Talk:Anton LaVey

Tonight Show appearance

I was wondering if Anton LaVey ever appeared on the Tonight Show, or any other talk show. If so, is their footage of that interview? I also thought that a list of guests on the Tonight Show would be a good idea for a Wikipedia article.

Notice

Some of you may notice that the article on LaVeyan Satanism now redirects to Satanism. This is as it should be, and is a long time coming. A serious effort is finally underway to clean up the disorder and subpar editing that has for too long characterized this series of articles. I welcome everyone interested to continue their valued contributions, and to join in the effort to restore sensibility to the representation of Satanism on Wikipedia. Thank you! -Lvthn13 06:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Unorganized comments

The picture caption says 'Dr.,' yet I can't find any academic credentials in his bio. Can anyone explain?

• Anton is referred to as Dr. or Doktor by his close friends and associates. He does not have a degree that would give him the title, but the same goes with the title 'Black Pope'. KevinISlaughter

I remember reading somewhere that he was involved with Marilyn Monroe. Can anyone confirm?

Photos exist to at least prove that Anton LaVey met both Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield, and pretty good documentation exists to confirm his involvement with Mansfield. His relationship with Marilyn Monroe is impossible to prove either way except to say that they met (though the fact that she was photographed with him at all should provide pretty strong evidence of the veracity of his claims; I can think of few other circumstances that would permit him to be photographed with her). The fact that this is always denied or ignored by biographers of either lady only proves that admiring biographers are disturbed that their favorite starlet may have been involved with him, just as most biographers of Benjamin Franklin gloss over his involvement with English Hellfire Clubs. --Lvthn13 23:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a longstanding rumour --- don't know if it's more than that --- that he had some kind of relationship with Jayne Mansfield, and that Mansfield was a member of the Church of Satan. Never heard about Monroe. Wasn't he in Rosemary's Baby as well?

Anton LaVey appeared in Rosemary's baby very briefly as Satan in the rape scene. He was also an uncredited technical advisor on the film. The Secret Life of a Satanist details his relationship with Monroe.

---

There is currently a great deal of controversy surrounding the life of Anton LaVey. Many of the stories that have been circulating about his life have been challenged since his death in 1997. These stem primarily from an article written by his estranged daughter Zeena and her husband Nikolas Schreck, both former members of the Church of Satan. It is attached to this article and is called Anton LaVey: Legend and Reality. Few, if any, of the claims put forth in the Schreck's article have been officially refuted to my knowledge by the Church of Satan. They include:

• He never knew either Marilyn Monroe or Jayne Mansfield intimately
• He had no involvement with Rosemary's Baby and was only asked to appear at a screening of the film by a San Francisco theatre.
• He didn't ritualistally shave his head on Walpurgisnacht, 1966 in order to usher in Anno Satanas of the Satanic Empire. He shaved it later that year, on a dare made by his wife.
• He essentially lied about every aspect of his past in order to create a legend or Myth about himself. These range from his claim that the Black House was originally equipped with secret passageways and trap doors. The Schrecks claim that this is pure fabrication and that the house belonged to his parents.

It must be kept firmly in mind that the authors of these claims both have personal animus towards Anton LaVey and may have been motivated by personal grudges. The allegations are quite harsh in places and accuse LaVey of beating his second wife Diana repeatedly and trying to strangle her, beating his pets, abetting a friend by idly watching him molest LaVey's grandson, as well as fabricating his fabled job histories as a lion tamer, crime photographer, etc.

In my opinion, the Schreck document appears to be a combination of fact and hysterical hyperbole based on a pronounced feeling of loss. Dr. LaVey had not been gone for three months when this report was compiled. Zeena Schreck left the Church in 1990 in order to join The Temple of Set, which was founded in 1975 by ex members of the COS. Prior to that, she denounced her Father and remained estranged from him until his death. All these factors make it difficult to determine what precisely is factual and therefore ought to be included in the Wikipedia biography.

The main problem is that claims have been made to challenge the validity of numerous occurances that are contained within both of LaVey's biographies. Also, loyal followers are loathe to contradict what has long been accepted as the official word on his personal life. Should we just create a disclaimer that states, something to the effect, that "the events proclaimed in this article as fact have been challenged on several fronts by individuals who had unresolved grievances with LaVey"?

I'm going to leave a note about the Schreck's article on the page. I just want to draw people's attention to the relationship between the author(s) and LaVey. _________________________________________________________ I agree completely with your final statement. It's almost amazing how people jump at the chance to denounce somebody after they have passed on and can no longer defend themselves... almost. But you have to keep in mind the dispicable nature of mankind. Everyone was too cowardly to make these accusations while he was alive. Zeena was sore about the divorce between Anton and Diana, and of course Diana would feel the same way. And when you get two women together who want to cause trouble, this sort of thing is bound to occur.

As opposed to when you get two similarly minded men together, right? --Haruki 10:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

                         *               *              *

Actually, many of the claims made in Legend and Reality, (minus the personal family business), were also made in the Sept. 1991 Rolling Stone article, "Sympathy for the Devil". The original letter from Zeena to Dr Aquino, (Dec. 1990), was written around the same time as the Lawrence Wright article. Hence his inclusion, "Later I learned that, earlier in the evening, LaVey's younger daughter had chosen this special day to renounce her father.......in a letter to LaVey's archenemy, Michael Aquino." It may also be noted that Dr LaVey did respond to Mr Wright, when he said, "I don't want the legend to disappear. There is a danger you will disenchant a lot of young people who use me as a role model.".

jane mansfield

mentioned in a disscussion with lavey in marilyn manson's long hard road out of hell (book)

The Secret Life of a Satanist details the relationship between the two, and also provides photogrphic evidence.

Hotel California

No mention yet of his supposed "appearance" on the cover art of Hotel California - Eagles. --User:62.252.224.14, 04:26, 23 June 2005

Urban myth explored here. —Morning star 06:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Is the myth notable enough that it should be addressed? There appear to be so many myths (intentional or natural) about LaVey that they could be organized into a section, or at least a paragraph. -Willmcw 10:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Jewish heritage?

How come nothing is mentioned of his jewish heritage? --User:211.30.234.114, 19:27, 23 June 2005

Because he wasn't. --D.J.B. (User:172.195.68.61), 04:13, 15 July 2005

You're all crazy. --User:172.196.108.46, 00:40, 18 August 2005

Lavey mentions in several of his works that he is a "Jew-Gypsy."

Do you have a source to show this? I only ask so that the rest of us may verify same.150.208.140.13 19:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is some references, one book that even the CoS authorises:

• Rolling Stone Magazine interview with LaVey by Lawrence Wright’ - "It’s Not Easy Being Evil in a World That’s Gone to Hell", Rolling Stone, September 5, 1991 - LaVey reveals his own Jewish heritage and rela name, as does Blanche Barton. LaVey also stated in this interview: "There is a danger you will disenchant a lot of young people who use me as a role model." and "I don't want the legend to disappear"
• Lucifer Rising: A Book of Sin, Devil Worship and Rock 'n' Roll by Gavin Baddeley, Paul Woods (Plexus Publishing (UK), 2000, ISBN 0-85965-280-7) page 214. Referring to the influence that Sir Basil Zaharoff had on LaVey, as opposed to “Stanton” being LaVey’s middle birth name, Barton writes, “LaVey’s grandson, born in 1978, was named “Stanton Zaharoff” in his honor.” Barton, The Secret Life of a Satanist, 24. When referring to LaVey’s grandson’s first name, Barton says that he was named after a character in William Lindsay Gresham’s novel Nightmare Alley. Ibid., 42. What Barton fails to mention in both instances is that “Stanton” was Anton LaVey’s middle birth name. Because Barton was LaVey’s live in lover and here the author of his “authorized biography”, the failure to do so is significant because it further goes to prove a deliberate repression of pertinent information for the purposes of advancing LaVey’s self-created “autobiographical” details.
• A Critical Biography of LaVey: Hypocrisy, Plagiarism and LaVey by John Smulo
• In a well-documented article by one of LaVey’s daughters, Zeena LaVey, and Nikolas Schreck, entitled Anton LaVey: Legend and Reality, virtually all of the oft-repeated details about LaVey were shown to be fictitious. Zeena LaVey and Nikolas Schreck, Anton LaVey: Legend and Reality, [1] and [2] (February 2, 1998). Accessed March 1, 2001. For further confirmation of this cf. Lawrence Wright, “It’s Not Easy Being Evil in a World That’s Gone to Hell” in Rolling Stone. September 5, 1991: 63-68, 105-16. Cf. also Joe Abrams, The Church of Satan, http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/satanism/churchof.html. Accessed 17/11/01.
• Other references [3], [4], [5]
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anton_LaVey#Birth_name
• Saints and Sinners by Lawrence Wright, ISBN: 0679761632

FK0071a 10:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

---

In a similar vein:

"During this time, it has been alleged, he was involved in underground Zionist groups in San Francisco which helped smuggle arms to the Irgun during the Israeli War of Independence."

This "has been alleged" by whom?! This strikes me on the face as an easy anti-Semitic smear, attempting to link the state of Israel to a noted Satanist. (And a quick Google offers little but Wikipedia mirrors and white supremacist sites.) Sources, anyone?

... Update: To answer my own question: it seems to have been alleged by LaVey himself, via the official biography... objection withdrawn

Photos

It'd be great to get some photos of LaVey and his family. Does anyone have their own pictures of him that they could release under the GFDL or public domain? LaVey had such a striking appearance that a picture would be very informative. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Satanis: The Devil's Mass is an old documentary about the CoS in it's early days which is in the public domain. Any screenshots would be as well.

I own a copy of "The Devil's Mass" as distributed by Something Weird Video. Does anyone have information as how to prove something is public domain? I was hope to utelize the movie of similar audio sampeling/screenshot purposes as well. 172.132.1.180 20:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

neutral revisions

Okay, I cleaned up the article considerably.... there were an excessive number of one-sided "then Anton said this, which was later proven to be a lie" totally NNPOV statements. I removed these and mostly quarantined such drama to the "Criticism" section, which I have expanded greatly. Statements in the biography part that are highly contentious have been softened and tempered with language like "reportedly" and "according to his biography". Pro-Anton supporters may be irked that I've given more space to Zeena's criticisms, but on the other hand, Pro-Zeena supporters will probably be irked that the article reflects Zeena's lack of proof of her claims, aside from mere anecdotal hearsay from Anton's old enemies. wikipediatrix 19:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

SuB par article.

Excuse me here, but we are talking about a perverse prick, and what i am reading in this expurgated version is the story of a saint. FAR BELOW WIKIPEDIA STANDARDS. What about satanic rituals, i mean everyone associates that with abuse, cults, evil etc. where the fuck is all that?

Right under the "Satanic Scare of the 1990's" Header. Don't forget that Wikipedia is a _neutral_ Encyclopedia, not an outlet for religiously slanted blather.

You need to educate yourself about the subject. Stop equating accusations with fact.

He was not a perverse prick. He was a genius and you are an idiot.

Why is this even being talked about, i'd figure if you can't back up any claims of him being a pervert (subjective, therefore invalid), prick (subjective, therefore invalid), abusive, or evil (subjective, therefore invalid). and if you have any source cited claims about criminal activity (not subjective adjectives and rumors), then mention your source(s) (and their source(s) please).150.208.140.13 19:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

rv satanism tag

Anyone know why an anon keeps removing the satanism tag? It seems to me that s/he has a problem with the tag itself, not with its presence here. I'll rv it again. The IP# has multiple users and blocking seems useless. AvB ÷ talk 08:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The Satanism tag is misleading. Anton LaVey created Satanism; therefore his definitions and codifications should be the guideline. According to LaVey, there are no denominations or "Types" of Satanism. Keeping this in mind, I think it would be appropriate to remove the tag. "There are Satanists, and there are nuts." -ASL —This unsigned comment was added by 132.33.132.19 (talk • contribs) .

Anton LaVey only created his own form of Satanism. There were Satan worshippers long before the year 1966! wikipediatrix 15:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

132.33.132.19, I see your point. You do have a problem with the tag itself. However, the tag exists, and it does apply to Lavey, so it should be included in the article. You may want to try and dispute the tag and all it stands for - the correct place would be Satanism and/or Template:Satanism. But you have very little chance of generating a consensus for your ideas there - Lavey already has a prominent place in the Satanism article but there are other major and minor POVs that can't be ignored or subsumed. AvB ÷ talk 17:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

wikipediatrix- I see you haven't read the article in question; Anton LaVey was not a "Satan worshipper." He was a Satanist. There is a vast difference between the two.

I see you didn't read my post. I didn't say LaVey was a Satan worshipper. I said Satan worshippers existed prior to 1966. wikipediatrix 00:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Avb- simply because the tag exists and loosely applies to LaVey, that does not make it accurate. Satanism is mixed together with Satan-worship in the template, which is innacurate and misleading- factors Wikipedia disdains in it's articles. The two deserve their own seperate tags. A more accurate Satanism tag should be placed here. —This unsigned comment was added by 132.33.132.19 (talk • contribs) .

Wouldn't you agree that this is something to be sorted out in the main Satanism article first? After all, such tags are generally based on the articles, aiming to direct readers to related information or gain an overall picture. I would say that this specific tag is interesting in that the reader who follows the links will be informed about everything related to the term "Satanism". This is in accordance with the WP:NPOV policy - Wikipedia is not about the one and only Truth but about the truth as the various groups and people see it... AvB ÷ talk 12:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

weasel words

This article was uglied-up by not one but two "this article contains weasel words" tags... I looked over it again and don't see any weasel language at all. If anything, it's just the opposite: there are passages that could be tempered with a dose of uncertainty and benefit of the doubt. If anyone else thinks there's weasel talk, discuss it here, or better yet, just fix it. wikipediatrix 00:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Birth name

Birth name was reverted by anon, asserting that the Encyclopaedia Britannica is not a reliable source, which stated his birth name as "Howard Levy". We also find on sites like churchofsatan.org that his birth name was "Howard Stanton Levey". There is an entry in the Social Security Death Index at familysearch.org for "Anton LAVEY", with the same birth date and death dates and locations. However, the number was issued in California, that is, not at birth. This could indicate that he changed his name and got a new number therefor. The name change agrees with several sources. Is there a good refutation of the name change somewhere? —Centrx→talk • 20:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

churchofsatan.org is not a reliable source for this information, not only from a CoS POV but from a Wiki POV. Their own bias is very clearly strong, and should be ignored. Encyclopedia Britannica is a source of unknown information on this, as it is not clear at all where Encyclopedia Britannica got this information; I think it is fair to say that perhaps even such usually reputable sources get lazy when it comes to an issue like Satanism.

http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/Montalba.html

This source, as well as Magistra Barton's book, seem to suggest otherwise. According to her, his birth name was Howard Anton LaVey, but also mentions confusion in spelling the last name as it was spelled LeVey by his father but LaVey by his uncle; understandable as it was a name assigned at Ellis Island to his family. She also mentions that even as a child he wrote his name Anton Szandor LaVey, suggesting that it could have been a name his own family used for him (perhaps out of old world sentiment, it does not specify).

While I do not feel like it is a particularly big issue and hence I have never edited it, I have never in all my research heard him referred to as "Howard Levy" {which should throw EB's facts into deep question as no one else mentions this name, among all those who knew him and even his detractors), and no reliable source that his name ever included "Stanton" (actually, looking at the original source of this information the motives for this should be clear).

My suggestion is to simply make no mention of alternate names in the article as they are not relevant to his life (he was never published or known by any other name), at the very least until a truly reliable source of information, namely official court documents, is cited. I don't personally think it's worth my time to request those documents, and probably there would still be constant argument on the issue even if you had proof in hand. --Lvthn13 00:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes the "Levy" was suspect, but it is found in a handful of places on the Web, and it could be a typographic error for "Levey", which is found in several places. —Centrx→talk • 04:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Heritage

I am not aware of a source that suggests that Dr. LaVey possessed any Ukrainian heritage; the original quote citing his heritage is from Magistra Blanche Barton's book, "The Secret Life of a Satanist," a biography of him by the person who probably knew him best. In any case, I have reverted said edit and cited the source. If anyone believes there is any other case for this, sources should be required and discussed here first. --Lvthn13 00:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

For some reason this again seems to be a source of eternal controversy, for unknown reasons. Why anyone feels like it is relevant information that one person with a clear agenda has disputed his ancestry amidst other "discrediting" claims (many of which have been verifiably disproven) is beyond me, except that he is such a controversial figure that any small foothold for criticism is embraced without question. A Rolling Stone interview with a drug addict should not by any standard be given equal credence to a published biography. In any case, criticisms should be restricted to the section devoted to that; a good article should present the bare facts as they are most commonly accepted by the most qualified sources. If we simply must include unverified and unfounded claims in a subsection just to satisfy the critics (mostly anonymous editors, I might add), then at least keep it restricted to that section. --Lvthn13 00:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

To Prevent any furthur misunderstandinds, the editing to say he was for definite Ukrainian was a error on my part, however both Blanche Barton's "The Secret Life of a Satanist" and Zeena LaVey's "Anton LaVey: Legend and Reality" both make claims of his ancestry without any sources. A compromise should be made (if there is an agreement on the lst statement) that being that according to LaVey's biography "The Secret Life of a Satanist", his ancestry can be traced to French, Alsatian, German, Russian, and Romanian stock, and any mention of the dispute from Zeena LaVey will be restricted to the Criticism section. to say that His ancestry could be traced to Romania does not reflect the neutrlity of wikipedia in that no third party has verified such a claim. No further editing on this will be done by me until an agreement can be found. --AlexanderLevian

Actually this is not exactly a fair statement. Blanche Barton's biography of LaVey was in fact sourced, by LaVey himself. One could attempt to make the "he could have lied" argument, but given the fact that there is no conceivable reason why someone would lie about having widely mixed heritage (especially when his own name supports his claimed origins) and much of her biography is readily supported by available facts and photographs this is a last ditch type of argument that is "unresolvable" but most importantly unproductive. Contrasted to this, Zeena's claims include a great many statements that have been entirely proven false, rendering her flatly an invalid source for any information on his life. If a source has a reputation for honesty, it should be trusted; if a source is proven dishonest, it should be ignored especially when it contradicts an honest source.

I am at a loss to account for why you think it is a neutrality issue as to whether or not LaVey had Romanian heritage. What "third party" do you want, his entire family tree verified by various European governments? The demands made to "prove" LaVey's claims far, far exceed those made of other historical figures, which if you will pardon me saying so is far more of a neutrality issue. The fact that his accounts of his life, including his very own biography written by a person close to him, is constantly called into question despite the fact that not one of his statements about himself has ever been proven to be an outright lie is a travesty of neutrality. Were we to enforce fair and balanced Wikipedia neutrality upon this article, I would be obliged to immediately delete the entire criticisms section and remove every last one of the critical statements from the articles since not one of them, not a single one, is based upon a reliable source.

The very problem with this article and most of the Satanism articles is that every last point made in them is ever under attack by non-neutral parties who want to smear them at worst, and when forced to admit that they do not have good sources want to "compromise" by making their smears in thinly veiled language or leaving half in and taking half out. For the reasons I have named, that Zeena LaVey cannot be considered an honest source of information and that her claims cannot be taken in good faith from a Wikipedia stance of neutrality, every criticism made must be sourced or face removal. If we wish to bring out the neutrality issue, I'm all for doing so and mercilessly putting all these claims on the cutting room floor. LaVey's claims are backed by two biographies (yes, two; Burton Wolfe wrote another that further substantiates many of his claims), photographic evidence, and countless personal accounts from friends and associates. His detractors claims are backed by a document proven to be dishonest published in a pop culture magazine consisting of an interview with a drug addict. The evidence speaks for itself. --Lvthn13 18:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying to mention the dispute in his wikipedia biography nor to change the claim (your right, it's the critic's duty to present verifiable sourses) but the entire article for him on wikipedia includes the following "according to his biography." before all articles claimed in said biography. If this change will be aloud then the dispute will be irrelevant (there's no dispute that both of his biograhy claims this heritage). Don't misunderstand, I'm not out to tear down LaVey's Name. Just to find an agreeable (and objective) statement. I hope we can reason this out like gentlemen. I'm only asking that the statement be changed as i shall do so, and if this is still opposing wikipedia's nuetral view point, i will allow changing of same. thank you for your time. --AlexanderLevian

Certainly, I do not mind the input. I agree that in strict neutrality, certain sentences should be rephrased to specify that they are claims made according to him, and neither wholly substantiated nor disproven by outside sources. Certain personal details of his life are literally impossible to verify with outside documentation, and not because he's hiding things but because he was prior to the Church of Satan not a celebrity and therefore not particularly documented. However, many such facts are of considerable interest to the man's life and should not be omitted wholly, but I will agree that in the interest of Wikipedia standards, some of them may be best revised to indicate that they are only sourced by himself and his biographies.

I simply find it mildly frustrating that "sources" that for any other public figure would be immediately considered tabloid and entirely unusable as a reliable Wikipedia source are considered valid as it applies to LaVey (I am specifically referring to Zeena's claims). I do strongly support true neutrality with this article and all articles, but it is a long uphill battle to get neutrality when it comes to Satanic subjects. --Lvthn13 16:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I know, From my own research, none of Zeena's claims are verifiable except a few that were never "lies" in the first place (such as the claim that the satanic bible was plagiarized, when in fact excerpts from "might is right" (not copyrighted, to my knowledge however) were used and some ideas of past occultist and philosophers were reasearched and organized, all to back Lavey's initial ideas. also the rosemary's baby movie to with i still can't find a interview or lititure that anton ever said he was a advisor or satan or anything but a heavy influence) she is unreliable and i as of now delete any sources that i have cited using her. but i still maintain my claim with rosemary's baby based on william castle's (producer/cameo actor of rosemary's baby) biography. And 3 IMDB entries, but to be fair these are internet sources. i'm glad we've come to agreement, and yes it will be a long time before subjects like satanism can be discussed and research in an objective and neutral fashion. thank you. AlexanderLevian 19:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Moshe Dayan

I know that he was not really a Satanist, but can there be some note about the relationship between LeVay and Dayan? What exactly did they view in eachother and why would somebody like LeVay be of importance to a foreign War hero and diplomat? 68.38.101.175 04:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any connection. Why do you think there is? --FOo 01:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, why would an important man who has allot more important things to do (in an emerging country ravaged by non-stop war no less) things to do be friends with somebody of such questionable character. 68.38.101.175 06:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Rosemary's Baby

Recent changes by anonymous editors have led me to start this discussion. I have not read anything in which Dr.Lavey (himself) made any claim of being an actor nor a technical adivisor in the film "Rosemary's Baby". the IMDB website entries mentioned by the editor as sources state no involvement of his with the film. The biography of William Castle (cameo actor and producer of Rosemary's Baby) claims the same. therefore, I have reverted the changes, cited sources, and will continue to do so until proper sources are cited to show Dr.LaVey's involvement as either technical advisor or actor (or atleast actually saying he was, in the case of the IMDB entries). I hope we can maintain nuetrality (as hard as it is with subjects like satanism). thank you. AlexanderLevian 07:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I felt like we'd have to leave it as you say until there's a source to at least suggest otherwise:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/rosemarys_baby/about.php

I haven't changed anything yet, but this is a counter source. It leads me to believe that possibly the whole thing should be changed to say "disputed" since it would appear that even ignoring any CoS sources, there is in fact public disagreement on whether or not LaVey really did do the role. It's not an issue of great importance to me either way, but it does make me wonder why all this disagreement exists (and watching the movie, I agree that the eyes look pretty similar). -Lvthn13 20:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I would normally agree, but there are two problem. First, the site doesn't name the writer of that article, therefore we don't have credentials of his authority on the movie. second, the site doesn't list any lititure or official interview to show where they would get such information. the site itself is therefore unreliable. I've noticed several similar sites claiming the source of LaVey's involvement is in Charles Manson Superstar, which is written and directed by Nikolas Schreck (The same man who, along with Zeena Lavey, began spreading the "Anton LaVey: Legend and reality" slander) and on the DVD release of same Schrek changed his position and would even later claimed LaVey "lied to him". So since we consider him (Schrek, that is) discredited, there's no actual ability to say that he was or even (with justifiable reason) claim a dispute. Wikipedia isn't for unqualified disputes (as you showed me on our first encounter, I'm sure you remember). But the point is we can only count sources that were themselves there or of an official interview of Dr.LaVey or someone who officially (and legally) spoke for him saying otherwise. AlexanderLevian 01:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't suggest that we change the whole thing. But this site is actually news to me; perhaps we should include a line stating that there is some disagreement in sources? You may have a point, that this site doesn't specify where it got the information, but rotten tomatoes is certianly not "sympathetic to Satanism" so it led me to wonder where this came from. Perhaps we should further research and find additional sources either way. No change made, yet. -Lvthn13 01:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That seems like the best idea. And it would also be wise to see if anyone else in the past looked for information on LaVey making such a claim. I will change the article to include the disposition of rottentomatos and other internet sources. Literature would also be a good source to obtain. the two that I have comes from M. Aquino (who I haven't found anything to (legitimitely) discredit him, but if you find something let me know) and W. Castle (The producer) and I refuse to cited N. Schrek as a source of anything but problems. If you find furthur literature please post. thanks man. AlexanderLevian 05:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I would have to check on that before I could answer definitively. Incidentally, your recent edits have been mostly quite fine, though I changed the edit "often known as a 'founder of Satanism'" because it is clumsy wording and unclear. A founder? As opposed to which other founders? Besides the fact that a very solid historical argument can be made that he was the first person to use the term "Satanist" as a statement of actual religious affiliation, and of course the fact he certainly founded the first religious body dedicated to Satanism, it simply makes little sense to suggest that he might have been one of many when no other "founders" can be named. If the goal is to suggest that Christians believed there were Satan worshippers (as opposed to Satanists) for centuries before, or that occult movements existed prior to the CoS (Crowley for example, though he strongly disavowed any suggestion that he would be considered a Satanist), then I think maybe this is trying too hard to say an entire mouthful in one phrase. Satanism as it is defined was indeed founded by Anton LaVey, so the present phrasing is entirely accurate.

If the intended suggestion was that there existed actual Satanic or devil worshipping cults prior to the Church of Satan, the myth of "generational Satanism," then I suggest that this be sourced. LaVey himself researched this exhaustively as he would have liked to have found some evidence of this kind of occult underground, and since then countless occultniks, scholars, and laymen have searched in vain for any solid evidence that such groups ever existed. I'd be delighted if a real source for this is found, but that source should be both accurate (i.e. Catholic Inquisition manuals are...shall we say, unreliable as sources of information on this) and predate 1966 (foundation of the Church of Satan) or else reference sources or evidence predating 1966. Sure, lots of people have claimed those groups existed after the fact, but no proof in either physical evidence or literary reference has ever been unearthed. Until real proof is shown, LaVey will continue to be the sole "founder of Satanism." —Lvthn13 12:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

First I didn't initially write that he was "A founder of Satanism" (a previous editor wrote that in). Second, I agree, as a matter of fact. I (personally) find The founder of satanism proper for the sources we have. All of the older so called "satanic organizations", that i've researched, were almost never devoted to Satan. for examples, Crowley prefered Horus, Hellfire Club prefered Venus and Bacchus, and The so-called "Devil Worshipping Yezidi" prefer Malak Ta’us (whom is considered, by some Judeo-Christian persons, to be the equivilant of Satan but I can't find actual proof). Therefore, no connection to Satanism is found. The article shall not be edited (atleast by me or with my knowledge) without proper sources cited. Thank you. AlexanderLevian 03:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems as though the Rosemary's Baby rumor started with misconceptions about LaVey's claiming to be a strong influence on both the Novel and Movie (valid enough). This seems to have been exagerated by third parties. Therefore, until someone can find this claim that Anton Lavey made, this should be considered the current stand point. It's just like Zeena and other Anti-Lavayen Satanist to say that he claimed to be an actor/T.A., and then present the facts supporting that he wasn't, but never cites the source of Dr.Lavey ever claiming it in the first place. This is just a slightly more complex lie that Zeena has piled on top of other (more straight foward) lies. My only question... Is the rumor of such significances that it needs to be mentioned in the Anton Lavey article? I, of course, mean by Wikipedia standards (not our opinion) with policy statements to show the same. Until then I believe we are to refrain from deleting the article due to the relevancy and according to Wikipedia's policy on vandalism. by the way Lvthn & Alexander good job changing the so called "criticism" section into a list of trivial facts about LaVey (definitly more positive and organized that way).150.208.140.13 17:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Naming

I've attempted to change all instances where he was named simply as "Anton" instead of either by full name or last name to "LaVey" according to general convention. To name a major figure by first name only is not commonly accepted practice, in addition to the fact that it was inconsistent within the article. Naming him by last name or full name should be the norm. -Lvthn13 17:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The title of "Doctor"

--WerewolfSatanist 02:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The "doctor" aside from being something of respect, is Church of Satan related. He was considered to be a Doctor of Satanic Theology and Philosophy. Doctor was basically what you called the person who achieved "Magus." AKin to calling a person who was a Priest "Reverend."

Other churches have done this.

I agree and I went ahead and put your reference in a more apporpriate form for wikipedia. thank you AlexanderLevian 23:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there any standards/policy stated by wikipedia about titles (such as doctor) used in the articles?

it just seems like that would be the only problem.

I would say we do. Titles are given by organizations and while its not the same as a university doctorate, it stll was bestowed by an organization on the grounds of what that meant to the organization. The article already explains WHY and gives a source so I think it would be safe to put "Dr" in front of his name. It keeps things neutral with the Satanists who respect LaVey as a Doctor and keeps things neutral with everybody else by explaining WHY he was considered so. WerewolfSatanist

Well its been a good four days or so. No objection then? =) WerewolfSatanist

I object! your renaming of Lavey to title him Dr.Lavey goes against wikipedia (i'm sorry but we don't care about peggy's reasons for calling him doktor as your source shows). the official policy (not the CoS) of titles such as Dr. is stated in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). therefore it shall be changed back and remain until policy changes are made. thank you AlexanderLevian 17:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see that one. Sorry then! WerewolfSatanist

It's cool. A misunderstanding only (I assure you), I agreed with mentioning the title and information regarding it. But wikipedia is one of the first websites to give honest and objective view of LaVey, and therefore I try to uphold their standards and I appreciate you being so patient with my double checking. Thank you and good day sir. AlexanderLevian 01:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of Falsehood

I don't seen anything in this article made about the accusations of falsehood that have been circulating in an article (available at http://www.churchofsatan.org/lavey.html and other places) that dispute many of LaVey's claims about himself. I don't want to start putting in information from the article, because I can't yet find the original third-party source, and it was compiled and is hosted by people who are not without significant bias. --Halloween jack 16:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

As of today I have created the section "Controversy" to include all accusations against LaVey as well as Blanche Barton's rebuttal. I have also tried to reword the information to be consistant with wikipedia's NPOV policy. Key word: TRIED. If anyone feels that I have not done a significant job, please improve as I agree whole heartedly that my edit requires much improvement but is a start. Thank you. AlexanderLevian 17:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You might add information about whether he was an adviser for Rosemary's Baby. This issue crops up repeatedly with people simply edit warring and substituting that he (was/was not) a part of the film. Discussing the debate should provide a place for both POVs, provided there's good evidence for both. Antonrojo 00:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Anton LaVey was an advisor and cameo actor for Rosemary's Baby and there are more sources saying he was, than not. So now there should be NO argument over his involvement!!!

Of the sources listed as backing for LaVey's involvement in Rosemary's Baby, some are from his own church, others are from pages who most likely got their information second-hand or are reprinting rumours, and one (IMDB biography) actually informs us that he was not involved in the film. The recent revision makes no sense. Also, why does everyone assume that those of us who don't buy LaVey's official biography and life according to his followers are "anti-LaVey?" I'm largely indifferent to LaVey and to Satanism. --Halloween jack 19:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding a section with cites recently listed to support the claim that he was involved in the movie below. Antonrojo 21:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Errors

I've been reading over this biography, amongst the ones of his ex-wife, and supposed seconds wife, and his two daughters. There are a few things I noticed, not all of those 'facts' added up. Date of death seems to shift quite a bit, and the cause of death seems various, also that in one of the articles it says that Diane and Anton had never been married, and suddenly they were man and wife for two decades.

I hope you don't take this as a criticism, it's not that at all. In fact I've always been a fan if you will, of Antons work, read his books as a teenager, and was quite interested in the way he percieved the world around him. And now, a few years later I stumble across these articles and I'd like to know more. Does anyone know anything more detailed than "supposed this and that", on the matters that I mentioned above?

I'd deeply appreciate it, if someone could provide that information.

Protection needed?

71.108.30.54 keeps adding in little phrases were he accuses Marilyn Manson of being the current High Priest of Satanism (which is blatantly false, Marilyn Manson was made a Reverend, though many believe it merely an honorary title), perhaps we need a temporary protection from new or anonymous users if this keeps up.

Controversy

The only people producing material on Anton LaVey, as near as I can tell, are equally divided into those who have something against him (like his daughter) and those who have something to gain from maintaining his reputation. Despite the fact that the linked article is hard to verify, there must be some mention on the page that not everyone accepts LaVey's "official" biographical account of his life at face value. The controversy section wasn't an attack on LaVey (it linked to the CoS refutation of the article it mentioned). --Halloween jack 23:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

La Vey involved in Rosemary's Baby production?

This question repeatedly crops up and a batch of cites recently added to support this are below to move towards consensus on this. The reasons I don't think these are reliable sources is below. It would be best to find a primary source that can prove or disprove that he was in the film...or if this isn't possible to state the uncertainty. Good primary sources outweigh a large number of contradictory yet unreliable sources.

• Primary source (the gold standard for WP:RS)

Film insider denies LaVey's involvement: Gene Gutowski; William Castle, Step Right Up! I'm Gonna Scare the Pants off America, New York: Pharos Books, 1992; Diane LaVey, Michael A. Aquino (COS, page #17).

• Church of Satan and supporter's cites (qualify as 'partisan and extremist websites' under WP:RS)
  • http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/BOT.html
  • http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/LaVeyOccultAmerica.html
  • http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html
  • http://www.satanic-kindred.org/tribute.htm
  • Contradicted by:
  • www.churchofsatan.org/aslv.html
• IMDB/rottentomatos cites
  • http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/rosemarys_baby/about.php
  • Cites stating he had no involvement with film:
  • http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0491989/bio (see trivia section...search for 'fiction')
  • http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063522/trivia
  • http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0491989/
  • http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063522/
• Blogs (almost never pass WP:RS)
  • http://www.disobey.com/horror/movie_media/rosemarys_baby/index.shtml
  • http://home.att.net/~r.s.swartz/rose.html
• Potentially good sources supporting claim...if they base claims on primary sources
  • http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/satanism/levey.html
  • http://www.religion-cults.com/Occult/Satanism/Satanism.htm
• Potentially good sources denying claim
  • http://www.xeper.org/maquino/nm/COS.pdf
  • http://www.mail-archive.com/paranormal_stuff@yahoogroups.com/msg00244.html (a blog with some useful info)
• Other
  • http://www.mistersf.com/notorious/index.html?notsatan.htm Cites IMDB and doesn't state that this is a fact so 3rd hand information.

Does anyone know where I can find a biography (and page number would help) or official interview in which LaVey, himself, makes such a claim?

I've read through the sources and here are my discoveries:

• With -
  • http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/BOT.html
  • http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/LaVeyOccultAmerica.html
  • http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html

Anton LaVey, himself, does not make this claim, the gentlemen interviewing him makes that statement in the introduction (not during the interview, Anton LaVey would have no chance to contradict)

• With -
  • http://www.satanic-kindred.org/tribute.htm
  • http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/rosemarys_baby/about.php
  • http://www.disobey.com/horror/movie_media/rosemarys_baby/index.shtml
  • http://home.att.net/~r.s.swartz/rose.html
  • http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/satanism/levey.html
  • http://www.religion-cults.com/Occult/Satanism/Satanism.htm

No primary sources are mentioned at all!

• However, The following sources have either the credential or primary sources to make such a claim, but they deny his involvement:
  • Gene Gutowski; William Castle, Step Right Up! I'm Gonna Scare the Pants off America, New York: Pharos Books, 1992 (William Castle was the producer of the film)
  • Michael A. Aquino (COS, page #17) [6] (Michael A. Aquino was a member of the Church of Satan and therefore has an undisputed (to my knowledge) connection to LaVey)

• The following have only those mentioned above as sources:
  • http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063522/trivia
  • http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0491989/
  • http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063522/
  • www.churchofsatan.org/aslv.html (however this article claims that LaVey actually made the claim yet does not cite it's source for such knowledge)

(List of links by Antonrojo up until "Does anyone know..." where rest was added by AlexanderLevian) 03:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC))

I realize that we could pile on many websites that back up his involvement, but none of these mention any sources at all! We do however have info from primary sources claiming he was not. In fairness to Wikipedia policy and NPOV, we must leave the information as is (maybe mentioning that there is a rumor, but nothing more) Thank You. AlexanderLevian 17:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear. I agree that the cites don't support the claim. I'm adding them because I think this is a fair characterization of the cites I see linked to the claim (e.g. see the 'filmography' claim that I just removed). Antonrojo 03:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

he went to hell