Talk:Anton LaVey

Unorganized comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                         *               *              *

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

jane mansfield

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

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

Hotel California

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

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

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

Jewish heritage?

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

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

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

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

---

In a similar vein:

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

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

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

Photos

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

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

neutral revisions

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

SuB par article.

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

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

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

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

rv satanism tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

weasel words

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

Birth name

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heritage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moshe Dayan

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

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

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