the credibility of this claim. For now it'd be best to hold back until it can be confirmed with other reliable sources. BlueGhast (talk)

Update* Further evaluation proves inconsistencies with claim. Records from copyright.gov shows the copyright claimant of the "The Joy of Satan", as "Andrea Maxine Dietrich, 1962- ", in which it does not state 2020 to be Maxine's year of death. Unless it's yet to be updated, editors claim is still uncertain. Referring URL: http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=1&ti=1,1&Search_Arg=Joy%20of%20Satan%20Ministries&Search_Code=FT%2A&CNT=25&PID=tTsIdrKd-HcjDMM3x1uDvdH9JMgFO&SEQ=20170304235717&SID=3 BlueGhast (talk) 8 April 2021

The car bomb incident
I recall there being some articles on this but all seem to have disappeared without a trace for some strange reason. It was originally covered by "My Tulsa World" Newspaper but was pulled off their site awhile after. If anyone has time to do a thorough search for archives, I'd appreciate it thanks.

Here is only some info I can provide to help: Maxine's description of event:
 * The date was June 30 2006
 * Husband & wife walk into supermarket(Walmart?), spend 20 minutes in store and come out to find wires hanging under car. Call police and bring in bomb squad to bring robot to remove it. Was at dusk, FBI apparently caught who did it, one of them put in mental institution. It's claimed by Maxine one of them was a christian finatic. Husband says bomb was enough to blow up 10 ton truck when they detonated it.

After a long while of extensive digging, and inquiring with some individuals involved, I was only able to uncover very little material of the event. Credibility wise that is. But all of it does indeed imply that the incident took place and was definetely intended for either Clifford or Andrea.

What I've come up with:
www.stormfront.org/forum/t306908 - "Media Covering up ADL Bombing Attempt???" White Nationalist forum thread of the incident from 2006. Created a few days after the event. Has many posts with a lot of dead end leads, as in the leads have been erased. No archives exist but the posts do provide some insight on what happened and in regards to the articles suddenly "disappearing".

"The 30 Year war against the nsfm" - PDF Could be found on google, basically the events described by Clifford. Includes news article with pictures. Pages 27-28

Interesting info from page 28:

"Miscarried bomb attempt on CD Herrington Chairman NSM & passenger (founder of JOS Religious organization) Bomb Squad Events of June 30th, 2006 Tulsa Oklahoma Walmart parking Lot 8:28pm"

"This report was subsequently reported in the Inqulab Newspaper Daca, Bangladesh in August, the owner of the paper, an ex Intelligence aide of Suddam Hussein, the contacts thru which it appeared after the blackout, suddenly disappeared."

Retrieved Articles/Archives

https://web.archive.org/web/20060704234214/https://tulsaworld.cc/cblog/archives/478-Tulsa-Bomb-Squad-called-out-to-Wal-mart-Friday-Night..html

The last surviving piece of info that proves the legitamacy of the event, which proves that The Tulsa World reported an article of the event and then withdrew it for some unknown and unexplained reason. Article is broken in some parts but the info is there. Comments also describe Clifford as being the target. BlueGhast (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I want to join 102.145.63.96 (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Children of the Black Rose e-group
Looking for more info on this, with credible source material of course. Just need an article that describes the beginning and closure of it. The FCoS website's "historical archive" is still in development, unfortunately.
 * From what I looked into, some info can be accessed from the First Church of Satan or Leved’s own website(Satan’s Playground). https://www.spiralnature.com/spirituality/traditional/

The reason why this is relevant is because Maxine is said to have had a significant position here.

BlueGhast (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit conflict: Disputed content on external links section
As said, the links are a necessary and official part of the religious organization. The links provide readers material for further research of the JoS organizations ideology. How it affects their ideological/political perception is up to them. Article is to provide users an understanding about organization legacy and how it emerged into the theistic Satanic scene as the most controversial sect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueGhast (talk • contribs) 16:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Links to pages full of antisemitic rants and "quotes" from false sources such as the Elders of Zion do not provide any material for further research. This is not the proper place to recruit for a Neonazi group. Bluefin9 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

There's not enough valid sources to cover all of the organization ideological beliefs, the links provide clear and necessary solution and information to what the organization is about and also informs readers what they're getting into. BlueGhast (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

NPOV concerns
Copied from the ANI discussion: This whole article is a mess. Unreliable sources, vanity press books, pseudo-academic journals from non-profits, primary sources, a Master's thesis that's not widely cited by other scholars, etc. A doctoral thesis is cited throughout the article but many of those citations are the author giving examples of primary sources or listing organizations, not his own opinion. Meanwhile, academic database searches like JSTOR and Google News return plenty of sources on "Joy of Satan" but none of them are used, which suggests serious POV issues. Woodroar (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I've tried to make the most of the scarce amount of sources available, but I understand the article needs further work. I've tried reaching out on article talk page for more input and how to maintain a neutral pov, as I always do. It must also be noted article has passed review numerous time. The original JoS article "Joy of Satan" was undeleted by Liz a long time ago after article proved to have some sense of credibility. BlueGhast (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the draft logs, you blanked Draft:Joy of Satan, which we generally interpret as a sign that a draft can be deleted. So it was. But you weren't the only creator and Liz restored the page as a procedural action. Administrators don't determine article content and I don't see any indications that Liz gave any opinion on the notability or lack thereof. Article content should be based on reliable, third-party published sources, and I don't think that's being done here. Woodroar (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard to look at sourcing issues, and then we can move on to any other issues. Woodroar (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No this was not what I was referring to, you are clearly too eager to assume the wrong things here. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joy_of_Satan&redirect=no — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueGhast (talk • contribs) 00:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The RSN discussion has identified these as reliable sources:
 * Asprem, Granhom, Egil, Kennet (2014). Contemporary Esotericism. Routledge. pp. 144–146. ISBN 978-1908049322. [Note: the editors are credited here, but the page numbers point to an article by Jesper Aagaard Petersen.]
 * Introvigne, Massimo (2016). Satanism A Social History. Brill Academic Pub. pp. 370–371. ISBN 978-9004288287.
 * Dyrendal, Asbjorn (2015). The Invention of Satanism. Oxford University Press. pp. 144–232. ISBN 978-0195181104.
 * Partridge, Christopher (2014). The Occult World. Routledge. p. 402. ISBN 978-0415695961. [Note: the editors are credited here, but the page numbers point to an article by Jesper Aagaard Petersen.]
 * Karkov, Catherine (2020). Disturbing Times Medieval Pasts, Reimagined Futures. Punctum Books. p. 323. ISBN 978-1950192755. [Note: the editors are credited here, but the page numbers point to an article by Adam Miyashiro.]
 * Faxneld, Per (April 2, 2013). "Intuitive, Receptive, Dark": Negotiations of Femininity in the Contemporary Satanic and Left-hand Path Milieu". International Journal for the Study of New Religions. 10 (2): 216 – via Equinox Publishing Ltd.
 * Stebbins, Robert (2015). The Interrelationship of Leisure and Play. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 61. ISBN 978-1137513014.
 * Armson, Morandir (2014). The Search for "Meaning": Occult Redefinitions and the Internet. https://journals.equinoxpub.com/index.php/POM/article/view/15116: Equinox Publishing. p. 79.
 * Lewis, James (2016). The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements: Volume II. Oxford University Press; 2 edition. p. 448. ISBN 978-0190466176.
 * I'll start tracking them down when I have the time to see what we've got to work with. Woodroar (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll start making adjustments accordingly. There's some sources I think should be given further consideration however. I've also been needing someone to rework the sources into footnotes if they have the time. BlueGhast (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC on including external links
Should we include external links to the Joy of Satan Ministries and other related organizations outside of the infobox? Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 00:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm including this as an example of how an !vote should be formatted for newer editors who might not understand how. Bold your position (in this case I've commented as I neither support nor oppose), and then write your rationale afterwards. (For what precipitated this, see ) Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 00:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the link in the infobox is sufficient. The main official site, joyofsatan.org, also links to satanslibrary.org and satanisgod.org, so including those sites is unnecessary. I think we need to take into account the organization's (past?) anti-semitism and connections to National Socialist groups and be conservative with linking, as we do on articles like Stormfront (website). Woodroar (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, this group is very much still a hate group (I've read through their sites and forums and their main concerns currently seem to be Jews and the covid vaccine, which they claim is a Jewish/alien conspiracy). I strongly recommend treating them like Stormfront. --Bluefin9 (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * (invited by the bot) Suggest link to their official website be in the body of the article under external links. What's in the infobox should be in the article. North8000 (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So that's a yes, include in the body of the article North8000 (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - my feeling is that that external links should be in the External Links section and not in the infobox - external links in infoboxes are rare, although they are not dissallowed by WP:ELPOINTS, "include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable." External links should not appear in the body of the article, "external links should not be used in the body of an article" WP:EL - Epinoia (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, links provide readers the adequate material to inquire for further research should they desire. The "Satanisgod.org" web page links readers to various articles and content produced by the organization to gain an understanding of their ideology of "Spiritual Satanism", which is necessary for one studying theistic Satanism and its various sects as the organization is considered a pivotal landmark in the development of the the theistic Satanic scene. The Joy of Satan is also recognized as a new religious movement and not categorized as anything else, nor is it affiliated with any official political movement that would be deemed controversial. BlueGhast (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, another reason we should include more links is due to the fact the JoS websites have undergone some of the most devastating cyber attacks. For this reason, the owner has organized them into different page links as a countermeasure, hence the reason there is so many links. This would save any potential readers from inconvenience should the main site experience any further cyber attacks. I think the SIG website would be good enough to have under the EL section as there is already a debate between some of them over which link should now be the official link of JoS. BlueGhast (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a group that claims Hitler ascended into literal godhood and is currently focused on spreading vaccine conspiracies and antisemitism. How exactly is the claim that "nor is it affiliated with any official political movement that would be deemed controversial" relevant? We've compared it to Stormfront, and both groups are very similar in nature. --Bluefin9 (talk)
 * The direction of their forum may seam to have strayed a bit too much into politics and other related things but the websites remain objective to the ideology they advocate. Their historical speculations and whatnot are entirely seperate, covering the affairs of their endeavors outside of the website is basically personal research. Unless you can find me a reliable source that mentions anything about the JoS community then by all means. BlueGhast (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That would create an incomplete picture of the organization. This is not a page about their "teachings", this is a page about the organization, and the organization is a Neonazi group. I don't see how hiding their actual activities while exclusively documenting the articles they use to recruit kids into their hate group would in any way be neutral.--Bluefin9 (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Point is, if we can't allow links, we would really need to reconsider the term "article neutrality" on Wikipedia and what it means to have a "NPOV" perspective. I think articles like this really emphasise that pointBlueGhast (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, The "blackforsatan.org" web page should be included to the least which is meant for an african audience, despite being formerly affiliated with the NSM, which I think readers would find interesting. The Joy of Satan is a new religious movement that emerged from the theistic Satanist scene and recognized as a having a considerably fringe ideology, but a valid and recognized non-profit religious organization nonetheless. See: https://www.sos.ok.gov/corp/corpInformation.aspx?id=1412042646 and http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=1&ti=1,1&Search_Arg=Joy%20of%20Satan%20Ministries&Search_Code=FT%2A&CNT=25&PID=tTsIdrKd-HcjDMM3x1uDvdH9JMgFO&SEQ=20170304235717&SID=3 Scarabaes (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see how filing paperwork and paying whatever small fee is requested makes this a "valid and recognized non-profit religious organization" --Bluefin9 (talk)


 * Yes, it is not our job as editors to decide if something is good, bad, or otherwise, but instead to neutrally provide relevant information to enable the reader to determine that. A link to an organization's official site is clearly relevant and should be presented in the normal fashion, in an "External links" section at the bottom, whether or not it is also in the infobox. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No - Excessive links are simply not required... for this article, or any other article as well. Excessive "external link" sections are generally rather krufty, to be honest, and often exist only in stubs or articles where sufficient inline citations have yet not been established... they work as a stop-gap measure until those articles can be better improved.  Honestly, the single infobox link is plenty, especially given that this article is about a single organization.  Links to related but non-affiliated websites are completely irrelevant-- a wiki-link to other similar organizations might be in order, but not an external link by any means.  I'm also mindful of Woodroar's argument above-- wikipedia is not censored, but on the other hand, we needn't plaster advertisements everywhere either.  The link isn't being censored, it's merely not being thrust to a prominent position. Fieari (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The RFC question was not specific on this, but I think that a core question is to include a link to their official web site in the external links section.North8000 (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Single link for "Official Website" in infobox, maybe one or two more in External Links at bottom of page. Summoned by bot. This seems common for many organizations, from Anglican Church in North America to Westboro Baptist Church, though it is not required. Providing a link is not meant to help recruit, but to allow the reader to have the information. Looking at the site itself, web design circa 1996, it immediately makes the whole thing seem non-notable. And a quick google search seems to show that it might be. In the meantime, a link to the site -- but just one link for "Official Website" -- seems appropriate. Chris vLS (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No we should not. There's no reason to have duplicate links in an article in the first place - It should be in either the infobox or external links, not both. In fact, it might be better to only have it under external links, given that's where most casual readers will probably check first. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 22:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. As someone has mentioned above, it's not wikipedia's job to decide if something is good or bad, we need to provide the readers with adequate resources so that they can look further into it and make their own picture. I support something like was mentioned above by another person, that being putting the official website in the Infobox (as it is right now) and including two or three more relevant links in the External Links section. My main concern with this discussion is about it's bias, yes I think we can all agree that this is a horrible organisation with a horrible ideology, but Wikipedia has to stay neutral and the readers must be able to make up their own mind and must be able to research further. --JonahF (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Yazidism
Just a note because my edit summary wasn't clear and I prefer posting here rather than making a null edit: it seems that this group does appeal to one of their angels, as some author noted, although for mislead reasons (accusations that they "worship the devil" exist). It's partly in the body anyway, where the see also instance was WP:OVERLINKING and potentially an WP:UNDUE "by association" suggestion. I didn't take the time, but it's possible that secondary sources about the group also include some details putting those beliefs in context, in which case the article could reflect that... — Paleo Neonate  – 11:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Cleanup: Neutral point of view
and Due to the many issues that this article had, as it was probably the most nakedly-biased and horribly-written article I've ever seen on Wikipedia, I proceeded with the necessary cleanup, for the following reasons: •  •   already noticed and highlighted by other users in the previous discussions on this Talk page;
 * 1) This article since its creation has been almost entirely written by one editor, BlueGhast, and reflected his own religious views, opinions, judgement, and accusations towards other religious groups;
 * 2) The entire article as it was written was blatantly biased and POV; most of its neutral and sourced content (text, description, informations, categories, religious beliefs, academic reliable references, online reliable references, and evaluation by religion scholars) was originally written by me in the article Theistic Satanism, to which no copy-and-paste edit performed by user BlueGhast, the main author of this article, received any attribution, despite the fact that he/she copied and pasted almost everything from my edit history in the article Theistic Satanism, in blatant violation of WP:COPYWITHIN, although he had been warned on his Talk page for the same behavior multiple times);
 * 3) Made-up, dubious, fabricated stories, false claims, unwanted opinions, and statements attributed to people who are neither journalists nor professors nor scholars, only non-notable, non-neutral, unreliable, attention-seeking Satanist propagandists through their own self-published, promotional websites and books;
 * 4) Apologetic, promotional, and religious propagandistic tone everywhere, from the article to the "sources" themselves;
 * 5) Massive original research (personalistic opinions and "lectures" of the aforementioned non-notable, non-neutral, unreliable, attention-seeking Satanist propagandists and those of user BlueGhast, the main author of this article, literally everywhere); these guys are such a desperate folk of underachievers thirsty for recognition that the only websites outside of Wikipedia that would allow them to propagate their own brand of pseudo-"spiritual", pseudo-New Age, pseudo-Satanic, anti-Semitic Neo-Nazi UFO beliefs without scrutiny are Facebook and Angelfire. Go figure.....
 * 6) Undue weight to the aforementioned non-notable, non-neutral, unreliable, attention-seeking Satanist propagandists along with the persistent and relentless minimization and downplay of the neutral, reliable references, always in favor of the aforementioned Satanist apologetic blogs and books;
 * 7) Persistent and relentless minimization and downplay of reliable academic and online references performed by user BlueGhast regarding the right-wing extremist, Neo-fascist, Neo-Nazi, anti-Judaic, anti-Christian, and anti-Semitic sentiment, ideology, beliefs, and practices of Joy of Satan Ministries alongside the very close ties of its founder Andrea Herrington and her husband Clifford Herrington to the American National Socialist Movement, 

Cheers. GenoV84 (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for doing this, @GenoV84! I think there are a few other outstanding issues:
 * We still cite Jesper Petersen's PhD thesis Between Darwin and the Devil: Modern Satanism as Discourse, Milieu, and Self 14 times and his ContERN presentation Bracketing Beelzebub: Satanism studies and/as boundary work twice. Both are questionable. And that's in addition to numerous other citations to Petersen. We should probably remove the thesis and presentation entirely and also prune other Petersen sources as undue.
 * Massimo Introvigne's Satan the Prophet: A History of Modern Satanism is unreliable per WP:RSP because it was published by CESNUR. (His Satanism A Social History was published by Brill, so it's fine.)
 * History is unreliable per WP:RSP.
 * Also identified as unreliable at RSN: Paniccia, Enrico; Acito, Monica; Bancarz, Steven and Peck, Josh.
 * Rejected as self-published at RSN: McBride, Jaemes; Vera, Diane; Nexion, Secuntra (cite removed but claim still in article); Crepuscolo, Jennifer; Twilight, Jennifer.
 * Primary sources: Oklahoma Secretary of State; U.S Copyright Office.
 * If you don't have time for these, I understand! I can try to get to them myself. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing that out, I appreciate your efforts and those of other editors to improve the article so far. Certainly, most of these folks that you previously mentioned (McBride, Jaemes; Vera, Diane; Nexion, Secuntra; Crepuscolo, Jennifer) fall in the category of non-notable, non-neutral, unreliable, attention-seeking Satanist propagandists that I referred to above; therefore, they should be deleted entirely, since most (if not all) of their dubious claims and inconsistent, extravagant personal opinions are trivial and unencyclopedic, and cannot be verified anyway.

I haven't checked the Ph.D. thesis written by Jesper Aagaard Petersen but if it is a reliable source we could still fix it using template:Cite thesis, although maybe it would be more appropriate to move it to the Bibliography section or Further reading section. However, I would object to removing Massimo Introvigne's CESNUR survey on Satanism. Since Introvigne is considered to be one of the foremost scholars in the academic study of New religious movements (especially concerning the field of "Satanism studies" along with Jesper Aagaard Petersen and James R. Lewis), and he's also the founder of CESNUR itself, the source is still relevant and useful.

Anyway, feel free to improve it yourself or with the help of other editors, and many thanks both to you @Woodroar and @postleft for keeping an eye on this article. GenoV84 (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

If I may state my input here, the article was currently in the process of of some fixing and reworked after initially going through a consensus with other editors. I was also waiting for the conclusion of the RfC. In reply to the above statements: 1: Article is not completely of my work, this is true, but has gone through revisions before in accordance to other editors suggestions. There have also been about 4 other editors involved in this article. 2: To say that I completely copy pasted from the theistic Satanism article is ludicrous, during its initial developement the project did initially begin with the given sources but as we can see the work has been expanded to a higher extent. 3: Editors personal/biased opinion, it must be noted the editor had a dispute with my edits in the theistic satanism page, it was brought up to admin notice who had warned GenoV84 that he was in violation of AGF (Assuming good faith). 4: Same as 3 5: Same as 3 6: Same as 3 7: I brought this before, but that information belongs in the NSFM article and have told you before if you would like to expand on that it should be brought there. The NSFM article has still been missing info till this date. BlueGhast (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Did you also insert all those copyright violations... in good faith? Along with that plethora of non-notable, non-neutral, unreliable, attention-seeking Satanist propagandist websites and books "to a higher extent"... in good faith? Other than copying almost everything that I wrote in the article Theistic Satanism without giving any attribution to the original editor... in good faith? Is that what you're trying to say? GenoV84 (talk) 07:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What "Copyright violation"? The sourced material was used to support a point in a section summary and does not quote the material in anyway. Regarding the issues with sourcing, mistakes happen but there are some sources that still require further evaluation. "Other than copying almost everything that I wrote in the article Theistic Satanism without giving any attribution to the original editor". You know for a fact that it was I who originally wrote that introductory sentence in which you only slightly modified it. It seams you're too eager to throw baseless facts in an attempt to undermine my credibility because of your personal disagreement with the organization. You also tend to use the term "Wannabe satanist" alot, and may be of concern as it could indicate that you may have a conflicting religious conviction or personal disagreement and that your edits may not truly reflect an NPOV stance accordingly in Wikipedia's best interest. We're going to get nowhere with this. BlueGhast (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Consensus can be found on the article's Talk page, I already told you. And No buddy, I'm not the vandal here. Don't try to play games by accusing other users of your mistakes. GenoV84 (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The article was reviewed by editors prior to the NPOV notice and RSN discussion, the article also went through a similar credibility and npov dispute and was amended. So in way, there has already been an established consensus which is why I state we should not be too hasty with editing large portions of the articles. Imo, those individuals should be taken account into this ongoing consensus. I'm sorry our edit conflict had resulted in your ban, that is unfortunate. BlueGhast (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: As I'm writing on the article's Talk page right now, user BlueGhast is back at it again, reinserting the aforementioned non-notable, non-neutral, unreliable, attention-seeking Satanist propagandist websites and books as usual, because BlueGhast has stated very clearly both here and on WP:AIV that he/she is the main author of this article and therefore they can do whatever they want with it, regardless of other editors' contributions, concerns for the current state of the article (which was a complete mess before the cleanup), and in spite of all the warnings on his/her Talk page (which he/she immediately deleted, obviously), and accusing me of vandalism at WP:AIV while he/she is currently vandalizing the article and reinserting that stuff once again through an abuse of process, disruptive editing, and evading the established consensus, regardless of all the rules and WP:NPOV. Should editors and admins also assume good faith in this case? GenoV84 (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It would seem that has been reported and subsequently blocked for making edits that go against the narrative certain users are trying to push. It's pretty clear that they are trying to undermine the cleanup.Bluefin9 (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * User was removing large portions of article based on an assumption that violates wikipedia's policy of AGF. Did not go through consensus with original editor which resulted in an edit conflict. Although they did make a few good edits, there were some that they were unjustifiably disturbing. BlueGhast (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it may help if you could make specific suggestions based on policy, with diffs if necessary. GenoV84, you mentioned above that the CESNUR source is still relevant and useful. At WP:RSP, CESNUR is noted as an apologia site for new religious movements, and thus is inherently unreliable in its core area due to conflicts of interest. There is also consensus that its content is unreliable on its own merits. I read through the discussions and Introvigne is specifically called out as unreliable when writing at CESNUR, though reliable through Brill because of their editorial process. You're certainly welcome to bring this up at RSN but the current consensus is that it's not a reliable source. Woodroar (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * If there’s something new to bring to RSN, I’m strongly in favour of getting new eyes and opinions. I think we should try to get a more definitive picture on CESNUR and Introvigne.
 * Thanks for your hard work, Geno. :-) Cheers, postleft ✍ (Arugula)  ☞ say hello!  17:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * According to RSN discussion, the Italian Satanist Union website was considered acceptable. I also support this as they're actually a significant and notable source from looking at "Interviews and public relations". Link: https://www.unionesatanistiitaliani.it/index.php/pubbliche-relazioni-b Scarabaes (talk)
 * The only mention of the Italian Satanist Union at RSN was that it seems less-than-neutral for the topic based on the title and that all of these [sources] should go. It's clearly an amateur source, written pseudonymously in first person. Looking through that "Interviews and public relations" link, I don't see any mentions from reputable sources. The closest is Vice Media, and we list them as "no consensus" at WP:RSP. The same is true when looking through Google News, which strongly suggests they lack the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:V requires. Woodroar (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarabaes (talk • contribs) 23:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Very well, ISU and Cesnur sources removed. BlueGhast (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

please join the discussion rather than simply reverting. As far as I can tell, these were good edits, supported by policy and multiple editors. Woodroar (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, there were too many edits to keep track. But it seamed like there was not a proper consensus between original editor of material and users. I will make a section in which it will be easier to know what is going on with each section in which editors will be able to give their input on the decision instead of drastically transitioning into a completely different article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarabaes (talk)
 * Also, wasn't there an ongoing vote regarding site links? Has it been concluded yet?


 * Btw, I restored some edits. Scarabaes (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * ,, I would like to express my last consideration about the current state of the article and its many issues that have been recently discussed by you and other editors in my absence:

Personally, I think that I’ve done more than enough and don't consider myself useful anymore. Since this article, in its current version, lends itself to misunderstandings, as well as being highly divisive, I personally feel that I should take a step back and let the other users proceed without me. I consider this to be the best decision for all parties involved in this discussion. GenoV84 (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Every contribution that I made during and shortly after the cleanup and rewriting of the article in order to comply with WP encyclopedic standards were supported and justified by multiple established WP policies, guidelines, and WP:Manual of Style, including WP:RELIABILITY, WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and WP:NOTCENSORED;
 * 2) I was blocked during a edit-warring for reverting various edits performed by the user BlueGhast that, according to WP policies and guidelines, qualify as disruptive for deleting sourced and relevant informations supported by reliable references, firstly without any explanation, then alongisde edit summaries in order to illustrate his/her own point of view through the aforementioned edits, instead of participating in the discussion on the Talk page and trying to reach WP:CONSENSUS with me and other editors about the most appropriate choices for the revision and progression of the article, accusing me of disruption and leaving warning messages on my Talk page. Anyway, I don’t feel animosity towards the user BlueGhast and I think that his efforts to "protect" his favourite version of the article were actually in good faith, although by the wrong means. On the other side, if we had to evaluate his/her behavior so far, BlueGhast has been a Wikipedian editor for two years now, he/she is not a newcomer anymore, therefore he/she should be familiar with WP editing, policies, and guidelines, what Wikipedia is not, etc. The newbie card doesn't apply to his/her recent conduct, albeit as a young editor;
 * 3) The users Woodroar, postleft, and Bluefin9 have already pointed out and highlighted most of the controversial and problematic issues regarding the current state of the article and its progression so far, expressing their own concerns and proposals, which are very similar to mine and those of editors who have participated in the previous discussions that can be found on the article's Talk page;
 * 4) So far, the only users who have disagreed with or disliked my efforts to cleanup the article, check the sources, and rewriting it in accordance with WP:Manual of Style and WP:EPSTYLE were BlueGhast and Scarabaes, whereas the other editors seem to agree with the cleanup and have formulated their own proposals to further improve the article and make it look even better. Moreover, I would also point out that the users BlueGhast and Scarabaes are the only ones who have continued to edit the article and revert my edits repeatedly, despite the lack of WP:CONSENSUS on the article's Talk page, which still has to be reached by all participants;

Edit issues
Aside from necessary edits according to policy, any edits regarding NPOV and/or credibility will be discussed here. According to Wikipedia's policy on NPOV disputes, editors should tag section with POV and then explain in the talk page.

Regarding Maxine's actual name
I know some of the articles state her name is Andrea Herrington, but official government documents indicate at some point later this name was changed/corrected accordingly to her alias. Which is now her actual name. This may also indicate something going on with the alleged connection between Andrea and Clifford Herrington. This will be taken up with W:RS/PS for further evaluation of these government documents. These documents are also necessary to identify the group as a non-profit church btw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueGhast (talk • contribs) 19:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Some relevant policies:
 * WP:BLPPRIMARY: we don't cite public documents for claims about living persons.
 * WP:BLPPRIVACY: we only include full names if they're widely published by reliable sources or if the person has made their own information public. Are the middle names of this person (or these people) widely published or disclosed? If not, it/they should be removed.
 * WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF: we have to be careful when using primary sources—like government documents—in general. We can probably use them to support a claim about the church's non-profit status; it's "self-serving" but not excessively so. But we should rely on independent, reliable sources for anything more than that. Woodroar (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * That is fine then, I looked over some of the sources and in "Asprem, Granhom, Egil, Kennet (2014). Contemporary Esotericism. Routledge", under "Table 7.1 Registration data for a selection of satanic/Left-Hand Path website" it is stated that the Joyofsatan.org website is registered under the name Andrea Dietrich (Maxine Dietrich). BlueGhast (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

"Neo-Nazism and "Nazism post WW2" mean the same thing"
The term "neo-nazism" being used in the sentence would imply that JoS adopts its ideologies from a post ww2 nazi movement when it's a fact that it derives its fundementals directly from the original nazi ideology. Imo, it's unnecessary and misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueGhast (talk • contribs) 01:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * For future reference, the term "neo-nazi" refers to "militant, social, and political movements that seek to revive and reinstate Nazi ideology". From the sources so far, JoS is not acknowledged as a political movement but a religious ideology, although it has incorporated sympathy for some of its ideals. Unless otherwise, description remains the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueGhast (talk • contribs) 03:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Grammar and Syntax
...or what else do you call this? Their relation between Satan, with no second element on the other side of between: their relation between Satan and whom (or what)? Nuttyskin (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)