Template talk:LaVeyan Satanism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User: Lvthn13 seems to revert edits mentioning another LaVeyan Satanism organization (First Satanic Church, run by Karla LaVey) based merely on the fact that he/she doesn't like competing organizations being mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Absinthe999 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC).

That is because they are not related to this template's content. They belong on the general template for "Satanism." -Lvthn13 19:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, First Satanic Church (in addition to the Karla LaVey entry) do belong under the general heading of "Satanism"; however the Satanism entry is broken down to "forms of satanism", and LaVeyan Satanism is the only logical place that it fits, especially when considering that FSC is a Satanic organization promoting LaVeyan Satanism by Anton LaVey's eldest daughter, Karla LaVey. It doesn't come more "LaVeyan" than that. Please refrain from knowingly misrepresenting the "LaVeyan Satanism" template for seemingly trivial reasons. Absinthe 02:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Given the fact that she has disavowed Anton LaVey and his organization I cannot imagine that name being applied to her. Bottom line, however, is that by no standard whatsoever does she belong in context of the Church of Satan and related persons and it is anyone's guess why you wish to see this placed alongside that. What you propose is something akin to wishing to include Lutheranism in a template for Catholicism; it does not make logical sense. Regardless over the triviality of naming (LaVeyan Satanism is not in fact a name commonly used by any of the adherents to the religion, anymore than Papist Catholics is used), Karla obviously is not in context with this template. She authored none of the books listed, is on negative terms with and critical of every single person listed, publicly disavowed the organization represented on this template, and in fact is a person of questionable significance for even meriting her own article in the first place (local radio DJs don't typically get Wikipedia articles). Worry less about trying to slide her name in where it doesn't belong and more about making her article worthy of something other than deletion. If you think that can't happen, note that Stanton LaVey's article was deleted for that exact reason and he is of roughly equal significance (or lack thereof, more precisely). -Lvthn13 07:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"Given the fact that she has disavowed Anton LaVey..." She did?? When exactly did that happen? In fact sir, you are dead wrong. Every time I see her on Bill O'Reilly, another Fox News program, MSNBC, and various major market papers giving interviews, I only see her exalting her father, his legacy, writings, and Satanism,. I've only seen her advocate nearly everything her father stood for. I have known Karla for nearly 10 years and have known her to have nothing but good things to say about her father; so wherever you are getting your information from, it is clearly wrong. Can you cite some sources for me that aren't simply hearsay from a Church of Satan (a rival organization) member?

I'm sorry if you think "she doesn't belong in context of the Church of Satan" but the bottom line is that LaVeyan Satanism isn't about the Church of Satan, it's about the "LaVeyan Satanism" template. And Ms. LaVey was by her father's side throughout his entire life, advocating the LaVeyan brand of Satanism. Having a disagreement with the politics of running an organization has absolutely nothing to do with ones convictions, beliefs, and loyalty to a philosophy. Especially when that philosophy was crafted by your own Father.

The bottom line is that while you were not advocating Satanism on an international level, Ms. LaVey was on lecture tours at universities around the nation on the topic of Satanism. She was also heading the International Church of Satan Headquarters in Europe while also working the national talk show and cable news circuit, and securing the lifetime-lease from Donald Worby to save the "black house" in 1986 (after Dr. LaVey was forced to liquidate all of his assets, including his home, following a bitter divorce to Diane Hegarty). So please do not pretend to be an expert on a topic in which you are clearly misinformed.

I know that these facts are, perhaps, inconvenient to your agenda, but they are just that sir, facts. Absinthe 00:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with what I have or have not done, or even what Karla LaVey has done. What is relevant is that she is not in context of this template, bottom line. If you believe this is an issue of CoS vs something else, then you're making your own agenda. There are any number of CoS members with Wikipedia pages who are not on this template because they do not belong on it. Said members may have whatever accomplishments but they have not authored books represented here, were not seminal to the foundation of the religion (Karla was not seminal in the foundation of the religion either), or are simply "Satanists" but not particularly relevant to the understanding of Satanism that this template seeks to be a guide to. Regardless of her affiliation, Karla does not belong on this template (the same would be true if she were a CoS member).

I might also note that articles not related to the CoS are on the template because they merit inclusion to understanding Satanism.

Additionally, Karla is mentioned in certain articles in whatever capacity is relevant. Her name is not censored or ignored as you seem to think, I remove her from this template as she simply does not belong.

The final assessment is that merely being a Satanist does not merit inclusion here. As I said, you should be far more concerned with the fact that her article is far below Wikipedia standards than whether or not it is included in a template not designed to act as a list of "personalities." If you think such a template should exist, then by all means make one. -Lvthn13 00:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think it is best if we simply hold on this dicussion until it is determined if Karla's article will even survive deletion, no? -Lvthn13 00:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope. The article doesn't necessitate deletion and you knew that when you nominated it. In fact it could be argued that you nominated it strictly because of this dialogue, as you didn't nominate it after our first exchange (when you 'discovered' the entry).. You are avoiding the core of the discussion which is that Karla LaVey is a "Prominent Satanist" (which is the heading she was under before you deleted it) for LaVeyan Satanism. It's clear that you have no interest discussing the actual issue, so we'll just move toward mediation and let an objective party resolve it based upon the facts. Absinthe 01:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to express your opinion on the article's merit in that discussion. Apparently, however, I'm not the only one in doubt that she qualifies as notable, reason enough to believe that it was not an uncalled for nomination. -Lvthn13 01:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Can I butt in for a minute? Just because, as I mentioned in the Afd on the Karla LaVey article, I was unaware that there was any major discord within Satanism, and frankly, I find it kind of interesting. I'm just concerned that a battle over a template is going to distract you both from making more valuable contributions to wikipedia. Can I ask why there is a separate template for LaVeyan Satanism and Satanism (forgive me if this is a stupid question.)? To be frank, although I've certainly heard of Anton LaVey before, and of Satanism, the term "LaVeyan Satanism" is new to me. I think it might be worth considering who the reader of these articles is most likely to be. I sort of imagine them as someone who is rather ignorant of Satanism, perhaps biased against it, and I would hope they would receive an unbiased and informative view. If the goal is to clearly distinguish between Satanism and LaVeyan Satanism, shouldn't the fact that Karla LaVey exists and speaks out on Satanism somehow be acknowledged? Otherwise I think that could generate legitimate confusion in the reader (as it still does, to a certain extent to me.) It seems pretty undeniable from the googling I did that Karla clearly had some rifts with Barton and The Church of Satan, right? I mean, honestly, that's pretty juicy stuff. Would it be possible to create another section on the LaVeyan Satanism template that somehow reflected this? Or, alternatively, create a section for "relatives" of Anton LaVey? (I'm just brainstorming here.) I'll go back and study the related articles a bit more closely before I comment any further, but I hope you take this as its meant -- I mean, I really have no pre-formed opinion in this matter so I might be a good person to bounce ideas for compromise off of. I do have a tendency to want to keep articles on Wikipedia if they can be saved, so in that sense, I do support keeping the Karla LaVey article. But that's honestly where my bias ends here. Cheers Dina 21:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dina. The reason that there is a LaVeyan Satanism template is so that those interested in Satanism can distinguish between the various forms of Satanism (Setianism, Luciferian, Religious Satanism, etc), without having to have the never-ending argument of trying to say that "LaVeyan Satanism" is the "true" form of Satanism and that everything else should be in a subcategory. (If there were other reasons for this that someone would like to contribute, I am all ears.)

With regard to your idea of including information on the split, I agree with you. It is interesting, and there is very little information readily available about it. Perhaps someone could edit add a sub section to the template that talks about the Death of LaVey and how that affected Split Factions. Though I'm sure you would have a very similar argument from the CoS perspective giving any number of reasons why that shouldn't be done. Absinthe 23:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's actually somewhat misleading that this template even exists. No "LaVeyan Satanists" really use that term to describe themselves, they pretty much universally call themselves simply "Satanists." They were also the first to use the term as one of religious affiliation rather than simply a derogatory term. Unfortunately, the desire of many to co-opt the term has lead to utterly unrelated belief systems all going under the same name, and issue where alleged "neutrality" trumps solid facts (namely, trumps the fact that as the "LaVeyan Satanists" were the first to use the term for themselves, their definition ought to be the standard definition). Neutrality here apparently means that anyone can define a word however they want and it has equal weight as the original definition, which is not really a very solid argument.

Therefore this template exists to serve as a guidebook to Satanism, which is now specified as "LaVeyan Satanism," by pointing out the essentials of Anton LaVey's religion. Note that the template refers to articles not even directly related to Satanism because they are useful to understanding the foundation of the religion.

The argument for why Karla LaVey, regardless of whether or not she belongs on Wikipedia, belongs on this template, is that she is not an important figure in the foundation or meaning of the religion. It's not a matter of sectarianism. Unfortunately for those who believe that everything should have absolute equal weight, the CoS is also the organization founded by the founder of the religion itself and therefore even from a totally neutral stance gets some priority in historical context (for reference, note that in a history of Christianity, Catholicism will get some precedence as it was the only church for many centuries). It might also be noted that the "sects" such as Karla LaVey's FSC are to all appearances extremely small groups with no public presence whatsoever; there is no solid evidence to suggest that the group has a greater membership than your local brach of the Lions Club or Masonic Lodge. If such evidence did exist then a much better case could be made, but it doesn't. I'm sure Absinthe will fervently disagree here and call me a biased SOB arguing from a NNPOV and a CoS lackey and an assortment of character indictments, but facts are facts. Not every tiny little group that fancies itself a religion gets an encyclopedia article, especially when information about the group is sorely lacking. Why is it that both the article for Karla and the FSC are to this day still unreferenced stubs, and the articles for the CoS, Anton LaVey, The Satanic Bible, etc, are all well-developed full length articles with a plethora of sources, citations, and references? Why is it that Absinthe is more intent on proving that I'm biased and have an agenda than proving that Karla is noteworthy? Because that is the only tactic to use when the real evidence is so obvious. I'm pretty sure if I was an expert on a noteworthy subject that was nominated for deletion and all that had to be done to overturn the nomination was expand the article and source it, I'd have it done in a snap. It still hasn't been done to Karla's article, so that should speak volumes.

As for this template specifically, Absinthe is actually in violation of Wikipedia policy for reversions. I'm sure he'll claim the same about me, but I've supported my view. His reply is "nuh uh, you're biased." Once the Karla issue is resolved, if there is still an article to link to here, I suggest neutral moderation. Karla is not a founder of the religion, is not the author of any books, and is not key to understanding the religion. I will be very blunt, every tiny little splinter group does not need equal recognition. That's a fact. The various templates for Christianity don't bother listing every localized variety and sect, because membership is tiny and they are insignificant to the overall picture. Same applies here. Flame away, I'm sure it's coming. -Lvthn13 00:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've actually been thinking about this discussion quite a lot, and did a bit of reading to catch myself up. I developed a bit more sympathy for Lvthn13's passion about the subject when I presented myself with the following thought experiment "What if someone tried to add Jews for Jesus to the Judaism template?" Interestingly enough, when I went over to the Jews for Jesus article there's actually a really intense debate about whether or not the Christianity template should be on the article -- featuring lots of reversions, and accusations of POV and all that fun edit war stuff. I'm steering clear.

With this in mind, it seems like the existance of the LaVeyan (dammit, how long before a person can type that name correctly the first time?!? I seriously retype it 4 times every time I write it. ) Satanism template is a compromise, isn't it? And the issue at hand is (if I'm following) not whether Karla Levay and her church should be included on the Satanism template, but just whether or not they should be included on the LaVeyan Satanism template? The more I dig into this, frankly, the more I am confused by so much. Not the disputes within Satanism, but what seems to me some information that is not included in some articles. I mean, why is the Zeena Schreck article not linked anywhere on the Temple of Set article -- she founded the organization? Why is she not on the Satanism template but her organization is -- Karla LaVey's notability aside, Zeena Shreck seems to clearly fit the definition of a "notable Satanist". There seems to be some notion within the wikipedia of combining a lot of these groups under somethinge called Left Hand Path but it's inconsistently applied. If Satanism isn't the word to describe all of these groups, there must be some term? I mean, the interested reader will want to know about Zeena Shreck when researching Satanism, whether or not she's presently considered a Satanist, or considers herself one (it's hard to tell, that article gets a bit odd towards the end.) Also I can't find anything outside wikipedia to suggest that Karla LaVey is was in conflict with her father (though there's a lot to suggest that she's in conflict with Blanche Barton). In fact, her webpage's first page is a large picture of Anton LaVey. It's just all pretty confusing and I worry that all of these articles will suffer if a bigger picture isn't provided.

I mean, I get that LaVeyan Satanists don't think anyone else should call themselves a Satanist, but the fact is that a lot of other people and groups do. And frankly, as an outsider, if I met someone and he said he was a Satanist, my first question would not be "what kind?" There's an opportunity here to make some real distinctions between these various groups. I'm not sure what constitutes a tiny sect in Satanism -- I mean, apparently there's no figures about how many Satanists there are, but I think we can all agree it's a very small percentage of the population. It seems to be the size of the sect is relative to the size of the larger group, right? So a sect that would be too small to include on a template about Christianity might be big enough to include on a template about Satanism. Even if the Karla LeVay article isn't on the template, I think the present conflicts within LeVayan Satanism merit some good writing, don't you? And there must be some way to bring the reader from the articles on Satanism and LeVayan Satanism to that information. By the way, I'm very greatful that neither of you told me to go to hell when I butted in. I know that you're in passionate disagreement, but you've both been quite WP:CIVIL to this interloper and I appreciate it. Dina 21:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's the deal: I'm not about suppressing information. I'm about putting it in the right context. You're right, I see inserting the splinter groups into articles and templates designed to be straightforward information about the person and organization that started it all to be an unnecessary diversion. Those very few that merit articles of any kind should have them very clearly placed in context; while I am readily accused of spreading "misinformation" to "cover up" something about Karla LaVey or non-CoS organizations, nobody seems to care that I've also had to delete very obviously illogical statements from articles like "The First Satanic Church is a continuation of the Church of Satan" (reverted by absinthe, I might add), which is false on the very surface of it as the CoS is still 100% in existence and therefore another organization that is not even affiliated with or friendly to the CoS claiming to be "the real CoS" is simply illogical. Protestants don't claim to be the real Catholics, now do they? Christians don't claim to be the real Jews. Even if we stipulate that the FSC has membership numbers and influence to be worthy of an article, it is in no way part of or even honestly derivative of the CoS.

I should also add that my efforts have not been focused on removing articles, or people from templates, or getting into debates. I have written full length articles not only on Satanism but other topics, I've massively expanded articles, edited them for clarity and spelling, inserted hyperlinks where they should be, sourced previously unsourced articles, and arrived at friendly compromises when other editors felt more information should be included that I'd overlooked. I simply expressed my informed view on how that information should be fit in, and 99% of the time they agree with me and we both come out satisfied that the article has maintained integrity. That's how I think it should be done on Wikipedia, not this petty system of accusation and edit warring that absinthe seems to believe is the standard of Wikipedia behavior. Even now I leave this template as it is, because there is simply no point in constantly arguing over it. It is a shame that Wikipedia content is compromised by this kind of ill-mannered bickering, especially when the very first thing I did was to offer the alternate that Karla should simply be on the Satanism template.

A final note, and something nobody is bringing up: has anyone even noticed which template is used on Karla's article, and that for the FSC? It isn't the LaVeyan Satanism template at all, it is the Satanism template. So why in Satan's name is there even a dispute that she should be on this template if her article is not even using it? I can tell you exactly why, it is because the goal is not to construct a valid template, it is to satisfy the transparent desires of the persistent few who cannot make a logical compromise out of this. The Church of Satan, its founders and leaders, literature, history, and related concepts are enough to fill an entire template all by itself; if the FSC were a comparable organization of real significance, we'd see them making their own template, would we not? The meaning of this is very clear, if it is approached logically. Unfortunately, much of my hard work to clean up this very morass of misinformation and disorganization that you rightly mention is constantly undone by conflicting uninformed or biased views. I am not biased on this; you do not see me attempting ot undo the Temple of Set articles because however much I personally detest the organization (why lie, we all have our personal POV) I also recognize that it at least has been around for a while and has established its own dogma. The first refuge of those who cannot produce something like a valid article is to bandy about accusations that those who wish to see integrity and realism brought to this mess are "oppressors" and "biased." The evidence speaks for itself, go look at the article for The Satanic Bible, 99% of it authored by me in its present form, and tell me I do not contribute. I am very much dedicated to improving Wikipedia and even to working out this dispute, but absinthe is not willing to speak in terms of logic instead of passion. What am I to do? Right now, unless he will agree that this argument is useless and work out a mutually agreeable compromise, I see no choice but to ask for a neutral moderation of this. The Karla LaVey article has been improved but it is still vastly below Wikipedia standards and still hasn't demonstrated that it deserves a separate entry. Were I trying to "shut this up", why would I offer to put the important content right into the article on LaVeyan Satanism and Anton LaVey where it is even more visible? The accusation is absurd.

I still harbor hope that this will end well and not in a pointless and everlasting war of edits and reversions, and that some sense might eventually be brought to this entire collection of articles. Working alone it is taking me months; if I had cooperation instead of resistance it would be done in short order. -Lvthn13 00:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. You do make some good points. I am inclined to agree that if Karla's article doesn't use the Laveyan template, it's a bit weird to have her on there. And I think it's appropriate that the Anton LaVey article links to the articles about both of his daughters, controversy or not. And I think the Karla article needs to be added to more categories. Also, do you know why modern satanism directs to LaVeyan satanism? I mean, I feel like I understand your views well enough to know why you would agree with that, but I'm not clear on who made that choice. IMHO, it seems to me that the best redirect for modern satanism would be to the Satanism article, which includes links to LaVeyan Satanism. By the way, I hope you get that I'm not accusing you of anything, and I do agree that many of these articles need work and that that should be the focus. Mediation is probably a good idea. I do think that articles about a religion out to be edited by adherents, but I also think its helpful to have non-believers give them a once over as well. POV can creep in, even with the best intentions. Dina 16:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW I think an absolutely sound redirect would be Anton LeVay to Anton LaVey. I might go ahead and just make that. Dina 16:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Dina, the reason Modern Satanism redirects to LaVeyan Satanism is because they are one in the same. LaVeyan Satanism is called modern Satanism by some people and vice versa. I'm sure it was intended as a way to clear up any confusion and to make sure the right queries led people to the right article.

As for why the Karla LaVey article is on the LaVeyan Satanism template (without stirring up another silly flame war), I simply reiterate that Ms. LaVey as well as her organization are active advocates of LaVeyan (modern) Satanism as ascribed by Anton LaVey, and can only be attributed to LaVeyan Satanism. (In fact I may change the templates to reflect LaVeyan Satanism; in all honesty it never really occurred to me to change it prior to this discussion.) There is some common ground between COS/FSC in that both parties do an excellent job at fighting misconceptions about Satanism, as well as those who wish to slander Anton LaVey posthumously with ludicrous claims.

And while I don’t agree with much of what Lvth13 has said with regard to Karla LaVey and FSC, I do agree with the idea that working together to expand the topic as a whole would be much more productive. I think the Satanism template needs some work and there are a number of things not concisely explained to an uninformed reader on the subject. Particularly with a singular message about what Satanism largely is, and is not. As a whole, I would say that 90% of people who identify themselves as serious practicing Satanists in the U.S. are LaVeyan Satanists who do not believe in a literal Satan, and do strive to be intelligent and productive members of society. That is not immediately clear from looking at the article and should be, IMHO. Absinthe 17:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You know what is a bit funny about this conversation? The two of you agree much more with each other than you do with me on some pretty big issues. I mean, I'm so not a Satanist. Seriously. But I do think if a reasonably intelligent but essentially ignorant about the subject reader (ie. me) can end up so confused about these topics, even after making an effort, well that points to some real work to be done on these articles. And I do think some kind of uniformity of templates would clear these things up. As well as some work on the articles themselves. I feel at this moment that I know more about controversies within Satanism than I know about Satanism itself and I'm sure that's not your (essentially shared) goal in editing these articles. There must be a compromise to be made here, but I feel so ignorant about the subject, and most of the information I've gotten about it is from the articles themselves, that it's difficult to suggest one. But there must be some wording of some kind that you both can agree on. I think the burden is on one of you to suggest it though. Dina 14:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)