Talk:Satanism

Needs complete rewrite

This article has just about everything (for some one who is interested) to give one a brief understanding of what Satanism is about. If you want to know about it then why not buy the book or look up a site that is deticated to Satanism not read through and complain about you lack of satisfaction —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.193.145 (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is incredibly biased and pathetic. It speaks of Satan as simply a Christian myth. There is no discussion of the history of Satan or Satanism. I have seen some bad wikipedia articles, but this one shows why schools don't let you use wikipedia. Someone needs to rewrite the whole thing from scratch (not Old Scratch).

Someone with a completely objective viewpoint needs to do just that. The article lacks proper citations, which immediately tags most of it as OR. Not to mention, whoever is responsible for the current version of this article apparently can't tell between truth and propaganda. 208.49.176.241 14:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Much of this article tries to be fair, but however says things like "Careful use of the word, according to one respected website, refers to a 'small religious group that is unrelated to any other faith, and whose members feel free to satisfy their urges responsibly, exhibit kindness to their friends, and attack their enemies'" According to one respected website? Listen, one website, no matter how "respected" it is, can have their religion-bashing mentioned in the first paragraph and be referred to as "careful use of the word." Rewrite needed badly. Karonaway 22:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, it needs someone who has actually read the numerous historical works on the subject. Has no one of the great editors of these articles on satanism, ever bothered to look at Jules Michelet's 1862 book on Witchcraft and Sorcery, or Richard Cavendish's 1967 book on the Black Arts, or Huysmans' 1891 book la-Bas, or H.T.F. Rhodes 1954 book on the Satanic Mass, or any of the other books which have been around for many years and which discuss in detail the history of satanism? An article on Satanism can't start with modern Satanic movements - it has to describe what writers 50 years ago, and 100 years ago, were already writing about. It should mention the witchcraft trials, pacts with the devil, black masses - historical depictions of satanism, and then start talking about the modern movements. There are a hundred articles scattered all over wikipedia that discuss this or that aspect of satanism, but no one has brought them together under one article.Jimhoward72 21:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have quite an extensive occult library and I'd be happy to help.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 22:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A big problem is that this article has no structure. I'm trying to work on LaVeyan Satanism, but I'll see if I cna't get around to this too tommorow. Give a historical perspective, a basic thing on LaVey, Theistic, etc. Its kind of hard to do though. Where does one start? How does on basically define such opposing viewpoints? WerewolfSatanist 02:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree, this page needs major editing. I would consider myself an objective observer, with no particular investment in the topic. Primarily, I find the whole "as an aside..." paragraph to be decidedly unencylopedic in the way it is written, and in much of its content, though I suppose I can kind of see some merit in helping to explain origins and cultural attitudes. In any case, without a citation, it smacks of original research. Even with a citation, I would cut the whole thing down to about a sentence or two, ideally after having re-organized the article. I don't have the time or resources to start citing sources or adding content to this article, but I think a good start would be cutting that paragraph. Any objections or comments? --Thud495 03:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've done some copy editing work and reworded some of the article. Still, the article continues to advocate a particular view of Satanism, the more New Age non-deistic lifestyle form that grew out of LaVey's movement. The article is in bad need of a POV and originla research comb over, esp in regards to the Christian faith and its views on Satanism. I was hoping that some of the more interested editors could get some sources to back the assertions made here (Left Hand Path work group?). I'll be trying to dig up some refs myself but I've been really busy of late. I'm hoping to add sections to the article with a start on the concept of Satan in Hebrew lore and its position in hebew occultism and the role as the opposer, how it evolved into a stigma of heresy for non-christians after the rise of Christianty and then into hedonistic and "free-thinking" secret orders before it's moden reinterpretation today as a Randian lifestyle choice. NeoFreak 13:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess the article must be changed to explain clearly that vandalism and killing have no relations to the idea of Satanism, and is done by sectaries, which are plentiful in all kinds of religions. I shall make a translation of Russian Wikipedia article - it is much better. And I hope someone more skilled will merge it with the existing. Barafu Albino Cheetah 07:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, a bunch of CoS people came through here over the past while and "Sanitized" all the articles to read like Anton LaVey commercials. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful rewrite done recently! Whoever did it, (they didn't sign in) thanks for clearing some things up! Karonaway 19:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Autotheism/Suitheism

Would Satanism be considered a form of Autotheism or Suitheism, maybe??

After reading the definitions, I'm inclined to say yes, from several different Satanic Systems including LaVey's. Being that you are your own God "LaVey". From the Masonic/Hermetic/Thelemic Satanism, it is becoming God. Much like Paul in the Sci fi "Dune" So from those sources I'd have to say, yes it is.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

We really ought to archive this page. Get rid of all the flame warring so we can have some coherent conversation. WerewolfSatanist 00:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. You can archive any conversation any older than about a week for active talk pages or about a month for less active. That's my rule of thumb. If you have any questions on how to do this you can check the code, look at WP:ARCHIVE or hit me up on my talk page. NeoFreak 14:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sinagogue of Satan

Ok I fixed the url also wondering if there are any other problems with the listing. Note the other groups listed are in full support of SoS including an interview by The League of Indy Satanists. Also we are the only religion listed in Theistic Satanism that has a Citation. And I can add more citations if need be. Feel free to explain to me why Sinagogue of Satan should not be listed along with the other groups listed.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 23:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for removing it - it had been removed in the past and I assumed there was some sort of consensus reached on why it shouldn't be there, and I'd just missed it. I'll leave it's place there up to someone else. ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No need, but thank you Haunted. The link was missing the n in sosatan, so I figured in good faith that was most likely the problem.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 23:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed your site and I will remove it again. Your site has already failed the criteria of notability and it is a members only site which excludes it from acceptable external material availble to the average reader. Please do not re-add the site. I also recommend you review our policy on conflict of interest as the founder of this site/organization. If you have any additional issues feel free to hit me up here or on my talk page. NeoFreak 04:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, where does it say members only anywhere on my site?

As for notability if we are not noteable why do the other sites listed not only know about us but actively support us, including interviewing me? Are you sure your not editing through personal bias? Also as stated further up we are the only group in Theistic Satanism with a citation. Funny you have to make up a lie like we are a members only religion, oops you said site in either case you are wrong we are not members only and I'd sure love for you to show me and the other wikki editors where you got we are members only.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 16:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same page? Once you reach the front page the only sections you can access without a membership is the message board and the external links. This is the criteria on the page for membership:

IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ

1) YOU MUST BE 18+

2) Write a detailed essay in your own words about the meaning of the main page.

3) Fill out the questionnaire honestly (all fields MUST be filled).

4) Making sure your email address is correct helps a shit load too.

5) Be Patient!

If you would read our policy guildline on external links and our policy on conflicts of interest you would find that this is not an appropriate place to plug your website/church. I removed quite a few other sites from the list as well because they also were not appropriate. We don't need everyone and their brother's personal splinter church they started as an external link here. Please do not re-add your website. If you would like feel more than free to request a third opinion. NeoFreak 18:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, ignore the Nav Bar for a minute, there are a few links to other pages on the main page, for some reason though, they aren't all on the Nav Bar. It seems that it's a legit site, which just happens to have a member's only section, as most sites do. ≈ The Haunted Angel 18:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for being impartial and honest Haunted. I'll let neo mull over your words before I take any furthur action. I'd also like to point out that Haunted is not a member nor a friend of mine. But he has shown me he is not biased, thus has gained my respect.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you refering to Margolin's essays and the amazon.com link? I'm not seeing anything else Angel. I'm not seeing the encyclopedic content. I'm also not sure what "actions" you want to take Mr. Margolin. Maybe you could clear up what it is about your website that makes it needed in the external links section? NeoFreak 19:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, look at it this way: it's the official site for the Religion, and although there arn't many pages apart from contact and Member's-only part, there is a lot of content on each page. For example, I bet that if you took all the content on the main page, and divided it up into four or five more pages, there would be no complaint. ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a million and one "offical sites for religion X" started by guy Y on the internet. It doesn't mean that we need to link to all of them. The only content available to a reader are some essays on Margolin's topics of interest. The rest is in the members only section (I'm not sure what is even in there, which is the point). An external link has to be accessible to the average reader and directly related to the subject material. This is a 90% members only website of Margolins that he uses to advertise his church. We don't know anything about this church because it's already been deemed non-notable when its entry was deleted and it supports no reliable sources to verify anthing about it. It's basically a blog and for all we know it could just be Margolin and a couple friends, not to mention the huge conflict of interest issues. See what I'm saying here? NeoFreak 19:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You do have a good point - but it's hard to draw the line where something becomes notable. Personally, as Margolin is a somewhat famous Satanist, I'd say the Sinagogue is just notable enough. The points you make are indeed valid, but now it seems to come down to a thing of notability. ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

<reset> It's a notability issue but not just a notability issue. Frome the external links guidline:

Links ot be avoided:

• Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
• Links mainly intended to promote a website
• Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content.
• Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser. (registration required)
• Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET. (forum)
• Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. (he;s not a recognized authority regardless of what he seems to think)
• And finally: Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked to an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked.

• From the external links section on conflict of interest and self promotion: Due to the rising profile of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote sites. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines.

• All rolled up into one sentence from the link: A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article.

The point I'm trying to make is that this is a very clear cut case and these rules and guidlines were established a long time ago just for these exact types of sites. This is not the "Sinagouge of Satan" article is is an general topic article on the subject of Satanism. NeoFreak 20:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to admit you make a valid point. It's very debatable, indeed. Hmm, I may have to vote in favour of you now, but I'm still on the fence. ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the article is a general topic article on Satanism and Singogue of Satan has members in other groups of Satanism including CoS it makes sense for SoS to be inlcuded in the external links especially since some of the groups listed have Sinagogue of Satan in their links. Besides the fact that some of the other groups listed openly support the SoS. As for notability perhaps you should read my user page. Yeah I was even on TV a couple times. Also SoS is in a book published by Barnes and Noble, thus the citation, might I point out again we are the only group with a citation in Theistic Satanism.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 20:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't catch my previous post? I'll let you go ahead and read over it again. NeoFreak 02:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

See discussion in Theistic Satanism "Liber of the Goat", or should I copy paste it here?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 04:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

regarding removal of talk page content

removal of talk page content will not be tolerated, lest it be considered prejudice or discrimination. furthermore, all talk on this page regarding the delay in the removal of content of this page will be accomplished ASAP, as this page has been under reviewal since Feb 2007AD. conclusively, any further attempts to sustain the non-verified content or likewise the SUBJECTIVE nature of the content will be in violation of the Wikipedia policy. Good Day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfd101 (talk • contribs)

Talk page info may be removed if it is deemed nonsense; although I'm not saying that's what your posts are - I actually havn't been following your edits. ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

explaining latest revert

The reason I reverted the edit was because almost all, if not all Christianity preaches that all the other religions of the world were created by Satan to keep man away from the one true religion "Christianity". Since that is the case I thought the person that was offended by the original text was acting out of religious bias with his edit.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Article Confusion

I have never finished a Wikipedia article more confused than when I entered it. At no point does the article say point blank "Satanism is _____" or "although their are several denominations, all Satanists believe ______". If Satanist do or do not worship the Devil, this should be mentioned - as should if they believe in a Judeo-Christian God. any history beyond a few decades of random observations would be helpful, too. If there is no history, this is relevant, too - because common knowledge (or at least my own knowledge and three people I asked quick) is that Satanism goes back at least a couple hundred years. An evolution of Satanism would be excellent. Key players of Satanism would be nice, but I would love a few short blurbs on some of the main denominations of Satanism. Thanks! Summary:

• Satanism is ___
• History of Satanism
• Evolution of belief of Satanism
• Current denominations

Mike 03:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I totally understand why this is an issue. The problem is that the term "Satanism" has been appropriated (some say hijacked) by several groups in the 20th the most well known being Anton Szandor LaVey. Each of these groups wants to front their interpretation of Satanism and because of the political infighting, Christian paradigms projected through the media, lack of authoritative secular scholarship, etc it becomes very difficult to establish anything approaching "Satanism is X and they believe Y". The very meaning of Satanism has changed and the term has become subjective.

I'm planning a total rewrite of this article when I get some more of my physical references in from back home and I find the time. I'm going to detail its origins in Judeo and Christian myth, the evolution of Satanism in the Middle Ages as heretical underground organizations, its emerging prevalence in secret and pseudo-occult societies and then "free thinking" groups after the Renaissance up to its modern inception as a more Nihilist and Objectavist type environment. The term now encompasses the occult, actual deity worship, ideological dogma and a distinct atheistic counter-culture. This is still a ways off but if you have any more ideas in how you'd like to see the article evolve or having any material you think would be helpful then by all means hit me up here or on my talk page. NeoFreak 20:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd be very pleased to see a Satanism article very much like what you're proposing, above. I hope you find the opportunity to start that work at some point. I did something similar with the Order of Nine Angles page, which was in a similar state of disrepair for a while (and actually got AfDed, DRVed and then prodded before I got around to fixing it). All I can say is, dive in, be bold, and you'll surely make this article better given time. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

L Ron/ Scientology

The quote about L Ron by his son is interesting, but I wouldn't say it is all that relevant to an article on Satanism, for it to be quoted this fully.Merkinsmum 16:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it helps support the small section on Crowley. I understand that it takes away the focus on LaVey but it sure makes the article look less biased.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 22:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be expanded upon to provide a context to allow the reader to determine its relevance to the topic - preferably within a greatly expanded Satanism article (as suggested by someone else, above). If Scientology actually is "Satanism", that would be a real mind-blower of a revelation. As it stands right now, however, I think it's a terribly contentious thing to put in this article. Bare minimum, it at least demands a functioning web link and/or a properly-formatted citation. I'm even sorely tempted to post that comment in the talk section of the Scientology page, to ask for review and comment - except I think that would cause a flood of Scientologists to come over here and cause hell, which, again, proves how contentious the quote is. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, please read Ronald DeWolf#About his father to see how the context is problematic. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The more I leave this article alone, the worse it gets. C'mon now. What does L. Ron Hubbard have to do with Satanism? Thats just nuts. I'm all for including Crowley, but lets talk about the things that he did that influenced Satanism (Do as thou will is often cited as influential). From waht I've read of other Wiki articles, it being scholarly and well written is just as important as whether or not it is biased. WerewolfSatanist 17:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with you wolf at the same time L Ron said himself that the only good things in scientology he got from Crowley. Also a little known fact outside of Thelema but well known inside Thelema is that Crowley proclaimed Hadit to be Satan, it is in his foot notes on "The bornless one" thus you do have Crowley invoking Satan much like Aquino's and LaVey's Set.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk • contribs) 18:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this addition is seriously non -NPOV as well as being quite irrelevant to the subject of the article. The theology of Scientology is dealt with elsewhere (not too sympathetically) and this claim might be usefully added there in context (or rejected as reflecting an extreme minority POV). Imagine if this was being said about a Jewish, Moslem or Christian leader. Finally its a big data dump copied verbatim from a copyrighted source. I'm going to delete the whole thing. --Simon Speed 13:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with this statement here. "Imagine if this was being said about a Jewish, Moslem or Christian leader." L Ron called himself the AntiChrist also the article was his son recalling his fathers claims. It seems you are partly basing your edit on political correctness, which is neutrering our culture. I have no problem with your edit, just your explanaition of your action.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If opposition to bias is political correctness then so be it. Scientology = Satanism is a pretty hard-line POV, I've not heard it from any mainstream critic of Scientology. And I've only heard Scientology's spriritual practices described as fraudulent, not magical (black or otherwise!). Are these simple recollections? A biographer working to academic standards would place such contentious claims in context. Perhaps we should include here the claim that the Pope is the Anitchrist which is currently discussed on the Anti-Catholicism page. --Simon Speed 22:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A son recalling his own fathers claims is nothing like calling the Pope the Antichrist. As for your question about should the accusations of the Pope being the Antichrist be in the article, it is in a way, for the word Satanist is most often used as an accusation. It would make an excellent example of that use for the word.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 19:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's inherently stendentious/POV/fringe to call someone the antichrist. Maybe he did say it personally but are their sources other than his son, or anyone, going 'I heard him say...'. For instance I don't thing L.Ron said that in dianetics or other sci books- or his religion wouldn't be even as 'acceptable' as it is. The son is clearly a biased source (not saying he's wrong/lying, but he seems to hate his dad.) he accuses L.Ron of having had an abortion fetish or something! If the sci editors saw this it wouldn't last long.:) Yet on the other hand -Ha:) now I want to read the son's book/interview.Merkinsmum 19:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Satanists

List of Satanists has been redirected here. For convenience I am linking to the discussion page from here: Talk:List of Satanists. violet/riga (t) 17:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This is Beautiful

Satanism" is a term which has been used since the end of the Middle Ages

[citation needed] use for Citation "The Encyclopedia of Witchcarft and Demonology" by Rossel Hope Robbins, Crown Publishers New York 1959 Library of Congress C C # 59-9155

to describe a number of different belief systems in a number of contexts. People claiming to be Satanists, or outsiders claiming to describe Satanism, ascribe a wide variety of beliefs to Satanism. At the same time there is no established, common sense of this word. These range from the obviously fanatiс sects to the groups of people in search of themselves; from the literal deistic worship of a spiritual being (Theistic Satanism) to the monography of the atheistic philosopher; from a subversive ritual performance stressing the mockery of Christian symbols (most notably the Black Mass) to denying all rituals; from the claimed rediscovery of an ancient but misunderstood religion

This I have a slight problem with. (e.g. Setianism, associated with the Egyptian god Set who is conflated by some with the biblical Satan) to the exaltation of hedonistic recreation and the celebration of selfishness and pleasure.

I've told you guys a Zillion times Crowley Proclaimed Hadit the winged globe Satan in his footnotes to the Bornless one in "Magick in theory and practice" dover press. I understand Mr. LaVey and Mr. Aquino popularized the Set Idea but neither one ever cared to do their homework to any extant. Hell on this point I even argue with Crowley for I declare Bes as the Egyptian Satan, and if any of you bother to scrape that surface you'll quickly see why. Anyway love the new intro, hope I didn't violate anything or anyone.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 01:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually from what I've read, they did their homework very well. Aquino has at least two long rants about the subject, citing different books written by historians and Egyptologists. LaVey, though he never was too big into citing sources (though many of them can be found in the back of the Satanic Witch), seems to have used credible information, nonetheless. It checks out, anyway. Of course, another character that definitely fits the concept of a devil is Apep/Apophis who was identified with Set when Set was really, officially demonized. As for Crowley, well he didn't seem to have too deep of a take on Egyptian Mythology. After all, his interpretations of "Horus" are based primarily on Horus the Younger (the Osirian Horus), even though Crowley was inspired to write the Book of the Law by a stele depicting Horus the Elder (pre-Osirian cult). Check out The Prince of Darkness: Radical Evil and the Power of Good in History by Jeffrey Burton Russel. WerewolfSatanist 02:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Commonscat

There's now a Wikimedia Commons category "Satanism", if anybody cares... AnonMoos 02:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Brainless bigotry removed.

REMOVED: "In other words for this relegion the satanists are so desprait to get what they want that they don't know that there going to pay for it in hell. These people are blind in thinking that they are going to get this and not have to pay anything. Well they are WRONG you are being lied to. Who ever folows this relegion doesn't even know. Butt I guess it's there life they are doing not mine.-The Order of Soul Takers"

Not only is this obviously biased, its horribly misspelled and nonsensical.

--67.149.227.159 13:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

False and misleading statement

LaVeyan Satanism (the only textually codified and/or officially organized form - i.e the only religious branch) Sinagogue of Satan is organized, legally accepted and has it's own Satanic code which can be found in the "Book of the goat". I posted this to discuss this issue before I edit the false claim/statement out.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The Sinagogue of Satan is codified in it's manifesto as well.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I belive the term "LaVeyan Satanism" in this context refers not specifically to the Church of Satan, but all non-thiest forms of Satanism - which would include the Sinagogue. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 01:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, while I'm at it, could I request the link to your Sinagogue website, please? If it would be against Wikipedia policy to leave it here or on my talk page, feel free to email me (the link can be found on my talk page). ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 02:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This makes it look like CoS is the only Satanism, (the only textually codified and/or officially organized form - i.e the only religious branch) and we both know that is the intent of the author. We also both know though it is in context with LaVeyan Satanism that is not what this article is about, but that is what the author is attempting to make it into.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 03:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that, I found the link on your user page. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 02:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I made my edits any wikipedians that wish to argue or discuss my actions, feel free to do so here. NOTE; to any editors that have been keeping up with this article I wish to use the material I removed as evidence that the CoS or CoS fans have been exploiting wikipedia in attepmt to monopolize Satanism or what Satanism is suppose to mean to the general public.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Before I remove this, anyone wish to tell me the religions of Egypt, Greece, Rome and Gnostics were not Carnal including various indiginious peoples. This line is mega pov and is false and misleading. (for them the term Satanism indicates "the first carnal religion in human history.) for the rest of the world it means that the Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Gnostic, relgions never existed.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 23:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

For an example from Wikkipedia's own pages just one of many religions that were based on carnal desires long before the Church of Satan existed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eros Rev. Michael S. Margolin 23:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

OK Haunted Angel I took out your false and misleading statements and left the rest as you requested.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 22:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Last revert was understandable but the reason I edited that section was this sentence, "(Theistic Satanism), which is often actually Enki worship" that is not true or even close to being true and is extremely misleading. I will remove it, please feel to discuss anything I do here.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I read that and was gonna' remove it myself - guess I forgot =/ Go ahead, that statement is OR anyway. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 01:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Absinthe999 links

The links you keep adding cannot be in the article for any and all of the same reasons www.sosatan.org cannot be added.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

So essentially what you are saying is "If I can't have my link here, then no site can be linked, unless an admin over rules me"? Is that more or less it?

The primary difference between the 2 sites I linked up today and your site, is that they are both the official forums for the two major churches (which *are* linked in the article.) I know you're butt hurt because your attempts at using wikipedia for self promotion were shot down, but I don't think this is the appropriate way to pout about it. Absinthe (Talk) 03:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Your use of the term "butt Hurt" exposes you for what you are and shows you violate wikki's policies. Also those forums can be reached from the sites that are already in the list. It is you that is using wikki for promoting, as any editor or admin with an unbiased eye will and can see. Also your "pout" comment further exposes you. Funny it is you that is kicking and screaming, and whining, not me.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I notice you have still yet to address the main question put to you (It's in the fist sentence of my response, if you need to help jog your memory.) Is there a reason you aren't answering it? Absinthe (Talk) 21:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If I may answer for Margolin, not that I really want to get involved a great deal, is it doesn't really matter who removed the link. The point is that if he removed the link for one reason, even if it is the same reasons that his link was removed, it still means that it's a valid reason. If he did remove it for the reason you suggested, think of it as him doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 21:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason behind his removing the link isn't clear, nor is it necessarily a valid one. The reason he cited was they "cannot be in the article for any and all of the same reasons www.sosatan.org cannot be added." I have no idea exactly what that reason is.

But since you've jumped right in, maybe you can answer tha for me? Absinthe (Talk) 21:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'd like to stay out if this crap. I used to know why his link was removed (as I actually removed it once), but have since forgotton, as it's been the better part of a year. However, what I was trying to do was provide the reasoning from his POV - if they are removed for the same reason, and the removal of his was valid, then it would mean the removal of yours also is. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 22:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Translation: "I don't know, but it must have been valid"?? Are you kidding me? Absinthe (Talk) 22:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

From what I've read Absinthe999, all of The Haunted Angel's comments are logical and valid. Perhaps it is you that needs to get their mind right.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a simple case of it being so long ago that there's no need for me to remember, especially when the case hasn't been brought up in a long while. Don't get me wrong, I'd have love to had the SoS site up, I quite enjoy it - but the point of Wikipedia policy is one that matters. Before assuming that I'm ignorant enough to say "I don't know, but it must have been valid", perhaps you should assume good faith here. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 22:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Haunted, good faith isn't what I was getting at. I've never seen anything other than good faith (and as Margolin points out, logical and (usually) valid posts from you.)

I was merely pointing out that you were blindly defending something that, by your own admission, you weren't familiar with, which made me wonder why you bothered replying in the first place. That's all. Absinthe (Talk) 22:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, I was trying to provide Margolin's POV here - it wasn't me who originally claimed that Margolin's site was against Wikipedia policy, I simply remember when it was removed, and remember it was removed for valid reasons. But the whole point of me trying not to get involved here was because I've since forgotton where the line is drawn between how valid a site is or not. It's been generally agreed upon that the link to Margolin's site shouldn't be here, and by logic, if yours was removed for the same reasons his was, then that'd mean that yours shouldn't be linked either. But before we get into the discussion of how valid your site is in comparison to his, I'll remind you that I've all but forgotton the policy on where the line is drawn, so I'm not going to argue how "wrong" your link is. As I said, I'd rather not get involved on that discussion. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 22:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Blindly? no no no, The Haunted Angel is far from blind and is dealing with this situation very lucidly. He has been on top of this article and confrontations for a very long time. What you fail to see is your piss poor attempts at manipulating reality through Wikkipedia are over. You guys even tried to whipe out world history with your, "The first reigion based on carnal desire". So much for Egytian, Greek and Roman religious practices. Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Margolin: What the hell are you babbling about? Are you drunk?

"Drunk?" Resorting to name calling now are we? I'd like to point out we have a hostile editor that obviously thinks he can push his POV by badgering any and all opposition to his POV. That is all for now.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Margolin: It was a question, not a statement, try to keep up, will you?

Haunted: These aren't my sites. And the reason the links (CoS, and FSC's forums) were removed, has still yet to be established. And if history is a prediction of the future, I don't suspect I'm going to get a (coherent) reason out of Margolin (and *that* is what not having good faith looks like). But all this energy that has to be spent to put in even the smallest of change is far from worth it, so forget the whole thing. Except to say it's no big wonder why the current state of this article is so poor. Nobody can get anything changed without a massive bitch fight! Absinthe (Talk) 22:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just discovered that if you go to the top of this talk page, to the Sinagogue of Satan topic, you'll see why it was removed to begin with. As for arguing over the slightest change; yeah, it may sound petty, but if it violates policy (I'm not saying that yours does, I'm simply saying IF), then the argument may be necessary, to help the article become more organized. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 23:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Haunted: Fair enough with regard to wiki policy. I'm right with you on that one. The links added were for the official forums of the two main Church's which have plenty of content, resources, and articles on both. This satisfying the notability and content issue that Margolin's site was facing.

Again, I'm leaving it alone for now, unless you feel differently; but I do appreciate your attention with a fair minded approach. Absinthe (Talk) 23:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The Haunted Angel, as you have seen from what I've removed from the article and the points I've made to justify their removal you can clearly see this article was severely manipulated by Church of Satan fans and or members. Also those being the same admins and editors that justified Sinagogue of Satan be kept out of the article even though we are the only Group listed in Theistic Satanism and with several reverences including Barnes & Noble. This article states that the definition of Satanism comes from mainly two sources Lavayan and Theistic but because of Bias editors and admins at that time they removed anything that wasn't acceptable to the CoS as it still is now as far as external links.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

One more thing Absynthe999, I did answer your question, you were just too busy trying to brow beat me to see it.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, pretending this didn't happen is not going to work.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

baised

i think this article is almost baised...please make it at least semi-baised-(btw i'm very baised by this article)...please make more netural,it looks like its making s-uh,this religion look to changgled,make it more "unbaisy'..(i mean make more statements about devolment,and less on its disadvantages and "bad effects"96.224.176.40 (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

See also?

Someone recently added Atheism and Humanism to the See Also section. I did not immediately see the connection, but I'm not familiar enough on the topics to make a judgement. These should either be removed or some text added to the article making reference to these topics.82.130.34.32 (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be from LaVeyan Satanism and does not pertain to all forms of Satanism, do as you will.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being silly, but why isn't "LaVeyan Satanism" mentioned in the See Also section? It would be something to see wouldn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WerewolfSatanist (talk • contribs) 06:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't you suggest "LaVeyan Satanism" and "Theistic Satanism" be entered into "See also"? The article states that Satanism comes from mainly those two sources. You're not trying to manipulate the article to the LaVayan side again are you?Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it didn't cross his mind, or maybe he just doesn't take theistic satanism (devil worship) seriously? Why must you always assume sinister intentions from anyone who doesn't share your POV? Sheesh. Absinthe (Talk) 04:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

To quote you, "or maybe he just doesn't take theistic satanism (devil worship) seriously?" That would expose him for editing from his and or a groups POV. Which is most likely why he didn't answer my question. As for your, " Why must you always assume sinister intentions from anyone who doesn't share your POV? Sheesh." LOOK WHO IS CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK! You accuse me of exactly what you and yours are guilty of! And if you didn't suck so bad at trying to manipulate reality that even a blind monkey can see it, I wouldn't be busting your tiny little nuts, like I've been for the passed few years.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

One more thing Absinthe999 anybody that reads the "LaVeyan Satanism" discussion page can see not only your guilt but the attempted take over of the "Satanism" article was a group effort, all signed and dated by your own hands.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I will remove the link to Atheism. It is simply incorrect to assosiate "Satanism" with atheism and offensive. This kind of association is usally made by religious fundamentalists that wish to discredit Atheists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gscheitben (talk • contribs) 02:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the link to Humanism for the same reason. Breithamhain (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed link to Humanism again. Someone has suggested it has a 'similar philosophy' to satanism, but has failed to explain that similarity or include it in the article. And, in fact, I believe the link was added by an unidentified user who has been warned numerous times for 'disruptive' edits. If you want to re-add atheism and humanism to 'see also', then you really need to explain why they fit here. Breithamhain (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Melek Taus

For your information, the Yezidis do not really worship the devil, but were accused of doing so by non-Yezidi Muslims and later (in the 19th century) Christians. Melek Taus ("Peacock Angel") is really a positive angelic figure, though Yezidis will (in European languages) refer to him as "the devil" to avoid a taboo on his name, or in conformity with the naming habits of outsiders. Interest in the Yezidis among occult-oriented Westerners rose with the writings of (just to name a few) Ethel Drower, Robert E. Howard (Conan fights Melek Taus in one pulp comic), and of course Gurdjieff (who mentions them in Meetings With Remarkable Men.) Dawud (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's an excellent example of how the the word "Satanism" has been used through the years and the book I used as a footnote firmly supports this example. Which by the way is how the word "Satanism" is most offten used, including today.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fact, not opinion

This was removed and the person that removed it called it an opinion. Even Thelema can be considered Theistic Satanism for Aleister Crowley’s Liber SAMEKH contains this phrase “Thou Satan-Sun Hadith that goest without will“ Hadith being one of the three Egyptian Gods in his “Book of the Law“. This is not an opinion it is fact, backed by citation.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolute Falsehood

In the third paragraph it is stated and I quote "The term LaVeyan Satanist, is used by adherents to clarify that they support the ideologies in the writings of Church of Satan founder Anton Szandor LaVey.[4]" The reference for this statement is a site not officially endorsed by the Church of Satan. It should be rewritten entirely to reflect the fact that no member of the CoS referse to him/herself as a "LeVayan" Satanist but are often labeled that by others, or it should be deleted entirely. Stelionis Ignigenae (talk) 09:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Theistic Satanists don't call themselves Theistic Satanists but were labeled that by LaVeyan Satanists another label that was created by the CoS was Pseudo Satanists, perhaps if the CoS stopped trying to monopolize Satanism by labeling we can all go back to being just Satanists. I also noticed the Gilmore interview is on the Satanism article and not on the LaVeyan Satanism article where it is more appropriate.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not know the origin, but User:Diane Vera, who runs a Theistic Satanism website, would probably disagree with you. The interview is perfectly appropriate here, as well as on the LaVeyan Satanism article since it fleshes out the topic. --David Shankbone 21:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ms. Vera is a personal friend of mine and I highly doubt she'd disagree with me, but I'll ask her. If you notice my wording "More appropriate" I'm saying it's more suited there for it is directly connected with the Church of Satan than Satanism in general. I notice you still have not added it to the LaVeyan Satanism article and I don't have the time to look through the history to see if it was ever added there.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Another thing I forgot about David is in your interview with Mr. Gilmore you stated Diane Vera was an editor in Wikipedia and asked him what he thought of her. If I recall correctly he labeled her "Stupid" and labeled any Satanism other than Church of Satan Satanism, "Pseudo". Such a stance is so biased it makes more sense for it to be in an article that is directly tied to it, such as the LaVeyan Satanism article. This article is about Satanism, the word and or groups secret or open are far broader and older than LaVey's philosophy. The word "Satanism" alone is for sure, and it's use through the century's. Therefore they "CoS" have no claim to it other than using it themselves.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Bias is allowed in notable subjects; it is not allowed in how we write the encyclopedia. The idea that one branch of Satanism would claim to be the best doesn't mean it should be unused on this page or any other. Since the Church of Satan is the most well-known of the Satanic strains, it is more than appropriate. This article itself is miniscule for such a rich topic and could be expanded better to discuss the various strains of Satanism. Let's not adopt the problematic lazy Wikipedia thinking to make an article less relevant because all topics are not dealt with appropriate. The idea is to expand the article so that appropriate weight is given to all relevant topics, not to contract it so that we have universal ignorance on the article. --David Shankbone

17:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"The idea that one branch of Satanism would claim to be the best doesn't mean it should be unused on this page or any other." They don't claim they are the best, they claim they are the only. You should know this from your own interview with Mr. Gilmore.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but they claim it in a "we're the best" kind of way. It's not that they deny other claimants exist. They simply think they are "the way" like any other. --David Shankbone 14:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

David, if what you say is true, then they would not label all others as pseudo.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What members of the Church of Satan call others, or are called by others is not the point. The point is that the page has a factual inaccuracy, the members of the CoS refer to themselves as LeVayan Satanists. It would be acceptable to write that though members of the CoS do not refer to themselves as LeVayan Satanists, others do so to make a distinction. In fact you could expand this article to include a whole section on label Shennanigans. Sorry it took so long for me to get back to this, I have other things to do but will try to remember to come back here and discuss this further. Stelionis Ignigenae (talk) 09:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a good idea but for Both LaVeyan and Theistic for both just call themselves "Satanists"Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Then a whole section addressing this will have to be written. I can do this, and if anything is found objectionable feel free to edit and or discuss it. --Stelionis Ignigenae (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh Dear!

I would have hoped that from a collection of individuals who should be striving for perfection, the page dealing with their philosophical outlook would have been to a much higher standard. It is disorganised, filled with speculative assertations and contains totally irrelevent information (and an irrelevent photograph). Ladies and Gentelmen I KNOW you can do better. I propose a major rewrite, which if nessecary, I will take the time to do.

Apex156 (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The article will most likely need a 3rd party non bias person to write it, any and all help would be appreciated.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And for crying out loud, scholars have been talking about Satanism for at least 150 years (long before the 1960s). Would none of the editors out there care to mention the historical satanism of the last few hundred years? When an article about a 1891 novel like La-Bas links to Satanism, because the novel La-Bas discusses satanism, they probably weren't intending for the reader to encounter a discussion about "Theistic Satanism" versus "LaVeyan Satanism". And that's just one example! There are *hundreds* of articles that link to Satanism, and they expect the reader to find information about *historical* Satanism (which spans hundreds of years, and is intertwined with the history of Europe and the Roman Catholic Church), and not New Age movements which began developing in the 1960s alongside role-playing games such as "Dungeons and Dragons".Jimhoward72 (talk) 08:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What you would call historical Satanism is more accurately referred to as the History of Christian Heresy. People like La Voisin and members of the Hellfire Club were Christians who were practicing heresies for fun and/or profit. I agree there should be an article on such things, but if we included everything labeled Satanism by any given Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion then three fourths of Wikipedia would be on one page.--Stelionis Ignigenae (talk) 10:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I worded myself wrong. What I meant to say, is that this article (like any article in a normal encyclopedia) should be written by people who know how to read about and analyze history, and historical phenomena, correctly. Reading about and analyzing the history of Satanism, would mean that you have read and understood what scholars have been writing about the history of Satanism. This is a specific list of books, which have been written over the last 150 years or so (you can find bibliographies of these books in places like "The Satanic Cult", by Zacharias, "The Satanic Mass", by Rhodes, some of the books of Richard Cavendish, and more recently "The Lure of the Sinister", by Gareth Medway (to name just a couple of books from a very long list)). A person who has not read and understood at least a handful of these books, is not capable of writing an accurate article on Satanism, however well they may be able to quote the Satanic Bible or whoever else their current favorite modern "Satanist" may be. And, if you have a section of the article dealing with modern Satanism (let's say, LaVey and after), it should be written by someone who is able to look at the phenomenon of modern Satanism objectively, let's say, from the point of few of "modern religious history" (again, Gareth Medway would have a bibliography for this). Or are you suggesting that those hundreds of articles that link to Satanism are really linking to the wrong thing? I think my suggestion to re-write the article from a historical perspective is the correct solution to that issue (in other words, those hundreds of articles are actually correctly linking to Satanism, and it is the article itself which needs to be fixed).Jimhoward72 (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

AgreedRev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyone up to the task is more than welcome in my opinion. --Stelionis Ignigenae (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd happily volunteer. There was another fellow about a year ago who wanted to take on this project as well. However, the proper treatment is a historical & comparative article - and that would end up causing a revert war with the CoS children who have constantly barged in and rewritten "Satanism" articles to suggest that their little for-profit California cult is the only historical manifestation of "Satanism". You'd really need someone with admin rights and the ability to ban, in order to pull off a proper article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

First Line is False

"the Satanist plays the role of the adversary to spiritual creeds, espousing social Darwinism, hedonism, Randian Objectivism, and atheism."
-ATHEISM is not related to Laveyan Satanism at all, if the editor had read the Satanic Bible, maybe he/she'd know that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.61.57 (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

regarding a recent arguement.

me and a user on a fourmare having an arguement on atheisms role in satanism, i used wiki as a source.

he made that edit to prove a point that wiki can be filled with mis infromation.