Talk:The Satanic Temple/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

RfC: How should The Satanic Temple be labeled by the lead sentence of its article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

How should The Satanic Temple be labeled by the lead sentence?

A) "The Satanic Temple is a political activist group..."

B) "The Satanic Temple is a political activist and religious group..."

C) "The Satanic Temple is a political activist and self-described religious group..."

D) Other, please specify. (23:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC))

B; "religious" is hard to define. I think if they say they are, they are. Other arguments above. — Demong _talk 23:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

A or C - Detailed arguments above, but the key points being that the founders have given interviews stating the group was founded to enact political change by using religious freedom laws against the people that wrote them, and that representatives have stated in interviews that members do not necessarily consider themselves Satanists but rather support the groups political actions would suggest that no part of this involves "deeply held beliefs" indicative of a religious group and rather underline that the religious part is simply a means for political action which should not be endorsed by wikipedia. Wikipedia should remain neutral and describe them as they are, not act as an amplifier for their agenda. Seanbonner (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Those points are: The group is not religious because its goal is political activism; and the group is not religious because members do not necessarily consider themselves Satanists.

The first point seems like not a point at all. Just because a group was founded to enact political change does not mean it isn't also a religious group. A group can have more than one goal. The truth of second point is contested above; the article claims that, but I allege that the citation given does not actually support it, in the interview Draco did not say that about members. — Demong _talk 00:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The first point is not happening in a vacuum as you keep acting as if it is - it's not a group working towards fixing roads in their neighborhood who happen to share the same religion, it's a group whose founders explicitly have said they were unhappy with some political situations and realized if they created a religious group they could use laws against the people who wrote them - they religion part is a tactic of the politics, it's not in addition to. You've made your disagreement with the second people very clear, however what you "allege" the spokesperson said or what you think he might have meant or what you think must have been implied are not legitimate here, what is legitimate is a question was asked and a spokesperson answered it honestly, and it's in print and we can all read it. Seanbonner (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

You just called them a religious group. — Demong _talk 21:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

No I didn't, I said the founders have publicly said they could enact political change by creating a religious group. Which is the crux of this entire thing. Seanbonner (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• B first choice , C second choice, for the same reasons I gave previously on this page. To reiterate: many reliable sources 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". It would probably be best to go with religious up front and then qualify it later. I would also still explore other options along the lines of "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). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• A. Clearly it is a political activist group, so the question becomes whether or not it is a religious group. The groups main priority is to enact political change. The group lacks many key features that religious groups have. While there is no accepted definition of a religion, I think that religions tend to relate humanity to some kind of supernatural or spiritual power. The Satanic Temple does not do that, and therefore I would not consider them a religious group. They have a set of beliefs and values as a religious group would, but they are based on natural law philosophy, not a belief in some kind of higher power or force that is typically associated with religion. Flipster14191 (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Flipster14191: Sorry to single you out, since this applies to several people's arguments, but as Wikipedia has a policy of no original research, for something like this the question isn't whether it's a religion according to editors' own opinions about what a religion is. As with anything else, it's a question of how it's described in reliable sources -- especially sources independent of the subject. Any determination of how it's labelled would need to be based on the extent to which the body of sources on the subject label it one way vs. another. There's a lot of gray area and subjectivity in the evaluation of those sources, though, but this !vote seems explicitly based on what we would probably call original research. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Rhododendrites: I think you're right, I let personal opinion get too much in the way in this one. Nonetheless, I can not find any description of them as a religious group by a third party. The Washington Post refers to them as a "group" or "organization" but never mentions religious. So I still stand by A. Flipster14191 (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is the Washington Post calling TST a religious organization:  — Demong _talk 20:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

References

What "key features that religious groups have" do they lack? Formal code of doctrine: check. Members who profess sincerity and deeply held beliefs: check. Regular congregations and services: check. A regular meeting place: check. Sacred symbols: check. Buddhism is another non-theistic religion, it recognizes no supernatural beings at all. TST is a religious group according to the IRS: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/churches-religious-organizations/churches-defined. — Demong _talk 01:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry almost none of that is true. TST does not have a formal code or doctrine, it's members do not profess sincerity and deeply held (it's spokespeople do in the course of their political actions, and those claims do not hold up upon scrutiny), congregation's is debatable as some hold meetups, and TST is not a religious group according to the IRS, Reason Alliance LLC is a religious group according to the IRS, TST publicly claims that they don't support tax exempt status for religious groups even though they use Reason Alliance for just that purpose. TST is a separate company. Seanbonner (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is claiming that religions can't be non-theistic. But they do have to fit some kind of a definition that would exclude groups like the Boy Scouts or Freemasons for example, who like religions have a written ethics code, regularly congregate, use symbols and oaths, etc. but still aren't religions. The vague "tenets" of TST were not only written up after-the-fact, but contradict what they explicitly professed to believe in the beginning when their website launched. WillieBlues (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Doctrine: the seven tenets. Its members do profess sincerity, as many reliable sources report. Regular congregations is easily verifiable, individual chapters hold regular meetings, as does the TST headquarters in Salem. TST publicly claims that they don't support tax exempt status for religious groups, which does not mean they don't qualify as a religious group according to the IRS definition. The status of Reason Alliance is irrelevant.

"I don't think anybody is claiming that religions can't be non-theistic." Yes, that is explicitly claimed several times above, including being used as support for the claim that TST is not a religious group. — Demong _talk 20:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The Seven Tenets are general statements that anyone could agree with and have been changed and rewritten since their public launch and are in contrast with existing Satanic religious literature, no way can that be considered doctrine, TST originally claimed to be theists because they wanted to seem reprehensible to their political opponents and then changed to atheists because they thought it would play better in the press - that's not indicative of a "sincerely held belief", similarly there's no consensus among members what a Satanist even is. People getting together is not congregational by default, a bingo game at a church isn't the same as a mass, so that members of TST are in the same place at the same time isn't evidence, and you can't argue that TST gets IRS approval when they haven't applied for it or been approved for it. Again, they have a fully separate company that they did get that approval for, that wasn't accidental, and was likely by design as it allows TST to engage in the political activities it's founders said it was created for that would be impossible if they were approved by the IRS as a religious org. Seanbonner (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

#originalresearch — Demong _talk 14:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a talk page in a request for comment section where editors are asked for their opinions and explaining them, I'm referring to things that are already cited on this page that either you keep ignoring or are purposefully trying to downplay. You mentioned the IRS, I just corrected your false claim. Seanbonner (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• A seems the most accurate when it comes to external sources. Seemingly every external article about them is regarding a political protest. Other articles tend to be blog posts written by their own members, which would fall into "original research". Granted they use symbols and show up where religious people are to imitate them (statues, nativity scenes, etc.) but I don't see how they're any more of a "religious group" than parody religions like Church of the SubGenius, Pastafarianism or Cult of Kek. WillieBlues (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• A. I agree it should be Option A. You never see articles about their "religious practices" - because there aren't any. Just protests. They repeatedly change their philosophy to suit their current protest agenda. One day they're atheist, the next they believe in an actual Satan. That's the key here. Political activism is great, but their actions show they are all performance art and no religion. They are trying to walk both sides of the street, but factual accuracy clearly puts them in option A. Brevity is the soul of wit. (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Ruth666 — Rwaytz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

FOR THE RECORD< I started editing Wikipedia in Feb 2012, and although I haven't been prolific, I am a real person with real opinions on this issue. Please don't dismiss my input. Brevity is the soul of wit. (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)rwaytz

Religious practice example: https://medium.com/@allthebigtrees/how-to-perform-a-satanic-destruction-ritual-4c76baf0ea30 Also, they consider protest their form of worship. — Demong _talk 21:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The Satanic Destruction Ritual was published in 1966 in The Satanic Bible, which TST doesn't officially recognize, so someone from TST paraphrasing it on Medium without proper attribution actually supports the accusation that they are not sincere in their claims. Seanbonner (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

That was only intended as a counter-example to the claim "You never see articles about their "religious practices" - because there aren't any." Several other examples could have been used instead, such as TST's "unbaptism ceremony", their ""black mass", or the "pink mass" described by this article. The claim is false. — Demong _talk 21:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can possibly argue that they and other sources don't call TST a religious group. Arguing instead the personal opinion that they shouldn't be called a religious group is taking sides in the debate, which is already described in the introduction. — Demong _talk 20:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• A, maybe C Most everything I've read points to their activism. Jim1138 (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources:

• Washington Post: "Lucien Greaves is co-founder of and spokesperson for the Satanic Temple, an international nontheistic religious organization advocating for secularism and scientific rationalism."
• New York Times: "With only a website, some legal savvy and a clever way with satire, the two Bostonians’ new, mostly virtual religion has become a sharp thorn in the brow of conservative Christianity." /
• Vox: "Take religion. Remove God. Add #resistance. Meet The Satanic Temple. The Satanic Temple might be the religion for 2017." / "And that house is the national headquarters of The Satanic Temple, a national organization that’s equal parts performance art group, leftist activist organization, and anti-religion religious movement."
• Esquire: "The Satanic Temple is an openly atheistic religion that Mesner says does not advocate for any supernatural belief."
• Broadly (Vice): "Members of the Satanic Temple, a nontheistic religion and activist group, believe the state's restrictive laws on abortion—some of the harshest in the country—violate their followers' First Amendment right to religious freedom."
• Kansas City Star: "On Tuesday, Slate staff writer Christina Cauterucci connected the rise of abortion services in Missouri to recent court challenges to the state’s abortion laws by the Satanic Temple, a political activist organization and religion based in Massachusetts."

That they are a religious organization is central to their coverage. All of the above discussion evaluating it for the ingredients in a definition of religion is WP:OR. All that matters is how sources talk about it. Obviously they don't just talk about it as a religious organization (not that this was included in the A/B/C above), but it's also not just an activist organization. So it's obviously not A. B/C are more debatable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

That's correct, it's central to their press coverage that people consider them a religious organization in order for their political activism to be justified - as the founders have said - which is exactly why Wikipedia should not just echo their press releases, but rather accurately note that the "religious" part is a tool for the activism, not independent of it. Seanbonner (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Seanbonner: I agree that we should not echo their press releases in the sense of relying on press releases to compose the article. But this is not what we're talking about. The only relevant question is how reliable sources independent of the subject talk about the subject (not how it talks about itself). We rely on the editorial judgment of those other sources (it's part of what makes them reliable) to determine what to include, how to describe things, etc. and then we summarize what they say, taking into account the whole range of reliable sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The reason I prefer B to C: as the WP Manual of Style (weasel words section) describes, "Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate [...] So-called can mean commonly named, falsely named, or contentiously named, and it can be difficult to tell these apart." I think self-described clearly fits into these examples, it is an expression of doubt. Also, no reliable sources make such a qualification. — Demong _talk 23:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• B They call themselves a religious organization, and lots of reliable sources have called them a religious organization, so that's what we should call them. The extent to which they are religious can be explored in more detail and criticisms of that claim should be included, but we definitely need to state that they are a religion in the lead. We can't just decide ourselves what is a religion and what isn't, especially since there doesn't seem to be any universally recognized definition. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• A or D - "The Satanic Temple is a political activist group and, what has been termed, a nontheistic religious group..." - Clearly not a classical religous group, so we probably shouldn't describe it as such. If we want to include "religious" we should just follow the sources that User: Rhododendrites so generously provided. Seems like we have good sourcing to call it a "nontheistic religious" group (whatever the heck that actually means). Calling it a "self-described" religous group misses the mark, b/c that seems to incorrectly imply that this is a classical cult, which it doesn't appear to be. NickCT (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• @NickCT: Clarifying that it's a nontheistic religion up front sounds like a fine idea to me, although it doesn't need "what has been termed," which makes it sound like it was coined just for them, or otherwise a new idea.Theism and religion are certainly not always connected, and we even have an article on the topic. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Rhododendrites: - Fair point. I guess the term "nontheistic religion" is just a bit jargon-y and slightly counter-intuitive. It might not be immediately obvious to a common, naive reader what it means. I thought to include "what has been termed" simply as a device to highlight a potentially tricky term. Does that make sense? NickCT (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The adjective "non-theistic" can and should link to the Nontheistic religion article, which in my opinion would address the "a bit jargon-y" statement (although I disagree that it's counter-intuitive to begin with). I, for one, think that's fine, too. — Demong _talk 20:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@NickCT: ?? It's not jargony if it's the most accurate way to describe it. There is a concept called nontheistic religion that is well documented and we even have an article about it. It's also what many reliable sources call this. Even more talk about it being a religion and/or religious organization without that descriptor (though they do tend to talk about it being nontheistic, too, which means that term or some version thereof would be in the lead regardless). Personally, I don't have strong feelings about whether it's called "nontheistic religion", "religious organization", etc. What I can't abide by is the efforts by ideological opponents to simply remove the concept of religion in the face of what the sources say. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: - Something can be both jargon and accurate, right? I don't think those two things are exclusive. I sure "nontheistic religion" is well document. I'm also sure it wouldn't be immediately obvious to 90% of WP's readers what the term meant. B/c it's jargon. NickCT (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Not that anyone is ever obligated to change their mind, but I think it's telling that no one has changed their position, even when presented with objective evidence that contradicts its stated basis.

Also, WP:MEAT says, "Consensus in many debates and discussions should ideally not be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors." There have been zero policy-related points made supporting the idea that TST should not be called a religious group. — Demong _talk 19:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Demong: You can read more about the RfC process at WP:RFC. There are very few venues on Wikipedia which actually operate according to a headcount-style vote. Most of the time we refer to people's expressed positions in these sorts of straw polls as "!votes," meaning "not a vote." The person who closes the RfC after 30 days (standard length for an RfC) will indeed weigh arguments against policies and guidelines. As long as they know what they're doing, they'll notice that several of the !votes come from single-purpose accounts and/or are based on problematic interpretations of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It's not a science, of course, but that's how consensus is supposed to work here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

If there is a formal RfC, I think one option to include might be to describe this body as something like a non-religious or atheistic new religious movement, particularly as at least one source now used can be used to source that description. John Carter (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• B, C, or D in descending order. My personal choice might be to call it something along the lines of a political action and atheistic (or maybe non-theistic) religious group. We have precedent at least in the US for atheistic groups to be counted as religious, so I don't see an inherent conflict between those terms. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC regarding Disambiguation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Until recently this article has been about an organization called The Satanic Temple whose members were Satanists, recently it was been decided through editor consensus that The Satanic Temple is not only an organization but also it's own religion, whose members are also called Satanists. As this is a new stand alone religion this Satanism is different from the pre-existing religion of Satanism. As it so happens there is an existing disambiguation page Satanism_(disambiguation) to clarify uses of the term Satanism & Satanist. On the top of Satanism is a WP:hatnote that says "For other uses, see Satanism (disambiguation)." the question is if a similar link should now be included at the top of this article. Seanbonner (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Survey options

• Support: include the WP:hatnote, which helps the reader understand the difference between Satanism and Satanism.
• Oppose: no need to include the WP:hatnote, unlikely a reader will confuse Satanism with Satanism.

Threaded discussion

Support - See "Disambiguation" section above for details of my position. Seanbonner (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - This position is supported by reliable sources, I believe, as they seem to use the phrases interchangeably (as do similar WP articles such as Church of Satan): the distinction between "religion" and "religious group" is actually not important in most cases. It seems like Seanbonner is saying it's very important, so important that the article needs to change in other fundamental ways. No one is going to confuse TST with general Satanism, or type "satanic temple" into the search box and expect to be led to the general Satanism article. It's not exactly that the addition would be controversial, it's that it's unnecessary. Trying to pre-emptively address confusion that doesn't exist can, ironically, be confusing. Carefully distinguishing between "religious organization", "religion", and "Satanic religion" is splitting hairs, and in my opinion would cause more reader confusion than it would alleviate, and set a bad precedent.

The Satanism article is not a proper analogy, it is the "central article" that may require disambiguation, none of the other listed articles do. — Demong _talk 01:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, none of the other articles are for religions that are being called Satanism. By deciding that TST is a religion and not a religious organization, it's in a way become another "central article" so we have two articles both claiming to be religions called Satanism, hence the need. Seanbonner (talk) 09:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose what seems to me to perhaps be a remarkably obvious (the obvious not always being the accurate, of course) attempt to win an argument already lost and quite possibly grounds for ANI discussion. Personally, I think the better option would be to put the dab up for deletion as being basically redundant.

Agree that the core problem is the extant content of the Satanism article. John Carter (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Then feel free to explore any of those options you feel are needed for other pages, however here there's a conflict I'm trying to resolve. I'm still unsure about this "lost argument" as the discussion was about if TST is a religious organization or a religion and people presented there cases and a consensus was reached. I've stated clearly that while I still don't agree that is the position that TST is taking (though I've repeatedly stated that we shouldn't base our statements here on their positions but on available facts and sources so I'm fine with that), I think it's better for the classification and clarification questions that have been looming. So now that that decision has been made I'm just trying to help clarify the incredibly weird and unusual situation that there are now two different religions called Satanism as a reader may not understand the deep nuance happening at this point. I'm trying to default to Wikipedia standard and basics for clarity. Seanbonner (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia is extremely useful, but when I'm looking for unusual or deep nuance, that's not where I go. — Demong _talk 05:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Exactly my point, a reader shouldn't need deep nuance to understand an article, that's why the clarification is needed. Without it, nuance is needed. Seanbonner (talk) 09:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I am much like someone else has already said finding it extremely difficult to continue to believe that at least one editor in this discussion is not being driven by a personal wish to promote one group over others. I welcome anyone coming to this discussion to look at the currently extant NPOVN discussion at and the discussions it links to and perhaps ask themselves if they believe the time may have come to consider significant sanctions. John Carter (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This issue is that Seanbonner thinks it's an important subject that needs to be clarified, and other people (including reliable sources) think it's not. — Demong _talk 20:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The CoS party line is that TST is not "real" Satanism, they are doing it wrong, it is something different. Seanbonner is, by various means, pushing that POV. Having been forced to concede that reliable sources call it both a religious group and a religion, this is an attempt at a different angle of attack on the same subject. — Demong _talk 22:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't even make sense, as noted if it's it's own "religion" (which I originally objected to but now see the merits of which is not "conceding") then there's no question if it's "real" Satanism or not, because it's it's own religion.... so?? And I've never once tried to argue if TST is "real Satanism" or not, I've only pointed to how their own positions and statements have contradicted each other which in my opinion matches up with statements that the religion part of their platform is secondary to the political part, and I've only tried to ensure that this article is factual and accurate and not repeating PR statements as facts. When I found this article the talk page had several concerns about the NPOV of the article being too favorable, I tried to add in some properly sourced criticism to balance it and in turn have been accused of NPOV even being told that some facts shouldn't be included. Perhaps we should reach out to the earlier editor who was a admitted member of TST and have them rewrite the article from scratch, I have a feeling Demong wouldn't have any objection to that version. Seanbonner (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I have questioned too-positive language on this page, and made edits to the article trying to temper language I think is not neutral (in TST's favor). — Demong _talk 20:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Also "...add in some properly sourced criticism to balance it..." is usually not a good strategy to achieve neutrality. It may be more effective to remove the positive, than balance it with negative. WP articles shouldn't really contain praise or criticism, except in a separate section or clearly attributed quotation. — Demong _talk 22:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

WorldCat should list the most recent reference books on NRMs. One could look there for such works and then go to WP:RX to see how they define the term. I see the Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements was last printed and presumably updated in 2016 for instance. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose and Close per WP:SNOW - RfC not neutrally worded (e.g. "unlikely a reader will confuse Satanism with Satanism") and misunderstands standard practice for disambiguation hatnotes. The links can be done in the article. If there are other topics on Wikipedia called "Satanic Temple," then such a hatnote would make sense. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can we try to tackle the fundamental question first, and put everything else on hold?

Can we try something?

First, everyone agrees to take a week off from editing this article. I didn't even look at it before saying this, but whichever version it is, it'll be ok to stay that way for now. The edit warring just complicates and inflames things, and brings people closer to being blocked and/or topic banned (I say this not as a threat, but as an observation based on past experience).

Arguments are repeating themselves and going around in circles, and tangents keep spinning off new things to argue about. It's a lot, and I don't see a great deal of success yet.

Almost everything on this page is either directly or indirectly about basic set of interrelated questions, so let's stick to those basic questions here. Resist the urge to launch tangential arguments in new sections. If you start to post something that doesn't directly respond to the following, please reconsider and/or save it for later.

The issue at hand is whether we should describe TST as a religion, whether we should describe it as a religious organization, whether it is a form of Satanism, the ways in which its members should be described relative to these terms, and the extent to which use of these terms should be qualified (qualified as in e.g. "nontheistic religion" or "religiously oriented activist organization" or "self-described Satanists"...).

This is kinda sorta addressed in the above RfC (the section labeled RfC, not the active formal RfC), but by presenting two specific choices, it limits discussion. It also was complicated by other factors I don't want to rehash here, but I would also say that if you are not already a Wikipedian experienced with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I would urge you not to jump in for the sake of "voting," as it doesn't actually help and in some cases makes the side you're advocating for look worse.

I'd also urge you to try to limit your posts to this thread to, say, once every 8 hours. If nobody's editing for a week, there's no urgency to respond to every single message, and it will allow other people to perhaps make the same points you were going to make (or add to the argument you were going to respond to).

Obviously nobody is obliged to participate in this, and I have no authority to require anyone to follow my suggestions for doing so, but this just all seems so resolvable (difficult, but resolvable).

Please keep in mind WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR. What are the sources we should consider, what do they say, where are the disagreements/inconsistencies between sources, and how do we resolve them without using original research?

Sorry for the long post here. Seems worth a shot. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm game. If everyone else is as well I'll walk away and promise not to edit anything here until Feb 6th, how's that? Caveat of course is if I get flooded with notices that edits I spent time researching were deleted without discussion then I'm jumping back in. But I agree that a few days off would be good for everyone and once again Rhododendrites that you for your level head and attempt to improve things. I like your idea on the root issue, though I'm having a hard time seeing the solution as it is - and please hear me out - it seems to me that some of the other editors without speculation on motives want it to be all the things you mentioned but only want to treat it like one in any given instance. I just want something consistent, if it's a religion let's treat it like a religion, if it's an organization let's treat it like an organization, but not that it's a religion in this section and an organization in that section. And maybe that's the core issue, because those things are inherently different and come with their own issues and realities - especially in relation to how to discuss members/supporters/etc and I think a big issue here is that many of the statements about and by TST can be contradicted by other statements by and about TST, so we're stuck in this insane tug of war trying to sort out. So here's my weird idea to consider over the next week - Split the article. This is a crud example but in the way that Jews and Judaism is a people and a religion which are not the same, nor mutually exclusive, maybe there's is something to consider here and split TST(Organization) and TST(Religion) or maybe it's TST(Organization) and a new section on [Satanism] about TST as a new sect? I don't know, I just want this all to make sense somehow. Seanbonner (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm haven't checked on the info regarding the new Missouri lawsuit, which is odd considering I live there, but the documents of that case may be useful regarding these questions if they directly address any possible religious beliefs of the TST. Also agree that determining exactly what should be in the Satanism article or the Left-hand path page or somewhere else. John Carter (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Baphomet (sculpture)

I forked content about the Baphomet sculpture out to Baphomet (sculpture), and invite page watchers to help improve the standalone article. Thanks! ----Another Believer _(Talk) 23:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

August 2018 "Civil War"

According to this article [1] there is somewhat of a "Civil War" (that's what the article is calling it) within TST, with the former head of the largest chapter posting a long resignation letter [2] accusing the management of a long list of things from sexism to working with nazi-supporters. At the same time the entire LA chapter quit and has rebranded as The Satanic Collective [3] and apparently every single international chapter has left starting their own and entirely unrelated organization called "Satanic Temple International" [4] as well as a handful of other individual resignation letters being posted as well. TST responded on their spokesperson's Patreon page and in turn disparaging the people who left. It's not clear if how these new rebranded groups are going to distinguish themselves but a quick look at Satanic Temple International page suggests they are much more interested in rituals than TST may have been. The core complaints seem to be sexist attitudes of the management, lack of attention to issues brought by the chapters to "central ministries", a lawsuit filed by TST against twitter, the lawyer hired by TST for that lawsuit and funds contributed by the chapters and donations being used for things people didn't agree to. As these events likely require significant edits to the page I'd like to ask here how best to proceed with that without sparking an edit/revert war. Thoughts? Seanbonner (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Portland [5] and St Louis [6] have publicly split now as well. This seems like it needs it's own section rather than having most of the "Chapters" section being about Chapters leaving. Seanbonner (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Religious Vs. Religion

I am aware of the above RfC on debating how TST should be described. Now that that's settled; I think the lead sentence should be slightly edited. It currently reads "The Satanic Temple is a nontheistic religion and political activist group..." but I think it should be changed to "The Satanic Temple is a nontheistic religious and political activist group..." with the redirect still going to nontheistic religion. This is a minor grammar thing, but I believe that The Satanic Temple is a group, which would stipulate using an adjective, (id est religious)) to modify it rather than the noun religion. I guess the religion might be called Satanic Templisim? If no one objects to this minor edit, I will make it in a week, on September 18th. Cheers, Flipster14191 (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

NPOV

Big controversy with chapters splitting [7] "several of TST’s chapter heads have resigned in protest over Greaves’ decision to engage the pro bono services of Marc Randazza, a free speech lawyer who has both defended and publicly supported alt-right clients like Alex Jones.)" and [8] and other sources discuss this. The article must also, see the "civil war" section. Doug Weller talk 09:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I guess the bit about the Portland group could be worth including. Obviously we aren't going to pretend that the Religion News article, which calls Satanic Temple a "joke", "troll", and "menace", is a reliable source on this subject. @YuriNikolai: could you weigh in on what you'd like to see in the article to make it more balanced? -- Fyrael (talk) 04:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Insiders seem to call what happened in 2018 as a "big schism", as several groups split from TST, and IMO that's worth including. If we can't find good news articles covering the split, I'd propose including the primary statements made by the groups as they split, especially the larger Portland one. With that being said, though this Medium post is not a RS, it does link to several sites that might be. This one especially seems appropriate to me, even after considering WP:RS/P's notes on Jezebel's uncertain reliability. With attribution, I'd propose this as the first appropriate source. YuriNikolai (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement about the tenets

I have a problem with the broad nature of the tenets being considered superior to the 10 Commandments.

The support for this statement comes from a Secular Humanist website. I could have sited the exact organization instead of saying Secular Humanist organizations.

It seems that the change was reasonable, since there is only one source cited to support this position.

I have changed it to "by some" which I think is more accurate. I would say that the statement "by secular humanists" would be an even more accurate statement.

But I think the reader should be aware that the tenets are not supported by a broad cross section. If a poll exists that supports such a broad statement that information should be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.24.8 (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Lawsuit reference in "Reception" section could use clarification

Without a subscription to PACER, the citation in the "Reception" section that refers to "United Federation of Churches LLC v. Johnson et al" does not help to clarify the claim. Who has spoken out about what experiences? How is this known? The case description on justia.com is minimal. Where has this been reported in the month's time since the lawsuit was filed? I tried searching using the links at the bottom of the justia.com page and found no results or irrelevant results. Web searches listed previous legal action involving the Satanic Temple but not this case. Clarification/more information would be appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:121E:C999:0:9690:3F73:8079 (talk) 06:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I removed the WP:OR content from the section. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Is it considered original research when it’s a public document and the lawsuit has been addressed on greaves’ twitter account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:F706:7700:F0D6:E134:5A37:954B (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Reception update

The Reception section is mostly full of comments from years ago and could really use an update. At the very least, all the recent Texas abortion law activity has gotten them loads of new critiques on both sides. -- Fyrael (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Human Rights Organization?

TST does not appear on Wikipedia’s page listing human rights organizations. Is it possible for an organization just to announce it is “a human rights organization,” or do they need to meet some kind of set criteria? No other religion is listed here as a “human rights organization” in and of itself, at least not that I’ve seen. RandomFrequentFlyerDent (talk) 07:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

For the record, the label isn't there because they gave it to themselves. It's there because at least one secondary source described TST as "a religious organization dedicated to protecting basic human rights". -- Fyrael (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Sol Invictus (holiday) into The Satanic Temple

Not sure if there is enough to justify a stub article on the holiday, versus merging this content into the religion's article. Singularity42 (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Merge per nom. ––FormalDude talk 17:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Merge Too short to justify a separate article. Pichpich (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Shane Bugbee

I'd like to know how wikipedia allows this obvious piece of propaganda as a wiki listing?

My name has been removed from their history constantly. How could this piece NOT have the original VICE magazine piece sited? That should be a clear indication this wiki is run and edited by their membership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4328:4490:908D:BB56:BE2C:AAA4 (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, all of Wikipedia's thousands of editors are members of this organization. You caught us. More seriously though, what history? What original piece? Would you care to give any actual information here? -- Fyrael (talk) 04:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)