Talk:LaVeyan Satanism: Difference between revisions
→Neutrality dispute?: further edits |
m reply |
||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
:I went over the article and made further edits; how's it look now? - [[User:Korpios|Korpios]] 09:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
:I went over the article and made further edits; how's it look now? - [[User:Korpios|Korpios]] 09:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
||
I'm content. :) [[User:DryGrain|DryGrain]] 14:47, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:47, 16 July 2004
Funeral ceremonies
User:212.159.30.47 made some very welcome extensions to the article recently. I do question the last line, however:
- There is not even a Satanic funeral ceremony.
I know that Satanic funeral ceremonies have been performed; it's more that they tend to be created ad-hoc for the individual in question. But one would be correct (AFAIK) in stating that there is no standardized LaVeyan Satanic funeral ceremony. - Korpios 16:28, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Neutrality dispute?
The entire Criticisms section seems to be from the POV of someone with anti-Satanist tendencies, as well as little sprinklings of POV all through the article. DryGrain 16:41, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Hence it's clearly labeled as criticisms. Having created the article, I was pleased to see someone come along and flesh out both Philosophy and Criticisms; IMHO, they did a fairly balanced job. As for that and "sprinklings of POV", do you think you could outline exactly what your objections are rather than jump to label the article with a neutrality dispute header? I'd like to get this straightened out and have the header removed ASAP. - Korpios 17:03, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I can understand how the Criticisms section should be critical; however, the section should be written about the criticism from a neutral point of view, rather than assuming a critical point of view and explaining oneself. I'm assuming you wanted examples of the POV I noticed that was 'not' in the Criticisms section, so here goes. (If you want examples from Criticisms, let me know and I'll shw you what bothers me specifically.)
- It may be surprising to some that Satanism prohibits bad treatment of animals, whilst Christianity does not. - A hint of pro-Satanist POV.
- LaVey did not directly say that women were inferior, but he insisted on them exploiting their "femininity" to gain power and pleasure, rather than what he saw as the feminist mentality of "hating your femininity". - If he never said "Women are inferior", why is the article trying to convince the reader that that is how he felt?
- In this stress on individuality, Satanism is considered part of the Left Hand Path; most major religions are seen as encouraging dull conformity. - More pro-Satanism/anti-other-religion POV...
- ...the group worked with a combination of magick and LaVey's hedonistic, egoistic philosophy. - Seems like 'loaded language' to me; mabye some synonyms that don't seem so much like a derisive criticism would work better?
As I said, other than the Criticisms section, there are only these few sprinklings of mild POV that bothered me.
I have done this same thing on a few other alternative religion articles. I notice that most articles on non-major religions tend to be biased against the religion they describe. When reading them, I try to read it as if I were a follower of it looking for language derisive of it.
On a side note, I've had articles which were completely/mostly my creation get tagged, VfD'd, edited mercilessly, andI have noticed myself becoming defensive of them. I can completely understand how you might feel like that, and as I've had the same thing happen to me, I'd like to mention that I have no feelings of rivalry or anger towards you at all and hope that you don't either.
Thanks, DryGrain 08:27, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- It's more surprise and confusion; I thought tags were last-resorts after discussion failed. I absolutely don't mind criticism and edits; I just want to understand the rationale. :)
- As for the points you raise:
- It may be surprising to some that Satanism prohibits bad treatment of animals, whilst Christianity does not. - You're right; this should be reworded to "Some find it surprising that this form of Satanism prohibits ill treatment of animals." Many expect anything termed "Satanism" to involve some form of animal abuse/sacrifice, but there's no point to blatantly contrasting with Christianity.
- LaVey did not directly say that women were inferior, but he insisted on them exploiting their "femininity" to gain power and pleasure, rather than what he saw as the feminist mentality of "hating your femininity". - I suppose this could use a rephrasing.
- In this stress on individuality, Satanism is considered part of the Left Hand Path; most major religions are seen as encouraging dull conformity. - The second part could be slightly tweaked, but the point should stand; LHPers do typically see "RHP" religions as conformist.
- ...the group worked with a combination of magick and LaVey's hedonistic, egoistic philosophy. - Erm, Satanists view hedonism and egoism as positive traits. :)
- Thoughts so far? - Korpios 14:06, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Everything you've mentioned so far is fine with me, but perhaps we could clarify that hedonism and egoism are considered merits rather than flaws to the average Satanist? Also, the entire Criticisms needs to be gone through.If you don't mind, I'll go ahead and do that, and anything you want reverted, bring up to me here. DryGrain 15:54, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I went over the article and made further edits; how's it look now? - Korpios 09:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm content. :) DryGrain 14:47, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)