Talk:Zeena Schreck

Untitled
If there is any problem with this page, I'd appreciate input.

When I made articles for Nikolas Schreck and Radio Werewolf, I was faced with criteria for speedy deletion (This was because both articles had, in the past, not been sourced well, and contained appalling grammatical errors.)

This article has been fully sourced, properly done, and contains accurate and legitimate information on one of the most important figures in all of the left hand path.

Suggested Renaming of Article
I need some help from an admin on wikipedia, I believe.

I am in contact with Zeenas husband, and with her legal council. They have suggested to me that the article be renamed "Zeena Schreck" and that "Zeena Lavey" redirect there, because that is in fact her current name, and because of various other reasons. I do not know how to accomplish this except to delete this article and create a new one. If there is any way for an administrator to change the article name that would be greatly appreciated.

In evidence of this necessity, it would be prudent to point out that everything Zeena has done since the early 1990s has been under the surname "Schreck." It is also worth mentioning I am soon to obtain a great deal more information to add to the article, fully sourced from interviews and audiovisual material, however all of the new information as far as I know is listed for Zeena SCHRECK not LaVey.

Twarwick666 (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The subject and her husband have little input in the naming for this page, and their lawyer has even less. There is only one criteria for the naming of an article: common usage. See WP:NC, and more specifically, WP:NCP. One of the ways we have to determine most common use is Google, but it's a blunt tool. Different users, testing at different times and in different places, can get different results. I just did a check: ["Zeena Lavey"] gets 632 actual hits out of about 23,500 results; ["Zeena Schreck"] gets 695 actual hits out of about 11,700 results. That makes it appear that "LaVey" is more common than "Schreck", but it's an equivocal result. Professionally, she is credited as "LaVey" on the "Charles Manson Superstar " video, from 1989. OTOH, she is credited as "Schreck" on the cover of Demons of the flesh. Overall, it's a toss-up. For that reason moving it to "Schreck" seems like it would not be a problem. I will take care of it.   Will Beback    talk    23:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

___ Additional commentary regarding current legal/professional name: the diambiguation notice in LibraryThing for Zeena Schreck cites excerpt from Z. Schreck's official website. From LibraryThing: "Zeena Schreck ceased all use of her born name 'LaVey' as of 1990. Clarification on this matter from the contact page of her official website at www.zeena.eu : 'A Note on Nomenclature: Due to the combination of ignorance and malice which characterises so much "information" on the Internet, we are obliged to make a necessary clarification. Although Zeena simply uses her first name for most of her artistic and spiritual pursuits, her legal married name is Zeena Schreck. She has not used her maiden name "LaVey" since 1990. Therefore, please note that the post office has and will continue to return mail addressed to the now non-existent person "Zeena LaVey". Likewise, communications erroneously addressed to "Zeena LaVey" or "Zeena LaVey-Schreck" or any variant using the name LaVey sent to her representatives at schreckinfo@yahoo.co.uk will not be forwarded to Zeena.' " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.188.4.196 (talk) 07:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Working on expanding article
Sonofdoom (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Though the information in this article is indeed accurate/common knowledge among people who are familiar Zeena and her professional/personal life, there should still be more references to back up all of the information here so the article can be more reputable to those who aren’t all too familiar.

Indeed this is not the easiest task, as information about Zeena, aside from her website, is sparse. I’ve rewritten bits of the article as well as added references and more personal information.

I’ll continue to expand the article the best I can, including more substantial information and references to back the information, as well are rewrite/rephrase some paragraphs.

Also, on a more trivial note, could we find a better picture for the page? Perhaps one at least of better quality?

There's a photo at LibraryThing “This picture is available for snagging.” LibraryThing listing for Zeena Schreck also has long list of credits with ISBNs in here: http://www.librarything.com/author/schreckzeena and discography references at Discogs: http://www.discogs.com/artist/Zeena could be useful for citations on her wiki page.

false geneaolgy cited for Zeena Schreck listed on two accounts in this page: it has at least one inaccuracy found as far as I've researched: Zeena Schreck's Paternal grandfather Michael J. Levey, according to SS# records, was not born 30 Oct. 1891. Anton LaVey's father was born November 17, 1903; died August 1992 making the Michael J. Levey listed in this geneaology false. Got2Bthere (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Teen pregnancy
The 2012 Vice article says:
 * By 13, she had been completely indoctrinated by the CoS, received death threats regularly, and was pregnant.

So I added the part about her being pregnant to the article, since Vice is utilized as a reference for this article. Does anyone know if there is more information about this? Ranze (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Sloppy linking
Pardon, but the old Egyptian God Set (deity) has nothing to do with the Biblical person Seth, which is the basis for the beliefs of the antique Gnostic sect Sethianism. LaVeyan defectors aren't Gnostics. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 16:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Please let's avoid Church of Satan representatives' abuse of this page for their personal vendettas
Within the satanic community it is known that St.HocusPocus is Peter Gilmore, High Priest of the Church of Satan. He has repeatedly attempted to vandalize and remove content from this subject's article, as well as any other Wiki pages which refer to this subject, such as the Church of Satan and Anton LaVey Wiki articles. In 1990, Zeena Schreck publicly renounced the Church of Satan she was born into. As explained in this article, the followers of the Church of Satan have reacted to her resignation by indulging in a typical cult-like character assassination campaign against her. Wiki User St.HocusPocus in particular, continually attempts to vandalize all references to Zeena Schreck within the Wiki pages she is mentioned. Therefore, it would be helpful if Wiki Administrators are aware of this continuing hostility with regard to the edits of User St.HocusPocus, in relation to Zeena Schreck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Lao999 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to sign off Botanybay500 (talk) 01:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Dr.Lao999, for some reason, my response to you didn't save. I will repeat it here: I looked into St.HocusPocus contributions history, and his personal talk page. If he's not Peter Gilmore, then it does seem that he's someone very close to Peter Gilmore. There are many current edits to Peter Gilmore's Wiki article by St.HocusPocus and the only other edits by St.HocusPocus are on other articles related to LaVeyan Satanism. This could indicate a bias by St.HocusPocus against Zeena Schreck and/or an attempt to discredit her, if he is associated with the Church of Satan. He has also asked another Wiki User's opinion about his attempts to remove or edit this particular [Zeena Schreck] article. Botanybay500 (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Godfather Kenneth Anger
DiD001: I listened to the referenced interview and what she says at about 4:26 is "he was – you could call him my 'godfather', even though that's a contradiction in terms; we used to call him 'Uncle Ken'". I interpreted that as saying he was not, formally, her godfather, nor her uncle, hence the edit I made reducing the connection to 'mentor', which you just undid. If you have another source saying that Kenneth Anger was indeed named her godfather, we should cite that.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  07:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * jmcgnh: There are many sources going back to the '60s at the time of her baptism; but most recently, here's from her own website: "The importance of lineage as a vehicle for passing down metaphysical energy also guides Zeena’s ritual art. She traces the lineage of her magical art to the mentorship of filmmaker Kenneth Anger, her godfather." Probably what she meant in saying, "even though that's a contradiction in terms" is due to the fact that we're talking about the Church of Satan naming a "Godfather" to their first baptised, which is indicative of LaVey's deliberate blasphemy in using such terms as "Church" and "Godfather" in the context of Satanism as a religion. But one would have to know the nuances of that religion to understand the meaning behind the vocabulary they used. DiD001 (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Since it's her own interview that caused me to doubt the designation, and the unsupported way most of the web mentions have of the "fact", I'd still like to see a better source.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  21:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate tone, POV

 * Beginning in early childhood, Zeena was subjected to hundreds of sensational, prurient and biased journalistic reports and interviews.

The whole article makes statements the like tone above, which are both highly inappropriate in tone and POV, as they characterize a form of press coverage the author seems to have a personal issue with, all in a derogatory tone. Also, encyclopedic articles should not be on a first name base with their subjects. Asav | Talk 19:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback Asav. The idea of "personal issue" by "the author" when referring to the whole article is odd since Wikipedia is a collective of many contributors. To the two points you mentioned: First names should not be used with subjects of encyclopedic articles. Exceptions to that rule would be with artists who go by a one name moniker such as Madonna, Björk, and the subject of this article, Zeena. See first line of this subject's article with citation link, "known professionally as Zeena,[...]". Second example you provide: "Beginning in early childhood, [...] the child Zeena was inappropriately and regularly featured world-wide in tabloid crime and men's magazines." That statement cites a link to images clearly showing magazines of the type mentioned. I can clean up some of the grammar within that sentence to suit the neutrality and remove the box again. It might be more polite and helpful to suggest other edits of concern on the talk page, rather than being hasty in using the "multiple issues" box when it's really not applicable. Got2Bthere (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm also replacing this entry into it's correct chronological order. Got2Bthere (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Asav. The 'Early life' section especially is terribly written and almost incomprehensible, except to the parts that don't really say anything. The whole article seems overly promotional and lacks important biographical details. Ashmoo (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Notability
The lede section should establish notability. An editor (who I suspect is closely related with the subject of the article) removed text that states she is the daughter of Anton LeVey and reincluded stuff about her Buddhism teaching. I believe her father and her former Satanism is her primary notability and a google search bears that out. Her Buddhism while admirable and no doubt very important to the subject of the article is not a source of notability as there are literally millions of Buddhist teacher across the globe. The source for the Buddhist teacher notability is a self-written PR bio, which further indicates the lack of notability. Could a third party weigh in as I fear further edits will result in an edit war. Ashmoo (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Ashmoo's repeated removal edits on Zeena Schreck page
Wiki is a collective of editors; no single person is responsible for full articles. Yet Ashmoo repeatedly deletes a notable part of this subject's work, stating "I believe her father and her former Satanism is her primary notability and a google search bears that out." This rationale is both subjective (the "I" Ashmoo represents is only his/her "belief" and opinion) and based on populist, American, search results, which are heavily influenced by conspiracy theories linked to this subject's early life, rather than reflecting the subject's actual notability, i.e., her works.

Repeated removal (at least three times that I could find) of Zeena Schreck's notability as a Tibetan Buddhist teacher, stating, "She is not notable for this. Wikipedia is not a professional bio site," exhibits personal bias and sexism of this particular Wiki editor.

Firstly, her husband's Wiki page states the exact same thing in the lede: "Nikolas Schreck is [...] Tantric Buddhist religious teacher based in Berlin, Germany." Both Schrecks co-wrote the book, Demons of the Flesh outlining the tantric aspects of spirituality which is a notable part of both their work as authors. Zeena Schreck's notability as author is mentioned in lede but not in which field? Why? If this is accepted as notable in her husband's lede, then why not list it in hers too?

Secondly, after more years known now, as a Buddhist teacher, than she was a satanist, it isn't a matter of what's "admirable" (not a value judgment) nor populist but what's factual. It is simply inaccurate to state that this subject's not notable as a Tibetan Buddhist teacher. As with her writings, her solo music performances have basis in, and are in context of, her Buddhist teachings. This aspect of her notability is documented in interviews as well. Therefore I opt for 'undo'ing Ashmoo's repeated removal edit.Got2Bthere (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Please do not engage in personal attacks against other editors and assume good faith (WP:NPA and WP:AGF). Both are wikipedia policies. Accusing editors of bias and sexism is not conducive to productive discussion. I would also suggest reading WP:COI. This is not meant as an accusation, but I think it might help keep the editing of this article in perspective. Ashmoo (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Temple of Set - invalid reference
In the above section there is a sentence where this sentence doesn't have a valid reference: She has stated, "While I was residing in Vienna, I visited a museum where a Sethian altar lives. It was there that I had a very profound experience that enabled me to clearly see the course for my future."[40] I checked the reference with the matching number, but it doesn't provide the quote. As I'm unsure of when the edit was made, it's probably best to mention it here. Autarch (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a valid reference from an interview with Zeena for Vice (magazine) which asks, "And after that you joined the Temple of Set [ToS]. Were you wary of joining another organization, even if it was more flexible than the CoS?" Her answer, "I waited a long time and didn’t just move from one group to the next. While I was residing in Vienna, I visited a museum where a Sethian altar lives. It was there that I had a very profound experience that enabled me to clearly see the course for my future. Still, I thought, “I’m not a joiner.”" Botanybay500 (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Tag for primary sources
There are 18 references to zeena.eu alone. I haven't counted other references that are to content directly in control of the article subject. The article should rely more on independent sources and less on what Schreck says about herself. Schazjmd  (talk)  01:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears that that zeena.eu website is now obsolete and redirects to zeenaschreck.com. I'm interested in finding 3rd party sources for many of these references. However the first example I came to in this article is a divorce announcement. What are wiki guidelines about references to facts that only primary sources could confirm (such as number of children, marriages, etc.)? Couldn't going to 3rd party sources for these types of data produce inaccuracies or rumors?Botanybay500 (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Baphomet/IT
Fair warning IT is not to be worshipped. ITs not Satan or Father Set/Lucifer. IT only hurts people or gets them to do crimes or go to the mental hospital. Baphomet was only meant to be a symbology not a diety. IT will only hurt or confuse those who summon invoke or worship IT. 2604:3D08:397F:8EA0:D02E:CE79:ED23:E00D (talk) 04:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is no the proper venue for a cry for help. 76.103.97.28 (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Children
Stanton LaVey 2600:6C50:6F0:240:D03C:4615:CC5:34EA (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Date order for lists of credits
What's the general consensus: Newest first or oldest first? Got2Bthere (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)