User talk:Haseler/sandbox
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] re editing
I was thinking... 'it's not for everyone' but even this is not encyclopedic style which aims to inform, not influence or justify. Given this, all the analogous stuff can go. That is, if it is to remain a wiki piece.
[edit] sat-tan-ism
i've also seen this belief system being referred to as sat-tan-ism. Gringo300 05:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] music comment
What the hell is up with the music comment? Totally unrelated and unnecessary - is someone just trying to interject their own personal theories on the nature of esotericism? An actual link to the Esotericism wiki page to describe it would be more appropriate. And this article seems to be more like an advertisment for Sat/Tan satanism than an objective description. It "Calls out" to some people and it's "not for everyone"? Creating an elitist dynamic that shouldn't be in an objective article.
Comment: there is absolutely nothing "elitist" about the statement. Traditionally, even Freemasonry uses the music analogy to explain their own esotericism. Esotericism is not about secrecy (eg, like the Cia is secret), nor is it about mystical gibberish. It is literally like music which has to be heard with ears. It is not for everyone, just as, for instance, ballroom music would not be for everyone. Some might hate it and avoid it.
There is no personal theory involved in the music analogy for what really is esotercism. I will repeat that the standard answer for anyone asking if Freemasonry is a secret organization is that "Freemasonry is not a secret organization, but it may be thought of as secret in the sense that music is not available, hence secret, to deaf people." This is the standard definition of The Eastern Esoteric Tradition, as far as the esotericism practiced is concerned. You could shout the doctrines from a rooftop and still, some can not hear it, which means grasp it. Nothing in genuine standard esotericism is cerebral or intellectual. All of it is in the realm of senses and feelings, hearing, seeing, smelling, etc. People with perfect pitch, able to hear exact notes and harmony are not elite. But the fact is that this abiliey it not known to tone deaf people - they can not "know" music in the same sense at all. There is nothing elitist about it - and the analogy is on target and happens to be the standard analogy that is used.
There is no other way to explain what "calls out" means. It literally does "call out" resonate, with some people very strongly. In other cases, it makes no sense and literally falls on deaf ears.
This is not an advertisement for Sat Tan Satanism - it is as objective description of what it it is as possible, considering the fact that every attempt I made in the past to simply put the FAQ on here met with "that article is copyrighted," with subsequent removal of it.
Serious POV issues:
Quotes like "often seen as 'real deal' Satanism" are pure advertisement. Some of the article is first person (When we say "Satano-Communism," we mean commune-ism, community, in the literal sense.) It's not written in the proper voice for a wiki article; it reads like a sales pitch, not a simple summary of the form of Satanism. Further, to meet usual Wiki standards, if this is a legitimate religion of significance, some sources not directly affiliated with the religion (like magazine articles, books that sold over 5,000 copies (the standard for author inclusion)--something legitimate beyond a few geocities pages.) If there are no sources beyond a few personal web pages, is this sect really notable enough for Wikipedia? Anyone can create a few web pages and say they have their own religion. I'm not a regular wiki contributor, but I use wiki a lot, and I'm making these comments for the benefit of other reviewers/editors, because I think this article really needs to be reviewed and perhaps deleted.
The author could improve the article by justifying statements about the religion and adding sources not affiliated with those promoting Sat/tan. Certainly there must be some media interviews with practitioners or something that validates this sect's inclusion...
24.21.68.5 07:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The comment about music is literal, absolutely literal. The groups inclusion? The Dark Doctrine variety of "satanism" has been around and has had their articles published in the mouthpiece magazines of every single public Satanic organization out there, including the Church of Satan's magazine, "The Black Flame." This doctrine has greatly influenced Satanism and many organizations that now exist that use ideas borrowed from the Dark Doctrines.
For copyright, with isbn numbers, examples of literature belonging to this group, yuo can see the ad that is on their site. I fear that if the ad is put on here, it would be seen as "more advertisement."
Will somebody with more authorization than me kindly begin rm'ing much of this page? "I am sorry for this long-winded explanation" and a lot of the article seems to be written by one guy who is making an argument instead of a description, besides violating NPOV quite thoroughly. 83.109.132.173 17:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] editing begins
I begin editing this article a little-- it read before like someone simpley copy-pasted a pamphlet or essay or something. Not being a Sat/Tanist myself, I may have gotten some of the details wrong, but the repitition was beginning to read like a sermon so I deleted most of it and paraphrased into a shorter explination. I also retitled a sectoin head ot make it clear that these are things belived by satanists, not objectivly true statements per se. Kuronue 02:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
