Talk:LaVeyan Satanism

Poorly written?

My friend and I were linked to this article, and we noticed how there are a bunch of errors that don't seem to be in line with Wikipedia's standards. I've pasted the list of complaints that he wrote down. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laveyan_satanism#The_Eleven_Satanic_Rules_of_the_Earth section contains unnecessary potholes, people should not need to be linked to the words "opinions" or "advice" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laveyan_satanism#The_Nine_Satanic_Sins entire section is poorly written. mixes first person and second person, and addresses / commands the viewer directly, therefore lacking significant neutrality also, the nine satanic sins section contains several contractions, which i'm p sure are informal" I would rewrite the portions in question, but I don't have enough information on the subject, and I'm terrible myself at staying neutral.

--Cheeselad102 (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the purpose of these sections is to state the rules and restrictions of Satanism. The Rules do not use first person anywhere, it is purely third person. They are the equivalent of the Ten Commandments from christianity. The nine satanic sins may appear contradictory, however to someone who is capable of understanding the concept of Satanism, they are not. They are the equivalent of the Seven deadly sins from christianity. These do not need to be rewritten as anything other than what they already are would be an innaccuracy. He's Gone Mental 09:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Nietzsche

The introductory section lists "individualism, self-control and "eye for an eye" morality" as being influenced by Nietzsche but this has nothing to do with Nietzsche's philosiphy and the citation given makes no mention of him. It only mentions Ayn-Rand. Can we remove him?

Lucanio (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually this has everything to do with Nietzsche. Read thus spake Zarathustra. Satanism is a lot like existentialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.76.231 (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Article under re-work Comment

This article has had severe quality problems for a long time. Its content seems to be taken directly from the LeVayan marketing materials and other self promotional material. Other parts of it are lifted directly from the LeVayan "Scriptures"

Please do not revert these large changes. They are the beginning of an effort to rewrite the article so that it's actually a Wikipedia article.

Of course, please feel free to add content, as long as it's not in the nature of a PR release, or lifted from the LeVayan Scriptures or website. Thank you Jjk (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Your edits are blatantly POV and factually incorrect. You're doing nothing for this article so far. The article IS being reworked, little by little, by people who know their shit. You've dumbed down the article by replacing to the point/well versed/and thorough sentences with vague and overly simplistic ones.

Just because you THINK Satanists should call themselves "LaVeyans" doesn't change that fact that they are NOT. Satanism, as a religion, was established in 1966, the philosophy (and the term "Satanism"/"Satanist" with it) were codified in 1969. There is no such thing as "LaVeyanism". If you have a grievance with this particular philosophy being called "Satanism", and its adherence calling themselves "Satanists", then I suggest you take it up with the Church of Satan (you can contact them via their website).

--St.HocusPocus (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Re-editing and re-writing

I've been re-editing and re-writing this article in efforts to make its content more comprehensive, thorough and above all, sourced; things this article has never had the dignity of being due to bloated, amateurish, POV writing. I'm working to trim away any and all needlessly overwritten and redundant information and replace it with less lengthy, more direct and poignant information while attempting to maintain an 'encyclopedic tone' to the best of my abilities. At this time, I'm using the Church of Satan's official website as the primary reference source. In due time, I hope to find other non-Church of Satan sources to further reference the information presented here. --St.HocusPocus (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

What does this mean?

"When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him."

I'm presuming there's an esoteric meaning here as well, but this isn't clear at all.-MacRùsgail (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The term "destroy" is used to be rabblerousing, though its meaning is made clear in The Satanic Bible. When pondering this statement, keep "lex talionis" in mind: "the law of retaliation is the principle that a person who has injured another person is penalized to a similar degree". If someone is bothering you in public, return the favor. --St.hocuspocus (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand it now. Thanks.-MacRùsgail (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

"LaVeyan", "Atheistic", "Modern", etc...

The term "LaVeyan" is not a term that has ever been used by Anton LaVey or the Church of Satan, nor does the term appear in ANY of the religion's literature. Until 1966, no traceable or verifiable organized religion has ever adopted the term "Satanism". Anton LaVey/Church of Satan are the first in history to formally adopt the term and synthesize it's definition within a written canon.

These prefixes should not be recognized on this page due to the fact that they are factually inaccurate and don't exist anywhere but on the internet. Unfortunately, misinformation spreads like a disease on the internet and the term "theistic Satanism" has caught on within the past decade or so; so until the "Theistic Satanism" page be accurately renamed "Devil worship", a prefix for actual Satanism will, unfortunately, still have to be used for means of differentiation.

I request that "LaVeyan Satanism" be moved to "Modern Satanism".

--St.HocusPocus (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I suppose the problem is that there are one or two other systems which would claim the name "Modern Satanism".-MacRùsgail (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Correct. St.HocusPocus if you want this article moved and the lead sentence changed, please fill out a formal move request. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, this is what I'm gathering from your reversion of my edits. I'm not a 'decorated' editor here (not meant as sarcasm), so, if you're willing to explain further, I'm willing to listen. Essentially, because the title of the article is "LaVeyan Satanism", the lead sentence must also contain the term "LaVeyan Satanism". Must every reference to the religion also be written "LaVeyan Satanism"? Is it not enough to use distinguishing phrases to refer to Satanism such as "Satanism...as codified in The Satanic Bible"?

This has been an issue of dispute from day one, wholly due to the title of the page "Theistic Satanism". None of this would be an issue if the "Theistic Satanism" page be renamed to a factual and encyclopedic (based on its lack of reliable sources and references) phrase such as "the religious (or spiritual or theistic) worship of the devil (or Satan)". I don't see why the "LaVeyan Satanism" page should receive the short, inaccurate, end of the stick due to the lack of proper quality and content control on the "Theistic Satanism" page. --St.HocusPocus (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Unless there's a very good reason not to have it there, the article title appears in the first sentence of the article. In this case, it's important as it clarifies things for readers with respect to Satanism. Having:

• Satanism, as codified in The Satanic Bible, is a religious philosophy founded in 1966 by Anton LaVey.
• Satanism is a broad term referring to a group of social movements comprising diverse ideological and philosophical beliefs.

is unnecessarily contradictory and confusing. If you want article titles changed, you need to open formal move requests. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, the term LaVeyan Satanism is used by academic sources: [1] [2] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Academic? Upon only a quick scan of these references you've provided I've found factual inaccuracies. The most blatant of which is that the author claims that the Church of Satan makes the claim that "only CoS members are real Satanists". This is false; this claim has never been made by LaVey or Gilmore, nor does appear in any of the Church's literature. --St.HocusPocus (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Got an an independent, academic source saying that? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that so long as a statement is made by a source thought to be academic, even if the statement is completely false, it is treated as 'true', regardless? If that's the way it works here, then there's not much I can do about it. The claim that "one need not be a member to be a Satanist" is made in "The Satanic Scriptures" by Peter H. Gilmore for starters, though I suppose official Church of Satan texts aren't considered reputable sources for information on the Church of Satan. --St.HocusPocus (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Neil, we don't need "academic" sources for everything, just reliable sources. Also it's okay to use primary sources in certain situations. Now, the article title should be whichever term it is that most of the reliable sources call it. If it's "LaVeyan Satanism" then that's what the article title is. (I don't know what majority of the sources say, I haven't done that kind of research.) A possible alternative would be to call it Satanism and add a disambiguating word in parenthesis, like Satanism (LaVey).

By the way: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

When academic sources say something, dissenting opinions should come from equally strong sources. Primary sources can be used with a grain of salt as they have an agenda to promote. I'm not sure why you're bringing up Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. That stopped being used as a catchphrase in 2012. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes but we're talking about what this branch of Satanism is called. If a source calls it anything other than "LaVeyan Satanism" then it's not necessarily a "dissenting opinion". Actually I'm gonna butt out of this discussion because I really don't have any further thoughts on this. This article is so heavily based on primary and unreliable sources that it really needs a good pruning.

That link was to User:St.HocusPocus in response to their question "so long as a statement is made by a source thought to be academic, even if the statement is completely false, it is treated as 'true', regardless?"

Also it doesn't matter at all if you think linking to that article is ~*like so twenty minutes ago*~, because Wikipedia's principles and values do not get old, also there can always be newbies around who haven't read every policy and essay on this site. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Jeraphine Gryphon, what I meant was we've mostly stopped using "Verifiability, not truth" in favor of "Get the article right". See Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012_RfC --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Can we go back to addressing the issue of whether every reference to "Satanism" after the necessary one in the lead sentence really needs to say "LaVeyan Satanism", which some people including myself would argue is factually incorrect? As far as I can understand, the only stated reason for doing this is that in academic contexts, Satanism is often known as LaVeyan Satanism. Under the Wikipedia Manual of Style, section 17.3, we should be aiming to use language that is widespread, rather than that which is formal - which I think can safely be interpreted to mean that "Satanism" would be the correct term, as the one preferred by the religion, its adherents, and in published media, rather than the formal and sesquipedalian one "LeVeyan Satanism" used in esoteric academic journals. As the Manual of Style makes clear, Wikipedia is at its heart an encyclopedia designed for use by the many, not for the specialist theologian in their own subject. 2A02:C7D:52C8:EB00:CC13:BBD:455E:2328 (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure the Bible doesn't contain the word "Christianity." That doesn't make it an inaccurate term. 2601:642:C481:4640:0:0:0:4FF5 (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Citation Overkill

The first part of this article suffers from Wikipedia:Citation overkill. This should be fixed. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Very true. Equally problematic is that all of the references used in this lede are non-reliable, primary sources, most of them from the writings of Gilmore. I've been focusing my attention on improving the main body of the article using academic sources but I will try to get around to improving the lede and dealing with these problems in the near future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Queries regarding certain citations

Hello there. I've noticed that a few of the citations which have been added to the article don't link to entries in the Referencing, and I've been trying to sort this out, but I'm having difficulty pinning down some of these citations. For instance, there are several references to "Dyrendal, Lewis & Petersen 2010" but a Google search isn't revealing much. Now, there is a 2015 book by these three authors, The Invention of Satanism (which I have yet to read), so it might be that this is an error in the year of the citation, but just thought that I would check. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'm just going to go ahead and remove these problematic citations. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

This article is replete with dubious references. I'm going to have to make a cull and remove all of those which do not stack up, I'm afraid. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking at this article as it exists at present, there are two sections in particular which jump out at me as being particularly problematic. The first is The Satanic Bible section, which has been copy-and-pasted wholesale from The Satanic Bible article. That means that citations have been carried through from one article to another without any of the fuller bibliographic references being transferred from one article to another (I am, however, willing to go through and make those transfers myself). However, given that we already have a (GA-rated) article on The Satanic Bible, I must query whether we really need a whole section on this subject here, and even if it is to stay then it surely can be cut-back somewhat. The second section which concerns me at present is the lede. As was specified in the above section, the lede is experiencing "citation overkill", with many of these citations being problematic for they don't stack up against any of the references in the Bibliography. The lede can easily be cleaned up to better reflect the instructions found in WP:Lede, which will entail the removal of many of these dodgy citations. Hopefully once these problems have been dealt with, then the article can be considered for GA nomination, which would allow it to gain Good Article status alongside other Satanism-themed articles like the Order of Nine Angles. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Who is this Lafontain guy

The article refer to an https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_de_La_Fontaine and I dont know if this guy is the oldes man on earth. But something is wrong. Does the man exist?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.36.228 (talk • contribs)

The link is to the wrong individual. We do not have an article on the anthropologist Jean La Fontaine, so I have removed the link. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Satanic Assertions

In the book "The Satanic Scriptures", Peter H. Gilmore compiled as list of philosophical assertions that are meant to serve as an encapsulation of an individual's "journey from observing reality to declaring themselves a Satanist".

• Nature encompasses all the exists. There is nothing supernatural in nature.
• The spiritual is an illusion. I am utterly carnal.
• Reason is my tool for cognition making faith anathema. I question all things. I am a skeptic.
• I do not accept false dichotomies, finding instead the "third side" which brings me closest to understanding the mysteries of existence.
• The universe is neither benevolent nor malevolent; it is indifferent.
• There are not Gods. I am an atheist.
• There is no intrinsic purpose to life beyond biological imperatives. I thus determine my own life's meaning.
• I decide what is of value. I am my own highest value therefore I am my own God.
• I am an I-theist.
• Good is that which benefits me and promotes that which I hold in esteem. Evil is that which harms me and hinders that which I cherish.
• I live to maximize the good the Good for myself and those I value. At all times I remain in control of my pursuit of pleasure. I am an Epicurean.
• Merit determines my criteria for the judgement of myself and others. I judge and am prepared to be judged.
• I seek a just outcome in my exchanges with those around me. I thus will do unto others as I would prefer they do unto me. However, if they treat me poorly, I shall return that behavior in like degree.
• I grasp the human need for symbols as a means for distillation of complex thought structures.
• The symbol that best exemplifies my nature as an aware beast is Satan, the avatar of carnality, justice and self-determination.
• I see myself reflected in the philosophy created by Anton Szandor LaVey.
• I am proud to call myself a Satanist.

I feel like this list contains some pertinent information that would feature well within the "Basic tenets" section of the article, though I cannot find any third party reference to this list. If anyone anybody is aware of one, please share. I'll continue to search for a reference. --St.HocusPocus (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Drury: Biased Source? Quote-mined?

There are a number of quotations sourced to Nevill Drury. He wrote the book and the 1985 film version of "The Occult Experience", which I hear went directly to the Temple of Set and interviews only Michael Aquino and his wife for Satanism. I wonder if the lines here about the Church of Satan being sourced to him are really just from Aquino or maybe in directly quote-mined from quoting him, in which case it would be an embarrassingly biased source. Can anybody confirm this? I'll try to locate the book myself in the meantime. WillieBlues (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

The article seems somewhat sycophantic - lacking a NPOV - with little if any criticism of his materialistic "Ayn Rand with trappings" Satanism and no mention of him using, for most of his adult life, a pseudonym. There also seems to be an overemphasis on the life of Levey himself which seems odd given that the article is supposed to be about his "Ayn Rand with trappings" version of Satanism and not about Levey himself. There is no mention, for instance, of the harsh criticism of his version of Satanism by groups such as the ONA.

A pertinent example of the sycophantic approach is that someone added the statement that "LaVey shielded much of his early life in secrecy, and little is known about it for certain." In fact, his early life has been investigated, and is now known, with most of his claims - such as about being a police photographer and being a lion tamer - having being disproved, qv. the book by Chris Matthews, articles by a real SF police photographer (Frank Moser), and many newspaper reports in established newspapers. Why has no one researched such sources? 216.227.130.114 (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I reverted an edit since the claim that "everything must be sourced to academic or other high quality RS" is or seems to me to be tendentious, given how Wikipedia defines reliable sources, which sources can include mainstream newspapers and books published by mainstream established publishers. Such sources can also include items published by those who have a personal knowledge of the person or of the events mentioned, which Michael Aquino and certain members of his Temple of Set certainly have. Thus it seems to me that the sources given meet the necessary Wikipedia criteria, especially as they simply balance the bland statement made by one person that certain accusations have been "disproved" and thus seem to provide a balance, a NPOV. 216.227.130.114 (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

This article can of course mention criticisms of LaVeyan Satanism by other self-described Satanic groups, but at the same time we should avoid using the websites and self-publications of these latter groups as sources. Rather, we should utilise the peer-reviewed academic sources. That is the best way of ensuring that this article meets the highest standards. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Certainly "peer-reviewed sources" from mainstream publications should be used but WP:RS does not limit these to "peer-reviewed academic sources", stating only that "when available, academic and peer-reviewed publications [...] are usually the most reliable sources."

Thus I personally find it strange - against Wikipedia's NPOV - that there is no quote in the article of the criticism of Levey by Matthews from a peer-reviewed book published by a well known academic publisher. Matthews contradicts the claim that accusations of plagiarism have been 'disproved'. To add such criticism after the mention of plagiarism having been 'disproved' would present a necessary NPOV. Matthews also goes on to mention that many of the claims Levey made about his early life are demonstrably false which contradicts the claim in the article that "little is known about [his life] for certain".

Ditto re the criticism of Levey's brand of Satanism by the ONA since their criticism has been mentioned in several peer-reviewed books published by well known mainstream publishers, some of which books are written by academics and published by academic publishers. So why aren't such criticisms from acceptable, reliable, sources included? Pavane7 (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

History needs update

This article seems out of date, especially missin g or lumping much of the last 20 years into a few sentences. Maybe the history section could be expanded, maybe Origin-72, 72-97, 97-present (post LaVey's death) which would allow room for further discussion about the development since then? Seanbonner (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Atheism and Satan?

This article refers to Lap, page 99, as saying LaVey was an atheist. However, Lap says on page 100, that "the gods are rejected as an externalization of the human ego, but LaVey states that it is wrong to say that Satanists do not believe in God. Instead, Satanists believe in God as a dark force ...", Satanic Bible, 1969, pg 40 and 60. So whoever is quoting Lap in support of LaVey being an atheist, is actually intentionally misquoting Lap and taking what they wrote out of context.Jimhoward72 (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC) I added a "failed verification" tag to the reference.Jimhoward72 (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'll add a better source right now. Seanbonner (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

WANTED! - GOD DEAD OR ALIVE doesn't maintain atheism; deism

"IT is a popular misconception that the Satanist does not believe in God. The concept of "God", as interpreted by man, has been so varied throughout the ages, that the Satanist simply accepts the definition which suits him best. Man has always created his gods, rather than his gods creating him. God is, to some, benign - to others, terrifying. To the Satanist "God" - by whatever name he is called, or by no name at all - is seen as the balancing factor in nature, and not as being concerned with suffering. This powerful force which permeates and balances the universe is far too impersonal to care about the happiness or misery of flesh-and-blood creatures on this ball of dirt upon which we live."166.164.48.110 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC) No consensus gained. Bazinga. http://www.e-reading.mobi/chapter.php/73307/14/LaVey_-_The_Satanic_Bible.html64.183.139.174 (talk)

Controversy

Anton LaVey claimed that magic is part of natural science, but far undiscovered by scientists.
It is something like the hidden-variable theory.

In methodical natural science we don't focus on weirdness. We step-by-step perform experiments.
He was pushing the limbic system of his cohort to the extreme.
Most of his "magic" was "limbic and temporal artefacts". (from temporal lobe and not time)

Why is that a controversy? Because strict scientophiles (lovers of great university official science) do find Satanic Atheism useless if they are emotionally balanced and don't like psychological games and figurative concepts.

That is some statement. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:FD66:73F2:8691:FB57 (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Satanic Holidays

 Done Satanic_holidays only describes holidays in LaVeyan Satanism, although it alludes to holidays practiced by some other adherants. Conversely, the holidays of The Satanic Temple are listed on their page rather than a subpage. As such, Satanic holidays feels like an unnecessary WP:SPINOUT that should be merged back into this page. Thoughts? BrynnAthena (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Doug Weller talk 15:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The Eleven Satanic Rules - inspired by (feline) predators?

Every cat owner will notice that these are the rules that their cat lives by. Joking aside, do we have anything to show that LaVey was impressed by or admired the way predators (and big cats in particular) behave and generally conduct themselves? The intellectual genesis of this kind of doctrine can be just as interesting as the final product. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:FD66:73F2:8691:FB57 (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Misquotes and false information

This article has lots of misinformation, misquotes, and things that have been taken out of context scattered throughout. The "LaVey's vision of the future" section is particularly egregious as it talks only about LaVey wanting to breed a master race of Satanists. This is not true and is a narrative pushed by certain religious extremists who don't like the church of satan or LaVey viewing them as devil worshippers and trying to make them look like bad people. Again both of those are untrue. I want to remove this section specifically but the auto-mod said I needed a wp:consensus or something. I apologies for my lack of knowledge regarding the way wikipedia edits function but I made my account specifically to fix this and have no idea what a wp:consensus is or how they work. Any aid in removing this section or in getting a wp:consensus would be greatly appreciated. Anon fixing lies (talk) 04:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The statement you picked out appears to be reliably sourced, being from a book published by OUP.

Ultimately what we display in the article comes from WP:RS. If you believe the source isn't reliable a convincing case would have to be made for that. — Czello ^(music) 07:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Anon fixing lies: You should cite wp:reliable sources (RS) in making your case here. OUP is Oxford University Press, a rather RS. Please note that sources from LaVey, or organizations associated with LaVey would probably be considered wp:primary, possibly self-serving and not an RS. Also, please see wp:reliable sources noticeboard. Before opening a ticket there, be sure to carefully read the instructions. If you have questions about how to use this talk page and help:talk pages nor wp:talk page guidelines covers it, etc., please ask at the wp:Teahouse. Adakiko (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)