Talk:Church of the SubGenius

Uncategorized Comments

---

I wondered how long it would be before J.R. "Bob" Dobbs and his adherents would put in an appearance. I would have done this myself but I couldn't be bothered, too busy slacking... user:sjc

There appears to be *two* entries for the Church of the SubGenius: one under "Church of the subGenius" (with a small S) and another under "Church of the SubGenius" (with a large S). The first needs to be forwarded to the second, to avoid confusion.

Let me have a look... user:sjc They would appear to be //very// similar articles. I think the slack thing to do would be to leave them alone and see what happens... user:sjc

---

I was just wondering.. Have any of you seen the light? Sigg3.net

Every time I turn on my living room lamp when I get up in the morning. Or were you referring to something else? -- Modemac

Well, you answered my question. Sigg3.net

---

The advent of the Internet in the mid-1990s? Huh?

That's when the Internet suddenly went mainstream, as the popularity of email and the Web suddenly exploded, beginning in roughly 1994 or so. --Modemac 23:25 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

This page has been linked from all sorts of serious articles, like Zen, Pee Wee Herman, and slackware. I am wondering, is this legit, or somebody's attempt at vandelism by propegating his idea of a joke to a dozen serious articles? Remember, an encyclopedia is a medium in which you must separate the wheat from the chaff, for the benefit of the readers. Is mentioning the obscure (if it exists at all) church of the subgenius important in understanding what Zen is, for example? Is the origin of the name slackware really in this "church" or is this a lie/hoax? user:nyh

The Church article is legitimate -- Wiki is not paper. The Slackware link is appropriate -- it's the inspiration for the name, apparently -- but the Zen link is debatable.—Eloquence 07:59, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

I, for one, think that the Zen link is appropriate. It does appear in the section '"Zen" in Western Pop Culture' The quotes are the clincher.—Barry

---

What the hell is "underground pop-culture"? Isn't that an oxymoron? Kent Wang 14:38, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Something that's underground is something that is disliked by and hidden from authority figures, so I suppose it would be "pop-culture that's disliked by authority figures". Olathe 07:57, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sources

Can anyone provide sources for "Such high-profile names as Pee-Wee Herman, David Byrne, Mark Mothersbaugh, Penn Jillette, and actor Bruce Campbell have become SubGenius ministers, though they generally keep their affiliations with the Church quiet in order to protect their public image."? Andre (talk) 18:17, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

The source of most of these is Reverend Ivan Stang and the SubGenius Foundation, Inc. (Stang has been a regular participant on the newsgroup alt.slack for the past ten years - post there yourself and find out). Pee-Wee Herman joined in the early 80s, and even had a picture of "Bob" on the wall of the first season of his "Pee-Wee's Playhouse" show. David Byrne joined when researching his movie "True Stories." Mark Mothersbaugh and Devo have been members since the early 80s, and Penn Jillette and Bruce Campbell have both been confirmed by the SubGenius Foundation as having paid-up memberships. (Campbell signed up under a pseudonym, but he admitted himself that he is a member.) --Modemac 04:38, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hrm. 67.77.100.140 vandalized this page, I fixed it, and now the vandalized version doesn't show up in the history. Oh well. --Myles Long 17:53, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Praise Slackers

This is a blessed thing ya'll got going here. May the dobbs head never frown upon your slack.. - Pope Sinphaltimus Exmortus of F.E.D.C.O.M.S.

Joke Religion

If any actual members of the Church of the Subgenius think it's a joke religion, feel free to change back the category structure.... if you are not a member? please quit apostate kibitzing upon our faith.

p.s. the following dialogue is related to this topic

as my good faith efforts to edit wikipedia have been removed maliciously...... i feel little qualm at posting 'bad faith' efforts.

cheers! member of a "Joke religion" (preceding unsigned comment by 71.102.46.231 02:28, 26 August 2005)

You labeled Christian Broadcasting Network a joke religion (although it itself is not even a religion, it is a broadcasting network). You also changed a category of Church of the SubGenius to a category of a personal comment. And then you vandalized the Israel page. If you actually wish to perform good faith editing, please see Wikipedia:Welcome. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 07:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC) If you do not agree with the 'joke religion' category you may bring it up on the SubGenius talk page or remove the category altogether. However, please do not insert commentary (or anything else that isn't a valid category name) into the category tag. Thanks! Thatdog 07:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

as per your suggestion, i have brought it up on the 'talk' page, and changed the category tags to appropriate tags for our faith. I hope you would respect the sanctity of our faith by not altering it to the pejorative joke religion category without approval from a substantial number of church members, we may be sacrilegious and cynical but we are a valid faith as the following post in alt.slack demonstrates quite conclusively.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.slack/msg/fd8e77db816a1dd2?dmode=source

p.p.s. i have added the categories prophecy, cults, and Religious faiths, traditions, and movements to our category list and wonder how you all feel about my adding the category Category:Hominid cryptids, please note... this does apply to members of the church primarily and not to wikibitzers of the conspiracy who would desire to see us portrayed as a 'joke'.

It's obvious that you've missed the whole point of this if you truely think it's a religion. Last_Drop_of_Sanity 22:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What about all that 50's counterculture and halloweeny stuff? The iconography? Can't you put some of that in, for the love of pete?

"The Church of the SubGenius is a satirical pseudo-religious organization...."

This is how the article starts now. As the Book of the SubGenius says, at the beginning of Chapter 1 (the second chapter, of course!), "'Is this some kind of joke?' Well, if you thought the Church was a joke, then you'll by God NEVER 'GET' THE PUNCHLINE." (p. 13)

Therefore, I'm going to change the beginning to "The Church of the SubGenius is a satirical, postmodern religious organization...." See the postmodernism article where it cites to Lyotard re: "incredulity toward metanarratives" -- the Church is a metanarrative that is hostile to or incredulous towards not only other metanarratives (relatively common among religions) but to its own, and, indeed, towards the notion of metanarrative itself. --MitchS 18:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Satirical, yes. Postmodern, maybe. But religious institution? Not so much. I posted a version of the following on new editor User talk:Al-Kadafi's page in response to his recent changes, but it is equally appropriate here:

It's clear from multiple sources that SubGenius is considered a parody religion.

• Yahoo Groups list of Parody Religions - Church of Subgenius
• City Paper, Baltimore (8/05/98): "the Church of the Subgenius is a wicked parody "religion"
• Boston Globe (7/04/98): "The church uses parody and humor to spread the messages of carpe diem and free thinking...'The church claims to be a parody..."
• Philadelphia Weekly (4/08/00): "Some of you might recall the "Church of Bob," the religious parody parody (yes, a parody of a parody!) that managed to conform hard-core nonconformists back in the early '90s" (reprinted on The First Online Church of "Bob" Web site)
• "Mail Art Encyclopedia" "Incongruous Meetings": "SubGenius is a fake cult and a parody of a church called the 'Church of the SubGenius..."

Unless some Verifiable and reliable sources for the claim that the Church of the SubGenius is a "religious organization" (outside of just really, really wanting it to be), then promoting this view on Wikipedia is Original Research. —Leflyman^Talk 02:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is required for a group to be a "religious organization" (note: not a "religion" necessarily) OTHER than "just really, really wanting it to be"? Applejuicefool 08:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with applejuice, Is there a definition of "religion" or "religious organization" anywhere on wikipedia that we can use? Maybe someone should start one? Defraggler 08:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It should be pointed out, for the matter of this discussion, that Enviromentalism, Atheism, and Anti-Americanism are all "religions" of a sort. All are followed to the strick teachings, not taking facts into account and flowing basically on the faiths and beliefs of the movement. If this is the case, then The Church of the SubGenius is most definately a religion. 70.108.113.132 22:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much everyone I know who has any knowledge of the church of the subgenius has said it's a parody, and they enjoy it precisely because it is a parody. Something about this element of parody HAS to be mentioned in the introduction to this article. Even if you regard this as a religion, it's certainly not like other religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.146.46.247 (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

These 2 websites both expose the Church of the SubGenius as a dangerous cult that needs to be stopped:

Stop Bob, Armand Geddyn's site

Expose Bob, Kurt Kuerstiner's site

Also, if you think they are not for real, then search Google for "subspecies23" and Kevin Ray Underwood. He committed some very grisly crimes, and he has been found guilty of murder and sentenced to death by lethal injection. Oh, and he was a regular participant in the online Subgenius community known as alt.slack, posting under the username subspecies23. And then look at this YouTube video called "Hail Eris in Court", about a SubGenius short-duration-marriage (or ShorDurMar) between a Discordian woman named Sondra London and a serial killer named Danny Rolling. Read what Bob Black has written about the Church of the SubGenius sending him a bomb in the mail. Then, if you are having trouble figuring out what is going on, look at the Holocaustal home page by Papa Joe Mama, a firebrand preacher of the Church of the SubGenius. The Holocaustal home page explains why these crimes have been committed. In fact, at one point, the Holocaustal home page stated that the Columbine High School massacre had been carried out by 2 members of the Church of the SubGenius, but this was taken down after other members of the Church of the SubGenius pressured Papa Joe Mama to stop spreading bad publicity about them, because it was making it hard for them to recruit new members to the cult and exploit their ignorance to make money off them. So, I find it ridiculous for people to claim that the Church of the SubGenius is just one big joke. Tell that to the parents of the little girl murdered by Kevin Ray Underwood, or to the relatives of the people killed by Danny Rolling, or to the parents and friends of the people killed in the Columbine massacre. The Church of the SubGenius is a dangerous cult that needs to be exposed, and we need as many people as possible to find out about how dangerous and evil it is. Spread the word! Tell everyone you know! And praise "Bob"! EIEIEIEIEI! Now slack off! --66.24.119.112 (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd commented about "SubSpecies23" on my blog about a month ago, for what it's worth: http://community.livejournal.com/highweirdness/31630.html --Modemac (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Road & Track : The Need for Speed

Does anyone remember the Bob Dobbs track in this PC game? I vaguely recall that the billboards around the track had the Dobbs pic with the slogan "Trust Bob Dobbs" underneath

Modusoperandi 06:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean the game Car & Driver, which had an entire track dedicated to Bob Dobbs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.146.46.247 (talk) 09:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

just a quick point

A note to all editors who might be editing this article without having done yourselves the favor of actually reading the damned pamphlets: if you aren't capable of realizing it's a blatant parody, you are a 100% certifiable Pink. Thank you, and have a nice day. -Kasreyn 06:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do people have trouble understanding this? Flinders 00:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Stare at the dobbshead, if you don't get it from that. You never will. No matter how hard you try.

Defraggler 01:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's all just a joke. Ha ha! You're obviously missing the entire message if you think it is infact a joke. The Church of the Subgenius is not a complicated joke engaged in disguising itself as a religion, it's a religion engaged in disguising itself as a complicated joke. The whole thing is about original thought. If you think it IS a joke, then you haven't gotten past the pamphlets. You haven't done much original thought on the subject. You've stopped at the facade that's designed to deter normal people and stop the corrupt corporate machine from perverting the cause. Thus proving your own pinkness. - Lucy, 5:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've started to feel lately that the path to true slack lies in admitting your pinkness. Defraggler 04:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The path to true slack lies in not worrying too much about who gets the joke. - Jmabel | Talk 02:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

At least somebody on this page gets it. Defraggler 16:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

SubGenius Membership Allegedly Leads to Loss of Child Custody

This should probably get some mention: [[1]]

How sad. I've heard of at least one case of Christian Scientists (who specifically disbelieve in the germ theory of medicine) allowing one of their children to die of medical neglect (treatable meningitis), and not having their other children taken away due to freedom of religion. And being a member of a satirical group is worse? That judge needs counselling. -Kasreyn 22:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Her blog [2] says this Wikipedia article was cited in the case. Ashibaka tock 03:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a link to the hearing transcript. I wonder if this is the first time that Wikipedia has actually been proffered as evidence. Reading the transcript I see that defense counsel objected and the court actually refused to admit the article as evidence, as it is obviously hearsay at the very least. The respondent was asked to read the article and testify on it, however. Here is the relevant testimony from cross-examination by Mr. Mark, counsel for the petitioner and the child's biological father:

(Petitioner's Exhibit 18 marked for identification.)

Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as petitioner's exhibit 18 and do you recognize that?

A. No.

Q. You don't recognize that at all?

A. I recognize the name Wikipedia but that's all. I've never seen this document before.

Q. You recognize the name Church of the Sub-Genius, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you dispute the fact that this is a download from the Church of the Sub-Genius website which describes the principles and tenets of that organization?

A. I would dispute that. It says quite clearly here it's downloaded from Wikipedia dot org.

Q. Would you dispute that that document reflects the symbol and the tenets and principles of the Church of the Sub-Genius?

A. I agree that this is the symbol of the Church of the Sub-Genius, this man's face Ward Cleaver as Your Honor said, however I haven't seen this document before so I can't tell you.

Q. I'm not asking you if you've seen the document before. I'm asking you if that document does in fact describe the principles and precepts and concepts behind the Church of the Sub-Genius?

A. Having never seen it how could I answer that?

THE COURT: Just read it and answer the question.

A. It will take some time, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well do it.

A. Could you repeat your question?

Q. I said does that document reflect the teachings and concepts for which the Church of the Sub-Genius stands?

A. In part.

Q. In part. And which parts are those?

A. The part where it says, the part where it says the church is incorporated as a profit-making enterprise and the part where it says church members frequently pull practical jokes on each other even as they are using their comedic talents to other ends is true and it is, actually I would only say this section under sense of humor is true because the rest of it is a parody that is written in a straight format. I would say only the part under the section sense of humor is the only part that's accurate I would say.

Q. Oh, so the part that says the church encourages humor, comedy, parody, and satire to a point far exceeding that of most religious faiths, that's true, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. This belief is probably why the church is seen on one level as an elaborate joke?

A. Yes.

Q. An arguably post-modern mockery of organized religion, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And a parody of controversial religious groups and cults especially Scientology and Evangelicalism or Fundamentalism, Protestantism—

MR. AFFRONTI: Your Honor, objection, he's reading from something not in evidence.

THE COURT: She's already testified to a lot of the contents and characteristics. Are you going to offer in evidence?

MR. MARK: Yes.

THE COURT: Any objection?

MR. AFFRONTI: She says not all of it is true, Your Honor, yes.

THE COURT: Sustained. It's hearsay anyway. And unlike the pictures which of course any ten year old child cruising the web and Googles his mother's name and finds those pictures posted on the world wide web would be very disturbed, (here the judge is referring to pictures of the respondent's X-Day participation) the mere fact that this is on, available on the internet is irrelevant so that's hearsay.

MR. MARK: Well, except now she's acknowledged parts of this as being true.

THE COURT: You know, it just doesn't matter at this stage. I think it's just one of those things obviously I'm not going to send the child back with her, so I would curtail, I mean I think we're looking at what kind of contact there should be right now if any at all. So you might want to gear your, the rest of your hour to that.

NTK 04:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

...obviously I'm not going to send the child back with her...

So yeah, apparently Wikipedia got used in court, wonderful. Unfortunately the judge apparently made up his mind without even listening to her arguments. What a dick. -Kasreyn 20:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

just relax, you didn't get the joke, Kasreyn. 64.173.240.130 20:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

re: satirical Nixon campaign ad

I think you're mistaken that it was vandalism. I found it hilarious myself, and it's exactly the sort of random thing a Subgenius might do. It was, however, off-topic. -still giggling, Kasreyn 18:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

-- Its entirely possible the only valid contribution to a serious and Scholarly examination of BoB is blatant vandalism. For Science. Duckmonster 00:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

re: tax paying

Incidentally, "the only religion that is proud to pay its taxes." doesn't hold: The Church of Satan also pays taxes.

But is it proud to do so? --Myles Long 18:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think yes. La Vey was of the mind that churches should not be tax-exempt and had the CoS pay taxes voluntarily. NTK 16:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Undoubtedly Yes! It is at the core of Satanic philosophy: personal responsibility. LaVey addressed this issue directly. Khirad 00:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You are stupid and evil. Nature's Harmonic Time Cube told me so. --Dr. Gene Ray 07:00, 5 July 1998 (UTC)

In fact on the Church of Satan wikipedia page it says:
" The Church of Satan does not have or desire tax-exempt status, though they are eligible. As part of what it refers to as Pentagonal Revisionism the Church of Satan is actively working towards taxation of all churches, and tries to put forth a policy of "responsibility to the responsible". It neither solicits membership nor offers a set course of degrees."
Defraggler 05:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hour of Slack article

There should definately be an article concerning the radio show, so any pretty plusgood SubGenii feels up to starting up the article thereon? DrWho42 17:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Say, what was wrong with the pamphlet #2 link, anyway? Zeno Izen 01:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It's really just the continuation on No.1 really.. Pamphlet No.2 was really just the second page of the first, so not neccesarily need to be included anymore on the links. (Anyways, I put it up there in the first place..)DrWho42 01:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Recusal

What does "recused himself on pre-existing grounds" mean? I'm pretty familiar with law for a layman, but the juxtaposition of the two terms strikes me as odd. Existing prior to what? Apparently not such as to make him recuse himself from the first trial... - Jmabel | Talk 18:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems rather redundant to me as well. "Recused on grounds of x" seems most sensible. The concept of a recusal, itself, carries the understanding that a prior event or situation would make participation inappropriate. Kasreyn 22:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

A joke, Sure it's a joke.. but so is everything else

I think that the thing about the church as a joke is most certainly true. BUT it's no more a joke then ANY other so called "religion." That's somewhat the philosophical point of it all. The COTS only tells the whole truth about 3 things

• "Bob" Dobbs is your short duration personal savior, and he wants your money. In exchange for the mere price of $30 you get eternal salvation or triple your money back.
• On "X-Day" July 5th, 1998 the x-ist will rupture all dues paying subgenius and allow them onto the escape vessels of the sex goddesses. All non dues paying people will be..... To put it delicately... horribly destroyed in a myriad of imaginatively bad ways...Some of them involving alien species of bats. You really don't want to know.
• Most everything else is a lie.

Other religions lie about or neglect to mention the third point. To us it's a selling point! We're telling the truth about the BS. And we're the only one that does so.

Understanding the joke does not mean I "get" it. I won't fall into that trap. 8> Defraggler 05:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ya know after thinking a while, I think I was a little to high on CON slack when I wrote that. The previous statement is not only completely false, but a conspiricy lie posted by a N**gi shill. And thus, I've struck out my own writing.

X-day in christian bible?

Is there a similar myth for an X-day in christian Bible too. Do they make an assumption for the end of the world on some date, (and that date has already passed).--nids 06:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Not explicitly, at least. That hasn't stopped a millenia-long parade of sect leaders, self-proclaimed prophets and armchair bible scholars from "decoding" some specific date or another from various passages. JamesofMaine 23:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahh but how many of those churches that predict the end of the world Continue to gather on the holy date long after the conventional calendar date has passed?I can only think of a couple.Defraggler 13:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Was there a date around 1000AD (or CE as you like) in actual versions of translated bible.--nids 14:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Depending on which version you believe, and whether the calendar is off by 7-33 years in either direction (as some scholars have said), the end could have come at just about any point in history. -- A. 00:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:V

user:NLOleson has marked this page as violating WP:V I'm going to Assume good faith.

When placing a Verifiability tag, you need to indicate on the talk page what on the page is of questionable Verifiability, and how to fix it. I'm starting the discussion for you, please feel free to express what needs to be done. Defraggler 14:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

...

NLOleson = Nenslo?

Defraggler 14:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm more than willing to offer verification for anything questioned on the page. --Modemac 21:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do. For example, the major link on the page for the quotes is to an internal Wikipedia link The Book of the SubGenius. First, an internal Wikipedia link does not comply with WP:V. Also, if you read the The Book of the SubGenius talk page you will see there is a discussion over whether the book is satire, a fluff piece, or serious factual material. So:

• Internal links to other Wikipedia articles are not satisfactory as reference citations.
• Make sure your external links comply with WP:EL.
• Check WP:CITE for the acceptable forms of citations. Currently the article has no citations for the various claims it makes. Citations are required per WP:V for all articles.

I would put citation needed tages where the citations are needed but I have been told that people associated with the Starwood Festival take offense at that.

So provide the verification for the page in the appropriate Wikipedia format and the article will be find. Hope it works out well. NLOleson 10:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC) This user was found to be a sock of Mattisse

Okay, the quote in question is on page 5 of the Book of the SubGenius. Problem solved. --Modemac 10:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

So..... If we changed the link to an external reference.. say a store that carried the book, would you find that accetable? or would we have to link to the complete text of the book?

You know, we link to the hour of slack on the page. I'd say that most or all of this stuff has been mentioned by the higherarcy on that show at some point. I mean, there only has been about 1052 shows, an hour long. It's broadcast on several "real world" radio stations, and available for down load via podcast or direct feed online.Defraggler 01:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, addressing the issue of linking to a bookstore, bookstores are specifically listed in the section of Links normally to be avoided in WP:EL. And links to other Wikipedia articles don't pass WP:V. Like they repeat so often, the reference citations have to be to reliable, verifiable, unbiased third-party sources. NLOleson 20:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC) This user was found to be a sock of Mattisse

P.S. Linking to Book of the SubGenius doen't count because it does not abide by WP:V (which is supposed to be used in conjunction with WP:RS and WP:OR. NLOleson 20:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC) This user was found to be a sock of Mattisse

The book of the subgenius and WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS

• WP:OR: It's an Origional literary work that was published by Simon & Schuster (1987)
• WP:V: It was published by "reputable publishers:" Simon & Schuster
• WP:RS: Is admittedly troublesome, it's a dense policy that can not be easily summed up. I don't know of a "scholarly journal" for cult religious material. I can't really find any secondary sources that meet WP:OR and WP:V. Thus I am forced to use the primary source. the book of the subgenius.

As far as citing goes, I have found a online search engine for the entire book. I can site pages withing the book now with ease. I'd ask for a list but NLOleson seems to be reluctant to provide one.

Defraggler 23:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Check a well cited article like Fidel Castro as an example. Any quotes need a citation. Any claim of fact needs a citation. You can see in Fidel Castro that factual statements that could be challenged must be cited. I can sprinkle your article with tags, but that usually upsets people. Another article often recommended as an example by one of the admins for people in your situation is 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. There is a simple template to use for the footnotes (which are prefered) but you can do html inline citing if you want. I can help you with the templates if you get the citations. It's actually very easy once you get the hang of it. NLOleson 02:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC) This user was found to be a sock of Mattisse

So... Every page on wikipedia needs the degree of citation found on the Fidel Castro or 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict pages? The citations would be bigger then the page itself. Defraggler 02:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I skimmed through my encylopedia britanica. I don't see that degree of citation. Defraggler 02:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is aiming to have the credibilty of Encyclopedia Britannica. Wikipedia also says that unsighed articles in any encyclopedia are not ideal citations for sources, since no one is taking responsibilty for how reliable and unbiased the information is if the article is unsigned.NLOleson 12:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC) This user was found to be a sock of Mattisse

In this respect, Britannica is not a good benchmark. Their credibility in terms of factual accuracy comes from having carefully selected writers and editors, expert in their respective fields. Because we are the "Encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (emphasis mine), we need a higher standard of citation. - Jmabel | Talk 19:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Joke religion!

Looks like a joke, smells like a joke, is a joke! Flinders 22:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC) This user was found to be a sock of Mattisse

I'm half tempted to go copy that comment to several major religious pages, I wonder what they would say/do? But I won't, because that would be wrong... even insulting. Defraggler 00:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the difference lies in original intent of the founder(s). The trouble there is, founders of satirical religions rarely come out and say, "this is a satire/joke", because they're having too much fun with it. This has also been a minor bone of contention at Flying Spaghetti Monster. Kasreyn 10:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is a joke. Or, more precisely, an elaborate, deadpan satire. Citable material to that effect would be welcome. Or at least I would welcome it. - Jmabel | Talk 19:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In general, articles on such jokes have, out of 100 editors, one joker who wants to claim it's a real religion/philosophy they soberly entertain, 9 editors who feel they must pretend they don't know a troll when they see one, and 90 who know it's a joke but don't bother to speak up because the floor show is just too funny. Kasreyn 02:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me for not being a member of the Church of the SubGenius, but I must comment of the original post. Is the religion that believes there are a race of aliens who dictate our current actions based on an ancient war a joke? Is the religion that claims that a blood drinking and flesh eating group of twelve who follow a being who walks on water, heals the sick and rises from the dead three days after he is killed a joke? Is thinking that man has the power to shift nature at his own will, therefore being able to melt the polar ice caps, boil the seas and destroying all life in a mattrer of a few years, a joke? If so, then Scientology, Catholisim and Environmentalists are all satire and Tom Cruise, the Pope and Al Gore must all be false prophets. 70.108.113.132 23:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The walking on water one sounds plausible, and the environmentalists have some good points, but overall, faulty science. Only the first is a joke though - especially because it's founder has explicitly been quoted as saying so. But "Eternal salvation or your money back!" is a blatant joke, and if you can't recognize that, you need help. There is no part of it that takes itself seriously.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's "eternal salvation or TRIPLE your money back". Church members are very proud of this guarantee, which no other religion extends. There is a famous poster by underground comic artist Paul Mavrides of Bob Dobbs in Hell writing out $60 refund checks to people who bought Church memberships for the then price of $20 yet ended up there.

I find nothing less credible about this claim than that someone who spent their entire life doing despicable evil acts can get to heaven by being "truly repentant" and gaining absolution from a priest ten seconds before death, while someone who spent their entire life doing good deeds and charitable works can be damned for all eternity for a last-minute lustful thought of a particularly "wrong" kind without having time to confess and gain said absolution. Or that heaven welcomes slavers and requires witch-slayings, but slams the door on thirteen year olds who have touched themselves, or even thought about it. Humor cannot disqualify a belief system from being a "real religion"; there is no support for the notion that the grimmer a believer is the more respectible or substantial his religion is. Sufism and many Native American traditions rever the holy jokester, and sacred humor exists in many religions. If it is more rare in some traditions, such as Catholicism and Evangelical Christianity, they are IMO poorer for it. Rosencomet (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Ok folks, The page is getting marked for citations needed a bit now. We can begin to site the books and pamplets that these statements come from.

I'm simply going to follow behind those Citation needed tags and begin to cite.

I'm definately not an expert on citation styles. I can, however, easily find the books and pages that need to be cited. Consider what I put on as a place holder for those who have more specific knowlege of citation. As those people have not stepped up as of yet. I'm going to follow the style already used on the page.

Defraggler 02:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

A bit of confusion on my part Flinders, do you mean by your tags that the last sentance in those paragraphs needs citation? or are you trying to mark the entire paragraph for citation?Defraggler 02:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Defraggler - please see above where this has been discussed

Defraggler, please see above under 16. WP:V above where this has been descussed. Please consult TomTheHand or some other administrator if you continue to be confused.

Below is a quotation from another admin sent to someone else whose talk page I read. The admin is talking about articles where notatability has already been established.

In cases like AppleSearch, where notability is pretty clear, the policy you should stress (and it's POLICY, not just a guideline, let alone a proposed one) is verifiability. WP:V is critical and not up for discussion. Basic claims can be backed up by AppleSearch's documentation, but other stuff has to be backed up by actual research. I'm sure stuff was written on it in magazines like MacWorld, it just may not exist online and may be a pain to find. Encyclopedia writing can be hard sometimes! Mangojuice^talk

TomTheHand says regarding the same AppleSearch article:

Please have a look at 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, which is a well-cited article. Check out the text after the introduction section, or look at the infobox. The little numbers by various facts, which link to lines in the references section, are citations. Specifically, they are done in the footnote style, but you can use one of the other citation methods on WP:CITE if you like; as your quote states, it's up to you. Note that nowhere on WP:CITE will you find the "list a bunch of links at the bottom of the page" method, because that is not citation.

If you look at the AppleSearch article, you will see that it is a more difficult article to source than yours because the subject is more esoteric. But as Mangojuice^talk says "Encyclopedia writing can be hard sometimes!" Hope this helps. NLOleson 12:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Self-published sources

Below are sections quoted directly from WP:V:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research.

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policies. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these three policies are based are only negotiable at the foundation level in practice.

Self-published sources (online and paper)

See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Using online and self-published sources

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as:

• It is relevant to the person's or organization's notability;
• It is not contentious;
• It is not unduly self-serving;
• It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
• There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.

Sources

This is a direct quote from WP:RS:

• A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term most often refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. It could be an official report, an original letter, a media account by a journalist who actually observed the event, or an autobiography. Statistics compiled by an authoritative agency are considered primary sources. In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material. Most primary-source material requires training to use correctly, especially on historical topics. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections. We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability

• A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources. Secondary sources produced by scholars and published by scholarly presses are carefully vetted for quality control and can be considered authoritative.

• A tertiary source usually summarizes secondary sources. Encyclopedias, for instance, are tertiary sources.

Hope this helps. NLOleson 13:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC) This user was found to be a sock of Mattisse

More info has been added to the Book of the SubGenius entry. Hope this helps. --Modemac 17:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Wading into the self-published sources issue...

Ok, it appears as if we have another place here plauged by discussion over the validity of self-published or primary sources. What a lot of people forget is that a primary source is not automatically bad, and likewise for a self-published source. A primary or self-published source can be used happily as reference for the self-believed principlies and beliefs of a person or organisation. If audited, they can be used for various operating details, such as finaces (not relevant in this case). They cannot be used, however, to prove appeal or non-recorded membership, outside views of the group or it's history (they can be used to state such a claim, but they are not proof). I hope this helps a little. LinaMishima 17:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What you are saying is more like what I see when i read the Wp:V policy.Defraggler 02:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Primary sources are perfectly valid when used to show what the group claims. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a better source for this. - Jmabel | Talk 19:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's get constructive

Since we've had a lot of clarification and discussion but no positive movement, Lets see if we can be constructive here.

• Some of us know WP:V like the back of your hand, but don't know the source material.
• Some of us know some sources, but are unable to cite them due to WP:V questions.
• We have to determine a way that we can work together. It obvious that we are passionate about this page, and wikipedia.
• Let try and speak in positive terms, "What CAN we do" instead of "What CAN'T we do"

I think the first positive step is to determine if the book of the subgenius is usable as source material or not. I think that's an issue more for WP:V experts.

It's pointless for me to attempt to argue this point; I'm outclassed in this area by Nenslo.

• LinaMishima: you seems to think that's it's partially acceptable. Could you elaborate a little more on what you mean?
• NLOleson: Are there ANY conditions where the book might be acceptable? What you think of LinaMishima's statement?

• Anyone else have anything constructive to contribute?

Defraggler 03:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Book of the SubGenius is a perfectly acceptible source. It is the defining document of the church. Saying that you can't use it would be like saying the Christian articles can't use the Bible or that Islamic articles couldn't cite the Koran. It's explicitly allowed under WP:V to use self-published and/or self-descriptive works in articles about the work itself or the organization which produced it. Don't let the NLOleson's of the world push you around. -999 (Talk) 15:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's refreshing to find somebody that agrees with me. 8> Defraggler 22:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• This is an example of a parody religion page, Flying Spaghetti Monster, that can be used as a model of how to do a professional looking Wikipedia article. Flinders 14:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a fundimental change might be needed on the article. something along the lines of "The church claims" instead of stating some things as facts. Might make it easier to cite the books/pamplets.

I found some good sources to search the 2 books online.

You'll have to have an amazon.com login The text is fully searchable, use the search bar to the left. We CAN'T directly link to these pages in any way.. but we can use it get specific pages to cite.

Book of the subgenius: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0671638106/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-0949790-3504704#reader-link
Revelation X: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0671770063/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-0949790-3504704#reader-link

Repeat we CAN'T in ANY WAY link directly to either of these.

Defraggler 23:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Philip Gale's biography doesn't say that

Philip Gale's biography, which you link to in the article, doesn't say anything about the Church of the SubGenius so you'll need a citation. Flinders 23:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC) This user was found to be a sock of Mattisse

Citations added. Anything else? --Modemac 02:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That's great! Good for you. See, it can be done! That's the king of backup you need for other statements in the article. NLOleson 17:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC) This user was found to be a sock of Mattisse

Who is Mitch Hedberg?

And why is he linked on the subgenius page. I don't know of a connection. Defraggler 05:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it's a pointless plug for someone who isn't (or wasn't) associated with the Church. --Modemac 22:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of plugs, We now appear to have a link for an online store. http://www.popularnaughty.com/designstore/ looks like a shameless plug to me. Removing it.Defraggler 02:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Cult ---> Alleged cult

Without any discussion on this page, User user:Antonrojo has moved this page to Category:Alleged cults with the comment

"(add to 'alleged cults' subcategory per category organization system)"

Anybody have any opinion on this? Defraggler 03:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Otherwise under the new system, SubGenius would be the ONLY oraganization in the old category. Dr U 04:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahh thanks for posting on the discussion page dr. u! I'm sorry that you "cleaned up" your talk page before we could contine our discussion.

I completely see your point now. Why? Because you posted on the talk page of the article and made it relivant to the article in question. Thanks! Defraggler 07:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how this belongs in cult when it's clearly a parody religion, not matter how far the adherents take it. --Belg4mit 00:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Fake it, believe it, what's the difference? 70.146.199.188 04:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

1953

About the founding of the Church in 1953: that was the year that J.R. "Bob" Dobbs had his Divine Emaculation, as described in the Book of the SubGenius. The vision he had of JHVH-1 the alien space god inspired him to write the PreScriptures (which are also part of the Book) and found the Church. This is the source of the 1953 date, and of the citation of the year 1953 on page 5 of the Book. --Modemac 19:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Which is a perfectly good citation for the Church making this claim, but is no more citable for fact than (for example) the New Testament is for miracle of the loaves and fishes. - Jmabel | Talk 23:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And this is why the article says "The Church claims to have been founded in 1953," rather than saying "The Church was founded in 1953." --Modemac 17:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I (for one) have probably had to revert back to that at least three times. - Jmabel | Talk 04:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

X-days

Shouldn't there be something explicit about XX-day, XXX-day, etc.? --Belg4mit 00:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians

As you all may already be aware, Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians and its subcategories, including Category:SubGenius Wikipedians, have been deleted. That deletion is now up for review. If you have anything you'd like to say on the subject, now is the time. If you know of any other editors who might have something to say on the subject, pass the word.   — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 10:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Parody religion — This has got to be settled

Alright, we have got to reach a consensus here. The entire SubGenius thing is a joke; that is so obvious that I find it embarassing that this even has to be brought up. But since people insist on carrying silly arguments over from newsgroups and forums to something that tries to be a serious encyclopedia, a modern archive of verifiable FACTS for the shere fun of it, we have to talk about this. Just try to be serious about this for a moment? Please?

The entire article treats the subject as if it were a proper religion. The opening paragraph defines it as a "postmodern religion", conveniently leaving out the word "satirical". Now, the section "The Basics of Bob" is okay as it is, although it would benefit from some restructuring, but the point is that you have to read a couple hundred of words into the article to find out that the whole thing is even "widely seen as a satire" — and even this section is beating around the bush. A couple of sections further down we learn that the so-called church "encourages humor, comedy, parody, and satire far more than most religious faiths" leaving it completely open to interpretation if the whole thin is meant seriously or not. And I'm not even starting about the ton of non-referenced assertions phrased in the passive ("Bob was considered to be the best drill bit salesman of all time", ... by whom?)

The problem is that this is strongly internet-based, so a lot of 'adherents' have access to Wikipedia and can use their combined force to keep this article in a state of ambiguity. I see what you are trying to do, I GET the joke. It's part of satire to immediately ask "but what about the other religions?" when being accused of overdoing the joke, and I find that funny too; and of course Wikipedia is the perfect place to carry this to the extremes. Where better to prove the point? Also, everyone with half a brain will get the joke anyway just by looking at the first picture, so not much harm seems to be done.

But all this is beside the point. You have got to have a bit more respect for the people who try to make this thing called Wikipedia work. Many encyclopediae have joke articles, but you must realise that we have a slippery slope situation here. If we allow one joke article then everybody wants to create their own, and pretty soon this will lead to a situation that will greatly damage Wikipedia's credibility and image. It is very difficult to get this place to a respectable state as it is, and we don't need people overextending religious metaphors for the fun of it.

That's why I ask all you people to give it a rest for a moment, and maybe work together on a rewrite of this thing. I'll be more than happy to help if I find the time, but I'm not that knowledgeable about the subject. I'd suggest using the articles on the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a guideline of sorts. They seem to have less of an issue with online pranksters.

Thanks for your attention. :-) —Mütze (talk) 12:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between Invisible Pink Unicorn and Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Church of the SubGenius. The two former articles are about gags with their fans, and I have no problem with that. However, the Church is a real, recognized religious organization that has Church status with the IRS and who's clergy may perform marriages and other functions. It has existed for over three decades, has a significant membership, has a Foundation associated with it, and holds both local and national meetings and events. Regardless of anyone's value judgements about the Church's principles, activities, or priorities, or the degree to which it is based in humor, the Church is a REAL ORGANIZATION with multiple references, literature, TV segments and articles printed about it, books written about it, and so on. An article about such a phenomenum is NOT a "joke article" in the sense that an article about something that dosen't actually exist is. For instance, the activities of the Invisible Pink Unicorn would all have to be made up, but the activities of the Church of the SubGenius take place in the real world and are documentable by objective sources.Rosencomet (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"However, the Church is a real, recognized religious organization that has Church status with the IRS and who's clergy may perform marriages [...]"? Why must you live in this house of LIES? The next time you feel the need to find out whether or not The Church of the Subgenius "has church status with the IRS", I'd like to make the following suggestion. Actually try submitting a receipt from your "donation" to the Church at tax time to the federal government and see what kind of response you get. Not in your *wildest* dreams my friend, that dog not only doesn't hunt, he needs hip replacement surgery. In terms of Subgenius card carrying "clergy" being able to perform binding marriage ceremonies BECAUSE THEY'RE A SUBGENIUS "REVEREND"? Name one single location *anywhere* in the world where that can happen, just one, include a citation please. There are certain jurisdictions where it's possible for ANYONE to take on the role usually conducted by a clergy or justice of the peace, as long as they're an adult and willing to sign the paperwork, but that has absolutely nothing to do with having a membership card for the Church of the Subgenius in their pocket, a random person dragged in off the street could do the same thing under those circumstances. "Parody religion" founded by Douglass St. Clair Smith et al, Dallas-Fort Worth Texas, circa late 1978 PERIOD. And don't let any fawning half wit "Bobbie" tell ya otherwise. 70.49.34.162 (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I must humbly apologize for some of what I said. I misunderstood some of what I either heard or read, and checked with the source. The Church of the SubGenius does not, nor have they ever sought, a 501C3 religious status for tax purposes with the IRS. The SubGenius Foundation files all taxes related to both the foundation and the church, and I don't know what their status is, but it's not one of a church.

On the other hand, many SubGenius Reverends have performed marriages that were binding enough in some instances to require divorces. Presumably there is a difference between having a Church membership card and being a Reverend of the Church. I do not, though, know of a case where a Reverend has performed a binding marriage in a state where he could not have done so but for the fact that he was a SubGenius Reverend; it may be so, but I have nothing to back it up.

Generally, most states do not require that you be a reverend at all, so this really shouldn't be used as any type of criteria to judge whether or not SubGenius is a "real" religion.74.70.239.130 16:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)-RevNickie

However, I still contend that the Church of the SubGenius is a real organization with financial dealings, membership, contracts signed by officers taking responsibility thereof, and a documented history of activities that put it in a different category than the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Not that a fictional, legendary, or mythological subject can't have a Wikipedia article, of course, but while this may apply to Bob Dobbs, Thor, and Jesus, it does not apply to the Church of the SubGenius.Rosencomet (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, I am not saying that the organisation itself does not exist. My beef is with the article's failure to reflect the satiristic nature of the whole thing. Of course it's an organisation, but you have to say much more than that in the first paragraph. The first couple of sentences of the Microsoft article tell you a lot about what the company is and does, and its position in the world. The same thing shouldn't be that difficult to achieve here.

By the way, I realise that the term "parody religion" has beeen inserted into the first sentence by now, but I would really like to achieve a consensus here, to prevent edit wars about every little step along the way. I would also be happy some of the editors to "break character" if you will, which would go a long way to start the improvements on the article.

Finally, I would like to apologise. I went a bit overboard with the accusations in my first post. It turns out I know too little about the subject to tell anybody what to do, and so I somewhat concede to your insight into the SubGenius thing. I found it immensely interesting that people have had weddings in the name of the SubGenius, but again this is something that the article does not reflect. This is maybe the best example to show us what must change about the article, because it wonderfully demonstrates the nature of the satire. It's not too unusual for people to take their own wedding less than entirely serious (A friend and teacher of mine had a complete medieval wedding ceremony this summer). Especially among atheists it doesn't surprise me that a couple would use this occasion to mock deadly serious Christian wedding ceremonies. It's all part of taking the parody religion thing further than the Pastafarians and the Unicornists (or whatever ;-)), just like mockingly insisting that people take it just as serious and respect it as the sometimes extremely weird believes of "proper" (old?) religions. This is a perfect starting point from which to shift the angle of the article to better reflect the NPOV truth of the (admittedly unique) organisation.

So again, if we can reach a consensus here, I will be happy to work with you on improving the article. — Mütze 09:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As with any faith, from an non-church perspective it stands to be open to ridicule, satired, and accused of being disingenuous. Essentially, if even ONE member of the church believes in the holiness of "Bob", the existence of Slack or that we are descended from yeti, then the Church of the Subgenius has validity as a faith. How many Christians doubt the miracles of Christ but still attend services? How many Judaic peoples don't follow all the laws of the Covenant? As a faith, The Church of the Subgenius has inspired philosophical thought, countless works of art, advanced people spiritually, and helped people quit their jobs and slack off? Now, while the founders of the church Douglass St. Clair Smith and Philo Drummond may or may not believe in the actual tenets of the faith (and both have testified about wonders and miracles that have come into their lives via it); there are without a doubt people who have been moved to leave their original faith, celebrate ecstatic ritual, perform the basic sacrament (sending $30 to the church), and perform ceremonies (marriage AND divorce) within its religious structure. It may BE a joke, people's faith in that tenet of our church varies. I personally have had manifestations of "Bob" appear before me; that does not invalidate the humor however. To the first century Romans, Christianity was a joke. To colonists on various continents, the native faiths there were a subject of levity. The Jewish people often find and comment on humorous elements of their faith, even its basic tenets. The question is, should The Church of the Subgenius be considered the same kind of prank as the Spaghetti Monster, the Pink Unicorn, or Discordians? I say mu. The question doesn't take into account the faith of its members, regardless of the faith of its founders. Does Jimmy Swaggert's hypocrisy deny the basic tenets of the Pentecostal sect of Christianity or mean that the people that worship in his church don't believe in those tenets? NO! Does a corrupt pope mean that Catholicism is invalidated? I think I can comfortably say that most Subgenii have experienced a moment in which their understanding of our faith has led to a flash of insight, mystical experience of our tenets, or ability to escape the Conspiracy by denying the tenets of the Conspiracy. Even if these experiences only are experienced by the neophytes of our faith (and that ain't necessarily the case) in the first blush of religious awareness, then our faith's validity is as valid as that of a member of a Pentecostal adherent who has attended services at Jimmy Swaggert Ministries. Is it a joke? You betcha. Does it have religious validity? yup. that too. Are we gunna laugh ourselves all the way to Planet X? Sure are! especially when we turn on the televisors and see Nenslo in hell tearing down real estate signs that instantly grow back. 71.102.26.249 21:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• You make some interesting points, but I'm not convinced that "The Church" can ever truly escape the category of "Parody religion", no matter what 'faith based behaviors' its followers engage in. Its founders have publicly stated on numerous occasions that the organization IS in fact an elaborate joke began in 1978-79, that they consciously made up in order to satirize certain religious belief systems. I'd like to suggest that because that fact itself is easily demonstrable, that anyone who truly does hold a sincere 'traditional' religious belief in J.R. "Bob" Dobbs or the Church of the SubGenius, is in fact not an adherent of the original Church of the SubGenius which is the subject of this article. Those individuals are, by literally accepting the "Church" as "real", in an entirely different conceptual category, perhaps more akin to the practices conducted by certain practitioners of some types of "Chaos Magick" engage in, who for example, are willing to utilize entirely fictional figures such as Spiderman as objects of their devotion. In the past, purported members of the Church of the SubGenius who expressed an actual literal belief in "Bob" or the "Church" were often mocked openly, even by Smith himself, and called "Bobbies", regarded as simply crazed fan boys.

I'm intrigued by some of your comments regarding the notion that a lack of "faith" on the part of the founder(s), or present leaders of a given religion, not nessessarily automatically invalidating the organization as a real "religion". That perspective, if applied to religions like Scientology, might give some of the more vocal SubGenius critics of those groups something to think about. 70.49.36.85 21:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's look at it from a purely objective perspective, shall we? Wikipedia defines the concept of religion as follows:

"A religion is a social institution that includes a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

If we look at the Church of the SubGenius (hereinafter referred to as CotSG), we can say that it is likely a social institution, in that without people, it wouldn't fly. I've been to some SubGenius events where the number of people attending numbered greater than 100. That seems like the events are at least well-attended social events, and that fact could support the contention that the CotSG is a social institution.

As to common beliefs, we all share one belief, that being "Faith in 'Bob'" or the FiB. We know he's a clipart head, and we don't delude ourselves that he is anything but a clipart head, and we make up a certain mythos surrounding that clipart head to support that faith. We have our annual X-Day celebration that in my mind meets "practices generally held by a group of people," and in place of prayer, well, we like lots of NOISE!!! and merriment and jocularity and music and other witticisms and nonsense that might be taken as prayer.

We practice some of the same rituals every time we meet, and although CotSG has only an eye blink of an existence when compared to Buddhism or Christianity by comparison, I think that we could say that people like me passing our own beliefs off on our own offspring is enough of a connection to "ancestral and cultural traditions" to get away with calling CotSG a religion. Writings, well you've got the assembled history of alt.slack over the years, you've got Stang's books, you've got various other oddball websites and books that help clarify the FiB and the church, magazine articles, newspaper articles, films... the list goes on and on.

My advice is to come out to Brushwood one X-Day and find out whether or not what you see is a religion or not. I think you'll find plenty of "communal faith and group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction," AND THEN SOME. Some of us take this silly nonsense satirical church pretty seriously.

[RevEggplant[3]] 16:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC -0500)

If it were a joke, letting on that is was would be giving away the punch line, which, because of the nature of the purported joke, would make it no longer a joke. The punch line, which must be kept forever secret, is that the punch line must be kept forever secret; that is the nature of pulling the wool over your own eyes. You might as well ask whether Buddhism is a joke. No student would ever admit it, but the master knows it is *all* a joke -- a deadly serious joke at which you *must* *not* *laugh*!!!!!

No, I must insist that the Church is not a joke, but it is a religion of jokers. I have performed legal weddings using my credentials as an ordained minister. The COSG is my church. Its doctrines are just as ridiculous, and are to be taken as seriously as those of any other church. Sir Baldin Lee Pramer, RPA129.138.19.191 21:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Really? Could you tell us what jurisdiction you were in that accepted a SubGenius membership card as the legal basis for "performing" a wedding? Are you sure your birth cerificate wouldn't have worked just as well? 70.49.36.85 21:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I am ordained by the Church of Universal Life, which ordainment allows me to pastor my own flock. I was the minister at my sister-in-law's wedding in Colorado. I don't have a Subgenius membership card, although one may exist because I paid my $30 and got the membership kit. In Colorado you don't need to be an ordained minister to perform a wedding. I was married by a justice of the peace. It does not matter whether some other official paperwork would have worked just as well. They could have been married by a Muslim Imam or a Baptist preacher -- each has different paperwork, and both would be acceptable to the state, but it would make a *BIG* difference which one did the ceremony. I was chosen to do the ceremony because I have the right presence, the right faith, and take my duties very seriously. Sir Baldin Lee Pramer, RPA129.138.19.191 23:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I think that while some interesting points have been made so far, no one has bothered to tackle the notion of this so called 'joke' that is the church. If we do that perhaps we could decide if the church is parody or...something else. First I would like to direct your attention to the concept taken from the 'jargon file' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jargon_File ; called, "ha ha only serious" http://catb.org/jargon/html/H/ha-ha-only-serious.html The definition is: 'Applied especially to parodies, absurdities, and ironic jokes that are both intended and perceived to contain a possibly disquieting amount of truth, or truths that are constructed on in-joke and self-parody' If anyone wanted the Church of the Subgenius summed up quickly and precisely, THIS IS IT!! I will state for the record that I am a member of the church, not only to establish my potential bias, but to state that the above statement on 'ironic jokes intended to contain a possibly disquieting amount of truth' is EXACTLY how I feel about my faith. Someone said something here about wanting us reverends to 'drop character' and admit the joke or have a discussion etc. but MAYBE THEY DONT FEEL LIKE THEY ARE IN CHARACTER in this regard. I CERTAINLY DONT...and seeing the beginning of the article changed anonymously BEFORE this discussion is complete, to slap a *parody* sticker on it SEEMS disingenuous to me, ESPECIALLY considering how MANY fundamental truthful criticisms of humanity, my religion contains. But the church is more than just critisim, it is an EXPRESSION of OUR FAITH, not in the crumbling world of irrational humanity, it's dusty so-called *values* making less and less sense with each passing second, but in OUR UNMITIGATED WEIRDNESS, (OUR INDIVIDUALITY.) Most people have this WEIRDNESS...most dont know it, they repress it, deny it, kill it.. We REVEL in it!! That is what makes us Subgenius...and them...PINK. Oh by the way, I am going to go ahead and revert that 'parody' edit that 'mr. anon' did...at LEAST until we are finished discussing this subject and reached consensus that "parody" is what it should be...seems only fair right? Thanks for reading. AnkaraX 03:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Mutze,

I really, really like what Rev. Pramer says: It's a religion of jokers. It's nice and all but it's not quite true. Still, I like it.

We're, not only of jokers but truly we are a religion, true religion of people who sent in thirty (or twenty) dollars. Is thirty (or twenty) dollars a joke? The mythology, the "philosophy"...heck, even dog-manned "Bob"...none of it matters.

I ask you, is the US Department of Treasury a JOKE? Is that signature on each and every seven of my dollars that I get an hour, are the trillions of dollars we spend EVERY BLASTED DAY to expose our president's manhood to the rest of the world, are the millions of near-robotized faces clawing desperately at a NINTENDO WII - - - A JOKE?!?!

Sir, I never, EVER thought that I would EVER hear such ANARCHISTIC and CALLOUS, INSOLENT talk on a "serious encyclopedia"!

Let me lay this out to you, clean, simple, and pure: The Church of the SubGenius is a bunch of paper. There are lots of people who hop up and down because of this paper, and who pray and spend and do everything required of a religion because of this bunch of paper. People write jokes, people, sadly, earnestly believe the stuff that's printed on that paper - but in the end, the Church is not a religion. On paper, it's just a bunch of stuff that sounds good enough for people to send in that all-important thirty dollars. Lots of movin and shaking, lots of fun to be had, all sorts of logic puzzles and satires and real religious zeal and real religious feelings - but I ask you, IS that enough to make it REALLY a religion?

Maybe, but that's not the question.

No. The Church of the SubGenius is NOT a joke. If it is, then logically all advertising is a joke, all of our corporations, all of our political institutions, all of our money, all of our things, all of our relationships, all of US, down to our very component QUARKS are jokes.

Yett that oulde Serpente, whoe is alwayse thare, slithers downe frome hiss tree, and hee doess sspeaketh to usss, and hee doess tickle aull of aur eers and hee duoes saye, "...but aren't we?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.164.132 (talk) 05:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, personally I have nothing against folks who wanna stir a little Austin Osman Spare in with their J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, those who want to hold forth the notion that it's possible that a combination of sheer human willpower and an illustration from a 50's Yellow Pages ad can perform miracles are not repellent to me. I think Chaos magic a little 'odd' perhaps, but look who's talking. That being said, it is my sincerely held belief that those same individuals are not, by definition, adherents of the original tenets of the Church of The SubGenius as handed down by "Bob" himself. The instant you attempt to attach "reality" to "Bob", in any sense OTHER than a HUMORUS one, all is lost. You might be some kind of DiscordiathelemaGenius but you're NOT a SUBGenius, at least according to an ancient tradition, the roots of which are nigh unto thirty years deep. "Bobbieists" (SubGenius "literalists") have been around from the start in various forms, as far as I know their most striking appearance of all was X-Day Morning in 1998 at Brushwood, where a tiny number on hand ACTUALLY DID have some sort of 'religious crisis' over the failure of the arrival of the X-ist scout ships. They were even willing to chastise the "Scribe" himself over the issue. I've heard it suggested that these people were actually drunken sleep deprived Discordians, but I've seen no proof of that. In the middle of all this, someone should take the time to knock on the now cobwebbed door of alt.slack itself and see if they can get kindly old Stang to comment on all this kerfuffle. I'm wondering how he's reacting these days to being labeled as the founder of a "pomo religion". That otta be good. Last thing I heard was that he thought "postmodernism" was some kind of system of 'surrender monkey word tricks'. 70.49.22.157 06:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I should have mentioned that I would find it acceptable for "Bobbies" to have their own freestanding article, heck why not. But as for me and my family, we were born members of a "parody religion" and we will die members of a "parody religion".....thank you very much. Now get the hell offa my property mister! 70.49.22.157 06:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Smiling Bob of Enzyte VS J. R. "Bob" Dobbs

J. R. "Bob" Dobbs as an inspiration for Smiling Bob of Enzyte? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwkhHhY7KOI There is also a talk comment about this on the Enzyte wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.118.208 (talk) 09:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

prove it

As much as I personally admire the utter tenacious cheesiness of certain editors in choosing to repeatedly place the words "postmodern religion" in sequence before our eyes, I feel I must object to the complete lack of substantiated "scholarly" support for their contention that that in fact is what The Church Of the SubGenius actually "is"; in an encyclopedic context at least. I was startled to learn on my own talk page that Masters and Doctoral theses are "in general" apparently *not* considered to be "reliable sources" for use as citations in Wikipedia,thanks for that tip Alabaster Crow. Am I alone in thinking it kind of odd that we'll put confidence in the silly idle whims of the editorial board of a regional or small local newspaper for citation purposes, but we won't extend that confidence toward the crackpot ideas of a dissertation committee at a mainstream university? Be that as it may, the Launched Head is now in your court. I intend on adding a citation request tag to the term "postmodern religion" and placing an "original research" template on the article itself, I would really like to see some "mainstream" substantiation for some of these claims. I hear there's a Masters thesis out of the University of Virginia that offers some support. I'm only playin. Personally I think that the "Neophilac Irrelgion" label is too precious by about exactly three quarters, but in the paper Smith does point out an interesting idea in my opinion, that at least in some sense, it's not difficult to contend that the "organizations" that he's referring to seem to not only meet the basic criteria for Stark and Bainbridge's (1985) "audience cults" category, but even even 'exceed' them in matching some of the criteria of what they refer to as "client cults", in terms of the amount of the involvement afforded by "members" in the "groups" and other factors. Don't think for a minute that I consider that the sun continuously shines forth from the nether regions of either Stark, Bainbridge or their ideas, but they *are* employing a mainstream method folks, like it or not, an "encyclopedia article" should at least pretend to nod its head in that general direction, in one form or another. So that's it, I call WP:PROVEIT and "original research" on the bunch a ya. Are you sure you don't want to just stick with "parody religion"? Deconstructhis (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, for my part, I don't believe that that definition is accurate unless preceded by the word "satirical". Alabaster Crow (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"Religion"? C'mon now, on page 170 of Religion online : finding faith on the Internet by Lorne L Dawson and Douglas E Cowan, New York: Routledge, 2004, [ISBN 0415970210], it clearly calls the Church a "sophisticated joke religion". I'd like to suggest that dropping those two other words might actually change the way someone interprets the whole thing. Maybe just a little. I'm still not absolutely stuck on *any* of these, but will continue to argue that whatever's IS up there has to have a real citation attached to it.Deconstructhis (talk) 06:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You know better than that. Just because you find an author who CHARACTERIZES a religion as a joke, doesn't mean an encyclopedia should DEFINE it as one, any more than a famous figure calling Judaism a "gutter religion" makes it one. If you want to place Dawson and Cowan's OPINION in a trivia section, feel free, but their opinion does not define a religion even if you can cite where you read it.Rosencomet (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, none of this disputes the reliability of Dawson/Cowan as a reliable source. If you wish to continue pushing your point of view, I suggest you find another proxy. Regards, скоморохъ 01:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay....fine. Have it your way. If Dawson and Cowan's opinion in this case doesn't constitute a sufficent basis for establishing a definition of the Church as a "joke religion", than there's no basis for using that particular citation to support the premise that the Church of the Subgenius is a "religion" in the first place. Congratulations, we're now back to looking for a definition that IS supported by a real citation. I've always been of the opinion that if the 'wink' to the reader in this particular article happens in the first sentence, the rest of it will look after itself. Deconstructhis (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the reference you're talking about as well, on page 170 the book you are citing calls the Church of the Subgenius a "sophisticated joke religion" not just a "religion". You can't have it both ways, if the citation is "reliable" then use the whole quote, if it is not then let it go.

See old talk page archives for Invisible Pink Unicorn. This "religion" is a satire, not a true religion, and must be described as such. Andre (talk) 07:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not a satire, it is a religion that uses satire. There is no definition of a "joke religion", or for that matter a "true religion", and who are you to decide that someone's religion is not a true religion? Just because some author characterizes a religion as a joke, doesn't justify defining it as such. Its members consider it their religion. Its literature calls it a religion. No one has offered any proof that it is not a religion. It has all the components of a religion. Just because you, or Dawson and Cowan, don't take it seriously enough - and how serious must a religion be? - to simply call it a religion and let the reader or seeker decide how to view it, doesn't mean you can define it in an encyclopedia as a joke. I'm sure there are people who think the beliefs of Mormonism are laughable, who don't consider Scientology to be a real religion, or Jews for Jesus, or Unitarianism. George Bush has proclaimed that Wicca is not a true religion. I say just call it a religion and let the reader decide on his/her own qualifications.Rosencomet (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You're still ignoring that the Cowan article that's being cited in support of the definition of the Church as a "religion", dosen't back that position, the article explicitly calls the Church a "joke religion". This doesn't have anything to do with how either one of us formally define the terms you're talking about in your comments, it's simply a case of checking out a citation and discovering that it dosen't say what it's being purported to say. I've removed the reference and replaced the request for a citation to support your position. Deconstructhis (talk) 03:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, well, now it says it's a "sophisticated religion", with Dawson & Cowan as citation. I would say the best thing is to move Dawson & Cowan's characterization and citation under the existing section "Sense of humor", and leave the opening paragraph free of this author's characterization. If anyone wants to expand the Sense of humor section with further cited data about the humorous aspects of this religion, IMO that would be the appropriate place to do so. The definition of a religion in the Wikipedia article Religion certainly encompases the Church of the SubGenius. Rosencomet (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't cite Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia, you funny funny guy. Like I've said before, I don't really care how you define the Church, my definition of "religion" is really fairly flexible, but if you can't back up your "religion" contention with a real citation, I sense that the end is near. I'd like to see some details fleshed out on the connection that the church has with the 70's clip/mail art and zine "scene". How about some info on the Church's 'lost years' during the 80's? Deconstructhis (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

C'mon, guy. I didn't use it as a citation, I just mentioned it in a conversation on this talk page. If I happen to find a citation calling it a religion, rather than a particular kind, I will add it. I just didn't think further characterizations belonged in the opening sentence. And sorry, but I don't have any info on the other topics you mention; perhaps Modemac does.Rosencomet (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Subgenius is only as much a joke as Zen Buddhism, and much less of one than Scientology. Subgenius doctrines are spelled out very clearly and explicitly in Chapter 5 of the Book.xod (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Dobbs

Is there any connection between "Bob" Dobbs and Dr. Dobbs?Naaman Brown (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it. What "Dr. Dobbs" are you referring to? Rosencomet (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

He probably means Dr. Dobb's Journal, and he has a point, it's actually quite likely there is a connection. I always thought there was too. Mahjongg (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm, isn't basically the entire article missing?

In the "Basics of Bob" we don't really have the basics of Bob. We have a little bit about yeti and various rambling comments that are really about the organization. That seems "wrong" to start with. But then it sort of starts all over again in the "Bob" section, with is a pseudo-biography that spends more time talking redundantly about appearances in other works. Then there's a little bit about Slack. And that's it.

It's been a decade since I read the good Book, but I still remember the basic outlines. And for the most part, this article is missing it completely. Where is "the con" and its connection to Nazi UFOs, JHVH-1 and the entire mythological basis for the story? How is it that there's several pages of content, but nothing about the "religion" itself?!

Maury (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Curious

Do any members of this religion actually 'believe in' what it preaches? I think that could be an interesting point to distinguish it from most other religions. Christians/Muslims/etc. genuinely believe in their faith (for the most part). Do Subgenii actually believe that its teachings are real? Or do they enjoy it for its over-the-top satirical nature, without a genuine 'belief' in its teachings? I guess I find it hard to believe that, if faced with an actual appraisal of their beliefs, a large (is it? - some numbers would be nice) number of people would tell you that they were descended from the Yeti. I get it's commentary, but I don't know if I think anyone truly believes in it, as many of the people seem to be so averse to these kind of beliefs that they left their original faith in the first place because they were unhappy with what they saw as its ridiculous nature. K1da42 (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. You "don't know if you think anyone truly believes in it"? That's a lot of qualifications. With all due respect, I don't know if I think it's truly relevant whether you do or not. I've never seen an article about a religion in an encyclopedia that tried to evaluate the percentage of members that "truly believe", whatever that means. What percentage of Christians and Jews "truly believe" that they were descended from a single parentless couple (one made of dust, the other fashioned from a rib of the former), or that the world was created in six days less than six thousand years ago, or that a prophet made the sun stand still in the sky by holding his hand up, or that a good and merciful God wiped out all life on Earth except one family and a breeding pair of every land-bound life form all crammed into a single boat made by a 600-year old man? I doubt that any modern religion can be judged by whether its members "truly believe" in the LITERAL TRUTH of everything in their printed material, and I'm darned grateful of that; I'd hate to see the bonfires of science books and the slaying of witches, heretics, and just plain people who like bacon or shellfish, or who dare light fires on the sabbath.

In any event, I don't think there are stats on the "true believers" or those who adhere to a literal orthodoxy in ANY religion, nor would I trust any claims of such data. And as I said, it's irrelevant in an article simply describing the definition and history of a religion to try to judge the degree of belief of its members, or qualify belief in a religion's essential message versus a literal belief in its mythology. Rosencomet (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with your comments and enjoy the commentary that the Church provides on religion, I feel as if it's an aspect of the 'faith' that is unique. It's the only faith I can think of whose members won't even pretend to believe in it's message, which I think accurately describes its role as functioning differently than a standard religion does. Its differences from standard religions are downplayed in the article to make it seem more like a standard faith and propagate its deadpan commentary on how other faiths seem rather ridiculous, too. The way that the article presents these views seems to, on the whole, downplay the specific point of the religion functioning to comment on other religions more than act out the standard roles a religion plays. K1da42 (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I also apologize for anything unclear in my first post - I didn't mean numbers on a number of believers - that is impossible with any faith - I meant just a total number of members of the Church. Of course the biggest problem with my argument is a bit of "OR" on the 'people who believe,' but it's impossible to deny that the church functions in a different and unique way that doesn't reduce its importance it at all but rather shows it as a harbinger of the new way in which a growing portion of the world views religion and faith. It seems that pitching it in this article in the same way that the Church does overlooks what the religion actually serves to do, and instead just seems to, again, propagate its commentary in its unique and deadpan way rather than objectively show it for what it is/does. K1da42 (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Besides my belief (for what that's worth) that most Judeo-Christians do not believe in the mythology of the creation story or much of the miracles of the Old Testament, I would say that most Neopagans, though they use the names of gods and goddesses from the mythologies of older Pagan religions, do not believe in Thor, Hecate, Bran, Hermes, Aphrodite, Ahura-Mazda, Osiris, Bridget, Pluto, etc as physically-manifesting beings living on mountaintops or physical underworlds. Like modern Judeo-Christians, they consider these anthropomorphic ways of addressing a divine principle of ourselves and/or the universe that have certain advantages to us in our ability to relate to the divine AS IF it were a humanoid entity that can relate to US, but that divinity (or God) is actually something much more complicated and outside our understanding except insofar as we focus on some limited aspect of its existence that IS within our comprehension.

Of course, the Church of the SubGenius is not unique in having a light-hearted or outrageous approach to spirituality; Sufiism, Discordianism, some forms of Shamanism, the Church of the Cosmic Giggle, and even Evangelical Agnosticism share a strong desire not to let one's Dogma be run over by one's Karma, as one sage put it. I think a religions' place in an adherent's life, providing a basis for a lifestyle that includes a format for his/her relationship with the divine and/or non-material, and a set of moral and/or ethical (or otherwise transcendent of the mundane) principles to live by is more important to its definition as a religion than whether its members consider its mythology to be literal historical "truth" or allegorical stories created to illustrate the religion's principles.

But in one way you are quite wrong; SubGeniuses may not "believe" in the mythology as history (and some might, of course), but they DO believe "in what they preach"; that is, in the Church's messages and truths as they are expressed through the words of J.R. "Bob" Dobbs and his spokes-creatures: Too Much is Always Better than Not Enough (though sometimes nearly as bad), Pull the Wool Over Your OWN Eyes, the SubGenius Must Have Slack, Question Authority, etc etc. However, adherence to dogma should never be considered synonymous with piety; remember: Convictions Make Convicts. Rosencomet (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that your arguments really drive my point home: a lot of the religion is a reactionary way of saying 'isn't Christianity/Judaism/etc. ridiculous too?,' which is, again, its most important aspect, as it reflects a broader acceptance and increased popularity in society of religious skepticism. As for the similar religions that you mention, I feel as though they aren't particularly helpful. The closest comparisons are Discordianism and (I'll assume) the Church of the Cosmic Giggle. The article for the former clearly states that many do not hold the religion first in their lives (i.e. it's status as a thought-provoking aside), as well as a section devoted to the question of whether or not Discordianism is, in fact, a religion; the latter is not on wikipedia.

The rest of the religions you mention may be more 'lighthearted' than others, but there is no doubt that they differ greatly. There is nothing within the religions that can be called a commentary on human religious beliefs, while this commentary is central to the Church. You could call the others religions whose views are not as serious as some, while the Church would be one that does not take the greater idea of religion seriously.

As for the last part: I find it interesting. Would you like to add more to the article about it? There is very little in the article about the lifestyle that the Church encourages (outside of the section on Slack).

Nonetheless, the article will be read by any with a questioning eye as to the validity of the religion and its status as an actual religion. Any reader would wonder about a religion whose own believers do not necessarily take the faith seriously (as opposed to taking a non-serious faith seriously), and enjoy it more for what it is saying about society than for what it has to say in the way most other religions do. I feel that crafting the article to directly discuss the faith, with little to no greater commentary on its standing, does readers a great disservice. Instead of talking about its most interesting - and important - aspect, we are simply disseminating the beliefs and continuing its deadpan story (it's worth noting that nearly every article on other religions has a section on criticisms/controversy that operate as looking at the religion detached, as opposed to regurgitating what the faith says).

Last: Although you did not put it in, 20-year old numbers are hardly worth adding. If you had access to newer data it would help give a better idea of the religion's standing and acceptance. K1da42 (talk) 05:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I must say that I resent the way you keep mis-representing what I'm saying. First of all, let me state that I don't speak for the Church. Second, I was pointing out that "believing in the faith" and "holding the religion first in their lives" has little to do with accepting the mythology, stories or parables of the religion as historical fact. You made the point that "I guess I find it hard to believe that...a large number of people would tell you that they were descended from the Yeti". Then you went on to assume this means they don't believe in their own religion or "take the faith seriously". I tried to explain that even though many Jews and Christians don't believe in the creation story and other biblical myths, that doesn't mean they don't believe in their religion or take it seriously; not because "they're ridiculous, too", as YOU, not I, put it, but because most people don't equate belief in their religion with belief in the literal, historical truth of its mythology. They see the truths communicated by those stories as of a different kind than a history or science textbook, but they believe in their religion and hold it as important to their lives regardless.

Nor can you say that a religion is not a religion because "many do not hold the religion first in their lives", unless you have a way of judging where thousands of people hold their religion relative to other things in their lives, and apply the same measure to the members of every other religion. Do all Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Yorubans, Santerians, Neopagans, etc etc hold their religion "first in their lives", or do they reserve that position for family, or business, or patriotism, or their place in greater society as a human being... and what the heck does that have to do with whether the religion is really a religion? What, in fact, does the success of individual members of a religion at adhering to its precepts or where they rank it in importance in their lives have to do with whether the religion meets the definition of a religion? Your criticisms all seem to have to do with your personal judgment as to how successful the religion is, not whether it IS a religion. It all seems to be about how seriously you intend to take the religion, rather than whether it meets an objective criteria.

(By the way, there is plenty in Sufiism "that can be called a commentary on human religious beliefs". I think Sufis can be said to "not take the greater idea of religion seriously". They take it humorously.)

And I disagree with your belief that a Wikipedia article is meant to be a forum for judging "the validity of the religion and its status as an actual religion". There are plenty of forums for that type of analysis. Write a treatise on it if you find it interesting, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. However, if you can find a serious scholarly discussion of the issue in a reliable forum, by all means feel free to report it, cite it, and even open a section about the controversy, if there really is one. But remember, just because in your words "the article will be read by any with a questioning eye as to the validity of the religion" doesn't mean it isn't a religion; Fundamentalist Christianity, for instance, views ALL religions that don't recognize Jesus as Lord to be invalid, and fundamentalist Muslims feels the same way about Allah. Their opinion has nothing to do with whether a religion meets the definition of a religion. Nor does it have to do with whether its mythology is historically or scientifically credible, or whether a poll of its members finds a high or low level of belief in those myths as factual. (One might ask them how important to their faith such a belief is. It would have no bearing on the issue, but I for one would be interested in the answer.)

By the way, you stated that "it's worth noting that nearly every article on other religions has a section on criticisms/controversy". I have looked at several articles such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Santeria, Buddhism and Catholicism, and could not find such sections questioning whether the religions are true religions. Specific controversies like whether the Bible was written by God or man, or whether Santeria rituals violate U.S. animal cruelty laws, sure, but nothing like a question as to whether the religions were actually religions, or a discussion of their "validity" or "status as an actual religion" based on the faith of their followers in the mythology of those religions.Rosencomet (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to the opening question. “Do any members of this religion actually 'believe in' what it preaches?” Yes. I speak as a card carrying, dues paying full-fledged “SubGenius”. I speak not to be sarcastic, or contrary but to put another slant on this dialogue.

I believe in Aliens, Gods, the Conspiracy, Yetis, “Bob”, Slack, and Something for Nothing. And I also believe that people who try to expose undesirable truths with a straight face do so at their own risk, therefore the need to ‘mask’ it as something other than what it is is necessary. Censorship has an ugly history, even in this country.

Furthermore, the controversy surrounding the term “postmodern religion” is particularly irksome considering what “postmodernism” MEANS! Please refer to the Postmodernism article and subsequent ‘Criticism’ section. In it it says, “He [Noam Chomsky] asks why postmodernist intellectuals won't respond as "people in physics, math, biology, linguistics, and other fields are happy to do when someone asks them. "” Isn’t that the same complaint here? That people in the SubGenius religion don’t respond to their religion as people from another religion respond to their own?! THIS IS a Postmodern religion! The fact some or even all the members don’t believe a word of it shouldn’t be an issue. But then the question becomes not ‘why don’t they believe what they’re told,’ but rather, ‘if they don’t believe in their religion, why have they accepted it as their own?” this has postmodernism written all over it. And I thank you. -MONITOR613 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.15.180 (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability & Review of references

According to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies): "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable."

Review of references, numbering as of [Dec 8 revision]

References

1. Reliable - Primary
2. Reliable - Secondary (cannot determine scope of coverage, no footnote or page numbers)
3. Questionable reliability
4. Reliable - Primary
5. Reliable - Primary
6. Questionable reliablilty - Primary (a Subgenious card game, I guess)
7. Probably reliable - Primary

Notes

1. Not reliable
2. Reliable - Secondary (I don't have access to this article at the moment)
3. Reliable - Secondary (passing mention in an interview)
4. Reliable - Primary
5. Reliable - Secondary (figurehead Bob voted as phony or fraud of the century)
6. Not confirmed - possibly primary
7. Reliable - Secondary
8. Not confirmed - possibly primary
9. Cannot use Wikipedia as a reference
10. Reliable - primary
11. RS - primary
12. RS - primary
13. RS - primary
14. RS- Secondary (passing mention of mother's involvement in the organization)
15. File host, not reliable
16. RS - Secondary (court document - doesn't mention the subject)
17. Not Reliable

As far as I can tell here, there has been no demonstration of notability as demonstrated by reliable independent sources (saying it's notable in an edit summary doesn't cut it). Until such an argument has been made, the notability tag must remain on the page. When/if a sufficient argument has been made, I will remove the tag, do not remove the tag. Thank you. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit that I'm sometimes somewhat at a loss in terms of understanding what constitutes "notability" in the eyes of some editors, in particular, when the subject is smaller sized organizations. In its first paragraph WP:ORG clearly says, "[l]arge organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations" (emphasis added). In your personal count above, you cite six secondary "references" that in all probability speak to the issue of "coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". My understanding of policy is that this isn't supposed to be a numbers game, especially when we're talking about a smaller group and that the 'depth' of information provided by cited sources for a smaller group article should also be somewhat more relaxed as well. Regardless of whether or not it's a "passing" reference, I'd suggest that coverage by the New York Times and Time magazine, alone in any form, is more than enough to constitute basic "notability" in the context of group whose actual participatory membership is probably in the low thousands at best. A basic search of "SubGenius" on Google scholar generates a mixed bag of 106 results to be sure, but interspersed within a lot of chaff are some solid secondary references to the group contained in everything from a masters thesis from the University of Virgina, several recent academic journal articles and some coverage, at least devoting a percentage of a chapter of content devoted to the group, contained within a number of reputably published books over the past 15 years or so. I'd be the first one to agree that this article is far from perfect, but to me the real problem is a lack of more references to support the existing information, not whether or not the Church is notable enough at a basic level to deserve its own Wikipedia article. In my opinion, more footnotes and an expansion of the mention of the groups documented participation in international art movements of the 1970's and 80's is what should be addressed. One last thing, I took note that you labelled my addition of a couple of references citing "adherents.com" as a source, as being "not reliable" in your list. Adherents.com is currently cited 936 times[4] as a source in the encyclopedia and although it is challenged on occasion (see #8 at [5]) the interesting point is made at that link that the site is regularly used as a reliable source by many highly reputable publishers. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond to me! I don't have any desire to discriminate against small organizations, and the intent of this notability debate isn't to delete the article; rather, I'd like to see a clear statement of notability in the article and see the referencing cleaned up a bit so that it leaves no question that it's notable. Again, I'll have to see the New York times article to determine whether it constitutes significant coverage or not. Simply being mentioned in the times doesn't make a subject notable, however I think it could be a solid reference. I think the Time Magazine poll could also be played up a bit, that seems fairly significant (though that's not really coverage). All I want to do is improve the article, so please don't take offense. Thanks! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Just read the article, that is solid coverage in a very reliable independent source. If we can nail down the independant books or other articles then I'll be fine with taking down the tag. While the article technically meets WP:N now, the policy also says that multiple sources are always preferred to a single source. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As a regular contributor to this article, an ordained minister of the Church of the SubGenius, and the maintainer of the High Weirdness Project wiki (included in the article as the primary source for the legal incident regarding Reverend Magdalen in the "Legal Matters" section), I'd like to submit for your perusal my archive of media articles on the Church: The SubGenius Media Archive. The articles in this archive are exact transcripts of published articles in newspapers, magazines, and some printed books that mention and describe the Church of the SubGenius over the years -- including the New York Times, Boston Globe, U.S. News and World Report, Washington Post, Wired, CNN, and others. Hopefully this can help in terms of verification of the sources for this article. --Modemac (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Also there are 3 books (two of which were published by Simon & Schuster). [6], [7], [8] and a film featuring Mark Mothersbaugh of Devo and Negativland [9]. Seriously, whoever posted the Notability statement needs a swift kick in the ass for not doing his homework. 71.102.2.128 (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Please remain Civil. That was uncalled for. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 18:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

tell you what. if you poke around a little bit on Google for references and cultural notability of concepts before posting tags, I'll remain civil. Honest, dude. This was a bad thing to miss. Even though it is a generational thing. It'd be like if I decided Joan Baez wasn't relevant in today's society so i put up a vfd on her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc Martian (talk • contribs) 01:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you dont understand the concept of notability. It has nothing to do with relevance, popularity, or significance. It rests solely on the topic's coverage in reliable published secondary sources. I clearly did do my homework, I checked every single book and article referenced to this page, and had my google searches come up with reliable content, I would have mentioned it in my eval. As it turned out the sources were not available online, I had to go to the library.

Just because this is your pet topic, doesnt give you the right to get nasty. This page was poorly referenced and made no assertion of notability. So now that the references are out in the open, we can start to bring the page up to wikipedia standards. I said it before, my purpose here is to make the article better. Thank you to those who helped. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well maybe next time you'll go to the library FIRST! As I stated before, your lack of knowledge in a subject doesn't make make something unnotable. Stick to anime or whatever.Doc Martian (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Aak! - Wikidemon (talk) 10:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well actually, the burden of evidence rests with those that think the topic is notable. I challenged it, and some editors brought up some good sources of information. That's how this process works. I didn't make a mistake, and I don't really know what you want from me. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Stick to topics you are knowledgeable about. There are plenty of folks who are knowledgeable in industrial culture. Just because YOU'RE confused doesn't mean that the article lacks notability. Here. Set this in your mind as the lowest standards for notability. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocolate_Rain . The Church of the Subgenius has been featured on MTV, in the New York Times, Time Magazine, has members like Bruce Campbell, Mark Mothersbaugh, Robert Anton Wilson, Ken Kesey and has its own newsgroup. That should be plenty. Not to mention all the mentions of Rev. Magdalen in a variety of news sources in the last few years. Once again, you didn't do your homework very well. Now go ahead and blather some more, I'm through with you. 71.102.2.128 (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

As you'll notice, Chocolate Rain meets WP:N. Plus, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a criteria for inclusion. Sorry. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Now who's all up in arms about cultural minutiae. Face it bud, you didn't do you homework. Nor did you discuss on the talk page before you slapped a tag on it. I'm sure you can find some sort of wikijustification for your poor research. Just keep to stuff you know from here on out. Otherwise you'll get your ass handed to you over and over again. 71.102.2.128 (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

True. But in all fairness I think he/she knows that. Lesson learned... if you attach notability tags on articles that people care about without first discussing it you get spanked. Another lesson... unless you add one or two major publication citations to your article someone is going to come sooner or later and put a notability tag on it. Spanking ensues. Such a jungle out there on the net. Wikidemon (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the tag is the correct way to determine notability. The tag doesn't imply that the page is being considered for merging or deletion (though that would be considered if sources couldn't have been found), it simply states that the notability is being challenged on the talkpage. I don't have to discuss notability before flagging the page, any editor can place the tag. The flag isn't for administrators to come delete the page, nothing like that; the flag is for editors of the page to take note of the discussion.

I didn't do poor research, and I'd also like to point out that the sources you showed me were primary sources and didn't add to a notability claim. Your "google-search suggestion" (as if I would flag a page for notability and not check a search engine first) only comes up with primary sources listed on amazon and unreliable sources. Whatever happened to assuming good faith?, I'm not guilty til proven innocent.

Notability is a core content guideline and determines whether a topic should be included on Wikipedia (read: not minutia). It doesn't matter whether or not I have knowledge of the topic's notability, it cannot be presumed that everyone has heard of a topic, and the assertion of notability needs to be down on the page, not just in your head. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Blah, blah fuckin' blah. with 7 books, a TIME magazine article, several news articles and the presence of a number of celebrities, its notable, if you want a higher notability for it? do the research and add it yourself. You were just bored, feeling like 'improving' some article by slapping a tag on it instead of actually improving it, and nobody would let you touch the Jesus article. Off with ye! -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.2.128 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 17 December 2008

You need to remain CIVIL, it is unacceptable to personally attack another editor. I can't even talk to you because you wont even address what I have to say, instead you keep calling me names and telling me to get lost, like some child. I'm on this article now, there's nothing you can say to me to make me leave.

With regard to the references, if I listed them individually and evaluated them one-by-one, I find it hard to believe that you still think that ignored anything. The books were primary sources and didn't contribute to the subjects notability. The TIME article, while interesting, didn't constitute significant coverage by time magazine. The only article on the page that constituted significant coverage was the New York Times article, and as soon as read the article, I conceded that the topic had notability (along with the news archives kindly shown to me by Modemac). This clearly isn't a lapse on my part, it's simply a lack of familiarity. Wikipedia's guidelines don't state to not challege notability if you are not familiar with the topic, the guidelines clearly state that you should seek the help of experts and fellow editors, which is exactly what I did. There was no negligence whatsoever on my part. I did exactly what I was supposed to do. Enough with this ridiculous conversation with you. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Slack dude, slack. Although the organization itself is clearly notable - along with a few dozen other related semi-serious self-conscious postmodern tongue-in-cheek religions, media pranks, individuals, ideas, and such - the article itself is not written up to Wikipedia standards for readability, style, tone, sourcing, etc. As someone who has known about them for some time (I have the book somewhere), it is still a harder read than it should be because the article is loosely organized and meanders in and out of an in-universe point of view. That's fine. Nobody is going to delete the article at this point. Most articles are not but that's an opportunity for improvement. A better article - professional looking, with good format, images, infoboxes, etc., is a proud thing, not something to fight. We should welcome anyone who wants to help, and the way Wikipedia works, except for a few of its most technical subjects (I dare anyone to try to improve the second half of Fermi–Dirac statistics) any diligent, intelligent writer can usually do some good improving an article whether or not they are an expert in the subject matter. It might seem a bit strange - encyclopedic articles about joke religions are kind of jarring in an ironic way.

The child custody case about Rev. Magdalen is terribly sad, and has enough interest and relevance that I think is worth covering on Wikipedia, but it treads dangerously on WP:BLP territory by putting private individuals' personal and traumatic moments up on the Internet. I think one would do well to look hard for additional reliable sources to show that this is truly a matter of public interest and not just someone's sad domestic problem. The initial court action raises some rather shocking questions about intolerance, religious persecution, judicial misconduct, and the first amendment, particularly with Paul Cambria's involvement. But the media seems to have ignored the case after that, and there is no indication of any of these issues after the first judge removed himself. Courts awarding custody due to a perception - right, wrong, staged by coaching the child, or bought through money for lawyers - that one parent is unfit because of their alternative lifestyle, lack of means, stress, etc., is a daily issue in America, and something that is probably better addressed through better-known cases and Wikipedia articles and sources more directly on topic. We have to be very careful in this section to stick to the sourceable facts, in a way that does not bring additional harm to her, her child, the child's father, and the judge. Wikidemon (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Wikidemon. To the other editor, anyone is welcome to edit any page on Wikipedia. There's no requirement that I have knowledge of the topic beforehand. I'm allowed to go where I please. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is to be written for a broad audience, favoring a clear reading for readers over editors. If I as a layman couldn't determine why the subject was notable, then there was clearly something wrong with the page.

I'd also like to point out, that while a Notability tag might look scary and imply that the page is being threatened with deletion; but it's really not that serious. You'd have a right to jump on me if I had nominated it for deletion before checking the facts, but I did not that do that. So please actually go and read these policies that I'm linking to rather than simply yelling at me because your pet topic is getting questioned. Thanks --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the child custody case, I was a bit surprised how much space was given to it on the page. It seems like a movement with 5000+ members probably has more to cover than some high-profile case. I agree with you, we need to be sensitive to these individuals privacy. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Legal Matters

This should probably have a mention of the Bob Black firecracker incident. Bob Black is a fairly popular figure among anarchists despite him bein' a pusillanimous lil' git by our standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.2.128 (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)