Talk:Satanism

message: In the 2021 Canadian Census Section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism#2021_Canadian_census), the statement "although the Japanese are an exception (with the Japanese comprising 0.3% of both Satanists and the population as a whole)" is incorrect. The Japanese are not an exception because they are the lowest percentage out of all the minority groups.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esterleth (talk • contribs) 05:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Fix to 2021 Canadian Census Section 

message: The Temple of Set does not consider themselves to be Satanists, rather Setians. Since they formed from ex-members of the Church of Satan there's a value to including them but listing them as a Satanic group is misleading and confusing, perhaps there's a more accurate way to mention them? Seanbonner (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temple of Set 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Satanism. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712000522/http://www.xeper.org/maquino/nm/COS.pdf to http://www.xeper.org/maquino/nm/COS.pdf
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) 05:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Mainstream media newspapers from 1948 have articles about devil worshiper, Ernie Lee Russell Yost. I have tried to add information about him from the articles on the Satanism Wiki page, but the addition was erased by someone claiming that only Academic Sources can be used. However, according to Wikipedia guidelines, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources ) articles in reliable newspapers can be used. These references are reliable; they were the main newspapers of West Virginia at the time: The West Virginian and The Fairmont Times. Could others please clarify on this subject. I think the Satanism page should be complete. I am unsure why anyone would want information to be suppressed. Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by HumanRogers (talk • contribs) 16:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: When it comes to highly controversial issues such as Satanism, press accounts are often sensationalistic and ill-informed — think of all the nonsense that was published in the press during the Satanic ritual abuse hysteria of the 1980s and 1990s, or the way in which the press have appended the terms "Satanist" or "devil-worship" to practitioners of Wicca, Haitian Voodoo, and Santeria over the years. While press articles can be used as reliable sources at Wikipedia, we should be very careful about how and when we use them. This is an example of an article where we have more than enough academic sources available to us, so there should really be no need to resort to poorer-quality press material, particularly material published in the 1940s. In addition, I find it concerning that one of the sources that you used in citing your addition explicitly describes itself as a novel, albeit one based on true events. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

text: HumanRogers Why don't you first try to create a well-referenced article about the Yost story, or the new book Devil in the Basement, and eventually, if/when more information and references turn up, you can try to link your information into the current article somehow.Jimhoward72 (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  1948 Devil worshiper Ernie Yost 

message: Instead of persistently reverting eachother, please discuss here.  I was about to request temporary full protection but that may not yet be necessary and would prevent useful editing.  Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 16:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Seanbonner is trying to make a change to the article for which there is no consensus, and which is opposed by Midnightblueowl, as well as by me. That is enough reason for the user to stop trying to make that change at least for the moment. Seanbonner is free to try to establish consensus for his change, of course. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

text: It's an unsourced and factually inaccurate claim, we don't need consensus as wikipedia policy already applies, it should be removed until a source to support it is provided. The article is about Satanism, this a section about a person who was not a Satanist, who died years before the bulk of the events described in the article, he was an occultist and used occult and religious imagery, calling it Satanic is an incorrect descriptor. Even if some of the image was later used by Satanists, it wasn't being used by Satanists when he used it and so calling any of it "Satanic" is misleading and inaccurate. This is like arguing that Darth Vader used First Order iconography, the timeline is backwards. You could factually argue that Satanists use imagery that was used by occultists previously, but claiming occultists used Satanic imagery makes no sense. Seanbonner (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree considering the various definitions of satanism.  There were for instance the Catholic-parodying ones, the legendary ones of literature, the alleged satanists of the various moral panics, then today's mostly atheist "satanic" movements, none of which have to do with eachother.  "Satanic imagery" was also borrowed from older tradition including Baphomet's inspiration from older horned/animal gods, etc.  The Christian concept of Satan also gets lost in the Tanakh where there were mostly references to older Babylonian or Caanite deities which were later confused with the devil...  So what does "satanic" really mean?  It would be useful to attribute it to a notable author using a source, instead of stating it in Wikipedia's voice.  —PaleoNeonate – 07:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  So given that it's uncited and inaccurate, can we please per wikipedia policy remove it? WP:PROVEIT and WP:SOFIXIT are pretty clear that this shouldn't remain in the article. I'm confused why there is any objection. Seanbonner (talk) 09:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Seanbonner, I disagree with this edit. I do not think that you have a secure consensus for it, and you should seek Midnightblueowl's comments here before repeating it. You altered a caption of an image of Aleister Crowley to read, "Aleister Crowley was not a Satanist"; such a caption is singularly unhelpful and I do not consider it appropriate. You also altered a sentence that began, "He nevertheless used Satanic imagery, for instance by describing himself as "the Beast 666" and referring to the Whore of Babylon in his work" by removing the "He nevertheless used Satanic imagery" part. The removal of that portion of the sentence makes the rest of it irrelevant to the article, making it simply strange that it would be included at all. I appreciate that you are trying to improve the article, however, you need to reconsider your approach. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked up the cited source, Ronald Hutton's book The Triumph of the Moon. It states that "it is well known, and true, that Crowley identified himself with the Beast 666 of the Book of Revelation and the satanic idol, Baphomet, allegedly worshipped by the medieval Knights Templar". The statement that Crowley used satanic imagery is supported by the source cited. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Academic sources discussing Satanism tend to stress that although Crowley was not a Satanist in the modern religious sense of the word, he drew upon a great deal of older imagery which in Western society has been regarded as unambiguously satanic for a long time (Whore of Babylon, "the Beast 666" etc). The article should reflect this and, I believe, has done so until the recent alterations were made without any attempt to gain Talk Page consensus first. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia policy is not to gain consensus before any edit, rather "when in doubt, delete" as I did. It was brought to the Talk page after that as others disagreed, however per policy the deletion should remain until a consensus is found, not that it should be reverted. The source does not support the claim, this is an editor making an assumption. Someone who repeatedly claimed not to be a Satanist, who was using imagery that was not associated with Satanism at the time, should not be accused of using "Satanic imagery" simply because decades later that that imagery was also used by Satanists. The Knights Templar also didn't consider themselves Satanists so claiming that Crowley was using their imagery so it's OK to say it was Satanic is not correct and is OR. Unless you can find a source that directly says Crowley used Satanic imagery that claim should not be on a wikipedia page. Seanbonner (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You understanding of Wikipedia policy is not correct. There is nothing in our policies that says that a "deletion should remain until a consensus is found". I am not surprised that you do not refer to or quote an actual policy. Having examined the source, which states that Crowley identified himself with a "satanic" idol, for myself, it is clear to me that it does support the statement that Crowley used satanic imagery. Your comments above about this issue are simply confused. Your comment, "The Knights Templar also didn't consider themselves Satanists so claiming that Crowley was using their imagery so it's OK to say it was Satanic is not correct and is OR", is ungrammatical and I do not understand what it is intended to mean. I am not seeing a coherent argument anywhere in your comment. You begin by saying that Crowley repeatedly claimed not to be a Satanist; that's true but also irrelevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's actually a quite clear argument. The article is about Satanism, this section is about Crowley who wasn't a Satanist. The imagery that Crowley used was not also used by Satanists at the time he used it, thus it was not Satanic imagery. If after Crowley's death Satanists began using the imagery that doesn't retroactively make it Satanic when Crowley used it. Saying that he both "claimed not to be a Satanist" but also "used Satanic imagery" is confusing to the reader and suggests that maybe he was a Satanist. You are the one who brought in the Knights Templar and my point is that your mentioning them is irrelevant as they were not Satanists either, unless you are trying to argue that Crowley used Templarian imagery, in which case you could make that argument and that claim would be valid, but again it would be pointless to include on an article about Satanism. Seanbonner (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "The imagery that Crowley used was not also used by Satanists at the time he used it, thus it was not Satanic imagery." I find this argument problematic. As far as scholars of Satanism see it, Satanism did not appear only with the first self-described Satanists. It began with the Satanic imagery that emerged within Christendom in the early years of the Common Era. It was only centuries later that we find examples of people calling themselves "Satanists", but they post-date Satanism itself by quite a large margin. The argument that you are using is akin to that of Anton LaVey's Church of Satan; the claim that they are the "true" Satanists and have the right to define what is and what is not Satanic, calling things other than themselves "devil worship". They are of course free to believe such a thing, but scholars do not follow their example and neither should this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Luckily for everyone this article doesn't need to conform to what you personally consider problematic or not. The fact is that this imagery wasn't associated with Satanism, no matter how you want to define that, at the time Crowley used it. The article and all supporting citations supports that argument, and the previous version of the article was misleading. The current compromise version introduced by Paleo resolves the issue. Seanbonner (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "The fact is that this imagery wasn't associated with Satanism, no matter how you want to define that, at the time Crowley used it." This simply isn't true, Sean. "666", the "Great Beast", the "Whore of Babylon", and the idea of inverting Christianity are all long established tropes associated with Satanism going back decades and in some cases centuries prior to Crowley's birth. You are of course fully entitled of your own, personal understanding of "Satanism" (which I suspect derives at least in part from LaVeyan uses of the term), but that is not how most scholars of the subject see it and it is not how this article should present it. Crowley was most certainly not a religious Satanist, but he did play with Satanic imagery. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mistaken, as those are examples of Christian imagery. Seanbonner (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you think that Satan and Satanism come from if not Christianity? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you might want to read the article we're discussing, specifically . As this article details, Satanism as a pejorative (and a label applied to others) is a creation of Christianity, Satanism as a religion (and a self applied label) is based on the pre-Christian definition of the word satan. Someone referencing elements from the Bible is referencing Christian elements, referring to that as Satanic when they themselves didn't consider it Satanic is pejorative not descriptive.Seanbonner (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satanic rhetoric 

message: Please add the following to your page. Thank you.
: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2019 

message: Satan's Curse is a description of the fact that the power structure within Satanism has taken a 'wrong turn'. Although the group of hypnotists is technically not part of the 'power structure', they are those who have maintained Satanism for centuries - and therefore completely unjustified. It was probably already at the beginning of the Jewish era that this 'power deformity' took place. After a few centuries of experimenting with the basic principles of satanism (hypnosis, hypnosis regression, emotion enhancement and 'knowledge'), it was the intention of the 2 'groups fighting for power' (and thus executing) the DOEN - of the satanic doctrine) to withdraw. However, it went 'wrong' with the group (tribe or clan) of the hypnotists. Also against them must be said that they can keep up with it but because they are always in the majority (including in a witch circle including the men) the 'Satan' continues to run. In short, the hypnotists make sure that 'satanism' continues to exist despite everyone's realization that the total is no longer worth it (so today only 'stuff' is made by order of 'the satanic king' x must make a number of sacrifices ..). All the "miracles" (that for which Satanism was "set up" at the time) have been executed, documented and well-known. At the moment there are even 'dragons' and 'turners' who are recording 'miracles' with their mobile phones to convince the hypnotists that 'satanism' no longer has any right to exist. THEY have known for a long time what the effects ('the miracles') are of what they 'can' do. Satansvloek (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Satanism WP-article. What change/addition do you suggest, and which WP:Reliable sources supports your change? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satan's Curse 

message: Belief in whatever doesn't constitute one a criminal in most but not all countries.
We should write about it. Some non-criminals are oppressed. Having a "wrong" opinion isn't unethical, or if it is, we have to elaborate why.
::: make page: Discrimination against Satanists  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4112:6500:2C98:61E0:4652:6EF8 (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  In some poor countries like Armenia, Greece and Turkey Satanism is confused with criminality by the society 

message: Please add a link to Satanist (disambiguation)
add the hatnote:

-- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Satanist (disambiguation) is listed on the page Satanism (disambiguation). Doesn't seem like there would be a lot of confusion due to this redirect, since the satanist (disambiguation) only lists a couple of obscure novels, one album, and one song. – Þjarkur (talk) 12:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request

message: The current section states that "according to Ruben Van Luijk, the concept of Satanism is an invention of Christianity, for it relies upon the figure of Satan, a character deriving from Christian mythology".
The author hasn't a WP article. The current article names his monography for two times, but it isn't a verifiable source. Furthermore, it is the unique title named elsewhere in the Encyclopedia. 
Is it so important for staying at the top of the page? It represents a personal opinion and point of view, which is not unequivocally demonstrated. The same section has to specify that for more religions Satanism includes sectarian groups whose members believe that Satan is a real and existing angel and worship him.
A 1998 survey of the Italian Ministry of the Interior adopted a definition which categorized as Satanism gropus of people believing in a symbol as well as in a real and spiritual entity. It comes form the Italian sociologist Massimo Introvigne (which has a WP article) and now I noted it is also available in English (here). It is a WP:reliable source and it can be hopefully integrated into the questioned POV section of the article. I am going to do so.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: the same sociologist is mentioned for more times in the current article. This another reason to add his definition of Satanism in the opening section.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV definition 

message: The "see also" link in the "Religious Satanism" section is to the article about one particular book about contemporary religious satanism, not to an article about the movement or movements themselves. I don't think that this is really relevant to the section, and probably the link should be removed. What do other people think?
Dijekjapen (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Satanism Article 

message: Change the paragraph stating that it is an american phenomenon. There are many british and european sects developed before America was even a country. The citation cited is an opinion piece. 2603:9000:C604:6CE1:9156:CFE:84B6:FF3D (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2021 

message: I want to being everyones attention to Jerm's WikiProject proposal. Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Satanism. It seems that this article is one of many articles that would benefit from it's creation.4theloveofallthings (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Proposal

message: Marilyn Manson is described off-handedly as conservative and I can see no reason for this. Please add a link to where this idea is coming from. Manson's politics are his own but seldom would they be described in this manner. Going down the rabbit hole led me...nowhere. It would see this assessment is strange at best and original to the poster at worst. Please at least make his name a wikilink if the sentence is going to remain. 2601:182:C80:3E10:2800:C736:B7A7:2D1A (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a drive-by suggestion, but appears to be a valid one. The cited book only mentions a passing sentence that only says "certain public satanists such as Marilyn Manson have expressed conservative political views" [1] and does not provide further context. Additional searches for related use of the description has not led me to any reliable sources that suggest the artist is politically conservative. I will be bold and edit this statement. If anyone sees a need to revert, please reply on the talk page once you have, so we can discuss! King keudo (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marilyn Manson 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Why is Varg Vikernes mentioned as part of satanism when he never claimed to be one nor was the criminal activity in black metal scene always related to ideology? 2001:14BA:23E8:800:7066:AF8F:54A6:CC1 (talk) 10:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I’ve got no clue why they put that there Anders Wiedow (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Varg Vikernes 

message: Church of Satan is atheistic, do you have a source which denies that? La Vey proclaimed that there are no supernatural gods, and the Devil isn't real, either. tgeorgescu (talk)  15:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m sorry but you can’t put that sort of opinionated piece in a site for all people including Christians Anders Wiedow (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atheistic 

message: This article is not describing Satanism. It is describing Occultism, the worship of the Devil. Satanism is something different. ThatsSoFandom (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - the article currently defines Satanism as worship of an actual Satan which is not accurate for the majority of Satanists as far as I know. Editting is locked I don't know who could update the article? Taylormrnsc (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not satanism 

message: "In their study of Satanism, the religious studies scholars Asbjørn Dyrendal, James R. Lewis, and Jesper Aa. Petersen stated that the term Satanism "has a history of being a designation made by people against those whom they dislike; it is a term used for 'othering'". The concept of Satanism is an invention of Christianity, for it relies upon the figure of Satan, a character deriving from Christian mythology."
Yes... us Christian mythologists, just call people we don't like, Satanists. Anyone being called a Satanist, is automatically barred from being one, since, of the billions of people here on earth there can be no Satanists - even though literal Satanist Churches exist in every western country. True atheists totally are the only ones going to those churches; atheists love "church."
NO ONE worships Satan. Interesting... hard to believe, rather impossible, but nonetheless interesting, if not plausible deniability. The latter of which wikipedia uses for just about every article on their website. 2601:19B:4B80:D250:F03C:26A3:DAB8:3D5F (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:NOTAFORUM; additionally, we use reliable sources that we can verify, and summarize what they say. King keudo (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition your comments are not true. Nowhere does the article say that anyone Christians don't like is a Satanist or that no one worships Satan. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: And, to answer the charge, Satanists who believe that Satan really exists are a minority among Satanists. They do exist, but aren't by and large the majority of Satanists. tgeorgescu (talk)  03:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't seem biased at all... /s 

message: change
let along is trying to destroy humanity.
to
let alone is trying to destroy humanity. Superknova (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 18:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2024 

message: change
converted to Catholicism and the published several works
to
converted to Catholicism and then published several works Superknova (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Jamedeus (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2024 (2) 

message: In the first sentence of the etymology section, it should say “tempts” not “temps” 2601:441:4B7F:B860:1014:9982:E218:12D4 (talk) 06:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hyphenation Expert (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2024 

message: The following sentence is not very encyclopedic, hard to read, and give the impression of promoting this particular sect: 
This reads like an advertisement for that sect (which is odd, considering that the sect is nearly defunct  ... according to its WP page).  Designating one sect as the "oldest." is not very encyclopedic.  Just say what year it was founded.   If it is influential: that fact will be apparently from the following body text.  Is there some way to reword that to be more neutral and less ad-like? Noleander (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotion of  LaVey sect?