Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Left Hand Path work group

Articles being considered for deletion
Anton Long, Stephen Kasner and Steven Johnson Leyba are being considered for deletion. Please feel free to comment on this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton Long, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Kasner and Articles for deletion/Steven Johnson Leyba. Thank you. Badbilltucker 15:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Storm is now up for deletion as well. Badbilltucker 22:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Left Hand Path according to Crowley
HS, firstly I think it best for us to define exactly what Left Hand Path means. I'm sure we all have our own meanings with some commoniality between them. How bout as a start each one of us write at least a paragrph on their definition and after that we all work together to make the paragraphs one. Just a thought, I'm not trying to lead, but I am trying to create a solid foundaion on which to build. I re-read Crowleys chapters on the left hand path, originally read in my very early 20's. I will write a summery of his work and paste it here for the rest of you to mull over. I'd like to hold off on this until I see some other peoples definitions. But if no one steps up to the plate I will cast the first stone into the pond of blackness. Pehaps the splash and the ripples will wake the sleepy hands to write.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 09:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a pdf of Crowleys chapter Left hand path the black brothers. There are alot of refrences to "The Vision and the Voice" and Chronzon. If any of you need help with the chapter I'd be more than happy to help. It is a rather advanced read in Magick. http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/mwt/mwt_12.htmlRev. Michael S. Margolin 04:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Recall the passage in the 14th Aethyr "See where thine Angel hath led Thee", and so on. Perhaps the Black Brother deserts his Angel when he realises the Programme.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 09:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

To speed up the process, when one understands the system one can command it.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 09:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Crowley's Left Hand Path seems undesirable. I think Left Hand Path is definitely a neologism these days. WerewolfSatanist 22:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Crowley could be useful if he was more greedy like the industrialists he could drink under the table or the eternal darkness for whom it is reserved, chardonnay

Ideas and Areas of Interest
First, the Satan article itself. It gives an overview of "Satanism" in their "Satanism" section but not how Satan is SEEN In Satanism. Next, many of the Satanism articles are of "B" class and could use improvement! More details in sources. One of my complaints is that many articles don't even mention the nature of Satan. Why not? Its "Satan"ism. Why not talk about it? WerewolfSatanist 05:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

As a huge part of the left hand path project please state your definitiion. As far as Satan is viewed that depends on the viewer doesn't it?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 08:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Understanding evil takes understanding, seeking rewards is being the pet you are. Not directed at anyone it just sounded good.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 09:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying, Rev. that within certain sects of Satanism, we see certain defintions and they should be noted at least on the specific pages of the religions but I think on the "Satan" article too. In fact many of the more common defintions should be included, not just a copy of the Satanism article. WerewolfSatanist 03:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC) I agree whole heartedly. Perhaps we should put the LHP off and concentrate on getting the Satanism page up to par first. In either case we need to start sharing our ideas and making rough drafts in like a sand box so we can work things out and edit and comunicate on improvement, instead of inactive critisisms, we should start making active solutions to what we see as problems and short commings to the article.I posted a rough draft to play with in satan talk I was just trying to help we can also use what we already have and work as a group to improve it. Or someone make another rough draft as a proposal or even all of us make one and we choose the one liked most by the majority and no stacking the deck guys. I think a diverse group like what we have can, if we work together make one Hell of an article on Satanism. Let's take what we got put a copy of it in a sand box and set times to work on it as a group. Just an Idea and the same idea is also what I propose for the LHP project. What do you think and the rest of you? By the way did you read that Crowley pdf yet?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 04:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You know if we met in yahoo messenger confrence room or if wikki has something like that we could set up a time that would be best for all and actively work on and change a modle article what do you guys think of that idea?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 05:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I wrote an essay once that might help Rev. It was on the general LHP and might work for the Satanism article with some editing. http://ulc.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=24994&st=75 Scroll down until you see it (it says "LHP" and has my characteristic Wolfyness). It may have a slight LaVeyan bent, but it would serve as a useful format, if nothing else. WerewolfSatanist 01:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am very glad I got to read your article. It is a fair outline of what the modern take on it is across the board. Have you read Crowley's take yet? As far as the Satan page it only had one complaint in the talk page and with one small edit I think I addressed the complaint and improved the article. I read through the Satanism article tonight and liked what I saw. Aspects in an understandable order and short discriptions that overveiwed the subjects and did not vomit forth what is already found in the sections dedicated to the groups and people involved. I really think all seriously involved editors in the Satanism article should start using the talk page and improving the Article we have now but personal opinion is I like it.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 04:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OK now that the Satanism page is underway I'll start writing up a rough draft for LHP. Please remember this will only be a model for us to kick around and brain storm for the real artical.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 23:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That'll be good Rev. Though I'm too intellectually lazy at the moment to read Crowley. But it'll be good to say a good, basic format for all Satanism. Remember to keep it general and not emphasize any one group. WerewolfSatanist 23:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

what happened to the ONA article?
The Order of Nine Angles article was removed from the Satanism links a while ago. Now the article itself seems to have been removed from Wikipedia. Why?

207.34.120.71 20:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It was voted for deletion, probably because of notability. I didn't get a chance to look at it so I don't know. Currently the Storm article is up for deletion too (which I agree with actually). Its a matter of notability and influence. What are groups doing? Do they have a presence anywhere? Something to think about. WerewolfSatanist 22:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hold on here you know I am SOOOO NOT ONA but they are noteble. Who is making the calls here, it sure seems like Church of Satan members if not feverent teens in a blind lemming run shouting hail LaVey all the way. ONA should be there and is very widely known. See and even after death threats I still don't hold a grudge.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 22:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone can nominate an article for deletion, and, once that is done, then anyone else can express an opinion. Evidently, the article got a lot more support as non-notable (as per Notability) than notable. However, if there is sufficient interest, or proof of notability, then the article can be proposed to be reinstated at Deletion review and discussion to reinstate it can take place. Badbilltucker 22:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Bill, should I add the other sources from my user page besides the barnes & Noble book. One Tv Show one CD made by a Christian record company no less, yeah I even amaze myself.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 23:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I've apeared stupid enough here on wikipedia so I'm not afraid to ask which article are you talking about Bill, ONA? If so the only sources I know of is their books sold on ebay. As you know SoS has members in almost every religion and Satanic sect. That's how I found out about the death threats against me by ONA and The church of Lucifer headed by Majester Naggash and his wife.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 15:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would propose the article for reinstatement at Deletion Review, indicating that you have specific, non-trivial sources for the notability of the group and naming them. That should be more than sufficient, ultimately, to reinstate the article. Badbilltucker 02:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As for ONA I have nothing but years of interaction with it's members that hold dual memberships in SoS and CoS. As for me and SoS everything I have is on my user page. Except the a book that is coming out next year on Satanism by Anthony Chiorazzi. Also Lucas Jackson of Reuters news agency talked to me awhile ago about a Documentery on Satanism but I don't know where they are on that project. Hope this helps.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 23:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

A search on Google for Order of Nine Angles comes up with 548 links. Many in foreign languages. (Only some of them were other "online wikis" copying the old Wikipedia content, ha ha.) An added note, the Order of Nine Angles Wikipedia articles still exist on non-English-language Wikipedia pages (example: de.wikipedia.org). That might not be much for notability, I agree - then again, it's a modification of a notable belief system (Satanism), and has adherents, and thus probably is more notable than most of the indie rock band articles that are here on Wikipedia.

BTW I'm not involved with it personally, but I think that generally, the "Satanism" article was an awful lot better quality before it was taken over by CoS - and am a bit suspicious that there could be a "content power play" going on to remove all non-CoS "satanisms" from Wikipedia. That is certainly the tone I'm getting from reading the talk page on "Satanism". That's really why I'm bringing this up.

207.34.120.71 19:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think what you said about CoS is true, that is why I have been so steadfast in my stance to correct the situation. Weather CoS is directly behind this move or if it is just a matter of some zealous LaVey fans the outcome is and was the same. Wikipedia's free editing policy was being exploited to advertise the CoS and hide other existing Satanic groups. The books that were added to theistic satanism refrences I removed were all CoS material and as even the lamen knows they have nothing to do with theistic Satanism. But were placed there to further advertise for CoS. Obivously an attempt was made to monopolize the definition of the word Satanism by the CoS or CoS fans. Especially the 1st sentance of the old article. "Satanism is the religion created by Anton LaVey." In reality Satanism was created by Christians. Yes I like to distance myself from referse Christians as much as other Satanists but not at that price.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 19:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I at least appreciate you taking the stand and agree with what you've written directly above. There was already an article on Laveyan Satanism - and btw, if CoS should be allowed to rewrite the "Satanism" article on Wikipedia, then I suggest the "LaVeyan Satanism" article should now be speedily deleted if it hasn't been already. I also agree, though, that it could be argued that Wikipedia notability policy can support deletion of the ONA article because of an insufficient amount of third-party references; however, it IS "a Satanism", and one which is a different take from the Mrs. LaVey group, and one which exists as a fair bit more than "a little internet religion", as the CoS folks like to say. So, it is notable when looked at from within Satanism. (In the same way, Wikipedia has articles on webcomics and podcasts that have no third-party references in published literature but which are still notable (e.g. Schwa, Sean Kennedy).) Anyway, as for the ONA article, if I feel like it and have the time I'll try and request an undeletion, but I know nothing about this and usually only involve myself in the odd few dozen grammar edits a day here. Someone else with more Wikipedia standing should go in there and do an undelete. 207.34.120.71 21:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, as an addendum: I just did a search for "Order of Nine Angles" "Nazi" on Google, and found 663 links. Many of them were from third-party sources. And I've found several internet articles on ONA. So, it is definitely notable by Wikipedia guidelines.

The Wayback Machine only shows the last update of the ONA page to have been May 2006. It was definitely around until at least November - how do I find out who deleted it and on what day it was deleted? I'm unde the impression I have to have that information to request an undelete. 207.34.120.71 21:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a guy on ebay that sells ONA books he might be a good person to ask about ONA details. If you want I can email him and put him in contact with you.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 15:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

LHP
So what exactly is the agenda? I see there already is an LHP Article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Hand_Path. Are we to improve it? Or make an alternative?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 05:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Improve that and pretty much every article that has to do with the Left Hand Path. Meaning Satanism, Setianism, TOV Vampirism (which doesn't appear to have an article though it might be notable). Sound simple don't it? WerewolfSatanist 05:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent thoughts. Perhaps we should figure out a working defintion of Satanism, Satanic groups, and the LHP in general. A working rule of course should be to include religions that identify themselves as Satanic (as I stated before on the Satanism talk page). WerewolfSatanist 22:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hows the template coming? I can't wait to get some real work done on the main Satanism article! WerewolfSatanist 22:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Far from a template. More like I was taught besides my own reading and not relying on Crowley's dffinition alone that the LHP is the choice of the soul to attempt to keep itself, to not reincarnate. To not melt in the big bang. To endure the years of darkness till once again the light explodes into the void. And while the light again returns fullfill those desires they it did not fullfill the last time the light was here. It has nothing to do with good or evil. But everything to do with either untiting with the universe or trying to keep yourself seperated from it. Right hand path is one the seeks to become or unite with God or the universe. Left hand path is the one that desires to strengthen its identification, its sepperation from everything else and all it goes through. Choosing to not burn up in Daath.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 07:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rev._Michael_S._Margolin"

Been reading "Lords of the Left Hand Path" Flowers also uses the tradional meaning of the term. He states like Crowley that the left hand path is when one tries to keep themselves seperate from the universe. Right hand path is when works to join or lose oneself in the universe. I suppose this left hand path meaning evil came from people that didn't study and assumed it just meant evil.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 14:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

LOI ?
Lack of interest after the Satanism bias article battle is in a queit state?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 21:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Just short on time lately. I'll get back on it soon. Still have to put sources and stuff in!

Exhortation
Come on, devil worshippers! Why are you leaving Satan to writhe in B-class perdition? If you really do have companionship with the devil, Satan, or whatever demons you invoke, improve this article. If you fail I will turn you into toads. Meep 10:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sinagogue of Satan undelete
I started messing with the banner because Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) started messing with the Theistic Satanism article. And I'm sure all of you will admit the banner only reflects the CoS and no others except Karla who they rejected first but she won a space in mediation. I put up SoS not my name and was accused of making a personal plug. I countered with I'm not SoS and a personal plug would be me putting my name up. Haunted brought up a good point that the SoS page is deleted therefore there is a dead link problem with including it in the banner. He is right. If it is possible I'd like to see someone put it up for undeletion and include the tv, book, and soon to be books and interviews along with all the other Satanic groups that support SoS. To allow CoS to monopolize the Satanism article and banner is an extremely one sided and biased view on Satanism. I'll admit that most Satanic groups are carbon copies of CoS but SoS is not. Therefore would be a good canidate to show the world there is more to Satanism than Anton LaVey and reverse Christianity. Also allowing Crowley to be a prominate figure as well. And most of you are unaware that in his foot notes to the Bornless Ritual Crowley claims Hadit the winged globe to be Satan. Though Crowley personally distained the term Satanist his Beast 666 claim sure puts him in the catagory of Satanist along with Hadit being Satan one of the gods in his book of the law.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 17:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

LaVeyan Satanism
I'm currently trying to rewrite and expand that article. Its going fairly well seeing as I just figured out my password on here again! But any help/suggestions are appreciated. I am looking around at some Featured Articles for inspiration in order to get a better idea of what Wikipedia expects. What would really help is if people tracked down sources and things like that. Preferably on the Church of Satan website or in the main works of LaVeyan Satanism, such as the Satanic Bible. WerewolfSatanist 22:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we point out the the Satanic bible is almost a word for word copy of "Might is Right" by Ragnar Redbeard? If So I'll give you the source.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 19:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Part is a copy. The Book of Satan. Thats covered in the Satanic Bible article if I recall. We ought to mention that he was influenced by Redbeard in the LaVeyan article, in my opinion. WerewolfSatanist 04:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC) Influenced is a major understatement, I finished reading "Might is Right" last month and he took whole paragraphs and sections word for word not a parphrase I'm talking direct copy. It also turns out all my favorite parts of the SB are not written by Anton but Author Desmond IE Ragnar ReadBeard. If the truth were out most people would find out they are actually Auther Desmond fans not Anton LaVey fans.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 22:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The truth IS out. Its a known fact that Anton LaVey took parts from Might is Right. Its in the Satanic Bible Wiki Article. Philosophically, he was influenced by Redbeard in the sense that he agrees with him on some points. On vengenace, on the idea that outmoded ideas should be rooted out. He talks about it in his writing and its part of Satanism. That doesn't intefere with the fact that he did take from Might is Right. That was your favorite part? I was more fond of the Book of Lucifer, personally. 64.5.145.74 13:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

According Albert Pike and Eliphas Levi, Lucifer was invented by Christians.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The word Lucifer was invented by the Romans. The Christians used it as Satan's "angelic" name. But...what does it matter? WerewolfSatanist 02:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have edited some parts of the article to merge some parts which sounded a bit too independent and sometimes irrelevant. I have delete the sub+heading Satan and God from the Beliefs section (sorry WerewolfSatanist, :), since I understand that being an atheistic movement, disbelief in any deity comes natural, so just pointing out the atheistic side of LaVeyan Satanism is more than enough, and eliminates the need to specify. I've inserted a quote from Gilmore's essay "Satanism: The Feared Religion". I have also expanded the the history section, since it was in desperate need of updating. I have included info regarding the out-branching from the CoS into other Churches. Kaiser86 (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Left Hand Path group user box
Thanks Haunted Angel!Rev. Michael S. Margolin 01:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Images?
Why are we now deprived of the Sigil of Baphomet as a symbol for the Satanism articles and our wonderful work group? And should we use the simple inverted pentagram that we now have for userboxes?

Well I'd say that the Church of Satan is pissed and don't want it known they stole it from Eliphas Levi 1700's along with the fact most of their bible was stolen from Arthur Desmond writers name Ragnar Redbeard, book,"Might is Right" along with butchering the Enochian calls, John Dee Apparenty the Satanism article is bearing more truth than the Church of Satan is comfortable with.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 03:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't have bearing on why the Baphomet isn't used. That seems a simple tirade of your own about your own problems with the Church of Satan. Notably, The Satanic Bible article mentions all these things. 64.5.145.74 14:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Influence is a mega understatement and is misleading to the fact that Anton copied it. Can you say "White Wash"? or perhaps "plagiarism"?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 22:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Rev. As amusing as this debate is: A)Yes Anton LaVey took part of Might is Right and was influenced on some philosophical points Redbeard made, particularly those found in the text used for the Book of Satan. Yes he used some of the Enochian Keys, changing some of the words. B)Everybody knows this. C) Yes the Sigil of Baphomet has sources in Eliphas Levi and the Church of Satan acknowledges this if you saw their website D) Everybody knows this E) It doesn't matter. Inevitably, sources have very little bearing on whether something is valid. Creation is not from a void, but from chaos. Even The Great Beast 666 drew from outside sources. His most famous maxim "Do as thou wilt", one of the foundations of Thelema, is plagirised. Yet we do not hear about that. All we hear is that Anton LaVey was a con man. Yet, as Michael Aquino stated and as is verifiable if you have old editions of the Satanic Bible, the dedication list included the sources LaVey used. So....moot point? Now can we talk about the articles and not the evils of Anton LaVey? Particularly third party, objective sources and what images are usable and not in copyright violation. WerewolfSatanist 01:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

To merely state "Redbeard" was an influence is a white wash. To have RedBeard in the credits is also a White Wash. Now if it was to say that Anton plagirised "Might is Right" that is not a White Wash and is far closer to the truth than what is in the wikki articles that cover this subject. And don't believe me, pick up and read a copy for yourself. And using one phrase like Crowley did is nothing like copying whole sections of someone elses book and claiming it as your own.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you believe this is so, please find reliable sources that report this fact and feel free to add that supported information to the appropriate articles. Otherwise, this is nothing more than a forum-style debate that does little to build Wikipedia. Vassyana 22:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My reliable source is the book itself, "Might is Right" if I can find a pdf of it I'd be more than happy to provide it. If not, I do have a scanner and could scan all the sections Anton copied word for word. Would that be acceptable? Also my point is if this is an encyclopedia it should be based on facts, not the propaganda put out by the subject matter, in this case the Church of Satan.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That is unfortunately original research and therefore inappropriate for article content. If your claim is true, it is likely to have been discussed in at least a handful of reliable sources. Try to find articles and/or books that discuss the matter. It is not the role of editors to determine "truth" and "fact", but rather to report what is presented to be true and factual in verifiable references. Vassyana 06:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

For those of you that thought Anton LaVey wrote this you are wrong this is a direct copy from "Might is Right". Yes you will recognize it from the Satanic bible. "Love one another" you say is the supreme law, but what power has made it so?Upon what rational authority does the Gospel of Love rest? Is it even possible inpractice and what would result from its universal application to active affairs? Whyshould I not hate mine enemies, and hunt them down like the wild beasts they are?Again, I ask why? If I "love" them does that not place me at their mercy? Is it naturalfor enemies to "do good" unto each other and, what is "good?" Can the torn andbloody victim "love" the blood-splashed jaws that rend him limb from limb? Are wenot all predatory animals by instinct? If humans ceased wholly from preying uponeach other, could they continue to exist?67.170.214.183 18:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A source for the fact that Anton LaVey plagirised "Might is Right" Lords of the left-hand path: A history of spiritual dissent by Stephen E Flowers (Author) Publisher: RuÌ‚na-Raven; 2nd ed edition (1997) Language: English ISBN-10: 1885972083 ISBN-13: 978-188597208867.170.214.183 18:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Anybody know what the characters ringing the outside of the current Baphomet the Satanism articles uses as a picture mean? Are they appropriate? I've seen that particular one, just don't know what they mean. WerewolfSatanist 04:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The letters are Hebrew. Proceeding widdershins from the bottom character they read 'Leviathan'. --The DA 23:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't referring to that image. Everybody knows what that image is. There was a previous one that is often mistakenly linked with LaVey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.106.63.105 (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Craigtalbert
This User was trying to delete many of the Satanism related articles with speedy tags. Just FYI. -- David  Shankbone  22:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

First Church of Satan
Why was this article suddenly deleted? -31/01/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.132.102.84 (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia
The editors of the simple English wikipedia have recently requested some assistance in developing their content. Right now, they could stand to have some content development related to the Left Hand Path. So far as I can see, they have pages on Left Hand Path and Satanism, and that's about it, actually. If anyone would be interested in working with the simple English wiki to develop some of this content, please feel free to contact either me, User:American Eagle or User:Eptalon. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Article tagged
HI, I tagged Tantrik for this work group based upon one of its categories. Someone more familiar with the subject and/or this group may want to double check this. Aleta  Sing 16:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Left-Hand Path Freemason
I remember seeing or reading the expression Left-Hand Path Freemason. Is there any evidence that the two are related somehow ? Many of the Left-Hand Path organizations appear to be built in a similar structure to Freemasonry, which is that of a secret society with secretive and occult rituals that remain unknown to the general public. It could be argued that the wo are similar, but that doesn't necesarily mean that they are the same. ADM (talk) 06:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Someone (not me) has proposed a merge of Satan into Devil discuss at Talk:Satan. I am circulating this among relevant boards. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Call for editors to help manage religion related content
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

ToV
I noticed Temple of the Vampire has been deleted 3 times due to the article not establishing importance/notability/significance of the group. I know that the Vampire Temple is not as famous as Church of Satan but they do list the group so I'm wondering if that affiliation (and interviews like this one) and this one with this [person on Coast to Coast AM might lead to notability? Here's the radio description:
 * Date:	10-09-05
 * Host:	Art Bell
 * Guests: Paul Moller, Nemo Hennessy
 * In this 5-hour rebroadcast from 10/25/03, Art Bell talked with Paul Moller of Moller International about Skycars followed by Nemo, a representative of the Vampire Religion.
 * "Nemo" is a Living Vampire, a member of the secret society known as the Temple of the Vampire. He is a member of the Temple Priesthood and a Temple Master Adept. The Temple is an international church devoted to the Vampire religion, legally registered with the U.S. federal government since 1989.
 * Temple members are true Vampires, members of the Vampire religion. Vampirism is not easily understood and is reserved only to those who are born to the Blood, those who feel the draw of the Night, those who find that they are different from the herd of humanity and glory in that difference. To find those who are of the Blood but have been unaware of their Heritage is the Mission and purpose of the Temple.

I was figuring a semi-stub on the project until a potential point where notability is determined to be significant enough to warrant an article? Y12J (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed MOS for Religion
There is now a proposed general Manual of Style for Religion and other articles relating to ethoses or belief systems at WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. Any input would be welcome. I personally believe at least one of the reasons why many articles in this field have been as contentious as they have been is because of lack of such guidelines, and would very much welcome any input from others to help come up with some generally acceptable solutions to some of these problems. John Carter (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)