Talk:Lucien Greaves

Reason Alliance

Shouldn't the Reason Alliance also be on the "org" section? Boarphomet (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

https://reasonalliance.com/

Yes it should, and several other outstanding issues on this page should be addressed in the article. If I have sometime over the following week I'll try to cover them. Seanbonner (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

False information/claims / false identity

-Place of birth: I can't find a source that verifies Chicago, Illinois is his true birth place.

-Birth name vs. assumed names / true identity: Doug Mesner is not his true name. Patheos

Doug Mesner is definitey an alias: "“Douglas Mesner” is also a pseudonym, one he has used for many years. He, too, asked that his legal name not be published, to prevent threats to his family." (quote from The New York Times) "met the man who became “Mr. Greaves,” a man who, when not participating in Satanic Temple activism, is often called Douglas Mesner. He is now 39 years old and says he “does some odd jobs” for a living."

More information on the aliases has been published [1] and likely deserves some updates to this page based on the info. Seanbonner (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Seanbonner The fact that you're citing that "fact sheet" clearly demonstrates that you don't know how to judge what a credible source is and that you have a clear bias in favor of CoS's claim to maintaining that One True Satanism. [2] You're going to have to remain neutral in finding and citing information, which clearly isn't what you're doing now. You even stated, parroting the CoS party line, that Greaves denies and/or ignores LaVeyan Satanism. This is just indicative of your loyalty to a false narrative promoted by the CoS. Greaves has, time and again, referred to TST as an evolution and modernization of the LaVeyan construct (see both the Vice and Haute Macabre interviews cited on this very page. In fact, if you'd bothered to read the Vice piece, you'd have already detected the egregious mischaracterizations in the "fact sheet" you offered here. Dominiusol (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I haven't cited the "fact sheet" in any edits, I mentioned it on talk pages as it's a collection of links to valid sources. Satanism has been defined since the 1960's, however you seem to be going to great lengths to create a new narrative. Seanbonner (talk) 06:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

-Date/year of birth: Unknown

208.44.84.138 (talk) 04:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Claims he studied neuroscience at Harvard: this comes from the Vice article which wrongly said his real name is Doug Mesner - not credible. It's based on his own claims. Not verifiable (see above: no one by his known aliases/names has been enrolled at Harvard). http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/us/a-mischievious-thorn-in-the-side-of-conservative-christianity.html 208.44.84.138 (talk) 04:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

CV style

This article is written in the style of a CV. Almost every sentence seeks to aggrandize the subject. I have nothing against the man himself, but this article needs to conform to wikipedia standards and explain his impact in a more neutral fashion with reliable sources. Ashmoo (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Got here from Satanic Temple which is written the same way almost like a press release and much of that is repeated here. If this is an article about a person does it need to repeat all the same information about the organization he works for? Perhaps most of that should be removed with a redirect to the main article. Needs work. Seanbonner (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ashmoo Part of the problem here is that editors are working against the edits of @Seanbonner who arbitrarily edits out important facts (such as the most basic, that Greaves is a self-identified Satanist) and inserts flagrant hearsay allegations derived from bad sources (such as the bizarre claim that Lucien Greaves has been played by several actors, citing a personal blog where one person says he was asked to play a part but didn't. Seanbonner apparently took it upon himself to re-interpret this to mean that several people had played this "role", and that several people had made this allegation regarding actors -- he pluralized the claim -- when in fact it was just one clearly non-credible source). When you have one person dedicated to vandalizing the page with defamatory material, it tends to corrupt the neutrality of the other editors as well. Dominiusol (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

You created a brand new account to run around wikipedia and delete all of my edits which have been discussed and decided on with other editors, then attack me on talk pages, yet I'm the vandal. Interesting definition of yours. Seanbonner (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Satanism

Not sure how to address this, there was a line saying he "self-identifies as a Satanist" however Satanism as a religion has existed since 1966 but Greaves' rejects that and has attempted to redefine Satanism as something different which is the source of much dispute. Simply saying he's a Satanist is confusing and needs further explanation if it's to be included so as to remain neutral. For now saying he's the co-founder and spokesperson for The Satanic Temple mostly covers that base, but it should be expanded on. Seanbonner (talk) 12:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Seanbonner Well, he is a self-identified Satanist whether that agrees with your definition of Satanism or not. It's really rather ludicrous that you would delete that segment, as this fact is primarily what the subject is known for. This isn't a page for you to litigate what is the "One True Satanism," and you're going to have to set your biases aside before you start vandalizing this page again. Dominiusol (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a CV or a bio, it doesn't matter what he self identifies as, what matters is neutrally covering a topic and saying he's co-founder and spokesperson for TST covers those bases, while trying to argue the legitimacy of what a character being played by someone else self identifies as and if that matches with existing definitions is on a bit more shaky ground. The purpose of this page isn't to promote this person or their narrative. Seanbonner (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The fact that he self-identifies as a Satanist is irrelevant to calling him a self-identified Satanist??? If there is one fact that is entirely indisputable on this page, it's that he is a self-identified Satanist. What is irrelevant is whether or not your feelings are hurt by that fact and if you wish he weren't self-identifying as a Satanist. Dominiusol (talk) 06:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this isn't a cv or a biography, it's not a page about what he thinks about himself. Seanbonner (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It's true that what someone says about themselves isn't typically the best material to use. What you'd want is reliable sources that say he self-identifies as Satanist (i.e. deferring to the judgment/fact-checking of those sources). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 07:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Can somebody else self-identify for him? Your grasp of English honestly comes into question here. It's simply impossible to dispute that he is a self-identified Satanist. Nobody else can name somebody's religion for them, and Greaves is known, first and foremost, for his religious viewpoint. Honestly, tell me what you're thinking in deleting this???Dominiusol (talk) 07:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Presuming you are talking to me (start your posts on talk pages with colons to indent, using one more than the person above you), no, nobody "self-identifies for him". They say that he self-identifies. He might say all sorts of things, publishing his thoughts on religion, politics, movies, music, breakfast cereals, or gifs of cute cats. That doesn't mean it appears on Wikipedia. If the fact that he self-identifies as such-and-such appears in the New York Times, say, then their mentioning it gives it some weight to make it worth mentioning. Also, the New York Times isn't likely to publish a statement that "he self-identifies as such-and-such" without verifying that that statement is accurate. Perhaps he never said it, or perhaps he, like some politicians, take one self-identified position one day and take another when it's advantageous to do so. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 07:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Reverted to the pre-dispute state. Get wp:consensus before restoring. Note: blogs are wp:selfpublished and don't meet wp:reliable source - WP:NOTRS. Source was https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2014/09/26/letters-to-a-satanist-why-do-you-call-yourselves-satanists Jim1138 (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

How can one not worship Satan and yet be a "Satanist"? Any conclusion that resolves this would be wp:synthesis which is not acceptable. Best to leave it out until an RS which makes a clear statement is found. Given the ambiguity that Greaves maintains, I suspect this is a tall order. Jim1138 (talk) 10:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Jim1138: The Satanic Temple isn't the first "Satanic" organization to be built on an idea of a "Satanism" that doesn't actually involve belief in and/or worship of Satan (unless you count a proprietary "Satan" specific to the organization). E.g. probably the best known organization, the Church of Satan does not actually believe in Satan in the sense of the devil. Much of what we hear about worship of Satan is parody, an aesthetic/counter-culture stance, or something like the satanic ritual abuse moral panic -- an evening news bogeyman or sort of evil Illuminati organization. That's not to say actual worship of Satan doesn't exist, but that "Satanism" doesn't necessarily involve it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Rhododendrites is correct, there was no definitive definition of Satanism until the 1960's with the founding of the Church of Satan and since then it's been defined as an atheistic religion. The issue at hand seems to be that The Satanic Temple is heavily disputed as to if they are actually a religious organization or if they are a political group using religion to argue political issues, as what their "religion" is has changed a lot in a very short time - they claim to be atheists now but in 2013 claimed to believe in a literal devil and hired actors for their press events ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8ZA30BxuOY&feature=youtu.be ). The other co-founder of TST told the NY Times that they came up with it as a way to fight Bush-era faith based initiative ( https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/us/a-mischievious-thorn-in-the-side-of-conservative-christianity.html ) and where on that spectrum the org sits seems to change depending on the news cycle, so the question is for Wikipedia how to tell this story accurately and neutrally and avoid becoming part of a ruse. The fake names and fake claims noted here suggest there's more than a little bit of hype going on, so it seems the neutral thing is to correctly note that he's cofounder and spokesperson for this organization and not to make claims about his religious affiliations which may or may not be part of a fictional persona. Seanbonner (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

In one of the citations in the article, #14, ( https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/10/satanists-war-on-the-war-on-halloween/439956/ ) he states during an interview that he is an atheist Satanist. "Greaves: I am an atheistic Satanist, and the fight, to me, isn't against Christianity or religion, it's against supernaturalism. We believe that religion can be separated from supernaturalism." I feel this would be relevant to include in the article. EveVulgaris (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I misunderstood the sources/references policy. I am looking for proper sourcing. EveVulgaris (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Would this article on heavy.com ( https://heavy.com/news/2017/05/satanic-temple-monument-statue-salem-tenents-baphomet-abortion/comment-page-1/ ) which cites the NYTimes article (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/us/a-mischievious-thorn-in-the-side-of-conservative-christianity.html) be considered as a proper citation for referring to Greaves as an atheistic satanist? The NYTimes article is quoting Greaves as stating he is an "atheist satanist". EveVulgaris (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Doug Mesner

Another Alias of his is Doug Mesner ( the page Doug Mesner redirects here) and there are publications and activities that he participated in under that name, perhaps there should also be a section dedicated to specific activities done under that name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanbonner (talk • contribs) 12:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on why it would need a separate section? (I'm asking out of ignorance, not as a disagreement). If it was simply another name he used, that doesn't seem necessary. At the same time, if it was an alternative persona which is distinguishable from Grieves other than by name, then it may make sense? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 07:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm somewhat asking myself because it's a bit confusing as one seemed to morph into the other. I'm by no means an expert on him but I've read enough in the past few weeks to see that it's rather confusing, perhaps intentionally, and wikipedia seems like a place to help make sense of it rather than add to the confusion. So, if I understand things correctly the actual person's name is Douglas Misicko (TST legal filings are in this name) and for much of the 2000's (I don't know the dates explicitly) he used Doug Mesner as an alias for may things relating to Satanism including illustrating a book published by Church of Satan members and hosted a radio show on Radio Free Satan which was an internet radio station. When TST was founded he started calling himself Lucien Greaves (detailed here: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/4w7adn/unmasking-lucien-greaves-aka-doug-mesner-leader-of-the-satanic-temple ) though there seems to be some debate if anyone else used that name before he adopted it ( http://www.shanebugbee.com/?p=2161 ). Given that Doug Mesner redirects to the Lucien Greaves page, I wasn't sure how to handle citations that are attributed to Doug Mesner, if it should just note that Mesner is another alias and then just include the citations in line, or if there should be a "as Doug Mesner" section that includes them all together. I don't know and don't have a strong feeling either way, was just curious about the best way to handle it. Seanbonner (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Merge into The Satanic Temple

As this article is very short and about the spokesperson of an organization, with everything on the page relating to that organization I'm not sure this meets requirements for notability and might better be a section on the page for the organization instead. The page was previously written like a CV and once that info was removed there's not much left and no one seems interested or able to add anything else. Rolling it back into [The Satanic Temple] also removes any concern about how to handle the fabricated details other names, as a section about the spokesperson needn't be as detailed as a biography of a living person and anything he did prior to this position or under other names is no longer an issue. Seanbonner (talk) 04:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Use his real name

Several news sources identify "Greaves" as one Douglas Misicko. Previous edits have identified Misicko as his "birth name," however, it seems that he continues to use this name outside of his Satanic activism. On the other hand, there is some indication that the "Greaves" persona / stage name has been used by several people.

Another revision complained that Misicko / Greaves has been getting death threats, which I can readily believe, and that Wikipedia therefore ought to avoid using his real name. However, his real name is already out there--I found it without much effort. Anyway, Misicko's security issues are not really Wikipedia's problem. --Dawud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.160.79.40 (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

References