Talk:Theistic Satanism

Origin of Satan

I altered the origin part of the article to say "some theistic satanists believe.." Unaltered, the statement does not even align with the main wikipedia article about "Satan." Without some sort of historical reference, the unaltered statement is no more than religious propaganda. - Platypirfun

"Reverse-Islam" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Reverse-Islam has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 18 § Reverse-Islam until a consensus is reached. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

"Reverse-Christianity" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Reverse-Christianity has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 18 § Reverse-Christianity until a consensus is reached. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

"Conservative Satanism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Conservative Satanism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 18 § Conservative Satanism until a consensus is reached. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

"Classic Satanism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Classic Satanism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 18 § Classic Satanism until a consensus is reached. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

"Original Satanism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Original Satanism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 18 § Original Satanism until a consensus is reached. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Dakhma of Angra Mainyu

I believe there should be links of some kind to the article on Angra Mainyu and probably also the article on Dakhma. This edit by me aimed to do that but has been reverted due to its lack of sourcing, which is fair enough. Would either of the following be acceptable instead?:

• "Angra Mainyu is the evil spirit in the Zoroastrian religion while a dakhma is the Tower of Silence where followers of that religion deposit their dead." (thus removing the preceding phrase "The group's name is derived from..." which perhaps is the most problematic element).
• "Dakhma of Angra Mainyu (Church of Ahriman), founded in 2012, is a theistic Satanist organization..." etc etc.

Courtesy ping: PARAKANYAA

Meticulo (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Do you have sources saying this or connecting it to the subject? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Something like this?:

"Angra Mainyu is the evil spirit in the Zoroastrian religion while a dakhma is where followers of that religion deposit their dead."

Sources

Meticulo (talk) 02:57, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Those sources do not mention Theistic Satanism. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Not sure they need to. I can't find any other meanings for either Angra Mainyu or Dakhma. Therefore I'd argue it's reasonable to link those terms to articles about them. Meticulo (talk) 03:16, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

They do need to, because there is no connection to theistic satanism? Why would you want to add this to the article? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I want to add it to point interested readers to the meanings of the terms. It would save them from each individually having to perform manual searches, as I did. Angra Mainyu is an evil spirit in a particular religious system and is similar in this sense to Satan, yetzer hara, fallen angel, jinn, demon, demiurge, Lucifer, all of which have existing links in the article. Hence, I believe that creating a link for Angra Mainyu would be in line with MOS:UL, particularly, "In general, links should be created for ... Articles with relevant information". Meticulo (talk) 04:46, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

That is WP:Original research. There's nowhere to link it if the textual material is not sourced. If a source does not say it is theistic satanism, then neither can we. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Exactly which part of what I'm saying is original research? My statement in the post immediately above that, "Angra Mainyu is an evil spirit in a particular religious system" is entirely supported by the introductory paragraph in the article about Ahriman, which says, "In Zoroastrianism, Ahriman ... is the destructive evil spirit who functions as the main adversary either of the Spenta Mainyu or directly of Ahura Mazda, the highest Zoroastrian deity. His Avestan name is Angra Mainyu." If a group uses a name in its title, and there is no other meaning for that name, I think it's entirely reasonable to link in some manner to an article about the name. Doing so would not constitute original research as defined at WP:OR, "...original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable source has ever been published". I admit that if one were being fastidious, my wording in the original edit, "The group's name is derived from...", could be considered problematic but I've proposed alternatives to that. Meticulo (talk) 06:27, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Has any source ever said that Angra Mainyu is theistic satanism? If not, it is original research. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:02, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I disagree, for the reasons outlined above. At this stage I think we're mostly both repeating ourselves, so I've listed this at WP:3O in the hope that fresh eyes might see a way of resolving this stalemate. Meticulo (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Why would you put something in an article about theistic satanism if, as you have said, there is no source that even mentions it in relation to theistic satanism? Your edit was totally unsourced. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

... also, to be a bit clearer for any 3rd party who reads this, my current proposal would be for the first mention of the group to read: "Church of Ahriman (also known as the Dakhma of Angra Mainyu)", which is a variation on one of the alternatives I suggested above. This reordering of the names would: (1) be in keeping with usage on websites purportedly from the church, (2) follow the preference of four of the five news sources cited in the article, (3) avoid awkward links in the principal name of the group which would make it hard to scan, and (4) add a bare minimum of extra text to the article. Meticulo (talk) 06:50, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

If this is what you were trying to add, then this is not an issue, but I was objecting to this (unsourced sentences of tangential relevance). I thought you meant adding those sentences with different phrasing; wikilinks, sure, not an issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

It does seem implausible that these names are not derived from Zoroastrianism and these sources seem to confirm it: https://dokumen.pub/ashemaogha-becoming-ahriman-volume-1.html, https://www.scribd.com/document/150246542/Constitution-of-the-Dakhma-of-Angra-Mainyu. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Okay, and? This is the article on theistic satanism, I am not arguing if it is true or false but why would we include it here. What does this have to do with theistic satanism? Why would we include an unsourced paragraph to shoehorn in totally unrelated information? PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. There is a paragraph in this article about "The Dakhma of Angra Mainyu (Church of Ahriman)". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

And this is not the article on them, it is an article on theistic satanism. What does the fact at issue have to do with theistic satanism? Why would we include it in an article on theistic satanism? Just because something is mentioned in passing does not mean it is WP:DUE weight to move all the information on the article about any other subject here. Should we copy all the thousands of words from the Order of Nine Angles article here? PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

All I am now proposing is that a few words be linked to a couple of Wikipedia articles - see the edit I have just made to that effect (which you can of course revert if you wish). No one is proposing any longer that we "shoehorn in" an unsourced paragraph, let alone copy in thousands of words from another article. To suggest otherwise is a straw man argument. Meticulo (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

And see the comment I made above, where I said I am fine with what is there now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:51, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Meticulo (talk) 03:24, 18 September 2026 (UTC)