Talk:The Satanic Temple/Archive 1

Notability
I created this after interacting with a (now blocked) user. I openly admit that I'm not terribly familiar with this group, so if there's anything that needs to be corrected, please feel free to do so. I know that there were concerns in the past that this organization didn't pass notability guidelines, but I think that the coverage since that point has been heavy enough to where they warrant their own article. That said, the page does need to be expanded by people who are more familiar with the group. I'll try to read up on them a bit more later, but it'll have to wait until the week's end. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, not entirely sure how to go about listing some of their basic things like tenents without actually quoting them, so I'm not sure if this would fall afoul of copyvio or not. If it does, feel free to remove this or rephrase it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Another note: what type of infobox would we use? The one used in the Church of Satan? A basic organization infobox? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

"Occult"/"spiritual" not applicable
Removing occult and spirituality WikiProjects (as well as portals in main article). The Satanic Temple has categorically denied occultism, magic, ritual, etc... They also deny spirituality and supernaturalism of any kind. --Electricmonkey (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Satanic Temple. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thesatanictemple.com/religious-beliefs-of-the-satanic-temple/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151009014658/http://laist.com/2015/10/06/satanic_temple_vs_junipero_serra.php to http://laist.com/2015/10/06/satanic_temple_vs_junipero_serra.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Page suggestions
Tokyogirl79, I'm sure your words will reach your old blocked friend. I know him. He wasn't blocked for content but rather because his username was inappropriate in some way that was rather subjective. Thank you ever so much for filling his wish to make this page. Not everyone has time to do these things. I have suggested edits though (anyone can do): HAILXSATANX666 (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Add in the stuff about the Los Angeles Chapter and the Demonizing of St. Junipero Serra . We could use a better citation/source but it happened.  Once we have that, then we can edit in on said saints page in a legitimate neutral way.
 * Add in the protest on Fred Phelps. Afterwards, it can be added into his page
 * In general anything the TST has done can be added to this page (and should be) to support adding it elsewhere in Wikipedia. I think the Unmothering that Jex is doing could be a good add in along with all the Missouri abortion rights, Oaklahoma Challenge and so on.  You made a good start.
 * recent events related to defense of Islam/Muslims
 * I did put a little in about the demonizing - I had some trouble finding sources, which was slightly surprising. If we can find more then I could justify making it into a subsection. I could probably make some more subsections, but I'm afraid of making it a little long so I might make a paragraph at the beginning. I'm basing the subsections mostly on the amount of coverage and if multiple things could fall into one category, like the PP protests. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not finding a huge amount about the LA chapter other than the demonization. If we can find more coverage then we could probably add a subsection, though. I did search for additional coverage about Phelps, but mostly just found coverage about the Pink Mass and Greaves commenting that he wanted to do a similar one for Phelps. That's already covered in the article, although if we can find some critical reaction then we could potentially flesh it out that way. As far as the demonization goes, I'm running into the same issue with that as I am with the LA chapter - it got only a little coverage, so I can't really flesh it out at the moment. I'll look for sources on the Unmothering project. Since it likely fits in with the PP stuff and can be added there, I don't have to worry about it as much. I may turn that section into one that goes over the women's rights protests as a whole since that'd be a good catch all section. I could probably do a section for the Islam/Muslims, but I need to do a search for sources - I didn't really do a huge search for that since I was running out of time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this a religious sect at all?
After reading this article, I don't see anything "religious" about this group. Their tenets are straight out of The Golden Rule, they only superficially have religious customs which are primarily used for theatrical purposes, not worship. They are atheistic, they don't believe in divinity, scriptures or a religious tradition. And their activities seem to mainly about making a social statement, not religious devotion. I don't see how this can be included under the banner of WikiProject Religion, it is more like a civil religion, there is nothing about them that reflects the Occult or Spirituality. Liz Read! Talk! 22:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * They've identified as a Satanist group. I've heard people say that they're more of a social activist group, but I've included them in these WP because they do self-identify as such. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Whether TST is a "real religion" is precisely a subject of debate; some critics say no, TST itself says yes, other sources tend to say yes also. Lucien Greaves describes it as an "authentic religious identity", no less authentic than Christianity or Buddhism. If the organization is not described as a religion, that assertion should explicitly identify itself as a detractor opinion, which the introduction and Reception section already do. — Demong talk 02:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * TST doesn't consider themselves a "real religion" they consider themselves a "real religious organization" and the question is if they can claim to be representatives of a religion that predates them by 50 years and whose founding documents they don't agree with. If they are claiming to be a "real religion" then we should change all references to "Satanic Templism" or something. Seanbonner (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Seanbonner TST does consider itself a real religion and they don't need to change their name to appease your definition of "true Satanism," nor is this the place to litigate what that means, as it requires a complete discussion of what "religion" itself means. It would hardly be appropriate for say, a Catholic editor to demand an overhaul of the entry on Mormonism simply because it hurts his feelings that they're called Christian. It's certainly good enough that there are references to critics' complaints. Dominiusol (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You seem to be confused, organizations are not religions. This is not a page about a religion it's a page about an organization. In your rampage to delete every addition I've added you may have missed that detail. Seanbonner (talk) 06:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

A difficulty that might be encountered is the fact that this group has no doctrines, theology, or practices outside of the socio-political, nor are their beliefs codified in any actual texts. Their philosophy isn't a religious one; they simply seem to be an amalgamation of atheism, secular humanism, and various modern liberal ideas that merely use the mythological character of Satan as sort of mascot, while utilizing the trappings of traditional religious Satanism to make a political statement. They have the tendency to refer to their political demonstrations and rallies as "ceremonies" or "rituals"; they seemingly use ritual as a sort of parody, the aims of which are always political in nature. --Electricmonkey (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Electricmonkey The problem is that you're wrong and The Satanic Temple does have all of those thingsDominiusol (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I think this just comes down to the official Wikipedian definition of a religion, if there is such a thing. The Satanic Temple is a really weird edge case that's trying to be a rationalist non-theistic non-superstitious religion. In many definitions, at least one of those adjectives is incompatible with "religion", but most definitions that allow Buddhism or Confucianism to count as a religion should also allow Temple Satanism, right? I guess the question is, what separates a religion from a philosophy, and which is Temple Satanism? At the very least, I think that Temple Satanism should be acknowledged as a school of thought or a framework of thought. Because there's a lot more going on in this organization than just activism. It's just that the activism, by design, is the most visible thing about this group. I'd also like to make a small correction and say that most of the publicly-visible ceremonies and rituals by the Satanic Temple are, indeed, just political demonstrations, but there are also private rituals/ceremonies that serve purposes similar to LaVeyan rituals. Minus the supernatural subtext, of course. AhtoTsero (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Is Buddhism a religion, even though it does not acknowledge any deity? What about Scientology? Jainism? Taoism or Confucianism? The Sunday Assembly? How do you define religion in a way that includes these, but not the Satanic Temple? Until you have defined what, exactly, you mean by "religious sect," your question is meaningless. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 06:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

After reading this page (which is heavily cited) it seems like this is more of a political group, the page should probably be edited to reflect that better. Seanbonner (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Seanbonner After your citation of that self-evidently egregiously biased, poorly sourced and bitter "fact sheet" it's quite clear you do not understand what constitutes proper citation. It's very obvious you identify with the Church of Satan and your feelings are hurt that The Satanic Temple claims Satanism as well, but you'll have to put that aside for neutrality. It's like allowing a representative from Burger King to come in and edit the McDonald's page with personal blog claims that they may serve ground glass in their burgers. Perhaps you should concern yourself with topics for which you don't have such an obvious tilted POV?Dominiusol (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I more or less disagree with this. In your edit summary when removing that line, the justification was "The group's own website is not a valid source", but a look at the other sources we already cite reveals many reliable sources which refer to it as a religion. That the label of "religion" is often qualified and/or itself the subject of discussion is part of the point. It doesn't seem ideal to simply say "political activist group". There may be a better way to frame it, though. Maybe something a little wordier like "The Satanic Temple is an American political and religious activism organization which uses freedom of religion policies in ways which challenge connections between church and state." (that could most definitely be improved, though). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 23:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fair, I removed it because the source didn't seem appropriate but if there is another source that is better it's worth discussing, but most of the sources referenced in the article are circular in that they refer to it as a religious group citing their own statement again so it's just once removed. The article I referenced seems to be new and suggests they are more of a yes men style parody and given the requirement for neutrality it seemed better to back off on that claim. Also I think it's probably important to make clear that "The Satanic Temple" is a group and "Satanism" is a religion, and not that "The Satanic Temple is a Religion" which some of the sources seem to mix up. I like your idea for a wordier solution but I want to make sure wikipedia isn't furthering a hoax, so what about "The Satanic Temple is an American political activism organization which uses religion and freedom of religion policies to challenge connections between church and state." I'll add another citation now showing that they don't require their members to be satanists which would add more weight to the political group not religious group position. Seanbonner (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Seanbonner Perhaps you should actually read the article in which the "Yes Men style" claim comes from. If you'd actually reviewed your sources, rather than relied upon the Church of Satan's interpretation, you'd see that the full comment regarding the Yes Men related to tactic, and that it was said even there that the organization is an authentic religion. I can only imagine how you'd object if every claim against the Church of Satan's religious authenticity were included in their wiki entry, or if the fact that they existed were used to re-word the entire article.Dominiusol (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant material in History section?
Seanbonner added this text a while ago. I removed it yesterday, with the edit note "irrelevant". He reverted the edit today, and described my change as vandalism (!). Rather than continue the edit war started by Seanbonner, I am posting here for comment.

"'The Village Voice notes that Malcolm Jarry is an assumed name used by Cevin Soling, owner of Spectacle Films which began casting in 2013 for a mockumentary about the “nicest Satanic Cult in the world” called 'The Satanic Temple.'' (citation 'MSNBC's Bashir Falls for Hoax, Reports Satanists to Rally for Rick Scott; Turns Out It's Part of Mockumentary', https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/ken-shepherd/2013/01/18/msnbcs-bashir-falls-hoax-reports-satanists-rally-rick-scott-turns)"

I maintain this is irrelevant, and also veiled criticism. This section is supposed to be about the history of TST, not a tangentially-related mockumentary film. Neither Cevin Soling (Malcolm Jarry) nor Spectacle Films is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. The History section is short and could use expansion, but with information relevant to the history of the organization. Furthermore, the citation is to a NewsBusters article, a source with a strong agenda that describes its mission as "exposing and combating liberal media bias".

PS: The CoS website, cited above, is not a reliable source of information about TST. The web site belongs to a separate group that generally dislikes and often slanders TST. That "fact sheet" is meant as an attack. It cites various reliable sources, but the citations are used to support strongly biased language (which is not reflected in the source material); the CoS site itself is not a reliable source. — Demong talk 06:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The COS website is not the source, the COS website is a single page with a list of sources, rather than post 20 links I thought posting one was easier. Happy to change that to 20 links if you feel that is more efficient. Every item on that page has several sources, so your argument that one of the sources is biased is a bit weak. Pick one of the other sources if you prefer. The fact of the matter is that TST was started as a mockumentary by a film maker and later turned into a political group, and that's relevant info to include in a history section. Just because the history isn't flattering doesn't make it "thinly veiled criticism." Rewrite the text if you feel the tone is wrong, but the details are relevant and should be included. Seanbonner (talk) 07:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken. The film was made (though I can't verify it was made at all, only planned) at least a year (more?) after the creation of the organization. It is not how the organization started. Here is a "real" article about it: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/14/satanists-rally-for-rick-scott_n_2471328.html — Demong talk 07:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You will need to provide some evidence on that because that's not what TST or the timeline says. TST Spokes Person Lucien Greaves has said repeatedly that the film was never made, and the first thing TST ever did in public was the event in Florida which they casted people for claiming it was for the movie. This event can be seen in this video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8ZA30BxuOY&feature=youtu.be) which includes obvious actors. They changed the story about TST after this event, but that was the public launch of TST. Legal filings show TST was not registered until more than a year after this event in March of 2014 ( https://www.bizapedia.com/trademarks/the-satanic-temple-86221887.html ) I know that you have completely disregarded the COS link, but it's worth reading as it's heavily cited and sourced. Additionally, Lucien Greaves recently confirmed on twitter that the organization was founded later ( https://twitter.com/LucienGreaves/status/924160457451147264 ) Seanbonner (talk) 07:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Lucien Greaves has also repeatedly spoken of his affinity for Satanism beginning with the Satanic Panic and has made clear that his attachment to Satanism has never changed and that the film project itself was meant to advance rights for Satanists. The goal of advancing rights for Satanists grew into an active Satanic organization that has always maintained its authenticity. @Seanbonner has a very selective reading of the relevant material and I think it's time that a moderator mediate his continued vandalism of both the TST and Lucien Greaves pages. Again, Seanbonner cites the CoS "fact sheet" gushing at how well-cited it is, but he's obviously never looked at how the citations fail to support the claims.Dominiusol (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I haven't cited the CoS fact sheet in any edits, I've mentioned it on talk pages for discussion with other editors and we've come to agreements on edits that you are deleting wholesale and then attacking editors on talk pages, something it seems your account was created exclusively to do. Seanbonner (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I am aware that this particular claim does not cite CoS. My "cited above" comment refers to your post in the "Is this a religious sect at all?" section on this page, the disputed content is obviously inspired by the CoS "fact sheet". CoS has a strong anti-TST agenda. Repeating it as fact, no matter how the "sources" or phrasing are massaged, is not an encyclopedic course of action. It should be removed, not reworded. — Demong talk 07:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * That's preposterous. Factual information shouldn't be included because you don't like the organization that brought it to light? I don't see how you can say a direct quote from an interview is not a "fact" - it's as legit as you can get, which is why it should be included. Furthermore claiming COS has an anti-TST agenda suggests you have a bias here, as COS themselves say their mission is to protect the definition of Satanism and their website shows evidence of doing just that with various groups of which TST is just the most recent. Seanbonner (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * TST is not a religion, it is an organization. A person does not become a follower of a religion by joining an organization. The way it works with other religions is they follow a religion and then join a related organization. The interview makes clear that people do not need to follow the religion to join TST. You are reading something else into what is a very clear statement. Seanbonner (talk) 07:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "TST is not a religion..." is a hotly-debated topic. TST itself claims it is, as do many independent sources that cover them. Criticism along those lines is discussed elsewhere in the article, and identifies itself as an opinion. Insinuating that sentiment as fact elsewhere in the article is not appropriate. Also asserting that "religion" and "organization" are mutually exclusive is inaccurate, unless you mean "it's a religious organization, not a religion" in which case I think that's unnecessarily hair-splitty. — Demong talk 08:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't. You seem ill informed on this and might want to read up more on it before making these statements. TST does not claim to be a religion, TST claims to be a religious organization. They argument isn't if TST members are Satanic Templeers, it's if they are Satanists - practitioners of Satanism a religion that predates TST by 5 decades, not practitioners of Satanic Templeism. All available evidence suggests that TST is a political group who uses religion to make a point, not a religious group of people with deeply held beliefs. Seanbonner (talk) 08:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Seriously, please stop insulting me. They definitely claim to be a religious group of people with deeply held beliefs. TST is an "authentic religious identity". — Demong talk 08:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You've lost me. That's the point I'm making, TST isn't a religion, it's a group. They claim to be religious but the evidence suggests they are political. It's hard to believe they have "deeply held beliefs" when 4 years ago they were claiming to be devil worshipers who were part of a 1000 year old cult. No court has yet recognized TST as a legitimate religious group and they can't perform marriages or other legal religious services. All of their efforts are on a political level and Lucien has said several times if these issues they object to didn't exist there would be no point in TST existing either and Malcom stated he thought up TST in reaction to Bush political moves. You seem to be jumping from one argument to the next, but the point here is that what they claim to be today and what they obviously are after 4 years of activities are not the same thing, and as an unbiased encyclopedia including those clear conflicts on wikipedia is valid.


 * "They claim to be religious but the evidence suggests they are political" is a subjective and disputed interpretation of the evidence. And anyway, why not both? — Demong talk 08:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You claimed TST considers themselves a religion, they don't. They consider themselves a religious group. Saying you are ill informed isn't an insult, it's an observation on your incorrect statement which followed your earlier one about when TST was formed and the film they didn't finish making. Seanbonner (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I mentioned this page at NPOVN
The WP:SPAs (and indications of WP:MEAT/WP:CANVASS) in the RfC above, combined with some research I did into the background between the Church of Satan and the Satanic Temple led me to start a thread at NPOVN to get some additional participation from neutral third parties. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 23:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Obvious Bias
(Disclaimer: Hi, new to wikipedia and this is my first entry on a talk page, so I may be completely wrong here and welcome any guidance. Also I am a member of The Satanic Temple)

I was wondering why the page for The Satanic Temple has essentially been hijacked by someone with obvious bias. The only new information added to this page have been some actions of the Los Angeles Chapter and items pulled from a "Fact Sheet" distributed by the Church of Satan. There has been no updating of information of any kind in regards to Chapters, expansion, rituals, honestly aside from the attack items it doesn't seem as if the page has been updated since the unveiling of the Baphomet monument in 2015.

There is tons of new information from podcasts, news articles, television reports, etc and yet it seems as though any time something changes on this page it is immediately disregarded as biased unless it is written by someone whose only intent is disparagement.

I'm not asking for favorable coverage, just basic coverage of facts. Is it possible to ask for an editor with obvious bias to be removed from a page they seem intent on damaging? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WHWonka (talk • contribs) 14:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. I'll note that you have a brand new account which made almost identical edits as other recent brand new accounts which would seem to suggest WP:MEAT may be taking place and should be discouraged. Regarding this article, if you look at the article history and the discussions on this talk page you'll see that editor consensus was that the page was too promotional WP:PROMOTION and needed to be edited to be more inline with wikipedia style. The recent changes have been as part of that decision. The purpose of this article is not to promote this group or document everything they do or press they receive, nor for members of the group to promote themselves, rather it's to give an accurate description of the group and issues related to them. Adding cited references, even when not flattering, helps keep the article balanced. A cited source is not less valid because you don't like it, and adding cited sources improves the article, it doesn't damage it as you claim. Additionally, as a member of this group you have a WP:COI it's not appropriate for you to edit the page, if you have factual changes you'd like to see you can add them on the talk page for discussion and potential inclusion. Seanbonner (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * First of all thank you to everyone that has helped and pointed me in the right directions. I attempted to make edits before really knowing anything about the pillars of wikipedia and any of that information. When I did some research that is why I ended up here and announced that I was a member specifically to avoid a conflict of interest.  I don't know the other new editor you speak of but it's not me and I accept that I can't edit the article.
 * WP:COI seems to be the issue at hand. My issue is that the page prior to recent edits was only out of date and slightly skewed.  There are innumerable sources for information from and about The Satanic Temple that are just plainly factual and non-biased.  Even the CoS fact sheet that was used as a prompt for editing was refuted item by item and yet that is not included.
 * Seanbonner seems to be the problem as he is the one who clearly is biased against The Satanic Temple and Lucien Greaves. He is a LaVeyan Satanist and has been involved in numerous disputes and editwarring that are both Pro-CoS and Anti-TST.  His involvement with the Church of Satan should disqualify him as well. WHWonka (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It's silly to suggest that having an interest and knowledge of Satanism would disqualify me from editing an article relating to that subject on Wikipedia - again as noted this article is not a press release and to imply that only people who are supporters of the organization in question should edit it shows a misunderstanding of the purpose. However none of that matters, As can be seen from the talk page before I ever edited it Wikipedians felt that the earlier article was too promotional and it's been and will continued to be edited to be more neutral. The additions to the article are cited and sourced, if there are any that are factually incorrect then they are worth discussing and correcting, but as has been discussed already the spokesperson for the organization making a blog post attacking the sources or saying "so what" is not refuting or disproving anything. The CoS fact sheet you keep mentioning is never cited in the article, it's discussed on the talk page which is were non-article worthy discussions happen. Legal filings, web archives and interviews that are mentioned in the CoS fact sheet are not suddenly less valid sources because CoS mentioned them and it's improper to suggest that. Again, if there are any factual problems with edits they can be discussed and corrected, but PR statements from organization being discussed are valid sources. This article, and all articles for that matter, should remain neutral and contain cited and sourced information to help tell an accurate story. Seanbonner (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not that you have interest and knowledge of Satanism, I am interested in and knowledgeable about Satanism but being that I am openly a member of TST I accept that my edits could be viewed as biased and thus I won't be editing. It's that you are obviously biased against The Satanic Temple and Lucien Greaves and it is evident in your history.  Numerous edit wars and problems that are CONSISTENTLY Pro-CoS and Anti-TST.  Not to mention your Instagram, Tumblr, Twitter, etc are all full of Pro-CoS items which hardly makes you neutral.  I'm not asking for a press release, I'm asking for an unbiased factual up-to-date article.  There are plenty of other editors that don't seem to have any of the problems you have had on this or other Satanic pages.
 * "This article, and all articles for that matter, should remain neutral and contain cited and sourced information to help tell an accurate story." Absolutely.  That is why I am asking either you to refrain from editing the page anymore or searching out a way to have you removed from being able to edit it.  AGAIN, I am not asking that I be able to edit the page, I'm not asking that blog posts be taken as canon, I'm not suggesting that the page should be promotional at all.  Simply Unbiased, Factual, and Current.  I don't see that as a problem, you do. WHWonka (talk) 10:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Why don't you list what the problems are, what edits should be made and give wp:reliable sources supporting your suggestions? Jim1138 (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Your criticism continues to be directed at me and not at the article and I would direct you to wp:pa. If you have specific problems with the article please list them and they can be discussed, but I'll politely ask you to keep whatever personal issues you seem to have with me out of it. My interest continues to be for Wikipedia to have accurate articles, with reliable sources to support them and will respectfully disagree with you by stating that my properly sourced and cited edits have made the article better, not worse. Seanbonner (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Seanbonner and have no issues with their editing this article. Jim1138 (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * How do I go about this? Links to every dispute  has had on CoS, TST, and Lucien Greaves pages?  Link to the fact that he's been involved in editwars and has been blocked from editing pages in the past? Do I have to link to his twitter, tumblr, instagram, etc to show his bias?  I don't understand how one editor has a problem with 4 other editors consistently and 1 editor backing him up and that's fine?  Not to mention the tone he takes when even mentioning Lucien in talk pages.  Issues with     and the fact that he's cited blogs as sources when it's convenient as with Shane Bugbee or dismissed blogs when they aren't convenient as with Lucien and Patheos.  Sean only became involved in editing these pages after the publication of the CoS "Fact Sheet" that he has referenced in talk pages and the "reliable sources" cited by the fact sheet also espouse Mind Control and Satanic Ritual Abuse and Government coverups.  Other sources are misquoted and misrepresented. The Vice piece used to discredit many aspects if read completely reinforces many things that are being discussed.  I feel like I'm beating my head against a wall because the bias is so obvious it's laughable and I honestly don't understand how others don't see it WHWonka (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I will ask you again to please avoid wp:pa. If you are unable to make a list of edits you feel are incorrect citing wp:reliable sources to justify proposed changes then I don't why you keep posting - is your purpose here to attack me or to improve the article? Jim1138 and I have both asked you to make a list so they can be discussed. Seanbonner (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Editing articles about an organization you're involved with is discouraged but not forbidden. Just be careful to color inside other lines. You have as much right to edit the article as anyone else does. If you can add (and preferably source) information from podcasts, news articles, television reports, etc., great, please do so.

See also: FAQ/Organizations — Demong talk 22:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yet another... on pseudonyms in particular, but NPOV in general
This article is not neutral point of view, there is vaguely negative language used throughout. For example, there are repeated parenthetical notes about pen names, i.e. "The group was co-founded by Lucien Greaves [...] and Malcolm Jarry (both of which are pseudonyms)", "Malcolm Jarry is an assumed name...", and "Jex Blackmore (pseudonym)..." I removed the Jex one, summary "This is unnecessary and vaguely negative. Many creators and performers use a pen- or stage-name; the article about them can list their given name, it is not mentioned whenever the name is, on other articles." Seanbonner reverted my edit, summary "It's not negative, it's factual. This isn't about a artist or a creator. That the most cited people involved with the organization all use pseudonyms is significant." I re-reverted (unwise?), summary "Please point to any other article that includes such a parenthetical note. I predict no such example exists." Seanbonner re-re-reverted without discussion or summary.

"Significant" according to whom? "Factual?" and "encyclopedic?" are two different questions, the fact is not disputed. I think the notes should be deleted, and would like to read others' comments about that.

The article should also have a "neutrality questioned" banner, adding. — Demong talk 02:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Do whatever you feel like you need to, but there's been months of discussion and it's very curious that factual statements keep being removed by the same editors claiming negativity, rather than rewriting them. Several details in this article continue to just be removed, which goes back to the original issue with it months ago that it written up like a press release. Neutral articles cover subjects accurately, good and bad. Repeated deletions of anything that the organization considers embarrassing is problematic. Seanbonner (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "This isn't about a artist..." So you are saying that you have an authoritative definition of not only "religious" but also "art"?!


 * Just because something is factual doesn't mean it should be included in a Wikipedia article, and something having been discussed does not shield it from being discussed again. The standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Please address the actual objection. I think unimportant details make articles worse; if there is a source that says it's important that people involved with TST use pseudonyms, please link to it. — Demong talk 10:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh, is it about art now? Should we look forward to you arguing that the lede should say they are a political activist and religious and artists group? Why stop there? If something that is factual doesn't belong in a wikipedia article, why is there a wikipedia to begin with? This article exists for facts about the subject, not promotion of the groups talking points. Seanbonner (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Not every fact about the subject. — Demong talk 10:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It is unlikely that a moderator will descend and declare a winner and loser. Various guideline and policy pages describe what constitutes correct behavior and procedure. The relevance and importance of these notes is disputed, and only one editor has commented in their defense. The proper course of action is that they be removed for now. If anyone thinks they should be restored, please explain, providing the requested supporting evidence, or a guideline- or policy-related argument to that effect.

WP:PROVEIT: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material..."

WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful."

WP:IMPARTIAL: "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized." — Demong talk 19:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "WP:PROVEIT": It is well documented. How else does it need to be "proved"?
 * "WP:NOTEVERYTHING": Two other editors appear to disagree with you. See WP:consensus and wp:edit warring
 * "WP:IMPARTIAL":
 * How is it an opinion? Their pseudonyms are well documented.
 * Inappropriate tone? Why is mentioning that they are pseudonyms an "inappropriate tone"? Greaves doesn't even hide it.
 * Jim1138 (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) Yes it is well-documented. The dispute is not that it's false, it's that mentioning it is unencyclopedic. Seanbonner claims the fact is "significant" but that appears to be according to him only. My request is for the significance to be proved, for example by supplying a link to a reliable source that says so.


 * 2) I count one. Do you also disagree? If so, please comment/explain.


 * 3) It is inappropriate because it's unnecessarily critical in that context, and such a note does not appear on other articles. I think unnecessary details weaken articles. — Demong talk 21:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

A Neutral Stance on Religiousness
I'm frankly sick of the edit wars around whether to call TST a religion, an activist group, etc. Can we try and reach a neutral compromise on this? Would it be acceptable to come to call them a "self-described religious group" instead of going back and forth between activists and religion? Is there a more neutral way to state this? The group calling itself a religion is a fact than can be cited. Whether it qualifies as a religion is obviously up for debate, and depends on subtle details of the definition one uses. Smileman66 (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I too am sick of it and would prefer a resolution. The issue with your proposal is that no one would consider describing [The Yes Men] as "Self Described Political Spokesmen" rather they are accurately described as activist who use several tactics including mascarading as political spokesmen to accomplish their goals - even though they start press conferences claiming to be said spokesmen. With TST there seems to be enough citations that they have primarily political aims so saying they are a self described religious group and leaving it at that leads to the assumption that they are a religious group and then Wikipedia becomes part of the misinformation campaign. Perhaps better would be "activist who refer to themselves as a religious group to accomplish their political goals" - I'm uncomfortable with simply "self-described religious group" when the founders are on record saying they started the group for political reasons. Seanbonner (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is any reason why "activist group" and "religious group" should be mutually exclusive, which seems to be the crux of the argument. The neutral compromise is to use both labels. — Demong talk 10:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Out of context they are not mutually exclusive, in the context of the accusation that a political group is pretending to be a religious group in order to move a political agenda, saying the group is both a political activist group and a religious group is not a compromise, it's endorsing one side of that argument. The fair and neutral thing is to not take a position, note that it's disputed and present the cited facts around the dispute. There's no situation where repeating this groups claims at face value fits into WP policy. Seanbonner (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles should never make accusations. There are plenty of sources that say their religious beliefs are sincere, besides themselves. That is disputed by some sources, and the dispute is already described elsewhere in the article. — Demong talk 11:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I've not seen a source that claims their religious beliefs are sincere that isn't using them as a source for that claim, and that should be heavily suspect as the founders are on record in several cited situations saying they are not sincere. I don't understand how this is even still being debated. Regardless, you are right that Wikipedia shouldn't make accusations and since the debate is described in the article the head shouldn't take a different position, but rather should accurately note that it's debated. It's irresponsible to have a section about the debate, and then in the head print the debated claim at face value. Seanbonner (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "Self-described" has negative connotations, it insinuates doubt, which is taking a position between their own claim (and sources that believe it), and sources that doubt the claim. Describing multiple points of view is appropriate, but should also be proportional; that dispute doesn't belong in the article's first sentence. — Demong talk 11:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that a disputed detail shouldn't be in the first sentence, which is why I've repeatedly removed that reference entirely and continue to argue that is the only neutral way to handle it. Seanbonner (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I can't tell whether the repeated misrepresentation of my position is intentional or not. I said the dispute doesn't belong there, not that the detail doesn't. — Demong talk 21:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Another dispute
I removed something, and it was re-added without discussion. (What's up with re-reverting and telling the other person to bring it to Talk?!)

The removed text is "Members do not necessarily identify as Satanists, rather may consider themselves strong allies who believes in the organization's political and secular actions", citation http://brokeassstuart.com/blog/2016/11/22/103831/?repeat=w3tc

The relevant source text which allegedly supports this claim is a quote from an interview with Lucien Greaves (TST spokesperson) Draco Ignis: "You don’t even have to be a Satanist, you can just be a strong ally..." The interviewer's question was "How do you join?" Many new applicants do not identify themselves as Satanists before joining. Most or all active members do. The statement in the article is inaccurate. (Also, it's more veiled criticism, here that TST is not a "real religion"; this criticism is discussed elsewhere in the article, it is dishonest to "sneak in" the opinion and present it as fact.) I think it should be deleted again. Comments? — Demong talk 06:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * That's incorrect, and it seems you are deleting things that you think are unflattering without checking them out. The interview is not with Lucien Greaves, it is with Draco Ignis and Hofman A Turing who the author cites as "two delightful and articulate young men who represent the NYC Chapter of TST", and the answer to the question asked is ″If there’s a local chapter where you are, to join you do have to be accepted, but there’s no initiation or anything. You don’t even have to be a Satanist, you can just be a strong ally who believes in the political and secular actions without being super stoked about all the aesthetic aspects." which is the exact language I used, not allegedly, word for word. This is a relevant detail as there is noted ongoing discussion about where on the scale between religious group and political group TST sits, so reps saying people don't have to be Satanists to be members is important. Seanbonner (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oops, I thought the interview was with Lucien. Still, Draco's answer is taken out of context with the question to justify an incorrect statement, a claim he clearly wasn't making. People who want to join TST often do not identify as Satanists. After joining, most or all people do. — Demong talk 07:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * That's your assumption. I could just as easily make the claim that most or all people who join TST don't consider themselves satanists and it would be equally baseless. Especially as "joining" the TST involves signing up for a mailing list. I personally doubt that someone does that and then calls themselves a satanist immediately after but I don't have a source for that. I do have a source for the info I included. The comment isn't out of context, it's directly related to the context. Again, this is a cited fact that doesn't seem to fit your narrative but that doesn't mean it's somehow false. Seanbonner (talk) 07:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Regardless of what you or I would claim or assume, the cited source does not say what the article does. "How do you join?" "You don't even have to be a Satanist..." The quote from the interview is about prospective applicants. The disputed content falsely generalizes it into being about current members. — Demong talk 07:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Also please please stop accusing me of having an agenda, making decisions based on what organizations I personally like or dislike, or trying to push a particular narrative. — Demong talk 07:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The article is very clear, your interpretation of it is misplaced. You went through and deleted all my additions, disregarded my sources and and are referencing TST talking points that facts conflict with. That you have an agenda here seems quite obvious, however I'd be more than happy to admit I'm wrong and apologize for that incorrect assumption. I didn't have time to spend going through the entire COS page and updating this article, so if you aren't biased I'm sure you can grab any one of the facts listed there and add it to this article, there are many outstanding that should be included. Pick whatever one you want. Seanbonner (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * When considering whether a source is a reliable one, it is pertinent to point out that it is biased. CoS has a well-documented bias against TST, e.g. "satanists from the Church of Satan say the Satanic Temple is full of 'lame, fake satanists' who are 'making Satanism look ... ridiculous.'" (source http://www.therooster.com/blog/drama-between-two-satanic-churches-really-giving-satan-bad-name)


 * No, I don't want to "grab any one of the facts listed there". That's like using a Sunni web site to inform an opinion about Shiites. — Demong talk 08:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry I'm going to have to push back on this again. The article you linked was written by an author who the COS had just called out for not doing his research. ( http://www.churchofsatan.com/sucker-born-every-millisecond.php ) and he's clearly angry about it. The COS page is a list of sources, like the trademark office and interviews and legal filings. That you would write those off as "libelous conclusions" makes my point that you have an agenda here very clear. A trademark filing isn't a libelous conclusion. An IRS tax exempt filing isn't a libelous conclusion. But they do conflict with the story that TST is trying to paint today. Seanbonner (talk) 08:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Please consider the possibility that it's CoS who has the narrative agenda and is trying to paint a particular story. — Demong talk 08:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * 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 (talk) 08:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It is possible to use facts to justify an opinion. The opinion expressed by the disputed content mirrors the opinions expressed by CoS. — Demong talk 08:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * If facts mirror an opinion then perhaps the opinion isn't libelous but rather based on facts. Regardless, we're not talking about alternative facts here. A fact is a fact, and it should be included no matter whose opinion it aligns with. Seanbonner (talk) 08:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I said the opinion mirrors, not the fact mirrors. — Demong talk 08:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

(unindent) I am not saying this is a reliable source or using it to actually rebut any specific argument, but just to point out the "facts" and conclusions of that page are disputed: https://luciengreaves.com/correcting-the-church-of-satan-fact-sheet/ — Demong talk 22:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not a reliable source as it's the person saying "did not" - every one of the rebuttals on that page is either an ad hom on the source or a deflection, there are no actual corrections. This is written with the hope that people will not go look at the sources, because looking at them and reading them makes it clear that the COS sheet is accurate and this "rebuttal" is propaganda. We're supposed to be about un biased facts here. Posting it and saying it's not a source and you aren't using it to rebut anything makes no sense - Significant claims were made against someone and they made a blog post saying "did not" and you are posting that to show it's disputed? Again, the COS sheet links to interviews and legal documents, the Greaves blog post doesn't address any of those facts. Seanbonner (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The opposite is clear to me: the CoS sheet is propaganda and the rebuttal is accurate. The cited sources don't support the claims made on the sheet. Wikipedia should describe a conflict, not engage in it. — Demong talk 02:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a false premise to suggest it's a conflict, there are very clear facts from various sources that perfectly detail the situation. Pretending that it's two equal groups arguing about an opinion is just silly and the only way you can say the rebuttal is accurate and the CoS sheet is propaganda is if you didn't actually read any of the sources, and don't care that the rebuttal almost never addresses the actual point being made. Let's look at an example - #1 claim is that TST launched as a mockumentary and there are 4 sources cited for this, rebuttal spends a paragraph arguing why, then only in the end argues about the wording of "fake religion" but never disputes the core issue. #2 claim is original TST website says they believe in a literal Satan and links to web archive of page that says just that, rebuttal says "false!" then goes on to explain how they think about it now but never addresses the actual wording on the site at the time which is what the CoS sheet is talking about, so that's just deflection being passed off as debunking. #3 Claim that TST co-founder told NY Time in an interview that he thought up TST to combat Bush era religious freedom laws with link to NYT interview, rebuttal says "so what?" which isn't much of a debunking, etc.. it goes on and on like this with the rebuttal making an elaborate explanation or insult packed reply while completely skipping or glossing over the actual claim in the sheet. But again, there's no need for the CoS sheet at all because it makes no original claims, everything on it is sourced elsewhere so the claim that all those sites including web archives and legal filings are propaganda and Lucien's blog is the only reliable source is questionable to say the least. Seanbonner (talk) 04:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Seanbonner It's absolutely incredible to me that you read those corrections and felt that they merely said "did not"! It is plainly visible to anybody who compares the fact sheet against the rebuttal that the CoS engaged in grossly misrepresenting their sources, from claiming that Greaves referred to TST as "purely satire" when the citation shows precisely the opposite to claiming Greaves has been played by multiple actors with no evidence for the claim except a personal blog in which somebody claims he was asked to play the role once but didn't! Also, if you'd read the corrections -- and really anything at all about TST which you hadn't gotten from the CoS webpage -- you'd see that TST was founded based on the interest generated from the film project and that they've been consistent in their beliefs from the moment of their founding. Greaves does not need to dispute that which preceded the actual founding of TST even if the name migrated from one idea into a completely different entity. Your focus on the film is entirely misrepresentative of what TST has been for its entire actual existence. Even the CoS "fact sheet" acknowledges Greaves' own attachment to religious Satanism which long pre-dates TST. It's very apparent that you are unable to exercise any neutrality on this topic.Dominiusol (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't care what CoS thinks or your apparent vendetta. The edits I've made have been properly sourced and discussed with other editors, while you have a brand new account that clearly exists only to delete my edits and attack me on talk pages. Seanbonner (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This WaPo article which states: Lucien Greaves is co-founder of and spokesperson for the Satanic Temple, an international nontheistic religious organization advocating for secularism and scientific rationalism. was used as a source to the statement The Satanic Temple is a religious Satanic organization This does not support that statement. Jim1138 (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * How does it not support that statement and what kind of citation possibly would if that does not?Dominiusol (talk) 07:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The subject of the article is not a valid source about itself. The co-founder of the organization making a claim about the organization in his own byline on an editorial he wrote is not a neutral. Seanbonner (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Format your talk per help:talk pages For one, a source that doesn't contradict itself. If it's "nontheistic" they are not worshiping any deities, including Satan. If they don't worship Satan, they are not a "Satanic religion". Read their "Tenets" https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/tenets Any mention of Satan? Nope. Jim1138 (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Buddhists don't worship Buddha. — Demong talk 03:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Trying to define religion (especially suggesting all religions must include supernatural beliefs) in a way that excludes TST is exactly disputing the point they are trying to make, and engaging in the argument instead of describing it. — Demong talk 03:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is that sentence still part of this article? The WP page says something different than what the cited (not reliable anyway) source says; the citation does not support the statement. A case for its removal seems open-and-shut to me. Would others please comment? — Demong talk 08:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The source cited is an interview with a representative, it's reliable. The interview says exactly what is mentioned in the article, the only reason to remove it is to try and play down the fact that all "members" of this political group do not engage in the "religious" banner they use. The inclusion is very straight forward as has been discussed for months now. Seanbonner (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the response is taken out of the context with the question, it doesn't mean what the citation implies that it means. Also the request for "others" to comment meant, like, people who haven't been involved in this discussion. — Demong talk 09:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It has been a week since I asked for other comments (and two months since this topic started). I am going to go ahead and make this edit (i.e. remove that sentence) again. The burden of proof is on the person that claims something is true, not the person that claims it's false. I think that sentence makes a false statement, which the citation does not support; reasoning described in detail above. If you disagree, please explain (beyond asserting that it is true). — Demong talk 05:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no. A statement by a representative is valid, it's silly to suggest it isn't. It's not out of context, rather the edit is word for word. You are the one implying that there's some other interpretation that you've failed to validate. Just because the statement doesn't fit with your other arguments on content in this article doesn't mean it's not valid. Seanbonner (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My objection is not related to the validity of the answer, it's about the question. Draco says, to join, you don't even have to consider yourself a Satanist. That sentence says the statement is about members after joining. — Demong talk 20:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Sean reverted this edit with the note "This edit has been debated in depth, it's a statement by a representative that reflects significantly on the organization, the fact that it doesn't fit with the organizations public relations isn't a valid reason to remove it.)" I removed the sentence again, but my edit note was cut short, it was supposed to read "The objection has nothing to do with public relations, it's about the question, and the fact that the answer is taken out of its context. Please address that on the Talk page, and stop unilaterally adding this. ("This edit has been debated in depth" is misleading, only one person [you] objects, and the arguments do not address my objection, they merely respond "is so" to the allegation that it's not appropriate.)"

I don't have to prove the sentence doesn't belong, you have to prove it does. — Demong talk 20:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Sean reverted the edit again, unilaterally and without discussion. — Demong talk 00:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic: Sean also re-reverted another change I made, removing an (I think) unnecessary note that Jex Blackmore is a pseudonym. When I began interacting with him, I assumed good faith, but there is ample evidence on this page that he is "guarding" the article, preventing others from making improvements to it. — Demong talk 00:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The edit summaries and Talk page comments used to justify (unilaterally) reverting this change variously contend that the removal is due to personal disagreement with the statement, because it constitutes facts the organization finds embarassing, because it doesn't fit with the group's public relations, etc. Those reasons were never given or implied, and the supposed justifications are irrelevant and do not carry any weight. Counter-arguments should address the points that were actually made by the arguments. Furthermore, suggesting that an edit has an unstated motivation beyond simply improving the article is extremely bad manners. See also: Disruptive_editing.

It is unlikely that a moderator will descend and declare a winner and loser. Various guideline and policy pages describe what constitutes correct behavior and procedure. This statement is alleged to be false, and only one editor has protested that it is true. The proper course of action is that it be removed for now. If anyone thinks it should be restored, please explain why. — Demong talk 19:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yet again, reverted without discussion. — Demong talk 22:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The line is a direct quote from a spokesperson in the organization, in an interview about the organization, being asked directly about joining the organization. It's cited and sourced. That you "allege it to be false" is unfounded, as the proof is right in the citation. Again, if you think the text is misleading then rewrite it, but it is a cited fact that is relevant to the overall discussion that you just keep deleting. Seanbonner (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For the fourth or fifth time, the question was about joining. The sentence falsely generalizes the answer into being about members after joining, a claim (I think) he obviously wasn't making. Please address that instead of a strawman about how the quote is direct from a spokesperson, which was never disputed. — Demong talk 07:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And for the fourth or fifth time you are making assumptions that are not supported by the comment. There is no discussion about people "becoming Satanist" rather is directly says you do not have to be a Satanist to join. There is no suggestion anywhere that the act of joining TST makes you a Satanist, and in fact 50 years worth of literature about Satanism that says people either are or aren't, and Satanism isn't something people become or are converted to. Similarly in other religions the act of joining a church doesn't change someones religion. Someone is not an atheist until they join a christian church, rather christians join christian churches. And if you are arguing that the act of joining TST turns you into a Satanist, then how would you explain the other potential members that he's referring to? By saying "you don't even have to be a satanist to join" would imply that some existing Satanists join, where did they come from? Rather what is very clearly being stated is that anyone can join TST regardless of if that person considers themselves a Satanist or not, what is important is that you support their political actions. That's not being taken out of context, you just don't seem to want to accept what is being said. Seanbonner (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * BAS: "How do you join The Satanic Temple? Are there tithes?"
 * TST: "No. There’re two types of membership. Anybody can go to the national site at https://thesatanictemple.com/ with a simple email address you scan sign up for the newsletter and become a member. And then there’re Chapter members, and that requires some responsibilities to be involved on some level. Every Chapter does that a little differently. No has to pay anything unless you want a card and a certificate. That costs $25, but by no means do you have to do that. If there’s a local chapter where you are, to join you do have to be accepted, but there’s no initiation or anything. You don’t even have to be a Satanist, you can just be a strong ally who believes in the political and secular actions without being super stoked about all the aesthetic aspects." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanbonner (talk • contribs) 15:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I tried to compromise, rewording the sentence instead of removing it (which was requested by Seanbonner in a previous edit summary), changing "Some of their members..." to "Before joining, some people..." He reverted it again, edit summary "New wording was not supported by source." — Demong talk 17:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Since no one besides Seanbonner has commented about the dispute, I guess I will drop it. For the record, I am annoyed that he "won" by underhanded means, unilaterally reverting all my edits, generally without discussion. Stubbornness and refusal to follow consensus-established etiquette are not supposed to be how changes to a Wikipedia article are contested. At least Xenophrenic moved the sentence out of the introduction. — Demong talk 20:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit war about "Broke Ass Stuart" blog interview, and membership
Seanbonner added a new section, The_Satanic_Temple. The two cited sources are satanictemple.com and a blog post about an interview with some NYC Chapter heads. It was the subject of an edit war, remove: "Addition obviously says signing up with the national organization is primary / more important than other methods, such as whatever individual chapters require. Source does not say that", restore: "Again, please do not delete cited and sourced facts. Reword if you think it's needed, don't delete", remove: "Argh, you re-revert so often. Ironically, I am doing the same thing. This section is not necessary, that information is chapter-specific and mentioned elsewhere in the article, it adds bloat. In many cases, removal is preferable to rewording", restore: "Memberships and Chapters are different things as is clear in interview and website, new section clarifies that confusion."

This is a continuation of a similar matter discussed above, but now it's cancerous, and has spread to a different part of the article. Again the veiled implication is that TST is not a "real" religion, because anyone can just sign up, but they also (immediately!) say that isn't necessary, and that membership in a local chapter is more important. As of now, that section is still part of the article. I strongly recommend that it be removed again. — Demong talk 11:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The above comment is somewhat confusing in that it doesn't clearly indicate which quoted comment relates to which action taken. Also the reason for removing the content in question could be clarified. My particular questions are about the claim that TST is a real religion. The article as is seems to indicate it is primarily a social or political organization, not a religion. Also, if it is a religion, what are it's specific unique beliefs, if any? Also, the Oxford Handbook of NRMs is a good indicator that it is an NRM but not all NRMs are necessarily separate religions. Are there any sources specifically describing it as one? John Carter (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The question of how to describe TST with regard to religion is more or less the thrust of the entire wall of text above, along with the many edit wars the article has seen. The Church of Satan has a well-publicized problem with TST calling itself a religion (or calling it Satanism or its adherents Satanists). Likewise, some religious and right-leaning publications have challenged it being a religion (as well as some mainstream sources). The problem is, if you look at the reliable sources (removing, for these purposes, op-eds, biased sources, etc.), there is a lot of coverage which calls it (a) religion, (b) [qualifier, like "nontheistic"] religion, (c) a religious organization. That it engages in political activism is not a question. Its central activity and purpose is the assertion of its members religious rights. It, and the reliable sources writing about it, point out that religion is not limited to the few dominant organized religion, is not necessarily theistic, etc. The folly in many of the threads above is getting into Wikipedians' analyses of whether it is a religion as compared to various definitions. That's irrelevant. What matters is that reliable sources characterize it as such. In one of the threads above I link to many good sources which do just that. It is my view that it would be contrary to policy to ignore the way reliable sources write about the subject simply because of editors' own subjective analysis/understanding of what religion is or is not. I think the far more productive question is how to describe it in terms of religion, not whether. I don't agree with the opinion that it should be called a religion, unqualified; I don't agree with the opinion that all mention of religion should be removed from the first sentence when that is so central to coverage of the subject. It seems like "religious organization" or something along those lines is the best way forward. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 22:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * that is partially why I suggested new religious movement or NRM which is a bit less problematic than "religion" which is much less well defined.John Carter (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * But that's not what the sources call it, so how is it not WP:OR. Also, "religion" is an old concept but it's not actually well defined. In the United States, it's largely defined by a tax designation -- one which Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption, for example, attained (in that case, it's easy to describe it as a "parody religion"; in this case, the closest we have is "nontheistic religion" or just e.g. "political and religious organization" until we have an established concept like "politically and legally motivated religious organization". Again, as per WP:V/WP:NPOV, all that matters is how reliable sources talk about it. Anything else is WP:OR. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 23:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please look at the second current footnote, to the Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements, which I think is probably sufficient basis for describing it as a new religious movement. Possibly a nontheistic one, but there are a few of those. John Carter (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The Oxford reference to which you refer is Chapter 33, titled Modern Religious Satanism, which in its first page establishes:
 * ... Satanism as an organized, codified, and distinct religion was popularized by American Anton Szandor LaVey when he founded the Church of Satan in 1966, a religion that has dovetailed into a "satanic milieu," with multiple satanic individuals and groups self-identifying as practicing religious Satanists. This milieu contains a small amount of stable satanic groups combined with a high turnover of loosely identified Satanists, all vying for their definition of "true" Satanism, yet the satanic environment itself remains consistently growing and present as a religious movement. Contemporary Satanists represent a spectrum of ideas ranging from firm atheistic worldviews (viewing Satan solely as a metaphor) to theistic ... to esoteric ... to polytheistic ...
 * So our source defines Satanism as both a religion and religious movement, and then goes on to identify the various stable practitioners, including The Satanic Temple, vying to represent the "true" definition and character of the present day satanic religion. If we were to construct our lead sentence based only on this source, we could describe TST as practitioners of an atheistic/nontheistic Satanism, a satanic religion, and part of the satanic religious movement.  While TST may aspire to one day be a "new religious movement" in and of themselves, our source appears to be speaking of them as part of the broader satanic movement, and as one flavor/denomination of the Satanism religion.  This 2-minute definition and the first 6 minutes of this explanation by a chief spokesman for the TST do not appear to conflict with the Oxford source.  The semantic and grammatical hurdle appears to be whether to state "they are a nontheistic satanic religion" or "they practice a nontheistic religion of Satanism".  Xenophrenic (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Alternately, also this is somewhat OR in the same sense as "grass is green" is OR, we might maybe describe it as a denomination of the recent Satanic movement. I think it having a particular name qualifies it as being a denomination. John Carter (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Grass is green" is not OR, that would definitely be supported by reliable sources. (Not being glib, don't understand the sentiment.) — Demong talk 09:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * In response to the subject of this section, could you clarify whether your objection to this content is because other sources contradict it, or simply because of WP:UNDUE given the basis in primary sources? I'm trying to assume good faith despite knowing that there is an underlying agenda. Ultimately, people with a POV can sometimes propose good edits. I'm not necessarily saying this is one of them, but it seems pretty inoffensive and not irrelevant to the subject. If other sources contradict it, however, please link to them here. Certainly representatives from the organization itself, rather than a chapter, would be the more reliable, and something other than "broke ass stuart" is likely also going to be more reliable. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 22:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry my complaints were unclear. I think the added section is not NPOV (it is a sneaky way of implying that TST is not a "real religion"); it misrepresents the source's content (because it says, close to explicitly, that the free "national" signup and membership card/certificate is more important than membership in an individual chapter... and the answer/interviewee says the opposite, in the same breath, only a sentence or two later); the information is chapter-specific and redundant to other contents of the article; it gives undue weight to an informal and fairly vague description of the joining process; and the sources themselves are extremely poor. I think the whole section should be removed.


 * I am also personally annoyed that Seanbonner "won" the argument about similar material by being stubborn and edit warring, and has now even expanded it... give them an inch, and they take a mile. I realize this does not constitute a good argument, but I wanted to express my subjective feelings also.


 * I am not sure I can find a reliable source that contradicts it, I will look. However, because the given sources are not reliable, as far as I know, no reliable sources make the claim anyway.


 * Thank you for commenting. (There must also be lurkers, please participate even if it's out of your comfort zone, you will be enhancing the wiki regardless of your specific comment.) — Demong talk 22:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I understand. In effect, it says "anyone can join" and then it says "you have to be accepted". In that case, obviously an organizational policy trumps what local chapter people say about a local chapter. It sounds like you also take issue with with the "you don't have to be Satanist" part, but I don't see where the source contradicts that. If we had other sources contradicting it there would be a better case to omit, I think. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 00:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are all separate objections: not NPOV, not true, redundant, undue weight, and bad sources. I can elaborate about the first thing (and second?) np, as you asked, but is that the only part you're questioning? — Demong talk 07:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes please elaborate because your objections do not seem supported by the sources. Your comment that one kind of membership is more important than the other is not supported by any source. Both sources - the interview and the official website clearly state that there are two kinds of membership, in the national org and in local chapters, and neither state that these are mutually exclusive. There's nothing to support your statement that chapter membership is more important, rather it could be argued by referencing interviews where they cite "thousands" of members and contrast that with statements of chapters being 10-20 members that the free national membership is more important, but I don't see the value in making one more important than the other. There are simply two kinds of membership, the national which is free (for anyone) and the local chapters which each have their own policies. Additionally I don't understand the argument that this is NPOV as it's exactly what is stated by the source, nor do I understand how it's thinly veiled criticism as countless organizations have tiered membership levels, some of which are open to anyone and others of which are more exclusive. Even CoS who you are frequently making comparisons too has a "anyone can join" level and a "you have to apply" level... so? Seanbonner (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ugh I really don't want to argue anymore, your position is clear: anything you write that is reverted by someone else must be restored, and any revert you do must stand. The question was for Rhododendrites. Your 72hr edit block just expired, immediately editing the article and starting fights with other editors seems unwise. The brief window of civil conversation was nice. (I don't feel obligated to continue assuming good faith.)


 * "No. There’re two types of membership. Anybody can go to the national site at https://thesatanictemple.com/ with a simple email address you scan [sic] sign up for the newsletter and become a member. And then there’re Chapter members, and that requires some responsibilities to be involved on some level. Every Chapter does that a little differently. No has to pay anything unless you want a card and a certificate. That costs $25, but by no means do you have to do that." (emphasis added)


 * The sources are terrible, and having an entire section of the article based on citations to the subject's web site, and a blog post, gives it undue weight.


 * PS: "Veiled", not "thinly-veiled", again. Also "cited and sourced facts" is not a knock-down argument. — Demong talk 06:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I stopped assuming good faith for you a long time ago, so I'm glad we're at least on the same page there. I still don't see your issue. We have 2 sources saying the same thing, memberships are free for anyone, optional membership cards are $25, local chapters have their own policies. Both the interview and the organization's website say that. Our article says that. Yet you are objecting, what are you objecting to? By this point I know that you object to any edit I make, but it would be helpful if you could clarify your objection as I don't see anything objectionable about it. Seanbonner (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You "stopped"? You never started. Your first communication regarding me was calling my edit "vandalism".


 * Correct, that's what it's called when someone goes through an article and wholesale deletes cited and sourced details about the subject without any discussion. It was obvious that you had a bias on the topic, and all of your edits since then have been clearly with the goal of crafting a specific narrative by chipping away anything you perceive to be critical in anyway. So yes, you've shown no reason to assume good faith or interest in improving this as a neutral article. Seanbonner (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken. WP:VANDAL: "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose..." and "Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any [...] edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Assume good faith yourself [...] instead of making personal attacks."


 * Referring to an edit as vandalism without clear evidence of the editor deliberately causing harm to this wiki is a personal attack and not an assumption of good faith. Them's fightin' words. That is also true of assuming an editor has an unstated agenda (the pot complains that all kettles are black). Also, neither is likely to garner goodwill from them or other editors.


 * You do not deny failure to AGF: "You never started." "Correct..." That is against the rules, so to speak. — Demong talk 20:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Not against the rules, it's a guideline, not a policy which I quite enjoy [User|Xenophrenic]'s comment about on his talk page  see the Complaints department about not assuming good faith. And regarding vandalism, the purpose of wikipedia is to create encyclopedic and neutral articles, so an editor deleting all critical positions from an article impacts NPOV and is Vandalism. So to use [User|Xenophrenic]'s language, when you came and vandalized the article I was presented with evidence suggesting your edits were not in good faith and acted accordingly. Seanbonner (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * *continues to feed troll* His talk page says he doesn't assume good faith, but not bad faith either. You assumed bad faith. (Also your definition of "clear evidence" is... nonstandard.) — Demong talk 23:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The article has changed, most objections withdrawn. (Sorry several seemed unclear, the alleged negativity was subtle and its description was apparently hard for me to articulate.) Objection maintained: better sources? — Demong talk 11:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)