Talk:Church of Satan

repeated paragraph

I couldn't help but notice that except for the first sentence, everything in the "legacy" section is the same word for word as text in the header section. This should probably be fixed.--108.86.121.31 (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Inadequate footnotes

There are plenty of footnotes that refer to the likes of Lewis 2002 and Petersen 2013, but the links in these footnotes lead to nowhere and there is no list of literature referenced. --Miihkali (talk) 07:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Same with Asprem & Granholm 2014. —viciarg⁴¹⁴ 07:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I've restored the last version of the article (from 23:18, 4 February 2016!) which isn't full of these fake citations. Don't restore a more recent version unless you have fixed that damn mess (I suggest using a sandbox). I can only presume that this is an example of the "lesser magic" described in the (newer) article. Slight of hand to make the article look cited even though it only promotes certain books and does not actually list its sources. Skyerise (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

For convenience, if you really care about this, here's the link to the 03:13, 17 March 2022‎ version with the fake/ineptly done citations with missing list of sources so you can copy it to your sandbox and fix it before restoring it. Skyerise (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

What seems like OR or possibly false referencing

I'm working my way through Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. This article contained a short ref to Lewis & Petersen 2014 that had no corresponding cite. However a cite for "Controversial New Religions" edited by Lewis & Petersen 2005 did exist. Controversial New Religions was actually published in 2014, so that should solve the problem. However as I was searching for a solution I read page 408 of Controversial New Religions.
Currently the text in the article that was using this ref is Instead, Satan is viewed as a positive archetype embracing the Hebrew root of the word "Satan" as "adversary", who represents pride, carnality, and enlightenment, and of a cosmos which Satanists perceive to be motivated by a "dark evolutionary force of entropy that permeates all of nature and provides the drive for survival and propagation inherent in all living things".

this text no longer appears in the article and there is no citation for Controversial New Religions --Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The text in Controversial New Religions is actually a quote of Gilmoir 2007 "Satanism: The Feared Religion" and appears as In "Satanism: The Feared Religion," Peter H. Gilmore states:
[W]e do not believe in the supernatural. To the Satanist, he is his own God. Satan is a symbol of Man living as his prideful, carnal nature dic tates. Some Satanists extend this symbol to encompass the evolutionary "force" of entropy that permeates all of nature and provides the drive for survival and propagation inherent in all living things. To the Satanist, Satan is not a conscious entity to be worshiped, rather it is a name for the reservoir of power inside each human to be tapped at will. (Gilmore 2007: 31)

put this text in the article - ....-Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The current version, specifically "dark evolutionary force of entropy that permeates all of nature and provides the drive for survival and propagation inherent in all living things", appears to have been picked up and used elsewhere but doesn't appear in the source material. Also the current version appears to be a very different interpretations of the subject than the source material.

and deleted this text from the article -Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't have the subject knowledge to resolve this issue, so I have removed the ref and added {{citation needed}} tags. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested Am attempting to cleanup CoS article. Do you see any more problems before I delete the tags? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The particular OR issue I highlighted has been resolved, if your happy with the wrest of the article the that tag could go.
I didn't add the Third Party tag, but I can see why it was added. A large part of the references are either directly from The Church of Satan or an interview with the High Priest of the church. That hasn't been resolved so I would suggest leaving the tag in place. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested Will work on the 3rd party issue. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Will anyone add new documentaries?

I'm just wondering if anybody is going to add something about An American Satan (2019) and Into The. Devil's Den (2019) as they're both newer documentaries on the contemporary Church of Satan. MikoMek (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)