Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-03 LaVeyan Satanism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

State: Closed

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-09-03 LaVeyan Satanism 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-09-03 LaVeyan Satanism

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Absinthe 01:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:LaVeyan_Satanism

Who's involved?

Lvthn13

What's going on?

User continues to delete references to people/organizations that are not affiliated with the "Church of Satan"

What would you like to change about that?

Ask user to cease unnecessary deletion of references

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

[edit] Mediator response

Hello, and thank you for offering to work out your dispute. Before I begin mediating, can you tell me if the articles Karla LaVey and First Satanic Church have anything to do with LaVeyan Satanism? That would clear a lot of things up. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 01:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lefty. Thanks for looking into the matter. To answer your first question, yes. Karla LaVey as well as the first satanic church practice, support, and advocate LaVeyan (Modern) Satanism in the truest sense of the word. Karla LaVey is considered one of the most authoritative sources regarding her father and the religion he founded. Some seek to disparage her name because of the Church of Satan/First Satanic Church split, but it is largely based on personal/political bias. Absinthe 03:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The point of dispute is that Karla LaVey split with the mainstream of Satanism years ago, forming a totally separate sect that is in fact at direct odds with every person and organization presently on the LaVeyan Satanism template. I do not see this as a matter of disparagement or censoring her name, rather that she simply does not belong in reasonable context here (see comment below; her entry does not even use this template, for good reason).

I feel that the best way to resolve this would in fact be either for the Satanism template to be used as it is for her entry and related articles, or for an entirely new template to be created for that purpose if that is felt necessary, and removed from this one as irrelevant. -Lvthn13 06:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If Karla LaVey is indeed at direct odds with LaVeyan Satanists, then it seems reasonable to not include Karla LaVey and her church on the template. It would be kind of like putting George W. Bush on a template about the United States Democratic Party. Also, if the First Satanic Church is not affiliated with LaVeyan Satanism, it seems odd to include that, as well. However, Absinthe, you seem to claim the exact opposite. I can't really come to a conclusion until everyone gets their facts straight, so I'd like you both to come to a conclusion about whether Karla LaVey and the First Satanic Church really are affiliated with LaVeyan Satanism before I respond again. Thanks, --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 17:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Again I reiterate, Karla LaVey is not at odds with LaVeyan Satanism, she is simply disliked by members of the Church of Satan, a rival LaVeyan Satanism organization. Please read the Karla LaVey entry for clarification. Absinthe 19:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It really doesn't say one way or the other. So, assuming Karla LaVey is definitively a LaVeyan Satanist, then it seems only logical that she should be included on the template. Any problems with that? --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 19:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

None at all. Absinthe 19:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Karla LaVey would be better compared to including James Traficant on the Democratic Party Template. Yes, Traficant considers himself a Democrat, but the conflict of interest in doing so is very obvious. Likewise with Karla; she and her followers, and only them, consider her to be either important or even compatable with LaVeyan Satanism. The mainstream does not, and that not only includes the Church of Satan but most Satanists who are not affiliated with any organization.

I again feel like it is worth pointing out that Karla LaVey's article does not even use this template. I feel like by far the simplest resolution to this would be to simply take her off this template, and either keep her on the Satanism template or make a new template if the editors for her articles feel like that would be necessary.

I also understand some of the confusion here, because largely it is a fight over who gets to call themselves what. Karla LaVey probably does consider herself to be a LaVeyan Satanist, just as Traficant considers himself a Democrat. However, as I've pointed out in discussion, so-called "LaVeyan Satanists" never even use that term for themselves, they universally call themselves just "Satanists" and this template only exists as a compromise already against the fact that two dozen other groups have co-opted the name and refuse to recognize the precedence of our use of it. I think absinthe would be very hard pressed to argue that Karla LaVey is actually sympathetic to the organizations and persons represented on this template, she is among their most vocal critics. Absinthe misrepresents the situation I think; the First Satanic Church is not a "rival organization" to the Church of Satan, it is a group formed some six years ago (the Church of Satan is over 40 years old) for the express purpose of opposing the Church of Satan. Were these two sects of comparable age and membership with a philosophical difference then the argument of rival sects might hold water, but the simple fact is that her church was formed solely so that she might appoint herself High Priestess, as she was denied that title within the Church of Satan. See the article for Antipope for a comparable situation in a different religion. Antipopes are not part of mainstream Catholicism and are not considered real rival organizations to the Catholic Church, they are breakaways and therefore something else entirely.

I would offer another compromise if possible: I would gladly just rename this template to something that Karla LaVey would never consider herself so that it might remain intact and the whole dispute is settled, since to all appearances absinthe's argument has much less to do with her actually belonging in context of the other persons and organizations on this template and more to do with the name itself. However, as I said "LaVeyan Satanism" is already a compromised name and I cannot think of any other name for this template that would even make vague sense to the articles represented. "Church of Satan" would be too narrow, as it refers only to the one organization. Therefore I suggest that the easiest way is just to remove her name and the First Satanic Church from this template and use another template. After all, those articles existed for quite a long time and have never once used this template, and have never raised serious dispute over this until now. -Lvthn13 20:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You have no idea how ironic I find it that an advocate of the Church of Satan is honestly trying to argue that Karla LaVey is not a significant figure within LaVeyan Satanism. And what Lvth13 isn't mentioning is that Karla LaVey was in fact High Priestess of the Church of Satan, and is also one of the only Founding Members of the Church of Satan that is still alive.

After her father passed (Anton LaVey, Founder of the Church of Satan), there was a bitter fight over the organization as well as his belongings which ended in a probate settlement that ultimately gave power over the church of satan to a couple in new york that, as I understand it, Anton LaVey never liked. At any rate, ever since that time the church of satan has done everything within their power to discredit Ms.

I would also note Lvth13's contributions (or lack thereof) to wikipedia, except to revert changes that he finds politically undesirable, as it relates to Satanism and the Church of Satan. Absinthe 21:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You are free to disagree with me, though your claims that I have not constructively edited articles are unfounded. You need only look at the articles listed on this very template (see histories and discussions) to see the degree of constructive writing I have done. In any case, this dispute has now been resolved by mediation. There is no reason to pursue it further, and I hope that it is swiftly put to rest now that the issue is resolved. -Lvthn13 21:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

Just wanted to note here that Absinthe and I have reached an acceptable compromise, and (as far as I know) we both consider the matter settled to satisfaction. Thank you for your mediation. -Lvthn13 03:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, after reading what you have to say, Lvthn, I can't say that I would feel comfortable including Karla LaVey on the template. You have, however, graciously offered to compromise on a different template. What sort of name and content did you have in mind? Also, would the template have more than just two entries (Karla LaVey and First Satanic Church) on it? --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your mediation. I would suggest leaving the primary work to those who are more informed specifically on the First Satanic Church than I, but there is no reason for me to oppose use of the entries for literature held in common by both sects if they feel like that is useful. I'm entirely satisfied to allow supporters of the First Satanic Church present themselves as they see fit, so long as information presented is factual. -Lvthn13 21:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then. Is Absinthe okay with this compromise? --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 22:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The dilemma for me is actually the same as Lvthn13's concerns that he mentioned above re: LaVeyan Satanism. Creating another template would be just fine, except for the name. The only reason Karla LaVey and First Satanic Church were added to the LaVeyan Satanism Template was because it seems that the topic as a whole was broken down to "Forms of Satanism", for which LaVeyan Satanism is the only place the two aforementioned articles would make sense.

The only reason the article never used the template was likely because who ever created the article didn't give it that much thought. And after this dispute it wouldn't have made sense for me to attach a disputed template to the article. (though, I certainly believe the template is appropriate for the article(s).)

I also agree with Lvthn13, in that LaVeyan Satanism sub-template is surely a compromise. Creating yet another template (naming issues aside), would get a little too confusing for readers to keep track of; perhaps "Satanism" as a whole could become what LaVeyan Satanism is seeing as how 90% of practicing Satanists are "LaVeyan" or "Modern" Satanists anyhow. Lvthn, any suggestions? Absinthe 10:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've wanted to use the straight "Satanism" template for a long time, since to my way of thinking the original definition is the "real" definition and everything after should be using their own name. I've long ago decided it can't be done without inciting one huge war, but if you want to try and retake that, I'm 100% for it. I'll even pitch in and campaign to take that whole article if you want, but it looks like a losing battle at least until all these articles are considerably cleaned up.

Otherwise, you could name a new template simply "First Satanic Church" since that would be fairly specific. I don't know how you'd feel about that, but if such a template existed I wouldn't touch it.

-Lvthn13 20:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The "Fist Satanic Church" template sounds like an excellent idea. It could go more in-depth that just the LaVeyan Satanism template. However, I'd have to leave the design of the template up to other people, since I know absolutely nothing about satanism. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point in having a template for an organization with only one entry (aside from the organization's itself). Instead I am inclined to change the "Satanism" template as a whole. Modern day satanism can only be traced back as far as 1966 to Anton LaVey's creation of it.

The only problem in doing so (flame war aside) is deciding who is included in the "Main Satanism" template. Church of Satan is obvious, as well, IMO, First Satanic Church (Lvthn, any issues there?). Temple of Set aren't even Satanists, they're Setians. I'm on the fence with the First Church of Satan, I know a lot of people don't think they are notable (and I personally think they are silly asses) but being objective should be key if we are going to do this right.

Should we move this discussion somewhere else? Absinthe (Talk) 21:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't dispute putting the FSC on the main Satanism template (and possibly reworking and renaming this one "Church of Satan" when that work is completed) if that resolves this. The ToS obviously doesn't belong even by their own definition, and the rest of the groups are not within even the vague defintion of Satanism according to the original definition (and in fact, I seriously suggest that many or most of them are eligible for deletion as vanity pages).

I really am not a hard guy to get along with. If you seriously want to consider this resolved, change this template for now and begin work on trying to fix the Satanism template, I'll support that. If you consider this a satisfactory resolution, then yes, we'll just make the changes, close this dispute, and move on to the next project. -Lvthn13 23:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I've actually left it unaltered for some time now until mediation can be had, in respect of Wikipedia policies.

Karla LaVey and the First Satanic Church articles do not use this template at all, so it is anyone's guess why absinthe wishes them to be on it. The Satanism template exists for that reason. -Lvthn13 03:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Lvthn13 removed a post I made on the Nadramia biography that is historical and had documents to back it up and in no way had any demeaning effect upon her, if anything it was demeaning to myself.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 20:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Lvthn13 Also removed a post on Stantan LaVey's wedding on 6-6-06 which was also of historical value. wikkipedia please put an end to Lvthn13's bias edits and attempt to manipulate reality through your media. If he and CoS are allowed to do this then when the nazi's want to rewrite your Holocost section I'm sure some Jewish kid will read it never happened and was a product of whinney Jews.